Evidence for the human VNO is highly questionable

[jvkohl]

BM Pause
Is the human skin a pheromone-producing organ?
J Cosmet Dermatol 1 Dec 2004

3(4): p. 223.
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/medline/pmid;17166110

"It has been suggested

that humans might have a special organ within their nose that can transmit such chemosensory information. However,

the evidence for this organ is highly questionable. In any case, the main olfactory system is a highly diverse

system, capable of transmitting pheromonal information."

JVK

[tounge]

What I would like to know is, if

this is more of a warning system to warn of chosing wrongly, then why do millions of people make the wrong choice?

And I'm not really looking for anyone to answer,as I have my own theories. Just food for thought.

[jvkohl]

What I would like to

know is, if this is more of a warning system to warn of chosing wrongly, then why do millions of people make the

wrong choice? And I'm not really looking for anyone to answer,as I have my own theories. Just food for

thought.

When referring to choice, the implication is choice for producing the most fit of offspring,

not for long-term relationships. Or simply put, the choice to exhibit more "animalistic" behaviors--driven by

scent.

JVK

[tounge]

When referring to

choice, the implication is choice for producing the most fit of offspring, not for long-term relationships. Or

simply put, the choice to exhibit more "animalistic" behaviors--driven by

scent.

JVK




The choice for fit offspring would be for

a physical factor only. The equally important mental and emotional wellbeing for that offspring, would be better

served by a stable, long-term relationship.

[ratspeaker]

There is a theory that women

form pair bonds for a long term relationship with a homely nestmaking male whilst seeking to procreate outside that

pair-bond with an alpha type male in order to gain the best genetics.

[ratspeaker]

Anyway - that digresses from

the topic but does suggest trying to be alpha male will get you laid more - all the girlies love a baddie!?

I

agree that evidence for a functional VNO is scant. I also consider a fully fuctional pheromonal system unlikely,

we have evolved beyond that. Variations in this..i.e variations in responsiveness to putative pheromones would be

expected if what we are seeing is the remnants of a pheromonal system that we no longer require.

If a VNO is used

in other species as the receptor for pheromonal communication why would nature be different in the case of

humans?

[jvkohl]

I agree that

evidence for a functional VNO is scant. I also consider a fully fuctional pheromonal system unlikely, we have

evolved beyond that. Variations in this..i.e variations in responsiveness to putative pheromones would be expected

if what we are seeing is the remnants of a pheromonal system that we no longer require.

To avoid more

debate about any theory that anyone else might want to add to this discussion (pair-bonding; choice for reproductive

fitness; maternal/paternal investment strategies), I would like interested parties to examine a partial list of my

current memberships.

American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
Society for Neuroscience
Society

for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology
Association for Chemoreception Sciences
Society for the Scientific Study of

Sexuality
International Society for Human Ethology
Mensa

I dropped my membership in the Human Behavior

and Evolution Society after several years; there was too little "hard" science.

"ratspeaker" helps to bring

"hard" science to the forefront of this discussion thread, albeit without the scientific jargon to which I have

become accustomed.



If a VNO is used in other species as the receptor for pheromonal

communication why would nature be different in the case of humans?

After discussion with colleagues

and members from the list of organizations above; discussion with friends, and in response to the Q+A that

invariable follows either my presentations or my publications, I have prepared the review that I've mentioned

several times on this Forum. It will be published soon in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality and

concurrently as a book chapter. It explains--in great detail (53 pages)--why human nature is different, including

the nature of human pheromonal communication (e.g., without the VNO)--and both directly and indirectly answers

ratspeaker's question.

However, it has recently come to my attention that most Forum members don't care

whether, or if, human nature is different, and whether or not we have a VNO. Their presence here seems primarily

based on a response to marketing claims, and several have stated that they have little regard for the science. This

is apparent, as it was in my prior debates with the long-absent "DrSmellThis" who to this day remains anonymous to

you. It is ever more currently apparent in any attempt at debate with the anonymous Archetypical Hybrid (HEC) who

remains anonymous to you--and simply ignores any VNO (or other) controversy by telling you that JVK is

wrong.

As always, you have your choice. Believe anonymous individuals and their claims, or learn more about

human pheromonal communication. You can learn more by reading what I have written in book, journal, or newsletter

publication, or by visiting one of my websites. Or you can try to learn more from anonymous sources who make

unsupported claims.

