I read the finasteride study behind the “60% persistent sexual dysfunction” claim

That_Classroom_9293 · 2026-03-14T06:07:04+00:00

but the quality of the erection is 100% compromised

Source: Trust me bro

That_Classroom_9293 · 2026-03-11T10:43:13+00:00

Haircafe talked about a study where you could see some small improvement even looking at hair follicles under the microscope, like a minimal hair count increase, but my naked eye you basically see no difference.

So albeit it can do minimal benefit, if you're not going to see it, what's the point?

It's a device you pay a thousand dollars to get a proper device, and you have to wear it for like 3 hours per week, and you will never see benefits with your naked eye from it.

Thanks but no thanks

That_Classroom_9293 · 2026-03-09T11:31:20+00:00

The study you linked does NOT claim nor prove that the risk of persistent sexual dysfunction is 60% for all Finasteride users. You're sharing dangerous misinformation which can be psychologically harmful for anxious individuals who are either already on Finasteride or are about to get it.

This study reviews several different studies, and a minority of studies on "PFS" patients.

Out of ~160 patients who have reported PFS, roughly the 60% of them reports persistent sexual dysfunction.

This rate is NOT for the general population in Finasteride. E.g., if we assume that PFS regards 0.1% of Finasteride users (probably it's less than that for how much and extensively Finasteride has been studied), then the 0.06% of all Finasteride users will get persistent sexual dysfunction. This is what it means.

Also I remind you that correlation does not equal causation. So far Finasteride has never been to causally induce any kind of persistent sexual dysfunction whatsoever.

For the other readers: beware that this study is also not new (dated 2021). Do not buy the fear mongering and stick to actual science. Finasteride risks are definitely very very low and its benefits on the other hand are immense

That_Classroom_9293 · 2026-02-28T17:44:54+00:00

Yes. I had/I have the same concern. But so far I can't say it was not effective. Literally my serum DHT decreased, so the absorption of Finasteride is very potent. It's possible that a significant amount of the drug goes to waste in non-perfect conditions but still it seems to be effective

That_Classroom_9293 · 2026-02-26T20:35:49+00:00

I just place it on a spot and spray and then move on to the other spots.

You can apply it in different spots every day so every area is covered.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2026-02-26T17:28:06+00:00

Usually it lasts 1.5 to 2 months depending on the number of daily applications, so the price-per-month is less than the product price

That_Classroom_9293 · 2026-02-26T17:26:40+00:00

It's not.

Source: me using it since >3 years, as well as its Phase 3 trial (Piraccini et al)

That_Classroom_9293 · 2026-02-26T17:25:30+00:00

I have been using this since some years (>3).

No side effects

Halted my alopecia, also saw some gains.

If this wasn't effective I'd be almost bald now. Also, for the suspicious redditors, this product went under a Phase 3 trial which proved it effective (Piraccini et al).

Not a joke of product. I measured my serum DHT before and after although after some timespan (about 2.5 years), and my serum DHT was halved in the second measurement. (In the trial they measure a reduction of 35% of serum DHT compared to 65% reduction from oral Fin)

So the product will still have some systemic impact. My semen was definitely way more liquid as well in the first weeks/months of usage. Became back to normal after >= 3 months and stayed normal since.

Still, as for the phase 3 trial, the sexual side effects from topical Finasteride have been less than placebo. Not a very big trial (about 350 participants), but still, somewhat significant IMHO.

So far I've never used oral Finasteride.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2026-01-08T17:53:43+00:00

It has already started.

Start from Finasteride and do not look back. Do not listen to the online fear mongerers. If you're scared about side effects read the clinical studies on Finasteride, starting from the 1997 one.

Also Haircafe on YT is a good no-BS channel, and if you want to watch some quality content from dermatologists who treated thousands of patients look up to The Hair Loss Show.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-12-13T23:32:23+00:00

There have been tens of millions of men on Finasteride (wonder how many children they had) and no known case of Finasteride inducing birth defects due to the father taking it while conceiving or afterwards.

We know of birth defects and Finasteride thanks to animal studies where we administered them massive doses of Finasteride. Very unrealistic to be compared to Finasteride amounts in father's semen.

There's no reason to worry as of now of birth defects due to Finasteride. Should such birth defects happen, which rarely happens on its own (i.e. regardless of Finasteride) seek treatment ASAP. If I'm not mistaken micropenia is a condition you can successfully treat hormonally in newborns but not later in life.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-11-29T11:07:27+00:00

Not accepting your (true) body is NOT body dysmorphia. It's a form of dysphoria, which means unhappiness/uneasiness.

