Until death: Virus-driven failure of multisensory integration (1)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: October 5, 2017

(click to enlarge)

Martha McClintock‘s works inspired my works. Publication of “The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor Human Sexualty” (1995) led Denise Chen to study olfaction and pheromones. See for example: Encoding human sexual chemosensory cues in the orbitofrontal and fusiform cortices. Her student, Wen Zhou, returned to China and she is the senior author of Olfaction Warps Visual Time Perception.
Since 1995, all accurate representations of how foraging behavior links food odors and pheromones from feedback loops to sexual reproduction and the increasing complexity of all biophysically constrained biodiversity can be viewed in the context of what others have reported in examples like this.
See Mating Pheromone in Cryptococcus neoformans Is Regulated by a Transcriptional/Degradative “Futile” Cycle.
The fungus Cryptococcus neoformans is currently the fourth greatest cause of infectious death in regions of Africa and undergoes mating in phytonutrient-rich environments to create spores with infectious potential.
See also: Cryptococcosis Workup
My summary: The food energy-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction of this organism is linked from protein biosynthesis and degradation to depressed concentration of glucose in cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), and to increased CSF protein concentrations. That fact is a clear indicator of how the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA is linked to all pathology. The virus-driven changes in the level of glucose compared to protein concentration are prevented by supercoiled DNA. RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in organized genomes link the energy-dependent creation of enzymes, hormones, and receptors to healthy longevity. Food odors and pheromones are linked to feedback loops and the supercoiled DNA that typically prevents the genomic entropy of organized genomes.
See: Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction and Combating Evolution to Fight Disease
Every serious scientist knows there is no such thing as a “futile” cycle of food energy-dependent pheromone-controlled protein biosynthesis and degradation. Richard Feynman placed that fact into the context of the “human idiocy” exemplified by theoretical physicists. For comparison, serious scientists have linked the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA to all pathology. If they had not already done this, the cell biology game “Cytosis” would not be delivered — as scheduled — during the month of October, 2017.

Cytosis Shipping Update

The fulfillment centers in the UK and Australia started shipping Cytosis out to backers last week, and the fulfillment centers in the US and Germany are planning to start shipping packages out this week (Let’s keep our fingers crossed). Shipments to Canada will be 3-4 days behind US shipments since those games got delivered to the US and then split off to Canada.

No one I know could have predicted that all pseudoscientists can now learn how to protect themselves from the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA by playing: “A board game taking place inside a human cell! Players compete to build enzymes, hormones and receptors and fend off attacking Viruses!”
However, I recall the words of Martha McClintock after I supported her in a discussion among the biologically uninformed science idiots who attacked her representation of human pheromone-dependent biologically-based cause and effect (ovulatory synchrony).
See: Do human menstrual-cycle pheromones exist? (2006) and Women do not synchronize their menstrual cycles (2006)
After she reeducated the biologically uninformed members of J. Michael Baily’s “SexNet” listserver she wrote this to me:

Thanks for keeping the faith.

It will be interesting to see what happens with our antagonists who have continued to publish examples of human idiocy.
See for instance: Arousing Imaginations by David Puts

James Kohl authors the Handbook‘s final chapter, “The mind’s eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences.” Kohl posits innate sex differences in preferences for sexually dimorphic pheromones. These sex pheromones act as unconditioned stimuli that become associated with visual and tactile stimuli through classical conditioning. Consequently, men with innate preferences for women’s odors come to prefer the appearance and feel of women, for example. Homosexuality results from incomplete sexual differentiation of the olfactory system.

Kohl marshals supporting evidence, though it is often subject to alternative interpretation. For example, Kohl suggests that exposure to sex pheromones is “the most likely explanation for the recent finding that saliva [testosterone] levels in men increase with exposure to a young woman, but do not increase with exposure to a young man” (p. 327). Is it not likely that the young woman’s appearance raised men’s testosterone levels?

Multiple studies by independent researchers leave little doubt that odor affects human mate choice, but Kohl probably grossly overstates its importance. Why postulate that humans evolved only obligate olfactory/pheromonal preferences? Isn’t there likely to be useful information about mates that is better obtained through vision and touch than through smell? If so, selection would probably favor more reliable developmental patterns for visual and tactile preferences than classical conditioning to olfactory ones. Moreover, there is a trend among anthropoid primates, including humans, for reduced olfaction and increased reliance on vision for locating food and mates. This is witnessed in our tiny olfactory bulbs, which are relatively many times smaller than in rats; and our apparent lack of a functional vomeronasal organ, which is used by many mammals to detect pheromones.

Ironically, a seemingly fatal blow follows from a condition that Kohl presents in support of his hypothesis. Prior to treatment, people with Kallmann Syndrome (KS) lack both a sense of smell and much of a libido. Superficially, these facts appear to support Kohl’s hypothesis that olfaction is primary in sexual interest. However, the relation between olfaction and libido here is not causal. In most fetuses, some cells in the olfactory placode develop into olfactory cells while others migrate to the hypothalamus to become cells that trigger sex hormone secretion by the gonads. A mutation in one of three known genes can disrupt the development of these cells, so that a person not only lacks a sense of smell but also has gonads that do not produce sex hormones. It is the low sex hormone levels, rather than a lack of olfaction, that leads to reduced libido in adults with KS: Testosterone treatment at least partially restores libido in men with KS, but there is no known treatment for their anosmia.

For another alternative interpretation of everything published by serious scientists about food odors and pheromones, see:

Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model

James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others’ research. It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published.

Andrew Jones, BA

Editor’s note

The 2013 review article by James Vaughn Kohl published in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology and criticized in the above Letter to the Editor was subjected to standard peer review and the revised version was accepted by me after it had been accepted by both reviewers.

See also: Until death: Virus-driven failure of multisensory integration (2)