View Full Version : Androstadienone Ineffective If VNO Is Blocked
Irish
02-08-2007, 01:15 PM
Interesting approach - instead of wrangling about in the VNO debate (it's not wired up to the brain,
can't prove it works so it doesn't, etc.), simply do a counter-experiment!
It's well established that
androstadienone has various effects on women. Soooo... how 'bout blocking their VNOs and see if androstadienone
still has an effect? Guess what - block the VNO and you block the effects:
http://www.ecro2006.com/eng/modules/news/a
rticle.php?storyid=241 (http://www.ecro2006.com/eng/modules/news/article.php?storyid=241)
Hey, they used to say the human appendix was a useless vestigal organ too (has an
immune system function turns out, maybe more)...
It's preliminary info with more verification to be done. If
the little VNO does turn out to be truly operational lets digest that truth and move on...
Irish
02-08-2007, 01:15 PM
Interesting approach - instead of wrangling about in the VNO debate (it's not wired up to the brain,
can't prove it works so it doesn't, etc.), simply do a counter-experiment!
It's well established that
androstadienone has various effects on women. Soooo... how 'bout blocking their VNOs and see if androstadienone
still has an effect? Guess what - block the VNO and you block the effects:
http://www.ecro2006.com/eng/modules/news/a
rticle.php?storyid=241 (http://www.ecro2006.com/eng/modules/news/article.php?storyid=241)
Hey, they used to say the human appendix was a useless vestigal organ too (has an
immune system function turns out, maybe more)...
It's preliminary info with more verification to be done. If
the little VNO does turn out to be truly operational lets digest that truth and move on...
DrSmellThis
02-08-2007, 04:24 PM
Yep, that's a good, logical
approach.
I wonder if they were able to block the VNO without affecting the rest of olfaction, though. That is
a possible confound, and unfortunately the main thing you have to tease out.
Methodology bears a closer look.
belgareth
02-08-2007, 04:24 PM
Interesting. It looks like a
well designed and controlled experiment. Do you know what year it was done? All I saw on dates was September 6th.
Gegogi
02-08-2007, 06:47 PM
Hmm, I was just reading the VNO
lacks nerve pathways to the brain.
I agree, short of surgery or a nose plug it would be extremely difficult to
block the VNO and not block the main scent organs.
belgareth
02-08-2007, 08:15 PM
We'll have to see. That's a
pretty high end group to make such an obvious blunder. Of course, we won't know if/until more information becomes
available. Makes for some interesting thoughts though if it is true.
jvkohl
02-08-2007, 08:36 PM
The ERCO abstract was from the same
group that released their most recent published findings in the Journal of Neuroscience. See the link to their press
report, I posted earlier this
week.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...06_sweat.shtml
The hormone response was not
connected to any attempt at human VNO involvement; the VNO is not even mentioned in the article.
Irish
If the little VNO does turn out to be truly operational lets digest that truth and move
on...
It has not turned out to be operational, that's probably why researchers using human subjects
don't mention it.
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
tounge
02-09-2007, 11:33 AM
Far more important than digesting
any VNO truth; is the fact that it seems beyond a reasonable doubt, that oral female contraception blocks the
reception of Andrastodienone. Far more pertinet to the horn dogs of this forum.
Marlboro_man
02-09-2007, 12:12 PM
Far more
important than digesting any VNO truth; is the fact that it seems beyond a reasonable doubt, that oral female
contraception blocks the reception of Andrastodienone. Far more pertinet to the horn dogs of this
forum.
Has that been proven, or is it just a theory of yours? I am just asking since I have never heard
that before. Also, is it just oral contraception or do things like deprevera (not sure if spelled correctly) also
have the same results.
tounge
02-10-2007, 01:23 PM
Has that been
proven, or is it just a theory of yours? I am just asking since I have never heard that before. Also, is it just
oral contraception or do things like deprevera (not sure if spelled correctly) also have the same
results.
More than a theory of mine. Quite frankly I have always suspected pheromone usage
was affected by oral contraception. There have been studies to back this up. Do a search. I believe that the recent
Cal-Berkley study also made a point of this. This pill cause hormone changes in the user, which stands to reason
that it would change a person's perception of a pheromone signal.
