Because there is no direct evidence, some pheromone manufacturers created a kind of argument that was circumstantial. Basically, they built up an argument that these molecules were special. The first argument was that some people can't smell human pheromones. Now, if anything, that's an argument that they shouldn't be treated as pheromones. This is because if a large proportion of the population can't smell these or as it turned out, smell them as different kinds of smells, probably means it's not something that's consistent across the population.
There's a weird effect that if you can't smell it and then you sniff it a lot over a period of weeks or months, you increase your sensitivity. So after that period, you can smell it better. And then apparently there are differences between the sexes in how much they produced in their armpits and how will they perceive this. And there was even a suggestion that at different stages of the menstrual cycle, women were able to smell it better than others. All of these things turned out in the closer analysis to be false. You can learn more about the best pheromone colognes that work at http://astrobiosociety.org
The Paris Pheromones Conference of 1991
There was a Paris conference in 1991 that was sponsored by the Erox corporation, which coincidentally was patenting human pheromones as fragrances or as additions to fragrances. And it was at that conference that a paper was published on putative pheromones. The research was on the effect of putative pheromones on the electoral activity of the vomeronasal organ. Keep in mind nobody else has found a vomeronasal organ in humans that works. Unfortunately, there is no account of how the molecules were collected, isolated, and identified. And when the patent was published a little while later, there were no details in that either.
So it's quite remarkable that these two steroid molecules were proposed a without any evidence at all. Then in 2000, a scientific paper on pheromones was published in a respected journal that changed the course of science. But what was more important is that the second author was very well known. Dr. Winnifred Cutler had a very good reputation as a scientist and came from a very well known university, the University of Chicago. They studied the two molecules, androstenone and estratetraenol.
Why did they use these molecules? Simply because they've been presented at this conference and had been patented. So that was the source of the information. But because of the respectable scientist in a reasonable journal, hailing from a good laboratory published this paper, an enormous number of people started treating the molecules as respectable. Even in these sciences, all sorts of things were very wrong and I think this is something that we really do need to address. Unfortunately, many of the scientific methods for studying pheromones are incomplete.
How Do We Go Forward With Pheromones?
OK, so how should we go forward? I think we need a new start in pheromones research. The first question is which areas are possible smell sources? This includes the armpits and genital regions where pheromones in animals are secreted. Learn more at anatomist.info
My name is Mark and I have been experimenting with pheromones since 2008.