The history of testosterone / A little Background
E Nieschlag, Institute of Reproductive Medicine of the University, Muenster, Germany, 2005.
2005 marks the 100th anniversary of the creation of the term hormone by Ernest Starling. Although its biological effects were known since antiquity, the name testosterone (T) was coined only in 1935, when Ernest Laqueur isolated it from bull testes. The road to this isolation was long: John Hunter had transplanted testes into capons in 1786 and Adolph Berthold postulated internal secretion from his testicular transplantation experiments in 1849. Following his observations, testicular preparations were used for therapy, popularised by self-experiments of Brown-Séquard (1889), which can at best have had placebo effects. Nevertheless, testis preparations were consumed until quite recently for the enhancement of virility. In the 1920s Sergio Voronoff transplanted testes from animals to men, but their effectiveness was disproven by the Royal Society of Medicine in 1927. Modern androgen therapy started when T was chemically synthesized independently in 1935 by Aldolf Butenandt and Leopold Ruzicka.
Since T was ineffective orally it was either compressed into subcutaneous pellets or was used orally as 17α-methyl T, now obsolete because of toxic side effects. In the 1950s longer-acting injectable T enanthate became the preferred therapeutic modality. In the 1950s and 1960s research concentrated on the chemical modification of androgens in order to emphasise their anabolic effects. Although anabolic steroids largely disappeared from clinical medicine, they continue an illegal life for doping. In the 1970s the orally effective T undecanoate was added to the spectrum of preparations. In 1992 WHO, NIH and FDA postulated preparations of natural T mimicking physiological serum levels, a demand first met by a transdermal scrotal film. Non-scrotal skin patches followed and finally in 2000 transdermal T gels became available. The most recent additions to T substitution therapy, the short-acting buccal T and the long-acting injectable T undecanoate, also fulfil the demand for physiological serum levels.
The Brow Ridge Thing Again:
Lower Testosterone May Have Civilized Humanity, Study Says
According to a new study, humanity might have become civilized after cave men got a little less manly. After measuring more than 1,400 modern and ancient human skulls, researchers have suggested that a 50,000-year-old boom in prehistoric human culture coincided with drop in testosterone and the evolution of a more feminine face shape. The hormonal changes may have also helped curb aggression, leading to kinder, gentler humans and the development of early art and technology. OMG! The first whopping “illogical” assertion and it’s only the first paragraph!
1. The researchers pretend to know the level of “manliness” (whatever that is) of males between 200,000 – 50,000 years ago. Does “manliness” include aggression, violence, hunting, abuse of “others”; intelligence, bravery, artistic talent and engineering chops- tool-making? Amount and distribution of facial and body hair; penis size? What about, making and wearing jewelry-clothing, and practicing medicine? What about “raising” children? What about rape, homosexuality and pedophilia?
2. Missing in Action: Of course, females were nowhere to be found and in no way were involved in “creating civilization” – not because the researchers “consciously” removed them from consideration, but because females have always been excluded from “the big picture” of “Homo sapiens” – what it is to be human. The assumption is that MALE behaviors, (that’s 100% of behaviors that “count”), constitute our species description as “The Pinnacle of Creation” Females are just standing around somewhere in the wilderness, waiting to be baby-makers, sex slaves and “attention providers” to egomaniacal males.
3. “Humans” were “changed for the better” by a drop in testosterone levels, which no one actually can measure in Archaic Males – whoever they were. Testosterone production is a measure of individual production of hormones; it’s not a collective property distributed across arbitrary groups of skulls! This is “fake news”. Once again – such over-generalization occurs because EuroAmerican males cannot get “over themselves” – Whatever they believe to be “true” about “humans” is so tainted by narcissism, that they continually project a “modern model -themselves” backwards into history: they believe that their self-defined (and inflated) superiority defines Homo sapiens as The Pinnacle of Evolution, therefore, all 3.5 billion years of evolution “predicted and prophesied” the EuroAmerican male. THIS IS EVOLUTION IN REVERSE; a typical “religious” misconception.
3. Ironically, what the researchers are implying is this: Women are the “kinder, gentler creative persons who developed art and technology, and everything “civilized” – men became civilized by “becoming more feminine” (and being around women!) Thank-you!
4. Testosterone levels can be “known” through comparison of skull measurements (in 1,400 skulls) which were chosen objectively of course – no one favored really “cave man-looking” skulls to include in the archaic group or “favored” more feminine modern skulls. This is the typical spurious correlation = causation fantasy that traps “magical minds”!
5. Female skulls? Where are they in all this mumbo-jumbo? For“feminization” of males to occur, females also had to “become more feminine” over this time period, otherwise males could become more feminine than actual females. Which specific female skulls are being used to model “feminine qualities and features”? Hint; try to find a true archaic HS female skull – one that wasn’t cobbled together from male fragments.
6. The Great Leap Forward: Just which Homo sapiens were around 40,000-50,000 years ago? Wouldn’t this “leap forward” have coincided with late “Out of Africa” migrations? Did these “new arrivals” already have more “modern, feminized” skulls and civilized behavior, which they introduced to Eurasia?
7. The biggest “whopper”of them all; that contemporary “civilized males” are “less aggressive; kinder and gentler” than stone age Homo sapiens. This is where the question of selection for juvenile characteristics (see below) may be applied to the “horrendous problem” of modern male obsession with all things “military, murder, mayhem and destruction” – at the expense of “civilized” behavior. Males who are lower in testosterone (juvenile) than “adult” levels are dangerous: low-self confidence drives confrontation; young males are apt to “pick on” women and children as vulnerable substitutes for “stronger males” with whom they cannot compete; they need to “prove” their “manhood” with reckless, violent or criminal behavior. Males with adequate adult hormone production are stable and confident; they are “protectors” of communities and individuals, especially women and children. They are not murderous “thugs” – they are indeed, fathers, husbands, workers and creators – “civilized”. And then, there are “predators”.
Paedogenesis: reproduction by young or larval animals; the animal reaches sexual maturity while remaining otherwise immature. Neoteny: retention of juvenile traits in the adult animal due to some aspect of the physiological (or somatic) development of an animal being slowed or delayed. Neoteny is a factor in paedomorphosis.
Next paragraph in article:
Anatomically modern humans first evolved some 200,000 years ago, but many of the traits we associate with early civilization—like bone and antler tools, grindstones, projectile weapons, fishing and the widespread use of fire (these are not traits; these are tools and techniques) —didn’t crop up until around 40,000-50,000 years ago, during a period often dubbed the “Great Leap Forward.” (See also the Great Chain of Being, another popular non-reality based ‘idea”) The reason for the gap is one of science’s most hotly debated questions, but according to a new study published in the journal “Current Anthropology,” the answer may be hormonal. (Oh no! Not hormones; those chemicals that make women unstable, crazy bitches!)