Because "ratspeaker" and a few others have obviously examined the topic of human

pheromonal communication, and summarized a legitimate question about the human VNO, I will state

unequivocally:

A human VNO is not required for pheromones to elicit the hormone response that links our

social environment to the hormonal pathway linked to many variations in human (and other animal)

behavior.

The most likely reason that a human VNO is not required, is because our pheromone and

hormone-driven behavior involves more brain-power. Unlike other animals that respond to pheromones with

stereotypical behaviors, our responses are more idiosyncratic--because, unlike other animals, we usually "think"

before we respond.

It is our genetic programming combined with life's experiences that allow for the wealth

of diversity in our responses, but our animalistic nature that somewhat limits them to the comparable sterotypical

responses of other animals.

Researchers have detailed all, or nearly all, of the factors involved in these

sterotypical and idiosyncratic responses. Marketers would have you believe that you can elicit a stereotypical

response from another person simply by using their product/ingredients.

I'm spending too much time on

this Forum, when many of you can readily find answers to your questions without my presence

here.

JVK

[Tiger4]

Is the VNO equivalent to the

Jacobson's organ which is highly developed in certain snakes like the pit vipers and other

reptiles?


BM Pause
Is the human skin a pheromone-producing organ?
J Cosmet Dermatol 1 Dec

2004 3(4): p.

223.
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/medline/pmid;17

166110 (http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/medline/pmid;17166110)

"It has been suggested that humans might have a special organ within their nose that can transmit

such chemosensory information. However, the evidence for this organ is highly questionable. In any case, the main

olfactory system is a highly diverse system, capable of transmitting pheromonal information."



JVK
(http:///)

[Gegogi]

JVK writes, "The most

likely reason that a human VNO is not required, is because our pheromone and hormone-driven behavior involves more

brain-power. Unlike other animals that respond to pheromones with stereotypical behaviors, our responses are more

idiosyncratic--because, unlike other animals, we usually "think" before we respond.

It is our genetic

programming combined with life's experiences that allow for the wealth of diversity in our responses, but our

animalistic nature that somewhat limits them to the comparable sterotypical responses of other

animals."

Thanks for that. I'm a little surprised you penned that response as you tend to stick to

straight physiological and biological facts. I suspect said discourse is about as close to scientific speculation as

I've read from you on this forum! I guess I should call it a theory as it's surrounded with supporting facts! The

"wealth of diversity in our responses" is something I've noticed and tried to clumsily express (I don't know jack

about VNO, so not that part). Many endusers of pheromone products expect their targets to react like insects or

lower animals and, of course, human behavior ain't so simple, and they're disappointed.

[belgareth]

To some of us the point isn't

whether we care about the existence of the VNO but the refusal to be involved in a debate we know nothing about. In

my own case I am not going to judge the debate but am going to keep the debate on civil terms, a challenge I've had

you you, JVK, more than once. As I explained to you in other discussions, I'll happily discuss any area I am

knowledgable in but do not presume to claim knowledge in the biological sciences.

Some things I will point out.

One is that a person exercising their right to keep their identity confidential on a forum designed to provide for

that right in no way reduces the value of their argument or point of view. Nor is a person's argument strengthened

by making either direct or subtle pot shots at their opponents. The other is that memberships only prove memberships

and do not in any way prove the validity of a person's argument. I know very well how many points of view can come

out of any of those groups and how much dispute can be heard during their meetings. Reference to membership in

various organizations is much like the completely circular statement of "My point here is correct and I can prove it

by referencing something else I wrote". Verbosity in no way lessens the circularity of an argument. Nor does

attacking a person's claim to an NDA. If one really exists, and I do not know either way, it has to be strictly

adhered too, especially on a public forum where an unintended viewer could easily cause all sorts of trouble for the

author.

From a purely mechanical perspective, the statement is made that the VNO does not exist. But I do not

recall (could be memory loss problems too) that you have ever presented any alternative to the VNO with any

supporting evidence. Pheromones must be detected by some organ, whether it is the VNO or some other known or

hypothetical organ is an important point. It has to be detected somehow. Your argument against the VNO would be

strengthened far more by demonstration of the detecting organs than by what I consider petty and small minded

personal attacks. Please go back to the science instead of making pointless arguments about people excercising

rights to not show their identity on this forum.

