What Happened to Merck’s Propecia Website?
Hi,
I have been advised by a doctor to begin taking Propecia, and have been researching it A LOT. I have read both horror stories and great success stories and agree that people should stop scaremongering. Just because you happen to have been taking Propecia does not mean all your ailments were caused by it! I bet 100% of those things happen to people who do not take it too.
My only concern is that the Propecia website has been all but closed down. Do you have any idea why this is? It is now the only thing stopping me from going ahead with the treatment. It just seems a bit strange? It makes me wonder, what if Merck were to go out of business and Propecia stops being made. What happens to all those people who have been taking it for years?
Thanks for all your great responses, this is a great place of understanding and comfort, when it seems nobody else does!
Your guess is as good as mine. Initially, I thought it may have to do with the Propecia patent expiring, but that doesn’t occur until November 2013. Once that happens, you wouldn’t have to worry about Merck going out of business (which I doubt would happen anytime soon, regardless).
Hair loss message boards have speculated about why the site was pulled down, but it’s just that — speculation. I really have no idea.
Christopher, the doctor is correct in stating that it’s speculation. Has Merck made a statement about why the sites were pulled? If not, what you’re saying is conjecture, even if it might be true. There could be another reason we are not aware of, which is why people are “speculating” until an announcement is made.
Individuals interested in evaluating DATA can best find it in scientific studies in the medical literature, the FDA web site evaluating the studies that supported approval, and the current product label – all of which are available to the public. Drug company websites and blogs are not the best sources for evaluating risks and benefits.
Dr. L you raise a good point. The website had untrustworthy information on it which is why Merck decided to shut it down. If you choose to look at the product label, they have included the existence of persisting sexual side effects based off of data reported to Merck and the FDA. You can look at this data at a more granular level in the FDA’s post marketing reports which Merck now clearly points you to on what remains of their dismantled websites. Of course, it has been mentioned on this blog in the past that it takes time and money to request this information so it is not fully transparent and only available to proactive customers and doctors.
The true risks are slowly being revealed, but I find it to be so reprehensible that Merck is conceding in the slimiest ways possible.
Chris (Jeremy), you are ridiculous. You should loosen your tinfoil hat before posting again.
To start off, you say Merck has untrustworthy information on the website. What exactly was so untrustworthy? Please elaborate. I think know exactly what you will say, but I want to hear it.
Taking down the website and adding the ‘difficulty achieving an erection after discontinuation’ warning on the pamphlet is simple CYA – cover your ass. Any company, even non “slimy†ones, would do the exact same thing when faced with a lawsuit. You are extremely off base to think that these types of very standard reactions to litigation are admission of guilt. In your twisted perception of reality, I think you might actually believe it. The website going down doesn’t mean anything, even though you would like so much for that to be the case.
Back on the subject of Merck’s inclusion persistent erectile difficulty; you must know that this was not added because they suddenly realized this was happening, and couldn’t cover it up anymore. It was not found as a symptom in ANY clinical trial of finasteride that has ever been done. This includes testing done on tens of thousands of men, and MILLIONS of clinically recorded patient years. It was simply added to the package insert because it had been reported to them and to the FDA by a large number of people.
Looking at the public FDA records myself, I wasn’t too surprised to see that almost all of these reports occurred recently, within the last couple years (coincidentally, this timeline coincides the booming popularity of a certain self help site, which encourages its members to report to the FDA). Prior to this, since the 1990’s when Finasteride first hit the market, these types of reports were almost nonexistent.
It’s not hard to see some of the truths and what’s actually happening. I don’t defend Merck or Finasteride at all. I do take the drug and have had a positive experience with it, but I couldn’t give a crap about Merck. In fact, I’ve always bought generic so they don’t have a single dollar from me. I don’t defend Merck, but I absolutely hate this scare mongering and mass of misinformation that spreads like wildfire. People (like our friend Steven) eat it up without actually taking some time to question things and check the facts on their own. I guess some people prefer to be told what to think rather than figure it out on their own.
One thing to close with is: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the issue of persistent side effects, there is NO evidence, let alone anything extraordinary. Consider the facts (a fact must be verifiable) before you make decisions, people.
“People (like our friend Steven) eat it up without actually taking some time to question things and check the facts on their own. I guess some people prefer to be told what to think rather than figure it out on their own.”
No, I’d prefer being safe than sorry pal. I’d rather rely on a safe and effective method of restoring hair–surgical HAIR TRANSPLANTATION–as opposed to taking a hormone-altering drug with known sexual side effects.
I am not going to defend Merck or any other pharmaceutical company because I believe that many of them would put patients at risk if it meant selling more product. However, I think it’s pretty darned possible that if the whole PFS thing is real, it was not detected in any of their trials. I was on this drug for years along with quite a few guys I know and none of us ever had any issues or even heard of persistent side effects until a few vocal people came out with this a few years ago. Until that point, there were millions of men taking the drug and nobody seemed to be complaining about how dangerous it was.
It also seems interesting that EVERY SINGLE hair transplant doctor and dermatologist I have seen quoted claims that in the thousands of patients they have treated they just have not seen persistent symptoms that didn’t resolve after stopping the drug. This is from a group of doctors who would probably profit from having the drug taken off the market, by the way. The only doctors who really do acknowledge it are guys like Alan Jacobs who treat men with this disorder and who freely admit that they have a “selection bias.”
The point is, this is clearly not an issue for 10% or probably even 1% of men who take the drug. In fact, the number of men who experience persistent side effects is probably less than the number of men who experience sexual dysfunction in the general population. So it would not seem unreasonable that Merck did not detect these issues in the trials.
One other thing…I wonder how the defendants plan to prove their persistent sexual dysfunction in court. Hormone tests might work for some but I have read many men online claiming to have “crashed” hormonally who have testosterone levels in the normal range. Are they going to bring in a nude Gisele and see if the guys are able get wood? If this thing is difficult to prove, nothing keeps men from jumping on this bandwagon just to try and get a piece of a potential settlement.
Tex, good observation in pointing out that “Christopher Barrington” is, in fact, Jeremy.
I am not sure why you keep calling me Jeremy when my name is clearly otherwise stated. I guess it doesn’t really matter who I am since Tex has chosen to go by an anonymous handle.
Merck is in a very fortunate position. Will mentions that nothing is stopping men from jumping on to the bandwagon to try and get a potential settlement but this isn’t true. Many guys will not have the confidence or courage to step forward and publicly claim that they have lost their sexual function, a condition which I imagine would be quite humiliating. While it is hypothetically possible that certain guys could try to fake having sexual problems, practically this would be very expensive to do since it would require the trouble of spending tens of thousands of dollars for something that would be unlikely to pay out for them.
By the way, the AERS page does have some aggregated data files that require the use of some kind of “relational database” to access. It won’t show you any details are the individual level but should validate what my doctor told me. I don’t have any experience with this type of thing but apparently you do. I really think you need to further elaborate upon this suspicious claim or else you will be leading men into believing things that aren’t true about this drug which is very unethical.