Ten Year Finasteride Study..

[rgbnm]

(...)
Hahahha, and I bet you think that your Allopregnanolone levels are normal as well. Do you not know what damage that 5AR2 inhibition, and the retardation of vital neurosteroids in your brain, and CNS are going to cause long term? This drug has only been prescribed, and evaluated for Androgenetic Alopecia for the past 15 years; and even more damning is the fact that research scientists have only discovered that Finasteride inhibit's neurosteroids recently- and that's not even to mention the fact that Finasteride also retards the recently discovered 5AR3 Isoenzyme! what happens when your body's natural defense against neurodegenertive disorders is hindered for 30 years, or even twenty, or ten?

What does this new 5-ar type 3 enzyme do or what study was it where they discovered this?

Well, basically the chemicals that 5AR convert in the brain and CNS are vital for optimum neurological function. Have you ever heard of nootropics (smart drugs)? One thing that 90% of them have in commom is that they increase allopregnanolone, in contrast Finasterde decreases this neurosteroid (as well as GABA receptor function, but that's a whole other story). What does that tell you?
(...)

Sounds interesting. Could you, or anybody else with some degree of "neurological" knowledge, tell if it could be possible to offset the finasteride-related neurological damage by some other medicine, let's say nootropic ones? I mean, I wonder if there is already such a treatment somewhere on the market, which could be administered with some success. Or even some kind of allopregnanolone pill?

 

[WillNotLetItHappen]

I find it quite sad that every thread turns into a thread about side effects.

I have read the study in full text. I would encourage everyone to do so. I think that the results of this study are significant and very motivating! Guys it has been proven that you get to keep your hair for over 10 years using finasteride so finasteride does not seem to lose effectiveness in most cases.

It has been shown to work better on older people and on those with a more progressed Androgenetic Alopecia. While the one year mark it is a good indication of progress, it seems to take more years to see the full result of finasteride working. While it is true that 116 or so subjects aren't a lot, you have to bear in mind that this study is 10 years long! Also it has been shown to be a safe medication. I don't know about you, I find this encouraging evidence. I don't want to lose my hair and I take finasteride.

 

[Kirby]

Alright. I think the reason a lot of men use propecia is just because its the only option still.

Well, yes, that's exactly why I use it. I realise it's not an entirely 'safe' drug, and I'm using it for cosmetic purposes, but, nothing else fits the same bill.

I don't think that any of us will be using finasteride (for hair loss) in ten years time though, it will be superseded by a superior, safer, more effective form of treatment by then, hopefully a bit sooner.

 

[Bryan]

Alright. I think the reason a lot of men use propecia is just because its the only option still.

Well, yes, that's exactly why I use it. I realise it's not an entirely 'safe' drug, and I'm using it for cosmetic purposes, but, nothing else fits the same bill.

I don't think that any of us will be using finasteride (for hair loss) in ten years time though, it will be superseded by a superior, safer, more effective form of treatment by then, hopefully a bit sooner.

Such a product _may_ be already available (and has been for years), although it's expensive! :dunno:

 

[Rocky V]

which product is that?

 

[Bryan]

which product is that?

Proxiphen.

 

[Man in Space]

:spam:

 

[Bryan]

Do you believe every product you read about (other than Rogaine and Propecia) is "spam"? I feel sorry for you. You're stupid.

 

[Man in Space]

:laugh:

You are a uniquely patronising individual Bryan!

I am definately stupid, that is the one thing in life I am certain of, so thats not nearly as insulting as you intended it to be, Im actually glad we can agree on something for once!

When establishing the validity of a product we need transparency and effectiveness. To anyone considering Proxiphen, here is an example of the transparent nature of the products ingredients. This from Bryan.

Trust me on this: both Proxiphen and Prox-N contain mysterious ingredients whose identities have never been fully disclosed, either on their respective labels, or on hairloss discussion forums!