As far as depo shots go, I would suspect
the same situation, although when I brought this up a few months ago, I was rudely and wrongly castigated by the
witch chick.
Gegogi
02-10-2007, 04:52 PM
It's a well established fact
that women are more receptive to certain pheromones during ovulation, e.g., androstenone. Women radiate a certain
male enticing pheromone only during ovulation. Oral contraception defeats both of those natural processes. Also,
women on oral contraception don't smell nearly as sweet in their southern regions. Sweet 'n natural is good, but
you have to be much more careful when you pull the trigger.
PHP 87
02-10-2007, 06:31 PM
Study: Men's
perspiration boosts sexual arousal in women
Saturday, February 10, 2007
(02-10) 14:05 PST Berkeley,
Calif. (AP) --
A chemical in male sweat can boost mood, brain activity and sexual arousal in heterosexual
women, according to a new study released just in time for Valentine's Day.
The study offers the first direct
evidence that humans secrete a scent that can affect the physiology of the opposite sex, said researchers at the
University of California, Berkeley. Their findings were published this week in The Journal of
Neuroscience.
"This is the first time anyone has demonstrated that a change in women's hormonal levels is
induced by sniffing an identified compound of male sweat," said study leader Claire Wyart, a postdoctoral fellow at
UC Berkeley. "There is much more going on than we think when we are smelling body odor."
The study
conducted last year involved 48 undergraduate women who took 20 sniffs from a bottle containing androstadienone, a
compound found in male perspiration and other bodily secretions.
The researchers measured the women's levels
of the stress hormone cortisol and compared them to the women's responses to a control odor. Cortisol levels in the
women rose within about 15 minutes of inhaling the androstadienone scent and remained elevated for more than an
hour, UC Berkeley researchers found.
They also discovered that blood pressure, heart rate and breathing
increased, mood improved and sexual arousal was boosted.
While the compound can make women feel more
positive and sexually aroused, it's still unclear how it affects their behavior, Wyart said.
"Humans are
more complex," she said. "You cannot expect them to have stereotypical responses like
rodents."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/10/state/n140520S56.DTL
Gegogi
02-10-2007, 10:15 PM
"Humans are more complex,"
she said. "You cannot expect them to have stereotypical responses like rodents."
And that, my
friends, is the rub. If only life were so simple one could spray androstenone up the snout of an attractive human
female and she'd immediately assume the mating position. Only in hog heaven... Instead, one must eat fire, walk on
hot coals and jump through assorted hoops just to get to third base.
CuriousNewb
02-11-2007, 01:12 AM
Interesting attitude. It is
no small wonder the women flee the forum - the very women one might think you guys might want to keep around...what
with their buying pheromones and stuff.----- CN
oscar
02-11-2007, 05:33 AM
Interesting
attitude. It is no small wonder the women flee the forum - the very women one might think you guys might want to
keep around...what with their buying pheromones and stuff.----- CN
CuriousNewb,
I'm uncertain
as to which part of Gegogi's post it was to which you took umbrage.
And that, my friends,
is the rub. If only life were so simple one could spray androstenone up the snout of an attractive human female and
she'd immediately assume the mating position. Only in hog heaven...
In the event you don't
recognize the reference, what is being alluded to there is
"Boarmate" (http://www.pherolibrary.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11838&highlight=boarmate#post11838), an
aerosol pheromone spray used in the process of swine
husbandry.
(Another Boarmate
thread.) (http://www.pherolibrary.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1925&highlight=boarmate)
...If, on the other hand, the part you took exception to was
this:
...Instead, one must eat fire, walk on hot coals and jump through assorted hoops just to
get to third base.
Then that's too bad.
The "jumping through hoops" perception is one shared
by many men about many women, and in my opinion, though arguably "stereotypical" in it's nature, is a perfectly
valid observation.
You too are allowed to voice your perceptions about the opposite sex here whether or not
they are especially favorable ones.
We DO however require men to be "Politically Correct" when they post in
the Women's Forum, but not in this one. While women on the other hand are entitled to be politically INcorrect on
both boards if they so choose.
