Other Vendors vs PXS, have you considered the goal?

[knowledgeispower]

knowledgeispower Your point is clear. I find the best way in my experience to have an effective product is to balance status and empathy. Androstanone and xsp96 could be an example of that. What you are suggesting is very deep.

Consider this: at one point, no one knew what each pheromone did. So we had to test each one individually. The results and knowledge you want is still based on tests. Tests on individual molecules that were likely done in naturalistic settings, with few controls and heavy reliance on convergence in observations by people who were not trained researchers. With mixes, the problem is more complex. Although we may know what each molecule does, what do the molecules do together when combined? Is the sum of the parts greater than the whole?

Wow, so much for my philosophy of pheromones.

Yes very true! However keep in mind individual mones have been tested for decades (some more than others) by thousands if not tens of thousands or more users (and some in lab settings like eRONE, eNONE, and A1 and more).

On the other hand some products like PXS have only been out a few years and tested by far fewer. So the reliability of the known effects of some of the individual molecules is well established simply by a very large sample size and lots of time and even laboratory studies. Individual products, much much less.

Don't get me wrong there are countless reviews on bad wolf, xist, voodoo, etc but you cannot compare that with individual molecules, and on top of that it is much easier to get a specific grip on an individual molecule while it is much more difficult to get an idea of how the combination come together in a mix

[Xcc]

knowledgeispower I'm going to put you on the spot. Given what you have stated in this thread, what would you recommend as a research design to test a new formula? We both know there is no perfect design. Each has its flaws. But nonetheless, what do you suggest?

[knowledgeispower]

knowledgeispower I'm going to put you on the spot. Given what you have stated in this thread, what would you recommend as a research design to test a new formula? We both know there is no perfect design. Each has its flaws. But nonetheless, what do you suggest?

Hmm this is a good question. Well, first of all are you suggesting in a lab setting (as in the subjects + environment are controlled)? Or are we talking about out in the wild? It would be tough in the wild, but in a lab I can think of a few things...

Of course testing around a significant other is probably the best middle ground, but it can't test everything as there is already familiarity and it isn't necessarily a "hit" for example because you already know the person.

[Xcc]

knowledgeispower Get baselines. A-B-A-B designs. Measure intensity, frequency, duration of behaviors. Operational definitions.

Just a few phrases. It can be done, but I think it would take convergence of observations over time.

You do notice a difference between XiSt and Evolve. That's divergence. We know they are different formulas. Is it going to be perfect and be able to withstand any kind of scrutiny? Nope. But it will get real world results. As you have noticed.

[knowledgeispower]

knowledgeispower Get baselines. A-B-A-B designs. Measure intensity, frequency, duration of behaviors. Operational definitions.

Just a few phrases. It can be done, but I think it would take convergence of observations over time.

You do notice a difference between XiSt and Evolve. That's divergence. We know they are different formulas. Is it going to be perfect and be able to withstand any kind of scrutiny? Nope. But it will get real world results. As you have noticed.

To be fair I don't have any real world testing of Evolve; I say my thoughts on Xist vs Evolve simply because I know it has a tone of eNONE which I know is not good for work. So I am biasing my use based on the contents. Xist has a touch of eNONE which is why I use it without hesitation every day. To be fair I HAVE also done extensive user reviews of Evolve that confirm my understanding of it, but I just don't have the time/willingness to test these things anymore so I let the contents of the product + the reviews tell me what to do. That being said, I prioritize the contents over the reviews and if they don't match up that's when I'll do my own testing

As for experimental designs, I work with cells + rats more than humans so experimental design isn't really a strong suit of more. I deal more with proteomic work than behavioral work so sorry I'm a bit clueless when it comes to some behavioral specific experiments. That's why I've been refraining from exact details and rather talking more about controlling variables, etc Maybe a psychologist can better answer these questions!

[Xcc]

knowledgeispower Labs are great. I read a lab study where they concluded that at certain amounts of A1, women experienced elevated mood and decreased bad mood. And when the A1 was taken away, any protective factors from stress or bad mood were gone. That's what I remember at least.

Unfortunately, we don't have many studies like that for all these putatives and pheromones, which I think is sad. I prefer the lab too. But for now, we have our crowd sourced information and our knowledge of ingredients.

