• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Commercially available C60 Olive Oil causing tumours

c60 c60 oo cancer

  • Please log in to reply
272 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ write a quiz!

#1 DarkDestroyer

  • Guest
  • 3 posts
  • 6

Posted 13 June 2016 - 02:45 PM


Anyone see this article and have any thoughts on the same? 

 

http://www.weyburnre...earch-1.2261882

 

 


  • Informative x 3
  • WellResearched x 1
  • dislike x 1

#2 ceridwen

  • Member
  • 1,227 posts
  • 93

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 June 2016 - 04:59 PM

Is it TOXIC?

#3 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,325 posts
  • 1,297
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 13 June 2016 - 06:14 PM

Is it TOXIC?

 

 

Certainly oxidized oil can be toxic. None of the vendors are using the exact method described in the Baati paper, it seems, and none are transparent as to both their methods and the oil they are using. Baati et al made a big deal over the quality of the oil and various precautions they took, such as excluding light. And light--even visible light--is very damaging as it accelerates the oxidation of both the oil and the C60. With C60, epoxides are formed that may not be bad by themselves, but are certainly using up some of the antioxidant capacity. It's also known that polyphenols in olive oil begin to rapidly decline after a couple of months, even in the bottle. Introducing oxygen will make it worse. Given these deficiencies, I'd expect that the C60 oil received from the companies may have some variable level of rancidity, little or no remaining polyphenols, and greatly diminished effectiveness. 

 

I am experimenting with doing away with olive oil altogether and using MCT oil instead. Using a fully saturated oil would make it more stable, and I can then add in hydroxytyrosol, which may be the most important minor constituent. 


Edited by Turnbuckle, 13 June 2016 - 06:35 PM.

  • Needs references x 2
  • Informative x 2

#4 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 436
  • Location:Earth

Posted 14 June 2016 - 05:33 PM

A MASSIVE increase in tumors!

Oops...
  • Good Point x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#5 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Peru

Posted 17 June 2016 - 08:17 PM

DARK DESTROYER:

 

I have some C60 on order, as it is made fresh from the supplier. I sent a copy of this thread's link to the supplier since I don't want my experiment animal to develop tumors, correct. Their comments on this article sent me back to reading it over a few times. The supplier mentioned that the article sounded more like a promotion of the laboratory and it's research and work. If there is a problem with C60, it would be showing up in more than this article. In addition, there may be mention of increased tumors in research articles. I have not taken the time to further research the research, which is something worth looking into.

 

Apparently most providers of C60 make batches when there are orders so that the material is sent fresh which is what i would also do it I were making C60.

 

TURNBUCKLE:

You bring up a few good points in your comments. I inquired and the supplier I chose was forthcoming and said they use fresh oil and that they follow the formula laid out to the letter, which is why it is costly. That of course doesn't guarantee anything. I agree that trying a different oil like MCT (Mid Chain Trigliceride) may be a better oil. I would venture to suggest this to the researchers and see if they comment on that proposition. 

 

I think that Forum users/members should report on their experiences. This is a very grave matter if in fact anyone were to develop tumors or that existing tumors responded by becoming more affluent through using C60.



#6 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,325 posts
  • 1,297
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 17 June 2016 - 09:07 PM

DARK DESTROYER:

 

I have some C60 on order, as it is made fresh from the supplier. I sent a copy of this thread's link to the supplier since I don't want my experiment animal to develop tumors, correct. Their comments on this article sent me back to reading it over a few times. The supplier mentioned that the article sounded more like a promotion of the laboratory and it's research and work. If there is a problem with C60, it would be showing up in more than this article. In addition, there may be mention of increased tumors in research articles. I have not taken the time to further research the research, which is something worth looking into.

 

Apparently most providers of C60 make batches when there are orders so that the material is sent fresh which is what i would also do it I were making C60.

 

TURNBUCKLE:

You bring up a few good points in your comments. I inquired and the supplier I chose was forthcoming and said they use fresh oil and that they follow the formula laid out to the letter, which is why it is costly. That of course doesn't guarantee anything. I agree that trying a different oil like MCT (Mid Chain Trigliceride) may be a better oil. I would venture to suggest this to the researchers and see if they comment on that proposition. 

 

I think that Forum users/members should report on their experiences. This is a very grave matter if in fact anyone were to develop tumors or that existing tumors responded by becoming more affluent through using C60.

 

 

One problem appears to be the exposure to light, which produces epoxides. Even visible light produces epoxides with dissolved C60. How dangerous this might be is not known, but the Baati researchers were careful to avoid light and didn't see any cancer in the experimental animals getting the mix. A member here--kmoody of Ichor--is studying the problem. As for your assumption that the vendors are making batches when there are orders, this is most unlikely as it takes two weeks just to mix it up (if they are actually doing it according to the paper). The method described in the paper included this--

 

 

Fifty mg of C60 were dissolved in 10 ml of olive oil by stirring for 2 weeks at ambient temperature in the dark.
 

I can just about guarantee no one is mixing 50 mg C60 in 10 ml olive oil when only 10 mg will dissolve. That would be extremely wasteful. So anyone saying they are following Baati to the letter is not telling the truth. SES in particular is a problem as they said they were using sonication to get it dissolved. That could produce a witch's brew of potentially toxic adducts. They also claim a shelf life of 3 years, which is absurd. If you bought olive oil from a grocery store that was that old, it would likely be rancid. In fact, most olive oil sold in the US is adulterated and is not what is claimed. Olive oil is a big money maker for the Mafia, so all grocery store olive oil is automatically suspect.

