Androstadienone Ineffective If VNO Is Blocked

[Irish]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I get it perfectly. Now

you do too!

[tounge]

I get it perfectly.

Now you do too!



I think Jim Kohl already had it.

[Irish]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.