[knowledgeispower]

knowledgeispower Labs are great. I read a lab study where they concluded that at certain amounts of A1, women experienced elevated mood and decreased bad mood. And when the A1 was taken away, any protective factors from stress or bad mood were gone. That's what I remember at least.

Unfortunately, we don't have many studies like that for all these putatives and pheromones, which I think is sad. I prefer the lab too. But for now, we have our crowd sourced information and our knowledge of ingredients.

I think the biggest barrier is funding. Most labs doing work on cancer and other diseases are barely getting funded these days as money is tight (blame Congress) and there is so much competition. I believe the numbers are around 70% of labs in the US right now are unfunded. So from a priorities perspective, the NIH has no interest in funding pheromone research when it can barely fund cancer research.

That being said, the only way lab studies can be funded these days in terms of pheromones (reliably funded) is through private corporations in the perfume/cologne industry. PXS sadly does not have the volume (yet) to be able to support such studies although we would like to certainly hope so one day! Androtics Direct was rumored to have been a shoot-off test of some big boy in the perfume industry who used crowd-sourcing as a way to cheaply fund research while also remaining anonymous as to not dilute their brand. This may be why they continue pulling putatives off the market, especially good ones. It's likely they use this data to formulate pheromones for colognes that are not advertised as such. Again just a rumor but it would make sense...

Don't get me wrong, user reports are great. It's just that the placebo effect will unfortunately always be there.

I think if you want to effectively test pheromones here's what you should do:

Get 3 empty vials of 5 ml size. Put 5 ml of pure Alcohol in #1, 5 ml of pure Alcohol + DPG in #2, and 5 ml of actual PXS putative/product. Then what you need to do is dilute a heavy cover scent in all 3 vials (lets say Sultan's oud). This is probably the best way to blind yourself to them. Than have someone else label them 1-3 (out of order as to which you mixed them) then pull them out of a bag and try them in an isolated setting over a period of weeks and see if you can get the right pheromone out of the 3. If you do this repeatedly, you will know the effects you see are not placebo. This will never be 100% accurate because the cover scent likely will have some attraction properties of itself, but you need to use it to cover the smell of the natural pheromones. The DPG test is simply to test if DPG has an effect on its own (which it probably does, but as a good scientist you always have to test your carrier for effects).

Of course not many people have the time or care to do this, but it would be a good experiment for yourself to see how much of the effects you see are placebo and how much are really pheromones...

[Xcc]

knowledgeispower Good design! Something similar to this has been done, but again you are right... you need the funding and volunteers.

[Tenerife Guy]

It certainly doesn't help "the science" if someone comments (speculates) on a product which they have never worn. On this or any other forum.

[knowledgeispower]

It certainly doesn't help "the science" if someone comments (speculates) on a product which they have never worn. On this or any other forum.

That's a bit disrespectful. I've been wearing pheromones for 10+ years, and while yes I cannot definitively comment on something I have worn little of, you can know a ton about a product by its contents. This is why I refuse to wear products that have secretive contents anymore. I have tested individual mones like eRONE and eNONE, etc for 10 years. I know what 20 mcg/spray of eNONE means in a work setting, even when buffered. Before 2011 this mix was known as ICM and was one of the most popular mixes AD used to sell. When AD stopped selling the custom mix SteveO made his own (he did develop it after all) and I used ICM extensively and I use this knowledge + my knowledge of pheromones when I give advice on Evolve.

Now yes user reviews confirm my thoughts (which may be placebo, but given the content of eNONE the placebo effect here would be minimal), and I never said I haven't worn Evolve, I've worn it several times around my spouse, I just not have worn this specific PXS product Evolve outside the home. But ICM is so close to Evolve it's not a huge difference (actually SteveO still is selling some of his ICM mix on PXS before perfecting it with Evolve). I've spent hundreds of hours on top of my individual mone testing researching individual products and their combinations including Evolve. I've read every thread SteveO has posted on PheroTruth dating back to 2011 when he was developing Evolve (you can actually make your own Evolve if you read there as he posted the exact concentrations of its contents as he was developing it there, although he has altered the formula a bit now and added his own secret mone putatives to it).