 

 
If there is a problem with C60, it would be showing up in more than this article.

 

 

Not everyone has a positive reaction to C60, and these quality issues may be the source of them. In other cases, C60 may be having a negative interaction with specific drugs and supplements. See this thread--C60 Toxicity Concerns and anecdotal reports. (Which is considerably shorter than this one--C60 Surprises - Anecdotes Of Unique Health Benefits.)

 

From these reports, taking C60 with NAD precursors (niacin, nicotinamide and nicotinamide riboside) can be a problem, and C60 can be a problem for those who have taken fluoroquinolones, even months or years before.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 17 June 2016 - 09:42 PM.

  • Needs references x 1

#7 kmoody

  • Guest, F@H
  • 202 posts
  • 238
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 19 June 2016 - 02:12 PM

DARK DESTROYER:

 

I have some C60 on order, as it is made fresh from the supplier. I sent a copy of this thread's link to the supplier since I don't want my experiment animal to develop tumors, correct. Their comments on this article sent me back to reading it over a few times. The supplier mentioned that the article sounded more like a promotion of the laboratory and it's research and work. If there is a problem with C60, it would be showing up in more than this article. In addition, there may be mention of increased tumors in research articles. I have not taken the time to further research the research, which is something worth looking into.

 

This article is from my group, and the results are posted on this forum. We are doing a full toxicology work-up now, but those results will not be completed until a few months at least. We do intend to publish them in a peer review journal. We have reached out to a few of the manufacturers who claim their product is fresh but failed quality control in my lab. They tried to blow a lot of smoke, but my analytical chemistry team is very good. In the end, most manufacturers cannot provide any actual quality assurance documentation (because they have none), and the one that could had questionable HPLC methodology.

 

Ask your supplier for the certificate of analysis for the lot you are buying from, then ask them to provide the data. I would wager a fair amount that they would have neither, and if they do, it will be shotty work.

 

My company has no need to promote itself. That article was a post in a small town newspaper home to one of my chemists, and was a feature on him. :)

 

TURNBUCKLE:

You bring up a few good points in your comments. I inquired and the supplier I chose was forthcoming and said they use fresh oil and that they follow the formula laid out to the letter, which is why it is costly. That of course doesn't guarantee anything. I agree that trying a different oil like MCT (Mid Chain Trigliceride) may be a better oil. I would venture to suggest this to the researchers and see if they comment on that proposition. 

 

I think that Forum users/members should report on their experiences. This is a very grave matter if in fact anyone were to develop tumors or that existing tumors responded by becoming more affluent through using C60.

 

We are assessing at least half a dozen different vehicles for C60 other than pure olive oil. We have PK/PD pilot data on these and are moving into efficacy and toxicity metrics. These results will be published when we have concluded these studies.


Edited by kmoody, 19 June 2016 - 02:18 PM.

  • like x 9
  • Informative x 7
  • Needs references x 2
  • Well Written x 2

#8 samstersam

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 7
  • Location:NYC
  • NO

Posted 19 June 2016 - 03:18 PM

Kmoody, I'd just like to appreciate my gratitude for your efforts in your studies of C60oo,

 

Most of us here are just "hacks", like myself. We have no certifications, no lab; only some decent intelligence to able to understand a little bit here and there and putting pieces together...hackers, are all we are. We're just here experimenting and hoping that it somehow benefits our health or longevity.

 

I think your reports on c60oo vendors with your expertise and lab is a very crucial component on our studies of the potential and dangers of c60oo and I hope that you continue to unearth the more truth for everyone's benefit.

 

You might actually end up saving lives. Who knows.

 

Anyway, just want to say thank you.

Best wishes in your endeavors...

 

 


  • Agree x 4

#9 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Peru

Posted 19 June 2016 - 05:37 PM

KMOODY:

Yes, thank you for your post (#7) and clarifying your position and that of the news article. Most important observations and quality tests that are being performed through your group there, my hat is off to you.

 

To clarify your comment "We have PK/PD pilot data on these and are moving into efficacy and toxicity metrics." because many of us are "hacks" on this forum, you are referring to pharmacokinetics (PK) / pharmacodynamics (PD), is this correct? If so, here is an interesting 2014 paper for anyone interested on the subject matter, on Novartis Institute of Biomedical Research (Novartis manufactures or is patent holder of Nilotinib):

 

Implementation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic strategies in early research phases of drug discovery and development at Novartis Institute of Biomedical Research

"Characterizing the relationship between the pharmacokinetics (PK, concentration vs. time) and pharmacodynamics (PD, effect vs. time) is an important tool in the discovery and development of new drugs in the pharmaceutical industry." 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC4112793/

 

I might add that your initiative "We are assessing at least half a dozen different vehicles for C60 other than pure olive oil." is very impressive and note worthy. I am sure that anyone interested in C60 investigation will be welcoming your progress and report. Job well done.

 

Is sunflower oil one of these vehicles? Thanks again kmoody.

 

 


Edited by LongLife, 19 June 2016 - 05:40 PM.

  • like x 1

#10 ceridwen

  • Member
  • 1,227 posts
  • 93

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:05 PM

No sunflower oil and rapeseed oil are associated with dementia!
  • Needs references x 2

#11 ceridwen

  • Member
  • 1,227 posts
  • 93

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:07 PM

I hope not!

