Earthquakes?

Marrena,
How do you know that you have very high dopamine. What kind of test was administered that provided a dopamine level measure? How do you know you are increasing your serotonin level - again I'm asking what tests are done to provide evidence of it.

I have not had direct testing done on me (although I am certainly willing). I am relying both on studies showing fish oil raises dopamine and my own observation of brain states, likewise with serotonin. I have been on antidepressants and familiar with that sort of brain state, and am relying on other studies showing, for example that a meal with only carbs and no fats or proteins will spike up serotonin (JudithWurtmann MIT has done research there).

High serotonin affecting female libido (and male libido) is not controversial, studies show that a variety of antidepressants kill libido unless the antidepressant also raises dopamine (for example, Wellbutrin).

I have been trying very hard to get these things studied, and most FSD doctors I have spoken with when I explain the science behind my approach say that it has merit, but no one will work for free and IRB laws preclude me from Dr. Frankensteining and taken seriously. I wouldn't be able to publish without an MD doing the actual study. My study protocol does involve direct testing, of omega-3 fatty acid levels, hormone levels, etc.
 
Perhaps if you weren't having so many orgasms, you'd get that funding. orgasms can be embarrassing, and guys know this, intrinsicly. Are you focusing on female FSD docs? They should be more empathetic; less intimidated.
 
I have not had direct testing done on me (although I am certainly willing). I am relying both on studies showing fish oil raises dopamine and my own observation of brain states, likewise with serotonin. I have been on antidepressants and familiar with that sort of brain state, and am relying on other studies showing, for example that a meal with only carbs and no fats or proteins will spike up serotonin (JudithWurtmann MIT has done research there).

High serotonin affecting female libido (and male libido) is not controversial, studies show that a variety of antidepressants kill libido unless the antidepressant also raises dopamine (for example, Wellbutrin).

I have been trying very hard to get these things studied, and most FSD doctors I have spoken with when I explain the science behind my approach say that it has merit, but no one will work for free and IRB laws preclude me from Dr. Frankensteining and taken seriously. I wouldn't be able to publish without an MD doing the actual study. My study protocol does involve direct testing, of omega-3 fatty acid levels, hormone levels, etc.

Serotonin level isn't the end-all measure to consider here. You can have all the serotonin possible, but without the right type and number of serotonin receptors, and in the right brain regions, you could still have a serotonin dysfunction.

When you raise serotonin levels, the number of some, if not all, serotonin receptors will decrease - including the autoreceptor that provides feedback to the serotonin-releasing cell. The number of serotonin transporters may also be affected, as well as the enzymes needed for synthesizing serotonin in the first place.

Add to this the idea that the serotonin receptors that are being affected by the release of serotonin reside on other neurons that themselves release glutamate, GABA, dopamine, etc.; changes to the serotoin system thereby cause a myriad of downstream effects, only a few of which we have an understanding of.

To measure your serotonin levels (by an indirect measure that isn't entirely reliable unless you want to keep a small tube in your brain in multiple areas 24/7!) would tell us little about (1) how it has changed from before you were taking fish oil because we didn't measure it then, nor (2) what downstream effects may or may not have occurred since you started taking fish oil.

I need to take a glance at those studies on fish oil and serotonin levels. Don't get me wrong, my understanding of fish oil is that it has plenty of good effects. But I want to see how conclusive the studies are regarding "serotonin levels" and all. Did ALL subjects show an increase in serotonin levels (which were measured how?) For how long was the effect apparent - did the study continue long enough to show that the effect is long-term? Or does the body adjust and begin to return to its pre-fish-oil levels? Etc.

I can't get to it now, but perhaps in a few hours.
 
I've had three offers of funding from fish oil companies. They wanted method patent. I have aggressively put my ideas into the public domain, fish oil companies didn't like that.

I didn't want it made into a prescription medication, that's the opposite of what I am about. Women should have the power to do this on their own. So now that it's REALLY out in the zeitgeist, fish oil companies aren't interested.

I have no chance in hell of getting government funding. Nobody is getting funding right now, with the Republicans in office, grants are getting cut to the bone. Research scientists with five-page cv's can't get funding; as someone without previous publications, an untried area of study (this is an initial study) and of course something that encourages female sexuality there is zero chance for funding.
 
Serotonin level isn't the end-all measure to consider here. You can have all the serotonin possible, but without the right type and number of serotonin receptors, and in the right brain regions, you could still have a serotonin dysfunction.

When you raise serotonin levels, the number of some, if not all, serotonin receptors will decrease - including the autoreceptor that provides feedback to the serotonin-releasing cell. The number of serotonin transporters may also be affected, as well as the enzymes needed for synthesizing serotonin in the first place.