[Mungojerry]

From a purely mechanical perspective, the statement is made that the VNO

does not exist. But I do not recall (could be memory loss problems too) that you have ever presented any alternative

to the VNO with any supporting evidence. Pheromones must be detected by some organ, whether it is the VNO or some

other known or hypothetical organ is an important point. It has to be detected somehow. Your argument against the

VNO would be strengthened far more by demonstration of the detecting organs than by what I consider petty and small

minded personal attacks. Please go back to the science instead of making pointless arguments about people

excercising rights to not show their identity on this forum.
1) Belgareth, JVK has

repeatedly presented an alternative to the VNO: detection through the normal olfactory region of the nose.

Apparently, the neural pathways from this region to the necessary parts of the brain



To quote from his last review...



"The axons of the sensory cells enter the olfactory bulb. Sensory input is then projected via

the olfactory tract into the olfactory lobe of the brain. From here, olfactory input is projected via the thalamus

to the neocortex and to the limbic system. This pathway allows olfactory stimuli to be consciously detected and

interpreted, but also allows olfactory stimuli to directly influence the neuroendocrinology of

emotions."

Unlike VNO research, therefore, the necessary pathways for

pheromones to influence the feelings and behaviour of others are well documented. This would seem an entirely solid

alternative to the VNO.

However, I'm not personally saying the VNO is not functional. Lack of evidence of a

pathway at present is not unequivocal proof of non-functionality.

The functionality of the VNO in

animals is some reason for suspecting functionality. Furthermore, the apparent depolarisation effect some substances

appear to have on the VNO in humans suggest that the organ may, at least in part, be intact.

However, so far I

haven't seen good published evidence that VNO depolarisation in humans correlates with an emotional

or behavioural response, nor any evidence that a pathway exists linking the VNO to the necessary brain areas.



Ultimately I would conclude that we can't yet say for certain. However, we are comparing one pathway,

identified by JVK that would seem to have all the necessary and sufficient properties for pheromone detection, with

another that is almost complete speculation unless we rely on the word of people who don't/can't publish their

data.

I for one welcome it every time JVK posts an abstract/link that confirms the validity of his position. It

adds to my understanding of the subject and the understanding of everyone else on this board, if they bothered to

read it. I only wish people on the other side of the argument would do the same.



2) That the opponents of JVKs position do not point to published evidence is extremely

important and it is entirely valid for him to raise! I don’t really care so much if it is labelled “small minded”,

it is something that we have to consider. If, for example, I said pheromones were detected by the ear, but not

present any evidence for it [or say my evidence is secret] does not put my argument on an equal footing as the

argument that they are detected by the olfactory region of the nose.



3) Referencing qualifications is not the be all and end all. Ultimately in a high-knowledge

environment it is best to go purely on the logic and evidence, not any prior qualification. However, in a

low-information environment I’d rather trust someone with a large number of qualifications in this regard than my

local taxi driver. I also view it as valid to raise this point.





Finally, JVK is a huge asset to this forum and I do not view anything

he has stated as being out of line.

[belgareth]

That's fine, you are entitled

to your point of view. I have had to stop several people from making unwarranted personal attacks far too many times

now. The rules of engagement are plain and will be enforced. Debate all you want but the moment it starts getting

personal I will step in, period. I welcome JVK's posts as well but have an obligation to the forum membership as a

whole and will not permit attacks on any member. I've stepped in on JVKs behalf before too.

Perhaps I am more

sensitive to the obligation to strictly adhere to non-disclosure than others. Having grown up around researchers in

the nucleur industry and now owning a business where I see doctors' and lawyers' client files in the normal course

of my work makes me much more understanding of the inability to share information due to legal ramifications. You

simply have to accept it and move on. In time it may come available or it may be disproven or it may never be shown.

I don't know and in this particular debate I am utterly unqualified to make judgements on the claims.

Perhaps

you are right in your choice on which argument to favor, I'm not favoring either. I am simply noting the

circularity of the argument. As I noted, I was not completely sure that JVK did not present an alternative. I left

that open with the comment about memory loss. Getting older and having way too many other things on my mind can do

that.

[ratspeaker]

JVK - I do not doubt you

credentials one iota. I have read with interest some of your publications along with many others by scientists who

claim equal kudos. The science is hard and lacks consensus even amongst the so called experts in the field. A

forum such as this needs the jargon stripped out. If simplified the science might appeal to more people on this

forum who may then make a more informed choice about the 'products' presented by the marketeers.

