G
Guest
Guest
bubka said:
Why, you want some?
G
Guest
Guest
bubka said:
Coming from a pansy with a pansy in his sig.
RaginDemon
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 3
if Propecia does THAT much harm, one should stop right away.
RaginDemon
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 3
btw it says on the instructions that Propecia is for MEN only. So little girls shouldn't take it and whine about it.
I'm not sure I understand why a lot of people on this board get so angry at those who have Propecia side effects. They seem to take it personally. Why is it so hard to believe that someone might have a different reaction to a drug than the exact one you had?
In fairness, there are some hypochondriacs out there - one guy was worried about gyno after taking something like 3 * 0.25mg over one week 
Then there are others who try to blame every possible condition, from Peyronie's to Parkinson's, on finasteride. So this tends to promote a counterbalancing polarisation of opinion.
Then there are others who try to blame every possible condition, from Peyronie's to Parkinson's, on finasteride. So this tends to promote a counterbalancing polarisation of opinion.
waynakyo
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 464
First of all I am deeply saddned by the fact that some of you are mocking Erik D. No one should be so cruel not to feel the pain of others. Just imagine yourself waking up tomorrow with a complete impotence that lasts for months. You know it hurt; you know you won't take it lighlty, you know you would want doctors to care.
Second the above applies even if you think Erik is wrong; and everything is psychological or due to a fake pill. Whatever are the reasons, he came on this forum to give his opinion and not trash poeple. After all what he says about Propecia represents the theory of many - a theory that maybe should be voiced here.
Third, I know these people. I am a statistician. One day a friend told me his story about this permanent side effect. I was sad for weeks to see him lifeless. I went on internet and found HUNDREDS of people like that. So I decided to collect data. I collected data about the intake, the course of treatment the side effects during and after as well as some general health questions. The problem is real. I had the opportunity to discuss this with two doctors I knew quite well and they told me that they would not be too surprised if Propecia would have long term side effects. In general it is very dangerous to play with hormones as they determine everything. Other doctors are on the defensive. I even proposed to one of these doctors to send him my data, his reaction was shocking.
My understanding is that there are some people who are more affected than others by a change in their hormone levels. What I would take from this is that one should be VERY careful before using this drug. If you don't agree, just take it. No need to be on the offensive. If one day you wake up with a limp noodle and things do not get better, you might come back here to tell the story. Chances are that when you come back you might be called a liar and a spam by some people who like you today have full faith in a pill they do not even know how it works. Their doctors don't (fully) neither.
Sincerely,
Waynak
Second the above applies even if you think Erik is wrong; and everything is psychological or due to a fake pill. Whatever are the reasons, he came on this forum to give his opinion and not trash poeple. After all what he says about Propecia represents the theory of many - a theory that maybe should be voiced here.
Third, I know these people. I am a statistician. One day a friend told me his story about this permanent side effect. I was sad for weeks to see him lifeless. I went on internet and found HUNDREDS of people like that. So I decided to collect data. I collected data about the intake, the course of treatment the side effects during and after as well as some general health questions. The problem is real. I had the opportunity to discuss this with two doctors I knew quite well and they told me that they would not be too surprised if Propecia would have long term side effects. In general it is very dangerous to play with hormones as they determine everything. Other doctors are on the defensive. I even proposed to one of these doctors to send him my data, his reaction was shocking.
My understanding is that there are some people who are more affected than others by a change in their hormone levels. What I would take from this is that one should be VERY careful before using this drug. If you don't agree, just take it. No need to be on the offensive. If one day you wake up with a limp noodle and things do not get better, you might come back here to tell the story. Chances are that when you come back you might be called a liar and a spam by some people who like you today have full faith in a pill they do not even know how it works. Their doctors don't (fully) neither.
Sincerely,
Waynak
bubka
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 16
if you were a "statistician" you would think you would know a little something about numbers
well considering that there are MILLIONS of Propecia users out there, (1 Million in North America alone) I guess that 2% should really be less than that if you are a "statistician" :whistle:waynakyo said:
How did you obtain a representative sample, Waynakyo? On what basis did you obtain access to people taking the drug? And who funded you to do all of this? A reasonably-sized survey into finasteride use sounds like a significant enterprise and not something that could be done as a 'hobby' in someone's down-time!
Re: Permanent Propecia Side Effects
The proof that bubka is being a fanatic and not a scientist that uses critical thinking is that he only mentions ONE line of the article he just submitted ! How convenient ! :whistle:
Let me quote some other lines of this very same article showing what science REALLY says about finasteride !
