The Internet Rumor Mill Says Dr Rassman Was Paid By Merck
This is part of a comment someone posted that I wanted to address:
I was disheartened last night to read that Dr. Rassman was paid to present to a Merck Committee which could perhaps explain his bias. I don’t know how much he was paid, how often it occurred, or if the company used any psychological manipulation on him, but I am starting to feel he’s lost for good. It is a very scary world in which we live, if one can trust their own animal instincts over the educated and experienced opinions of doctors.
To clarify, I was never paid by Merck. Anyone can post comments on forums, but this is bordering on slander.
Over the years of writing my BaldingBlog, I have come across a select group of critics who have an issue with Propecia and I address those issues here without censorship. To clarify again, I prescribe Propecia, the only FDA approved oral medication for genetic androgenic alopecia (AGA) to my patients who have been diagnosed with AGA. The risks and benefits are explained to them as an optional medication.
I do not make money from selling Propecia, as I sell it in my office for almost my cost (just enough extra to cover stocking costs). In fact, most of my patients go to a drug store to get the generic finasteride 5mg, which they cut in quarter doses. I have nothing financially to gain from recommending Propecia (finasteride). Since I make most of my income from hair transplant surgery, it would actually be advantageous for me NOT to recommend Propecia. So where is my bias?
Come on Jeremy. You made quite the leap in assuming the part of Dr Rassman’s bio about presenting scientific papers for dozens of international societies and committees somehow equates to being paid by a large pharmaceutical company to push their products.
You read the bio but not his CV where it lists under Presentations: “Hair Transplantation 2000,” Merck Committee Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, spring 2000.
Maybe your tin-foil hat is on too tight. I think the man has explained himself enough.
You are all blowing my words out of proportion. I just would like Dr. Rassman to elaborate upon his personal experiences with Merck as they may be a source of a conflict of interest or an explanation for his mindset. I’m not implying he is a Merck shill, receives corrupt kickbacks, or is doing anything illegal.
It is reasonable to expect a doctor would get paid for presenting to a multi-billion dollar for-profit corporation.
Jeremy, the paranoia about pharmaceutical companies on this site reflects naivety. Doctors prescribe drugs. There are 2 FDA approved drugs for androgenic alopecia. Dr Rassman is clearly, as he states, not a paid consultant to Merck. Drug companies often fund symposia, often because scientists come looking for funding for what is called ‘unrestricted grant” educational activities. Because of perception of bias, rules exist (usually from the FDA) that the specific drug can not be mentioned at the symposium and the focus needs to be on the disease. At other times, drug companies seek opinion from experts who are knowledgeable and one avenue for communication is an “expert panel†meeting. In looking at Dr Rasmann’s phenomenal and lengthy resume, 1 of 59 presentations he made was to a Merck-sponsored meeting. Big deal. Hard to find any opinion leader or expert who has not been in an indirect way (how many degrees of separation do you want?) associated with a meeting related to an approved drug in a condition they are an expert from. Bias related to pharmaceutical companies (in the past) has been the (1) illegal practice of pharmaceutical marketing people who visit prescribing doctors to promote off-label use of a drug, (2) prescribing physicians who write opinion articles for medical journals and do not disclose financial interest in the company that markets the drug the are writing about, and (3) clinical investigators performing studies under the auspices of a drug company who do not disclose financial relationships (eg stock ownership) to their local IRB (Institutional Review Board) that monitors subject safety in clinical trials. Dr Rassman is a rare clinician who is also a consummate scientist. The paranoia about this non-issue is really a smokescreen for those who believe Dr Rassman (without a single published article or study in the medical literature) should have embraced the blog writers who comment about their permanent sexual side effects. Dr Rassman performs a service to his readers because he reserves judgment until the evidence is in (and this has nothing to do with giving a talk to a single meeting sponsored by Merck in a 42 year career!!) The fact that he even posts his resume is a form of full disclosure. But, of course, some people are convinced there is evidence that Obama was born in Kenya (and that others spend time concealing this “factâ€)!
