"Female Viagra" and regular or "male" Viagra were both originally investigated as treatments for conditions other than sexual dysfunction. Viagra came out of studies on hypertension, and "female Viagra" for depression. But… that's where most of the similarities end.
How so? Let's discuss. Flibanserin, sometimes called "female Viagra", is the topic of this week's Healthcare Triage.
Special thanks to Rachel Hoffman for making this week's episode possible. Thanks, Rachel!
For those of you who want to read more, go here:
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Mark Olsen -- Graphics
And the housekeeping:
1) You can support Healthcare Triage on Patreon: http://vid.io/xqXr Every little bit helps make the show better!
2) Check out our Facebook page: http://goo.gl/LnOq5z
3) We still have merchandise available at http://www.hctmerch.com
Addyi is just a bullshit placebo propaganda tool. Maybe one more sexual experience per month and it makes you pass tf out. you can get the same result switching perfumes.
[Edit] just look at the pattern of ownership. If that doesn't tell you addyi is shit nothing will.
Moreover,i wish there were a "Viagra 4 women" that would be great for everyone.
Couples where one partner experiences low sexual desire, interest, or arousal are needed for an online study. Each person can receive up to $23. To find out more, visit:
To everyone saying that "women don't need this drug/a drug like this because...." can just shut up! First, that's between women and their doctors. Second, MANY women, like ME have had their libidos totally zapped by birth control, and would LOVE to be able to have sex with their husband, but just can't because their body doesn't respond! I can mentally wanna have sex all I want, and sometimes my husband and I still try, but even with a massive amount of lube, if the body won't turn on and do it's job, it still hurts. And it hurts that people want to takeaway MY choice to have sex with my HUSBAND! So anyone not facing such a problem can shut up and sit down!
This drug is nothing like Viagra. Flibanserin is supposed to affect the brain and it has to be taken every day to actually see a change. I was reading some of the other comments and noticed a couple people talking about the spouse making their significant other take it which I could see would be a problem but doctors who are prescribing the drug have to make sure the women fits the part. They make sure that she actually needs the drug, so I am not sure if that would really be a problem.
Filbanserin can put women in the mood? I worry, this will be weaponized. Imagine a woman, shares a house or apartment, with a straight man, or lesbian, that she absolutely, does not want to have sex with. So, not only do women, have to worry about their drinks being ruthied, but now they can't trust any open or homemade food & drink, especially frequent "gifts" from someone that has a crush on them?.....I hope I am wrong, or this isn't so easy, but I had to call this out, and I'm not even a feminist, I'm a humanist.
Viagra doesn't cause forced erections.....so my fantasy of a woman, slipping Viagra & tranquilizers in food, so she can tie me down, and ride me, that fantasy no longer makes sense. If I had the mental discipline, not only could I resist cumming, but I could resist even getting hard in the 1st place, even if she tricked me into eating Viagra?
if anything flibanserin sounds like a mental health drug that happens to maybe make people desire sex more. its 'closer' to wellbutrin then viagra. plus messing with the chemical balance in the brain when there isnt a need could be bad, i mean psych meds are prescribed to help restore that balance so if people are just taking them for 'cool side effects' that could cause a problem.
People who say "It's about time women get a sexual aid drug" are going about this COMPLETELY wrong. We don't even know if it is safe or effective yet, and that argument assumes that it is both. No one at the FDA cares about the social implications. THIS IS NOT A GENDER ISSUE YET.
Who are they going to advertise Flibanserin to? Every current ED drug commercial is aimed at women to get them to give their husbands permission to get the pills. Most of them promote the idea that their husbands might finally become romantic and build that patio in the back pasture with antique tubs and haul hot water all the way out there to initiate sex as opposed to just kicking his underwear onto the bedpost. Others claim he might finally fix that old hotrod so she can relive the Steve McQueen or Burt Reynolds dream of her youth. And yet another claims that he might finally admit that his old pickup can't do everything and that those horses that she has made him pay to feed and board and haul around for years might be good for something after all. If men really needed advertising to buy ED drugs they would be like old sexist beer commercials with a bikini team carrying him off to the bedroom like the MVP of the Super Bowl.