In my personal opinion "Political Correctness" and pheromone use for sexual
attraction are concepts that seem to be somewhat at odds with each other, so I find it curious when someone of
either gender asserts a PC stance on something written here. If we were "politically correct people" we probably
would have a hard time justifying using pheromones to help us to attract the opposite sex.
Oscar :)
CuriousNewb
02-11-2007, 08:46 AM
While Geogi's post inspired
my comments, I did not single him out - his are noto the only ones raising the concern.
I'm not a PC type of
person.
I find it difficult to understand why pheromone usage requires us to want to reduce one another to
mindless sex seekers, or why anyone would want such - so I do not understand your point about pheromone usage
mitigating good manners.
And - there are very few women in the women's forum. If indeed men are allowed to
behave any which way in the regular forum, but men must only behave in the women's forum then I see why women
don't stay. After all- the other forum doesn't say "Men's Forum" - it says Pheromone discussion - and in fact -
is where most indepth discussion of pheromones happen without regard for gender - women pretty much HAVE to go there
for further understanding - if they want to talk about anything other than "The Women's Product."
I understand
from a business perspective, the desire to let men act however they are going to act in the discussion of Pheromones
- but I find it discouraging that some men think so poorly of women.
CN
oscar
02-11-2007, 09:25 AM
While Geogi's
post inspired my comments, I did not single him out - his are noto the only ones raising the concern.
I'm
not a PC type of person.
I find it difficult to understand why pheromone usage requires us to want to reduce
one another to mindless sex seekers, or why anyone would want such - so I do not understand your point about
pheromone usage mitigating good manners.
And - there are very few women in the women's forum. If indeed men
are allowed to behave any which way in the regular forum, but men must only behave in the women's forum then I see
why women don't stay. After all- the other forum doesn't say "Men's Forum" - it says Pheromone discussion - and
in fact - is where most indepth discussion of pheromones happen without regard for gender - women pretty much HAVE
to go there for further understanding - if they want to talk about anything other than "The Women's Product."
I understand from a business perspective, the desire to let men act however they are going to act in the
discussion of Pheromones - but I find it discouraging that some men think so poorly of
women.
CN
CuriousNewb,
You didn't quote which post(s) exhibited the attitude that you
attributed to women's non-participation in this forum. I didn't think that any of the other posts in this thread
were especially easy to perceive as being exemplary of having any "attitude" towards women besides the one that
imagined them as sows. My mistake I suppose.
Good manners and the concept of political correctness are two
very different things. No where in MY post did I suggest that anyone who uses pheromones should be anything other
than mannerly. You can read whatever you want into people's posts, but don't try attributing YOUR interpretations
to their attitude. I've seen this too many times before. The words in the quote above about "mindless sex seekers"
and "pheromone usage mitigating good manners" are yours, not mine.
There is no "business perspective" in the
running of this forum as far as the moderators go. It is a volunteer position. The task is to encourage the free
expression of ideas.
If you have a problem with someone's attitude, you're welcome to discuss it or ignore
it. Your choice. But there will not be censoring of this forum for what some see as offensive attitudes.
And
now it's time to get back on topic. You are welcome to start a thread about men's attitudes towards women in the
Open Discussion forum, but this thread is about Androstadienone and its effects on women.
Oscar :)
Irish
02-12-2007, 09:10 AM
I knew I would have
to do this...
Mr. Kohl did indeed post a reference to an article published by the same group. That article
in J. Neuroscience may be read at:
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/6/1261?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&title=male+sw
eat&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&res
ourcetype=HWCIT
It doesn't discuss the VNO because it isn't about the VNO.
What I posted is a
SEPARATE ISSUE. The same group is presenting preliminary evidence at the ECRO conference in favor of a VNO
role.
The SAME AUTHORS that Mr. Kohl cited about cortisol effects are presenting evidence, in another forum,
supporting the idea of a functioning VNO. Get it?!?
DrSmellThis
02-12-2007, 06:21 PM
I have to admit I haven't
reviewed the research on this in a while. Human pheromone research moves too slowly for my taste. Someday I'll do
another review and catch up. JVK is the one who seems to keep track of every study that comes out.
But my
recollection from a couple years ago is simply that research to date has been inconclusive, except for the "Erox
commissioned/related" studies, several of which reportedly suggest evidence of a "vague" effect (without
articulating a pathway or process).
