31 replies to this topic

[NilsOlav]

A basic rule of science and interpreting all experimental studies:
 

Has it been replicated by other groups unrelated to the original group who did the study? If not, then you should question why you believe this single study to be 100% true. A single study can be...

 

• Full of false data
• Full of data manipulated for the purpose of marketing a product

 

I haven't read the study yet, so tell me this: were the rats injected, or were they fed the product in olive oil? A chemical that is injected can have completely different results than when it is taken orally. Personally, I have no interest in trying something that has not been replicated by at least 2-3 other scientific trials. Anecdotal evidence is the scariest and most dangerous type of evidence to believe in. I suggest you all read the book "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre. It should be mandatory for everyone on here to read that book.

 

Rather than spending all this money trying the product yourself, use free information on the internet to learn how to set up a scientific study with rats, and conduct it yourself with the product! Even videotape it so you can prove that said rats even exist and that you didn't just fabricate some data!

Edited by NilsOlav, 22 February 2015 - 04:46 AM.

[NilsOlav]

I invite you all to join in on this conversation rather than tagging my post as "pointless, timewasting". If there is more than 1 rat study showing that it extends the lifespan of rats, then good job! You are spending your money wisely on a supplement that will likely yield health benefits as well. But if you are buying a supplement solely on a single rat study with no others to back it up....well, you are taking a leap of faith. I believe in science. You are the one who is timewasting and spending money pointlessly if there is only 1 rat study holding up the entire commercial architecture of this product.

[Pyrion]

I will never understand the tagging philosophy of some users here. Your post is neither pointless nor time wasting. It's against most peoples oppinion here and i think it's a shame to tag it negatively just because of that. It's sceptical and that is profoundly ok. To your points:

 

As far as i know there is no replication of the study (would be nice if i get corrected on this, maybe i am wrong). Personally i did not take a lot of C60 yet, but that might change. For me, the rat study was just something to catch my interest. The reports of people here on this forum are way more valuable. From my own experience i think there is a good effect to C60, knowing that anecdotal evidence can be misleading. At least it does not seem to be toxic, So, if you are a bit adventourus and an early adopter, jump in and use it. If not, just wait how everything develops. I am confident that C60 will turn out to be positive for most people, but i could be wrong.

 

I think most people trying C60 are a bit adventourus, taking calculated risks. For C60 i don't see any counter indicators, do you?

 

[ambivalent]

NilsOlav,

 

Waiting for replication studies is not a cost free option: the possibility of slowing down the aging process, or possibly reversing some aging-characteristics is an exciting prospect to emerge from the study (let alone other potential health benefits). Waiting 5 years is a cost of varying significance depending on a person's well-being and/or age - people aren't gambling with indefinite perfect health. The risk profile of every person differs and so the required level of confidence in the study varies from case to case.

 

If, for example, the potential downside of a supplement is low, then confidence doesn't need to be high. There wasn't that certainty initially here, but it wasn't stepping into a complete void - insight can be gained from knowedge of other related compounds; many members on here are well informed on research on other fullerene studies. And of course now, there is much less concern over short term risks of c60oo although we don't know of course whether we have tested this (here) against a spanning set of human conditions. 

 

Quantity is an issue too, lower allometric levels reduce risk while still offering the potential of reward.

 

Nothing on longecity has emerged yet which could be published: this forum is a random walk but we can gain quite a high degree of confidence in a number of effects reported (and indeed lack of effects) - makind has made much progress this way. The objective of measurement is not to establish certainty, but to reduce uncertainty and a great deal has been measured here. 

 

There is plenty of uncertainty with c60oo, I doubt anyone here would suggest there is not the potential for some significant risk - it is powerful stuff; but to assume that those partaking must be, by definition, 100% confident in the Baati study, misunderstands why people do or should make such decisions.  

 

Nevertheless, you're right, of course, people should treat with caution, the outcome and implications of just one study (as many people here are).

 

 

  

Edited by ambivalent, 23 February 2015 - 05:16 PM.

[Mind]

The study has not been replicated and I am unsure if there is a study currently in the works. The closest thing was one of our members trying it on three mice and some pet rat owners trying the C60oo. None of these attempts were exact replicas of the study and were not in a "lab environment", so there isn't much to be learned, however, I applaud those who gave it a shot.

