This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doors22 (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 6 November 2011 (→NPOV Concerns Supported). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:18, 6 November 2011 by Doors22 (talk | contribs) (→NPOV Concerns Supported)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Finasteride article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Finasteride article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
 | Pharmacology C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
5 Alpha Reductase Inhibitors actually increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/us-fda-prostate-idUSTRE7585KZ20110609
The FDA has finally come forward and stated that 5-ARIs (including finasteride) increase the risk of aggressive forms of prostate cancer based on a randomized study of 5 million patients. Due to this recent conclusion, section 1.3 needs to be revised immediately. I would feel better if somebody more experienced than myself were to rewrite the section. If somebody were to do this, I would be greatly appreciative otherwise I'll give it in a go in a day or two. Doors22 (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I think I already updated it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Doors22, I notice that you are adamant that this article should be as inclusive as possible so that the average consumer can make an informed decision about this medication. Many would argue that this is the primary purpose of Misplaced Pages, but I actually agree with you on this one. As such, I was hoping you could help me get the wording right for an addition to the article in the side-effects section, under the new blurb about the FDA warning. I was thinking of something like: "In contrast, the National Institute of Health, another US governmental agency, continues to recommend finasteirde for prostate cancer prophylaxis."
- Thanks in advance and I look forward to reading your contribution. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/pcpt
174.252.94.51 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks DocJames for updating the article. To the anonymous contributor, the article you reference states "Men taking finasteride may not have an increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. Adjusting for the known effects that finasteride has on prostate cancer detection, investigators estimated that high-grade tumors (Gleason scores 7–10) were no more likely in the men taking finasteride than in the men taking placebo. However, because very few prostate cancers were detected at Gleason scores of 8 to 10, it is difficult to draw conclusions about this group."
From this text, I think it would be appropriate to say something like - In contrast to the FDA's stance, the National Cancer Institute believes that finasteride may increase the ability to detect cancer which accounts for the higher prevalance of high-grade cancer. The article didn't specifically mention the NIH, but if you can cite it feel free to add it in the article and somebody will change it if they object. Doors22 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Reversion of PFS Conference
Since JDWOLFF is being a Misplaced Pages Nazi I have moved discussion to the talk page. In my opinion, the information I have included is very germane and significant. It demonstrates not only that medical practitioners are taking Post-Finasteride Syndrome seriously but also informs to those who may be suffering from negative persistent side effects from Propecia and Proscar that there are current ongoing studies. While it may not be apparent on this Misplaced Pages article because JDWOLFF is very aggressive to remove comments he doesn't like, there is an ongoing controversy relating to the side effects of taking Propecia. Many men have disregarded the claims since a handful of doctors remain ignorant to the potential risks of the drug and have been misinforming their patients only to lead additional patients to suffer what seems to be permanent side effects. Please state your case as to why the information about the conference should not be included or else I would put it back up.
Additionally, I do not believe that JDWOLFF's edits were in 'good faith' was was suggested in the edit page. His excessively hostile tone in commenting on his edits shows he is bringing more emotion than rational thought to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Godwin's law violated in the first sentence. Your personal attacks invalidate your arguments. I will respond when you've calmed down and apologised. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- In all honesty, the comparison is neither hyperbolic, nor a personal attack. You have demonstrated an abuse of Misplaced Pages power by repetitively deleting appropriate comments while supplying rude comments that fail to provide any justification for your actions. Secondarily, the comment referred to your relevant behavior and not some personal characteristic that has no pertinence to the discussion at hand. Lastly, even in the case that there was a personal attack (hypothetically), the subsequent arguments would not be invalidated and should be considered separately on their own merit. Please stop playing games and respond to the direct inquiry. If you continue to behave in this manner, I will take proper action to have your administrative status reviewed. This is not a game for me as this drug has been and continues to destroy lives in the name of saving hair. Doors22 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with JWF's removal of the poorly sourced information. We need an appropriately high quality secondary source to include such information here. Further disruption such as the above, despite the protestation otherwise, are certainly a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA and need to stop. Yobol (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yobol, if you decide to opine please take a few minutes to thoroughly understand that upon which you are commenting. Your response was a non-sequitur as the specific matter at hand has nothing to do w/ "poorly sourced information". Rather, I would like to note that a conference was held in Europe to explore the mechanism behind the irreversible side effects of taking Propecia. The source in and of itself is not in question. JFD