Slashdot Mirror
Merck's Drug Propecia Linked To Sexual Dysfunction
zaxios writes "Merck — the pharmaceutical giant previously featured on Slashdot for drawing up a 'hit list' of doctors that criticized its drug Vioxx, and creating a fake medical journal to endorse its products — is embroiled in a new scandal. USA Today is reporting on two new studies that show Propecia, Merck's $250 million prescription medication for baldness, can make men irreversibly impotent. Lawsuits have been filed in the United States and Canada from men claiming to have permanently lost their sexual function after taking the drug. All this is reminiscent of Merck's difficulties with Vioxx, a once $2.5-billion-a-year drug, which was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in users."
...Propecia is an anti-androgen! Duh.
You take a pill to cure baldness, ostensibly because you find your lack of hair hampers your ability to get laid. But after taking the pills you end up with a full head of hair and maybe even a woman because of it, and you're unable to perform?
Seems like you're damned if you do, damned if you dont...
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Self-confidence, social ability, and how you dress are more important than your hair.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
At last! I can correctly use that word.
20 years ago, I knew a lady who worked at Merck, about the time Propecia was "discovered". In reality, it was developed as a drug for another purpose (something to do with the prostate) and the hair growth was a side effect. She, and no other females, were allowed in the production area, as exposure caused irreversible infertility in females, and it was really bad for pregnant women.
A drug with anti-androgenic properties causes sexual dysfunction in men -- what a surprise!
I would gladly swap the hair on one head to the other head, too bad no pill for that.
the moral is, don't mess with your health if you can avoid it. we just don't know enough yet.....
I'm transsexual and take testosterone blockers in order to help feminise my body, and changes in sex drive were quite noticeable. Propecia's active substance, finasteride, is essentially a testosterone blocker ( thou admittedly a weaker one than what I am taking ) so I'm not at all surprised it can have such side effects.
With all the side effects these newer drugs seem to have (rushed warning at the end of the commercials, full page ads with a full page warning on the opposite side) and their cost and dubious effectiveness I really have to wonder how sane people are.
I remember the tv ads for this "drug." It was one of the first pharm commercials to give a long, long list of side effects and dire warnings.
Bald works for some guys, definitely not for others. Luck of the draw; not everybody is Patrick Stewart or even Jason Alexander. It's weird, but some head shapes / baldness patterns seem to speak to us at some primitive level, and even though they can seem *very* similar, some say "do not mate" and others say "yes mate." Of course there are similar observations one can make on a broad spectrum of individual features. (Why does "a big butt" work on "Jennifer Lopez", but on your mom it's a "fat ass"?)
How is impotence relevant to the Slashdot demographic?
If it wasn't Propecia, maybe it was a different anti-baldness pill, but I remember a coworker commenting about it back in the late 90s. I don't remember whether he decided to take the pill or not, though.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If it wasn't Propecia, maybe it was a different anti-baldness pill, but I remember a coworker commenting about it back in the ?late 90s?. I don't remember whether he decided to take the pill or not, though.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You can make a study to show anything you want, and it works both ways - pharmaceutical companies do it and so do independent researchers, intentionally or unintentionally. Would have to know details on the study, how well it was randomized, blinded, size of study, all kinds of shit.
Not that it's surprising - something that fucks with your hormones dampens sex drive, news at 11. I don't know why I as a juror would give some idiot taking hormone affecting drugs to keep his hair money because his dick went limp.
Put him in charge of the FDA
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I had shoulder length hair as a teenager, then around my mid 20's I noticed it had thinned out a bit on top, and the long hair thing was starting to look a bit sad, so I cut it all off and now sport a #1 clipper cut. I know a bit about the sorts of hormone interaction that causes baldness and it seems kind of obvious that unless you can find something that specifically affects the hair folicle's(sp?) sensitivity to those hormones, the only other way is to tinker with the hormones themselves, and i'm not having any of that.
My other reason for cutting it all off was that I have exceptionally oily skin and it's much easier to get all the sebaceous cysts cut out with short hair, and I get a bunch of cool scars :)
I need something that will remove my libido. I'm tired of suffering and my wife is fucking useless.
A full head of hair and no fear of unwanted impregnations? This is the perfect pill for a mid-life crisis! Now if only "owning a muscle car" could be a common side effect.
