"Here's a good read for you"

19.3. CONCLUSIONS In this chapter I have provided a snapshot of the history of the pheromone concept and examples of its common applications to humans. As described in detail elsewhere (Doty 2010), there is a lack of consensus as to what defines a pheromone, making it difficult to tie down as an objective scientific entity. Most definitions imply that a pheromone (a) is comprised of one or only a few chemicals, (b) is species-specific, (c) has well-defined behavioral or endocrine effects, and (d) is little influenced by learning. To date, no chemicals have been isolated in humans that meet such criteria.

Apparently you did not choose to read your own source?

And no, you can't assume uniformity. That's like saying that cilantro tastes the same to everyone (it doesn't).

Ahh yes, a matter of subjectivity is exactly like claiming an objective fact......

Everyone is different. That's the effect of genetics.

Everyone has a range of expression that is influenced by their genes. Someone being able to attract all women with their specific smell would not be something we have previously observed in any human. Meaning it's safe to assume that it is not something someone's genes can express.

Yes, plenty.

Ah yes, a study consisting of 25 people...... with no behavioural controls. Brilliant.

You don't need a specific organ to have a reaction to chemical signals.

Yes..... you do? That would be like saying you don't need a nose to smell, or taste buds to taste.

pheromone is just a chemical the body creates, and an external body responds to

No. Pheromones are chemical messages that trigger specific behaviour or developmental changes in an external body.

That response can be due to smell, taste or even touch. No special organ is needed for any of those.

Smells and associations attached to smell are not the same thing as pheromones. In certain mammals and reptiles pheromones are received by the vomeronasal organ.