In terms of effectiveness, As Proxiphen contains minoxidil which is proven to regrow hair, we can assume it will likely do something. As minoxidil is proven to work, declaring those secret ingredients is essential so that they can be imposed to scrutiny and it can be ascertained whether or not those mysterious ingredients improve its efficacy as if they dont, the product is moribund. However they are unwilling to do so. Bryan would have you believe that it is stupid to consider this.

As Bryan also helpfully points out it is also stupid for trusting independent studies that suggest finesteride maintains and in some cases re-grows hair. Stupid to know the ingredients of what I am putting into my system. Stupid for doing this at low cost in comparision to a product he admits is expensive and has mysterious ingredients.

I dont know if this stuff works, it contains minoxidil which we know works so it will likely do something and who knows, perhaps those mysterious ingredients might make it the best product in the world. I simply know that on the basis that the product he is pushing is expensive, has unknown ingredients and does not have much evidence to its effectiveness aside from anecdotal reports that I will be exercising my right as a consumer to reject the product on rational grounds and have to accept that in doing so, I must expect to be insulted.

To everyone considering this product, I would simply ask whether or not you want to purchase something recommended by a man who believes that asking a simple question 'what is in it that justifies the extra expense?' will result in an attack.

I thank you sincerely Bryan for not only exposing my ignorance to the world, but also your own.

 

[Bryan]

When establishing the validity of a product we need transparency and effectiveness. To anyone considering Proxiphen, here is an example of the transparent nature of the products ingredients. This from Bryan.

Trust me on this: both Proxiphen and Prox-N contain mysterious ingredients whose identities have never been fully disclosed, either on their respective labels, or on hairloss discussion forums!

I'm all for transparency, too, although i can understand (to some extent) Dr. Proctor's concerns about keeping some of Proxiphen's ingredients under his hat. He doesn't want to have any of his "intellectual property" ripped-off by having other people make easy, duplicate copies of what's in Proxiphen. Can you blame him for having that concern? :dunno:

In terms of effectiveness, As Proxiphen contains minoxidil which is proven to regrow hair, we can assume it will likely do something.

A rather big irony here is that I don't consider the minoxidil in Proxiphen to do very much, as I've mentioned a number of times.

As minoxidil is proven to work, declaring those secret ingredients is essential so that they can be imposed to scrutiny and it can be ascertained whether or not those mysterious ingredients improve its efficacy as if they dont, the product is moribund. However they are unwilling to do so. Bryan would have you believe that it is stupid to consider this.

Another thing I consider to be "stupid" is the idea that anybody at all (other than somebody like Dr. Proctor, who has been working with these issues for DECADES, and knows these chemicals and drugs like the back of his hand) would have any idea AT ALL whether Proxiphen has "efficacy", even if you told such a person directly what's in it.

As Bryan also helpfully points out it is also stupid for trusting independent studies that suggest finesteride maintains and in some cases re-grows hair.

You've lost me on that one! When and where did I ever say such a thing?? I bet I've read and studied more finasteride studies than YOU have, and I've never been afraid to mention and talk about those studies at great length.

I dont know if this stuff works, it contains minoxidil which we know works so it will likely do something and who knows, perhaps those mysterious ingredients might make it the best product in the world. I simply know that on the basis that the product he is pushing is expensive, has unknown ingredients and does not have much evidence to its effectiveness aside from anecdotal reports that I will be exercising my right as a consumer to reject the product on rational grounds and have to accept that in doing so, I must expect to be insulted.

To everyone considering this product, I would simply ask whether or not you want to purchase something recommended by a man who believes that asking a simple question 'what is in it that justifies the extra expense?' will result in an attack.

You and I will get along just fine, as long as you don't simply label everything I say as "spam". And give some credit to Dr. Proctor, who is smart as hell about the numerous ingredients of Proxiphen, even though he doesn't like to talk about them very much in public.