Add to this the idea that the serotonin receptors that are being affected by the release of serotonin reside on other neurons that themselves release glutamate, GABA, dopamine, etc.; changes to the serotoin system thereby cause a myriad of downstream effects, only a few of which we have an understanding of.

To measure your serotonin levels (by an indirect measure that isn't entirely reliable unless you want to keep a small tube in your brain in multiple areas 24/7!) would tell us little about (1) how it has changed from before you were taking fish oil because we didn't measure it then, nor (2) what downstream effects may or may not have occurred since you started taking fish oil.

I need to take a glance at those studies on fish oil and serotonin levels. Don't get me wrong, my understanding of fish oil is that it has plenty of good effects. But I want to see how conclusive the studies are regarding "serotonin levels" and all. Did ALL subjects show an increase in serotonin levels (which were measured how?) For how long was the effect apparent - did the study continue long enough to show that the effect is long-term? Or does the body adjust and begin to return to its pre-fish-oil levels? Etc.

I can't get to it now, but perhaps in a few hours.

I should explain my hypothesis and experience better. My hypothesis is that female sexuality, on a physiological level is improved by four things:

1.) The right balance of neurotransmitters, and this is obviously very ballpark, I'm not sawing open women's skulls--high dopamine and moderate and steady serotonin

2.) Robust free testosterone, or in other words high normal total testosterone and very low (but healthy level) of SHBG.

3.) Good circulation, particularly genital circulation. This is more important for men than women, for obvious reasons, but women need it too.

4.) As an added bonus, for a woman to have vaginal orgasmic ability, strong PC muscle tone

I was working backwards on this; I suddenly developed spontaneous vaginal orgasmic ability and worked backwards to find the cause, isolating the things that contributed. It was pretty easy to test because I could reliably have orgasms at any time within a minute or less of flexing. I had other women try the diet, they had an improvement in libido, some developing vaginal orgasmic ability for the first time, and several reaching my level. My first thought was to give this to an FSD doctor to study, and of course I am still trying to do that, but after a while I realized if I wasn't out there telling women, no one would.

Anyhow, the fish oil increases dopamine. I have rodent autopsy studies and other studies showing this. I'm not sure about long-term studies. Fish oil also increases serotonin, which is good because I don't want women depressed, but the important thing is that it increases both at the same time, like Wellbutrin, so libido is preserved.

Fish oil also obviously improves circulation. There is also some indication that it can help with T levels, but that is speculative at this point, there isn't a study.

The diet also includes the RDA of calcium/magnesium/zinc because zinc lowers SHBG. I also tell women to avoid transfats and omega-6 fatty acids in the diet because they interfere with the omega-3 fatty acid effect, counteract. Saturated fat and monounsaturated fat help with testosterone, avoiding too many carbs avoids both the serotonin spiking effect described by Wurtmann and also the increase in SHBG over time.

I also tell menstruating women of course to check with their doctor first for hemochromatosis but recommend small amounts of supplemental iron because so many women are borderline anemic and that affects libido.

I tell women to avoid caffeine and energy drinks because they also raise serotonin. And to avoid soy products like tofu and soymilk because they interfere with testosterone. And if they are comfortable with the risk, to switch to a barrier method of birth control from hormonal birth control because it raises SHBG.

Finally, although more than half of the women who try my diet don't do this, I recommend that women strengthen their PC muscle with resistance exercise.
 
My study protocol only looks at FSD and fish oil, with FSD standard metrics and controlling for robust free testosterone, double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study with power calculation to determine appropriate N.
 
I was working backwards on this; I suddenly developed spontaneous vaginal orgasmic ability and worked backwards to find the cause, isolating the things that contributed. It was pretty easy to test because I could reliably have orgasms at any time within a minute or less of flexing. I had other women try the diet, they had an improvement in libido, some developing vaginal orgasmic ability for the first time, and several reaching my level. My first thought was to give this to an FSD doctor to study, and of course I am still trying to do that, but after a while I realized if I wasn't out there telling women, no one would.

Briefly, because I'm trying to get "real" work done - your story, while interesting, is not scientific. It is the beginning of a hypothesis - you observe something, do some basic reasoning, and come up with a possible explanation for what you observed. The next step is to test your hypothesis. Providing fish-oil to others does not scientifically study it. You would need to have someone who is blind to the hypothesis provide fish oil to one set of subjects, and a placebo to the other set of subjects - neither set can know which group they are in. Then a person, who again needs to be blind to the hypothesis and to what treatment group each person was in, would need to gather the data on libido/orgasms. THEN you can analyze the data and see how well it supports your hypothesis.

IF it supports your hypothesis, you can say so - but you can't say that it proves your hypothesis. Other factors are always contributing to study outcomes (they confound the results, and are called counfounding variables) - for example, the subject chosen for the fish oil group may accidentally all have something in common that contributed to the results. If the two groups are treated at different times, other things that occur during that time may influence the results. etc. etc.