The thing that always bothered me about that commercial with the pickup and the horses was that it was a 4X4 truck and when he got stuck only the rear wheels were spinning. That is until I remembered it was an ED drug commercial and the poor guy had a "broken front drive shaft"!! :D
A brain-altering chemical that will give you ONE more 'sexual event' PER MONTH?
You can get similar results through couples therapy, which doesn't have dangerous side-effects, it just takes more of a commitment from both partners.
This is a really bad idea.
Parents already medicate their kid's for c̶h̶i̶l̶d̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶h̶a̶v̶i̶o̶r̶ Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and now they'll be medicating their spouses t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶a̶t̶t̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶m̶ have Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder
The term "female viagra" has been bugging me ever since I learned about the drug. But I suppose it's actually just an outgrowth of the Viagra advertising, which has basically been equating desire with erections. If you can't tell the difference between love, sexual arousal, and an erection, then I suppose "Female Viagra" is a perfectly sensible name.
A few questions. I understand the mechanism is different in both drugs (and thank you for pointing that out, I had not seen how Flibanserin actually worked before).
1.) Can Viagra help women in a similar way as it helps men? Women too need increased blood flow for sexual activity (though, its unclear to me how important it is.)
2.) Can Flibanserin help men in the same way it helps women? If a man is suffering from a general lack of sexual desire, is it going to help (even minimally) with that?
Could you guys do a video on ADD / ADHD?
As an adult who struggles with never-ending mind fog and the attention span of a tree (while not on prescribed meds, which I take regularly), I'd love to hear what you guys know about the condition and what what significant research has been done. Ex. do neural stimulation therapies (TNS, the Fisher Wallace Stimulator, etc) show any potential as an alternative treatment to traditional stimulants?!
I shared this with my wife. We are both surprised that a woman would take *anything* to stimulate or increase sexual desire -- never mind the side effects. The whole point of the drug is make women receptive to sex and that flies in the face of the fact that women are not the ones asking for sex. Men are. Maybe what we really need is a drug that tamps down the sexual desire of men so that they won't go out creating new drugs for their girlfriends to take so that they can have sex.
+Elliott Alvarado The reason to reject your notion has an ideological and a factual side.
Ideologically its pretty clear that after years of suppression of the female sexual drive by various instituations such as the church, the state, the culture, the community, other women, nobody really wants to hear that all of this can be justified by an inherently low libido of women. you can't explain all of the history of sexual repression simply by a wink to biology, there are just too many factors involved here.
Another thing that troubles me is your picture of men as insatiable sexual creature and women as beings who trade off sex for security. This kind of thinking directly leads to a justification of the veil that women have to wear in, for example, Saudi Arabia, to not attract too much male attention.
The sexual desire of men also can be influenced by a lot of things such as stress, lack of sports, low testosterone or simply a low sex drive in general and is not as raw and animal-like as you seem to see it.
Okay, I only got anectdotes for the factual side, but I will look up some facts as soon as I can. But I simply feel like the presence of "Sex and the City" "50 shades of grey" "Magic Mike" etc. simplay has to tell us something! But of course feelings are feelings and finding truth through culture is not the best way to go about that.
"I would say that the cultural norm is for ladies to have sexual drive equal to their partners but that is NOT what they feel."
You can't know how another person is feeling or is not feeling. All you can ever do is assuming things about them, maybe even having an informed assumption, backing up your belief with scientific studies, but it is an assumption nonetheless. Ultimately the subjective reality of the person we are talking about trumps any assumptions, however informed, we are having.
Of course the reality that this person describes can and should be doubted, like someone who says he experienced god, an assumption which is in conflict with my system of belief, but yet all we are left with is that we think that it is unlikely that a certain person experiences a certain reality, but we can't really prove it.
+MrJoeRedford That's true for the first few years of a relationship. After that, the man's desire remains at stratospheric levels while the female's crashes. The same is true for lesbian vs. gay relationships, the guys are basically banging it out all the time and the girls give up on any pretense of sexual desire. I would say that the cultural norm is for ladies to have sexual drive equal to their partners but that is NOT what they feel.