I don't exactly find this surprising; A crappy pill that likely targets Didydrotestosterone causing damage to organs producing testosterone? You'd think they would have thought to take sperm samples or check the blood for the stuff or something...
me a bit. When I was in medical school on the wards the vioxx drug rep would bring us food and put on the most outrageous bullshit presentations. The data was all skewed, the studies were flawed and we knew the damn drug was a killer. We ate their food and took their "studies" apart. Heck, my pharm D professor told us in basic science classes never to prescribe it.
"I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called 'Mr.Evil,' thank you very much!"
I have a friend who was prescribed Prozac five years ago and was told by the psychiatrist that he may experience temporary loss of libido. My friend took the medication for a couple of months and decided that the feeling of apathy that the drug produces was worse than his depression and stopped the course. After a few weeks my friends libido had not returned to normal and my friend put this down to the depression. This condition persisted and my friend started reading on the internet that other people had experienced similar problems. My friend went through an agonising period deciding whether to go to the press with this information, providing his full name. The hurdle faced by anyone in this position is that people tend not to take users of anti-depressants seriously. It is easy to put someone who has taken mind altering drugs down as a nutter. The psychiatrist denied any knowledge of similar cases and it looks as if this affects a small percentage of users. My friend has improved slightly. This may be due to ageing, but I would urge anyone who does not really need to take selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors to stay away.
who are you when you're not yourself?
Seriously, I am not trolling. Nor do I want to get in any side arguments(the government will force people to take this yadda yadda...).
But if they could get this working as a voluntary drug for the real problem sex offenders who can't control themselves(i.e. like repeated child molesters), I think it could have benefits. Having an option for those that do want to stop but can't would be a good thing.
I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect that a pharma be able to test for all possible side affects of a given medication. Some of them don't seem to have side affects related to their main effect, so the scope of the test to look for all possible effects would have to be so broad it'd result in subject fatigue.
However, I present that in the hypothetical context of pharma operating in good faith. That is, I wouldn't want to hold up a potentially life saving drug just cause I had to test for every possible side effect, including very subjective ones.
In the current state, pharma isn't acting in good faith. They aggressively push drugs onto patients and doctors that don't really need them, their drugs may not work as claimed, and they don't seem to be acting out of medical principle so much as a "throw it against the wall" method of benefit discovery.
So therefore, I don't believe they should have the benefit of operating in good faith, and should be held accountable for everything that they do. If they want to have the license to operate in a free market, they should have to accept the liability of their aggressive risk taking too. If they weren't so aggressive in taking risk, I'd cut them more slack for the rare screwup. But I don't think they deserve that latitude any more.
--
$tar -xvf
No, it's kind of nothing like that.
DHT is pretty much *the* cause of baldness. Finasteride bitchslaps DHT like Stallman bitchslaps closed source software.
Give you a guess as to what the T in DHT stands for. Yes, that's right, testosterone.
Finasteride does have a dual purpose - dealing with baldness, and dealing with prostate issues. Both of which are, in fact, exacerbated by DHT. Because it's dealing with sexual hormones and their biproducts, yes - there is indeed a risk of sexual side effects. Personally, I find that this being a shock to anyone to be pointedly absurd. Admittedly, I'm rather biased, having grown up in a medically inclined family. Call me crazy, but I tend to, yanno, look up what the hell pills I take actually do and what they can potentially affect.
Regardless of whether or not the symptoms list on the drug (which did include sexual side effects) was clear enough or not - well, sorry, there is at least no such nonsense as some 'big evil pharma switcheroo' going on.
I'm transsexual and take testosterone blockers in order to help feminise my body, and changes in sex drive were quite noticeable. Propecia's active substance, finasteride, is essentially a testosterone blocker ( thou admittedly a weaker one than what I am taking ) so I'm not at all surprised it can have such side effects.
Same, though I'm on both finasteride and spironolactone. This is very much a desirable side effect for us. =)
I just hope that this doesn't result in a massive recall and them stopping making it. Finasteride in higher doses is used as part of a prostate cancer treatment regimen for analogous reasons to this "side effect", so hopefully the drug won't go away completely.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Seems to me this drug is the perfect punishment for rapists.
I have a friend who uses acupuncture points to help men get their woodies back. ...
Sure. I'll just wait for the peer-reviewed study, thanks. Maybe you should contact the plaintiffs, though. I bet they'd try anything.