I stayed away

from this forum precisely because the interest in the science waned and the quality of the posts descended to the

level of "I put x drops of this and y drops of that on a, b and c body points and had a couple of chicks twiddle

their hair and twitch their legs" scenario. Sometimes even slightly skeptic remarks regarding the effects of these

concoctions would have the 'fans' posting avid descriptions of how 15 drops of superwonder mix had every chick in

the nightclub performing lordosis. I am not that fickle. I wish to ask the "hard" scientific questions of those

who profess to have done the science.

As I have indicated, it is very hard to measure the effects of these

putative pheromones as human pair bonding is far too complex for a controlled study to have real meaning. When you

start asking the "hard" questions - what is a hit? Are my expectations making me more aware of people’s reactions to

me? Can I be sure that this effect is down to my scent additives? Etc. - You find that it becomes much harder to

accept that anything you notice is significant enough to be a positive response in a scientific sense.

I agree

with the sentiment that most of the posters on this board seem more interested in "bouncing hope" off each other

than looking coldly at the science and being harshly objective about their results. They probably don't care if

the "VNO" exists or if pheromonal response can be elicited via the olfactory pathways. They just care about their

purchases working and eliciting the behavioral changes that the marketeers promise. Unfortunately, the changes

elicited have so far, at least those that have been measured in a credible manner, appear to be mild alterations in

mood. Hardly a spectacular demonstration of a fully functional human pheromonal system. Hence my assertion, which

is of course a personal opinion, that it is my belief that humans have been and are continuing to evolve away from

having and needing pheromonal communication. Thus the VNO would, accordingly be confined to the same status as our

appendix. A remnant of something we used to have. What remains is the fact that smell is a primitive (i.e.

ancient) sense that appeals to us in a primal, sensual way. That may be interesting, that may cause a physiological

reaction, it may even alter hormone levels; but, unless it’s a subconscious, autonomic response I don’t think it can

be called a pheromonal response.

With a bit more thought and a bit more interest in the real deal, sites such as

this can be invaluable to researchers in this field. A large pool of people willing to field test new chemicals and

note the real world responses. Evidence based science. It may not have the rigorous control of a laboratory, but

it allows for testing on a massive scale. The trouble is the haphazard state of pheromonal research and the

hijacking of it by people who see pheromones as a path to a quick buck. People who talk up products for sales rather

than give honest opinions. All these things damage the reputation of the science of human attraction and relegate

the subject to the dustbin of the snake oil sellers.

That is why I stop lurking and give this board a kick from

time to time. In the vain hope that my ramblings may stimulate debate and further our knowledge of this subject.

[Gegogi]

You do realize this is a forum

for consumers of LS products and not for scientists? Some of us may find the science mildly interesting. Most of us

don't give rat's ass about it just wanta have fun. Pheromones are merely a social accessory in the realm of a new

doo, gym membership or nice shirt. For most they are not a lifestyle, religion or even a serious hobby. I'll put it

another way: most of us wouldn't be inclined to discuss and debate the underlying science behind the fabric in a

new shirt. We may be interested in the social reaction to the shirt or how it makes one appear. Consumer discussions

of pheromones are exactly the same. Besides, there are only a handful of forum members with the background to

understand and participate in scientific debate.

We probably spend most of our time on discussions of

relationships, dating and what the ideal man is than "I put x drops of this and y drops of that on a, b and c body

points and had a couple of chicks twiddle their hair and twitch their legs." If all we discussed was science and

hard facts on this forum, it would be a loney and boring place indeed. We could all glaze over quickly and go

elsewhere. If you need to debate science, there are places designed for such ramblings.

[belgareth]

I'd really like to see a mix

of both. There is no reason they cannot coexist here. The fact that some have no real interest in the science behind

it does not make them in any way less any more than a firm understanding and desire to discuss the details makes

them less important. Both aspects have their place here.

[Marlboro_man]

I guess it would only be

right for me to state my opinion as well. I enjoy the scientific debate as it gives me an avenue to learn about

things that interest me without having to filter through all the scientific jargon. That being said I think the

debate should be contained to seperate threads and not be had in the middle of another thread. In other words a

thread like this is a perfect place for this debate or maybe a special forum category for the science only, but I

don't want to read it when I am trying to see if 2 dabs of this and a splash of that worked.
JVK,
I treasure

your knowledge and expierience and thank you for dedicating alot of your free time to this forum. Clearly you have

a leg to stand on as almost everyone agree's SOE works.
HEC + others,
I value your opinions, and listen to them

with an open mind. Thank you for providing intelectual debate so that none of us become complacent.

