The smell conspiracy

Introduction:
This may seem trivial at first, but let me assure you it could be having huge implications.
Smell is a primitive sense that has helped drive the evolution and reproduction of the human species since we developed noses probably millions of years ago.

Background:
I grew up in the age of modern consumerism, the brands you wore and used gave people the perception of who you were and how important you are.

One of the things that I remember distinctly is that a majority of girls used the exact same deodorant and a majority of boys used the exact same deodorant.

I remember this so distinctly because of two reasons:
1: The girl’s deodorant was unavoidably potent, and while not every girl wore it I would say that close to a majority did.
2: While the boy’s deodorant was not as potent (at least to my perception), I remember going over my mates houses and seeing that most of them always had the exact same brand and scent of deodorant in their bedroom.

Now while I don’t want to name brands, I will say that it was the same large corporation that made the girls and boys deodorant and they have control over the market to this day. It is a large umbrella corporation and the boy’s deodorant is a brand heavily marketed to pubescent boys and the girls deodorant is a separate brand heavily marketed to any self concerning girl who doesn’t want to be shunned by society, or so the ads would make you assume.
Both of the deodorants are extremely cheap, some of the cheapest on the market. But due to the marketing I believe they have a high perceived value by their consumers.
While these brands do have many different types of scents, there was always one boys and girls scent that you would smell all the time.
It is important to note that the umbrella corporation that owns both of these brands is a master at advertising and perceived value. You would be surprised just how many of their brands you actually buy; apparently they sell 160 million products per day; which gives you an idea of just how huge they are. There brands range from food to cleaning products.

Conspiracy:
Scent is something that we usually pick up on the subconscious level.

It literally drives us to be sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex, which is something that has helped us evolve into the fine specimens we are today.

Already there is a possible conspiracy here that if a majority of people smell exactly the same, and this smell is an unnatural chemical odour; it could be playing havoc with our sex drive and perception of the opposite sex.
There has been a lot of debate in recent years about the change in male psychology due to confusion and isolation from the opposite sex, could this be playing a part in that?
I am sure many of you would think that scent is not a big thing, and couldn’t have a large effect but let me assure you it can and does.

Here is a bit of information about the Olfactory bulb, which is the part of the brain that processes smell: (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Main olfactory bulb
The main olfactory bulb has a multi-layered cellular architecture. In order from surface to the center the layers are
• Glomerular layer
• External plexiform layer
• Mitral cell layer
• Internal plexiform layer
• Granule cell layer
The olfactory bulb transmits smell information from the nose to the brain, and is thus necessary for a proper sense of smell. As a neural circuit, the glomerular layer receives direct input from olfactory nerves, made up of the axons from approximately ten million olfactory receptor neurons in the olfactory mucosa, a region of the nasal cavity. The ends of the axons cluster in spherical structures known as glomeruli such that each glomerulus receives input primarily from olfactory receptor neurons that express the same olfactory receptor. Glomeruli are also permeated by dendrites from neurons called mitral cells, which in turn output to the olfactory cortex. Numerous interneuron types exist in the olfactory bulb including periglomerular cells which synapse within and between glomeruli, and granule cells which synapse with mitral cells.
As a neural circuit, the olfactory bulb has one source of sensory input (axons from olfactory receptor neurons of the olfactory epithelium), and one output (mitral cell axons). As a result, it is generally assumed that it functions as a filter, as opposed to an associative circuit that has many inputs and many outputs. However, the olfactory bulb also receives "top-down" information from such brain areas as the amygdala, neocortex, hippocampus, locus coeruleus, and substantia nigra. With this in mind, its potential functions can be placed into four non-exclusive categories:

• discriminating among odors
• enhancing sensitivity of odor detection
• filtering out many background odors to enhance the transmission of a few select odors
• permitting higher brain areas involved in arousal and attention to modify the detection or the discrimination of odors