#12 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Peru

Posted 19 June 2016 - 10:56 PM

No sunflower oil and rapeseed oil are associated with dementia!

CERIDWEN:

Thanks for the comment about sunflower and rapeseed (canola) oils and their association with dementia. That sent me off two hours in quest for substantiating documentation which ended in frustration...when taken into context.

 

Would anyone use C60 for cooking/frying? If so, why?

Would anyone use olive oil (regular, virgin or extra virgin) for cooking/frying? If so, why?

 

The first law of chemistry is that heat causes chemical change. Cooking/frying; heating to 275F / 130C definately causes chemical change in a super numerous amount of things, including food and most all oils known to man.

 

To the point: YES, heating almost any oil to frying/cooking temperature causes the formation of toxic aldehydes (see below) which are well known to induce cancer, as well as dementia. Reading your comment sent me scrambling for new evidence that the mere ingestion of sunflower and rapeseed (canola) oil caused problems with dementia, which is certainly not the case.  Well, as far as I could determined after reading way too may abstracts today on the subject matter. I shall not bother kicking a dead horse and present a load of research paper sites found on PUBMED; 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....r oil aldehydes ,

 

but I will say that a rash of articles printer in England, mostly during the month of November 2015 (7 months ago), several from THE TELEGRAPH, brought to attention the grave problem with cooking/frying with vegetable oils and siting information about how butter and lard is much better with very little negative implications, as well as coconut oil, for cooking/frying. To wit:

 

http://s.telegraph.c...11012810738.svg

http://www.telegraph...ay-experts.html

 

NATURAL NEWS HAD TO SAY IN PART:

Researchers found that the sunflower and flaxseed oils degraded significantly and are the ones that create the most toxic aldehydes in the least amount of frying time. These oils are high in polyunsaturated fats (linoleic and linolenic) and breakdown quickly to form the health-demoting aldehyde compounds that permeate the air and penetrate into the food. Olive oil, known to be high in monounsaturated fat, generates aldehydes to a lesser degree and after cooking much longer.
Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz4C4BbWTTL

 

We would NOT throw out the two Essential Fatty Acids (linoleic and linolenic = phospholipds) from our diet because they form toxic Aldehydes (see below) when heated to cooking/frying tempertures, correct?

 

Study finds link between toxic aldehydes in reheated oil and neurodegenerative diseases, cancer

3/22/2012 - Depending on the type of oil you use to cook -- and whether or not you reheat that oil for multiple uses -- you could be exposing yourself to high levels of toxic aldehydes, chemicals known to cause neurodegenerative disease and cancer. Researchers from the University of the Basque Country (UBC) in...

Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz4C4ChGBJW

 

So back into the context of the subject and THEREFORE, notwithstanding the aforementioned:

 

I would include FLAX SEED OIL to the list of potential oils to research for producing C60 because of its high Omega3 (ALA) content.

 

I would include SUNFLOWER SEED OIL because of its high lecithin content (phospholypid complex of phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidylserinephosphatidylethanolamine and some phosphatidylglycerol), since it comprises about 40%+ of our brain and 35%+ of neurons, thereby being a well accepted oil and bioavailable.

 

In all due respect, I do thank you CERIDWEN for being concerned and calling attention to the neurodegenerative effects of vegetable oils, although once they have been heated enough to degrade and constitute toxic substances.

 

I would be VERY INTERESTED in knowing which oils are currently being examined by KMOODY's team :-), as an alternative to making C60 using olive oil. Perhaps some or all of these are resistant to changes caused by light...doubt it though.



#13 sensei

  • Guest
  • 792 posts
  • 96

Posted 22 June 2016 - 01:59 PM

A MASSIVE increase in tumors!

Oops...

 

It said "massive increase in tumor growth", which is different.

 

Also, this is an immuno-compromised mouse model (using a mouse with a defective immune system) and injecting 10E+7 cancer cells into the tail vein.

 

The best we can say is :

 

"Some degradation products in C60OO may lead to an apparent increase in tumor growth in an immuno-compromised mouse model of AML."

 

It is not known if an immuno-competent mouse or human would show the same trend.

 

Multiple signalling pathways for cell growth and proliferation are tied to the immune system, and the interaction between degradation products in C60OO and the immune system is not characterized.

 

 

An epidemiological meta-analysis could easily be conducted among the members here that have used C60OO from a commercial vendor.  I myself consumed over 1 gram C60OO (based on manufacturers claim -- per Kelsey's data it is probably right near 1 gram.)

 

I have also consumed about 2 grams of my own mix.

 

It has been 2 years since I started using C60OO  --- with no sign of any tumors or lesions.  In fact several nevi fell off during my C60 usage.


  • Good Point x 4
  • like x 2
  • unsure x 1

#14 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,911 posts
  • 1,592
  • Location:New York

Posted 22 June 2016 - 03:08 PM

C60OO?  As with any supplement, hurry up and use it while it still works.


  • Cheerful x 4
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • like x 1

#15 shifter

  • Guest
  • 675 posts
  • 27

Posted 22 June 2016 - 11:11 PM

I'm sick of experiments which seem deliberately geared to get a result which bears no reality in a real world context.