Specifically, there has been no evidence to suggest a neural pathway for
the VNO (a more recent study or two has addressed this); and evidence of its activity has been contradictory.
The prevailing wisdom was simply that it is not theoretically necessary to posit the VNO to exist, in order to
explain a detailed pheromone effect. You can get there with standard olfaction. So some researchers felt it was a
waste of time to focus on the VNO.
That was different from saying categorically that there is no active VNO.
Last I checked I was not convinced the VNO has no role in olfaction. Maybe the intellectual scenario has changed
recently, and I'd change my mind.
But I've remained curious, partly because the organ would seem to be
evolutionarily adaptive for some scenarios if it did exist; since you'd be bypassing the
complexities/inefficiencies of standard olfaction.
I'd like to see a comprehensive lit review on the issue,
although Erox and gang (Berliner, et al) have felt little obligation to contribute to the scientific community,
thinking they are sitting on the golden goose. Then I could give a more intelligent opinion.
Again, I'd still
like to know how they isolated the VNO from standard olfaction in the most recent study alluded to at the beginning
of the thread. The procedure to do this is not obvious to me. That seems the most obvious area for initial critical
review, methodologically.
jvkohl
02-12-2007, 08:26 PM
I knew I would have to
do this...
The SAME AUTHORS that Mr. Kohl cited about cortisol effects are presenting evidence, in another
forum, supporting the idea of a functioning VNO. Get it?!?
I suspected I would have to do
this...
The same authors presented (note: past tense) preliminary (note: waiting for final results),
unpublished data at a conference prior to finalizing their study, and after finalizing it published it with no
mention of the human VNO. What I "get" (from this) is that their preliminary data did not support the human VNO
approach. On the off chance that it did, we will see a report from the same group that mentions the human VNO. Get
it?!?
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
jvkohl
02-12-2007, 09:11 PM
I'd like to
see a comprehensive lit review on the issue...
DST: If you want the .pdf of the article at the URL
below, I will need your current email address.
http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=F1AJ71WMKCP48HTMPW51HDT2GP 7Q5DS7&ID=90566[/ur
l]
Again, I'd still like to know how they isolated the VNO from standard olfaction in
the most recent study alluded to at the beginning of the thread. The procedure to do this is not obvious to me. That
seems the most obvious area for initial critical review, methodologically.
Isolation of the VNO was
initially linked to a patented process/delivery system as I recall. This was seen by many researchers to be a 2nd
red flag with regard to findings that could not be independently replicated on picogram amounts of "active"
compounds.
In the most recently reported published findings: "Thirty milligrams of AND..., were deposited in
pure form into a 60ml... opaque jar, to be smelled by participants."
From a human VNO activation to effect
approach, it's picogram amounts and unreplicated data. From the more current non-VNO approach we're seeing effects
with (let me check my math... uh?) -- a lot more of the compound.
It's hard for me to imagine any woman
ever being naturally exposed to 20 sniffs of 30 milligrams of AND. So, while it's good to see reports of hormonal,
mood, and arousal change, I'm not sure how all this translates to product development.
Seems we've now gone
from activating the VNO with picogram amounts of AND, blocking the VNO and showing that it makes a difference
(though the data may not be published or replicated) and finally come round to attacking the human
olfactory/pheromonal processing system (sans VNO mention?) with massive doses of chemical.
James V.
Kohl
author of a less recent review at: [url]http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm
Irish
02-13-2007, 07:48 AM
I get it perfectly. Now
you do too!
tounge
02-13-2007, 11:29 AM
I get it perfectly.
Now you do too!
I think Jim Kohl already had it.
Irish
02-13-2007, 12:19 PM
Yes, they seem to have the same
concern that they were blocking only the VNO, and not olfactory surface as well.
But this is still a
fundamentally better test than what the Erox folk were doing... they were administering the pherins directly to the
VNO through some device, and measuring electrical potential changes on the VNO. I'm not saying they didn't pull
that off, but that's a pretty difficult medical and engineering task. Blocking off the VNO sounds a whole lot
simpler. And now that -dienone effects are well established this seems to be a clever experiment to test for
possible VNO activity.
