Official Thread: Have you experienced side effects from finasteride? (Poll)

[LookMaxx]

If we were to believe PFS BS, finasteride has destroyed more lives than atom bomb has 😂🤌

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by LookMaxx

[Z--]

13 minutes ago, mr_peanutbutter said:

norwood 7? after norwood 4a it seems really difficult to get a good result, at least if you expect to have a hairline that doesnt start at the midscalp or to not have bald crown. admittedly there are  good norwood 5 results but there is really no garantuee for it (and you better work wiwth very good hair characteristisc and donor zone). good results of norwood 6/7 you can count with one hand it seems.

 

its distorted view of risks and probability when you expect

- to get severe side effects of finasteride (when statisticall speaking all studies say otherwise, even when 5% is probably too low...but the numbers you guys suggesting, like between 80% and 100%? how should that work, do you think they can manipulate studies that way? i have a hard time believing this

- assume that if you are norwood 5 and more you will have good/acceptable ht result. and that you dont have to take finasteride after. good example of this mattdominance and mr.rolandas who didnt take finasteride at first, ended up norwood 5 and now take finasteride anyways so the hair at the side and the crown doesnt dip like it did with mel gibson between 50 and 60 ... https://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/topic/64958-can-mel-gibsons-hair-be-safed/

 

 

It’s absolutely possible — plenty of people here including Melvin or Tao off the top of my head have great transplants from Norwood 6 without meds. The key is to avoid lowering the hairline too much (or at all depending on where it is). No hair transplant is a guarantee, but it’s not unreasonable to deem hormonal risks that can come with finasteride as not worth it, given the graft survival late these days (or using FUT to maximize graft count or doctors comfortable with beard transplants to greatly improve your chances). 

On the Rolandas point, I can also argue the reverse; that side effects can occur from drug use over time without indication (see Gatsby, as an honest and recent example), possibly forcing you to stop and losing all the hair it preserved. It’s a matter of whether it’s worth the risk. 

Regarding the Mel Gibson point, I’d just suggest finding an ethical doctor like Bisanga who tends to plan for long term future and keep extra grafts in reserve for future loss. If you have the ability to do additional transplants, you can probably get away without drugs even at higher Norwoods.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Z--

[sukh123]

23 minutes ago, RTC said:

and that is an excellent reasonable approach, and if i were to ever take oral fin I'd do the same. But sometimes you appear to not even entertain the idea that fin/dut might be absolutely ruinous to some people

Yeh I’m not saying people don’t get side effects. But then I guarantee none of them did bloodwork prior to see their profile of hormones. A lot of people I’ve seen that get sides on fin are not in the best shape and carry excess fat. Which makes sense since you got more estrogeon in your body and increasing that with fin can cause unbalanced hormones if your t already low .    I mean if your hormones are already out of whack and then your adding fin which distorts them more than your asking for trouble , which is why bloodwork in my opinion is essential. 

[Gatsby]

Yes I have experienced sexual side effects on two separate attempts of taking the drug. The second time was trying to micro dose up on the drug. 

[sukh123]

35 minutes ago, Z-- said:

This. The thing I find most unfortunate is that you can’t predict the impact from the onset either — many men report sides after months or years of use. 

Can you imagine being dependent on the drug only to have to drop it after a few years of use and lose the hair it held for you? Transplants have gotten to the point where if you play your cards right, I think drugs may not even be necessary (unless Norwood 7, or young and predilection to losing way more, but you can plan around the latter). 

Completely wrong on this , your donor finite . You take no meds to prevent further hair loss, you won’t have enough grafts to keep having transplants to have adequate density. That added to the fact your donor will thin too eventually , so you need to protect that . 

[Z--]

^ There’s debate about donor thinning, buts it’s pretty established that it’s significantly more DHT resistant than the rest of the scalp. Point two is that even with drugs, nothing blocks DHT 100%, so you’re going to thin in the donor over time (if the donor thins). Many ethical doctors don’t require finasteride to operate, which is quite telling.

Either way, by the time the donor thins — with or without medication —  you’re likely to be quite old. For a clear example, even  Norwood 6 relatives in their 80s-90s had a robust donors and many balding actors at high Norwood have their donor in-tact. 