To all

scientists:
I think it's only fair as a scientist to listen to the other person's point of view as we all are

right until proven wrong. Please keep the debates to the appropriate place (s) as I really do enjoy reading them

and I am not qualified to make an educated opinion but love learning.

[jvkohl]

Thanks for that. I'm

a little surprised you penned that response as you tend to stick to straight physiological and biological facts. I

suspect said discourse is about as close to scientific speculation as I've read from you on this

forum!

I agree, and also add that the operative word is "scientific."




...memberships only prove memberships and do not in any way prove the validity of a

person's argument...

The point I was trying to help make was that membership in several "scientific"

societies is one reason I have been exposed to many of the theories that occassionally pop up as new topics inviting

discussion. Membership in Mensa somewhat indicates that I might have the intellectual capacity to debate such

theories with other members of the "scientific" societies.


I guess I should call it a theory

as it's surrounded with supporting facts!

Whether it moves from the realm of speculation (e.g.,

opinion) to that of theory is determined by supporting facts. Supporting facts gleaned from discussion among members

of a scientific society count for little until the facts are documented (e.g., via publication of citable research).

In 1995 my book included scientific speculation based on citable research. By the time of its 2002 paperback

publication, the book encompassed all known aspects of pheromone theory, and my 2006 journal/book chapter

publication adds aspects that were not known--most of them until earlier this year.


The

"wealth of diversity in our responses" is something I've noticed and tried to clumsily express (I don't know jack

about VNO, so not that part). Many endusers of pheromone products expect their targets to react like insects or

lower animals and, of course, human behavior ain't so simple, and they're disappointed.

The last

paragraph of my forthcoming article/book chapter addresses this diversity, after first dismissing the human VNO,

which has been used to get people to "buy into" the "lower animal" approach.
--------------------
"Unconscious

affects that are manifest in the development of human sexual preferences are, by their nature, a part of diversified

life that few people think about. What we think about human sexual preferences becomes less meaningful when we

realize that most of sexual behavior is not what we cognitively think it should be. Indeed, the largest contributor

to sexual preferences that are manifest in the sexual behavior of any species appears to be unconscious affect.

This also appears to be the basis for diversified life."
----------------------


I've

stepped in on JVKs behalf before too.

Belgareth does an excellent (albeit, mostly thankless) job as a

moderator. It is especially important that people recognize their biases--as he does. My biases are clear to all, I

hope.


I'd really like to see a mix of both. There is no reason they cannot coexist

here.

My bias says that both science and blatant marketing cannot coexist here. When I start a

"Pheromone Research" thread that ends up in "Pheromone Discussion" with resultant attacks on my scientific approach

by an anonymous "marketer" who I happen to already know is affiliated with product marketing--despite his claims to

the contrary--there's going to be a problem with coexistence. I must opt out of discussion/debate, or be subjected

to unsupported comments, like "you're wrong." The anonymous marketer need say no more--and doesn't tell us why

I'm wrong. If I respond, my response generally is interpreted as taking pot shots at the anonymous marketer and his

lack of scientific support. Same thing if I try to inject some science into threads where anonymous marketers are

"working their audience", after already taking their pot shots at me and pheromone research in general.

If

this Forum were not moderated by someone I respect (despite his biases) I would have dropped out of sight long ago.

Instead, we've already seen at least one of my antagonists: DrSmellThis (what was the name of his product?), drop

out of sight. I'm willing to be patient and see how long it takes for other antagonists/marketers to drop out. At

that point, I hope we all see how quickly this Forum returns to "normal," which includes the normalcy that separates

discussion of Pheromone Research from more general Pheromone Discussion.



JVK

[bronzie]

drsmellthis never dropped out,

he just dropped in for awaile: personally, i never even thought he took anything serious, my opinon! lol: :lol:

:lol: :LOL: :run: :run: :welcome:

[bronzie]

My biases are

clear to all, I hope

hahahaha no kidding :blink:


its all good

[belgareth]

JVK,

First, thank you for

understanding most of my position. Now, excuse me for a minute while I whine about the tribulations of being a

moderator.

This job has demonstrated to me the fact that you can't please all the people all the time. Hell,

you can't please most of the people any of the time. In trying to do this job to the best of my abilities I have

been in a position to rule against friends and rule in favor of some I thought were absolute jackasses. There were

even times when I had to ban friends. Bruce and I have bumped heads a few times as have me and a number of others

here. In the end I am going to do what I believe is right which is all too often not what I really want to do. That

I irritate some people is just something I get to accept as part of the privilage of volunteering to help out here

while still managing my own affairs seperately. Oh well, life stinks sometimes. That I upset people with my

decisions still bothers me but there are very few times that I would undo my actions if given the chance. However, I

always listen to any objection but listen much better to somebody that has the courtesy to contact me in private to

discuss something in a reasonable fashion.

