No idea, as no one but the Wikipedia editors have any say as to what entities get a page. That said, we should look into trying to build upon the precedent of the foundation page by starting a PFS page in early 2016.
I didn’t like the tone of that page, it seems aimed at criticizing the foundation to a great degree. Wikipedia is becoming a tool of corporate power and misinformation in many respects and it has been well documented even at the TED talks.
Meanwhile, GP Magazine is running a story today titled “Male breast cancer case study: A rare but serious cancer that is often only diagnosed at a late stage.”
Note this passage:
“The MHRA cautioned in 2009 that an association between MBC and long-term finasteride (commonly used for BPH and androgenetic alopecia) cannot be excluded.”
Thats nice, but Oscar Wilde was thrown in prison for no reason by the British government and sentenced to 2 years hard labor. 2 years after being released he died an alcoholic in eastern Europe. So no, its not always good to have bad press, and I think you know who I am in real life, so you know I know a lot about “twisting” the narrative in favor of one view or another.
This isn’t like 2010 when telling a doctor about PFS side effects would get you a strange look or maybe kicked out of their office. Not all doctors are aware but I have gone to ordinary docs about non-PFS related things… bronchitis, a general checkup, etc… and many are in fact aware of issues related to 5-AR inhibitors. At this point validation, and formal recognition are most important. Since the word has spread fairly well at least in the medical community of westernized nations.