 

[Man in Space]

I'm all for transparency, although i can understand (to some extent) Dr. Proctor's concerns about keeping some of Proxiphen's ingredients under his hat. He doesn't want to have any of his "intellectual property" ripped-off by having other people make easy, duplicate copies of what's in Proxiphen. Can you blame him for having that concern? :dunno:

You are more concerned with protecting Dr Procters rights than the consumers, this is why we suspect that your interests are vested. If he brings a product to market and wishes it to be considered legitimate he should disclose the ingredients.

A rather big irony here is that I don't consider the minoxidil in Proxiphen to do very much, as I've mentioned a number of times

There is nothing ironic in you negating the influence of minoxidil within the product, it is to be expected. Dr Proctor would never sell anything if he claimed that minoxidil was doing the bulk of the work and you were paying an extortionate amount for the neglible effects from the extra ingredients. This is not irony, this is an expected behavioural pattern from someone trying to protect his vested interests. Its also entirely speculative on your part.

Another thing I consider to be "stupid" is the idea that anybody at all (other than somebody like Dr. Proctor, who has been working with these issues for DECADES, and knows these chemicals and drugs like the back of his hand) would have any idea AT ALL whether Proxiphen has "efficacy", even if you told such a person directly what's in it.

Im not suggesting for a moment I would be able to ascertain whether or not it was effective. But with the release of the ingredients it would become part of the the epistemic community and its validity would soon be imposed to scientific rigour. This would actually do the product good if indeed it was as effective as you claim. That Dr Proctor wont do this suggests he has more to lose than to gain.

You've lost me on that one! When and where did I ever say such a thing?? I bet I've read and studied more finasteride studies than YOU have, and I've never been afraid to mention and talk about those studies at great length.

I am absolutely certain that you have read more than me on the product. That is one of the many beauties of the product, there are many studies you can refer to. That you have read so many of them indicates their value. Yet Dr Proctors products do not afford consumers the same luxury. On the one hand you understand the importance of studies, on the other when promoting Dr Proctors goods you negate their importance and expect us to accept something akin to hearsay. This is what I like to call 'Bryans Paradox'.

You and I will get along just fine, as long as you don't simply label everything I say as "spam". Give some credit to Dr. Proctor, who is smart as hell about the numerous ingredients of Proxiphen, even though he doesn't like to talk much about them in public.

I mean this in the nicest possible way but I really dont care a fig if we get on. I would suggest it is actually pretty unlikely. You want carte blanche, I want checks and balances. We are diametrically opposed.

 

[Bryan]

I'm all for transparency, although i can understand (to some extent) Dr. Proctor's concerns about keeping some of Proxiphen's ingredients under his hat. He doesn't want to have any of his "intellectual property" ripped-off by having other people make easy, duplicate copies of what's in Proxiphen. Can you blame him for having that concern? :dunno:

You are more concerned with protecting Dr Procters rights than the consumers, this is why we suspect that your interests are vested.

Don't try to tell me what you THINK I'm more concerned with! I told you the absolute TRUTH in the paragraph above! Like I suggested above, I can understand why he does what he does with Proxiphen, even though I also wish he wouldn't do that.

If he brings a product to market and wishes it to be considered legitimate he should disclose the ingredients.

I agree. (In general.) Why don't you call him or email him, and tell him that he should disclose all his ingredients? I'm very serious about this. Maybe you can help change his mind!

A rather big irony here is that I don't consider the minoxidil in Proxiphen to do very much, as I've mentioned a number of times

There is nothing ironic in you negating the influence of minoxidil within the product, it is to be expected. Dr Proctor would never sell anything if he claimed that minoxidil was doing the bulk of the work and you were paying an extortionate amount for the neglible effects from the extra ingredients. This is not irony, this is an expected behavioural pattern from someone trying to protect his vested interests. Its also entirely speculative on your part.

HORSESHIT!! Dr. Proctor himself admitted a few years ago that when he made a version of Proxiphen without minoxidil, there was no significant difference in effectiveness between it, and regular Proxiphen (I don't remember the exact way he phrased it, but that was the gist of what he said). Give Dr. Proctor credit for being an honest person, and don't try to find paranoid reasons for every little thing he says!