The second is an explanation. The intent of the Pheromone Research

forum is to post research links. We are trying to discourage debate there. What has been done to try to prevent

that, and not perfectly I admit, is to copy a research post to pheromone discussion if people want to debate it.

That leaves the original post alone and uncorrupted.

[tounge]

For what it's worth, I think you

are very fair. Stick to your principals and you will be fine. If you let it bother you too much it will be time to

hang it up, I officiate sporting contests. It is pretty much as you discribe but on a more personal level.

[Mungojerry]

That's

fine, you are entitled to your point of view. I have had to stop several people from making unwarranted personal

attacks far too many times now. The rules of engagement are plain and will be enforced. Debate all you want but the

moment it starts getting personal I will step in, period. I welcome JVK's posts as well but have an obligation to

the forum membership as a whole and will not permit attacks on any member. I've stepped in on JVKs behalf before

too.

Perhaps I am more sensitive to the obligation to strictly adhere to non-disclosure than others. Having

grown up around researchers in the nucleur industry and now owning a business where I see doctors' and lawyers'

client files in the normal course of my work makes me much more understanding of the inability to share information

due to legal ramifications. You simply have to accept it and move on. In time it may come available or it may be

disproven or it may never be shown. I don't know and in this particular debate I am utterly unqualified to make

judgements on the claims.

Perhaps you are right in your choice on which argument to favor, I'm not favoring

either. I am simply noting the circularity of the argument. As I noted, I was not completely sure that JVK did not

present an alternative. I left that open with the comment about memory loss. Getting older and having way too many

other things on my mind can do that.



Now, excuse me for a minute while I whine

about the tribulations of being a moderator.

This job has demonstrated to me the fact that you can't please

all the people all the time. Hell, you can't please most of the people any of the time. In trying to do this job to

the best of my abilities I have been in a position to rule against friends and rule in favor of some I thought were

absolute jackasses. There were even times when I had to ban friends. Bruce and I have bumped heads a few times as

have me and a number of others here. In the end I am going to do what I believe is right which is all too often not

what I really want to do. That I irritate some people is just something I get to accept as part of the privilage of

volunteering to help out here while still managing my own affairs seperately. Oh well, life stinks sometimes. That I

upset people with my decisions still bothers me but there are very few times that I would undo my actions if given

the chance. However, I always listen to any objection but listen much better to somebody that has the courtesy to

contact me in private to discuss something in a reasonable fashion.

The second is an explanation. The intent of

the Pheromone Research forum is to post research links. We are trying to discourage debate there. What has been done

to try to prevent that, and not perfectly I admit, is to copy a research post to pheromone discussion if people want

to debate it. That leaves the original post alone and uncorrupted.
Don't worry, nothing I said was

intended to be a sleight against your ability to be a moderator. This board seems, as far as I can tell, a

well-managed and interesting place post. I've moderated some boards myself [albeit much smaller than this one] and

frequently chair heated meetings: both can be thankless tasks even though they are undoubtly neccessary.

I did,

however, disagree with some of the statements you made in your resposne to JVK and wished to provide some reasonable

counter-arguments for you to consider.

[belgareth]

Don't worry,

nothing I said was intended to be a sleight against your ability to be a moderator. This board seems, as far as I

can tell, a well-managed and interesting place post. I've moderated some boards myself [albeit much smaller than

this one] and frequently chair heated meetings: both can be thankless tasks even though they are undoubtly

neccessary.

I did, however, disagree with some of the statements you made in your resposne to JVK and wished to

provide some reasonable counter-arguments for you to consider.

I understood what you meant, no problem.

I really meant what I said about you having the right to your opinion. It doesn't bother me.

You don't have

the history I have here and so your understanding is not the same as mine about individual personalities. I knew the

reasons for my actions and knew you didn't understand them. That's ok.

[jvkohl]

JVK,
......


The intent of the Pheromone Research forum is to post research links. We are trying to discourage debate there.

What has been done to try to prevent that, and not perfectly I admit, is to copy a research post to pheromone

discussion if people want to debate it. That leaves the original post alone and uncorrupted.