+Adam Covington http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare AND http://io9.com/5977668/do-men-really-have-higher-sex-drives-than-women AND http://www.everydayhealth.com/sexual-health/low-libido.aspx AND http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71520.pdf AND https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive
Saying it's about time makes it sound as though female sexual dysfunction is ignored by drug companies as if developing a drug that can make them billions is something in which they have no interest. As discussed here, the problem in women is likely mental and those drugs are more difficult to develop, even by accident. And even this drug doesn't seem to be anything too special, all things considered. The idea that women's diseases don't get attention and funding is laughable. It's not as though drug companies sat down and realized that they only had enough money to treat sexual dysfunction in men or women and chose men. In both cases the discoveries were accidental.
+unepommeverte17 No, if you where paying attention, the video stated that you need to take the drugs for weeks (4 to 8 according to the study) before it will take effect. Unless you are slipping the same women this drug every day/night for weeks, it would be useless. At best it would cause a very slight increase in drowsiness, but any over the counter sleep aid would be 1000 time more effective, as well as cheaper and easier.
what I'm curious about is why this effect is in women and not both genders. i know there are physical differences, and differences is signal chains and responses of/to neurotransmitters... but does it not do anything in men? or does it jsut do something else? or was it jsut because no one studied it figuring.. guys are horny enough?
are our brains really so different that it would do nothing in a guys brain but turn on the sexy time switch in a woman?
+SuperWild1 The problem with the research is that it's so hard to separate what's inherent and what's learnt. How to you create a control experiment in those conditions
I wonder if maybe trans people have a brain more like that of the gender they identify with than the one they were assigned at birth. And then there's the question of non-binary people
There are indeed huge differences between the male and female brain, and scientists have not yet found the true extent of them. Females and males have natural tendencies that separate them in behavior, and that behavior comes from the brain. I'm not trying to be sexist or against trans people when I say this, just drawing conclusions from current psychology research.
Slightly better than placebo. Trials conducted by pharmaceutical company that answers to a board of directors. Barely made it by the FDA who is supposedly "neutral". A lot of hype in the media..... Hmm..... sounds like someone's just trying to make a quick buck. I hope the only damage this does is financial as the stakes are much higher.
My one fear is that partners will start pushing this drug on their spouse if she's being "frigid".
I'm also afraid for all the women who are asexual or on the asexuality spectrum and might not know it yet. They might think that this drug may "cure" them, when it turns out they weren't sick or "broken" to begin with, they just had a different sexual orientation.
+Inorganic Vegan (I should note first that I often read your posts and frequently like them first of all) I think you are misunderstanding the concern. You are right to say there is an improbability of using viagra in a unethical/illegal way but the concerns OP brought up about people of asexual orientation are much different because this group of people is not generally within our cultural mind, it is very easy to imagine if not laws or policy of asexual "treatment" (as homosexuality is "treated" in many places still) that people in relationships could be routinely strong armed.
And yes you should take precautions at parties and in general, but quite frankly most rapes aren't "oops I didn't watch for random person at party" and more often intimate partner and person I trust decides to strong arm, and as this is a public space it is probably best to assume that maybe someone will come along who has been exploited by someone they trusted could be reading and could blame themselves and maybe gets emotional when people say "You need to take personal responsibility" when talking about rape and sexual assault.
(I hope you don't read this as an angry comment, I think you are a generally smart person)
Telling you to take precautions since the world is filled with bad people =/= victim blaming. A rape is always a rapist's fault. However, it's not bad to tell you to lock your metaphorical doors and windows.
+Inorganic Vegan Wow. Just wow with the victim blaming. I was going to let the "feminist paranoia" go, but with the victim blaming..... You're a terrible person that doesn't think of women as people. You may not be aware of that, but you are.
No one should have to watch their drink at a party. I do, and I'm not even a woman, because I know that people like you are terrible. But that's not the way it should be.
