I have a question in regards to pheromone research. It is my understanding that Androtics is primarily, at least at this time, a pheromone research company. I have assumed that the Putatives are molecules believed to be pheromones with no names and that the T series are known pheromones, however Androtics does not disclose the name of those pheromones so as not to skew test results. After reading a very recent post I now question my original assumption.
I do realize that some of the Putatives may be duplicates at different qualities to see how impurities affect the end result. I don’t expect specific answers that would jeopardize testing or risk proprietary information, however for the sake of my own personal research I do have some questions. Are some of these putatives actually known pheromones? Are all of the putatives human “pheromones”? Are there any putatives that are not found in nature at all, such as a molecule developed only in a lab environment?
There were some molecules that were equiline. That’s as much as I can contribute to that.
The other molecules I do know that P88 and P93 were of similar structure, and I asked Jasmin myself in the open forum if there were any putatives that were related like that but she told me that everything was the standard regarding everything else.
I know many experienced users here have theorized that certain P series were derivatives of certain TA series molecules.
Interesting thread, going to keep an eye out on this.
That’s a tough question and I can only share what I do know.
There are only two known pheromones A1 and Est. All other pheromones are putatives and a putative is a substance suspected of acting like a pheromone. From what I have been told most of the putatives are hormones of some sort and they all have chemical names. Basically thats what pheromones are. Hormones signal inside the body and pheromones are hormones that signal outside the body as well as having a function inside the body.
Some of the putatives are duplicates of other putatives that are less pure or have been modified molecular in some way from what has been mentioned here by MH and Jas over the years. I assume if its modified its not found in nature.
All the “pheromones” used in the consumer section of the store are human but I know that Meo Est is not produced by humans. Its a horse hormone. Whether there are more like this I dont know.
While Androtics does claim to be a research company and I believe they are they are not nonprofit. They have a store and they sell to consumers so its good to ask tough questions and do some research of your own.
There are very few nonprofit research companies. Even if its cancer research and they take donations - once their research finds a cure, it surely will be passed along to the highest bidding pharmaceutical company. Most research companies are paid/commissioned to do actual research by profiting companies.
While its true that AD is a research business (I don’t think we ever claimed to be non-profit), we actually would rather have the research than the money which is why some experimones are priced the same even though their actual cost for us to synthesize is high. In fact most of the profit, a large majority, goes right back into synthesizing new material, up-keeping the equipment at facilities, and running the actual business.
As for the experimones, I’m sure with all of the P’s we have several pheromone industry exclusives however I can’t go into specifics or detail for obvious reasons. Our naming system with the MXs and the P’s help to keep the research honest by making certain things anonymous to prevent any pre-conceived idea before reporting.
Basically, AD has done more research in this field than anyone and I stand by that. Its with the help of our clients and dedicated staff, as well as MHarris and Jasmin. I hope this answers questions.
Thank you everyone for responding. This is great information.
John,
This is kind of the answer I expected, but not at all what I wanted. I completely understand the rational behind the testing. However I think some of the logic may be skewed. Let me explain why. I don’t think there is anyone on this site that goes to the store grabs a Putative and test it without ever looking into what it does. Even with the release of P130 people have waited to hear what others have said about it, or at least they didn’t get around to testing it until some others started testing first. That makes sense obviously since it came with test mixes. (BTW I actually tested it the first day that I received, but I was already wearing mones). The problem is for the most part most of us looking for certain effects. So we choose putatives and MX’s that may give us the desire results and test accordingly. Only after playing around with mones for a while does it appear that people begin to test just to see what something does.
I think it was smart to send P130 out to those purchasing test packs for free. I actually really appreciate it. I think there should have been a stipulation that we should test P130 alone first and report directly to the company instead of public space on the forum. This is just my 2 cents.
Now the reason I asked the original questions is because I believe that current testing may be both limited and biased. Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe that all of us on this forum are greatly influenced by those that have been using mones for a long time. Because of their expereince and our inexperience we create limits immediately to what mones can and cannot do. In fact there threads that describe exactly what mones can and cannot do.
