Norwood Scale Poll

General Discussion
#1

Where were you on the Norwood scale?

  • 2
  • 2A
  • 3
  • 3A
  • 3V
  • 4
  • 4A
  • 5
  • 5A
  • 5V
  • 6
  • 7

0 voters

I’m curious where everyone was on the Norwood scale before they started taking Propecia. I wonder if those lower down the scale may be more susceptible to getting hit by PFS. This would be interesting, because I believe the participants in the studies for the FDA to approve the drug were towards the higher end, and therefore the safety for men with less hair loss may not have been established.

Please vote.

#2

Keep voting plz :sunglasses:

#3

3V

#4

2

#5

10 votes all below 3A and 6/10 of them at just minor recession.

Doesn’t anyone think this is interesting?

#6

Not even 2, just thinning rapidly.

However I think the results are skewed. Finasteride is marketed as a hair prevention treatment, not regrowth. It would be useless for anyone already noticably balding IMO, so it makes sense that the majority of users are on the lower end of the scale.

That said, my impression is that PFS has a younger demographic than the average Propecia user.

#7

Yup! I hypothesized the same issue many years ago. The reasons we have these problems is because we have our hair. I had rapid diffuse thinning called telogen effluvium. I was not going bald just hormonal shedding from a very bad breakup.

#8

Btw- because of the subjective component you can probably group all the people into 2-3, so almost everyone affected had their hair

1 Like
#9

Metoo, this topic was one of my first posts on this forum 2 years ago :laughing:

http://www.propeciahelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6520

I wonder whether this may lend a clue as to why we got PFS and those with crown loss tend not to? Maybe our levels of DHT were quite low to begin with in comparison?

#10

I have a lot of body hair and had thick facial hair so I don’t think my DHT was low. I also agree with Danny, most guys on the drug would have been thinning or starting to lose hair mainly because by the time it’s gone you’re too late. The drug was sold as a preventative measure.

#11

What we know:

  1. Most men in Merck’s safety studies had crown balding
  2. Most men with PFS do not have crown balding

There seems a potential connection here.

1 Like
#12

2 also.

#13

I think it’s staggering that 67% so far only had minor recession and 94% didn’t have any loss at the crown. Granted, the poll only has 18 votes so it’s hardly scientific, but this is only a hypothesis at this point.

We didn’t need this drug and probably our bodies knew it and that’s why we got screwed up. Further, it seems the safety of the drug wasn’t known for people in our situation, because it wasn’t tested for us.

This seems worthy of study.

1 Like
#14

It seems that most people who get PFS had very little hair loss when they first took the drug.