Next step - consider what confounding variables may have been there, and retest while trying to better control them. After that - report the findings so that someone else (not chosen by you) can replicate the studies and either support or not support your findings.

It IS possible that something else contributed to your increased ability to experience frequent orgasms. Including a physiological change that had nothing to do with fish oil whatsoever. I'm not saying that is what happened, just that it is possible. This is why the scientific method is so necessary - those other possibilities need to be considered and, if possible, ruled out.
 
I certainly know this. I have been trying for years to get my study going.

Actually I did inadvertently do a blind test of the fish oil on myself. I was working with an MD who was connected with a fish oil company and obviously he wanted to study his product and he gave me free samples. I started taking it and within a few days my spontaneous vaginal orgasmic ability vanished. I knew that the product was mostly EPA and very little DHA, but at the time I thought it was the EPA that was the driving mechanism. I took a megadose of only DHA, and within several hours the spontaneous orgasmic ability returned.

Also I have had four women write to me who independently discovered the same diet, just didn't publicize it the way I have.

I should add that drinking a cup of coffee makes the ability go away, as does taking Deferol, a herbal product that increases serotonin.
 
Last edited:
Actually I did inadvertently do a blind test of the fish oil on myself. I was working with an MD who was connected with a fish oil company and obviously he wanted to study his product and he gave me free samples. I started taking it and within a few days my spontaneous vaginal orgasmic ability vanished. I knew that the product was mostly EPA and very little DHA, but at the time I thought it was the EPA that was the driving mechanism. I took a megadose of only DHA, and within several hours the spontaneous orgasmic ability returned.

This is not a blind test.
 
I know it is not an official blind test using a placebo that looks exactly the same as the tested thingummy, but it's as close as I'm going to get to a blind test in the real world since I didn't know that the fish oil I was then taking wouldn't work. It is the principle of blindedness.

My protocol is rigorous, my mentor assisted Pfizer in the clinical trials of Viagra on women (which failed). That's what he does, his metric is the standard for FSD testing and he's licensed it to me.

I just get frustrated for being accused of being non-scientific when I have done everything in my power to get an actual scientific test of this going.
 
Going back to the OP:
Still a witch here. I see the million is coming to an end. Just curious though--I seem to have felt these last two recent earthquakes a day or two before they happened, and then when they happened the sensation lifted, before I had read the earthquake news.
What exactly is "seem to have felt"? Either you did or you didn't, right? If you ever "feel" that an earthquake is going to come, you should write it down. Before long, you'll have some idea of how often you're right and how often you're wrong. As mentioned, earthquakes occur frequently, so you'll be right fairly regularly. Some statistics might give you some idea of whether your "feelings" are anything significant.

I suspect you didn't have any realization that you may have sensed an earthquake until after the fact. That is not significant in any way whatsoever.

Personally, if this is real, I don't think it's a paranormal ability since it seems some animals can do this. But if I can do this, would it qualify for the prize?
Some animals hear much lower frequencies than humans and can sense an earthquake before it might be apparent to us. However, I don't think there's any evidence that any animal can sense one a day or two ahead of time, which is certainly what you've implied here.

As for the MDC, I don't speak for JREF, but here's what I'd think: accurately predicting an earthquake without using geological or seismological information would probably qualify. The problem is, earthquakes happen relatively frequently, so just saying, "There will be an earthquake within the next few days" wouldn't be a very good test of your ability to make any sort of paranormal prediction. (I could, for example, predict that it will rain within 24 hours. I'm virtually 100% certain to be right because it will surely rain somewhere within that time period.)

A claim of the ability to predict an earthquake's occurrence within a certain time frame (say within 24 hours), and its magnitude within say two decimal points on the Richter Scale (remember, each full number means a 1000% or 10 times stronger quake), and its epicenter within some margin of error (say within two miles on the surface of the earth and ignoring the depth).

Either that, or you'd have to do it a very great number of times to say with any confidence that your results weren't up to chance.

Anecdotes of your sensing an earthquake after the fact are worth nothing at all.
 
However, I'm also a green witch, a greenie, and of course greenies do. I drive a hybrid, recycle, reuse, have wind energy offsets, buy local, have the right lightbulbs and of course vote.

A green witch? Doesn't that mean you're on the Prime Meridian?
 
:rolleyes: oy :)

I was wrong about the earthquake thing. I may have a large woo streak on the side, but that doesn't mean I can't do science.

I thought of an informal blinded test. One guy tricked his wife into going on my diet, said it was for general health reasons. She didn't know, went on the diet, after a few weeks her libido jumped so high that he couldn't keep up and he confessed so that he could get her dosage down. That was over at Thunders, I left there in a huff a while back but the posts are still there.
 
:rolleyes: oy :)

I was wrong about the earthquake thing.

