swim

Interesting. However, not clear to me. You first say After that you say Which one is it? Or, are those two statements, in your opinion, the same? Also, not clear to me, but would like to know, after the follicle is extracted via FUE,is it examined? Is it checked for damage during extraction?... or not. If not ,is it placed/planted regardless? If yes. Who examines that? The surgeon or the tech?

Yes Bill, correct. The actus reus is in the "marketing/promoting". I don't think that only the manufacturer of the drug is capable of the violation.

This are words,that i think are relevant, Proscar is not approved by FDA for hair loss. Proscar is promoted, by some, here, for hair loss, in dosages higher than those that the approved drug, Propecia have (1mg finasteride). That is done ,by some, advising to cut the Proscar pill,containing 5 mg finasteride, in 4 peaces, which amounts to 1.25 mg finasteride. But, I would like to hear what the site administrator thinks, not you. You call it irrelevant if you want.

is it safe?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...ord-23-billion-fine/ "Federal prosecutors hit Pfizer Inc. with a record $2.3 billion in fines yesterday and called the world's largest drugmaker a repeating corporate cheat for illegal drug promotions that plied doctors with free golf, massages, and resort junkets. Pfizer and a subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn, agreed to the settlement after pleading guilty to a single felony charge that accused the firm of marketing its anti-inflammatory drug Bextra for broader uses and for higher dosages than those approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Announcing the penalty as a warning to all drug manufacturers, Justice Department officials said the overall settlement is the largest paid by a drug company for alleged violations of federal drug rules, and the $1.2 billion criminal fine is the largest ever in any U.S. criminal case. The total includes $1 billion in civil penalties and a $100 million criminal forfeiture. Authorities called Pfizer a repeat offender, noting it is the firm's fourth such settlement of government charges in the last decade. The allegations surround the marketing of 13 drugs,including big sellers such as Viagra, Zoloft, and Lipitor. As part of its illegal marketing, Pfizer invited doctors to consultant meetings at resort locations, paying their expenses and providing perks, prosecutors said. "They were entertained with golf, massages, and other activities," said Mike Loucks, the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts. He said that even as Pfizer was negotiating deals on past misconduct, they were continuing to violate the same laws with other drugs. To prevent backsliding this time, Pfizer's conduct will be monitored by the Health and Human Service Department inspector general for five years. In an unusual twist, the head of the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder, did not participate in the record settlement, because he had represented Pfizer on these issues while he was in private practice. Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli announced the settlement at a news conference with federal prosecutors, FBI officials, and Health and Human Services Department officials. The settlement ends an inquiry that also resulted in guilty pleas from two former Pfizer sales managers. One consumer advocate voiced hope that yesterday's penalty was so big it would curb the abuses. "There's so much money in selling pills, that there's a tremendous temptation to cheat," Bill Vaughan, an analyst at Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, said. "There's a kind of mentality in this sector that [settlements] are the cost of doing business and we can cheat. This penalty is so huge I think consumers can have some hope that maybe these guys will tighten up and run a better ship." The government said the firm promoted four prescription drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, as treatments for medical conditions other than those the drugs had been approved for by federal regulators. Authorities said Pfizer's sales staff created phony doctor requests for medical information in order to send unsolicited information to doctors about unapproved uses and dosages. Use of drugs for so-called "off-label" medical conditions is not uncommon, but drug manufacturers are prohibited from marketing drugs for uses that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. They said the junkets and other perks were designed to promote Bextra and other drugs to doctors for unapproved uses and dosages, backed by false and misleading claims about safety and effectiveness. Bextra, for instance, was approved for arthritis, but Pfizer promoted it for acute pain and surgical pain, and in dosages above the approved maximum. In 2005, Bextra, one of a class of painkillers known as Cox-2 inhibitors, was pulled from the U.S. market amid mounting evidence it raised the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death. A Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia and Upjohn Inc., which was acquired in 2003, has entered an agreement to plead guilty to one count of felony misbranding. The criminal case applied only to Bextra. The $1 billion in civil penalties was related to Bextra and a number of other medicines. A portion of the civil penalty will be distributed to 49 states and the District of Columbia, according to agreements with each state's Medicaid program. Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray said yesterday that his state's share of the settlement will be $32 million. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said his state would get $15 million. Pfizer's top attorney, Amy Schulman, said the settlements "bring final closure to significant legal matters and help to enhance our focus on what we do best - discovering, developing, and delivering innovative medicines." In her statement, she said: "We regret certain actions taken in the past, but are proud of the action we've taken to strengthen our internal controls and pioneer new procedures." Five Pfizer employees and a Pennsylvania doctor revealed the allegations. They will share $102 million of the settlement money. Yesterday's announcement was made amid the escalating political debate on health-care reform, which hinges in part on concerns over the ballooning costs of medical care and prescription drugs. Mr. Perrelli, the associate attorney general, called the Pfizer case "an example of the department's ongoing and intensive efforts to protect the American public" from fraud and abuse, which costs the Treasury billions of dollars a year. The bulk of the probe was conducted under the Bush administration, which also began negotiating with the firm on a settlement." I am very ignorant, so I seek guidance, from all you promoters of Proscar, Avodart, Dutasteride ,etc, to treat hair loss. Will you still promote them? Is it safe? Thanks Swim

