It Seems Everyone Blames Every Bad Thing on Propecia
Doc, I can fly. Is that a side effect of Propecia? Reading your blog makes me laugh, because it seems like everyone blames every single bad thing in their life on Propecia. Propecia has allowed me to keep a full head of hair and I have had zero side effects from it.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I think you’re right — I have definitely noticed a lot of blame pointed toward this medication. Not many men will write about the positive benefits of Propecia, as they use the medication without any problems and go on with their lives. It’s those that feel they’ve been wronged that become the most vocal.
The side effect risk from Propecia is in the range of 1 to 2% of the men who take it. Those 1 to 2% are the most vocal, along with possibly another 10% of men just need a cause to rally behind, like the building bandwagon against Propecia.
Wait, wait…
Propecia (the patient info packet) now comes with the very warning you are all laughing about!
Merk has come under fire in NATIONAL HEADLINES for the troves and troves of men that have experienced lasting and sudden sexual dysfunction after trying Propecia.
There are multiple active lawsuits, entire message boards and communities (with suicides) related to this drug.
Sure, many people make strange complaints about drugs, but the sheer number of those claiming to suffer from Propecia is staggering. In fact, it is required for pharmaceutical companies to log complaints of users. After a certain point, they have to add a label notification.
Moroever, it is been proven in studies that 5-AR is imporant for more than just converting T to DHT. It also produces allopregnone and dihydropregnenelone and dihydroprogesterone. Ooops!
The problem is, people are blaming propecia for every little thing. From memory loss to not being able to sleep at night to even stomach aches. Propecia is being blamed for all those things, plus more. I understand, the 2% side effect thing is false because it is more like 20-30% of people that are experiencing low libido and low sperm count. But all that has been addressed by MERCK in the new leaflets that come in the package.
Nobody is forcing anybody to take this drug, it is up to the individual person to take the drug or not. Although, It has helped countless number of people without side effects. Look for example at Jose Theodore, professional goaltender for the Florida Panthers. He has been taking the drug since he was like 22 or something and he is 36 now, and if you look at his hair he has hardly lost anything. Most of the people complaining are those who the drug has not worked for like Dr.Rassman said.
The real reason that people seem to very strongly emphasize the side effects of Propecia is that the costs have the potential to massively outweigh the benefits. Many of the hair transplant surgeons think about hair loss on a daily basis since it is literally their life, so they are less likely to accept that hair loss is a minor issue for many men. While the overwhelming majority of men would prefer to keep their hair than lose it, it is not inconceivable to think they would be unwilling to risk the potential side effects of Propecia even if they are small.
Screw the internet! It’s a fact less then 2% have side effects on Propecia and about 4-5% on Avodart. Vast majorit men are fine! Maybe if you’ll take meds like Prednisone (god forbid) there most will have side effects!
“Merk has come under fire in NATIONAL HEADLINES for the troves and troves of men that have experienced lasting and sudden sexual dysfunction after trying Propecia.”
Yea, and I’m still waiting for a SINGLE published case history to appear in the peer-reviewed medical literature. Perhaps the lawyers cases would be helped with such an analysis.
And product warning labels (such as risk of NAION visual loss with PDE5 inhibitors) are conservative and written even in the absence of evidence, if there is a possibility based on postmarketing reports.
In the past I have seen posters like Dr. L say things like “‘I’m still waiting for a SINGLE published case history to appear” and I find it very difficult to take this kind of statement seriously. For quite some time now there have been two published articles that have documented case series of more than seventy patients and the FDA recently released they have received reports from a moderate selection of patients. Every month it seems a little more clear than there is teeth to these claims even though the probability with which they occur remains uncertain.
While anybody can post things on the internet, I worry when posters like Dr. L are feeding false information to the public which prevent individuals from making the best life-choices for themselves.
There are many things surrounding propecia that I am unsure of. One thing I am pretty certain of though, is “Doctor” Galston being a troll. He was probably an unfortunate victim who has dedicated his life to scaring others in to it.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say I am ‘being a troll’. My purpose is to support and advocate for a group of patients with whom I have spoken because they have unjustly had their livelihoods stolen from them.