Now whenever I haven't worn something extensively I say so, because I do not want users to be misconstrued. But don't think because I haven't tested it extensively that I cannot comment or give advice on it. You go wear 40 mcg of eNONE at work and see what happens...

[Tenerife Guy]

I'm not trying to be disrespectful knowledgeispower, but even PSX don't list all of the ingredients in all of their products, let alone ratios, so commenting or advising about a product which you have not extensively tested, however solid your experience with other products might be, is not being fair to newer users. In addition, you really need to test a product on at least 5 baseline targets to get a feel for how it works. I would not dream of commenting, reviewing or recommending (or otherwise) a product which I hadn't previously tested on a variety of targets. It would just be speculation on my part.

PS: I've worn 8 drops of eNone25 oil to the local shopping mall, and on another occasion, bedded a girl with 4 drops eNone25+ 2 sprays of Celebrity.

[knowledgeispower]

I'm not trying to be disrespectful knowledgeispower, but even PSX don't list all of the ingredients in all of their products, let alone ratios, so commenting or advising about a product which you have not extensively tested, however solid your experience with other products might be, is not being fair to newer users. In addition, you really need to test a product on at least 5 baseline targets to get a feel for how it works. I would not dream of commenting, reviewing or recommending (or otherwise) a product which I hadn't previously tested on a variety of targets. It would just be speculation on my part.

PS: I've worn 8 drops of eNone25 oil to the local shopping mall, and on another occasion, bedded a girl with 4 drops eNone25+ 2 sprays of Celebrity.

The way I see it this forum is lacking on active users. A lot of newbies don't have much guidance, and when someone asks for help or suggestions they'll be lucky to get 1 or 2 people who respond. I do my best to guide them using my knowledge of the products contents, my own experiences with either the product and/or the contents, and the reviews I have read on countless forums, including SteveO's intended use and how he's used it. For example, SteveO has commented in numerous threads both on PXS and PheroTruth about how he has come up with each formula and why it matters. I don't believe most people even know these threads exist nor have read them, but they are a minefield of knowledge and he explains the intricacies of each blend he has made and his results with the blend and the purpose it was created. 90% of my guidance come from those posts. Sure there are secret molecules in each blend, but the vast majority of the effects will come from the primary mones which are in the highest concentration and which I have lots of experience with; the secret ones are just to steer or touch them up a bit but they will not change the fact that it has A1/eNONE/eRONE for example. Given that, based on age and purpose I can recommend someone avoid certain products for work or for certain effects they would like to achieve.

I don't claim to have all the answers, and many users here will sometimes debate with me on these issues and that is great we need to debate because the science in the pheromone world is still in its infancy and no one has all the answers. But until this forum becomes active enough to help people I see no problem guiding people with the best of my ability. And I will always make it known whether the product I am guiding them to use is based on my own experiences or not. Having some guidance is better than none.

Now lets say this was LAL, I would not dream of guiding or commenting as I have no idea what is in each product and each review is so different. PXS is unique because many of these blends were SteveO's secret blends that were publicly known and tested back in the AD days. I myself have used many of those blends and made some myself back in the AD days following him on PheroTalk forums, but now of course they are known as different names under the PXS blend.

[Tenerife Guy]

If secret "molecules" only played a minor role in a mix, then they probably wouldn't be kept secret ..lol! Even changing from one supplier to another can trash a good mix, so we have to accept that there is stuff in whatever we buy, whoever we buy it from, that isn't going to be revealed to us but is critical to its performance and characteristics. I am not personally bothered about this, though I would like to be aware (via the vendor) if a mix contained A1 or EST, for example. It doesn't mean I wouldn't buy it, but rather I would allow for some side effects.

I do agree with a lot of what you say knowledgeispower, I just believe that we have different methods of testing. But I still say that commenting upon a product without having used it isn't good practice. Let's look at it this way. Someone could study and learn all of the facts and history of Paris. They would be able to answer just about any question if asked. But that person had never actually been to Paris. Now, if you were going to travel to Paris, and you looked it up and asked a few questions on Trip Advisor, how would you react if that someone who had never been there was advising you, just based upon a theoretical knowledge of that place?

Perhaps the best way to answer a complete newbie is just to post him a link to a thread (from any source) where he could read reviews from someone experienced with that particular product.