The

problem that I encounter is when others do not "debate" the research, they merely make statements that discredit it

(and thus, sometimes, me.) Unlike the approach of "ratspeaker" who asks about other VNO research that shows

activation (or not), we have folks like DrSmellThis and Archetypical Hybrid (HEC) who merely toss aside the original

(research based) content, and proceed with what I consider to be marketing BS. Eventually, DrSmellThis came out with

a product, and only a minimal amount of time passed before Archetypical Hybrid (HEC)'s marketing attempt became

more clear to those who are still unfamiliar with his associates.

It seems fair that I respond with "pot

shots" at them, if they attempt to highjack my "Pheromone Research" or even my "Pheromone Discussion" posts,

regardless of where the discussion takes place. That being said, I very much respect your decisions as moderator,

and regret making your volunteer position more difficult.

JVK

[jvkohl]

Is the VNO equivalent

to the Jacobson's organ which is highly developed in certain snakes like the pit vipers and other

reptiles?

The forked tongue's of snakes are used to deliver pheromones to their VNO via

tongue-flicking. "Jacobson's organ" as I recall, was the name originally associated with the possibility of a

functional human VNO. "Equivalency" is a huge issue given species differences in structure, function, and possible

function of either existent or non-existent structures. But, I have addressed species differences and similarities

in my forthcoming article.

JVK

[bronzie]

DrSmellThis came

out with a product, and only a minimal amount of time passed before Archetypical Hybrid (HEC)'s marketing attempt

became more clear to those who are still unfamiliar with his

associates.



are you insinuating that there is some connection

between these two personalities?

sorry, im just a bit confused


drsmellthis laughed his oily

product years ago...that i never bought for personal reasons

[bronzie]

correction, drsmellthis

"launched" not laughed..sorry

[jvkohl]

are you insinuating

that there is some connection between these two personalities?

No. I'm merely stating the obvious:

that both distinct (i.e., psychologist-like versus chemist-like) personalities had/have marketing interests. So do

I, of course--but I've never indicated otherwise, and my marketing interests only developed 9 years after my first

scientific presentation. In other words, not just because I figured I could make a buck from the research of

others.

JVK

[Mungojerry]

EDIT: I wrote the below

before JVK made his last post. I assumed, as Bronzie also seemed to, that he was suggesting HEC and DrSmellThis were

the same.

Original post below.

****

I would be extremely surprised if HEC was DrSmellThis.

DrSmellThis,

as far as i can remember, advocated a hollistic approach to pheromones and perfumery, using essential oils, animal

musks, pheromone analogs as well as the isolated compounds we all know and love. His product [which I haven't

tested] appears to stand as testatment to that.

HEC has put forward what appears to be a single isolated

compound which his research [not available for public viewing - apparently due to an NDA] indicates activates the

VNO.

There is a startling difference between the two approaches

[jvkohl]

There is a

startling difference between the two approaches

There is also a similarity. Neither of the two

approaches incorporates a biologically based mammalian model that links sensory input from our social environment to

unconscious affects on behavior via the required gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway. For those of you who

want more information about this pathway see: Naftolin F. Understanding the bases of sex differences. Science. 1981

Mar 20;211(4488):1263-4--and several of the articles in the same issue.

I never expected DrSmellThis to

consider the required biological basis/pathway for his product claims, he was too much the psychologist.

Archetypical Hybrid (HEC), however, if he has any background in chemistry, should be able to tell us what part of my

explanation for how human pheromones work is wrong.

The sexual "chemistry" between any two people must begin

with 1) gene activation in 2) cells of hormone secreting 3) tissue. Instead, the anonymous (HEC) skips the

gene-cell-tissue steps (3 steps of 5) and indicates it begins in 4) an organ that researchers continue to say

doesn't exist: the human vomeronasal organ (VNO). And, even if the organ does exist (as HEC claims), there is no

evidence that it is connected to anything, including 5) an organ system that could link it to human

behavior.

That's probably more science than most of you want to learn about, but at least it's available in

the peer-reviewed journal articles that I have published.

JVK

[belgareth]

I never

expected DrSmellThis to consider the required biological basis/pathway for his product claims, he was too much the

psychologist. JVK
(http://)
I really don't believe DST

was so much trying to market as he disagreed with you before he ever even considered making a scent. As you note, he

is a psychologist and his belief that attraction is primarily environmental instead of chemical was the core of his

disagreement with you.

[jvkohl]

I really don't

believe DST was so much trying to market as he disagreed with you before he ever even considered making a

scent.