While all of these functions could theoretically arise from the olfactory bulb's circuit layout, it is unclear which, if any, of these functions are performed exclusively by the olfactory bulb. By analogy to similar parts of the brain such as the retina, many researchers have focused on how the olfactory bulb filters incoming information from receptor neurons in space, or how it filters incoming information in time. At the core of these proposed filters are the two classes of interneurons; the periglomerular cells, and the granule cells.
The basal dendrites of mitral cells are connected to interneurons known as granule cells, which by some theories produce lateral inhibition between mitral cells. It is not clear what the functional role of lateral inhibition would be, though it may be involved in boosting the signal-to-noise ratio of odor signals by silencing the basal firing rate of surrounding non-activated neurons. The synapse between mitral and granule cells is of a rare class of synapses that are "dendro-dendritic" which means that both sides of the synapse are dendrites that release neurotransmitter. In this specific case, mitral cells release the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate, and granule cells release the inhibitory neurotransmitter Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). As a result of its bi-directionality, the dendro-dendritic synapse can cause mitral cells to inhibit themselves (auto-inhibition), as well as neighboring mitral cells (lateral inhibition).
Olfaction is distinct from the other sensory systems where peripheral sensory receptors have a relay in the diencephalon. Therefore the olfactory bulb plays this role for the olfactory system.

CONTINUED NEXT POST:

Continued...

It is clear that the olfactory bulb is a sensitive piece of equipment.

So what happens when we mask the scent which it has picked up on for thousands of years and replace it with some unilateral chemical odour?

I am no expert on the subject, but I know enough to say that there could be big implications from this, including:

- Confusion resulting in lack of or increase in breading which creates a myriad of other problems such as spread of disease and infection or lack of immunity against disease and infection, unstainable birth rates for an age group which is not economically equipped to sustain babies in our society or lack of birth rate in lower socio economic classes.

- Rise in violent sex crimes. While one scent becomes unilateral it may drive lust and sexual drive to either people without it or people with it.

- Psychological sterilization? It is well documented that thought is a strong driver in medical problems; it is not unfounded to think that this could be a long term effect.

- Dependency to a brand which has a monopoly of the scent which people crave. While this could already be a problem it would be impossible to tell because you could just say that this brands popularity is due to clever marketing.

- Puberty problems? What happens when people start growing up and stop using these brands aimed at teenagers and suddenly people do not have the subconscious push to the opposite sex?


I am sure there are a lot more possible problems so please add them if you want.

When you take into account that the producer of these deodorants is one of the largest corporations on earth, well need I say anymore?

Here are some links for you all:

Toxic Chemicals in Your Deodorant

Body odor and subconscious human sexual attraction

Research has shown that body odor is connected to human sexual attraction.[1][2] Both fluctuating asymmetry (FA)[3] and the human leukocyte antigen (HLA)[4] are connected to scent. HLA is the human version of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), a protein complex that plays a role in an individual’s immunities and self- versus nonself-recognition.[5] FA affects body symmetry, which in turn affects body size and stress tolerance.[3] Studies have not suggested that one scent caused by a particular HLA is more attractive to all individuals, but they have demonstrated attraction between individuals of certain HLA types.[6] Research has also shown that the scent of low FA person is universally more attractive,[3] and that facial attractiveness is connected to attractiveness of scent.[7]

K dude explain why there are so many choices in the deodorant aisle. Name the brands. What about cologne? Is this a chav thing? I dont ever recall being able.to smell girls deodorant. I know alot of low.class guys use axe.spray... but that is relatively new. Old spice.is the only thing I remember a slight majority wearing.

Great thread! Smell is powerful and I find this interesting. Well done.

Originally posted by Domo1
K dude explain why there are so many choices in the deodorant aisle. Name the brands. What about cologne? Is this a chav thing? I dont ever recall being able.to smell girls deodorant. I know alot of low.class guys use axe.spray... but that is relatively new. Old spice.is the only thing I remember a slight majority wearing.
Great thread! Smell is powerful and I find this interesting. Well done.

I think I stated that why there are a lot of scents available, there were two that have stood out as being used by a large majority.

What I should have pointed out is that on a chemical level most deodorants are exactly the same, so it may not matter what scent it is.

The brand in particular is Unilever, which makes the Axe brand.

You raise a good point about cologne and more expensive stuff.
This brand is cheap so it also raises the possibility of class warfare, because it is likely that not as many higher socio economic people would buy.

Thank you, while I am sure for many people this will seem trivial. I am sure that there could be some big problems as a result.