 

Okay, so If I happened to be an immune compromised mouse and got millions of cancer cells injected into me, perhaps taking C60OO would be a dumb idea. But I am a very healthy HUMAN with a strong immune system so frankly this experiment means SQUAT to me and represents nothing but a waste of money, time and effort without using a control in the form of a healthy mouse. Yes we can see what happens inside a body without a pesky immune system interfering, but given almost all of us have immune systems, I'm more interested to see what happens to someone when cancer cells are injected into a healthy body that is 'saturated' with C60 or given C60 after cancer to see if it has any positive or negative health outcomes.

 

Even just C60OO given to a healthy body with no cancer indefinitely to replicate what effects it may have on potential maximum lifespans. I know the title of that experiment may seem boring and you may not get the opportunity to write lots of 'sciency' things in your hypothesis to attract $$$ in funding but the experiment run seems only to benefit immune compromised mice in such that they are 'told' not to take commercial C60OO if they have cancer cells injected into them and NOT the human race for just 'normal' folk.

 

 

 

 


  • like x 2
  • Good Point x 1

#16 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 June 2016 - 04:02 AM

I'm sick of experiments which seem deliberately geared to get a result which bears no reality in a real world context.

 

Okay, so If I happened to be an immune compromised mouse and got millions of cancer cells injected into me, perhaps taking C60OO would be a dumb idea. But I am a very healthy HUMAN with a strong immune system so frankly this experiment means SQUAT to me and represents nothing but a waste of money, time and effort without using a control in the form of a healthy mouse. Yes we can see what happens inside a body without a pesky immune system interfering, but given almost all of us have immune systems, I'm more interested to see what happens to someone when cancer cells are injected into a healthy body that is 'saturated' with C60 or given C60 after cancer to see if it has any positive or negative health outcomes.

 

Even just C60OO given to a healthy body with no cancer indefinitely to replicate what effects it may have on potential maximum lifespans. I know the title of that experiment may seem boring and you may not get the opportunity to write lots of 'sciency' things in your hypothesis to attract $$$ in funding but the experiment run seems only to benefit immune compromised mice in such that they are 'told' not to take commercial C60OO if they have cancer cells injected into them and NOT the human race for just 'normal' folk.

 

Aren't you concerned that some kinds of c60oo cause tumor growth, while others are suppressive?  Admittedly these results come from an immunocompromised mouse model, but given the choice between the c60oo that caused tumor growth versus the one that suppressed it, which would you want to use?


  • Agree x 3
  • Good Point x 1

#17 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 110 posts
  • 18
  • Location:US

Posted 23 June 2016 - 04:02 AM

 

 

An epidemiological meta-analysis could easily be conducted among the members here that have used C60OO from a commercial vendor.  I myself consumed over 1 gram C60OO (based on manufacturers claim -- per Kelsey's data it is probably right near 1 gram.)

 

I have also consumed about 2 grams of my own mix.

 

It has been 2 years since I started using C60OO  --- with no sign of any tumors or lesions.  In fact several nevi fell off during my C60 usage.

 

May I know which vendor you have been used for years, and how much dosage and how frequently have been used?

Signs of early tumor are not easily detectable by oneself's feeling unless CT scans or MRIs tell you more about this.


Edited by Graviton, 23 June 2016 - 04:04 AM.


#18 shifter

  • Guest
  • 675 posts
  • 27

Posted 23 June 2016 - 04:14 AM

 

I'm sick of experiments which seem deliberately geared to get a result which bears no reality in a real world context.

 

Okay, so If I happened to be an immune compromised mouse and got millions of cancer cells injected into me, perhaps taking C60OO would be a dumb idea. But I am a very healthy HUMAN with a strong immune system so frankly this experiment means SQUAT to me and represents nothing but a waste of money, time and effort without using a control in the form of a healthy mouse. Yes we can see what happens inside a body without a pesky immune system interfering, but given almost all of us have immune systems, I'm more interested to see what happens to someone when cancer cells are injected into a healthy body that is 'saturated' with C60 or given C60 after cancer to see if it has any positive or negative health outcomes.

 

Even just C60OO given to a healthy body with no cancer indefinitely to replicate what effects it may have on potential maximum lifespans. I know the title of that experiment may seem boring and you may not get the opportunity to write lots of 'sciency' things in your hypothesis to attract $$$ in funding but the experiment run seems only to benefit immune compromised mice in such that they are 'told' not to take commercial C60OO if they have cancer cells injected into them and NOT the human race for just 'normal' folk.

 

Aren't you concerned that some kinds of c60oo cause tumor growth, while others are suppressive?  Admittedly these results come from an immunocompromised mouse model, but given the choice between the c60oo that caused tumor growth versus the one that suppressed it, which would you want to use?

 

 

Which commercially available product did they use? There are several suppliers. What about peoples home brew? The experiment left out so much potential information. I would have designed it to also try it in a healthy mouse model to see if its an issue or a non issue. Before saying 'commercial' (as that generalises all commercial products) I would have tried the most popular brands and attached their unique way of making the C60OO.

 

I got 10 bottles from carbon60oliveoil.com. This report does not give me any pause as to why I, a healthy immune competent human should be worried because an immune incompetent mouse, injected with millions of cancer cells, did not do so great. Sure it would have been 'nicer' if the tumours didn't even grow in the first place, but what this experiment tells me is that C60OO is not a good cancer drug

 


  • Good Point x 3

#19 sensei

  • Guest
  • 792 posts
  • 96

Posted 23 June 2016 - 06:55 AM

 

 

 

An epidemiological meta-analysis could easily be conducted among the members here that have used C60OO from a commercial vendor.  I myself consumed over 1 gram C60OO (based on manufacturers claim -- per Kelsey's data it is probably right near 1 gram.)

