Whoever invents a pill that makes your penis bigger will be a trillionaire. How is it that nobody has figured that out?
Also, one of the issues with minoxidil is that it is a prodrug, the active form is minoxidil sulfate, and some people don't express sulfotransferase as much in the skin to be able to make that conversion. If minoxidil doesn't work for you, then you want to either use oral minoxidil (the liver will activate it to minoxidil sulfate, the side effect of that is you will have enhanced hair growth through your entire body), or a compounded topical that has tretinoin, since that helps upregulate sulfotransferase in the skin.
I don't have an opinion on how often minoxidil should be applied, but your reasoning here is wrong. If the treatment works when a particular concentration is maintained, you could absolutely need to apply a drug with a half-life of 22 hours twice a day.
For example, many anti-depressants have half-lives of a few days, but patients still take them once or even twice a day.
The only relationship between half-life and daily dose is initial ramp-up vs sustained treatment. That is, a treatment usually has a targeted amount of a substance being maintained in the body during the sustained treatment, and then the ramp-up and any adjustment needs to be done taking into consideration that the pill you took yesterday may still be 3/4 still in your body today.
The trouble is, once hair loss is visually noticeable you've already lost about 50% density, and most people don't notice their hairline slowly receding.
For some people its not.
The point remains though, if you were able to know that you would go bald, and started taking finasteride or dutasteride before noticeable hair loss starts, that would likely be sufficient for life.
I remember Bill Gates in some video said that pharma companies spend lots of money on research to prevent hair loss, grow hair compared compared to research on diseases like malaria etc.
Well if he says it.
> Gates answers, "No," which by itself could be interpreted as him standing up for intellectual property law and refusing to share vaccine formulas with developing nations. But then Gates goes on to answer the inevitable follow up question: "Why not?"
> The reason, Gates said, is due to the complexity of manufacturing safe vaccines.
> "There are only so many vaccine factories in the world, and people are very serious about the safety of vaccines," he said. "The thing that's holding things back in this case isn't intellectual property. It's not like there's some idle vaccine factory with regulatory approval that makes magically safe vaccines. You've gotta do the trials on these things. And every manufacturing process has to be looked at in a very careful way."
> Moreover, Gates said getting COVID vaccine manufacturers like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson to share vaccine formulas has already happened — such as the case with India.
> "We got all the rights from the vaccine companies," he said. "They didn't hold it back, they were participating."
We're not selling penis mightiers
Well you're sitting on a goldmine Trebek"
It's not clear to me this is true. I think there may be some niche market, but I think most men wouldn't even consider something like this.
A few people mentioned viagra, which has made a lot of money, but that's not about size.
I remember reading a long time ago that there is some kind of "enlargement" surgery available, but that the motivation is almost exclusively the "locker room" rather than a sexual issue.
Anyway, I'm sure that an invention as you describe may be interesting to some niche, but I don't believe it's one of the worlds burning problems, which is why it hasn't had any serious study.
girth is doable, length, not so much, is my understanding.
Otherwise, I was serious, I don't think penis enlargement is high enough on most people's priorities that the field attracts any real R&D investment.
I know of blunt statements and blunt/blunted knife blades but maybe I misunderstood your usage of the word. Care to explain?