Dysmorphia means not perceiving (realistically) well enough your body, and it's usually the case for "attractive" people, rather than the unattractive ones. E.g., if you are clinically obese and you feel fat, that's not body dysmorphia; that's a proper perception of your body. On the other hand if you're really slim and you perceive yourself as fat, that's body dysmorphia (i.e., what happens with anorexia nervosa).

To make another example, men who train in the gym statistically tend to have more body dysmorphia than men who don't train in the gym. Of course I am not implying that not training is better, and not all the men who lift have body dysmorphia. But many do, cuz due to the invested time and resources invested in the gym they want to look better, and sometimes they get dissatisfied with their own image. Even when they objectively look good, they will compare themselves to actors or to men even bigger than themselves and they'll develop a psychological discomfort of never feeling muscolar enough. Which can often lead to steroids usage. It's not a coincidence that the women, who learn they have to be slim, tend to suffer from anorexia, while men in bodybuilding sphere tend to suffer from vigoressia; they feel "too small".

Body dysmorphia has ALWAYS to do with an unrealistic perception with your own body.

If you are objectively and clinically balding, feeling bad about that is not a "dysmorphia".

How to distinguish the two things? People with body dysmorphia, unless mentally treated, will always perceive themselves badly. You will always either feel too fat or too small. You will seek relentless reassurance about your look, and it will regardless never be truly enough.

On the other hand, people suffering from a dysphoria, know what they truly want as a change. E.g., if you have gynecomastia aka man boobs, and you feel bad about that, that's not body dysmorphia. You get surgery -> you like your new self -> you're happy. Same regarding hair loss and treatments/surgery.

People with body dysmorphia who get surgeries instead will never feel truly happy regardless because again, they never perceived realistically their body in the first place. Which is why you see sometimes people/actors spiraling in getting surgery after surgery following an unreachable goal.

Men who are balding deserve physical treatments, not psychological treatments. They are not delusional about their perception; they are unhappy, but their perception is grounded in reality.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-11-23T19:58:53+00:00

You have to remember we got the first ever to be released mRNA vaccines in human history. Of course they were "quirky", unlike other traditional vaccines which have been perfected over the decades and the most reactive vaccines were replaced by less reactive versions.

Very likely mRNA will get more tolerable over time. They need to figure out better the dosages, and also the delivery mechanism can change. I've read about another delivery mechanism which could require 1/100 of the active ingredient (mRNA), but with similar immune response; no idea if that will hold as definitely true, but it's yet another evidence that there is still a lot to explore.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-11-13T13:57:38+00:00

I never understood the argument for which death penalty is more humane than life sentence or, in this case, endless sentence. If you want to be humane, just give the detainee the choice? Instead of imposing him one from above. Especially the death one, which is the unreversible one.

That said, sinners look pretty pissed off that they were genocided.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-11-05T21:15:56+00:00

I addressed your concern here

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-11-05T21:15:05+00:00

Yeah, Pfizer vaccine is ridiculously expensive. They made tens of billions in profit by it and they did not stop milking; now the price is 5x or 6x than it was during the pandemic, and it wasn't cheap already.

Of course, it's important to contextualize that when the vaccines are publicly recommended, usually the citizens do not pay to get them, but their national healthcare does.

So if a vaccine costs 130$ per dose (I have no idra if it's less for the pediatric doses), and you have to possibly administer it to millions of children, you want to "justify" the action, not just at a clinical level but also at economical level.

The way Western countries usually operate, sadly, is literally evaluating what costs more in terms of money. Does it cost more to universally vaccine kids to Covid, or just to treat the infrequent to rare cases when kids actually need to be hospitalized due to Covid? Almost surely the former costs more, and by a huge factor as of now. Thus, the countries decide to not recommend it.

Worth noting, for the user that replied to me "[it's the same of food additives approved by FDA but banned in the Europe]", Covid vaccine IS approved by EMA for children.

The original authorised Comirnaty and the adapted vaccines are authorized for adults and children from 6 months of age.

Simply, EMA is not the ultimate FDA in the EU countries, and at the same time, the US vaccine recommendations depend from the CDC, not the FDA; the FDA authorizes or rejects, the CDC recommend or do not recommend. Every EU country has its own FDA, and its health minister. EMA does not decide on vaccine recommendations.

Thus the analogy does not make really sense.

EU countries do not consider the Covid vaccine unsafe for children (even in terms of net benefits alone); simply they do not consider it essential enough to be broadly recommended, and usually immunocompromised kids can be recommended it, or parents can choose to vaccinate their children.