You've lost that lovin' feeling, Whoa that lovin' feeling, You've lost that lovin' feeling, Now it's gone...gone...gone...wooah-oah-ooh
Thanks for the comment. My friend is trying to figure out how to market her information. Like the other guy said, perhaps we should look up the plaintiffs in these lawsuits and send some letters.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Really needs to DIAF. I mean sure, if the drug company lies? Bust their asses, shut them down. but too many drugs, drugs that can save lives and make folks lives better, are being taken off the market not by lies but by douches that don't follow directions and that is total bullshit! If my doc explains the pros and cons of a drug and I agree to take it it should be between my doc and myself not some ambulance chasing scumbag!
I had this one personally bite me in the ass in the 80s. There was a drug called Tegison which was like a miracle cure for the form of psoriatic arthritis that left me crippled after a traumatic bike wreck triggered the recessive gene and caused my immune system to go haywire. No side effects, it was like heaven.
So what happened? Simple before they would even give you the drug you had to watch 30 minutes worth of films and sign a ton of agreements agreeing not to have children because it would cause flipper babies, so a couple of stupid whores watched the films, signed the papers and promptly got knocked up and then sued the company right out of existence by popping out a couple of mutants.
It didn't matter what they saw or signed, all it took was some scumbag lawyer showing pics of horribly fucked up kids (even though it was the bitch's fault and she should have been thrown in jail for doing that to a kid) and he got them an assload of money. Next thing you know OTHER women are showing up wanting a check (which means I have no doubt they purposely got preg on the drug to cash in) and the company simply quit making it rather than risk more suits. My pharmacist was nice enough to buy every single box he could possibly find when he heard, even going so far as to contact drug suppliers in South America, but eventually it dried up and it was nearly 6 years before they found anything else that would work.
That is 6 YEARS of pain I wouldn't have had to go through if those bitches and their leech wouldn't have been able to pull that shit (may they die of cancer) so it is time for some REAL reforms! I propose that there be an ironclad "no suing, do not pass go, GTFO" contract that any doctor be allowed to use with a drug, so bullshit lawsuits like the one that hurt me end for good. There were people willing to take the risk for what Vioxx did for them too, now they get to suffer thanks to a leech.
Whether a drug is worth the risk for the benefits should be up to the PATIENT, not some damned ambulance chaser!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Most antidepressants will do that. It took me 4 hrs to empty my sack after taking that crap over a 3 month period.
I had no sexual desire. This was medical, prostate health.,
I stopped and finally got back my functionality, personality and reality. Don't take that shit! prosac, effexor and all the other SSRI crap will turn you into a pink cloud zombie.
Propecia is an antiandrogen, and has always been known to cause sexual dysfunction while the user was on the drug. What's significant about these new studies is that they show that sexual dysfunction can persist AFTER you stop taking Propecia. That contradicts what Merck has always said - their product guidance warns of sexual side effects but expressly states that they always stop after ceasing the drug - and the advice that doctors give to patients considering taking Propecia. That's why there's a lawsuit - no one was ever warned that these sexual side effects might be permanent.
In fact, it remains a mystery how the drug could have this effect: its half life is only a few days, and it really should be ceasing any effect within that time. At least one doctor (Dr Alan Jacobs, a neuroendocrinologist in NYC) is speculating that Propecia is inducing permanent changes to the expression of genes governing the androgen system. IANAD so I express no view on that.
If you want to learn more about this issue, go to propeciahelp.com. There are people there who have been suffering from post-Propecia symptoms - not just sexual dysfunction, but other symptoms associated with low testosterone like cognitive impairment, fatigue, etc - for upwards of 10 years after stopping Propecia. If that's not worth a big payout from a pharma company that expressly told that that all side effects would cease after taking the medication, I'm not sure what is.
It should be noted that only 3-4% of the subjects (compared to the placebo) are affected at all. This is known and communicated since a long time. Although, admittedly the side effects after canceling the drug may be worse. Which, as far as I know, has not been much communicated in the past. As someone taking the drug for years now, I never felt any side effects while regularly taking it. Reducing the dose, however, may significantly confuse your body chemistry. In a way, it is an "interesting", purely physical, but not psychological, form of addiction.
