PROPECIAHELP: Persistent Finasteride Propecia Proscar side effects info & discussion forum

Forum for men with PERSISTENT sexual, mental & physical side effects which CONTINUE DESPITE QUITTING Finasteride (Propecia, Proscar), a 5AR inhibitor drug for hair loss, prostate enlargement & prostate cancer.
It is currently Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:08 pm

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 10:13 pm 

Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:43 pm
Posts: 4415
Age: 31
Drug: Proscar
Usage: 11 months
Started: 0- 0-2004
Stopped: 0- 0-2005
Location: Propeciahelp
As of April 2011, Merck has updated the USA Propecia leaflet:

Pg 3.


In general use, the following have been reported: breast tenderness and enlargement; depression; allergic reactions including rash, itching, hives and swelling of the lips and face; problems with ejaculation; testicular pain; difficulty in achieving an erection that continued after stopping the medication; and, in rare cases, male breast cancer.

Pg 10 -

Pg. 10 - Postmarketing Experience for PROPECIA (finasteride 1 mg)
Breast tenderness and enlargement; depression; hypersensitivity reactions including rash, pruritus,
urticaria, and swelling of the lips and face; testicular pain; erectile dysfunction that continued after
discontinuation of treatment
; and male breast cancer. Because these reactions are reported voluntarily
from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate the frequency or establish
a causal relationship to drug exposure.


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 8:40 pm 

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:35 am
Posts: 854

The TRUTH is exposed....Finally

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 10:13 pm 

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:09 am
Posts: 389
Since they now acknowlege that this is a problem, what about a solution, what about the people they did this to? They just put a couple phrases in a leaflet and that's it? Where is the FDA? Why is this still legal? I know I'm the master of the obvious, but this is unreal...

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:04 pm 

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:25 pm
Posts: 574
Age: 24
Drug: Propecia
Usage: 1 week
Started: 04 Oct 2005
Stopped: 11 Oct 2005
Location: New York, USA
It essentially is Merck saying we are right. I'm not sure, they must have calculated their losses long-term, but with the pressure of the media, lawsuits and Dr. Irwig's study, it seems they have caved in. There is no taking back this position for them now...

3pm's Story

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 7:31 pm 

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:33 am
Posts: 90
"Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate the frequency or establish a causal 'relationship' to drug exposure."

- so Merck is saying that its just common man's experice with the drug, they havent found this to be true during their trials. So its not a 'side effect' that they can verify. Basically they can play around saying that random people using this could be paranoid and have some other health issues etc.

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 9:29 pm 

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:00 am
Posts: 45
Well, then MSD will have a hard time explaining why there is no disclaimer saying "it is not always possible to [...] establish a causal 'relationship' to drug exposure" in the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) MSD uses for Propecia in for example the UK, Sweden, Italy, and Denmark.

Normally, the PIL is not updated with new side effects unless there is sufficient information (e.g. from side effect reports and/or medical articles) that indicate that the drug causes the side effect. For example, if there are reports of new side effects, but when evaluated there is not sufficient evidence that the drug caused the side effect (e.g. since the patient was taking other drugs at the same time that could also cause the side effect), then the side effect will not be added to the PIL. Seems like MSD wants to say "there is sufficient evidence that Propecia causes persistent sexual side effects so it should be added to the PIL" and at the same time "but the evidence is not sufficient after all". Very weird. Please make up your mind!

I suppose they are adding the text to avoid any new lawsuits caused by not telling the US patients what they already have told patients in other coutries. If they have already agreed to that Propecia causes peristent side effects in other countries, it would be hard to explain why they didn't tell the US patients. Also, any patient taking Propecia from now on will have no chance of winning a lawsuit since the warning info is in the PIL. In addition they add the disclaimer to avoid agreeing to that it is certain that Propecia causes these side effects. That way they are trying to also win any lawsuits filed by patients that have taken the drug prior to the new text being added.

It would be interesting to hear what the law firms handling the Propecia Class Action Lawsuits have to say about this?

It would also be interesting to hear what the FDA has to say about this. Did the FDA force MSD to add the new text, or did MSD do it voluntarily? And does the FDA make a different judgement than the corresponding medical authorities in the other countries that have updated the PIL (particularily regarding the casual relationship between the persistent side effect and Propecia)?

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group