My name is Jeff, from Knoxville. I’m 29, pursuing a medical degree, and finishing one in biochemistry at UT in Knoxville. I recently stumbled across this huge community of pheromone traders. While I am a skeptic at heart and believe much of what I read is placebo effect, there are soooo many people who claim to benefit from their usage.
The genetic component of the olfactory response is very interesting, because while one can make conscious associations (Coolwater=strong sexy stud) triggering neuroendocrine responses, pheromone marketers claim to offer a product that subconsciously affects users’ ‘animal instincts.’ If true, this indicates specific pheromone receptors are genetically transferred. Although the genetic transfer of other types of scent receptors is common knowledge, visual and physical stimuli likely strengthen the association between olfactory receptors and instinctive response. This may contribute to the brains’ effectiveness in recognizing the particular smell faster. The question I have: How important are pheromones in day-to-day communication, and if their presence is brought to the level of consciousness, are they readily detectable (from that point on) and open to triggering other neuroendocrine responses than what are genetically pre-coded?
I’ve spent some spare time learning what I can about olfactory response and consequent hormone release. I’ve been talking to my professor, reading neuroendrocinology texts, even designing experiments in my head…
Just like REAL MEDICINE, pheromone effectiveness comes from BOTH placebo and physiological effect. Do you know that placebo actually helps with treatment? Of course, taking some medication that actually affects the biochemical or hormonal or immunological pathway have a greater impact. Moreover, placebo + real effect = more
I recommend AMMO + IS to increase your sex and charm. What else?
‘Real medicine’ doesn’t consider the placebo effect when determining whether a certain chemical produces physiological responses. It only considers observable data. Doctors don’t cure staph infections with placebos, they prescribe antibiotics. Granted, the placebo effect may lead to faster recovery, but drugs are only designed to be biochemically effective. let me revise your equation:
I never said mones are placebo! I said it is REAL - yet, placebo helps too. I think self-effects (ie people being confident and standing straighter with A314 ) comes from placebo. The way it AFFECTS OTHERS is not placebo. It really does affect others, esp FEMALES, and that is what PHEROMONES do. It AFFECTS OTHERS!
I know much about medicine and biomedical research. Most of my colleagues are budding physicians, nurses, pharmacists, etc. They will tell you over 75% of medicine has something to do with placebo. Yes, certain antibiotics are used to cover either gram +, gram -, or both; not to mention that different ones are chosen after considering some side-effects. However, most physicians will tell you that it is actually your body that is eliminating the bugs through innate or adaptive immunity. Whether or not they are bacterial static or cidal, you’re just letting your body catch up!
The way most of us do our research is we spray on a pheromone and watch peoples responses. We also read reports on here from other users and try out what they recommend. Sometimes we get similar responses, sometimes we don’t.
If you are interested in actual research, search on JV Kohl. He has published some of his research.
You can search the electronic libraries that you has access to through your enrollment in UT. You should be able to find scholarly, peer-reviewed papers there.
If you would like to see pheromones in action for yourself, I can make a few recommendations for you.
Ammo is a good choice for the first-time customer. Put on a couple of sprays to your neck then go about your routine. You will need to stay alert to the “hits” that will come your way. They will not be like the Axe commercials. Pay close attention to women flipping their hair, smiling and holding longer eye contact, and being more ready to have a conversation. These are the hits you will see.
Since you are a student in college, you might try out MX390 on days when you will be close to some of the younger female students. I use the old MX301, which has the same mones as MX390 but with a different cover scent. MX390 is known for attracting younger females (18-25 or so).
If you are a skeptic, you may not want to spring for A314. You may want to try out IG, though. It will give you some of the “respect hits” that A314 users report without the unapproachable vibe. It’s also a lot cheaper.