BY providing more information I believe that you actually increase the effectiveness of our testing. For instance now that we know that 2 of the putatives are the same but at are created in different qualities one may pay more attention to the subtleties of a putative when testing to see if it similar to anything else they have tested.
If Androtics were to say that they are not limited to putatives found on the human body, I believe that you would receive better reports. I would personally remove the limits on what I believe mones can and can’t do thus allowing me to push the limits in testing. Plus it would satisfy my curiosity as to whether some of the putatives are pheromone molecules that have been chemically altered in some way to create something new.
So I will ask my question again and if some one from Androtics does not provide an answer I will make my own assumptions. Are there any putatives in the Androtics Direct store that are not found in nature at all, such as a molecule developed only in a lab environment?
Sorry to hear that, I was responding to what I could answer with any sort of expertise.
Maybe this explanation will help:
Whether or not every single one of our molecules is found in nature is almost impossible to answer. All of the molecules we use are synthesized so technically not a single one of them are found in nature. I think what you’re asking is if they are synthesized as a duplicate of a molecule found in nature?
We don’t know enough about every molecule to answer that, there’s still a lot of research in the field on the chemists’ side. Some of them? Yes we do know about for sure. But not literally every single molecule is confirm-able to be a perfect ‘replica’/‘duplicate’/synthesis. Thats why we spend so much on research.
Thank you for your questions, I hope that’s what you were looking for.
I’m pretty sure M. Harris has mentioned this at least once or twice, if you want to look for his posts on it? He knows WAY more than I do.
Thanks John. This answer helps me a lot. Pheromones are basically “waste” from hormones deposited on the skin that communicate everything from health, sexual desire, intent, etc. However pheromones are primarily communicators. If there is a possibility that some of these synthesized molecules are not perfect duplicates then we can’t limit our observations to what we believe putatives are.
In reality then the 90/10 rule isn’t always accurate, the "Axe Effect’ may be possible, manipulation may be possible, and who knows maybe even animal charming.
Thanks for your response John. I will remove the limitations on my thinking now and really explore what these little molecules can do without holding them back.
If that’s true then I would imagine that the U.S Army, the Air Force and their contracted scientific research companies aren’t far behind! If you think how much information is publically available about government research into pheromones, imagine how much has been done which is still classified. A crazy thought!
Its going to look this way whether you get it from a plant, animal, a human or its made synthetically the purity may differ though. Androtics uses top quality pheromones so its not likely the molecular structure would be off and because many steroids are so close on a molecular level if you are a little off arone can easily become anone.
Now from previous posts over the last 5 years from MH and Jasmin some putatives may be altered but adding anything to it can alter it including the scent pack but its not altered molecularly. Certain purities can make a difference in results or at least this is something they are testing.
For instance…
Here she explains how certain impurities. They anol is the same its the impurities that cause the shift in reactions. Now dont look at impurities as a bad thing. Our bodies can produce a impure anol just from our health, diets and fitness levels.
Because we are all have natural impurities that work along with our natural pheromones they may test 3 or 4 versions of anol to see which of those impurities or how much of them change the signal.
While others reports may limit you in some ways you have to consider you produce your own pheromones that are working along with the synthetic ones. So the results reported are not the indicator of what a putative will do. Its when you take all those reports along with the race age and gender and other statistics of the reporter and combine them looking for the pattern that you find out what a putative does. (thats why we always pushed for personal statistics in the intro section) So dont let other reports influence you, There are no wrong answers here when it comes to reporting. Just report what you feel, see and hear even if its way off from everyone else’s. While it may seem different, it could fit the pattern perfectly.
The 90/10 rule is just a generalization. Its never been written in stone. I find it differs depending on a whole slew of other factors just like it does with our natural pheromones.
Personally I dont think pheromones will ever be strong enough to take away free will so manipulation is not likely but influence is. You would have to do away with the rest of our senses for that to occur. If pheromones were the only way we communicated then maybe but they are not, they are just one part of a larger picture.
Thank you John and Tisha. This is exactly what I was looking for.
John, it’s these designer molecules that I was referencing earlier.This is what excites me the most. The very idea opens up the realm of possibilities. Whether we are currently testing those or not, the idea of it makes this research all the more exciting. It forces me to expand my mind. Thanks again for this information.