Oughtn't this other stuff be on a new thread then if we're abandoning the earthquake stuff?

I may have a large woo streak on the side, but that doesn't mean I can't do science.
I have no doubt that you can do science. I think anyone can. In fact, reproducibility is part of the point of doing science. It doesn't matter who does it.

I haven't seen much of any evidence that you are well versed in how to do a controlled test, though.

I thought of an informal blinded test. One guy tricked his wife into going on my diet, said it was for general health reasons. She didn't know, went on the diet, after a few weeks her libido jumped so high that he couldn't keep up and he confessed so that he could get her dosage down. That was over at Thunders, I left there in a huff a while back but the posts are still there.
So "informal blinded test" means anecdote.

The same as your "inadvertent blind test" above. It's an anecdote.
 
This is my own fault for coming here with woo. But it is maddening.

*deep breath* At least here in the United States, people are not allowed to do medical testing on human subjects without passing an IRB. Part of passing one is the study must be overseen by a medical doctor (and there are a whole lot of other hoops to jump through, which we are ready for, we have the necessary forms, etc.). Without an IRB review, no reputable peer-reviewed journal will publish results.

Now, I have an MD ready to do the study (finally) and it took a whole lot of work just to get to that point. He's excellent, has his own FSD clinic. My protocol is rigorous and it is a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study, as I mentioned. I am good enough at study design that I was hired as a consultant by a surgical simulator company wanting to test their products, and my study design was more rigorous that the Ph.D. who had designed the previous study (I used a t-test and a before/after on the same individual doctors, so the N was big enough to satisfy the power calculation on the deviation of the metric--the Ph.D. didn't have a big enough N).

And I don't want to do some kind of furtive double-blind testing on my own, because part of what I want to screen out is women who have low free T. I want a real study, dagnabbit!

Generally all scientific studies start off with indications from strong anecdotal evidence. You say anecdotal like it's a bad thing. It's not my fault that that's all I have at this point. And yes I know that the placebo effect is huge when it comes to sex. But people who are very familiar with that buy my science. Dr. Irwin Goldstein was recommending my diet to his patients on TRT. Dr. Jennifer Berman was selling actual product based on my diet (her own proprietary fish oil).
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes: oy :)

I was wrong about the earthquake thing. I may have a large woo streak on the side, but that doesn't mean I can't do science.

I thought of an informal blinded test. One guy tricked his wife into going on my diet, said it was for general health reasons. She didn't know, went on the diet, after a few weeks her libido jumped so high that he couldn't keep up and he confessed so that he could get her dosage down. That was over at Thunders, I left there in a huff a while back but the posts are still there.

This is not a blinded test - informally or formally.

The husband was not blinded to the expectations of what would support the hypothesis. You'd be amazed at how much he would be able to unintentionally influence the outcome of the test. Not because he is the husband, just because it has been shown that if a researcher is expecting a particular outcome (behavior, reply, whatever) he/she can very subtly and unintentionally influence the subject being studied.

I'm not saying that you can't do science, and I'm not trying to pick on you (honestly!) - I'm simply saying that what you have described here doesn't convince me that you have a solid understanding of what science is.
 
It was a single-blinded test, not a double-blinded test.

I have a solid understanding of what science is. Christ.
 
At least here in the United States, people are not allowed to do medical testing on human subjects without passing an IRB. Part of passing one is the study must be overseen by a medical doctor (and there are a whole lot of other hoops to jump through, which we are ready for, we have the necessary forms, etc.). Without an IRB review, no reputable peer-reviewed journal will publish results.

As I understand it, you only need an IRB approval if you are receiving federal funds for the research, or using facilities at an institution that requires IRB approval. Other than that, you can do what you like as long as you don't commit a crime in the process.

You don't have to have funds to conduct simple tests - and can do so following good scientific methods. You may not get your results published, but you may be able to convince others of your case and get this moved to a research institution.
 
Last edited:
It was a single-blinded test, not a double-blinded test.

You're right. It is a single blinded test. I was thinking of the couple as subjects. Regardless, the results would be suspicious because it wasn't a double-blinded test, and the "researcher" spent a substantial amount of time interacting (presumably in ways that could affect her libido) with the "subject", and was, presumably again, expecting and hoping for the results he found.

Anyway - I was trying to be helpful and clear; but based on the tone of your replies, I do not feel it is worthwhile for either of us. Good luck to you.
 
I already have convinced many doctors of my case and have a research institution at my disposal, an FSD clinic at Columbia University that is world-famous for FSD research. I've got the gold standard, and already an offer to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm past that part.

If you know of research scientists willing to work pro bono, please let me know.

As I explained earlier, I had people interested in funding when there were potential patent rights floating around, but that's not an option anymore.

I'm sorry, I'm obsessed with this...and bitter.
 

Back
Top Bottom