As my good ole Gramma used to tell me when she was alive: ‘The world is going to hell in a handbasket.’
She hit the nail right on the head!
I read the referenced “newspaper†article very clearly. Old story. Merck (the largest pharmaceutical company in the world), similar to other pharmaceuticals, has had prior issues with marketing personnel inappropriately pushing Vioxx (Rofecoxib) – now withdrawn from the market – on prescribing physicians and withholding safety data on cardiovascular events. This has nothing to do with Dr Rassman recommending finesteride or having a (implied by you) relationship that requires explanation because he attended a single Merck Committee Symposia. Please reread your initial comment. Your final comment is transparent and underscores my point: you are actually upset that Dr Rassman has not “informed his patients of the devastating side effects”; in reality, his blog – which serves as a sounding board for every complaint and grievance, whether proven or not – actually achieves this. As far as publicy available and overwhelming, have you wondered why such “overwhelming” evidence is only anecdotal and appears in 1-2 reviews that criticize and highlight the limitation of their own methodology? It surely may be a real phenomena but is now only being investigated and defined. Dr Rassman has acknowldeged the possibility of irreversible drug-induced sexual dysfunction but has also shared hs clinical experience (which suggests the event as a rare one).
Don’t forget the euphemism for “cardiological event” as a replacement for heart attack or death. You seem to have been woo’ed by the big evils as well. Merck is not above killing others for profit so why would sterilizing them be any different?
Jeremy: your persistent attacks at Dr. Rassman are getting to be ridiculous. Your comments and accusations come off as being extremely petty with no clear indication of your reasoning. It’s clear that you have a beef with Merck, and it seems you are getting frustrated that no one is taking your paranoid conspiracy theories seriously. Many of us have read your cited ‘studies’. They are anecdotal, misleading and extremely biased. Anybody with a shred of common sense is able to see that they hold no ground. You seem likely to be an intelligent individual, and I know that you can’t seriously believe that they conclusively prove anything. There are many long term studies that conclude Finasteride is completely safe, yet you turn a blind eye? You ignore this proof and dismiss it as another ‘cover up’ by the big bad evil Merck, a terrible machine that only cares about profits and ruining lives. If you have a genuine beef, why can’t you at least express your opinion in a constructive, professional manner? Clearly, Dr. Rassman hasn’t done anything wrong; he has never censored his posts or shown any bias towards Merck. He posts the truth, backed up by evidence in the form of scientific studies. “Evidence” is clearly a concept that you can’t comprehend. I’ve read almost all the studies from both sides of the fence. Your claims hold no ground, and you are grasping at straws. If you want to change minds, show proof. Until then, stop polluting the internet with your garbage.
“Dr. R should prescribe it only if a patient insists on using it after being warned of the risk of irreversible ED, even if Dr. R has never seen this in treating hundreds or thousands of patients over the last 14 years?”
That is exactly what I would like to happen. It would be highly unethical and against the Hippocratic oath for a doctor to treat patients based SOLELY on their own experience. It would be reasonable for him to mention he has not personally become aware of this situation with his patients (this does not mean it did not happen) but it does exist in the medical literature and there have been thousands of reported cases.
Steven: Jeremy and his cohort are dead-set on causing as much damage to Merck as they can. I’m sure if they had a mission statement, it would be to see Merck go out of business. They leverage fear mongering practices extremely effectively to recruit a small army of people, the whole time claiming that they simply want to help them out. However, they probably don’t realize how many people’s lives they are effectively ruining; convincing these otherwise perfectly healthy people that without a doubt, they are experiencing an unidentifiable and potentially incurable disorder that will ruin their lives forever. Yes, lives are absolutely being ruined. People are succumbing to this extremely convincing epidemic without question.
