Talk:Dutasteride

message: On the forums of this site spamlink removed it shows some problems of dutasteride, such as the manboobs (gynecomastia) and that it doesn't lower the hairline as well as finasteride; and it does thickness of hair; it works faster but well after a while it stops working, something like that.  I'm sure with some looking or some waiting there might be studies with better sources than forums--this article is stubby.  Oh and supposedly it's not approved in the USA and some countries, so customs takes it and will destroy it.  DyslexicEditor 03:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: problems

message: What dosages are perscribed for BPH treatment? The article gives doeses for hair loss but not BPH. 
Genedial (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "official" dose for hair loss - this drug is not approved as a hair loss treatment. The dose for BPH is 0.5mg/day.Pondle (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dose for BPH treatment 

message: Looking at the Electronic Medicines Compendium, neither Dutasteride nor Finasteride have reduction of body hair listed as a side effect. So I find the newly-inserted claim very strange. Pondle (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body hair 

message: Most Wikipedia articles have a "History" section.  I went to Wikipedia instead of WebMD or other source because I expected it would talk more about when the drug was patented etc.  09:32, 22 January 2011  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.170.175 (talk)  
::Yes Wikipedia would love you to research and write this section. Remember we are all volunteers here :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No "History" Section 

message: So they developed a superior hair loss treatment, spent 11 years in clinical trials, but the future of this drug for MBP is "unknown"??
They dropped it just like that?
Why is that???  Did the author of this article both to ***ASK*** why this is so?
It's "unknown"???  Why?
Are the results of FDA trials really ***SECRET*** and ***UNKNOWN***.
I don't think this is the case.
I smell snake oil.75.202.244.113 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  GSK Phase III Results "unknown"??? 

message: The information between these two Wikipedia entries is inconsistent.
"Dutasteride" article:
Dutasteride inhibits two of the three isoforms of 5-alpha reductase, I and II, whereas finasteride only inhibits type II, and has a much shorter half-life.
"5-alpha-reductase inhibitor" article:
Finasteride (Proscar or Propecia) inhibits the function of two of the isoenzymes (type II and III), whereas dutasteride inhibits all three  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sua429 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Dutasteride's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "2014AArev":
From Management of hair loss: 
From Finasteride: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Dutasteride]] 

message: Hey,
I edited the adverse impacts section surrounding sexual side effects because the current section was deeply flawed. In case this starts an editing controversy, I wanted to defend this choice in detail.
"[...] but recent research data along with advances in medical science, specifically x-ray crystallogaphy, have allowed us to directly visualize how each molecule in a formula behaves inside the cell. It is now agreed and understood amongst biochemists that purified Dutasteride by itself is not associate with any side effect, but rather the other molecules in the manufactured formula, notably butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), which is an alleged hormone axis disruptor, used in the formula for Avodart and Generic Dutasteride. [29]"
Has the following problems:
1) This reads like a sales pitch for the safety in a way that no wikipedia article should.
2) "It is now agreed and understood amongst biochemists that purified Dutasteride by itself is not associate with any side effect, but rather the other molecules in the manufactured formula" Large amounts of random extra molecules are not how commercially available pharmaceutical drugs work, and this "is now agreed" term is a profound claim about consensus that's just clearly trying to brush off concerns
3) The sole citation for these claims does not substantiate any claims made, nor does any that I'm aware of. It also says "There is no sufficient data available at the moment to draw a conclusion regarding the safety of BHA when referring to its endocrine disrupting effect." in the abstract...
Regarding "The latest research is confirmed by a literatiure review of all studies to date in 2017 by Dr. Totsti", only 1/3 citations listed after that have a Dr. Totsti as an author, none are from 2017, and none substantiate the claim made. This is clearly a false appeal to authority. 
I edited it with more sources explaining the controversy over the existence of potential harm throughout the medical literature and the ongoing media coverage of this topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxxorz596 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to description of adverse sexual side effects

message: The text re usage in transgender women is ambiguous. With respect, does it mean genetic males becoming women, or birth-gender women transitioning to men, or only those who have completed either  transition and require maintenance? After checking the wikilink on hormone therapy, it was fairly obvious that women transitioning from male is intended, but Wikipedia should always be clear! I would simply make the edit, but I'm not sure how to word it appropriately -- and succinctly (unlike this post). D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: a "transgender woman" is someone who was born with XY chromosomes (usually) who presents as a woman. The language is identity-first. We describe trans people as the identity they present as. I think the current wording is appropriate, most of our readers know that (and if they don't a quick google of "trans woman" or a click through to the article would tell them as much). It's also in line with the standards in the wikipedia manual of style and the WikiProject  LGBTQ recommendations. I think your confusion is true for a lot of people as well, not discounting it. I've added a wikilink to Trans woman since that might help some users, and it hasn't been wikilinked in that section anywhere. But I think over-explaining it further in the article text would be crude, unnecessary, and probably run afoul of those aforementioned guidelines. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

text: “Transgender women” is not an ambiguous term at all and is always universally understood to mean people assigned male at birth. 99.108.224.199 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify transgender use