News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Persistent erectile dysfunction in men exposed to finaste... by laichzeit0 on Saturday March 18, 2017 @01:35AM (#13900060)
This study is fucked, to put it bluntly. They're lumping together Fin and Dut and people taking 5mg Fin. Most people taking Fin for MPB take 1mg Fin, for example.

You can actually not draw any conclusions from this paper other than, don't use Dutesteride unless you're male to female transitioning and don't go above 1.25mg finasteride if you want to keep your hair and your dick.

But it just confounds everything together, it's a terrible study.

Re:Persistent erectile dysfunction in men exposed to finaste... by throwaway6111 on Saturday March 18, 2017 @01:38AM (#13900072)
0.8% of a 4000+ sample size had PED with the regular dosage for baldness treatment. That's absurdly low and pretty much confirms that though the risk is there, it's highly unlikely. Its even more ridiculous that 1.4% of the ENTIRE sample size (over 11,000 people) taking less than or equal to 1.25mg of fin, greater than 1.25mg of fin, and dutasteride reported persistent ED.

As a fin user I actually find this data to be re-assuring.

Re:Persistent erectile dysfunction in men exposed to finaste... by laichzeit0 on Saturday March 18, 2017 @01:50AM (#13900097)
The criterion of PED is also vague. It's basically asking people do they think their dicks are broken. There's enough guys going on Noporn/Nofap routines because they couldn't get it up one night with a girl because they're so used to watching porn and jerking off that real sex is too weird, and one bad experience and now they're convinced they have ED.

If you tell a guy suffering from baldness that there's "a good chance you're gonna break your dick if you drink this pill" you've already biased your study. Blind study is the only way.

I'm not suggesting there is no risk, at this point the numbers are just a joke. This study is another example of how to NOT to do it.

Re:Persistent erectile dysfunction in men exposed to finaste... by throwaway6111 on Saturday March 18, 2017 @02:00AM (#13900131)
They're also just doing analysis on a static data set.

> PED was determined by manual review of medical narratives for all subjects with ED. Risk of an adverse effect was expressed as number needed to harm (NNH).

So this doesn't rule out the possibility of the subjects' mental state affecting their ED.