The reality of mass hysteria is a well documented phenomenon. Daniel hit the nail on the head. These people convince themselves that without a doubt, they have been permanently damaged by Finasteride. Medical professionals consistently dismiss these people as having a mental disorder, since all their tests come back clean. Depression (a documented as a side effect of the drug), without a doubt, can cripple the sex drive of an individual: Persistently and indefinitely. This is another one of those well documented, studied and PROVEN facts. Instead, these people convince themselves that DHT deprivation has cause some sort of rare, unknown defect in their bodies, and resort to self-medication with testosterone and hormone therapy in an attempt to remedy.
I implore that all of the individuals who believe Finasteride has caused permanent sexual problems, stay far far away from this propaganda that is keeping you in such a depressive, hopeless state. Seek mental therapy. The entire medical community is telling you this is all a result of a mental disorder, yet you opt to listen to a group of anonymous individuals on the internet with questionable motives and write off the advice of trained medical professionals. It’s madness, and if you elect to participate in this cycle of negativity without seeking help, you only have yourself to blame.
The fact that you just referred me to Wikipedia as a resource tells me more about you than you will ever realize.
Jeremy, I understand your agenda but realize most people are just not interested. It’s like vegetarians, do what makes you feel good about yourself, but don’t criticize anybody else if they choose to eat meat. This is a blog for hair restoration, i love the site but it’s annoying to always see this topic come up.
Jeremy – Above you stated, and I quote, “I looked for Dr. Rassman in ProPublica’s database and saw that he has NOT received any direct funding from the 7 biggest companies in the past 2 years.”
We are all now awaiting your apology? Where is it?
Jeremy – This is getting old. You simply either do not listen, do not want to listen, or you are not capable of understanding. This is what happens when one plays “search-engine-scientist” without a firm education in the subjects that they are merrily Googling away.
You stated above, and I quote, “To actually throw some statistics at Daniel, look at the following journal article. Despite your nonsensical statistics, here is some real data from an epidemiological study on ED. Literally 0.0% were found to have severe ED from the ages of 23-39 and only 1.0% did during the 40s. The presence of moderate ED (which we are not dealing with) is less than 2% for men in their 20s.”
First of all, Googling and citing random studies from PubMed shows nothing. There are thousands of studies. Most do not pass muster. Unless you are actively involved in the field, you will lack the ability to significantly and meaningfully understand the issues. You need an education in a field of study to have anything other than a superficial understanding of studies carried out in that field. Not only must you a have a competent level of education and understanding of the science involved; you must also have enough expertise and experience to understand and recognize all of the subtle nuances involved as well. In addition, you must be aware and able to recognize poor research methods, errors and misunderstandings common to the particular area of study, etc. You must also be familiar with prior research and view all new research in the context of previous studies. Futhermore, in order to draw reliable conclusions from any study, you must also be familiar with the researchers themselves who conducted the studies in question; including their reputations, ethics, competence, experience, etc.
Unless you know all of this, it is pointless to read studies and hope to be able to attach meanings to them. You, as a lay person, are certainly bound to make faulty conclusions and draw improper inferences.
Second, do you even bother to notice the fact that the study was of men in Japan??? Do you live in Japan? Have we been talking about men in Japan? The answers are No!, No!, and No!
Since you lack the proper background and education to fully understand these issues; you do not realize that you cannot compare one population group with another. Men in Japan have different risk factors, different diets, different genetics, different lifestyles, etc.
You are lost and are grasping at straws now. You are hanging yourself the more you write.
… and I too am done with this thread as no doubt the very fact I took time to post is evidence of a cover up.
Im off to read about how the first moon landing was fake. They have great websites full of evidence on that subject too.
“However, like I said, there is plenty of research going on behind the scenes that cannot currently be disclosed just yet that will prove this to be the case.”
I’ve been hearing this for a long time. I actually heard this while Dr. Irwig was working on his report, which turned out to be extremely unconvincing.
It’s another one of those phrases that can’t be backed up by anything tangible.