I’d say it’s not worth being on a lifelong drug to possibly preserve a few donor hairs, which (if they do indeed thin) tends to occur at a very late age, but if you think it is, more power to you. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Z--

[sukh123]

16 minutes ago, Z-- said:

^ There’s debate about donor thinning, buts it’s pretty established that it’s significantly more DHT resistant than the rest of the scalp. Point two is that even with drugs, nothing blocks DHT 100%, so you’re going to thin in the donor over time (if the donor thins). Many ethical doctors don’t require finasteride to operate, which is quite telling.

Either way, by the time the donor thins — with or without medication —  you’re likely to be quite old. For a clear example, even  Norwood 6 relatives in their 80s-90s had a robust donors and many balding actors at high Norwood have their donor in-tact. 

I’d say it’s not worth being on a lifelong drug to possibly preserve a few donor hairs, which (if they do indeed thin) tends to occur at a very late age, but if you think it is, more power to you. 

Yeh again your not addressing keeping as much native density as possible which is imperative to have a better looking transplant . No one wants to have a transplant a on bald head , that will require like 6k grafts minimum  if that , and most people just about have that as a donor. By keeping as much native hair your adding to the density while at the same time reducing grafts needed ,so they can be banked  for future loss. And yes as you said donor is dht resistant but not dht proof it’s why I see alot of people ,not all all with thin looking sides and napes in particular . Unless your a norwood 3 or less after I say 40 you might get away with it , otherwise you need to get on meds, or like gatbsy get hair taken from places I never knew was possible 

Edited August 7, 2022 by sukh123

[NARMAK]

2 hours ago, RTC said:

Why are the studies dud? 

I find it mad how people don't want to consider that altering your hormonal profile may have knock on effects in various systems of your body that may not be immediately apparent.

This whole '1-2% of people have side effects' mantra is clearly bogus. There are way more who have side effects. But they're immediately shouted down and called 'nocebo' etc. Just because big pharma say it's good for you, doesn't mean it is. You'd think the last two years taught us that.

I personally approach it from the PoV, that when we discuss side affects, we need two categories. "Tolerable" and "Untolerable". 

For example most might say a lower libido is acceptable to them and slightly watery semen not an for them. 

However, increased depression and ED etc. should be classed as unacceptable. 

Personally i think i've mentioned this numerous time before but we can't always keep chucking blame on a medication and ignore lifestyle choices and changes. The same way a "healthy" due snorting cocaine every day 3x probably is going to end up having a heart attack quicker than even a long term obese person. 

For me, i think once you separate into 2 groups, as long as you don't lump them all into a single "See, that's why you don't use it(!)" attitude, then there's a nuanced  reasonable and healthy debate to be had. However, the drug has been on the market for over 20 years now. We have long term safety studies and we can tell its a relatively safe drug for men. Body DHT in the majority of men being suppressed that are over 25 no longer has the same developmental impacts as somebody who is a young man and still developing between say 18-25.

Either way, i advocate for use of medication to be tried by those who are losing hair but to do so after careful research of the facts, not feelings people have around it. They can get blood tests and whatnot done top if they want to track their health markers too. 

[GoliGoliGoli]

2 hours ago, sukh123 said:

Wow im speechless lol , you copied a lot of dud studies to try scaremonger people . You should be warned for this type of behaviour in my opinion. And you copied the same studies multiple times . Clearly have an agenda 

Yes, dud studies.... Yes, warning for posting peer review studies. You sound unhinged mate. 

If I posted doubles it's only because it gets tiring copy and pasting links so many times. Like I said I have another 10-20 I could post if you'd like? 

Please also explain how they are "duds" 

[Savemyhairline]

I think people aren’t considering the sample size being used for this…. People on a hair loss forum. People who have experienced sides are more likely to go on a hair loss forum and seek out other options/opinions. Most people take finasteride, have no side effects, and don’t register for a hair loss forum. So while the number may not be as low as big pharma is saying, I would bet it’s nowhere near the 50% this poll implies. My general practitioner was the one who prescribed it to me. I had a bunch of concerns at first, kept asking for blood work, etc. He assured me the likelihood of getting side effects was very low. Trusted him and haven’t looked back. 