Apart from that, these effects like loss of libido and depression are far more linked to the lifestyle, especially what I like to call the three columns of stability: a) regular sport, b) an orderly daily rhythm concerning sleep cycle, activity and eating as well as c) successfully performed projects be it job or hobby. The question with these studies is always how much do they account for changes concerning these columns in the probands lives?
Your story is an excellent case for the policy of informed consent. As long as everyone knows what the risks are, people should be free to take the drugs.
Who cares if Vioxx increased your chance of a heart attack by a small amount? ("Doubling" the risk is much scarier than saying it raises your risk by 1% or whatever.) If the patient UNDERSTANDS the risk, and no better drugs exist, he should be able to take his Vioxx or whatever. It's called a black-label warning, and the FDA does it all the time. But nothing helps if the drug gets pulled off the market.
I know about this, because my landlord at the time (an old Korean war vet) suffered excruciating pain from arthritis in his spine. He started on Vioxx and became a functional individual again. When they pulled it from the market, it was like literally chopping his legs off. Not one other painkiller really worked for him, except morphine. So he was put on morphine, and spent 17 hours a day sleeping. I asked him if he'd trade a 1% chance of a heart attack in exchange for getting his life back, and his response was something along the lines of "Yes, in a second. I spend all day sleeping now - I'd like to have my life back, even if it means a slight risk."
Naderites love to claim that their lawsuits keep the evil big corporations in line, not thinking about the harm they cause to the little guys.
Of course, after the whole Vioxx debacle played out, they found that all COX-blockers increase the risk of heart problems (due to shared receptors, IIRC, on the heart). But other companies just slapped a black-label warning on their Celebrex or whatever, and kept selling it.
Grow a beard and pull your head in!
Okay, why is this story "news for nerds?"
(rolls eyes upward to see own hairline)
Oh. Nevermind.
(sobs)
Every drug has to be a miracle cure, with no ill effects or risks (discovered or undiscovered)
Or someone's going to get sued.
Seems to me the deck's stacked against the drug companies... now...
Is it worth it to continue work on cancer curing drugs, when you're just going to get sued over them -- because they're less than 100% effective, or because they make people look fat or reduce sexual performance and people hate looking fat and hate lower sexual performance?
If the treatment of the drug is important to you, you will take it, in exchange for the risks (both known and unknown risks). If it's not you won't.
In a sane country, the drug companies would be safe from being sued unless there was actual misconduct on their part that you could prove, such as falsifying results of their study, or telling a known lie to the FDA in approval process, or in their advertising -- for example, representing a product as FDA approved if it was not actually approved.
Who needs friends when you have a receding hairline?
This wasn't a new clinical trial as far as I can tell, but it was mining past trials for data and applying them to new hypothesis. A recent xkcd showed some of the problems with this kind of argument. If the data didn't support permanent loss of sexual function, perhaps it would support heart attacks, cancer, blindness, or perhaps cures for any of the above.
If you think this is a possible side-effect, then hypothesize that, conduct a large trial, and see what the results are.
Sure, mining past data can generate ideas for new trials, but it is not a substitute for them. It is far too susceptible to finding patterns that aren't really there - especially with the amount of noise in a typical clinical trial dataset.
Although god has graced me with luscious golden locks, I do have a few friends in my age range (mid-20s) experiencing premature baldness and this is the number one tip they give to anyone who is experiencing the same. SHAVE YOUR HEAD, YOU'LL LOOK COOL. I don't get why people put so much value on their hair that they cling on to every last little bit, despite the fact that once your hairline recedes to the back of your head it looks absolutely terrible. I guarantee that any woman would rather have a man with a rockin' shaved head, that a man with a skullet. What is with this obsession with hair in our culture? People should be allowed to age with dignity. In some more advanced cultures they value their elders wisdom and experience. In America we cling to every last bit of youth and spend billions each year on snake oil penis pills and fraud baldness remedies because pop culture tells us being old is something to be ashamed of.
Whenever it comes to light that some new drug has caused harm to a lot of people, the response is that they are evil and should have known better. Blah. Blah. I'm not saying I disagree, but it's important to put things into perspective.
