How to lie about Finasteride in a paper and still get published

General Discussion
#1

An extraordinary example of how to write a paper full of lies and get published. This paper is full of outright verifiable lies and manipulations.

One simple example among many is the manipulative interpretation of the fraudulent Merck clinical trial that was exposed by the Reutres article.

This paper was cited on Twitter by someone who expressed doubt that reports of persistent side effects from Finasteride were real…

Names to add to the hall of shame:
Meena K. Singh, MDcorresponding author and Marc Avram, MD

Dr. Meena Singh is a hair surgeon, which I think explains her effort to try to minimize the dangers of Finasteride.

Persistent Sexual Dysfunction and Depression in Finasteride Users for Male Pattern Hair Loss

Abstract

The use of finasteride for the treatment of male pattern hair loss has recently been the focus of media and internet attention for potential irreversible sexual dysfunction and severe depression. The purpose of this study was to perform a critical review of the recent studies reporting prolonged sexual dysfunction and depression with the use of finasteride for the treatment of male pattern hair loss. A literature search was performed using PubMed to review the literature pertaining to any potential adverse effects with the use of finasteride and its treatment of male pattern hair loss. The authors conclude that the reports of potential irreversible sexual dysfunction and severe depression do raise concerns about the safety of finasteride; however, these studies are wrought with significant bias. Therefore, larger, randomized, double blind, controlled trials are warranted to further ascertain the true potential risks or confirm long-term safety profile of finasteride use.

Full Text:

#2

So basically, they browsed PubMed and recorded what they saw? This is what “research” looks like in 2020?

#3

This is an old article and came out well before some of the key articles on PFS were published - Melcangi, Belknap etc. This is well before Reuters was published even.

It’s a literature review where they try to summarize everything that existed in the medical literature to date and form their opinion on what the balance of all the evidence was. Even for the time, I think it was too dismissive, but more recent literature reviews have come out quite differently.