It's being called "female Viagra" flibanserin, (marketed as Addyi) by Sprout Pharmaceutical is supposed to treat decreased female libido. Does it actually do that though? Or is it a triumph of marketing over medical science?
Kim Horcher discusses with Erika Ishii (Host - Geek & Sundry Twitch)!
Read more from Vox: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/18/9173067/flibanserin-female-viagra-science
Nerd Alert needs YOU! Please subscribe for more! http://dft.ba/-5yMt
On FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/NerdAlertTYT
ON TWITTER: https://twitter.com/NerdAlertTYT
Nerd Alert: Bringing you tech news, gaming, geek culture and more every day of the week with host Kim Horcher and friends. Part of the TYT Network of shows.
Unless the female "viagra's" are also simply about blood flow they are clearly misrepresented and should be viewed with suspicion. If a woman does not have the continuous demand for sex like a man then it's tough luck... No surprise by the way that these are marketed as the "pills of freedom" and a feminist cure for the lower female sex drive, like there is a disease to cure instead of a "demand" for hornier women among the male population...
Don't knock drowsiness, let's just say benadryl + orgasm = whole other level(disclaimer I'm not a medical professional and am not advising anyone try this and do not take responsibility for any actions any reader may take up on reading this comment). Not saying this drug sounds any good...I mean hell, if I'm not mistaken, viagra wasn't originally meant for ED, they just realized huh that's an interesting side effect.
This gives new meaning to the phrase "dying to get laid." I hope women are well informed about the drug, if not by doctors then by videos like this, before potentially risking their safety and/or lives.
Viagra was discovered by accident, it was originally created to lower blood pressure. Scientists found that it gave men erections and so they decided to put it on the market as a sexual enhancement drug. This is why nitroglycerin should NOT be used in tandem with Viagra. I would be wary of any drug that claims to increase female libido without knowing exactly how the drug works.
Not to mention that women have to take this drug every day further differentiating it from Viagra. The possibility of having a woman pass out on me before, during or after sex is not sexually appealing to me.
I think maybe this drug was originally developed for something else and now they're just trying to palm it off as something else so they can get some of there money back.
Maybe it was original intended to be an aphrodisiac, but it's a failure, and they are trying to sell it anyway. Ether way, they suck.
Isn't there already a treatment for low libido for women?
+Disthron Apparently they were researching antidepressives. Which's even more worrying, because it'd mean that you're supposed to take this drug every day unlike viagra that you can take right before.
Not official that I know of. But there are a lot of non-drug things like specific spice mixes and stuff that work as aphrodisiacs for some people.
Why does everyone keep leaving out the fact the Viagra is actually _equally effective in men and women?_
It works by sending more blood to the genitals. In men that leads to an erect penis. In women it leads to an erect clitoris, puffier labia, and increased vaginal lubrication.
It is not FDA approved for women yet, but it is not uncommon for women to have their doctors proscribe it to them off label (or write a prescription to their husbands knowing the wife plans to take it) in order to improve her sexual performance.
Also WHY WERE THERE MEN AT ALL, LET ALONE AS THE MAJORITY?! This is pure bullshit. Fuck the "female Viagra" pill. There are safer, better ways for a woman to have easier orgasms; it's the simple fact that most aren't up to making the effort.
+Tara Blackmore It is stupid, but apparently that's because most drugs are tested on mostly white male test groups, which's why some people advocate for gendered drug research since the tolerances could be way off. It's just especially stupid in this case.
+Tara Blackmore Not saying that you should trust it, no matter what the study shows, unless there are several independent studies reinforcing the same results.
I'm just saying that maybe you shouldn't be so hyper-reactionary about it, and take it personally. Not trusting a drug, or not seeing the point of a study involving said drug, is no reason to fly off the handle like if you were fired from a cannon.
Until you have more intimate knowledge of the how and the why of the study, and the specifics of the drug in question, you're essentially trying to shoot down clouds with a gun. It does nothing, it serves no purpose, and you're just wasting your own time.
Show me a study in which the sexes have been reversed and I will take your comment into serious consideration. The fact is, no study with the sexes reversed would be taken seriously, so neither should this one nor the drug it tested. The fact is, the study itself is pure bunk; why should we trust this product at all?
+Tara Blackmore This isn't about having orgasms. The problem this drug claims to address is that of basic sexual function: To put it bluntly, problems with getting wet.
Yes, orgasms is a matter of effort and know-how, not of chemistry, but that is also completely besides the point.
As for having men testing a drug aimed to address a specifically woman problem... Well, there could be several reasons. It might be because they haven't managed to come up with enough test subjects. It might be because this is just one phase in a multi-layer testing program. It also might be to rule out whether the drug is chemically effective at all, or if its effect is just psychosomatic, or if it has wider usage than as a woman-only drug.
Either way, I think we can rule out the notion that the people behind this are just stupid. We can assume that they have a plan of some sort. As to whether it is for good or not, we can't really tell from the sparse info we have gotten so far. We only have wild guesses, and those are pointless.
I like that you brought up the feminism angle. The first thing I saw about this medication was something about Viagra is covered by prescription why shouldn't this one be too? After you brought this up I'm thinking the drug manufacturers are the ones pushing these advertisements to try to make knowledge of this drug to go 'viral' and also to put pressure on medical insurance providers to add this as a covered prescription.
I'm not clear you read my paragraph accurately. I clearly referred tot he medication twice as a prescription. In fact the end of my last sentence is 'also to put pressure on medical insurance providers to add this as a covered prescription'.
Erectile Dysfunction, or ED, is a condition of a male’s penis that prevents it from getting an erection from sexual intercourse. However, many male patients get this condition from many pre existing health problems. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, or the NCCAM, released that ED affects nearly 30 million males in the United States alone. In most patients, certain drugs can single handedly treat the condition. Below, is a list of different antibiotics used to treat ED and what side effects you may get, as well as what other treatments your doctor might prescribe you. Comprehensive List of Erectile Dysfunction Drugs Viagra, Cialis, Levitra