10x12x6

I know you think you're saying something safe, but you're really saying literal nothing. The truth is, we already know some people in the general population suffer from sexual dysfunction. So pointing out the placebo group also reported sexual dysfunction isn't the great "hur dur check mate fear mongers!" you think it is. You're just saying people sometimes have sexual problems. You're not even telling us something we don't already know. What we want to know, and what the methodology was designed to answer, is there a statistically significant difference between the finasteride group and age-related control group? That establishes causation between the drug and its effect. That's what we want to know. Does x have an effect on y? Does the Independent Variable have an effect on the Dependent Variable? Does Finasteride have an effect on sexual function? If so, at what months? 3 months? 6 months? etc. Those are the questions these methodologies are designed to answer. It's stated in the null hypothesis. The methodology isn't designed for these pubby talking points of "nocebo" and "percents." And no it doesn't even assess the severity or longevity of side effects. What's of interest is the between-group difference. And in all tested categories of sexual dysfunction, there was a statistically significant difference between finasteride and placebo. So when you point out the the percents of reported sexual side effects, you think you're helping your case but you're literally pointing to the inference that establishes the causal relationship between finasteride and sexual dysfunction. There are epidemiological measures that can infer the risk of developing sexual dysfunction from finasteride. But it's far more complicated than you're making it out to be. You need to take into account things like days of exposure. In the "major studies" you keep referencing, patients took the drug for different amounts of time, and you're just assuming they all took it the same amount of time. That, among many other things, makes any conclusions you draw from these "percents" totally worthless. There's so much more wrong with your comment but I know exactly how you'll respond. And I'll roll my eyes at that reponse. I don't feel like explaining something to someone who really has no interest in learning.

JeanLLD doesn't know what he's talking about and no one calls him out on it. Keep in mind there are even younger and dumber guys reading his shit and think the bullshit he's saying makes sense. The cycle continues. It's kind of a fuck-up case study in memetics.

You - The difference is percent points is very small between placebo and substance - If the difference is significant is not yet clear, but needs further investigation FDA: There was a statistically significant difference in favor of placebo relative to the question on morning erectinos and relative to the domains of sexual interest and erections (p < 0.01). Relative to the domain of perceptions of problems, the difference was statistically significant in favor of placebo with p < 0.05. Cause what the FDA says is correct and what you say... wel actually you say nothing. You spread lies about important drug safety information.When someone proves you lied you call them bully. A show of bad character.

From this comment I can see: -You like talking out of your ass. Summary: If you talk out of your ass, you're just going to embarrass yourself. You are tricking yourself into thinking people might think you are smart, when in fact you are a total dumbshit.

That's not what that means. That's just total nonsense. That's hair loss forum brospeak. That's you talking out of your ass. That's complete bullshit. I understand you're a naive young guy who's parroting shit he read on hair loss forums. However it's time to come to the realisation that what you've read is complete bullshit. Go back and read the FDA Statistical Review again. See all that stuff you don't understand? Yeah, that's kind of important. Notice how they don't say anything remotely similar to "it reflects that a significant number of those that claim to have sides attributed to finasteride in fact do not." That's because what you said is complete Internet forum trash. If you don't understand the methodology, you're just going to say a lot of dumb shit like you just did. Take it from someone who understand statistics: You are embarrassing yourself. It's amazing you can demonstrate so much stupidity in one sentence. Okay, like I said, you are embarrassing yourself. Like I also said, I am HIGHLY AWARE you haven't taken a statistics class. I already told you you're not going to be able to bullshit your way into convincing people you know what you're talking about. First of all, I know you think you might know what statistical significance is, I can tell you with 100% certainty you do not. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Don't try to invent your own meaning for it either. Aside from you not knowing what you're talking about it's very obvious you haven't even thought your arguments through. You're talking from both sides of your mouth. First you said this, "I specifically said comparably significant because it reflects that a significant number of those that claim to have sides attributed to finasteride in fact do not" then you said this, "The fact that ZERO people in any of the major finasteride studies including the one you linked had long term side effects" But shouldn't there be SOME people experience a "nocebo" or whatever bullshit you guys like to say? Why is it (according to you) that ZERO people suffer from long term sexual side effects when sexual dysfunction is allegedly common in the general population? (I know the answer, this is just an exercise in futility.)

Okay, just by the language you're using, I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about. I know you think you can bullshit it, but you need to understand it's not working. I am HIGHLY AWARE you have not taken a statistics class. And I do mean HIGHLY AWARE. First off, those percentages aren't what you think they mean, aren't what's of interest, and are not used in any statistical test to determine a drug's effect. "Comparably significant" is a completely useless term that you just made up. "the number with sides in the control group was over half that in the drug group" is not a statistical test of any kind, is not used to determine the null hypothesis. It's pubtrash. No further comment is needed. If you want to contradict the FDA's conclusion (I suggest reading it before commenting on it), you're going to have to start by taking a statistics class. Learn what the null hypothesis is (what's being investigated) Learn what ANOVA is (one of the many statistical test used to determine the null hypothesis.) So far, you've just proven to be another idiot on the Internet talking out of his ass. Okay, I see you are skimming for things to "prove" your point, but you have to read and also understand the study. There is so much wrong this shit. This is typical hairloss forum brospeak, I don't feel like going over all of it. I'll just debunk the last thing you said. "not one had PFS or permanent sides." http://i.imgur.com/qKSEtK5.png "Similarly in all the other major studies also." Not one major study says this. Some advice, don't skim a paper and link it here to "prove" yourself right. It'll just further you're embarrassment.

This isn't true at all. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Here's what the FDA had to say about what you are referring to: "The safety analysis does not support the proposed label claim that safety profiles of finasteride and placebo are similar." Here's a screengrab from the FDA's statistical review. http://imgur.com/RgaaKV3 Here is the FDA statistical review you didn't read but felt compelled to make an argument based on its conclusions anyhow. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/97/20788_PROPECIA%20TABLETS,%201MG_STATR.PDF Now that you know that you were misinformed, are you going to change your premise?