# Hi **URL:** \ **Category:** Introductions - New Users, Say "Hello"!\ **Created:** [December 13, 2006, 3:47pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/hi/1137 "2006-12-13T15:47:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 17
**Author:** ![MHarris](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/mharris/32/2107_2.png) [@MHarris](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/MHarris)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2006, 4:12am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/hi/1137/17 "2006-12-15T04:12:35Z")
Hi, Winger. I just noticed your introduction. Welcome to the forum. Thank you for your questions, and your skepticism! I think it’s great. I’m sorry some people gave you answers which you view as unrealistic or even hostile. Many people enjoy the fact that [pheromones](https://a314.com/) have not reached mainstream acceptance, so they can keep the technology to themselves for as long as possible. That’s from where much of the hostility stems. They’re just being selfish in the most effective way they know how. 😉 Like me, you seem to have a distaste for faith based products. I’m a hard bred Skeptos Society & objectivism inspired skeptic myself (not one of the modern breed of nihilistic skeptic that insist that nothing exists at all!) Personally, I _hate_ faith based products that do nothing. I have an imagination, but I can use that liberally for _free_, thank you very much! The bulk of nutritional products in existence fall into this category. You either imagine that they’re doing something, or you get no benefit from them at all. Advertising is to blame for pre-programming people, but so are some poorly done studies that will later be disproven. I’ve tried many well studied nutritional products that proved themselves to be garbage in the real world. (All studies have bias, including double blinds – the only truly good studies are double blinds that are then replicated by other disinterested parties… a very rare thing these days!) We view ourselves more of a technology company that drives things forward, that does small scale propriety studies in order to further that purpose. My own skepticism has been kept on high, which helps greatly in development. That said, a university study is being done on of our propriety pheromones by a university in Germany, but these things take a lot of time and an amazing amount of money to complete. But like computer graphics cards, despite studies, our products provides more visible benefits this year than last. Unless you need someone else to completely confirm reality for you (most schizophrenics or truly delusional people don’t make their way onto the forum!), most people have enough grasp of reality to to be able to tell for themselves over time if something actually works. **For example:** Anyone, even a completely logical engineer, can tell that this year’s Quadro and FireGL graphics cards on their workstations work, and are better this year than last year. Yet no double blind studies are done on these, validating the reality of 3D, or it’s efficacy when compared against 2D. It’s just technology marching forward, and you often don’t absolutely require a study for the development of something tangible. University studies have their purposes, but they often come _after_ the development of a bonafide technology. Full university studies tend serve more as a _confirmation_ than an active part of the development process. In today’s economy, you can’t wait 3 to 20 years for a university study to give you the smallest amount of data for the highest cost possible. Real life works fast, and commercially, you are forced by the market to do what works to produce tangible results that are worth an exchange of people’s hard earned dollars, and their irreplacable time. Anyway, you have a $15 gift cert here, given to you for nothing more than saying “Hello”. This is enough to try something small without any cost to you (besides shipping and handling), if you wish. In your case, the best thing might be to get something free, and see for yourself. For official university studies, also please see NIMH and Google scholar. [Entrez PubMed](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com/) The two most university studied molecules are androstadienone and estratetraenol. You can use this link to search directly for androstadienone: [androstadienone - Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=androstadienone) We sell both of these well studied molecules. In fact, we’re unique in that use the same American chemist who creates most of these molecules for the better studies you’ll find. There is no other way for most people to access this class of chemicals. Due to their high cost, we are the only company willing or able to do this. Again, welcome to the forum. Despite what anyone says, both you and your skepticism are more than welcome here. This is not a cult. In fact, I need the most realistic, hard nosed feedback possible in order to help these things evolve. Warmest regards, Michael PS – With whatever you get, I’d also be pleased to send you a placebo version of same product without pheromones, so you can perform a small scale study on your own. We can keep it blind, so you don’t know which is which, besides a simple “A” or “B” on the bottle. Just include an order note, and I’ll approve it. --- _[View the full topic](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/hi/1137)._