I'm not saying anything by posting this information, other than it might explain a lot.
Quote:
President Trump’s personal physician recently revealed that the president takes finasteride, a drug used to combat male-pattern baldness. The medication has been in the news for another reason: its potential side effects.
In fact, approximately 1,370 lawsuits have been filed against Merck, which markets finasteride. A class-action lawsuit against the company will examine the pharmaceutical giant’s culpability in the multitude of reported sexual side effects potentially associated with the drug. Merck did not respond to a request for comment.
Merck sells finasteride under the brand name Propecia, a 1-milligram formulation of the medication. It is available as a prescription for treatment of male-pattern hair loss. Its big brother, Proscar, is a 5 mg preparation commonly prescribed for the treatment of symptoms associated with enlarged prostate, or benign prostatic hyperplasia, and has been prescribed to more than 1 million American men since its introduction to the market. Together, finasteride and a closely related compound dutasteride (sold under the brand name Avodart) are a class of drugs called 5-alpha-reductase-inhibitors (5-ARIs) which work by blocking the conversion of testosterone to its more potent form, dihydrotestosterone.
Between Propecia, Proscar and Avodart, 5-ARIs comprise a substantial portion of medications prescribed to men every year. As a urologist, I prescribe or see men who have been prescribed these medications quite often. After all, the drugs have a variety of important uses in older men with enlarged prostates. But in speaking to my patients, I have come to realize how often men are not aware of the potentially life-changing and irreversible side effects that may be associated with these medications.
The constellation of potential symptoms, sometimes referred to as post-finasteride syndrome, may include sexual, physical and psychological changes. Of these, the sexual side effects are perhaps the most extensively reported. In fact, in 2012, the Food and Drug Administration announced a label change for Propecia and Proscar, requiring the manufacturer to warn that the medication may be associated with “libido disorders, ejaculation disorders, and orgasm disorders that continued after discontinuation of the drug.”
The systematic study of the side effects of finasteride can be traced back to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1992 — the year Proscar was initially approved by the FDA for its use in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Studying both the 1 mg and 5 mg doses of finasteride, the researchers demonstrated a higher incidence of impotence, ejaculatory disorders and decreased libido in both treatment groups when compared with a placebo. Although these complications were consistently studied over subsequent years, the conversation remained far from the public sphere, in part because of the older age of patients taking Proscar for enlarged prostate.
Then, in 1997, the FDA’s approval of Propecia for use in hair loss created a sudden increase in finasteride prescriptions in a new group of patients — younger men. With it came a heightened concern of potential sexual side effects, because this cohort was much less likely than older men with enlarged prostates to already have underlying sexual dysfunction.
In 1998, two year-long trials were conducted with more than 1,500 men ages 18 to 41 receiving either Propecia or a placebo. The rate of sexual dysfunction in the finasteride group was about double that of the placebo group (4.2 percent compared with 2.2 percent). Because this trial was designed to study the hair-restoring qualities of finasteride, and the assessment of sexual side effects does not appear to have been rigorously conducted, the extent of the side effects may very well have been underreported.
Haha, Trump losing his mind on Twitter this morning-- attacking the judge who halted the ban, calling the NY Times "FAKE NEWS" again, etc...
It's only been two weeks and the pressure and constant scrutiny is clearly driving him bonkers. He doesn't have the stones or the temperament to do this job, and I have a feeling he'll either have a heart attack from the stress or a nervous breakdown within the next couple of months.
What does he mean? "I am above the law. The law cannot stop me". That's what he meant
That seems like the implication...if he put that much thought into it.
The wording indicates means he doesn't like the theoretical power than the federal courts have. That they can override an Executive Order if they find it against the reach of the President. If he worded at "when a judge decides to..." and I don't think anybody blinks an eye. It just sounds like his traditional stance.
But the theoretical emphasis in the word "can" seems to indicate that he looks at the President as more of an elected dictator than a piece in the system of governance.
If nothing else Trump has made Gorsuch's hearing more difficult. You can expect question after question of the Dems trying to make him say Trump is wrong. And when he does say Trump is wrong, is Trump going to bash his own nominee?
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
A great talk last night on Bill Maher with Sam Harris.
It's a good interview, but this format just is not conducive to Harris's style. It's better than a CNN segment, because he's getting ten minutes instead of three, but there are a number of points there where if you've listened to his podcast you know that he's only scratching the shallow surface of his position. It's almost frustrating to hear without the granular detail. There are several points there where Maher cuts in and says something that doesn't quite align with where Harris sits, but it's Maher's show, so he diplomatically cedes some of the territory. You end up having to fill in the portion of the iceberg that's below sea level, and if you're the sort of person who's predisposed to resist his position (who are precisely the people he wants to convince), you're inevitably going to fill in those gaps with poorer support. Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug...