That's possible. Sometimes, motives aren't clear even after-the-fact.




As you note, he is a psychologist and his belief that attraction is primarily environmental

instead of chemical was the core of his disagreement with you.

What I remember most was he

consistently tried to tell everyone that "it's much more complicated than that" --with "that" being whatever I

said. He was right about it being more complicated than what I could explain in this Forum, but he never offered any

scientific support for his "primarily environmental" approach. Accordingly, there was no basis for scientific debate

with him, and so-far-as-I'm concerned, no scientific basis for his product development and marketing.

There

is a basis for scientific debate with HEC, namely the human VNO issue. Unlike DST's "it's more complicated than

that" approach, HEC just tells me I'm wrong while offering no scientific support for his "primarily VNO" approach.

Whether or not Forum members are interested in the science, the difference in approaches to discussion should be

clear indicators whether they are looking at a marketing attempt or the science behind the concept of human

pheromones.

JVK

[belgareth]

You'll notice that I am not

discussing the merit or logic of his position, only observing that this seemed to be the core of his position.

I

never had the impression that there was any real science to his Pheros product, that it was primarily a scent and a

rather pleasnt one. But, other than so called analog pheromones I do not recall that he made any real claims about

the potential for attraction. I never saw your product and his as competing in any manner.

[bronzie]

I dont want to offend anyone and

I respect all of the members, including JV and even the HEC guy, but this whole VNO debate is becoming tedious and a

little tiresome, and seems like everyone is trying to discredit everyone, for one reason or another. These debates

dont seem constructive and dont lead anywhere. And it's not just me who thinks this way, a few of my friends have

stoped logging into the forum because of the bickering. This is supposed to be a fun place first and foremost.

[belgareth]

That's the whole point of what

I am getting at here. There is no point in putting down or attempting to discredit other people. Debate and disagree

all you want but stop making insulting or offensive remarks about one another, Stop making remarks about any current

or former user unless you can prove it and it is relevent to the debate.

[ratspeaker]

Bronzie, from your comments

and those of other members I see that this board is still in the state it descended to many years ago when I to

ceased to log in, and in fact stopped any use/ investigation of pheromones. I note with distain that any scientific

debate sems to offend what has become the majority of board members. It would seem that it is considered by a lot

of posters that pheromones should be treated like a fashion accessory. An expression of affluence and that people

like myself and JVK seem to be considered in the same light as OAP's gatecrashing a frat party. I'm sorry that

you feel that pheromones and this board should be treated as a bit of light fun. Without science of course we

can't prove one iota that what we purchase is any thing other than snake oil. That doesn't matter if it's a

fashion accessory I'm purchasing; but, If I wan't to actually treat pheromones and the science behind them as a

serious subject and discuss that with others of like mind, surely that should be welcomed on this board. The

trouble Bronzie is I don't feel welcome in the way I used to be many years ago. I still get the same feeling as

when I left. That this board has become nothing more than a marketing tool for Love Scent. Which is a pity, since

it used to be so much more. I don't want to offend anyone either but with no room on this board for anything other

than idle chit chat and talking up the products, I don't think I will be hanging around long.

[bronzie]

I agree, let's start the new

year on a happy note, it's only a few days away. Everyone should kiss and make up.

and like Dr.Spock from

star trek says, live long and prosper!

[bronzie]

ratspeaker, you have totally

missed the point, healthy and constructive debate is great, what I have seen lately is bickering for bickering sake

with no substance of information.

By the way, If you havnt noticed this forum is part of the love-scent

company, you dont have to be a noble prize winner to understand it's a marketing tool and extension for love scent

products and it's employees, this should not be a revelation to anyone.

[belgareth]

The intent is not as a

marketing tool. The intent of this forum is open discussion of both the science and the use of pheromone products.

Nobody at Love Scent wants the scientifically minded or the casual user to feel unwelcome. We want everybody to feel

like they can discuss topics without the BS so common in other forums, like flaming and ridicule.

[Mungojerry]

Although this board probably

does provide Bruce with a lot of legitimacy, it only does so because people always have been able to, and still are

able to, post the results they get with products whatever those results may be.

My own recent evaluations of

Liquid Trust and HEC's new juice, where I have been able to openly state that nothing has happened, stand as

testament to that.

I've been on this board, on and off, for over four years now. In my view the quality of the

science debate hasn't noticeably depreciated over this time.

[belgareth]

I have closed this thread.