DrSmellThis
02-13-2007, 03:41 PM
It's a big deal. If you
interfere in any way shape or form with normal olfaction -- even in a strictly emotional way, for example; or if you
simply distress the olfactory system via your procedures -- you don't know to what extent you're measuring VNO
mediated changes. The whole bottom falls out of the study. I'm skeptical, for methodological reasons, rather than
theoretical ones.
That might be the reason for the delay in publishing the results, for all I know. It's way
more likely a methodological problem, than some kind of belief about the VNO one way or the other.
One way to
solve that kind of problem, or to get a little closer to a solution (someone will find another valid
criticism almost every time), is using various control groups.
So if you're blocking the VNO with some kind of
a patch, for example, you put identical patches near but not on the VNO for other groups, to rule out the patch
itself as a "confound" (as inadvertently causing the results to some extent). But that's hard if you can't
pinpoint each person's VNO precisely. Individual physiological variations are common here, unfortunately. So
ideally you'd have more than one method of blocking the VNO, until enough reliability/validity studies have been
done for your favorite procedure. Research is really hard! It could easily take a decade just to refine the
procedure (to shut up everyone who wants to shoot holes in your research program).
As my advisor once said, and
this is my favorite quote from him, BTW, "you really have to bend over backwards to study human sexuality".
Belagareth, it's not uncommon to be shocked at basic problems that professional researchers (much less
"unprofessional" ones) leave unsolved/unaddressed; while still gleefully trumpeting their results from the highest
mountaintop. I take little for granted. That is because humans are exceedingly difficult to study.
That is why
people should have to become experts on research methodology, as a prerequisite for studying anything human,
especially at the level of complexity of human sexuality/relationships. The basic state of affairs is thinking
you've got it figured out while you don't; until you learn as a mature scientist to mistrust fully your own
"beliefs".
DrSmellThis
02-13-2007, 04:33 PM
Our results points
against a role of the human main OE in processing the physiological and psychological effects of AND in humans.
However more experiments assaying the impact of VNOblock on the sniff volumes will be performed by ECRO meeting to
insure that the main OE was equally exposed to AND.
That seems to explain the delay in publishing, as I
expected. I hadn't read the abstract carefully. It has nothing to do with any diminished enthusiasm about their
preliminary findings about the role of the VNO.
I like their approach, overall. It's not without holes, but no
study is. It's probably a good start.
I'd still like to see the whole write up to understand more about their
"VNOblock" procedures. I like that they try both physical and chemical blocks, for the reason I mentioned, and at
least attempt to demonstrate whether standard olfaction is impeded by procedures. More control groups will be
needed, obviously. Sounds like they're doing some of the things they need to be doing. May as well wait 'till you
can really hit people between the eyes with it.
My hunch is that a significant finding is brewing. I see no
theoretical reason for cynicism. It looks like the preliminary results were highly significant.
Before too
long, the VNO might be back in a big way. So my advice, as always, is to be very careful what you conclude, at this
point.
DrSmellThis
02-13-2007, 05:06 PM
DST: If you want
the .pdf of the article at the URL below, I will need your current email address.
http://
www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=F1AJ71WMKCP48HTMPW51HDT2GP 7Q5DS7&ID=90566 (http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=F1AJ71WMKCP48HTMPW51HDT2GP 7Q5DS7&ID=90566)
Isolation of the VNO was initially linked to a patented process/delivery system as I recall. This was seen by many
researchers to be a 2nd red flag with regard to findings that could not be independently replicated on picogram
amounts of "active" compounds.
In the most recently reported published findings: "Thirty milligrams of AND...,
were deposited in pure form into a 60ml... opaque jar, to be smelled by participants."
From a human VNO
activation to effect approach, it's picogram amounts and unreplicated data. From the more current non-VNO approach
we're seeing effects with (let me check my math... uh?) -- a lot more of the compound.
It's hard for me to
imagine any woman ever being naturally exposed to 20 sniffs of 30 milligrams of AND. So, while it's good to see
reports of hormonal, mood, and arousal change, I'm not sure how all this translates to product development.
Seems we've now gone from activating the VNO with picogram amounts of AND, blocking the VNO and showing that it
makes a difference (though the data may not be published or replicated) and finally come round to attacking the
human olfactory/pheromonal processing system (sans VNO mention?) with massive doses of chemical.