But that's beside the point. Flibaserin isn't something that's going into a drink. It's long term, requiring months, so it's only going to work in long term relationships. Where's the "personal responsibility" and "watching your drink" when it's your husband that's trying to keep you from saying "no"?
Let me guess, you're one of those people who believe you can't rape your wife, aren't you?
For Flibanserin you listed the change in mean score but for Viagra you listed the means for placebo and Viagra treatment groups. That seems very deceptive to me. I guess I have to sift through the research myself now :/
So, the way you describe this makes me think that it would work for men as well. Is that true? I mean, I know the stereotype is that men never need help being aroused, but I'm sure there are men who would benefit from increased sexual desire as well. Not that asexuality is a disease that needs to be cured, but if it works shouldn't people who want to try it have the opportunity to?
This is bad, women don't 'need' some drug to be sexually functional like men may do, especially with all the sex aides focused on women's arousal. This is basically abusing drugs to get into a unnatural mental state where you will have sex. Why not just drop a few tabs of acid or get high some other way to mess up your brain to make it 'horny'.
That is totally wrong. There's plenty of women like me who have to take birth control, but it totally zaps their ability to get aroused. All libido, just GONE. Even when I mentally want to have sex with my husband, and we try, it's often painful or impossible because my body just won't respond. Imagine a man trying to have sex without an erection, it just doesn't work.
+billyboblingwa1 Yes, yes we do, because if we're not turned on it is both painful and sometimes impossible to have sex due to the lack of a lubrication, the vagina not expanding, while a lack of increased bloodflow to the vagina, vulva and clitoris makes it just not enjoyable.
As for 'unnatural mental state' Alcohol, smoking, antidepressants, coffee and a million and million and one other things all do this.
Maybe this drug is the wrong one, but the whole concept of a drug like this is a great one, and I'd love to hear about a better one in the future
+billyboblingwa1 People eat to become happy, to overcome a breakup, to curb depression. We ingest things to bring us to different mental states all the time.
It is not abusing if you're not over using a drug for the effect it is supposed to treat.
If a woman wants to be able to enjoy a better sexual experience with her partner, why stop her from trying?
And this requires a conscious decision by the woman herself to take a regular dosage, it requires her own consent in the first place. This is nothing like taking psychoactive drugs to become high.
At first, I was like "yeah, why do males get viagra, and females don't", as he mentioned it. Then he went on to explain it...and how females using this gets a whole additional 1/28 of a satisfying sexual encounter per day on average.... which is rather ridiculous.
No, it's not personalized medicine, it's making sure people aren't screwed out of their money for products that don't work.
If I told you, "Here, this will stop your pain" and instead, for 90% of those who take it, it intensifies it.
Oh, for 10% of people it stopped the pain. That clearly means it's fit for service. Stamp a couple hundred dollar price tag on it, and sell it as medicine.
1. "I did not say "everyone" had to benefit from it, but it needs to be a large enough number, or else it's literally nothing but stealing from people - especially in the medical department where they have nowhere else to turn."
Fair enough, but you did seem to imply that everyone had to benefit. Regardless, once you start down the "large enough number" path, you have to start discussing where to draw the line. Is one person enough, ten, one hundred, ten thousand? Where do you draw the line? More importantly, do you deny the benefits of something simply because others don't benefit? How large of a consequence must be suffered by the "non-benefiters" to justify pulling the drug/banning it? I'd argue that a simple monetary investment to see if the drug works or not is hardly an undue burden and certainly not reason to prevent others from having access.
2. "If they actually identified the specific group who benefits from this, and have it clearly printed on the label, then I could see the argument, but from their studies, no, just the majority of the time, it did no work."
The concept you describe, personalized medicine or individual prescribing, has been a holy grail since the genetic revolution. Unfortunately, it is difficult, time consuming and expensive to not only identify the gene variants and create tests for them, but to understand how all the variants interact with one another and with environmental factors and then apply all of that to every patient. What you are describing would be great, but is not on the horizon for most drugs or medical conditions. It just won't be common in our lifetime.