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
It's a good interview, but this format just is not conducive to Harris's style. It's better than a CNN segment, because he's getting ten minutes instead of three, but there are a number of points there where if you've listened to his podcast you know that he's only scratching the shallow surface of his position. It's almost frustrating to hear without the granular detail. There are several points there where Maher cuts in and says something that doesn't quite align with where Harris sits, but it's Maher's show, so he diplomatically cedes some of the territory. You end up having to fill in the portion of the iceberg that's below sea level, and if you're the sort of person who's predisposed to resist his position (who are precisely the people he wants to convince), you're inevitably going to fill in those gaps with poorer support. Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug...
What does he mean? "I am above the law. The law cannot stop me". That's what he meant
Yeah I get that, I just found the part about anyone can get into the country funny, like there's no borders or customs or anything now. He's the king of lies and exaggeration though so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
It's a good interview, but this format just is not conducive to Harris's style. It's better than a CNN segment, because he's getting ten minutes instead of three, but there are a number of points there where if you've listened to his podcast you know that he's only scratching the shallow surface of his position. It's almost frustrating to hear without the granular detail. There are several points there where Maher cuts in and says something that doesn't quite align with where Harris sits, but it's Maher's show, so he diplomatically cedes some of the territory. You end up having to fill in the portion of the iceberg that's below sea level, and if you're the sort of person who's predisposed to resist his position (who are precisely the people he wants to convince), you're inevitably going to fill in those gaps with poorer support. Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug...
Yeah, I was a little frustrated with that segment. That's Bill Maher, he values directional control of an interview (or panel discussion) and witty/pointed interjections to get the crowd cheering over anything else.
It's still a decent platform for American political discussion, but Bill definitely sets the tone for what he believes to be right and wrong on any given topic and is meandering towards his crowd cheering points regardless of where the guest is going, which gets a little frustrating at times.
Bill definitely sets the tone for what he believes to be right and wrong on any given topic and is meandering towards his crowd cheering points regardless of where the guest is going, which gets a little frustrating at times.
Yep , and he's often a bit more superficial than his guests, which just makes his smug, snarky thing even more grating. It's even worse on topics where he's just obviously crazy, like vaccines. But at least he does spend enough time with guests to allow them to speak in full sentences.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Yeah, I was a little frustrated with that segment. That's Bill Maher, he values directional control of an interview (or panel discussion) and witty/pointed interjections to get the crowd cheering over anything else.
It's still a decent platform for American political discussion, but Bill definitely sets the tone for what he believes to be right and wrong on any given topic and is meandering towards his crowd cheering points regardless of where the guest is going, which gets a little frustrating at times.
I will agree with that, but to suggest you have to believe what Harris didn't say to truth, I mean, that is Trump level bull####.
As exhausting and frustrating as this presidency has already been so far, these pictures give me so much hope. Lawyers and attorneys doing pro-bono work to help these immigrants and refugees, the protests, the visible signs that people care and are finally doing something about it, it gives me hope that we might come out of this stronger, if we can get through the next 2-4 years.
Obviously taken with a grain of salt, but I hope that this is accurate, that people outside of the US are seeing the resistance to Trump's rhetoric and actions, and realizing that all is not lost here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puffnstuff
I honestly wonder if Trump thinks he is doing a good job.
Well a huge number of his diehard voters still think he's doing a fantastic job, and he's the king of them, so I'm sure he feels he's the best president ever.
Last edited by wittynickname; 02-04-2017 at 05:08 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
Yep , and he's often a bit more superficial than his guests, which just makes his smug, snarky thing even more grating. It's even worse on topics where he's just obviously crazy, like vaccines. But at least he does spend enough time with guests to allow them to speak in full sentences.
He was beating the anti-keystone drum the whole way through the process. When it got to the point where informed political analysts had outed the real reason beyond Obama's vetoing his next show was embarrassing.
He triumphantly proclaimed to the crowd "KEYSTONE'S DEAD!!!!!! IT'S DEAD!!!!!!" and of course his professional clapping audience went wild. But in his follow up he literally said (very quietly and sheepishly) "...and yeah, it was probably for protectionist reasons", and then seamlessly carried on about the environment.
Considering what was going on in our province, it was ugly. I'm guessing he knew he needed to have the fact that he knew the real reason on record because he values facts (a big part of his show is mocking Republicans for getting facts wrong), but also wanted to go the direction he had planned out for the whole keystone saga. He was in too deep.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Trump has been on a roll today, praising Putin. More good stuff from the potus.
The interview with O'Reilly that airs tomorrow should be interesting.
John King @JohnKingCNN
Really? @realDonaldTrump equates US & Russia as "killers" insists has backing for 3m or more illegal votes. #InsidePolitics 8aE #CNN
