30 ms·
This is not a scientific paper. It is a "narrative review", which is another way of saying "editorial". It superficially looks like science, but doesn't do any
by timr 1y ago
This is not a scientific paper. It is a "narrative review", which is another way of saying "editorial". It superficially looks like science, but doesn't do any of the methods, controls or (correct) statistics that you would expect in a legitimate meta-analysis. Do not take it seriously.
The "dedication" at the top should clue readers into what is going on -- it's not even trying particularly hard to look legitimate -- but alas.
Edit: this line, in particular, made me laugh. It is one of the more egregious examples of "pretending to do statistics" that I have seen recently:
> Table 1 summarizes the studies in the last decade examining a potential link between neuropsychiatric reactions and finasteride exposure. When prescribed mainly for AGA, all reports suggest that finasteride can cause depression, anxiety, suicide ideation, and suicides. Assuming a null hypothesis (finasteride does not affect mood) and a 50% chance of 1 result against this hypothesis, the probability of getting all 8 studies concluding against the null hypothesis by chance is 0.58 = 0.0039.
- comrade1234 1y agoFrom your description it sounds like a review article? Which is common and normal. I haven't read it though because I'm not bald.
- timr 1y agoIt isn't a review article, though the difference is more subtle, because a review article is also editorial in nature. The difference here is that this article is someone with an axe to grind (again, see the "dedication", which is never done in a legitimate review; and the clownish application of statistics, which is so completely absurd that it implies incompetence, malice or both). I have no faith that this writer made a legitimate attempt to impartially weigh the evidence on this question.
- viking123 1y ago"Misery loves company" the paper
- azinman2 1y agoDoesn’t mean this isn’t correct. These problems are definitely real.
- timr 1y ago> These problems are definitely real. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Proof is required.
- lithocarpus 1y agoIMHO proof of safety of the drug should be required from the maker before they profit from selling it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
- timr 1y agoIndeed. This is why the drug passed phase 1 (safety) trials when it was first approved in 1992 for treatment of prostate enlargement. Moreover, it subsequently passed additional rounds of clinical trials for the hair loss indication in 1998, and has been involved in more than 30 different clinical trials overall. Now, I'm not going to argue that there can't be rare side effects that are only discovered with time. I'm also not going to claim that the original trials were perfect, or that research into the question isn't justified. But you're trying to assert that they didn't test for safety, and that's just factually incorrect.
- lithocarpus 1y agoI should take back my statement- I had a knee jerk reaction to someone saying that proof is required of harm for a drug, when I've seen so many cases of drugs being inadequately tested and then causing harm, and I think the precautionary principle is often not followed anywhere close to adequately when it comes to new chemical stuff we do to our bodies. We probably mostly agree in principle. I'm not saying they didn't do safety testing. I would suspect that the safety testing was flawed as it has been in every other case that I have looked into, and failed to catch possible harms that may now be happening. Whether those harms outweigh the benefits overall remains to be seen and likely will never be known unless it's really really bad, which is likely not the case here. I'd agree more research is probably justified, but there's likely little profit in it for anyone.