and DocJames have not yet provided a satisfactory reason for why this information cannot be on Misplaced Pages. It is very relevant for prospective finasteride consumers, medical researchers, and those who have suffered damages from taking Propecia. I would appreciate it if those who dissent would give a relevant answer as to why this cannot be on the webpage or else I am entirely within my rights to place it back on the article. Thank you. Doors22 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with JWF's removal of the poorly sourced information. We need an appropriately high quality secondary source to include such information here. Further disruption such as the above, despite the protestation otherwise, are certainly a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA and need to stop. Yobol (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- In all honesty, the comparison is neither hyperbolic, nor a personal attack. You have demonstrated an abuse of Misplaced Pages power by repetitively deleting appropriate comments while supplying rude comments that fail to provide any justification for your actions. Secondarily, the comment referred to your relevant behavior and not some personal characteristic that has no pertinence to the discussion at hand. Lastly, even in the case that there was a personal attack (hypothetically), the subsequent arguments would not be invalidated and should be considered separately on their own merit. Please stop playing games and respond to the direct inquiry. If you continue to behave in this manner, I will take proper action to have your administrative status reviewed. This is not a game for me as this drug has been and continues to destroy lives in the name of saving hair. Doors22 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You must use a review article. This has been stated a couple of times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Individual conferences are rarely notable for discussion on Misplaced Pages, even if they discuss something interesting. A secondary source is required to support any claim of importance. For instance, if the members of the conference agree on a classification, and this classification is then adopted as a professional standard, the conference assumes importance (see examples of this in pulmonary hypertension and hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia).
- I am very concerned that Doors22, being as close as you can get to a single-purpose editor, is allowing his strongly held views to interfere with basic civility. I don't think that if you were disagreeing with someone in public, you would risk comparing them with a Nazi. Despite the anonymity of online sites such as Misplaced Pages, this kind of basic standard of conduct should be kept here also. Any further aggressive outbursts are likely to lead to long-term blocking. JFW | T@lk 19:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- If somebody tried to intimidate me with some kind of power and silence my opinions, I would certainly find them to share similarities to the Nazis or at the very least a fascist. Your analogy tries to seriously downplay your hostility and aggression. Contrary to your claim, I am not a 'single-purpose-editor' but even if I were I still have every right to edit Misplaced Pages. 96.224.160.64 (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- You really must stop making comparisons. I am not arresting you without charge or shooting you. This is the internet. Get real.
- It is blatantly obvious that you are a single-purpose editor, because apart from the few edits you made to achieve "autoconfirmed" status everything you have ever done on this encyclopedia is add negative information about finasteride.
- Now please advise whether there is a secondary source that confirms the importance of the conference on post-finasteride syndrome. In the absence of such as source, I think the discussion is finished. JFW | T@lk 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
NPOV Concerns Supported
To disclose: I am someone that was recently prescribed Proscar by my doctor, and I came to find information regarding possible side-effects.
This article reads like a horror story. There is a massive amount of weight dedicated to sexual side effects, despite government research to the contrary. It's dangerous to present the information in this manner. "Many people report persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction, even after stopping the drug." is the first sentence under Sexual Side-Effects. The effect of such heavy words on the emotions of vulnerable patients should not be underestimated. It's given me pause, and I don't even agree with it.
98.220.237.60 (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, welcome to the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Unfortunately, many drug articles look like this. A quick look at this discussion page will reveal that there are editors with very strong agendas, often driven by personal experience. As a non-expert I am not in a great position to improve articles of this kind, and we sorely lack contributors who are prepared to do the research that is required to make an article like this truly encyclopedic and balanced.
- Please encourage your doctor to become a Wikipedian! You can quote this article: doi:10.2196/jmir.1589 JFW | T@lk 20:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The side effects listed in this article are the same information found in the product package information insert. Persistent sexual dysfunction is now listed by Merck as a side effect of using Propecia. Despite the discussion issues listed above this article is now of a high quality and NPOV. JacksonKnight (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- To the anonymous poster, you should feel free to adjust the tone of the article if you feel it is biased and I would encourage you to do so. But facts are facts and these issues can be found on the Merck labeling information and in published articles. JFDWolff has a very strong bias and has been keen on removing some of the factual statements in the past where he should focus on adjusting the tone, but I would welcome you to alter the presentation of the facts in such a way that you don't feel compelled to initially take a stance either way.Doors22 (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)