 

I have also consumed about 2 grams of my own mix.

 

It has been 2 years since I started using C60OO  --- with no sign of any tumors or lesions.  In fact several nevi fell off during my C60 usage.

 

May I know which vendor you have been used for years, and how much dosage and how frequently have been used?

Signs of early tumor are not easily detectable by oneself's feeling unless CT scans or MRIs tell you more about this.

 

 

Vaughter more than 1 gram over the course of approximately 1 year

 

My own shaken using 99.95% C60 from SES and extra virgin oil and also extra light oil (which turned light purple- instead of the dark purple/brown)

 

More than 2 grams over the course of about a year  -- have taken doses of 100+ mg in 1 day



#20 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 110 posts
  • 18
  • Location:US

Posted 23 June 2016 - 02:37 PM

If possible, I would like to know which vendor's C60 olive oil Ichor tested, and which one of them was/were recorded as a massive increase in tumors.

Also, if it happens, is it caused from shelf life issue mainly from expired/old materials? In other words, vendors might use short- shelf life olive oil that can be easily oxidized, bad quality olive oil that can become easily rancid, or they might have stored the finished items too long time. 

OR, is it because of wrong manufacturing procedures caused from light exposure or a lack of C60 mixtures in the solution?

 

Depending on which one caused an issue, continuing taking their C60 olive oil may need to be prudent.


Edited by Graviton, 23 June 2016 - 02:44 PM.


#21 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Peru

Posted 24 June 2016 - 03:26 AM

If possible, I would like to know which vendor's C60 olive oil Ichor tested, and which one of them was/were recorded as a massive increase in tumors.

Also, if it happens, is it caused from shelf life issue mainly from expired/old materials? In other words, vendors might use short- shelf life olive oil that can be easily oxidized, bad quality olive oil that can become easily rancid, or they might have stored the finished items too long time. 

OR, is it because of wrong manufacturing procedures caused from light exposure or a lack of C60 mixtures in the solution?

 

Depending on which one caused an issue, continuing taking their C60 olive oil may need to be prudent.

GRAVITON:

 

See post #13 above, there were increases in tumor growth, not the number of tumors.

 

For sake of the following discussion it is assumed that C60oo is C60 EVoo or C60 Extra Virgin olive oil.

 

I do not know if the injection of cancer into the rats occurs before during or after the ingestion of C60oo.

 

The current general hypothesis concerns the quality of the olive oil used with these rats (ie quality of the C60oo molecules) that developed increased tumor size "massive tumors".

 

C60oo has not been shown to cause tumors, cancers, increase the number of tumors or increase the growth of existing tumors, etc. Although C60 mixed with water has shown negative results; from what I have been reading via studies on the subject matter.

 

C60oo (C60+olive oil) is a new specie, molecule, a new animal if you will; adduct. The C60+oo=C60oo does not produce any "by product" as in a chemical equation. It is not a compound, a mix that metabolically gets degraded or broken down into C60 and olive oil as separate components (or so it appears). It is one molecule and it is catalytic in nature; it's presence is the cause of some reactions. It is not consumed, not changed, during the chemical equation that occurs because of it's presence and it has to be "in the right place at the right time", to do what we would like to see; long life and other positive results. C60 when formulated with an oil is an "adduct"; new species, new molecule.

 

If the olive oil is incorrect (rancid, degraded, polluted, etc) before, during or after the formulation, then the C60oo- is likely to do something different than if the olive oil is pristine/correct. Many people have taken C60oo, some have experimented with other oils and therefore we know now that C60+other oil+HT=similar (apparent) results as C60oo.

Note: HT is a phenolic called hydroxytyrosol that is found in olive oil; "super" antioxidant. Oh, BTW C60 is also a "super antioxidant". Two Free Radical scroungers that give up  / donate electrons to complete the "free radical" whereby these completed molecules can also scrounge out free radicals or go about doing some other business.

 

"...adding hydroxytyrosol to EVOO to artificially increase its natural phenolic content. I first tried a dose of 50 mg hydroxytyrosol without olive oil and found that it gave me a definite boost after about half an hour. While running, I found breathing to be even lighter than with C60EVOO,..."

http://boardreader.c...1chneX1u7b.html SEE: REPLY ONE

 

Well, with all that being said and laying a ground work...

 

What else could cause increase tumor growth (size of tumors) from C60oo? Well I am glad I asked :-) ...

 

The thought occurred to me, based on last years research I was doing on antioxidants and what all that is about, antioxidants defeat cancer development AND they cause cancer. Oh, humm, uhh...what does that mean? Right. What is that about? I find myself frustrated when I run across these paradoxes and notice I tend to "go away" from these and find something else to look at. Usually these paradoxes have no currently known answers. IMHO I find these frustrating. Now I am back to thinking of this antioxidant paradox again in light of the C60oo/tumor paradox.

