Out of enlightened self-interest, I did a deep dive into the topic of male pattern baldness, and after freshening up on my rather rusty Bayes', I decided that I'd gone to enough effort to justify a proper blog post. Here you go.
- 34
- 4
Out of enlightened self-interest, I did a deep dive into the topic of male pattern baldness, and after freshening up on my rather rusty Bayes', I decided that I'd gone to enough effort to justify a proper blog post. Here you go.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My understanding is that this is a contested finding, but even assuming the usual relative risk of ED while actively taking finasteride (~1.5x baseline), the absolute risk is not so high that you need to run away screaming. That being said, unless my hair falls out by the fistful overnight, I would personally take my chances with minoxidil first.
I am weakly agnostic on this claim, but my primary motive was to explain that the claim by this pharma professor half a decade back was hyperbole.
You suggest this ED is some sort of lizardman finding and if you examined the health database you'd find 1.5% 15-42 male are getting ED that lasts 5 years even even if they don't use finasteride?
https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/erectile-dysfunction/background-information/prevalence/
These are not really comparable, method or cohort wise. Postal survey is probably biased towards bored old people..
Also it's strongly suggestive that on the link paper claims length of exposure to finasteride was correlated with the ED..
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link