Human Pheromones: Fact and Fiction

[jvkohl]

This

is from colleagues at

Monell

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/526427/

JVK

[WorkingMann]

“We still

have much to learn about pheromonal communication in humans. However, based on what we do know, human pheromones do

not act as sex attractants,” says Wysocki, a behavioral neuroscientist. “Effects of pheromones on adult human social

behavior have never been documented in a controlled peer-reviewed setting.”

hehe so many people that's

not gonna like this and agree.. :lol:




“The general term pheromone is often linked to images of

specific, rapid response and sexual attraction,” notes Preti, an organic chemist. “Actually, pheromones are divided

into classes that are defined by characteristics of the responses.”


Here I agree because not all mones

do give a sexual hit..




However, the chemical identities of human pheromones remain

elusive. Preti comments, “To date, no scientifically rigorous study using human secretions has led to the isolation

and chemical identification of a true human pheromone.”

On the other hand, detailed studies have demonstrated

pheromonal responses in humans, implying that humans do in fact produce and respond to pheromones. For example,

Preti and Wysocki established that unidentified chemicals in human male underarm extracts can affect female

reproductive hormone secretion (primer pheromone effect) and mood (modulator pheromone effect).


Isn't

this first saying there haven't been proven that there's human responses for pheroes in the same way as in insects

and animals?
And then in the lasts part sayin it is proven anyway..?
This confuses me a bit..

:think:




But Wysocki notes, “Because human responses to pheromones and other chemical signals

are influenced by our past experiences, context and other sensory inputs, it is unlikely that pheromones can cause

the same type of involuntary attractant response in humans that is seen in the silkworm moth.”


By this

statement I believe that they shouldn't evaluate pheromones for humans in the same way as for insects and animals

and therefor they can't say that pheromones for humans aren't proven right because they don't give the same

results as these pheromones do in other species.. Humans are far more complex than animals and insects and if you

see at studies on the brain were much more complicated and also because we don't rely so much on your instinks only

as animals and insects in a much higher degree does.. And therefor it can't give the same results and thereby you

can't put up the same criteria to say "this is a pheromone" because you can't evaluate on the same things for

humans as you do for animals/insects.. Because we don't give the same result there shouldn't be evaluated on the

same criterias..

[jvkohl]

By this

statement I believe that they shouldn't evaluate pheromones for humans in the same way as for insects and animals

and therefor they can't say that pheromones for humans aren't proven right because they don't give the same

results as these pheromones do in other species.... Because we don't give the same result there shouldn't be

evaluated on the same criterias..

This is where a mammalian model for the effect of pheromones on

human hormone levels and thus, most likely, an affect on human behavior becomes useful. We can directly measure

pheromonal effects on human hormone levels. But, due to the number of influences on human behavior that must first

be eliminated, we currently can only indirectly measure pheromonal affects on behavior--as you have indicated.



If we use a mammalian model (e.g., the one that I have detailed) it is easy to predict the affect of human

pheromones on behavior. If we were talking about the development of therapeutic drugs, instead of products for

"cosmetic" use, there would already be many clinical trials in progress to determine precisely what claims could be

made regarding the affects of human pheromones on behavior. This is because pharmaceutical companies could increase

their revenues by developing pheromones that had similar effects to "drugs."

What's missing? In a word:

money (and lots of it). So, what we have is a model that shows hormonal effects and predicts behavioral affects of

human pheromones (affects that many Forum members have repeatedly evaluated, anecdotally), in the absence of enough

money to scientifically "prove" that human pheromones affect human behavior.

It seems to me that the lack of

money should not be part of the consideration for defining the term "human pheromone." But, it

is!

JVK

[WorkingMann]

This is where

a mammalian model for the effect of pheromones on human hormone levels and thus, most likely, an affect on human

behavior becomes useful. We can directly measure pheromonal effects on human hormone levels. But, due to the number

of influences on human behavior that must first be eliminated, we currently can only indirectly measure pheromonal

affects on behavior--as you have indicated.

If we use a mammalian model (e.g., the one that I have detailed) it

is easy to predict the affect of human pheromones on behavior. If we were talking about the development of

therapeutic drugs, instead of products for "cosmetic" use, there would already be many clinical trials in progress

to determine precisely what claims could be made regarding the affects of human pheromones on behavior. This is

because pharmaceutical companies could increase their revenues by developing pheromones that had similar effects to

"drugs."

What's missing? In a word: money (and lots of it). So, what we have is a model that shows hormonal

effects and predicts behavioral affects of human pheromones (affects that many Forum members have repeatedly

evaluated, anecdotally), in the absence of enough money to scientifically "prove" that human pheromones affect human

behavior.

It seems to me that the lack of money should not be part of the consideration for defining the term

"human pheromone." But, it is!

JVK
(http://)

Okay I

see the point but still it's kinda crazy to use the same model to evaluate on humans as on animals.. Because we

don't react on the same things and are not similar in many points as fx. complexity..
But I guess it's because

there's nothing else to use.. Nad this is because there's no money to bring the dokumentation for it to make the

model so there would be something else to use..

[slickracer]

To date, no

scientifically rigorous study using human secretions has led to the isolation and chemical identification of a true

human pheromone

i tihnk i know what is a true human pheromone is...... its call CHC, also knone as, cold

hard cash!

[Archetypical Hybrid (HEC)]

JVK/anyone:

What do you know of pregnadienones / pregnadienols for as far as pheromonal activity?