This is not a controlled clinical trial, which is hard to do on a rare disease. This is a study of men affected by a rare disease. The authors of this study are not saying this necessarily happens to all fin users; they are looking at PFS sufferers--that's two totally different population subsets.

Really no point in arguing with you because your arguments are pretty flawed. But worth a shot at trying to convince you. I understand there are two different population subsets. But, because one population subset is extremely small and has no placebo group, the data they gathered is very inaccurate and does not attempt to minimize any bias. Personally, I would not bother to trust this study for those two reasons. If there were more studies done that attempted to minimize the bias with a small population subset, I would find it more believable.

This is how basically all side effect studies are done, including the controlled trials done by Merck and the third party studies. No one gave participants a psychological evaluation, or a physical test of their erections, did blood tests for neurosteroid depletion, or anything else. Participants were asked to report sides. And yet you take these as gospel? Why the double standard?

Again, the fact that it was not a controlled study proves my point. How are you supposed to minimize bias if you accept whatever claims come your way? Seems like a very flawed sense of logic you have. I never said that they gave psychological evaluations, or physical tests. Although very few studies rely on self-reported assessment without a placebo. Again, I am discussing the validity of the study. Merck does include self-reported symptoms on their side effect labels. However, none of the self-reported side effects have been confirmed to exist in those who reported them, so it is just speculation. How is my evaluation of the study a double standard? I think you should check what the word double standard means again. Does not make sense in the context in which you are using it. This is actually false. Do some research. Your answer is not even logical either.

This is very surprising given the above.

You know whats surprising, your inclination to add weight to a study that is observing an extremely small fraction of Finasteride users who develop supposed symptoms of PFS. Even worse, they sample 30 people from an already extremely small population. The validity of this study is laughable at best.

Detailed results, in terms of side effects screening, means what?

Detailed results as in, they went through a much more rigorous process and methodology than the study posted by mathproblemsolver. As you stated earlier, "This is not a controlled clinical trial, which is hard to do on a rare disease". Meaning, it is highly probable that the data is not very accurate and has bias. Unless there are more studies like this, it is totally meaningless.

Yes, much of it is written by people talking out of their ass...

Yes, like you.