Pharmaceutical companies are businesses dedicated to making a profit. That is all. It just happens to be that the products they are pedaling are chemicals that affect the body. While it may be that some individuals working there care about the potential negative effects of a drug, there is a disconnect between those people who understand the drug and those who market it. Those selling it assume that the scientists understand all the effects and have done adequate testing. But this is impossible, because you can't get large enough sample sizes, and the scientists are sometimes forced to falsify their results, or have it falsified for them before publication. Drug trials are not conducted as a means to ensure safety of the drug -- that obscures the motivation. Drug companies are strictly liable for the effects of their drugs (except for vaccines, where there's a centralized fund), so drug trials are conducted purely as a means to ensure profitability by lowering the probability of being sued, so that the damages paid out are less than the profit margin. It's purely a statistics game.
This kind of numbers game happens in other industries. For instance, there was the Fort Pinto. It was found during initial testing that in a collision above 25mph, the gas tank would rupture, increasing the chances of a fire. Ford business gurus decided that the cost of the lawsuits would be less than the cost of fixing the problem. The rest is history. And Ford to this day continues to make similar compromises, resulting in unnecessary death and injury.
But as a result of these business tactics, auto makers and pharm companies are more profitable than they would be if they were more careful. And this is what makes shareholders happy.
Your choice
therefore, whats all this whining about private ryan and band of brothers etc?
it was only a tiny proportion of people who actually got killed. Hitler - not actually a big deal.
i call this the 'inverse godwin'.
ford never actually did that, the memo was intentionally misrepresented.
in fact the pinto wasn't really any more dangerous than other cars of similar size,
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I was prescribed Propecia as a part of the treatment. I refused to take medication after reading side effects.
Did the right thing !!!!!!
Finasteride or its more common trade names Propecia and Proscar, are commonly used by transsexuals as anti-androgen, to block the effects or reduce levels of testosterone in the male body. It does reduce male pattern baldness and/or alleviates problems of inflated prostate but you're ejaculate will start looking like that liquid which forms on top of yogurt. It will also cause growth of some but not prominent breast tissue. To get better results, trans need to take oestrogen pills e.g. Estrofem. :)
You can have hair on the big head, or a dead little head. Luckily I have Italian ancestry and a full head of hair at my advanced age so I guess I'll never have to use propecia.
It's impossible to exaggerate the greed of drug companies. It was studying their history that opened my eyes to the incredible number of lies the public is regularly told about everything. A good place for naive people to start is: The Crime And Punishment of I.G. Farben, by Joseph Borkin.
For 35 years the author had studied and followed the exploits of the chemical industries and their involvement in the Nazi movement and their relationships with American businesses. The book changed my life and I became acutely aware of my appalling ignorance.
You probably don't understand why Farben is so important. Look around your residence. You are surrounded by the products of Farben. There is hardly a single item in our lives that isn't connected in some way to that company. Farben = 3rd Reich = Standard Oil = chemicals = anything that has to do with chemicals, including oil, dyes, drugs, fuels, fertilizers, explosives, etc. And that group of industries has more political power than any other, except for possibly the biggest banks, though they are often connected.
Farben's history is the history of war, money, and power at its most ruthless and avaricious, and it is that history that reveals how much the general public is regularly sheared like sheep - literally herded and slaughtered like poor dumb cattle. Not to know that history and grasp the implications of that power is political illiteracy.
This article is very misleading. The results reported are for people taking 5mg finasteride, which is dose taken to treat an enlarged prostate. 5mg finasteride tablets are sold by Merck as Proscar. The dose used to treat male pattern baldness, however, is 1mg. 1mg finasteride tablets are sold by Merck as Propecia. The available evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests that sexual side effects from 1mg finasteride (Propecia) are rare, if they exist at all. See this article for a more accurate review of the study.
I used to take propecia, for a few months.
I was advised of the potential side effects on libido I thought "nah that'll never happen to me". Let me tell you. It did. Not only that, it had some negative effects on the plumbing down there, you know, when you want it to work and it doesn't. I was 35 when this happened.
I figured the cost/benefit risk ratio was too much for me. Sure I want to stop the male pattern baldness, but not at that price.
If I would have know that the potential effects could be PERMANENT, I would not even have tried the drug, and frankly am extremely disappointed in the way this matter was managed; Merck deserves what's coming their way.
I have heard of it causing breast development, and recently breast cancer among men:
http://www.hsa.gov.sg/publish/hsaportal/en/health_products_regulation/safety_information/product_safety_alerts/safety_alerts_2010/finasteride_and_potential.html
Holy ignorance. The United States, with a population of 131 million, lost about 420,000 people in World War II. That's about 0.3%.
