→ rockwei13: 詳細資料再那? 10/19 16:36
→ rockwei13: 親身實例有? 10/19 16:37
第三期五年使用狀況
http://www.regrowth.com/remedies/propecia-phase-iii-5-year-hair-loss-results/
http://www.hairlosshelp.com/html/Propecia5yrstudy.cfm
另一個報告 也是五年的研究成果
節路一下重點
The responders were still ahead of the game with respect to the people who
were getting the placebo. If you were a good responder to Propecia, after 5
years of taking it you would still have 40 hairs more than you had when you
started out. In contrast a person who was not on Propecia lost a considerable
amount of hair, on average 220 less than they had started out with. So that
would mean that you would have 260 more hairs than you would have had if you
didn't use Propecia, i.e. 220 that did not fall out, and an additional 40 new
hairs.
推 askdrlin: 樓上搜尋一下柔沛 報告 這樣就有了 不過為啥妳都要那麼 10/19 16:40
→ askdrlin: 衝的口氣？ 10/19 16:40
※ 編輯: baboosh (1.34.34.44), 10/19/2014 17:06:22
※ 編輯: baboosh (1.34.34.44), 10/19/2014 17:15:50
※ 編輯: baboosh (117.80.185.88), 10/19/2014 17:18:35
→ rockwei13: 我要10年的，我沒很衝我討厭誤導 10/19 18:17
→ rockwei13: 我會發文我柔配相關的報告早就看過了 10/19 18:18
→ rockwei13: 每篇都提到效益的下降，不懂你們堅持什麼 10/19 18:19
→ rockwei13: 樓主說十年只有一成惡化，我沒看到這樣的資料理所當然 10/19 18:19
→ rockwei13: 的問一下 10/19 18:19
→ rockwei13: 沒想到他po個五年我看過的報告下面你還來叫我google感 10/19 18:21
→ rockwei13: 覺挺... 10/19 18:21
→ rockwei13: 我簡單說一下你節錄的重點，就是整篇都在說，剛使用效 10/19 18:25
→ rockwei13: 果很好，使用五年效益下降到只剩比沒用多40，但你完全 10/19 18:25
→ rockwei13: 沒用可能多掉220整體可能差260但這只是五年，10年的pap 10/19 18:25
→ rockwei13: er我也看過更是證明我所說的 10/19 18:25
→ rockwei13: 另外如果你沒有實際的例子有嗎？我上面會那樣問單純想 10/19 18:27
→ rockwei13: 了解他那看來的資訊或者那來的實例 10/19 18:27
→ rockwei13: 如果他說的是真的我更開心因為各位有救了，但如果誤導 10/19 18:27
→ rockwei13: 呢？ 10/19 18:27
→ rockwei13: 如果有興趣歡迎語音討論有些東西文字不好表達還要給人 10/19 18:33
→ rockwei13: 酸衝 10/19 18:33
http://www.bernsteinmedical.com/answers/does-finasteride-work-long-term/
A: With regard to efficacy, a recent long-term, uncontrolled study by Rossi
et al. reported that the beneficial effects of finasteride on hair growth
continued as time goes on and that a significant proportion of patients,
unchanged after 1 year, improved later on. In addition these patients
maintained a positive trend over time -– up to ten years. When comparing
different age groups, they found that subjects older than 30 years showed a
better hair growth in the long term than those who were younger. Of the 113
patients in the study followed for 10 years, only 14% worsened, whereas the
remaining 86% had benefits.
其實11463那篇都已經有10 YEAR TERM 的PAPER
only 14% worsene whereas the remaining 86% had benefits.
類似的結論自己找都找的到 不是一直跟網友要伸手牌
如果你有10年無效的PAPER 也可以拿出來交流呀
※ 編輯: baboosh (1.34.34.44), 10/19/2014 19:28:11
→ rockwei13: 效益降低的有人回覆我文章有貼你伸手了我這好給嘍 10/19 19:54
→ rockwei13: 然後你的這篇也是我文章提到效益會減低的證明所以你想 10/19 19:57
→ rockwei13: 表達啥我不懂版友太奇怪了一直鬼打強我明明說效益降低 10/19 20:00
→ rockwei13: 剩下的我就不回覆嘍有興去的可以私信討論想做錯勿的事 10/19 20:00
→ rockwei13: 我也不能阻止你打出文章單純讓大家了解事實對我完全沒 10/19 20:00
→ rockwei13: 好處 10/19 20:00
→ smacpotz: 什麼叫做錯誤的事.... 10/19 20:36
→ rockwei13: 錯誤的是 就是沒經任何評估沒有想到後果就做決定 10/19 20:53
→ rockwei13: 詳細可以看看我的文章 我不想再回文了 謝 10/19 20:53
推 askdrlin: 標準把價值觀套在別人身上 10/19 22:44
→ askdrlin: 這個paper的結論就是10年仍有很高機率維持吧 為何要一 10/19 22:45
→ askdrlin: 直勸別人接受自己觀點 不接受好像別人就沒救似的 10/19 22:45
推 askdrlin: 且怎麼知道別人都沒做過評估呢？藥效會減低是很正常的 10/19 23:06
→ askdrlin: 事情 但是總比什麼都不做直接看他禿乾淨來得好，我就算 10/19 23:06
→ askdrlin: 只能夠維持五年，那我也多了五年的頭髮，就算到時候又 10/19 23:07
→ askdrlin: 掉了那又如何？ 10/19 23:07
推 CCF5566: 八成是自己超禿 希望大家都不吃藥跟他一樣 10/21 08:26
→ CCF5566: 一直要人家提出文獻證明 結果自己那篇 引用的文章一篇沒 10/21 08:27
→ CCF5566: 貼 10/21 08:27
→ orz811017: 如果全世界都是禿頭其實好像也不錯啊XDDD 10/21 11:15
推 showhere: 當然繼續吃阿 10/21 20:02
推 zzing: 我深深覺得他應該有躁鬱或憂鬱症 10/23 01:42