Many existing doctors are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the drug when they freely distribute it to young men. For example, Dr. L is not up-to-date on the FDA releases or even the case series that was published about a year ago. If doctors and their patients have full-disclosure when they decide whether or not the drug is right for each individual, there will be no need for my advocacy.
I have been taking Propecia for 5 years and have never experienced a single side effect. I think it’s a great medication.
It seems to me like people on both sides of this issue are too willing to dismiss the other side. Propecia doing serious harm to a very small % of patients and Propecia providing great benefits to a majority of patients are not mutually exclusive phenomena. In fact, I think that there would be a great argument for keeping Propecia on the market even if it is determined that it has ruined the lives of a very small % of people. But the warnings must be adequate.
I don’t believe Dr. Galston is a troll per say, but I also don’t believe he holds a medical doctorate either. He has quite clearly demonstrated from his accusatory remarks towards other doctors who post here that he has no respect for the profession. Badmouthing and accusing other doctors is something you will never see a respectable MD do.
So if Dr Galston is in fact a MD, I believe he is using a fake name. This would make his ‘medical’ opinions moot, as he is unable to stand behind his statements when using a pseudonym. I don’t know who he is, but I am fairly certain that he has no formal medical training. He may even hold a doctorate, but not in medicine. It’s easy to accuse other doctors when using an assumed name, but Dr Galston, how about you provide a link to the webpage of your practice, or at least your full name and outline your credentials for us? You are extremely critical of the doctors who post on this forum, yet you yourself post anonymously and refuse to provide any credentials?
To focus back on this topic, Dr L is completely correct and I am surprised that Dr Galston is unable to discern the difference between a simple phone survey conducted on 71 individuals and a proper, detailed case history done on an individual presenting with symptoms post finasteride treatment. For starters, the major issue with the later is that these individuals already believe finasteride caused their symptoms, which immediately makes the outcome of this study more or less useless.
I find it a bit inconsistent that you are unhappy with my disclosure, which includes a last name, while Dr. L and some of the other doctors on here post only initials or nicknames.
To clarify my viewpoint, I do have respect for the medical profession but I am critical of many medical practices. I have mentioned before that I have spoken with many patients whom have had persisting problems with Propecia and have contacted Merck about the issue only to have received zero response. I find this type of behavior abhorrent when they represent themselves as a pharmaceutical company that primarily intends to create valuable medicines and treatments.
I suggest you do a bit more background research on the nature of case series. Case series are not ‘controlled studies’ but rather descriptive studies that investigate collective symptoms of a group of people. Retrospective studies qualify as case series. While case series do not unequivocally prove X causes Y, a larger study combined with a rare condition and properly applied intuition can provide some serious support that cannot be simply written off as ‘more or less useless’. This ‘Dr. L’ has been made aware of this case series in earlier posts, and for reasons that are unknown to me he has chosen to entirely disregard it.
I am unhappy with your lack of disclosure in particular because you are the one that is being extremely critical of other doctors on this forum. Not surprisingly, you tip-toe around my questions, and don’t actually answer anything I have asked. You do not and have not stated that you are a medical doctor or currently hold a practice. You also do not list your credentials, and refuse to provide a link to any public record about yourself. Quite honestly, if you are in fact a medical professional, and you could provide evidence to vouch for this fact, it would speak volumes and give your opinions and statements much more weight.
You are saying you have spoken with many patients, alluding to the fact that you are some sort of general practitioner and regularly see patients, but you won’t provide any further background on this. However, this really doesn’t interest me this much to discuss further.
I have been involved in debate about this particular study several times on this blog. On the surface, it may appear as though it indicates finasteride can cause persistent symptoms, but it’s disappointing that other potential and much more likely culprits were not discussed. This study was not objective, and the doctor who conducted the study appears to hold a pre-existing bias, in that he was looking for evidence to support the fact the drug is dangerous while failing to discuss the overwhelming, strong evidence to the contrary.