Let's talk about the elegant absurdity of using Clomid for men. For decades, if a man's testosterone factory was failing, the solution was simple: we put the factory on welfare. We piped in foreign testosterone (TRT) and let the local machinery rust. It's effective, but it's a one-way street. The factory never learns to work again; in fact, it's incentivized to shut down completely.

But Clomid... Clomid is a different beast entirely. This is not a subsidy. This is a hostile takeover of the boardroom. It's a drug designed for female hardware that we deploy to trick the male brain's command center. It blinds the pituitary's sensors to estrogen, causing it to panic and scream at the factory downstairs: "MAKE MORE OF EVERYTHING! NOW!"

It is a forced, chemically-induced system reboot. So here is my question, and it's a fundamental one about medical philosophy: When you choose to reboot a system instead of replacing its output, what are you betting on?

Are you betting that the factory itself isn't fundamentally broken, just lazy? That the management is asleep at the wheel and just needs a metaphorical kick in the pants? Are you trying to see if the system can still self-sustain before committing to a lifetime of external supply?

When do you send the drill sergeant, and when do you just accept that the war is over and start importing your supplies?

I am genuinely curious about your strategic thinking here.