[sensei]

I invite you all to join in on this conversation rather than tagging my post as "pointless, timewasting". If there is more than 1 rat study showing that it extends the lifespan of rats, then good job! You are spending your money wisely on a supplement that will likely yield health benefits as well. But if you are buying a supplement solely on a single rat study with no others to back it up....well, you are taking a leap of faith. I believe in science. You are the one who is timewasting and spending money pointlessly if there is only 1 rat study holding up the entire commercial architecture of this product.

 

Well -- there is only 1 Rat study showing such an effect on longevity.

 

However there are many other studies showing non-toxicity in mammals.  

 

Interestingly enough, the Baati Rat Study, was actually a study to see if C60 was toxic when administered acutely and chronically; not a study to see the effects of longevity.

 

There were multiple cohorts of animals in the Baati Study. One set of cohorts consisted of 18 individuals in the chronic toxicity study, 6 control rats, 6 with OO vehicle only, and 6 C60OO fed by gavage over 7 months.  However, there were multiple other arms that showed no toxicity from acute oral and ip administration of 4mg/kg daily for 7 days.  Furthermore there were cohorts used to determine the antioxidant performance of C60OO by CCL4 (carbon-tetra-chloride) challenge to rats.

 

So, one can rightly say, that as far as toxicity is concerned Baati was not 1 study but actually 3:

 

1. Showed no evidence of toxicity following chronic oral administration

2. Showed no evidence of toxicity following acute administration by both oral administration, and intra-peritoneal injection

3. Showed protective antioxidant effect against CCL4 challenge

 

Unexpected results:

1. Showed unexpected enhancement of longevity that is statistically significant

 

Of NOTE: Only 1 study with a population of 20  - 80 individuals is required by the FDA to progress from Phase 1 to Phase 2 clinical trials of new drugs.

 

And a lot of us are actually making C60OO.

 

I and others have noted unequivocal changes such as loss of gray hair, hair color change to that of youth, and regrowth of hair in bald areas; among other effects.  

Edited by sensei, 23 February 2015 - 11:48 PM.

[niner]

NilsOlav, those unpleasant ratings might have been due to the fact that these points have been addressed multiple times in this forum.  Of course, finding them in some of these monster threads could be difficult.  Ambivalent and sensei have already covered the main points well, but I'll explain my own rationale for using c60oo.  When I first saw the paper, I started doing research into the biological properties of fullerenes, and one thing that emerged quite early was life extension and health improvements demonstrated in multiple species, using various fullerene compounds.  Thus Baati was not a bolt from the blue, but rather yet another example of a positive biological effect with this class of compounds, and the particular structure involved was apparently very effective.  In my reading, I found that c60 was not dissolved in olive oil, but actually reacted with it.  I noticed a similarity between the structure of a fatty acid adduct of c60 and both SkQ1 and MitoQ, suggesting that we were looking at a mitochondrial antioxidant.  As more people began reporting their experiences with it, it was clear that there were profound biological effects.  It was becoming more apparent that Baati's result was likely to be real, given a plausible mechanism of action, literature reports on other fullerene compounds, and the results that people here were reporting.  It was around this point that I started using it, and was amazed at the effects.

 

Has Baati been replicated?  Come back around 2017-2018.  That would be about the earliest that a completely independent lab could replicate and get published.  I am aware of two professional lifespan experiments using c60oo, both using mice rather than rats.  There is also a reasonably competent amateur effort underway, using rats, that is being reported here periodically. 

 

You're certainly free to wait for replications before trying c60oo, if indeed you ever try it.  It's your choice.  Personally, I have no intention of waiting until 2017 or later before using this compound, considering what it's done for my health and well-being.

[Mind]

There is also a LongeCity-funded study to find out the effects that C60oo has on cancer progression. See here: http://www.longecity...eature/sci2014bIt just started last November.

[abefij]

Although not quite the same as C60oo, this earlier study noted a similar result: "A carboxyfullerene SOD mimetic improves cognition and extends the lifespan of mice"

Perhaps the Baati study could be considered a verification if the C60 ends up in the same form within cells.

[gwen]

What about the ukrainian experiment?

 

Results are expected for the beginning of 2016....

