Why isn't there a more efficient DHT inhibitor?

[g.i joey]

actually now that i re-read the study they were basing it on prostate cancer, but a significant change in those who took finasteride would have probably been brought up. heres the study anyways: http://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20130823finasteride.html

 

[Wolf Pack]

Seems a little like blind faith to me. Sure, we may not have anything to worry about but all those clinical trials were 6 months to a year. Who knows what kind of health risks inhibiting DHT for 15-20 years can cause. We just don't know. I'd certainly rather be as safe as possible and not touch type I and III and 5ar if we don't have to.

Unfortunately it's probably just not worth the money to optimize finasteride and re-market it when it's already "good enough" in most cases. So I doubt we'll ever see an efficient hair loss DHT inhibitor that only targets type II.

So you missed the 10 year trial and the 5 year one for finasteride? There are people taking it since 92. Not to mention in the clinical trials some took a dose as high as 80 mg daily for months on end. I am pretty sure something would have happened by now, things tend to go south pretty quick. It has been on the market long enough.

It's actually one of the safer prescribed drugs out there despite the forum hysteria.

I do agree clearly that finasteride can cause side effects in a minority - it's the way with anything. I can't take codeine phosphate for that reason. Doesn't mean codeine should be banned lol.