The title of latest Mohit Khera's paper is misleading, to say the least

General Discussion
#1

I just read the paper entitled “Penile vascular abnormalities in young men with persistent side effects after finasteride use for the treatment of androgenic alopecia” and I found it confusing.

Where is the touted research on “penile vascular abnormalities”? It’s clear that many (or most) PFS sufferers will present bad doppler results. But what type of penile anomalies do we have exactly?

  • is it a damage of the tunica albuginea?
  • is it a smooth muscle contracture?
  • is it calcium micro-deposits that prevent normal bloodflow?
  • is it apoptosis of the corpora cavernosa?

Khera’s et al just present very general results that don’t add much.
We need real scientific research!

1 Like
#2

The title of Kheras PFS Study should be

“The Never Ending Story”

10 Likes
#3

My alternate title would be: “Is it really a research?”

1 Like
#4

It’s OUR fault we haven’t accomplished anything ourselves. As disgusting as what has happened with Baylor is, it has nothing to do with the fact that WE have been sitting and bitching with our our thumbs up our asses the last 7 years. Continuing to talk about it rather than DOING only compounds the problem.

1 Like
#5

Im sorry but if this was the study that took 7 years to complete then I would like to sue…I wouldn’t even call it a study to be honest…our survey here has more credibility and study like structure than this small questionnaire where even the control-arm didn’t even finish (only 17 from 25) Reallllly?..they obviously weren’t even compensated for their contributions that they didn’t want to participate…
I yearn for justice one day from all who took advantage from our condition and made money…

5 Likes
#6

Wait, so the baylor study has been released?

#7

I think it’s a different one (not the study we are waiting for)

#8

Come on man I wouldn’t care for the next (Suppose there is another one) if this level of scientific genius behind it as well…7 years to publish something I would be ashamed to publish as a medical student…Really sad how doctors take advantage of sick ppl…it’s sick and rather the norm than the exception…Money is everything for doctors…trust me I know this better than anyone else

1 Like
#9

This obviously wasn’t the crux of the overall study. This part described the group of patients he investigated at a high level. But it was the first to show there were structurally abnormalities in PFS patients which had not been done before.

It sucks that the second, more important part of the study hasn’t been published yet, but the best thing to do is to move on and put as many irons in the fire as possible and forget about this one since you can’t control it.

It’s kind of like applying to jobs. If you get so obsessed with one job application and neglect to apply to other jobs, you’re really fucked if that one doesn’t come through. If you’re applying to 10 or 15, its not a big deal when one doesn’t work out which is to be expected anyway. Even if it doesn’t work out initially, you never know what could happen if you keep the relationship going and something could work out down the line. It’s time for people to get over this now and do some more prospecting.

3 Likes
#10

I don’t want to sound rude or something but are you basing your claims on something you know and sure of or on just the rumors and stuff we were hoping for?..

#11

I’m not sure what claims you’re referring to. Everything I said is based on the study that was just published.

My comments on the rumors and hopes are just a suggestion for how to manage expectations to not drive yourself crazy or end up getting very disappointed. It was a little funny but also painful to see the crazy things people were saying here about the Baylor study over the years. Whether or not Baylor part 2 comes through, a lot more than a single study would be needed to figure this out.

#12

Well you are saying it’s „obviously“ not the crux of the study and „ But it was the first to show there were structurally abnormalities in PFS patients which had not been done before“…
Where is your proof of these claims?..
Im obviously Superman but I don’t want to fly and rescue ppl…wouldn’t you want a proof of my claims?

#13

I don’t really know what needs to be proven, but here is an explanation.

The study is supposed to be released in two parts. Although this study has taken ages, the main part (part 2) is supposed to involved genetic and epigenetic analysis of those same patients described in part 1.

This first study he just published found “penile vascular abnormalities” as demonstrated by a doppler ultrasound. The other biomarkers that have been found are related to neurosteroids or epigenetics, but not a structural vascular abnormality.

#14

Dude he measured Testosteron only for 3 of the controls and the median BMI of the controls was 30…
Are you kidding me…This is a joke played on us…I cant even call this a research…
I laughed so hard while reading this…This so called research is damaging our cause more than helping…no real doctor or researcher would take such paper seriously…
I rest my case here

2 Likes
#15

I see what you’re saying, but it doesn’t even really matter. The controls were not very impt because there is a ton of data describing average hormone levels and PDDU results in large population of men.

The important finding in this paper was that 68% of the 5ARI group had abnormalities on the PDDU group which is obviously much higher than in the general population.

I don’t disagree with you that the control group was weak, but it doesn’t really matter unless the ultrasound test was not calibrated…

#16

Sorry dude but to me you are obviously not a researcher, as its basic knowledge to anyone working in research to know that a control group is something very important…Saying they are not very important or there are ton of data on hormone levels and PDDU results is just plain WRONG…A study without a control group is to me no study at all. It’s rather a report…He is reporting that he found this or that, but the signficannce of these findings can never be estalished without knowing whether these findings are pathological…
A very minor example for error…What if the ultrasound device is not appropriately calibrated…Or thetechnician is just measuring at the wrong place…YOU NEEEEED A CONTROL GROUP…End of story…

1 Like
#17
#18

There is publicly available information on the hormone levels and Doppler ultra sounds for millions of patients in the US alone. Could the certified technician have completely messed up the test, possibly, but it is highly unlikely and in the very small chance that they did it would be skewed towards finding nothing rather than abnormalities.

I literally gave you this example and you’re repeating it back to me like I don’t know what it means.

#19

YOU NEEEEEED A CONTROL GROUP whether your mind can accept that or not…ITS WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY has agreed upon…Even you want to test a hypertension drug, and there is a billion of studies about bloodpressure in healthy adults…YOU STILL NEEEEED A CONTROL GROUP.

1 Like
#20

Alright guys let’s keep it civil