 

https://www.indiegog...onger/#activity

[NilsOlav]

Thanks for the replies. I would hardly call myself a "skeptic". A skeptic would wait until there were dozens, if not over a hundred studies showing that it increases the lifespan of rats or some other short-lived mammal. I am not a skeptic, but a believer in science. Three solid studies from three unrelated groups of individuals is all I need. Back in the days of high school science classes, sometimes things would go wrong with some groups, so they would just write a random number for the data they were supposed to be collecting. Keep in mind that years of studying science doesn't prevent a person from doing such a thing. Go to your library and put a reserve on Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science; this type of thing happens more often than you think.

[niner]

Thanks for the replies. I would hardly call myself a "skeptic". A skeptic would wait until there were dozens, if not over a hundred studies showing that it increases the lifespan of rats or some other short-lived mammal. I am not a skeptic, but a believer in science. Three solid studies from three unrelated groups of individuals is all I need. Back in the days of high school science classes, sometimes things would go wrong with some groups, so they would just write a random number for the data they were supposed to be collecting. Keep in mind that years of studying science doesn't prevent a person from doing such a thing. Go to your library and put a reserve on Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science; this type of thing happens more often than you think.

 

Yeah yeah yeah.  If a skeptic needs a hundred studies before he will believe a result, then the definition of skeptic must be "person with brain dysfunction".   Such people don't understand science.  That sort of attitude has been called "methodolatry".    I'm glad that you aren't a skeptic, Nils.  You should have your three studies in a couple years, but what does a rat result prove?   Rats aren't people, and I'll guarantee you that people will not see a 90% increase in any lifespan metric from c60 alone.  It's easy to make short-lived species live longer-- all you have to do is make their biochemisrty a bit more like long-lived species.

 

Well, you're welcome for the replies, but, um, did you read them?  You still sound like you're implying that we're a bunch of naive rubes who believe everything we read in pubmed.

[NilsOlav]

 

Thanks for the replies. I would hardly call myself a "skeptic". A skeptic would wait until there were dozens, if not over a hundred studies showing that it increases the lifespan of rats or some other short-lived mammal. I am not a skeptic, but a believer in science. Three solid studies from three unrelated groups of individuals is all I need. Back in the days of high school science classes, sometimes things would go wrong with some groups, so they would just write a random number for the data they were supposed to be collecting. Keep in mind that years of studying science doesn't prevent a person from doing such a thing. Go to your library and put a reserve on Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science; this type of thing happens more often than you think.

 

Yeah yeah yeah.  If a skeptic needs a hundred studies before he will believe a result, then the definition of skeptic must be "person with brain dysfunction".   Such people don't understand science.  That sort of attitude has been called "methodolatry".    I'm glad that you aren't a skeptic, Nils.  You should have your three studies in a couple years, but what does a rat result prove?   Rats aren't people, and I'll guarantee you that people will not see a 90% increase in any lifespan metric from c60 alone.  It's easy to make short-lived species live longer-- all you have to do is make their biochemisrty a bit more like long-lived species.

 

Well, you're welcome for the replies, but, um, did you read them?  You still sound like you're implying that we're a bunch of naive rubes who believe everything we read in pubmed.

 

 

Even if rats aren't people, rat studies often have led to similar uses in humans, and if it increases lifespan, thats a sign that it probably has a large multitude of benefits. Piracetam had a rat study showing an increase in lifespan, as well as many other animal studies showing improved cognitive benefits and whatnot with no negative side effects. I'm not trying to come on here to imply that you guys are naive, but I am one who avoids taking risks of potential unknown negative side effects. Sometimes, one group of rats by random chance might just might live longer than the other. I like to avoid all risks...except for the risks of nootropics that have been been synthesized in the last decade, I'm biased with those, so I'm eager to make myself be a guinea pig trying them since I am already taking some of those, I'm cautious to add another very new thing to my regimen.

 

I encourage you all to keep up with it, but try not to lure people into trying it based on "progress reports" posted on the forum and whatnot, since anecdotes can be filled with bias and placebo effects. In that book by Goldacre I mentioned, many people often create placebo effects themselves after they start trying a new medicine or supplement, because "they want it to work after having spent money on it" (a paraphrased quote). Marketers lurk sites like this, and I bet if you looked at some of the profiles of the users here, there are probably some who post exclusively on this C60 board and only say positive things about it. Peer-reviewed scientific journals are only what I trust, so I only add a new supplement into my regimen when I see others on this site talk about about the benefits of a supplement while linking to real peer-reviewed studies.