Not much else to discuss here, thanks for the information Jaycee1. I’ve read some of JV Kohl’s research and had a few conversations with him. His reasoning is a bit exclusive on minimal evidence from what I’ve read. He attributes alot of human sexuality to pheromone reception. Kohl believes pheromones are solely responsible for the ‘WHF’ phenomenon in blind men, but I flat out disagree. This was simply a behavioral study, no real controls were implemented to isolate the senses and test them separately. His credibility is weakened by the fact that he’s hocking his own brand of 'mone fumes. Lol, I’m also skeptical of anyone who readily mentions his membership in MENSA as an academic credential. Many academics qualify for or belong to MENSA, but this has no bearing on the legitimacy of our research.
yeah, I don’t want to knock on anyone, but does anyone doing pheromone research actually have a Phd? lol.
I don’t think it is something that you can do an ACCURATE research on. You can measure changes happening biochemically; that part you can do things scientifically. However, the behavioral aspect varies so much based on so many things, it is not really possible.
Bottom line is, does it matter? No… if you want to appear sexier and get more girls, use mones. If you just want to do research on it, that is fine too. Order some and see some results for yourself
I think it’s possible to do accurate research, you would just have to have access to some expensive machinery. One possible way to see the effect of pheromones on the brain would be to mask a control and an isolated pheromone in non-commercial fragrance. Take 1 group of test subjects and expose them to the control and then the pheromone randomly. Note you could change environmental variables to determine various effects on pheromone reception/response. I would likely make the environment neutral (ie: white room) to isolate the senses and then measure brain activity before and after exposure. This would be a pure measure of pheromone effectiveness. Of course, other variables such as menstruation/amount of sleep/nutrition/level of physical activity would have to be accounted for because these would affect endogenous hormone levels.
Another possibility would be to literally measure facial features of photographs and then ask subjects to rate the photographs on attractiveness before/after exposure to pheromones. Extraneous factors mentioned above would have to be accounted for. This would measure synergistic effect… the possible combinations are readily apparent.
Biochemically, you would have to really get down and dirty to see the effects. Hormonal responses could be measured by somehow deadening, isolating or occupying all the olfactory receptors and leaving the naso-vomeral pathways open. If you could demonstrate that highly specific receptors do indeed exist (as they are fabled) for sterol compounds, determine the reaction mechanism, irreversibly inhibit the receptors in the lab, and then demonstrate the hormonal pathway, you’d probably get published in Nature and win awards…
I guess mentioning someones credibility is weakened because they are selling something is easy enough to do. On that basis Steve Hawkins is pretty much a mental midget because he is “hocking” books right? Actually not a very strong argument, but hey you’re entitled to your opinions. I’ll tend to believe JV Kohl for now, because quite frankly he does have established credibility, but you actually don’t, not at least established that I can gather.
There’s nothing wrong with skepticism. A good healthy dose is always appropriate when researching something as far out as pheromones. There’s a story about a fringe science that these two brothers were working on. They had this crazy notion that you could sit in this contraption and it could fly in the sky like a bird . Believe it or not it actually worked and even though there were witnesses to the entire process the rest of the world poo-poo’d it for months. The French actually denied powered flight for 2 years afterward and publicly decried the Wright brothers liars.
So sure skepticism is a good thing and many others have come along and said similar things. Many of those are now some of our best community members, others well they just didn’t have the foresight to go at it with the mind of a true researcher. It’s no biggie more will come after you too. I just hope you have enough insight to discover for your own curiosity what does work. Good luck, I am sending out your GC
Yes, it does weaken his credibility. Hawkins undeniably proved, along with a group of scientists, that black holes do exist. Seems like you’re pulling out every used-up cliche you can think of and using them (rather poorly)… for no reason. I am not denying or confirming the effectiveness of pheromones. I plan to do research at the university and attempt publication.
I’m not saying he’s wrong. I am saying his track record does not paint a shining example of scientific research at it’s finest. What I am saying.. wait for it… is that a whole bunch of credible research in the field of pheromones still needs to be done in order for the myths and facts to be separated. that is all. thanks for the GC mate!