Interesting piece you have composed.

I have stopped wearing deodorant and cologne for the past couple months for many of the reasons you write within your article, however I never thought about the psychological effects.

My friend made a comment that was very interesting when some girl smeared him for not wearing deodorant, he said "What smells better, some toxic artificial smell or natural hormones?" This brings an interesting thought about human hormones and how they are effected and even suppressed by deodorant and cologne.

It is very true that these markets have hijacked out senses, not just our noses.

Originally posted by ThisIsMyName
Interesting piece you have composed.

I have stopped wearing deodorant and cologne for the past couple months for many of the reasons you write within your article, however I never thought about the psychological effects.

My friend made a comment that was very interesting when some girl smeared him for not wearing deodorant, he said "What smells better, some toxic artificial smell or natural hormones?" This brings an interesting thought about human hormones and how they are effected and even suppressed by deodorant and cologne.

It is very true that these markets have hijacked out senses, not just our noses.

Thank you,
I feel I have not done to topic justice because there is so much you could go into and there are so many possibilities’ here. I was hoping that this thread would get enough people posting on it to start a productive conversation.

I too have stopped wearing them, their links to cancer, respiratory problems and other serious medical issues are worrying enough.

It seems strange to trade our natural scent for some chemical stuff, but this is the power of the consumer driven era of brands.

Sense is something we should never underestimate,
I mean could you imagine if there was a product which altered our taste and vision like deodorant does our smell, surely this would raise some eyebrows.

reply to post by IgnorantSpecies


Man that post I made sounded really bitchy. Sorry. Unilever huh? This is actually one of the most interesting theories Ive read on this site.

ETA question. I know with the higher priced colognes body chemistry alters the smell which is why your supposed to spray on skin instead of clothing. That right? I suppose I should google it.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by IgnorantSpecies

 

Man that post I made sounded really bitchy. Sorry. Unilever huh? This is actually one of the most interesting theories Ive read on this site.

No it didn’t, you were just wanting clarification which I completely understand.
Thank you, I hope this thread gets enough attention to start people investigating the matter themselves.
Unilever is actually a hidden giant and I am surprised it doesn’t get talked about on this site, I am sure that if enough people started digging we would unearth some other great conspiracies involving them.
160 million products a day is almost unfathomable.
Unilever

I found their website on the dangers and ingredients of deodorant and found them to act much like the corporation Monsanto, have a read for yourself but I am sure you will know what I mean if you are familiar with Monsanto:
www.antiperspirantsinfo.com...

ETA question. I know with the higher priced colognes body chemistry alters the smell which is why your supposed to spray on skin instead of clothing. That right? I suppose I should google it.

Yeah I have heard about this, but that would probably take high quality ingredients.
The stuff that Unilever uses would be the cheapest stuff they could legally use.

It is a myth that we need deodorants to pull the opposite sex. When we sweat our bodies will have an distinct odour. This odour will either smell sweet to the opposite sex or it will be repulsive. This smell does not cause arousal for the opposite sex however it be a pleasant smell when you have sex. Theres no need for deodorants unless you only bath/shower once a month

Originally posted by minor007
It is a myth that we need deodorants to pull the opposite sex. When we sweat our bodies will have an distinct odour. This odour will either smell sweet to the opposite sex or it will be repulsive. This smell does not cause arousal for the opposite sex however it be a pleasant smell when you have sex with them. Theres no need for deodorants unless you only bath/shower once a month

Of course it is, as I have explained the maker of these deodorants is the master in marketing and making people want what they don't need.

I am sure you understand that there could be some large problems resulting from disrupting the natural process you have explained so well in your post.

Can you think of any other problems as a result that I have not listed in my OP?

Good read:
Social Influences Affect Odor Perception

4. Potential for odor to cause stress - "The perception of odor is dominated by the pleasantness-unpleasantness dimension," Schiffman reported. "Pleasant aromas such as cookies baking in the oven beckon us, whereas, unpleasant odors such as those from a garbage dump repel us."

