Will the REAL Andro1 please stand up!

[Bruce]

BTW, does anyone know/remember what TV show emblazened that phrase on every baby boomers\'s mind?

Anyway, to tell the truth, I wasn\'t very concerned about the discusions concerning rotations, enantiomers etc that seemed to imply Phil\'s Andro1 was not the real deal, but put the question to the the man himself at Stone Labs and got a quick reply indicating that although the issue is a very real one, he is well on top of it. It was a long reply including other issues, but here are some quotes that should help renew faith in Stone Lab product quality. The \"him\" in the message is refering to a customer who insisted to me in a couple of e-mails that Andro1 was incorrect in this regard.
--------
<snip>
I did confirm with the supplier just to be certain:

Optical rotation on this compound is (+) 125 degrees.

Right stuff.

<snip>
So for the record, you can assure him as well as everyone else that after three degrees, six years studying steroid pheromone chemistry, and a pending patent on a Anone synthesis that we are VERY aware of the rotations of the compounds we use and only use the correct enantiomers with the correct active optical rotation(s). I could get really silly with chemistry speak here, but what he\'s written is absolutely correct - it just doesn\'t have as strong an odor as I think he thinks it does.
--------end quotes from Phil Stone-------

Cheers,
Bruce

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bruce ]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Thanks, Bruce, for the note of assurance!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

To tell the Truth

A round consisted of 3 contestants, each claiming to be the same person. The real person was bound to tell the truth, but the others were not. The panelists had to ask the kinds of questions which would help them tell who the real person was. At the end of the round, they\'d vote, and the MC would say: “Will the real John Doe please stand up.”

at least that was the uk tv version.

regards
skint images/icons/cool.gif

[Bruce]

You know this is very strange, but when I wrote that line asking if anyone knew the name of that show, I really couldn\'t recall what it was, and then immediately below I began writing the words. \"Anyway, to tell the truth...\" and I realized that that was in fact the name of the show. No kidding.
Bruce

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hmm... Phil Stones sounds like a smart guy. I remember reading in Pheromone news that he conducted test trials with -rone to verify that it enhanced the effect of -none and -nol. Also, somebody on the forum said that he participated in one of Phil\'s studies. Since behavioral studies are so lacking in this area, can we access the results of these studies?!

[Watcher]

That would be good to be able to get a hold of those studies (apparently a 17%) mix with none and nol works best for stone labs. Haence the concentration in alter ego

[Bruce]

I\'ll see what I can find out about Phil\'s research.

Bruce

[oscar]

Watcher,

The 17% number has nothing to do with a mixing ratio. That figure came from an e-mail I got from Stone Labs\' customer service department. I had inquired about the use of A-Rone in their products. The reply was (paraphrased) \'Androsterone has been found to increase the perception of a given subjects attractiveness by 17% when used in specific proportions with Androstenone and Androstenol.\'

Stone employs Rone in P10 at 10% of total phero content, and in AE at 22% of phero content. And SOE\'s Rone content amounts to 20% of its phero content. So actually 17% would be close to a good interpolated mid-point for mixing, except for the fact that the chem-kit Rone is so pungent. images/icons/shocked.gif

truth,

That was Cruiser, member #292 who said he\'d participated in a Stone Labs study.

Oscar images/icons/wink.gif

[Bruce]

Here is Phil Stone\'s response about the availability of his research results:

---quote---
I\'ve been working for months on trying to get a week free to get together with my \'ol research partner to compile the data from these into something meaningful and easy to interpret. Chris has submitted the papers (and now REsubmitted them after some editing requests) and hopes to have them published into one of three legit journals soon (I\'ve heard anything from end of April to beginning of August, but then again I heard that before). The goal was to get it published as a study - not just as a letter, so the requirements are much more stringent. I handed the reins over to him on this years ago, so I really have no one to blame but myself for not having just taken care of it myself back then.

In any event, I know he wouldn\'t (nor would I for that matter) be to keen on distributing the entire works until they are indeed published and documented, but as I said, I DID at least want to be able to offer up the data for inspection - just need to get Chris\'s okay and compile it - which I absolutely will do as soon as possible....probably won\'t have time to get together with him until late Spring though to be honest.

I\'ll keep you posted -

Phil
---------end quote-------

Bruce

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yeah, I\'d be interested in seeing a summary of what was done (i.e., substances tested, setting, etc.) with the data in any form.

Hmm... So, is Phil going to a do a study with andro-1, now that it\'s out?! Maybe too risky with patent issues.

[Bruce]

Truth,
Did you see the link to the McClintock study in an another andro1 thread? Someone said she holds some kind of patent on the substance as well, so apparently it is not totally off limits; just this \"mixing with fragrance\" aspect. I also heard from Phil S (I think it was) that George Dodd and his company Kiotech, makers of Pheromol Factor and Xcite wipes are challenging the Erox patent in the UK. So apparently Dr. D is interested in the stuff too.
Bruce

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yes, I did see the McClintock study. I didn\'t mean to say that conducting the study would be risky. However, the study would draw more attention to Phil and you selling the concentrates on this site. I don\'t know if Erox\'s patents will hold up, but I\'d think they\'d challenge Phil if the operation got \"big time\" with a study to back it up. Of course, the study could eventually benefit Erox if their patent does hold up.

[xvs]

A careful reading of the Erox patent shows that it doesn\'t really seem worth worrying about.

First, the patent is specifically for pheromones mixed with fragrance. If you don\'t mix in the fragrance, you don\'t violate the patent at all.

Second, the patent doesn\'t cover any effects the pheromones have on wearers or on others who come in contact with wearers. In fact, the claim is for a \"non-therapeutic fragrance\".

See: http://patft.uspto.gov/n etacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=erox&OS=erox&RS=erox (\"http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=erox&OS=erox&RS=erox\") and don\'t worry about it.

On the other hand, there may be other patents out there, but I haven\'t found them yet.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

xvs

If you go to http://gb.espacenet.com (\"http://gb.espacenet.com\") are do a search on \"erox\" and one on \"pherin\" you will find the patents pertaining to this substance. They are presented quite nicely as well. You even get to view the diagrams etc.

[Irish]

xvs -

You\'re answering the wrong question. It\'s not \'am I in the right?\", it\'s \'can I afford to prove I\'m right in court if the patent holder brings action against me?\'.

Unfortunately we don\'t get to decide who\'s right based on the merits - a bunch of lawyers do that for us. You can be completely in the right and lose anyway cause you can\'t afford to fight a corporate law team.