As to the results of their study, I think you are mistaken. The study shows significant results in terms of:
A. Sexual Distress,
B. Sexual Desire, and
C. Satisfying Sexual Episodes (SSE)
when compared to placebo. These changes are seen in premenopausal and postmenopausal women.
Low sex drive is a concern for about 1 in 10 women. That is a lot people who want to see their sex drive restored. SSEs increased in the trial from 2.5 to 5 per month, on average, for women on flibanserin. In other words, flibanserin doubled the number of SSEs. Placebos only increased the number to 2.7 , which means flibanserin tripled SSEs over what the placebo did (only 0.8 of the increased SSEs can be attributed to placebo effect). Those are very significant results.
+MewCat100 I did not say "everyone" had to benefit from it, but it needs to be a large enough number, or else it's literally nothing but stealing from people - especially in the medical department where they have nowhere else to turn.
If they actually identified the specific group who benefits from this, and have it clearly printed on the label, then I could see the argument, but from their studies, no, just the majority of the time, it did no work.
+SangoProductions21 Let's break down what you have said into two parts.
1. "Because the drug is not free. And if the drug doesn't do what it is advertised to do (which most said it did not), then it violates trade laws, in which this is not fit for its purpose."
The drug does do what it is supposed to do, just not for everyone. Plenty of products only work well for some people and not others. Under your argument, everything from toothpaste to shampoo to all pharmaceuticals would violated trade law just because some people don't derive any response or have a limited response. You can't claim that just because something only works for a minority of people that it is therefore ineffective and shouldn't be given to anyone. Human physiology is far too varied and far too poorly understood for you to make such an argument. We'd have no drugs, no medical devices, and no surgical options if we followed the logic that it must benefit everyone, 100% of the time, or it can't be used.
2. "Also, some people "see benefits" from snake oil. We should sell that as a legal drug too."
You are making a faulty analogy here. The results indicate that some people show a response to the drug that is statistically significant when compared to placebo. There are real effects here that go beyond a placebo effect. Even if they are mild or only affect some people, that doesn't change the fact that they exist. This is common for a number of drugs, including commonly prescribed things like SSRIs, and even for some types of surgery.
+MewCat100 Because the drug is not free. And if the drug doesn't do what it is advertised to do (which most said it did not), then it violates trade laws, in which this is not fit for its purpose.
Also, some people "see benefits" from snake oil. We should sell that as a legal drug too.
Why is it only being focused on women? There are men who also have low to no sexual desire, yes probably fewer of them, but still. It might help those out there who are feeling that it's just the government trying to squash female sexual empowerment if it wasn't just targeted at women. Anyways, it sounds relatively useless from what I'm grasping.
In reference to your vibrator comment, no. That's not going to fix it, because many women like me want a drug like that because they started birth control, and had their libido totally zapped. My husband and I can't afford a baby, but now there's not even a slight risk, because I can almost never have sex, even when I want to and try. It's awful, and horrible. Please don't make such comments like that again. Thank you.
+Charlotte Burnside Because of market force economics most likely. Pharmaceutical companies are desperate to have a "female Viagra" as there is a massive market there, the "new male sexual desire drug" will still compete with Viagra and all the other drugs like it, where is Flibanserin will be the "only game in town" for women. It is FAR FAR less about solving a problem and far more about making lots of money off a new market.
I would bet 1 to 10 odds that a good vibrator will increase women "satisfying sexual events" by more then 1 per month which is the effect results of Flibanserin. As would having an open take on their sexual desires. But screw that, Pharmaceutical companies can't make much money off that, not in comparison $300+ per month you know this new drug will cost.
Sorta kinda. You have to pick a date but when 69 is available, you just go for it.
Later we even put the date on our license plates just so we can play innocent when people ask why we drive a custom 69 license plate :p
I'm glad to hear that it requires a period of many days to take effect, at least: my first thought on hearing about this being called "female viagra" and that it could increase sexual activity was "date rape drug on steroids": now, the victim would be WILLING to accept their rapists' advances instead of having the obvious red flag of passing out and not remembering anything - making it a lot harder to prove that an actual rape took place and making victims that much less likely to seek help since they'd have less evidence to show that it really happened.