[NARMAK]

10 minutes ago, Savemyhairline said:

I think people aren’t considering the sample size being used for this…. People on a hair loss forum. People who have experienced sides are more likely to go on a hair loss forum and seek out other options/opinions. Most people take finasteride, have no side effects, and don’t register for a hair loss forum. So while the number may not be as low as big pharma is saying, I would bet it’s nowhere near the 50% this poll implies. My general practitioner was the one who prescribed it to me. I had a bunch of concerns at first, kept asking for blood work, etc. He assured me the likelihood of getting side effects was very low. Trusted him and haven’t looked back. 

Yes, a key point is that people on these sites or similar are a smaller group that the overall population using the medication and just going on with their lives. The user base here usually intersects from very specific people looking to deal with hair loss and in fact, we have seen people find the information, deal with the issue whether via medication, HTs or a combination of them and just leave to get on with their lives. 

[GoliGoliGoli]

1 hour ago, mr_peanutbutter said:

norwood 7? after norwood 4a it seems really difficult to get a good result, at least if you expect to have a hairline that doesnt start at the midscalp or to not have bald crown. admittedly there are  good norwood 5 results but there is really no garantuee for it (and you better work wiwth very good hair characteristisc and donor zone). good results of norwood 6/7 you can count with one hand it seems.

 

its distorted view of risks and probability when you expect

- to get severe side effects of finasteride (when statisticall speaking all studies say otherwise, even when 5% is probably too low...but the numbers you guys suggesting, like between 80% and 100%? how should that work, do you think they can manipulate studies that way? i have a hard time believing this

- assume that if you are norwood 5 and more you will have good/acceptable ht result. and that you dont have to take finasteride after. good example of this mattdominance and mr.rolandas who didnt take finasteride at first, ended up norwood 5 and now take finasteride anyways so the hair at the side and the crown doesnt dip like it did with mel gibson between 50 and 60 ... https://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/topic/64958-can-mel-gibsons-hair-be-safed/

 

 

After Norwood 4a you can't get a good result? What are you on mate? A lot depends on donor and hair type of course, but suggesting only people Norwood 4 or below can get good results is total hooey. 

"When statistically speaking all studies say otherwise".... You clearly haven't read many studies. But even regardless of that, go read the titles of some of the peer reviewed articles I posted. Just because you aren't "experiencing" noticeable side effects doesn't mean you aren't doing long term harm to your entire system. Combine this with the potential risk of getting PFS....

As far as the Mel Gibson stuff.. I mean ok so he has some balding on the back of his head. He still looks great from the front which is most important. And Mel also has a great beard if he wanted to use but it appears he doesn't really care, which makes it clear that some people really do stop caring after a certain age. He has all the money in the world and a great beard to use but isn't doing it. Ask yourself why. 

[GoliGoliGoli]

1 hour ago, sukh123 said:

Yeh I’m not saying people don’t get side effects. But then I guarantee none of them did bloodwork prior to see their profile of hormones. A lot of people I’ve seen that get sides on fin are not in the best shape and carry excess fat. Which makes sense since you got more estrogeon in your body and increasing that with fin can cause unbalanced hormones if your t already low .    I mean if your hormones are already out of whack and then your adding fin which distorts them more than your asking for trouble , which is why bloodwork in my opinion is essential. 

You're missing the point. DHT is a key hormone. Intentionally reducing it is not a good idea.

Now loo,k it's your life do what you want with it. If you decide the hair is more important that's fine. But reducing DHT in and of itself is a bad idea whether or not you experience noticeable sides. 

[sukh123]

41 minutes ago, GoliGoliGoli said:

Yes, dud studies.... Yes, warning for posting peer review studies. You sound unhinged mate. 

If I posted doubles it's only because it gets tiring copy and pasting links so many times. Like I said I have another 10-20 I could post if you'd like? 

Please also explain how they are "duds" 

Because a lot of them are not related to finasteride but the effects of low dht and testosterone. 

[sukh123]

19 minutes ago, GoliGoliGoli said:

You're missing the point. DHT is a key hormone. Intentionally reducing it is not a good idea.

Now loo,k it's your life do what you want with it. If you decide the hair is more important that's fine. But reducing DHT in and of itself is a bad idea whether or not you experience noticeable sides. 

You said you were going to stop responding to me lol , yet your always responding . Yeh Vast majority of men take fin and function fine lol, Donald trump took it for decades and ended up the president of the USA  lool

[GoliGoliGoli]

10 minutes ago, sukh123 said:

Because a lot of them are not related to finasteride but the effects of low dht and testosterone. 