7. Chronic exposure to odors - Several studies show people adapt to odors, especially in the workplace. Tests show these workers are not as sensitive to the odors as unexposed people. "Long-term adaptation to animal odors occurs in persons who work daily in highly odorous environments," Schiffman reported. "It accounts for the finding that persons who work with livestock cannot fully understand the complaints from neighbors who only receive odors intermittently."

5. The role of conditioning in odor responses - "Conditioning or learned associations can play a role in symptoms induced by odors," Schiffman said. One research project showed panic and hyperventilation symptoms were learned after an acute exposure to chemicals. Before the exposure, the chemical odors were tolerated.

reply to post by IgnorantSpecies


I findit odd that Ive never really heard of Unilever. I know of Monsanto (frankly I enjoy taking their side for some of the cokments I get here) and find the monopoly and business practices they employ beyond creepy. This really is a very interesting thread. I wish I had the laptop with me so I could research a bit more. The axe thing always really weirded me out.

I only have one problem with this thread, and that is the "Toxic Chemicals in Your Deodorant" article which claims:

Propylene glycol is neurotoxin known to cause contact dermatitis, kidney damage, and liver damage. In the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for propylene glycol, the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety warns workers to avoid skin contact with the toxic chemical, and yet millions of people apply it under their arms everyday. From the MSDS: "May cause eye irritation, skin irritation. Chronic exposure can cause gastro-intestinal disturbances, nausea, headache, vomiting, and central nervous depression."

But when I checked the actual MSDS of Propylene Glycol (I use it every day in my Electronic Cigarette, so I dunno where this author gets their info) I see this:

Inhalation: No adverse health effects via inhalation.

Ingestion: Relatively non-toxic. Ingestion of sizable amount (over 100ml) may cause some gastrointestinal upset and temporary central nervous system depression. Effects appear more severe in individuals with kidney problems.

Skin Contact: Mild irritant and defatting agent, especially on prolonged contact.

Eye Contact: May cause transitory stinging and tearing.

Chronic Exposure: Lactic acidosis, stupor and seizures have been reported following chronic ingestion. (Relatively normal for any substance someone is chronically exposed to)

I don't know where this person got "dermatitis, kidney damage, and liver damage" from when there are no studies that I can find to support it. I mean the Oral LD50 in lab rats is 20GRAMS/kg for f**ks sake. And NO, it's not anti-freeze, that's it's cousin; Ethylene glycol

To me that brings the rest of the article into question.

Just my $0.02

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by IgnorantSpecies

 

I findit odd that Ive never really heard of Unilever. I know of Monsanto (frankly I enjoy taking their side for some of the cokments I get here) and find the monopoly and business practices they employ beyond creepy. This really is a very interesting thread. I wish I had the laptop with me so I could research a bit more. The axe thing always really weirded me out.

I was exactly the same when I first found out about them, they literally have their fingers in every pie.
Some of the biggest and most trusted brands around are theirs.

Monsanto is one thing you should not side with even if it is for fun, not trying to be rude but I would save the joking around for less serious issues because Monsanto is one thing that everyone should be worried about.

Yeah, I thought it would get more attention then it has.
Why does the axe thing weird you out?

reply to post by ArrowsNV


Well as far as I can tell there is enough reason for these chemicals to have much more extensive and long term testing then they have had done, certainly enough reason to be concerned about them.

I don't want to sound too out there but we aren't always told the full truth about these things, especially when a corporation is making billions of dollars off them.

Your 2 cents is appreciated, but it is a rather small part of the thread.
I would be interested to also hear your opinion on other parts of the thread if you have the time.

reply to post by IgnorantSpecies


Advice taken Ill get my chuckles elsewhere. The axe thing weirds me out because it was such an overnight thing. I remember it came out, all of a sudden everyone under 20 was using it. Too much of it. Locker room waas like a damn fog with that stuff. The part I found strange was that every girl I knew hated the smell, but guys bought it to impress them. Jeez maybe axe is oopulation control.

Originally posted by IgnorantSpecies
reply to post by ArrowsNV

 

Well as far as I can tell there is enough reason for these chemicals to have much more extensive and long term testing then they have had done, certainly enough reason to be concerned about them.

I don't want to sound too out there but we aren't always told the full truth about these things, especially when a corporation is making billions of dollars off them.

