I Can’t Maintain an Erection After Being on Propecia for 2 Months
I started propecia just under 2 months ago, and within the last 2 weeks recently began experiencing sexual side effects in that i cant maintain an erection with my girlfriend
i have decided to stop propecia, as im nervous about the risks now – will my ability to maintain an erection return? how long does it take for the side effects to go away?
i’ve seen very disturbing blog postings on how these may be permanent sexual side effects – is that possible for me given i only took it for 2 months?
thanks!
Decreased erection is one of the side effects of Propecia which occur in 1 to 2 percent of the men who take it. It correlates with what I see in my clinical practice (as well as my colleagues around the country). These side effects are reversible within one to two weeks once you stop the medication, which also correlates with what I see in my clinical practice (as well as my colleagues around the country). I do realize there are some men on the Internet who claim they lost their ability to achieve an erection permanently, but I cannot validate the claims.
There was an article published that claimed persistent sexual side effect associated with Propecia, but it was not a scientific study. The published paper was an interview of 71 men with clear limitations. The study itself mentions this: “Study limitations include a post hoc approach, selection bias, recall bias for before finasteride data, and no serum hormone levels.” In my opinion, the publication of the study did more harm than good, as many are now citing this article blindly as proof.
If you are having trouble with your erection, follow up with the doctor who prescribed the medication or your primary care doctor. The Internet is a great source of information and misinformation, but it is not a substitute proper professional diagnosis or treatment.
Dr. Rassman – I am not convinced you understand what these biases actually mean. The only one that would cast doubt on the overall conclusions of the study is the post hoc fallacy and that is present in literally every single scientific study ever conducted in the history of modern science. This bias is mitigated by the fact that these symptoms are virtually nonexistent in men of this demographic (mainly early 20s).
The other two biases merely show that you cannot determine the precise severity and prevalence that these side effects will occur in the whole male population. Please read up on your scientific theory before broadcasting misleading messages to the masses again.
Jeremy
Maybe you should go to medical school , get your MD-PhD, do an internship, residency, and fellowship (6 years), spend time as an academic investigator (6 years) followed by a 20-year career in industry overseeing clinical trials for the development of drugs for bad diseases. As I have. Then you will be able to understand that Dr Rasmanns response shows an extraordinary understanding of how to interpret clinical data and the nature of scientific evidence.. Everyone is sorry about the problems you chronically express in this blog related to your erectile problems, whether physical or psychological, or both. It’s equally clear that you do not understand science or how to ingrepret clinical data. I’m not sure you’re the best expert on talking about “every single scientific study ever conducted in the history of modern science”. More hyperbole.
Biotech MD – Nice appeal to academic experience fallacy. This bias unravels you entire argument. Plenty of people think advanced degrees make them experts on subjects when they really didn’t learn to draw useful insights from their education.
Seriously though, Dr. Rassman provided zero insight as to why the study is flawed other than quoting the three ‘buzz words’ present in the article itself. All controlled studies rely on the assumption that the ‘control’ is perfect however this is almost never the case in the biological sciences. There is always room for the post hoc fallacy in any clinical trial for an unspecified correlative factor to explain any perceived but untrue differences between the control and the test group.
If your (and Dr. Rassman’s) scientific reasoning skills were so excellent you would be able to offer a valid explanation for the emergence of literally thousands of reports (FDA, anecdotal, case reports) that indicate irreversible physiological change. While the post-hoc fallacy is proffered, there are no valid explanation for why this phenomenon has occurred given dozens and maybe hundreds of doctors have failed to come up with an alternative explanation.
Maybe if research was done on the combined effect of finasteride AND minoxidil (rogaine) we might see a truer picture of what is going on here.
Personally I think the side effects of minoxidil aren’t being fully recognised due to it being a topical application
Here we go again. The same person bitching everytime a Finasteride post comes up. If you don’t want to take the drug, then don’t. Let everyone else make their own decision. I’ve been on it for 2 years and it has been wonderful with zero side effects.
Uh, Jefemy – someone who has a PHD in chemistry knows a little about chemistry. Someone who has a PhD in Art History knows a little something about history. And someone who has the background I described knows a little something about interpreting clinical data. Your ignorance about questioning my “education” shows that you do not understand that I described both my education and over 20 years of EXPERIENCE. Of course, I’m sure the dumb (in your opinion) drug companies and regulatory agencies that pay me $500/hr to advise them (and advisory panels I voluntarily sit on) are not aware that they can run to this blog and get your infinite wisdom instead. My guess is that you never went to college and have an anti-academic bias to go along with your other “anti’s”.
Jemermy
Just to clear up your attempted character assassination. My role in industry, after a long career in academic medicine, was to lead clinical development teams focused on bringing to market drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs. I oversaw the successful development of several drugs that know extend the lives of thousands of patients. I hope this disclosure addresses your claim that I would “be a little embarrassed to admit the full scope since it would reveal the magnitude of your prejudices”. In fact, the entire point of the earlier posts was to emphasize that I understand the interpretation of clinical data (and you seem to not). But, of course, your diatribes are rarely rational and more often directed toward some personal snipe at Dr R (or anyone else that doesn’t buy into your grandiose views of how you see the world).
“know extend the lives of thousands of patients” meant “now” extend the lives, of course. Typo
Jeremy — You recently stated, “. . . I have been upfront with you about my objective [regarding why I post here]. I have attained moderate success to the effect that Dr. Rassman discusses the articles and reports that he disregarded in the past.”
Ugh, I hate being rude and uncivil, but please shut your hole and stop giving yourself credit when it isn’t due! I doubt if Dr. Rassman even reads your ramblings. He has always discussed everything and anything. It has nothing to do with you or your efforts.