Read this out loud to yourself. "A lot of them are not related to finasteride, just low DHT!!!". What is it that you think Fin.Dut is doing? Also just because a study looks at DHT in conjunction with T doesn't mean it's not also looking at DHT....

Here are some more for you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5085223/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15472231/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9665502/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17931384/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24764121/

Edited August 7, 2022 by GoliGoliGoli

[sukh123]

1 minute ago, GoliGoliGoli said:

Read this out loud to yourself. "A lot of them are not related to finasteride, just low DHT!!!". What is it that you think Fin.Dut is doing? Also just because a study looks at DHT in conjunction with T doesn't mean it's not also looking at DHT....

Here are some more for you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5085223/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15472231/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9665502/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17931384/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24764121/

 You alright man, you seem a  bit unhinged reposting these studies once again . Yeh but finasteride increases testosterone contradicting these studies that blame low t and low dht , making  your reasoning obsolete . And btw I had a look at this Kevin Mann you talked about and he’s right tbh if men took this drug  earlier and not been scared like myself , we wouldn’t even be on this forum likely . You need to curb your fetish with dht , it’s getting weird now .

[GoliGoliGoli]

15 minutes ago, sukh123 said:

 You alright man, you seem a  bit unhinged reposting these studies once again . Yeh but finasteride increases testosterone contradicting these studies that blame low t and low dht , making  your reasoning obsolete . And btw I had a look at this Kevin Mann you talked about and he’s right tbh if men took this drug  earlier and not been scared like myself , we wouldn’t even be on this forum likely . You need to curb your fetish with dht , it’s getting weird now .

I mean, you're the one sending me DM's and saying I should get a "warning" for posting peer reviewed studies so I think it's obvious to everyone who seems unhinged and who has a "fetish" to use your terminology. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by GoliGoliGoli

[SeanT1]

I personally continue to take it, but it affects my sex drive for sure.

This happened before I even knew what the side effects were.

[NARMAK]

4 hours ago, GoliGoliGoli said:

You're missing the point. DHT is a key hormone. Intentionally reducing it is not a good idea.

Now loo,k it's your life do what you want with it. If you decide the hair is more important that's fine. But reducing DHT in and of itself is a bad idea whether or not you experience noticeable sides. 

DHT plays a key role in masculine development up until about age 25 when a man has basically fully matured. Beyond that, it doesn't serve as important a function or we would have had significantly more cases of serious side affects and the medication withdrawn from market plus a ton more lawsuits. 

It is sometimes a more crucial component in some males than others, and usually because they have very low levels in other important areas which are being propped up by the DHT. If they do the blood tests etc. They may find this out and address the more serious underlying issues. 

I am taking Dutasteride which is suppressing my body serum DHT by circa 90% but that 10% left has helped me still function pretty much as normal and the side effects of slightly lower libido etc. are negligible imo. I also would say a positive of the DHT being suppressed is that i've notice my body hair thinned out which is a bonus for a hirsute individual like myself. 

[mr_peanutbutter]

4 hours ago, GoliGoliGoli said:

After Norwood 4a you can't get a good result? What are you on mate? A lot depends on donor and hair type of course, but suggesting only people Norwood 4 or below can get good results is total hooey. 

"When statistically speaking all studies say otherwise".... You clearly haven't read many studies. But even regardless of that, go read the titles of some of the peer reviewed articles I posted. Just because you aren't "experiencing" noticeable side effects doesn't mean you aren't doing long term harm to your entire system. Combine this with the potential risk of getting PFS....

As far as the Mel Gibson stuff.. I mean ok so he has some balding on the back of his head. He still looks great from the front which is most important. And Mel also has a great beard if he wanted to use but it appears he doesn't really care, which makes it clear that some people really do stop caring after a certain age. He has all the money in the world and a great beard to use but isn't doing it. Ask yourself why. 