Ladies (and interested Gentlemen...) would you care to weigh in on the matter?
Why is there so much attention paid to Propecia when people with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are taking Proscar with 5x the dose of finasteride? Maybe there are many more people on Propecia than Proscar. I am one of those lucky ones. The side-effects are not good and I'm off to the doc again... On the other hand, this is a brilliant drug since you have to take it for 6 months to tell if it works and by then it is too late. How do you prove the drug caused anything bad if the effects don't go away when you stop taking it? I don't care about a lawsuit; I just want to be back to "normal".
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Seriously dude get medical help. Your crazed quest is like taking poison and hoping he dies.
I really don't understand why people trust doctors, and especially why they trust drug companies. Both are commercial concerns.
Once upon a time, many years before most of you were born, doctors wanted people to get well and be well.
Now, with the insurance companies involved, and doctor expenses being far too high (thanks to the scumbag lawyers previously mentioned), doctors and hospitals, and doctors associations, and especially the drug companies and corporations that can afford to make a profit off treatments like the so-called cancer treatments, are a commercial concern. If you don''t have insurance, you can't go to a doctor. If you have insurance, they only allow you to go to a company in which they are heavily invested, sometimes to the point of majority ownership.
So, sure, trust your doctor. He can prescribe anything, but it will only be funded if the insurance company is invested in the manufacturer, or if it is a generic. Otherwise, you pay for it, at costs that the average person simply cannot afford, especially as most of the drugs now prescribed under the umbrella of "wellness care" or "prevention" are drugs that you will take for the rest of your life, or possibly forfeit insurance coverage.
When you go to the doctor, he makes no money if you are well. He is invested in the idea that you have something wrong with you. He makes no money from healthy people. However, if he can find some excuse to put you on a prescription, he is likely making a kickback, however small, from the drug company, and he will continue, as long as he finds some reason to keep you "under care" to receive a kickback in the form of continued acceptance by the insurance company.
Please et this: even though if you require medicine the insurance company has to pay for, even hospitalization, it will only be fully paid for by the insurance company if you go to one of their "accepted providers," meaning that they are fully invested in that company or doctor association. If a "primary care provider" recommends someone "outside the network," he risks losing his insurance company sponsor. Doctors who accept multiple insurance companies (most of them) are careful to ensure that the specialists recommended are the ones accepted by the individual patients' insurance. Otherwise they risk losing that sponsorship.
None of this is evil. It is "just business." It is not personal. Please remember where you heard those lines, back in the seventies, if you are old enough.
unless it is necessary for your health. No surgery should be performed unless it is necessary for your heath.
Healthy people should not be operated on and they should not take medicine.
We should end cosmetic surgery, unless they are treating someone that is deformed, and end cosmetic drugs.
The mentioned study was conducted poorly and its statistics are flawed. The age of the participants was not disclosed, nor their medical status and therefore their usual risk factor for impotence was not taken into account.
The FDA slip for Propecia clearly indicates that if side affects persist after discontinuation the patient should urgently see a physician (slip doesn't indicate it should preferably be an endocrinologist). The likelihood of a simple antiandrogenic agent somehow altering the libido and sexual function of a _healthy, young_ male is too small to warrant any broohaha. What are the depression rates? "Likely" to cause depression can be said about a bad movie. Is the depression comorbid to a previous condition? How many spontaneous manic episodes have been recorded? If none, then depression was underlying all along.
What is the reaction of the participants to Sildenafil or Taladil? Endocrinological male dysfunction can be reversed in 10 percent of cases by applying high doses of Taladafil, followup studies demonstrate, with the major side affect being a runny nose at times.
The interviewee in addition seems exceptionally involved in this matter, but too unprofessional.
pharmceutical companies have always broken the laws, every single one of them, over many decades. They have been giving huge promotional incentives away to doctors to make them ignore ethics for just as long. Dangle any cure in front of a bald guy and he will sell everything just to get a few strands back.
I do not think you noticed slashdot is now bugged by commercial enterprise campers - u uslss tards
He's busy defending the corporate aristocracy. Shame on you for thinking they should be held accountable for their actions. What are you? Some kind of communist? [/rightwinger]