James V.
Kohl
author of a less recent review at:
http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm
* I'm interested specifically mainly in just in reviews of the VNO studies. I realize there isn't that much out
there. Unfortunately, most of it was behind closed doors.
* I didn't see anything in the abstract about dosage.
You'd think they'd vary it. It's not hard methodologically. You wouldn't even need more subjects.
* The
problem of isolating the VNO in this study is different that was addressed by Erox's patented delivery and
measurement methods, if that's what you are referring to. The procedures are very different.
* I just think the
disinterest problem is that the VNO is correctly thought of as a secondary issue, compared to the importance of
pheromones for humans in general; and researchers have more basic questions for now. That to me explains the lack of
interest. In the big picture, human pheromone research is still in the infantile stage.
* Obviously, that reason
for disinterest doesn't apply to the Erox gang, who apparently believe worlds of Exxon-like profits await them if
they focus on the VNO.
DrSmellThis
02-13-2007, 05:16 PM
The same
authors presented (note: past tense) preliminary (note: waiting for final results), unpublished data at a conference
prior to finalizing their study, and after finalizing it published it with no mention of the human VNO. What I "get"
(from this) is that their preliminary data did not support the human VNO approach. On the off chance that it did, we
will see a report from the same group that mentions the human VNO.
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of
ErosMy understanding was rather that the series of studies is not close to being finalized; but that
preliminary data suggested the active role of the human VNO, with a big caveat.
You may have been thinking
about the intial preliminary study being "finalized".
But that was, apparently, always intended as one of a
series, designed to address precisely the methodological problem of isolating the VNO from standard olfaction. That
takes a while to do correctly, even though they appear to have addressed a part of it already. It was the
first issue that occured to me, and no doubt the researchers as well. They're taking care of business, I suspect.
In the mean time we have some highly intriguing initial results; that are none the less critically vulnerable to
the criticism that their "VNOblock" may have interfered with standard olfaction -- for now. Oh well, sucks to be a
scientist. One has to be patient.
I don't believe we should interpret this normal delay as indicative of those
researchers' enthusiasm for the VNO one way or the other. They are moving forward with their expensive program,
apparently. So they must remain somewhat enthused about the possibility of a role for the VNO.
DrSmellThis
02-13-2007, 05:53 PM
I get it
perfectly. Now you do too!I think there may still be some misunderstanding about the studies, as regards the
present discussion. I know I didn't "get it" at first gander.
jvkohl
02-13-2007, 10:46 PM
I don't
believe we should interpret this normal delay as indicative of those researchers' enthusiasm for the VNO one way or
the other. They are moving forward with their expensive program, apparently. So they must remain somewhat enthused
about the possibility of a role for the VNO.
I've found no recent indication that any researcher who
presents at conferences or publishes in peer reviewed journals has any enthusiasm for the possibility of a
functional human VNO. For example, I just reviewed abstracts from the 40th Annual Meeting of the Japanese
Association for the Study of Taste and Smell, which may be the most recent olfactory conference from which abstracts
are available. It's highly unusual for researchers to hide their work from other researchers, even briefly--as
indicated by the ERCO abstract Irish posted. When the group then publishes without mention of the VNO, it seems more
likely to me that they, too, have lost interest/enthusiasm.
JVK
author: The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of
Odor in Human Sexuality
jvkohl
02-13-2007, 10:50 PM
Obviously,
that reason for disinterest doesn't apply to the Erox gang, who apparently believe worlds of Exxon-like profits
await them if they focus on the VNO.
If the Natural Attraction site (formerly Erox site) is any
indication, they have indeed given up on the human VNO, since there is no longer any mention of it in their product
advertising.
JVK
creator: Scent of Eros products
Irish
02-14-2007, 07:56 AM
Obviously I don’t know if humans have functioning VNO’s (Meredith’s review a few years back was rather pessimistic,
and convincing). And I really don’t care. But here’s why I think it makes sense to investigate it.
Those
money-hungry, VNO-obsessed, commercial villain scientists at Erox did something amazing. With their secret
contraptions, secret methods, often-doubted motives and findings they managed to identify the powerful pheromonal
substances AND and EST! Years before the brain scan validation!!