 

totally baloneey is to  be super anixious and worried about side effects but at the same time to expect to get automatically good result when you are norwood 5 and more...good norwood 5 results exist but its far from the norm, the chances of having a unsatisfying hairtransplant result at that norwood stage are definitely higher then the chances of getting pfs etc.

totally distorted view of risks imho. if you are very worried about things going wrong you should stay away from finasteride but also definitely stay away from hairtransplants (if you are destinied to end at norwood 5 and over)...shaving or hairpieces are totally safe

[sukh123]

8 minutes ago, mr_peanutbutter said:

 

totally baloneey is to  be super anixious and worried about side effects but at the same time to expect to get automatically good result when you are norwood 5 and more...good norwood 5 results exist but its far from the norm, the chances of having a unsatisfying hairtransplant result at that norwood stage are definitely higher then the chances of getting pfs etc.

totally distorted view of risks imho. if you are very worried about things going wrong you should stay away from finasteride but also definitely stay away from hairtransplants (if you are destinied to end at norwood 5 and over)...shaving or hairpieces are totally safe

People don’t factor in the variables, the biggest one is that a hair transplant Turning out well is far from certain even from the best as we’ve seen on this forum. So you might not even have enough grafts to repair or even fill the spots if it doesn’t work out well in the first place . Why retaining as much native hair as possible is essential to minimise the grafts you need which is finite . Also you cannot predict hair loss , you might have gradual then suddenly it just becomes aggressive . Being on meds while I don’t want to , I have to if want to retain a good set of hair . I’m even going to jump on oral minxodil because studies have show it to be effective as 1mg fin , so hoping combining the two will even help potential safeguard or even regrow more hair 

Edited August 7, 2022 by sukh123

[NARMAK]

I think it's common sense and nobody can ever dispute the fact that it's more important to preserve your native hair as it is than to chase hair loss with an illusion of density. 

Medications like Finasteride, Dutasteride and Minoxodil in topical or oral form are the gold standard of current treatments. Take them, don't take them, either way it will inevitably be an impact upon your final results. 

Take no medication and the majority of people seem to end up high Norwoods. Few and far between lucky people don't go beyond Norwood 3 to 4 imo on average. 

Either way, if tomorrow a new drug came out even with a similar risk profile as Finasteride but proven to save significantly more hair, people would switch en masse. 

I do think it has and always will be this vocal shouty minority responsible for spreading FUD to people first rather than giving responsible advice and letting the overall data speak for itself. Even if the risk profile was 90% successfully used it, 10% had side affects and 80-90% of those recovered fully after stopping, it seems lile a certain brigade of posters love ignoring that fact and keep harping on about long term this, and long term that which you literally have no ability to quantify or qualify at present. Therefore once again, being responsible parties in fear mongering. 

If somebody gives you a 90% chance of success in something, you would be a fool not to take a chance on such a high chance of helping your situation. 

[mavigo]

Voted no although I did have mild "start up" side effects that went away quickly. No sexual sides.

Depression, well I had that before so you can't really pin point it on fin. Balding itself is a major cause of a lot of mental issues. Sometimes I wonder if I am experiencing brainfog but I'm a lifelong insomniac so I attribute it to that or just something else like high stress work or other personal problems. 

The only downside is that my balding is still progressing even though I've been on it for over a year. It's not the silver bullet that I've heard about. Many are surprised when I complain that I still think I'm losing hair. For most, it stops hairloss and some people I know swear that it regrew some of their hair. Not for me. 

[Savemyhairline]

58 minutes ago, NARMAK said:

DHT plays a key role in masculine development up until about age 25 when a man has basically fully matured. Beyond that, it doesn't serve as important a function or we would have had significantly more cases of serious side affects and the medication withdrawn from market plus a ton more lawsuits. 

It is sometimes a more crucial component in some males than others, and usually because they have very low levels in other important areas which are being propped up by the DHT. If they do the blood tests etc. They may find this out and address the more serious underlying issues. 

I am taking Dutasteride which is suppressing my body serum DHT by circa 90% but that 10% left has helped me still function pretty much as normal and the side effects of slightly lower libido etc. are negligible imo. I also would say a positive of the DHT being suppressed is that i've notice my body hair thinned out which is a bonus for a hirsute individual like myself. 

Yeah, I was hard on myself for not starting fin early but honestly I’m kind of glad I waited till I was 25 (and a half) just to be safe. Probably could’ve saved more hair but I think 25 is the right age to do it. If you’re much younger and really aggressively balding you may have to look into other options beyond meds/transplants.