I'm also glad to hear it's going to be prescription only so that only trained medical professionals have control over it who can be held accountable. My only real question now: how affordable is it going to be for those who do qualify for it?
+Inorganic Vegan If it takes a substance that alters a person's mental state to make them agree to sex, it's rape. "Consent" that wouldn't be given in a non-medicated, sober state is not truly consent.
+darkmage07070777 There are far far more potent drugs out there that are used to increase sexual desire and pleasure from sex. Increasing suggestibility though is extremely hard and I don't see how anyone could think there's something out there that'd make someone willing to get raped.
It seems dubious to me that something like this might get approved based on how it performs against placebo. There may not be a widely and officially recognized standard of care, but I feel like if you go to a doc and complain about an overly weak sex drive they'd probably have you try some antidepressants. (Wellbutrin specifically if Wikipedia is to be believed)
+lloydgush While you don't need sexual arousal for an erection, that's, in my experience at least, the most common cause. The point is more that Viagra doesn't create an erection, as is often portrayed in the media, it allows one to be able to form.
It really pisses me off that some news outlets couldn't be arsed to get the 18-6 vs. 0-18-6 distinction right. If they thought people wouldn't understand it, maybe they should do their job and *make* people understand it.
+DanThePropMan That's assuming THEY understand the distinction. When it comes to science, journalists have to take an issue they don't understand and frame it for people who understand it even less. Meanwhile, there's no money, strict deadlines, lots of competition, and consumers reward pandering, irresponsible stories. I suspect most people smart enough to report on health and science issues get out of the industry.
Has there been any research on taking flibanserin with SSRIs? I think one of the largest groups of women who could benefit from this drug would be those on SSRIs (the side effects of which often include decreased sex drive) but it seems that the two drugs would likely not interact well.
+Healthcare Triage Can you please do a video explaining how to find studies about topics we are interested in? For example, I was looking for a study done with salicylic acid and it is hard to find search results for a proper study that gives you any data on whether it actually reduces acne.
+Healthcare Triage Why wasn't this drug tested on men, too? It should work for them just as well. And I think it would take a lot of the controversy away. Only marketed for women it has this stale aftertaste of saying that women in general have a lower sexdrive than men and labeling this lower sexdrive as something wrong or sick. Which it's not in most cases.
Take between 30 and 60 minutes (and up to 4 hours) before sex; works for about 4 hoursRecommended dose for most men is 50mgs; after that, dosage may go to as high as 100mg, or as low as 25mg, which may be prescribed for men over 65.Quickly absorbed by the body, less effective after a high-fat meal, and best taken on an empty stomach. Erectile Dysfunction Drugs Comparison Chart Compare Viagra, Cialis, Levitra
Take 1 hour before sex; works for 4 to 5 hours, and may be slightly more effective than ViagraStarting dose for most men is 10mgs a day, but men over 65 often start on the 5mg pill.Can be taken with or without food, although slightly less effective after a high-fat meal. Avoid anything containing grapefruit juice; it may make side effects worse. Cialis New Viagra for femalesAchat Cialis sans ordonnanceWhat if a woman took CialisGeneric Cialis cheapest priceBuy Viagra for cheapHow does Viagra worksViagra delivery UKCialis works goodFree Viagra order online Comes in two forms. The daily pill stays effective in between doses, but may take 4 to 5 days before it begins working. The “weekender” version of Cialis can start working in as little as 30 minutes for men who take the highest dose of the drug (20mgs); it stays effective in the body for up for 36 hours.Daily pill comes in both a 2.5mg and 5mg tablet; most men start with the lower dose. The use-as-needed, “weekender” pill comes in 5, 10 and 20mg strengths; recommended starting dose is 10mg,Can be taken with or without food. Avoid heavy drinking (5 glasses of wine or 5 shots of whiskey); when combined with Cialis, it can lead to headaches, dizziness, an increase in heart rate, and a drop in blood pressure.