The WP:No Original Research page clearly shows that a secondary source is not necessary since it is merely a descriptive statement that does not require expert interpretation.  The matter of relevance is an entirely separate issue, however.  It is not a 'conspiracy theory' but clearly a reaction to the increasing awareness of the dangers of Propecia.  They shut down both of their finasteride websites within months of updating the warning labels to include information that finasteride can cause irreversible side effects.  However, stating that the website was shut down and replaced with a link to FDA medwatch does not contain any editorial opinion and is simply fact.  I now turn to other Wikipedia members for additional opinions since JFDWolff has been unreasonably disagreeable in my experiences with him in the past and a single opinion is not sufficient to remove edits.  Is it reasonable to add a sentence describing the fact that the Propecia websites have been removed from the internet and replaced with a warning to follow up with the FDA if issues arrive?