All of this isn’t worth arguing any further; we can all cite sources and statistics till the cows come home. People need to make their own decisions; I have been using Finasteride for over 2 years, issue-free. My hair is better than it’s been in 10 years. I was facing having to get a NW4 hair transplant, to being a solid NW2 with great density. Millions of people use the drug, and it has a 20-year history backed up by dozens of rigorous medical trials that tell you it is safe.
If you choose to listen to a bunch of completely anonymous individuals on an internet forum, with unknown medical histories and motives, over the word of thousands of doctors, scientists, and medical professionals; it is entirely up to you. Fear is the most effective motivator in existance. These individuals leverage fear extremely effectively and convincingly.
To Daniel again –
You are wrong with respect to distinguishing between psychological and physiological causes. The psychologist I spoke to determined that the issue was not psychological due to a lack of psychiatric stress or abnormalities, but mainly they said that the main indicator is by an indicator of nocturnal erections.
The use of papaverine is similar to viagra and other ED drugs in that they are phosphodiesterase inhibitors. However, papaverine is a non-specific PDE inhibitor while the others inhibit phosphodiesterase type 5. The only problem the solve is they cause the smooth muscle in the penis to relax allowing blood flow to rush in which is a purely physiological issue. It really doesn’t tell you anything about whether the problem is psychological or physiological. A man could have nerve damage that prevents the brain from sending the proper signals to the appendage, but if you introduce a chemical that locally tells the smooth tissue to relax an erection will occur.
You are running out of material so you keep pointing on the same false facts, false assumptions, and repeating the same empty statements.
ED is not as high as 50 million or 30 million. I have seen an endocrinologist, you seem to be really stupid and not realize I have taken all the most steps plus much more. The NPT is actually the most reliable test and the intercavernosal is the least. The injection just measures how long one is able to maintain an erection after an erection is involuntarily imposed on the patient, not very useful. Urologists cannot treat ED other than by prescribing a PDE5 inhibitor, performing vascular surgery, or installing a surgical implant. I am pursuing all other avenues before undergoing surgery. The two urologists I have previously consulted with have stated they are confident from my history and circumstances it is not psychological, but apparently you think you are more intelligent than all three doctors combined.
I saw a psychologist, as I mentioned before I mis-typed. I would be elated if my condition were psychological, as it would imply it was CURABLE.
I’m done speaking with a wall.
Jeremy said: “If you assume the risk is 1:1,000 (which is a very rough ballpark) and you took this type of risk everyday you would be more likely than not to lose after 1.5 years have elapsed”
BUT it is not a 1:1000 risk repeated every day! It is a *LIFETIME* risk of 1:1000, and even that is only if someone is 100% convinced PFS even exists! So why on earth would you emphasize the expected outcome of taking that risk 550 times, when actually, you only take it once? Because you are dishonest, that is why.
If you wanted to give the less mathematically inclined a practical idea of what 0.1% risk means, that is not the way to do it and you know it. You were trying to fool people into thinking they have a 50%+ chance of developing PFS after 1.5 years. When in reality that 1.5 year number is totally and utterly meaningless, and you know it.
This is why so few people have so little time for you guys. Everything coming from you, your websites etc., is riddled with this kind of deception. You use the same methods as con men and conspiracy nuts.
Jeremy backpedals again. Look at him go!
Let’s see if Jeremy is a credible poster or not.
He just wrote above, “I NEVER stated or implied that you would be expected to develop PFS after 1.5 years, of course it is a lifetime risk.”
However, in post #41, Jeremy clearly did say exactly just that.
Here is the quote: “If you assume the risk is 1:1,000 (which is a very rough ballpark) and you took this type of risk everyday you would be more likely than not to lose after 1.5 years have elapsed.”
Since Jeremy is now forced to backpedal and claim that he meant all along that he was referring to a lifetime risk, let me remind him of what else he said in that same earlier post … “The risks are very small, but they are absolutely not risks you would want to take EVERYDAY so they require consideration.”
Notice that he uses the word “EVERYDAY.”
It is very obvious that Jeremy was NOT referring to “lifetime” risks.