Your 2 cents is appreciated, but it is a rather small part of the thread.
I would be interested to also hear your opinion on other parts of the thread if you have the time.

Well I agree with all the other analyses of the other chemicals mentioned for the most part. But having used PG for well over 4 years with no ill affect, and not just putting it on my skin, I firmly believe that it is a very non toxic chemical in the doses used for deodorant and other products such as my electronic cigarette. Although it (PG), like any other chemical out there, CAN be toxic, it is all dose dependent.

For example; I've been more worried about the nicotine in my e-cig fluid than the Propylene Glycol and for good reason. Whereas the LD50 of PG (in rats at least) is 20g/kg (guesstimating here, but about 1,160g would be needed to kill a human) it only takes about 46mg of Nicotine to kill a non smoking adult (about 1.2mg/kg). I could go on, but I'm rambling. Long story short, it's a safe chemical that a lot of people confuse with its cousin; anti-freeze (EG, ethylene glycol).

As for the body of the "conspiracy" I do not doubt it in the slightest. As was said, smell is one of, if not, the greatest and most powerful senses we as humans possess, and I can clearly see where it would come into play as suggested in the thread.

Like I stated in my last post, that little bit was my only concern, but after re-reading the article and the rest of the thread I do agree with what has been posted. (With that tiny exception on PG)

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by IgnorantSpecies

 

Advice taken Ill get my chuckles elsewhere. The axe thing weirds me out because it was such an overnight thing. I remember it came out, all of a sudden everyone under 20 was using it. Too much of it. Locker room waas like a damn fog with that stuff. The part I found strange was that every girl I knew hated the smell, but guys bought it to impress them. Jeez maybe axe is oopulation control.

Thanks, hope I didn't sound rude its just that the Monsanto issue really scares me.

Yeah it was a phenomena to say the least.
I also remember girls not liking it much either, I know its a far cry to actually call i population control but I cant help but thinking it could have that power, simple things are often the most important.

reply to post by ArrowsNV

Well I agree with all the other analyses of the other chemicals mentioned for the most part. But having used PG for well over 4 years with no ill affect, and not just putting it on my skin, I firmly believe that it is a very non toxic chemical in the doses used for deodorant and other products such as my electronic cigarette. Although it (PG), like any other chemical out there, CAN be toxic, it is all dose dependent. For example; I've been more worried about the nicotine in my e-cig fluid than the Propylene Glycol and for good reason. Whereas the LD50 of PG (in rats at least) is 20g/kg (guesstimating here, but about 1,160g would be needed to kill a human) it only takes about 46mg of Nicotine to kill a non smoking adult (about 1.2mg/kg). I could go on, but I'm rambling. Long story short, it's a safe chemical that a lot of people confuse with its cousin; anti-freeze (EG, ethylene glycol). As for the body of the "conspiracy" I do not doubt it in the slightest. As was said, smell is one of, if not, the greatest and most powerful senses we as humans possess, and I can clearly see where it would come into play as suggested in the thread. Like I stated in my last post, that little bit was my only concern, but after re-reading the article and the rest of the thread I do agree with what has been posted. (With that tiny exception on PG)

Well the problem with chemicals like this is you probably wouldn’t notice any ill affect, seems like something where the problems manifest over a long time or induce other problems.
I would say that on a dosage level, there would certainly be enough usage for potential problems, let’s not forget people are spraying this in high levels in confined areas with no ventilation all the time.
Electronic cigarettes are interesting in the fact that I have seen people become more addicted to them than they ever did to real cigarettes. Maybe PG is an addictive substance; it would explain why people seem addicted to these deodorants.
I still think as with many other chemicals that much more extensive and long term testing should have been done before it was released to the public on such a large scale. When there is money to be made people will rush to make money without thinking of the consequences, and while some testing has been done there is potential for many long term side affects to develop.
It’s not this chemical in particular that brings me to say this but that we have seen it happen so many times where we use something and later find out through simple testing that it is highly dangerous and must be banned. Now that we have more advanced technology it makes no sense to me why we don’t test things to the highest levels.

Good to see you agree, smell is indeed powerful.

You can also just buy 100% sea salt deodorant sticks...

I notice the smell of my body really changes if I get anxious or upset. Animal smells are interesting things...