I think the "funniest" line of all the article is the following :whistle:
And that's why researchers who worked on the study conclude that taking finasteride isn't a sure way to help preventing cancer :whistle:
Regarding finasteride use for hair growth, here's a scientist speaking :whistle:
So, bubka, is it me going senile or are you providing links that you haven't even read, or do you have selective memory that allows you to pick only the info that is compatible with your opinions ? :whistle: What kind of scientist would do that ? :freak:
Hi, posting for the first time here... English's not my native language, so I might be expressing myself in a weird way sometimes. I think my english's good enough to be understood though.bubka said:
The proof that bubka is being a fanatic and not a scientist that uses critical thinking is that he only mentions ONE line of the article he just submitted ! How convenient ! :whistle:
Let me quote some other lines of this very same article showing what science REALLY says about finasteride !
Why wasn't this mentioned in your post supposedly full of scientific factual reports ? :whistle:
I think the "funniest" line of all the article is the following :whistle:
So even though less people from the finasteride-users group get cancer, the amount of deaths due to prostate cancer in both groups (finasteride users and non finasteride users) is the same in the end ! :innocent: :whistle:
And that's why researchers who worked on the study conclude that taking finasteride isn't a sure way to help preventing cancer :whistle:
The reason of this is an assumption (even scientists don't have a reply to everything, even scientists can sometimes only make guesses) :whistle:
Regarding finasteride use for hair growth, here's a scientist speaking :whistle:
Whoooo, safety data made by those who sell the pill ? This certainly means that the statistics they provide are minimal ones, and not average or maximal ones. There's no scientific proof to that, only economical logic behind.
So, bubka, is it me going senile or are you providing links that you haven't even read, or do you have selective memory that allows you to pick only the info that is compatible with your opinions ? :whistle: What kind of scientist would do that ? :freak:
bubka
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 16
that was the first study, a new study has shown that there more "aggressive cancer" is not true
OF COURSE mortality is going to be about the same, prostate cancer is a VERY treatable cancer, i have read that it's like 95% curable
I love new posters, who suddenly appear, revive an old thread, who have some type of beef with Finasteride, it's just so incredibly suspicious? welcome back whoever you are? Eric? RaMbo? or some other banned wacko
OF COURSE mortality is going to be about the same, prostate cancer is a VERY treatable cancer, i have read that it's like 95% curable
I love new posters, who suddenly appear, revive an old thread, who have some type of beef with Finasteride, it's just so incredibly suspicious? welcome back whoever you are? Eric? RaMbo? or some other banned wacko
- Reaction score
- 42
bubka said:
Well, I certainly hope that conclusion is correct, but I'm still not personally convinced. It still sounds like a rather tentative explanation to me for the allegation about the aggressive cancers. I hope they keep studying and researching this issue, because it's an extremely important and fundamental one.
- Reaction score
- 42
Re: Permanent Propecia Side Effects
I think Dr. Wasson is overlooking another very important issue here, which is that the timing of finasteride usage is probably extremely important, and it has to do with how old you are when you start using it. If you start using it at an early-enough age, it probably is indeed protective against the future development of prostate cancer, just like how the pseudohermaphrodites are apparently protected against the disease. But if you start using the drug at a much older age, all bets are off: I worry that it _may_ conceivably contribute to the formation of aggressive cancers under some circumstances.
An analogous situation is how castration PRIOR to the age of about 40 will prevent the future development of prostate cancer, but not castration AFTER the age of about 40 (according to one study I have here). I think it's very similar with finasteride.
softangel said:
I think Dr. Wasson is overlooking another very important issue here, which is that the timing of finasteride usage is probably extremely important, and it has to do with how old you are when you start using it. If you start using it at an early-enough age, it probably is indeed protective against the future development of prostate cancer, just like how the pseudohermaphrodites are apparently protected against the disease. But if you start using the drug at a much older age, all bets are off: I worry that it _may_ conceivably contribute to the formation of aggressive cancers under some circumstances.
An analogous situation is how castration PRIOR to the age of about 40 will prevent the future development of prostate cancer, but not castration AFTER the age of about 40 (according to one study I have here). I think it's very similar with finasteride.
squeegee
Banned
- Reaction score
- 132
WTF! Everything gives cancer nowadays anyways! Who gives a real f***.....Don't eat that...Don't do that..There is so much sh*t on the market for people with erectile problems...some kinds of steroids as an example to get some testo back into you ..v**** as a last hope!...your libido will start to kick in like a damn horse!there is a solution to every problems..and I am pretty sure that bee pollen sh*t is full of pesticides and others...I would like to see where bees drag their asses everyday!!Do you think the steak that you eat every week on the barbecue won't give you cancer...This sh*t is full of antibiotics, growth hormones and pesticides....