Hi Glenn I actually, think the same.And I don't know why your post was removed.

Luca You don't look bad.You can be fixed,if you want.Good luck. Swim Luca,consultant should not have told you that,if he did.

News that give to listening ears A lot of praises and few in between tears. That, here, common theme, for all the fops, For the buyers ,and the shops??¦ And tears is your theme on the air For you got ignored prayer? No matter what you thought When that consultant made you buy what you bought What you really want to say please don't make it clear It may give (false?!)alarms to hopes and fear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1PXRiVoJw

Hi Jessica What does HT Coordinator mean? and what do you mean by . Who is the one of us? I am confused because you say that what exactly is your role? You say that Thanks

Happy days For the baldies my age. Memories. This, like magic, takes me back in time, to the best days of my life. My 20's.*&^&^%^%$&^ why do we have to age!!

I do. Decent response My only sorrow Mike T Is that I am able to see When spider spins a web to catch a fly For why? All your wants were well supplied When we replied. But if you are still hungry, for fame Come back when you can explain the same Bring the evidence in the game And I will feed your burning flame I am really happy, I swear For you grew new hair. But in a decent response, that you sought I say, you need to bring more than you brought.

You have proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Provisional idea whose merit is to be evaluated. If and when that happens, and you prove, make plain or clear (by how, by what mechanism),then you have something you can call evidence. It is not about thinking about the evidence from a different perspective. It is about that you don't have evidence. That is what is missing. You can arrive at wrong conclusion, even if it is logical, if the premise is wrong. You need evidence that the premise is true. But ,did you know that Spironolactone should be used only in those conditions described under INDICATIONS AND USAGE. It is a prescription drug with severe adverse reactions. It is not and never was intended for use to combat baldness. Unnecessary use of this drug should be avoided.

Those things that make you; play sports and make you do things. that you describe as. you know where I am going, are the very ones described in this thread and are things that also make you loose your hair. However those things improved man chances of survival in a particular environment. The appearance of man is dated at about half a million years, and of anatomically modern Homo sapiens at about a hundred thousand years, values that are also supported by genomic evidence. Of the many intermediate related species that have existed since then, only chimps and modern humans survive today. Nature decided,we need/needed, those things.that is why we have them. So, my point is, before you you try to alter ,by suppressing their impact on your body, learn well what they are and what they do. That is all.

what happened to LMS? Where is Leeson? Does anyone know? I miss them.

Hey miked The days of your very (transplanted)hairs ,on your head are all numbered (second time !!). In a vanity fare agnostics are rare! Not even enough in numbers to claim minority. It must require a great share of vanity and fate, after enjoying so much a beautiful HT, here on earth, to ask the Lord for immortality in addition to it all.

Hi Blondie That is very probable. You gentleman with the PhD's from time to time please, let them know about those errors so they can update. yes, not always, but in this instance yes. Unless you can tell me why something that makes s man, strong and potent, when gets inhibited, as in this instance is a fact, is a good outcome. most of us don't know about the mechanism triggered. my point exactly. Take care Blondie and thank you for your reply. Swim

Bingo I know a guy that looks like is related to a gorilla, tons of body hair, so is his dad and grandpa on his dad side. Grandpa on his mom side had no body hair. That grandpa was not bald. But the guy I know,his dad and his other grandpa are/were. I like this. I never thought about it.