We didn’t really believe them at the time,
questioned their objectivity because of vested interests (they’re not the only ones with vested interests) – but lo
and behold, those $-grubbing bastards were right!! By looking at VNO activation they correctly identified powerful
sexually-dimorphic pheromones. But it was only after later brain scan experiments that everybody is now on board,
and trumpeting the power of androstadienone. Erox could have (and did) tell us that years ago.
I’m not
defending Erox – we were right to be leery of their claims (and anyone else making $ off their claims). But I am
pointing out that Erox was RIGHT in their claims (some of them so far, anyway), and they based their claims and
research directly on the idea of a functioning VNO. Maybe they are on to something…
So why not keep an open
mind, and see if that organ in our nose is doing actually something after all.
Here’s my (flawed) VNO
experiment – see if folks who’ve had rhinoplasty respond to androstadienone in the now scientifically-accepted
manner. Since a nose job often obliterates the VNO, you should have many androstadienone-immune women to check it
out on, if the VNO is indeed the conduit.
The truth (whatever it may be) will make us free, if not rich…
jvkohl
02-14-2007, 09:21 PM
With their secret
contraptions, secret methods, often-doubted motives and findings they managed to identify the powerful pheromonal
substances AND and EST!
Twenty sniffs of 30 milligrams AND to get a measurable effect on hormones and
mood does not suggest that AND is a naturally powerful pheromonal substance.
By looking at VNO
activation they correctly identified powerful sexually-dimorphic pheromones. But it was only after later brain scan
experiments that everybody is now on board, and trumpeting the power of androstadienone.
Who's
trumpeting the power? It's always a good idea to find out who is saying what and why they are saying it, especially
when controversial (more recent) findings abound.
I’m not defending Erox – we were right to
be leery of their claims (and anyone else making $ off their claims).
And anyone attempting to make
$ off their "dated" claims?
But I am pointing out that Erox was RIGHT in their claims (some
of them so far, anyway), and they based their claims and research directly on the idea of a functioning VNO. Maybe
they are on to something…
They got the concept WRONG, at a very basic level, and now appear to have
abandoned their conceptualization.
So why not keep an open mind, and see if that organ in
our nose is doing actually something after all.
When people spend millions developing a concept
(e.g., human pheromones acting through the VNO) and subsequently abandon the concept--how long do you think we
should continue to keep an open mind?
Here’s my (flawed) VNO experiment – see if folks
who’ve had rhinoplasty respond to androstadienone in the now scientifically-accepted manner. Since a nose job often
obliterates the VNO, you should have many androstadienone-immune women to check it out on, if the VNO is indeed the
conduit.
Surgeons were advised by publication of the following article to avoid VNO damage, and
determine whether prior damage had been done.
Garcia-Velasco, J., & Garcia-Casas, S. (1995) Nose surgery and
the vomeronasal organ. Aesth. Plast. Surg., 19, 451-454.
In a litigious society like that in the US, I
expected to hear that a plastic surgeon was sued for VNO damage long before now. I've not learned of a single case,
which suggests that your study participants might be very difficult to find.
The involvement of another
potential pathway is becoming an area of more focus. Time for some of us to move on to studies of the nervus
terminalis (terminal nerve/zeroeth cranial nerve)--something not yet fully considered, and more in line with the
concept of human pheromones eliciting hormonal effects and conditioning behavioral affects.
James V.
Kohl
author -- The Mind's Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience and Male Sexual Preferences.
Irish
02-15-2007, 08:28 AM
My point about Erox is
not that they did or ever will make money (that was a side reference to the criticism they have received about their
methods, and about commercially-biased science in general). That is business, not science.
My point is that
they discovered valuable information about what are now the most convincing human phero-like substances. And they
did it over a decade before brainscan verification, looking only at the VNO and it's activity! Evil, misguided, and
wrong as they may be about certain things, they did beat veryone to the punch on that - and they did it based on the
concept of a functioning VNO.
If Mr. Kohl wants to argue that androstadienone is actually unimportant in the
phero arena, well, I'll leave him in peace to do that.