[knowledgeispower]

If secret "molecules" only played a minor role in a mix, then they probably wouldn't be kept secret ..lol! Even changing from one supplier to another can trash a good mix, so we have to accept that there is stuff in whatever we buy, whoever we buy it from, that isn't going to be revealed to us but is critical to its performance and characteristics. I am not personally bothered about this, though I would like to be aware (via the vendor) if a mix contained A1 or EST, for example. It doesn't mean I wouldn't buy it, but rather I would allow for some side effects.

This is just my personal opinion and isn't backed up by anything...but my personal thinking is the secret molecule stuff is just marketing...in all seriousness, there is no voodoo secret molecules out there, and if there were, chances are the science behind them is seriously lacking. Most pheromones are naturally excreted and we have the majority already well identified in labs (like dienone, eNONE, eRONE, Est, etc). The synthetic putatives, while possibly have an important role, have not evolutionary existed and our brains have not evolved to respond to them. That doesn't mean they don't do anything, but they may not steer human behavior like the pheromones our bodies naturally secret which our brains have evolved to rely on. They may lighten up a mood, but biologically they may not have a response at all. I think with Pheromones these days companies have to convince you that what they have is so secret that only they can produce it. I personally think that is BS to sell you their products.

Now PXS does have some molecules they don't list, but most have already been identified on PheroTruth early on when SteveO was creating these mixes. PXS doesn't need to tell me they have secrets for me to buy from they, they are already earning my business based on their pure and potent products + transparency. Sadly these days a business needs marketing tactics, and this is likely where the "secrets" come from. The reality is most biological effects from pheromones come from the dozen or so molecules that have been well studied such as eRONE, eNONE, dienone, the -nols, aNONE, etc. The rest are putatives that have minor effects, but will not make a major change to a blend. If companies like PXS and others told you the truth, you would not be as giddy to see them as your sole pheromone savior. But hey a business has to do what it has to do to compete! (this is no disrespect to SteveO he is in my eyes the #1 no-BS retailer out there, but a business still needs to survive so I don't blame him!)

So then what about A314? Well I'll leave that discussion to someone else, but I've tested both the old and new A314... I believe most of the hype surrounding the screw-up AD has had was a placebo effect of users who were upset that they kept messing with the formula. Yes A314 has slightly changed over the years, but their secret chemist didn't run off with a secret formula and they now are left with a dud. I've tested A314 for nearly 9 years, and their current A314 revision works for me just as well as the one I had 9 years ago. There are minor differences, but I still get the same effects out of it. Now of course that didn't stop someone for paying me 3x for the 4 ml of the 2006 A314 I still had in my possession...but hey I'm not going to complain I happily took the money and bought myself a new batch! (To be fair I didn't buy A314 I bought Dominant Ascend with that money as I think Ascend is a superior product to A314)...

Sometimes in life the power of faith supercedes the realities of science. And of course businesses can play off that to market their products + human psychology and group-think can hype up drama that is not real. The power of placebo is not something to understate; it has been shown that many biological changes can happen with the placebo effect, and sometimes you just need a few people to make noise for people to follow suit. Again just my 2 cents...I let people believe what they want to believe.

[knowledgeispower]

Also just to comment on trade secrets....I believe SteveO's diffusion tech that he had custom made by a perfume company is probably more important and probably the trade secret that will put him ahead of other companies more than any secret molecules his products contain. THAT is a trade secret I'm willing to pay a premium for to have in my products...

[Tenerife Guy]

I agree that marketing is a major reason why vendors don't declare all of their ingredients, and either use or claim to use some secret addition. But in some cases, you just know that there is something unique going on. Xist and Evolve being the perfect examples.

A short while ago, Pheromone Treasures brought out a new product, (Swoon) and made the molecule which was the driving force behind it "open source". A few testers at Pherotruth were sent samples of the raw molecule. All Swoon gave me was a headache and mild disorientation for 20 minutes (no placebo in my case, a product either works or it doesn't, no matter what hype surrounds it), but many experienced users swear by it. A year ago this molecule was unknown/ undeveloped, now it is on sale. BW and AV both contain some undisclosed plant extracts which seem to enhance the main components. So perhaps 6 years ago, the main mones were 95% driving all mixes, but with research and the marketplace growing exponentially, I believe we have more "active" ingredients in many of our products that we will ever know about.