He was, once again, attempting to deceive people and to spread false information in order to frighten people. More fear mongering.
By the way, PFS? Are you serious? You guys have actually given it a name now?
My mathematical description was not intended to be misleading. I am sorry you didn’t understand it. The average person will NOT develop permanent side effects after 1.5 years. By the way, your specification of 550 lifetimes is pretty strange. The number should be 500 as 500/1000 = 0.50.
Lifetime risk, or daily risk, the point is that it is a decision that requires much more thought than whether or not to take antibiotics for an ear infection. Lazerfish is an example of somebody who seems to have contemplated the risk of losing sexual function and still decided to pursue treatment.
Daniel’s understanding of the Swedish MPA scenario is wrong but unfortunately the original documentation has been taking off the web. You can look at the British MHRA for results that specifically state they’ve received accounts of persistent erectile dysfunction. The FDA has received around 1,000.
“Persistent” is really a euphemism for permanent. As there is currently no cure and it is extremely rare for problems to resolve on their own, the persistence of the problem is basically permanent. I guess using the word persistent is kind of inferring a certain optimism about an eventual cure, but this has yet to surface.
One last note: Jeremy, the fact that you feel the need to keep informing everyone of how intelligent you are, if anything, just adds further to the suggestion of psychological issues.
Oh, I guess being aware of my intellectual gifts is what is causing me ED. I’ll bring this up the next time I see my psychologist.
Only brought it up originally because Daniel tried to imply I didn’t understand correlation v. causation but it was really a projection on his part.
Jeremy said: “My mathematical description was not intended to be misleading. I am sorry you didn’t understand it… By the way, your specification of 550 lifetimes is pretty strange. The number should be 500 as 500/1000 = 0.50”
More intent to deceive from you. I understood your “description” just fine. That was the problem for you. That is why I was able to highlight how meaningless and deceptive it was.
As for you finding the number 550 “pretty strange”, I said “approx 550.” And where does the 550 come from? Directly from your original example. 1.5 years expressed in days is 365 x 1.5 = 547.5 or approx 550. So arriving at 550 as opposed to 500 is down to your original answer of 1.5 years being so very approximate in the first place.
You know, I am surprised that somebody as allegedly intelligent as you seems to keep struggling so much with these simple numbers. I now cannot tell if you are simply continuing with your efforts to deceive readers, or whether actually you are not nearly as smart as you think and you honestly did believe your illustration was good.
Jeremy only appears to be intelligent because he isn’t communicating in “real time.”
He darts back and forth between posts to do scholarly research at the place where all serious scholars go … Wikipedia.
Craig – Your 550 figure was arbitrarily picked. I used a rough estimate and actually rounded the 500 days DOWN (about 10%) to half a year. The whole lifetime concept doesn’t really make much sense the way you are trying to explain it but I understand what you are trying to do. Not that it matters, but you introduce a large calculation error when you try to convert an imprecise measurement (1/2 year) into a format that has more precise (smaller) units. If I were trying to deceive, I would have had a lot more fun with that.
Steven – Thank you for being one of the few rational people on this forum. That is exactly what I would like. Just an adequate warning for prospective patients and acknowledgement that this condition exists for both vindication and increased research attention. It is difficult to estimate a figure, but the only study that has investigated the permanence of side effects was actually funded by Merck (the PLESS) and found that 2.0% of finasteride treated suffered from persistent/permanent side effects while 0.8% of placebo treated patients did. If you subtract the number of placebo events, the study implies that 1.2% of the 1,500 or so finasteride treated patients faced permanent side effects. This study has certain characteristics that may skew its precision in a variety of ways, being that it was funded by Merck, pertained to a higher dosage, and was performed on men in the 40’s and up. This study was held to the scientific method and was conducted with precision.
Dr. Rassman has previously interviewed a few of his friends and very roughly estimated that permanent ED occurs in about 1:1,000 if I recall properly. This survey encompassed a larger number of patients than the Merck study but was imprecise and subject to various factors that would skew the estimates due to lack of follow-up (patients were required to return to the doctor) and social unpleasantness (patients would be uncomfortable to mention this subject to their doctor, especially when they aren’t specialists in a relevant medical field).