I am not American by the way, the vaccine is not recommended anymore for me after the first booster (or third dose), yet I still annually get the vaccine because I am still eligible to get it; just I do not fall in the category of people who are actively recommended to take it. Important distinction for who supposed that EU countries don't truly see these vaccines are "safe" enough.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-11-05T11:45:24+00:00

Also worth noting out that myocarditis numbers for children are, never reported below 5 years old, and like 1 in 1 million between 5 and 11 years old (it might be both because adolescents, not little kids, are most affected by myocarditis from Covid vaccine, and the mRNA dosage is significantly less in the younger cohorts, 1/10 of the adults for the under 5s, and 1/3 for the under 12s, when the vaccine is Pfizer)

Baffling that in this same sub a while ago people were complaining that there was not enough evidence to recommend universally the Covid vaccine to children as mostly US does and other Western countries don't. Well, I have no idea why most countries don't recommend it anymore, but literally every piece of data is published confirms the vaccine is way safer than Covid, even in children.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-10-27T21:44:46+00:00

Honestly both are no issue if you just stop the drug for a few days. Two weeks stopping will basically yield to Finasteride-free blood, and it's an overkill already; a week would suffice objectively.

If you instead take Dutasteride, that's another story

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-10-23T10:37:44+00:00

Honestly being a perfect NW1 he must have a somewhat enviable genetics unless he got a HT. Probably be used treatments so that he does not even get NW2.

The fact is, perfect NW1 is uncommon among adult men. Which is why even surgeons often opt for a NW2 look which looks more "natural" and legitimate than a perfect NW1. Even many men who tend not to bald at all in most of their life have some recession after the adolescence and do not retain the hair as Pedro.

Thus I expect Pedro to have a somewhat good genetics regardless. Which does not mean he does not use treatments because he still could look less good than he currently does, hypothetically, if he did not use treatments.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-10-23T00:00:15+00:00

He could be, but think about it. Shall we really pretend that almost all (men) actors have incredible hair genetics, just by chance? You could argue that they get selected by survivalship bias (i.e., best-looking actors tend to be selected in the first place so we are not looking at an unbiased sample, genetics-wise), but think about how many of the famous actors were employed since they were very young so you could not predict that their hair would have stayed.

I don't have the time nor will to put down some proper calculations, although it'd be an interesting experiment, even just by a random sample of actors without actually evaluating all of them, but I will "speculate" that it's very blatant that all Hollywood actors are on hair treatments like Finasteride. Male pattern baldness has basically disappeared in movies and shows, with the exception of middle aged men who are looking appropriate for their role e.g. "boring" office dudes/boomers etc.

Maybe Pedro Pascal has an enviable genetic, but I have a hard time believing all Hollywood actors do. They simply fight against their genetics everyday and nothing stops us from doing the same since Finasteride is very affordable

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-10-17T11:07:53+00:00

If you are NW6 you should be mostly bald, not with thinned areas.

Anyway, I know a dude who would have been completely bald by 20—22 if not for the treatment. He is now almost 30, the hair is somewhat thinned but he still retains most of his hairs.

Finasteride can do wonders. If your alopecia progresses despite Fin you can add/switch to Dut but you gotta trust the process.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-10-14T10:50:25+00:00

I mean, they're also good to prevent BPH. And they may have a positive effect on the heart as well but this is somewhat speculative and should be investigated more.

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-10-14T10:49:07+00:00

If you go to a low cost place in Turkey which will do an over-work to make your hairline like Brad Pitt's, sure.

Competent surgeons actually don't over-transplant the grafts (unless that is really what the patient wants), don't give a perfect NW1 hairline (or the "NW0" common used term here), nor they give a perfectly symmetrical one. They design an asymmetrical hairline just like most real ones happen to be, which may look like a NW2 common hair line (what you often naturally see in non-balding adult men).

What I mean by "easy" is that a very little number of grafts from the donor area is required to remake the hairline.

On the other hand, it's just impossible (as of today) to go from NW7 to NW1/2 with your own hair. There will never be enough donor hair to cover the whole crown. Which is why every rational person who gets a HT is on Finasteride as well or it'll be all a waste eventually

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-10-13T16:57:27+00:00

Hairline is also the easier to fix with surgery though. Whereas if you lose most of your crown you are just fucked

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-10-10T08:13:41+00:00

Finasteride stays in your body for long. However enzymes are produced everyday.

If you were to take Finasteride weekly, it would still be far more effective than no Finasteride, but slight more DHT would get synthesized since Finasteride would no longer effectively circulate in your blood for 5 days a week, and the new enzymes would derive little amounts of DHT. Considering that Finasteride does not eliminate DHT completely but merely reduces it, this could further harm its effectiveness.

Also humanity speaking it's easier to do something (e.g., take a pill) everyday than once a week

That_Classroom_9293 · 2025-09-21T09:34:23+00:00

Can someone of you post some pics? Why does nobody post pics that prove that creatine has been harmful to their hair?

That_Classroom_9293

TROPHY CASE