 

So why do antioxidants cause cancer and why do antioxidants defend against cancer? No, there is no known answer, so if your interested, here is a 2015 published explanation:

http://sci-hub.bz/10...anslmed.aad3740

 

Oh, you like videos, then here:

 

Got it? Two "super" antioxidants, making an adduct, plugging into the double cell wall of the mitochondria. What are mitochondria about? Have they not been found to be replicates of bacteria (double cellular walls, produce their own specific energy, etc.) and has it not been recently determined that to kill cancer one should attack, really attack, the mitochondria of the cancer? Isn't it interesting that antioxidants "protect" the mitochondria, as well as other cell organelle from free radical damage and "aging", senescence and apoptosis (suicide), autophagy, mitophagy, yayaya...AND isn't it interesting that antioxidants also can cause the mitochondria to go whacko and "pooph" tumor, cancer? You did watch the video, correct?

 

The subject of the thread is "Comercially available C60 olive oil causing tumors". A specific commercial supplier's C60oo has been observed to increased existing tumor growth in some genetically modified laboratory rats. Well maybe those "super" antioxidants did their job quite handsomely.

 

Just maybe those folks taking C60oo for years now, whom have had no problems to report, do not have any genetically modified cells in their body and they did not get injected with live cancer cells AND the "super" antioxidants are doing their job protecting against cancer and/or tumor growth. Humm...just maybe it has nothing to do with the quality of the olive oil in question. Or does it?

 

Any comments or observations?


Edited by LongLife, 24 June 2016 - 03:36 AM.

  • Cheerful x 1

#22 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 June 2016 - 05:13 AM

So why do antioxidants cause cancer and why do antioxidants defend against cancer? No, there is no known answer, so if your interested, here is a 2015 published explanation:

http://sci-hub.bz/10...anslmed.aad3740

 

Any comments or observations?

 

It's complicated.  Part of the problem is that the word "antioxidant" is applied to a huge range of compounds with wildly different properties, which is distinctly unhelpful.  Hydrophilic antioxidants will be preferentially found in the aqueous portion of the cell, while hydrophobic antioxidants prefer the lipid regions.  Amphiphilic antioxidants have properties of both hydrophiles and hydrophobes, and if appropriately shaped, they will occupy specific regions of membranes.  The cell is not just a bag of chemicals, but rather more like a machine, where every chemical has its place.  Some of those chemicals are enzymes that when acted on by ROS can turn on the metastatic phenotype.  It has been shown that mitochondrial antioxidants like MitoTEMPO and MitoQ can suppress this, while conventional antioxidants do not.  Chandel and Tuveson argue that the enzymes involved in certain ROS-switched cancer pathways are physically co-located with the mitochondria, which means they are probably in a location that conventional antioxidants would not reach. 

 

The paper you posted is interesting.  It shows that NAC and Trolox make metastasis worse, and that this is related to the glutathione pool.  There are undoubtedly multiple pathways that impinge on metastasis, and these two antioxidants are probably operating on a different one than the mitochondrial antioxidants act on.  Cancer cells that are dangerous are more likely to be high producers of ROS, which causes them to be oxidatively stressed.  It might be the case that NAC is rescuing some of these stressed cancer cells.

 

Just as it's an error to lump all antioxidants into one giant category, it's also wrong to lump all cancers into one giant "tumor".   There are a lot of different kinds of cells in a lot of different environments, and there are a lot of different ways that they can lose growth control.  It doesn't seem very promising that we will find a single drug that acts as a magic bullet for all of them.

 

The picture that seems to be emerging is that conventional antioxidants make cancer worse, but mitochondrial antioxidants (which I propose includes c60oo) slows the growth of cancer.  Due to the multitudes of cells and tumorigenic mechanisms, there are probably many exceptions to such general rules.

 

C60oo is as of yet not molecularly characterized.  Until we know the structures of the active agent or agents, it will be hard to tell which production methods and precursors produce a product that is optimal, and which might be harmful.  Kelsey's group at Ichor has found that a particular batch of c60oo produced by SES appears to promote tumor growth.   Ichor's in-house produced c60oo had the opposite effect.


Edited by niner, 24 June 2016 - 05:16 AM.

  • Well Written x 4
  • Informative x 1
  • WellResearched x 1

#23 sensei

  • Guest
  • 792 posts
  • 96

Posted 24 June 2016 - 03:32 PM

 

 

I do not know if the injection of cancer into the rats occurs before during or after the ingestion of C60oo.

 

 

 

The subject of the thread is "Comercially available C60 olive oil causing tumors". A specific commercial supplier's C60oo has been observed to increased existing tumor growth in some genetically modified laboratory rats. Well maybe those "super" antioxidants did their job quite handsomely.

 

 

Any comments or observations?

 

 

If C60OO caused an increase in existing tumor growth -- by definition the cancer injection occurred BEFORE administration of C60OO 

 

else the tumors could not have formed 


  • unsure x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#24 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Peru

Posted 25 June 2016 - 03:39 AM

 

 

 

I do not know if the injection of cancer into the rats occurs before during or after the ingestion of C60oo.

 

 

 

The subject of the thread is "Comercially available C60 olive oil causing tumors". A specific commercial supplier's C60oo has been observed to increased existing tumor growth in some genetically modified laboratory rats. Well maybe those "super" antioxidants did their job quite handsomely.

 

 

Any comments or observations?

 

 

If C60OO caused an increase in existing tumor growth -- by definition the cancer injection occurred BEFORE administration of C60OO 

 

else the tumors could not have formed 

 

SENSEI:

Good point. By first glance what you said may be so. Then the "but" comes in. The rats were genetically determined to develop tumors. What would have been a good idea, use two types of mice; one group pre-determined and one group not. Although the study was to observe what C60oo would "do" to these pre-determined mice with their innate ability to develop tumors. BTW, most all rats will develop tumors which is why their means life span is two years, sometimes a little longer but not much. The genetically predetermined rats will definitely develop tumors in short order though, that is why they are used. Then they were injected with cancer cells. Therefore the rats in this scenario would definitely develop tumors quickly.