You and I will get along just fine, as long as you don't simply label everything I say as "spam". Give some credit to Dr. Proctor, who is smart as hell about the numerous ingredients of Proxiphen, even though he doesn't like to talk much about them in public.

I mean this in the nicest possible way but I really dont care a fig if we get on. I would suggest it is actually pretty unlikely. You want carte blanche, I want checks and balances. We are diametrically opposed.

If you don't give a fig if we get on, then neither do I.

 

[Man in Space]

Arguing with you is like trying to play chess with someone who doesnt know the rules. I move the rook, you bash the board with a hammer and think youve won. You can keep on bullying your way through this forum, with your unwarrented sense of superiority safe in the knowledge that you will win in a war of attrition with me, I simply dont care enough. Life is far too short to waste on this petty difference.

For the record, the reason i dont care to extend any civility toward you is quite reasonable. You have been rude to me on several occasions since your very first unsolicited post toward me, you have called me stupid, narrow minded and 'baffling' in that time. The worst i have accused you of is of spamming through your constant promotion of one mans product. I have never been personally insulting to you aside from calling you patronising, which you have been to me since day one. If you like Dr Proctor so much, it may be expedient for you to be more courteous as i would suggest your not helping his cause when people see how you talk to people and how you justify your conclusions.

I stand by my arguments in my previous posts, none of your retorts sufficiently address my concerns. I would like to leave it there as i actually want this thread to carry on as it was. I was interested in the topic before it became used as an advertising board for Dr Procter.

 

[Rawtashk]

Wtf is up with Bryan turning every topic into a conversation about some weird form of hairloss medicine? I thought this topic was about the 10 year study on finasteride? :dunno: :dunno:

 

[Baldtimmy]

Wtf is up with Bryan turning every topic into a conversation about some weird form of hairloss medicine? I thought this topic was about the 10 year study on finasteride? :dunno: :dunno:

Yeah me too, seriously what is the deal with that guy? Why don't the mods here care?

 

[Bryan]

Arguing with you is like trying to play chess with someone who doesnt know the rules. I move the rook, you bash the board with a hammer and think youve won. You can keep on bullying your way through this forum, with your unwarrented sense of superiority safe in the knowledge that you will win in a war of attrition with me, I simply dont care enough. Life is far too short to waste on this petty difference.

Really? Then in the future, I strongly suggest that you refrain from posting the word "SPAM" (complete with a cute little cartoon figure), every time I make a very serious post about a certain particular hairloss treatment.

 

[Bryan]

Wtf is up with Bryan turning every topic into a conversation about some weird form of hairloss medicine? I thought this topic was about the 10 year study on finasteride? :dunno: :dunno:

I don't turn "every topic" into a conversation about Proxiphen, just the ones that obviously lead to it. For example, this is the post to which I replied recently:

[quote:32u0b8l6]Alright. I think the reason a lot of men use propecia is just because its the only option still.

Well, yes, that's exactly why I use it. I realise it's not an entirely 'safe' drug, and I'm using it for cosmetic purposes, but, nothing else fits the same bill.

I don't think that any of us will be using finasteride (for hair loss) in ten years time though, it will be superseded by a superior, safer, more effective form of treatment by then, hopefully a bit sooner.[/quote:32u0b8l6]

As you can probably imagine, my response to all that was instantaneous: HUH?? Propecia is "the only option still"??? It's not a safe drug, but "nothing else fits the same bill"??? A "superior, safer, more effective form of treatment" (than Propecia) will eventually be used in ten years' time??? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

It was shocking to me that those guys said those things with straight faces; obviously, they required an immediate response from me, even one that was brief and to-the-point.

 

[Kirby]

Shut it, you twatface shill.

I believe that something will eventually make finasteride obsolete. Whether that will be in ten years, less, or more, who knows... We can't know the future of course.

 

[Nene]

:spam:

:agree:

 

[Bryan]

Shut it, you twatface shill.

"Kirby", the official poster boy for Planned Parenthood!