As for A314, I can't comment as I never did (and probably never will) purchase from AD. Though a lot of experienced users on the Pherotruth forum are adamant that the latest edition is a poor excuse for previous editions.

I can't really comment on diffusion either, as I live in a warm year round climate so seldom have to struggle with that. All I can say is that with PSX oils I don't have to top up so often.

[knowledgeispower]

Tenerife Guy , when it comes to putatives and other "secret molecules", do you happen to know if they are biologically existing? What I mean by that is, do our bodies endogenously secrete them or are they lab-created? I say this because olfactory science is still very primitive in the neuroscience community (not just pheromones but just the human capability of detecting various odors in general). Obviously eRONE, eNONE, dienone, etc are known endogenous pheromones found in human sweat and the likes, I'm just curious about other putatitives that AD/PXS and others sell and have discovered. I think the "discovery" process is of most interest to me. I'm curious to know if they are testing sweat samples or if these are lab created modifications of endogenous molecules. (like eRONE sulfate seems to me to be lab-created just based on my primitive knowledge of chemistry, but I could be wrong)

[Xcc]

knowledgeispower Good question... This is from the Rone Sulfate page at PXS

"5?-ANDROSTAN-3?-OL-17-ONE SULPHATE, SODIUM SALT (Androsterone Sulfate) is a pheromone clinically recognized as one of the major androgen metabolites found in urine. Chemically related to Androsterone and DHEA(s) in structure. Scientific insights reveal this steroid hormone is sexual by design moreover works to reduce body aging. It is postulated that Androsterone Sulfate therefore projects a sexual, youthful signature while displaying warmer alpha status."

I would guess that some putatives are variations of known pheromones. I think Alpha Dreams has Androsterone Potassium Sulfate in one of it's formulas. Is that natural or a variation? I don't know.

The other thing I would guess is a lab mistake. The customer calls and asks for androstadienone. But the lab sends molecule X by mistake. Then the customer uses molecule X and "wow! what an effect!" So the customer calls the lab and asks what was sent because it's not androstadienone, it's something else. So my guess is that's a kind of accidental discovery.

[knowledgeispower]

knowledgeispower Good question... This is from the Rone Sulfate page at PXS

"5?-ANDROSTAN-3?-OL-17-ONE SULPHATE, SODIUM SALT (Androsterone Sulfate) is a pheromone clinically recognized as one of the major androgen metabolites found in urine. Chemically related to Androsterone and DHEA(s) in structure. Scientific insights reveal this steroid hormone is sexual by design moreover works to reduce body aging. It is postulated that Androsterone Sulfate therefore projects a sexual, youthful signature while displaying warmer alpha status."

I would guess that some putatives are variations of known pheromones. I think Alpha Dreams has Androsterone Potassium Sulfate in one of it's formulas. Is that natural or a variation? I don't know.

The other thing I would guess is a lab mistake. The customer calls and asks for androstadienone. But the lab sends molecule X by mistake. Then the customer uses molecule X and "wow! what an effect!" So the customer calls the lab and asks what was sent because it's not androstadienone, it's something else. So my guess is that's a kind of accidental discovery.

Interesting, thanks! To be honest, lab-synthetic modifications of natural pheromones makes sense to me. For example, think of Splenda. Splenda (Sucralose) is basically Sucrose with three hydroxyl groups replaced by three chloride ions. But guess what? By doing that small change, Sucralose is now 600 times sweeter than Sucrose when it hits your taste bud. That's why a packet of Sucralose is mostly filler and actually very little in Sucralose (1 teaspoon of pure Sucralose would be unfathomably sweet/repulsive).

So I imagine that pheromones are similar. By altering pheromone molecules in a lab, it is possible to make some molecules more potent than others (or completely altering their effect). I just wish we knew more about odorants in general...we could do great good with knowledge of that! It's a shame neural processing of olfaction is very much in its infancy but hey we are all the guinea pigs in this human experiment

[Xcc]

Are you going to be around of hot babes? You don't want heavy beta mones like a/b-nols.
Are you going to be around your boss? You want to damn make sure you got more eRONE than A1 around you!

Could you comment more on these.

Also, what if your boss is a woman?