At the lower estimate, 1 in a 1,000 is rare but not insignificant or negligible and 1.2% is in my opinion unreasonably high for the approval of a cosmetic drug. Even if this risk were 1 in a million, I think it should be disclosed but of course it would be extremely difficult to have measured that figure in the first place given there are not enough finasteride users world-wide.
Jeremy – Above, you made the following statement in defense of your intelligence which I would like to quote: ” I only brought it up originally because Daniel tried to imply I didn’t understand correlation v. causation, but it was really a projection on his part.”
Actually, I never “implied” that you did not understand the concept of causation vs. correlation. If I recall correctly, I thought I came right out and stated it as a fact. My apologies if I only merely implied it.
I made the statement because you continue to believe that if X occurs during the course of Y, that they must be related. You assume a cause and effect relationship when there are no rational grounds for such an assumption.
This is irrational thinking. It is not science-based thinking. It is the thought process of a person that has not been taught to recognize such errors of logic. It is the thinking of one that does not understand statistics and their many pitfalls. Such thought processes border on the magical and the superstitious.
You are helpless. Read the PLESS study. The placebo controlled experiment demonstrates that the correlation is in fact causation.
By the way, the argument which you are trying to articulate is actually called the post hoc, ergo prompter hoc fallacy but does not apply to the situation.
All of your comments have already been previously refuted. You keep repeating yourself. Go look at the PLESS study and please read a basic introduction to statistics book. I am not going to teach you what it all means. There is only one PLESS study.
Tex – Thank you for the link. I am aware of that report.
I don’t know why Jeremy has refused to post it either. The PLESS study generated several papers; as well as several subsequent reviews of the papers. In short, the PLESS generated a lot of paper.
Before I waste my time analyzing numbers and writing a critique, I want to be on the same page as Jeremy and I am asking him to provide a link to the exact PLESS-associated paper that he is citing.
Tex – Thanks for looking at the PLESS report. That is indeed the report. I’ll answer your questions to the best of my ability. Sexual AEs were defined as “erectile dysfunction, loss of libido, and decreased ejaculatory volume, and ejaculation disorders.” The article also states “in patients who discontinued prematurely and who had reported having sexual AEs at the time of discontinuation, follow-up information was obtained (regardless of the reason for discontinuation) 6 months after discontinuation to determine whether the sexual AEs had resolved.” Your mathematical calculations were off, but the idea was right so I won’t fix the calculations unless you want me to explain where you went wrong.
This is conclusive as you see the total number of persistent side effects with finasteride treatment versus placebo is 2.0% to 0.8%. (2.0/0.8) shows that there were 2.5x more persistent side effects with finasteride treated patients than with the placebo. Running simple statistical tests with the total sample size and reported AEs shows that the results are statistically significant where alpha = 0.05 level which is the general accepted significance level for medical research. In laymen’s terms, this data demonstrates with a high likelihood that finasteride directly caused persistent sexual side effects (6+ months) after accounting for the sample size and controlled placebo effect. Due to the fact it was a controlled experiment, the issues with the post hoc fallacies, placebo issues, and correlation vs causation are proven to be irrelevant.
With respect to the follow-up commentary offered by Tex, firstly the nocebo effect does not apply to this data set since both study groups were informed of the same risks of side effects given it was a controlled study. Secondly, the comment about the results being consistent with the general prevalence of ED in the population and placebo is very ambiguous and doesn’t actually mean anything in English. There is a 250% difference in AE reports versus the placebo so the results, which again is statistically significant, and is ignored by that comment.
The other comment offered by the Indian doctors, although not on the PLESS study directly, does make the claim that finasteride does not have an effect on erectile function. They publish a literature review, but the most bizarre thing is their underlying studies draw conclusions that are in complete contrast to this publication. That is why it is important to look at the methodology and data yourself. Nobody on this board (including Dr. Rassman) and Merck dispute the fact that finasteride can have a negative impact on erectile function, but people still doubt the AEs can be permanent.