[NilsOlav]

What about the ukrainian experiment?

 

Results are expected for the beginning of 2016....

 

https://www.indiegog...onger/#activity

 

This sounds promising, especially since they have a group given just olive oil without the C60 (olive oil itself provides quite a good amount of benefits).

Edited by NilsOlav, 05 March 2015 - 05:28 PM.

[gwen]

The Ukrainian experiment is not considered valid ?

 

Sound like it's maybe not a completely independent experiment...or what?

 

 

[niner]

The Ukrainian experiment is not considered valid ?

 

Sound like it's maybe not a completely independent experiment...or what?

 

I don't see a problem with it...

[gwen]

 

The Ukrainian experiment is not considered valid ?

 

Sound like it's maybe not a completely independent experiment...or what?

 

I don't see a problem with it...

 

 

Ok thanks. Good to know.

[Mind]

Still waiting. Has anyone replicated Baati or even attempted it?

[ambivalent]

Still waiting. Has anyone replicated Baati or even attempted it?

 

I have to say, that as research goes, with limited funding, this has for me always been a low-priority. Given the wide ranging, unexpected and exceptional effects many knowledgeable and seasoned members experienced it seemed unlikely Baati was a fluke. Then in addition we had Ichor's initial AML, which was a partial replication of Baati's work - it certainly increased confidence in the fidelity of the original study. Given the experiences reported on this forum it shouldn't be difficult to construct much cheaper, shorter, replicable, but nevertheless exceptional studies in a range of areas which demonstrate the remarkable potential of c60.  Of course it is also need to demonstrate the potential risk too.

 

 

It is interesting to note that the most important discovery relating to c60oo since Baati, resulted from deviation rather than replication. When Ichor decided to replicate their AML study using premixed SES c60oo they were I assume, bidding to save some time and money and stumbled across a critical result leading to important analysis of c60oo toxic by-products, then hopefully to subsequent improved diligence from commercial c60oo vendors and, most importantly, to a fundamental reappraisal of the risk of c6oo 

Edited by ambivalent, 08 January 2017 - 02:27 PM.

[jack black]

What about the ukrainian experiment?

 

Results are expected for the beginning of 2016....

 

https://www.indiegog...onger/#activity

 

where are the results?

Edited by jack black, 21 January 2017 - 12:14 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

What about the ukrainian experiment?

 

Results are expected for the beginning of 2016....

 

https://www.indiegog...onger/#activity

 

where are the results?

 

 

 

I don't understand the feedback on this post.  How is this question ill informed?

[William Sterog]

 

 

What about the ukrainian experiment?
 
Results are expected for the beginning of 2016....
 
https://www.indiegog...onger/#activity

 
where are the results?

 

 
 
I don't understand the feedback on this post.  How is this question ill informed?

 

 
Haters are creating a bias in this forum. People with evidence against some compound are usually tagged negatively and henceforth they just shut up and keep their opinions to themselves. Positive evidence and experiences are rewarded because this is what the majority want to hear. But this is not how science works, most people here are relying in placebo, in fucking faith, they don't understand that hearing the whole truth, not only the things that they want to hear, is the best for them, it is the way to improve, to keep moving forward. 
 
We all want a magical cure for ageing, or the perfect nootropic, but we need to be critical, there is no other method to reach our dreams. Really, there is no other method. Faith is not an alternative. You can hurt yourself, you can go wrong and waste your only chance to make things better if you turn your back to what you don't want to hear. 
 
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. It is our best effort. 

[jack black]

IMHO, the whole feedback thing on this forum is sick. All it takes is some perverted individual to anonymously hit other people with the "ill informed" insult.

I rarely post these days because of that.

Edited by jack black, 11 February 2017 - 10:53 PM.

[chemicalambrosia]

I certainly wish Longecity would fund a study to replicate Baati if we can find out no one is currently doing one already. It is one of the few crowdfunded things I would definitely contribute to.

[orion602]

i cant believe noone has replicated it.

[kmoody]

i cant believe noone has replicated it.

 

We attempted to replicate this study using a different dosing scheme that reflected low dose chronic administration rather than a dosing schedule of a toxicology study (which the Baati study was). The study was terminated after 50% of the animals expired when the control and C60oo treated arms showed no difference in all cause mortality. These results will be reported in a paper we are currently drafting for peer reviewed publication.