 

Without going back over the data, I am saying that I do not know at what point the rats were given cancerous injection. I need to find that out, so as to know. I do believe that the injection of cancer cells was given to que the genetics of the rats to promptly develop tumors so as to "get on with the show", so to speak. Although the point here, the alarming observation was, the rats developed "massive" tumors, even though they were given C60oo. Wow, the thought was that the C60oo was going to negate the cancer cells, protect the rats from developing cancer, even though they were genetically predetermined to do so. 

 

I don't know if the rats were injected before, during or after the C60oo was given to the rats to eat. I remember the rats were like ten months old (?) and maybe, maybe, this was the age when rats could normally start to develop tumors...maybe not, I don't know. I would be interested to know at what point in time the C60oo was given in relation to the injection of cancer cells. Yes, it seems like the thing to do would be give the injection of cancer first, wait a time and then the C60oo to see if this precluded tumor development and/or progress. In either case, what happened? Massive tumor growth.

 

Rats predetermined to develop tumors,

Rats injected with cancer cells,

Rats developed tumors,

Rats developed "massive" tumors, a continuum.

At some point in time, C60oo was administered,

Rats developed "massive" tumors.

 

Since this is a surprise, due to the fact that the study was merely to duplicate a prior study, the expected result was to be:

reduced tumor growth...

preclude tumor growth...

 

I don't know. Someone knows though.

 

But contrary, "massive" tumor growth . Ohpps, what's that about? Commercial C60oo results in massive tumor growth. We are hear discussing this issue. Why did that happen? What was NOT replicated exactly as the primary study. I don't know. Does anyone know? I don't think anyone knows. Why print the article in the paper? Correct? It obviously was NOT to say how the study found out why C60oo may cause massive tumor growth or in the alternative, how it was found that C60oo does NOT impede tumor growth. It was a surprise. Why?

 

I would like to put forward the thought that maybe, just maybe, two "super" antioxidants might have something to do with this. How many studies do we see that have given rats C60oo? Have all rats that have been administered C60oo lived twice as long as their normal lifespan? I doubt it. This is new science, new area of investigation, all things need to be considered. There are NO stupid questions. I am putting some "food for thought" on the table for consideration, that's it. So what about this situation of super antioxidants. I have seen some videos by some top research labs that say, "hey, we are into antioxidant research and we are not seeing the expected results, what's up with these antioxidant theories" but life goes on and practically no one is paying attention to the research.

 

NINER has been eloquent to point out that not antioxidants are the same, like not all roses have the same color nor the same smell, they just all stick 'ya and smell swell. Okay, I got it. Apples to apples and antioxidants to antioxidants. That SHOULD be a no-brainer but it is not. I have read my full about antioxidants, free radicals and theory and NINER brings up a very decisive point, not all antioxidants are the same, they don't all fit into the same hole. C60 is a super antioxidant, so what TYPE of antioxidant is it? What TYPE of antioxidant is HT? and Olive oil? Are they all the same TYPE? Are these food for thought? Hey, I think so, do you?

 

Then there is still...what about the olive oil? Was it bad? and the C60, did it have too much C70 or what is ACTUALLY that other 0.05%, I don't know. I am hoping that KMOODY finds out and tells the world what that stuff is. What was in that batch of C60oo they administered to those "massive" tumor rats? Did they follow good practices and save, freeze, a portion of their "commercial C60oo" that they administered to the rats? Humm? Well, time will tell all. Meanwhile, I got some more paradox stuff to look at, I need to read more about the different types of antioxidants; thank you NINER. You are the man :-)


  • Good Point x 1

#25 tunt01

  • Guest, Advisor
  • 2,270 posts
  • 392
  • Location:NW

Posted 25 June 2016 - 02:12 PM

I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but I will just say again for reference.  I purchased c60oliveoil.com, tried it once or twice.  It originally came with a very lovely purple color.  I left it alone for about 3 weeks and noticed it had turned brown and looked slightly rancid.  It was not exposed to sunlight and was left inside a cupboard.  I tossed it.

 

 


Edited by prophets, 25 June 2016 - 02:13 PM.

  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#26 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,325 posts
  • 1,297
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 25 June 2016 - 04:29 PM

I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but I will just say again for reference.  I purchased c60oliveoil.com, tried it once or twice.  It originally came with a very lovely purple color.  I left it alone for about 3 weeks and noticed it had turned brown and looked slightly rancid.  It was not exposed to sunlight and was left inside a cupboard.  I tossed it.

 

 

With olive oil this color shift is typical. I've made up quite a number of batches over the years and it always turns more whiskey colored with time, likely from the formation of adducts. Extra light olive oil and completely clear almond oil produced magenta mixes that also browned with time. By contrast, the color of C60 dissolved in saturated (nonreactive) oils is a stable magenta. If the color of c60oliveoil is magenta, it is likely because it was recently mixed in a oil that is "extra light" and not "extra virgin." Extra light olive oils are very low quality.