Lastly, the PLESS was the only long-term study (4-years) that was conducted for finasteride that followed up with patients who discontinued the drug. Hence the name Proscar Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Study. The statistical proof is there and the mathematics are flawless so you’d really have to delve deep into the methodology to find out why these results should be thrown out. I also want to mention that while I learned the simple statistical knowledge through extensive coursework, as I have mentioned earlier, I have been consulting with a Harvard doctor that has very relevant experience. The doctor was the one who actually introduced the study to me so this is by no means a laymen’s interpretation of the PLESS study and the whole PFS scenario.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Please don’t engage in long-winded rants that are about 3 pages and nobody will bother to read. It is just muddling up the discussion thread. If you want to discuss scientific matters then please address the data I have presented.
Jeremy – Yeah, that may have been a little too long; however, some people very much like to read and are looking for information. It was written for them, not the casual reader.
You stated, and I quote, “If you want to discuss scientific matters, then please address the data I have presented.”
I will do so in a following post; however, I am finding it increasingly frustrating and difficult to discuss scientific matters with a non-scientist. You continue to ignore the mass of evidence that does not support your beliefs, and you continue to distort data. It is becoming more and more clear to everyone that you have an agenda. People that don’t have agendas, are open to new ideas and will change their beliefs if the evidence warrants doing so. No matter what you are shown or told, it doesn’t matter to you. This is why I believe you have an agenda. I believe it is financial. Nothing more.
Your attempts to deceive are not going to go unanswered by me. You pulled that stunt earlier when you were were trying to show that there was a risk of developing “PFS” (post-finasteride [usage] syndrome) after 1.5 years. Luckily, Craig responded quite nicely and saved me the time of doing so. Thanks Craig! Fortunately, there is a permanent record above showing the deception, so anyone can freely see either your total misunderstanding of numbers, or your deception.
Now you are pulling the same thing with Tex. I trust that he is smart enough to see the errors in your answer to him. Your recent response to him was mainly “smoke and mirrors.”
Your audience is the scientifically and mathematically ignorant. You can blind and confuse those people. Fortunately, for you there are a lot them. People like me are your worst enemy. I can see right through every attempt that you make to mislead people and I will be right there pointing it out.
You know as little about law as you do about medicine. Do you even have a high school degree? If you had a modicum of knowledge about the jury selection process in US courts you wouldn’t even begin to think these irrational thoughts. Jury members are vetted in a process in which they are interviewed by opposing attorneys. Any prior experience or significant knowledge about finasteride would most definitely have them taken out of the selection pool by the defendants. Your argument backfires in that I would actually be harming my legal chances by posting on this blog, but in truth the effects are infinitesimal.
After reading through the discussion, I would really like to chime in. Maybe no one is going to read this, but anyway…
After all the reading I have done, my understanding is that the sexual dysfunction side effect is very real, since it is already documented by Merck themselves. The controversy is that whether the side effect can prolonged indefinitely among a small subset of the population. Considering that there are people who are allergic to peanut and got killed by just eating peanut butter (this sounds crazy but did actually happened), it won’t be too far-fetched to assume there is indeed a possibility that some people are more subsceptible to finasteride and may react more severely to its side-effect than most people in the population; and the drug may damage these people beyond repair.
So my question is, through what reasoning do any of you come to the conclusion that such a population of ‘finasteride subsceptible’ people does not exist AT ALL? And you can dismiss all these people as non-existent? To me, this attitude is arrogant, unreasonable and unsympathetic.
The thing is, I would really like to hear some sound argument to reassure me that the drug is indeed safe, but at this point I am just not convinced. My hair loss is causing me lots of grief but my own reasoning is telling me not to touch finasteride at all. I don’t tend to be very lucky and I may probably fall into the unlucky bunch.