 

However, in the course of the study we discovered that our source of C60oo did not meet the product specifications indicated by the vendor and also contained toxic epoxide by-products, so we do not believe these findings are necessarily valid. We are currently looking into the possibility of conducting a multi-arm multi-dosing schedule study that would include Baati's original dosing schedule and others. We think it would be appropriate to conduct this study under GLP and ideally with GMP product to ensure the results are irrefutable. That likely would not be able to begin for at least a year from now, perhaps longer.

[Graviton]

 

i cant believe noone has replicated it.

 

We attempted to replicate this study using a different dosing scheme that reflected low dose chronic administration rather than a dosing schedule of a toxicology study (which the Baati study was). The study was terminated after 50% of the animals expired when the control and C60oo treated arms showed no difference in all cause mortality. These results will be reported in a paper we are currently drafting for peer reviewed publication.

 

However, in the course of the study we discovered that our source of C60oo did not meet the product specifications indicated by the vendor and also contained toxic epoxide by-products, so we do not believe these findings are necessarily valid. We are currently looking into the possibility of conducting a multi-arm multi-dosing schedule study that would include Baati's original dosing schedule and others. We think it would be appropriate to conduct this study under GLP and ideally with GMP product to ensure the results are irrefutable. That likely would not be able to begin for at least a year from now, perhaps longer.

 

Not sure of the cause of death for those 50% of rats treated with C60oo.

cancer or other diseases, or natural death from replicative senescence?

 

Does that mean that protection from C60oo and the risks from its epoxide formations both exert simultaneously?

[Invariant]

 

i cant believe noone has replicated it.

 

We attempted to replicate this study using a different dosing scheme that reflected low dose chronic administration rather than a dosing schedule of a toxicology study (which the Baati study was). The study was terminated after 50% of the animals expired when the control and C60oo treated arms showed no difference in all cause mortality. These results will be reported in a paper we are currently drafting for peer reviewed publication.

 

However, in the course of the study we discovered that our source of C60oo did not meet the product specifications indicated by the vendor and also contained toxic epoxide by-products, so we do not believe these findings are necessarily valid. We are currently looking into the possibility of conducting a multi-arm multi-dosing schedule study that would include Baati's original dosing schedule and others. We think it would be appropriate to conduct this study under GLP and ideally with GMP product to ensure the results are irrefutable. That likely would not be able to begin for at least a year from now, perhaps longer.

 

Hi Kelsey,

 

Thanks for your efforts. I'm wondering if the fact that the C60oo did not meet the product specifications has any implications for how we should interpret the results of your study. Wouldn't a potentially toxic product invalidate the results completely?

[kmoody]

Does that mean that protection from C60oo and the risks from its epoxide formations both exert simultaneously?

 

It could. There was also variability between lots since we used a large amount for the study. It wasn't until about 6 months in that we learned of the epoxide issue and that the C60oo was out of spec (I did not have analytical chemistry capabilities able to detect this until that time). So we have no idea what the mice actually received. (1) They could have gotten a mix and the positive effects from one could have offset the negative effects from the other. (2) They could have gotten all bad stuff but the effects weren't enough to increase all cause mortality. (3) Or they could have gotten all good stuff but C60oo actually doesn't do anything in mice. I suspect (1) but this has to be tested.

 

 

Thanks for your efforts. I'm wondering if the fact that the C60oo did not meet the product specifications has any implications for how we should interpret the results of your study. Wouldn't a potentially toxic product invalidate the results completely?

 

Yes. Hence, we tried to replicate these findings, but failed to do so. However, we do not believe these results are valid. So we need to do it again. To avoid all of these issues with product etc. we would prefer to do the study under stringent GMP and GLP conditions so whatever the results are, they will be irrefutable.

[Invariant]

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your efforts. I'm wondering if the fact that the C60oo did not meet the product specifications has any implications for how we should interpret the results of your study. Wouldn't a potentially toxic product invalidate the results completely?

 

Yes. Hence, we tried to replicate these findings, but failed to do so. However, we do not believe these results are valid. So we need to do it again. To avoid all of these issues with product etc. we would prefer to do the study under stringent GMP and GLP conditions so whatever the results are, they will be irrefutable.

 

 

Makes sense. I guess I was confused because you mentioned before that you are submitting these results for publication. Is that paper about a different study then?