And, why I engaged Serious? Because, he jumps on every poster that expresses concern with Propecia use. Tells people "how" to use propecia. Makes funny analogies of people concerned with side effects etc. That is not cool. I would never do that. Really, that is something a doctor can give advice or explain. Bill said I am passionate about this subject. I really am not. I became interested in it few days ago. And after reading I reaffirmed my personal belief, I will not mess with it for the cost of hair. If I had prostate enlargement, yes. For hair, no. So I am really typing off the subject.

You are probably right there. But that was not my initial intent. My point was independent of the fact What gets blocked/inhibited. It is to do with the fact Why, (for what purpose), is inhibited. It is to do also with the fact why it is established terminology that "side effect" of propecia is considered when someone "notices" adverse changes within his body. Only when someone "experiences' adverse changes within his body.Only when someone "reports" adverse changes within his body? Every day ,since the time we were born, we all "get" changes within our bodies, that we did not notice, or "experience". Why is not simply stated that adverse effect of propecia is the fact that.(put in this space what gets inhibited)...gets inhibited. And that "thing" gets inhibited 99% of the time,not 2% of the time.We all know that because 99% of the time, propecia works to help grow hair.The studies show that fact. And it works, only in one way, by inhibiting the ".(put here whatever that is).." in our body, and we may notice that, or may not. So, why is 'only' if we notice it ,a side effect (adverse effect)? Who determines what for one is adverse effect? And, more important, how would one determine, make that decision?Based on what?Info,am I right? I think only if he gets properly informed and all that is explained to him. But no, someone decided that only if you notice the adverse change, you qualify to claim 'I have adverse effect. Tons of people walk around with effect from propecia that "they" might consider adverse but they don't know that, because it was never explained to them. Can you explain to me Blondie why is that? Because ,when I read what mechanism is triggered by propecia use,I get cold sweat changes in my body. I will never touch that stuff

Hi Blondie. Please go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finasteride where it is stated Then in the same quoted space,click on the words 5-alpha reductase.It is a link that takes you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-alpha_reductase On that page it states In the quoted space click on the word SRD5A2.It is a link that takes you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRD5A2 where of course, SRD5A2,is described as a gene. I have not had a clue what is SRD5A2,so when Serious mentioned it I wanted to see. Wiki did the rest.

All right, maybe I was not as clear as I am ought to be, and could be. I used ???Serious??? own statements mmhce, as to the accounts given to type 2 isoenzyme of 5a-reductase. Please go back on the first page and look who used it first. He said that After you did that, and you agree with him, try to post a reference, or a link to a web site which can be used as a reference, where type 2 isoenzyme of 5a-reductase is described as a metabolized hormone. If you can, then I mixed up metabolized hormones and genes. Here I will make the same effort to post links that will take you to credible source where type 2 isoenzyme of 5a-reductase is described as a gene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRD5A2 http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=srd5a2 In fact, since you are very knowledgeable on this type of things, you should know that isoenzymes are isoforms (closely related variants) of enzymes. In many cases, they are coded for by homologous genes that have diverged over time. Although, strictly speaking, allozymes represent enzymes from different alleles of the same gene, and isozymes represent enzymes from different genes that process or catalyse the same reaction, the two words are usually used interchangeably. Also,what is inhibit http://education.yahoo.com/ref...ionary/entry/inhibit and what is to block http://education.yahoo.com/ref...ctionary/entry/block (look under no.16),in medical terminology are used interchangeably.(But we can use inhibit,doesn't change anything.) Type 2 isoenzyme of 5a-reductase has nothing to do with metabolized hormones. The burden of proof now is on you to do this: To post reference where type 2 isoenzyme of 5a-reductase is named metabolized hormone.

You,don't worry about that part.

I never changed my version,prove that I did.

The original context can be seen if one follows the links of your posts. Stop giving DIRECT advice to young man, how to use prescription drugs. That is a job for a doctor. ...never mind,you may learn,someday, somehow,from someone else,that what you do is not cool.I am taping out.