I suppose we could argue the definition of
"trumpeting", but the literature is swamped with discussion of androstadienone since the brainscan studies came out
a few years ago. Mr. Kohl cites a few of those studies himself over in the Research forum.
About the niggling
point of my tongue-in-cheek reference to a VNO experiment, here's a fact check. The VNO is quite often destroyed in
rhinoplasty - consult a plastic surgeon (I did). And as far as the reference to the paper warning against VNO
destruction (which is true), let's go ahead and finish the quote, since we're citing the experts. The reason
GarcÃa-Velasco and GarcÃa-Casas warned against damaging the VNO during a nose job was that it was happening, and it
should be avoided because:
"...The high incidence of identification of the vomeronasal organ in normal
individuals indicates that the vomeronasal system is a universal feature of the adult human nasal cavity. Evaluation
of the neuronal connections between this organ and the central nervous system shows that the VNO is a functional
chemosensory system with sexually dimorphic specificity and the ability to transduce signals that modulate certain
autonomic parameters. The presence of the VNO and its clinical significance must be considered by plastic surgeons
during nasal operations." Garcia-Velasco, J., & Garcia-Casas, S. (1995) Nose surgery and the vomeronasal organ.
Aesth. Plast. Surg., 19, 451-454.
jvkohl
02-15-2007, 09:16 PM
If Mr. Kohl wants
to argue that androstadienone is actually unimportant in the phero arena, well, I'll leave him in peace to do
that.
Thanks. I see you've already posted a request for information on androsterone, and I've
replied. I've never implied that androstadienone is unimportant--as you have indicated. But it's nice to see that
you may be catching on about its "relative" importance.
I suppose we could argue the
definition of "trumpeting", but the literature is swamped with discussion of androstadienone since the brainscan
studies came out a few years ago. Mr. Kohl cites a few of those studies himself over in the Research
forum.
I would refer to the androstadienone/human VNO connection as "trumpeting" cause and effect--a
problem that now continues when androstadienone or the human VNO is mentioned, either alone or in combination. I've
posted research findings on androstadienone that assume no such connection, and usually do not assume cause and
effect.
The reason GarcÃa-Velasco and GarcÃa-Casas warned against damaging the VNO during a
nose job was that it was happening, and it should be avoided because:
What makes you think it was
happening? I think that they wanted us to believe it was happening, and to care that it was happening. Nobody seems
to have cared, as I indicated in another post. Or perhaps everyone who cared settled out of
court.
"... Evaluation of the neuronal connections between this organ and the central
nervous system shows that the VNO is a functional chemosensory system with sexually dimorphic specificity and the
ability to transduce signals that modulate certain autonomic parameters. The presence of the VNO and its clinical
significance must be considered by plastic surgeons during nasal operations." Garcia-Velasco, J., & Garcia-Casas,
S. (1995) Nose surgery and the vomeronasal organ. Aesth. Plast. Surg., 19, 451-454.
This 1995 report
has repeatedly been debunked by newer research.
JVK
The Scent of Eros
DrSmellThis
02-16-2007, 01:20 PM
I've found no
recent indication that any researcher who presents at conferences or publishes in peer reviewed journals has any
enthusiasm for the possibility of a functional human VNO. For example, I just reviewed abstracts from the 40th
Annual Meeting of the Japanese Association for the Study of Taste and Smell, which may be the most recent olfactory
conference from which abstracts are available. It's highly unusual for researchers to hide their work from other
researchers, even briefly--as indicated by the ERCO abstract Irish posted. When the group then publishes without
mention of the VNO, it seems more likely to me that they, too, have lost interest/enthusiasm.
JVK
author: The
Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human SexualityI don't see them "hiding" anything. They posted what
they found so far and told us further research was ongoing; and why. THis seems typical rather than unusual, unless
I'm missing something. It wouldn't have made sense for them to mention the VNO, when their series of VNO studies
was not completed. I bet the authors/researchers would agree.
It also wouldn't make sense for them to rush
ahead to publish the preliminary study when it answers only part of the basic scientific question they are asking.
Waiting is the professional --and usual -- thing to do.
belgareth
02-21-2007, 04:52 AM
Please note that I split out
the off topic stuff and put it into a new thread in Open Discussion, where it belongs. The new thread is called
Science Debate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.