  • Informative x 3
  • Agree x 1

#27 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 110 posts
  • 18
  • Location:US

Posted 27 June 2016 - 03:10 PM

In a such sense, taking C60 EVOO with purple color can be regarded as not yet oxidized(or degraded) form? If so, wouldn't this mean taking them within a period while it is purple color can be effective?

Turnbukle, what is your maximum dosage at once in a day and in a week without any side effects?

C60 produced by buckylabs, Carbon60oliveoil seem to be purple when they are manufactured(as guessed), but it also seems that manufacturing process includes light exposure(visible light). Still, it is purple, doesn't this imply color cannot tell everything about its oxidized or olive oil components' adduct formation?


Edited by Graviton, 27 June 2016 - 03:15 PM.


#28 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,325 posts
  • 1,297
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 27 June 2016 - 04:37 PM

In a such sense, taking C60 EVOO with purple color can be regarded as not yet oxidized(or degraded) form? If so, wouldn't this mean taking them within a period while it is purple color can be effective?

Turnbukle, what is your maximum dosage at once in a day and in a week without any side effects?

C60 produced by buckylabs, Carbon60oliveoil seem to be purple when they are manufactured(as guessed), but it also seems that manufacturing process includes light exposure(visible light). Still, it is purple, doesn't this imply color cannot tell everything about its oxidized or olive oil components' adduct formation?

 

I've never taken much more than 20 mg at a time but found it to be of no advantage over taking ten times less. The only side effects I've noticed were from combining it with one gram of niacin. Others have noted negative effect from combining it with NAD supplements, so I'm not alone in that. I expect C60 in olive oil to eventually form epoxides and adducts, and it's not at all clear how bad these are, or if they are bad at all. C60 epoxides are known to be better antioxidants than unoxidized C60, but isn't this using up some of its antioxidant life? And are adducts universally bad, or are some bad and some good? How important are the polyphenols in the olive oil? Obviously they have some importance as the Baati rats lived 18% longer with olive oil alone, and that couldn't have been from the oleic acid. But polyphenols decline after the oil is bottled, and declines even faster after the bottle is opened and exposed to oxygen. Although we can't put any numbers to it, I doubt if anyone would argue that olive oil with degraded polyphenols isn't a bad thing for longevity.

 

As for taking C60 in olive oil that is purple, I don't know what to make of that as the only C60 olive oil I've seen that was purple was prepared with "extra light" olive oil, and that is one of the worst you could possibly use from the standpoint of polyphenols. It is generally sold in clear bottles, so you can expect it to be oxidized as well.



#29 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,852 posts
  • 277
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 June 2016 - 04:50 PM

The cold processed EVOO I have used for my past two batches have been very green to start with, once the C60 added they have turned a brown color that shows as a blood red / wine color when back lit.



⌛⇒ write a quiz!

#30 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 110 posts
  • 18
  • Location:US

Posted 28 June 2016 - 02:44 AM

 

In a such sense, taking C60 EVOO with purple color can be regarded as not yet oxidized(or degraded) form? If so, wouldn't this mean taking them within a period while it is purple color can be effective?

Turnbukle, what is your maximum dosage at once in a day and in a week without any side effects?

C60 produced by buckylabs, Carbon60oliveoil seem to be purple when they are manufactured(as guessed), but it also seems that manufacturing process includes light exposure(visible light). Still, it is purple, doesn't this imply color cannot tell everything about its oxidized or olive oil components' adduct formation?

 

I've never taken much more than 20 mg at a time but found it to be of no advantage over taking ten times less. The only side effects I've noticed were from combining it with one gram of niacin. Others have noted negative effect from combining it with NAD supplements, so I'm not alone in that. I expect C60 in olive oil to eventually form epoxides and adducts, and it's not at all clear how bad these are, or if they are bad at all. C60 epoxides are known to be better antioxidants than unoxidized C60, but isn't this using up some of its antioxidant life? And are adducts universally bad, or are some bad and some good? How important are the polyphenols in the olive oil? Obviously they have some importance as the Baati rats lived 18% longer with olive oil alone, and that couldn't have been from the oleic acid. But polyphenols decline after the oil is bottled, and declines even faster after the bottle is opened and exposed to oxygen. Although we can't put any numbers to it, I doubt if anyone would argue that olive oil with degraded polyphenols isn't a bad thing for longevity.

 

As for taking C60 in olive oil that is purple, I don't know what to make of that as the only C60 olive oil I've seen that was purple was prepared with "extra light" olive oil, and that is one of the worst you could possibly use from the standpoint of polyphenols. It is generally sold in clear bottles, so you can expect it to be oxidized as well.

 

Then, what do you think of normal(C60 in good and high quality oil) color of C60 in oil(not necessarily olive oil)? What about normal color change expectation of a such case?

Buckylabs, Carbon60oliveoil initially appear to be purple while VW C60evoo initially appears to be light brownish color. Then, would this mean three of companies' C60 are mixed with extra light oil, not with extra virgin olive oil as they state?

As I remember, Revgenetics C60 also has purple color C60. I am not sure if we can say only extra light olive oil can make purple color, or purple color is generated at the beginning for both of extra virgin and extra light olive oil. (Although polyphenol contents and reaction time with adducts and epoxides may be different). Maybe the time for color to change from purple to brown could be a determinant for how good quality(extra virgin or extra light) olive oil they used.

 

For an issue with interaction with NR, it is fairly unclear of what makes such negative effects. Liposomal C60 has a long half life, which even some level of C60 are detected even after a few weeks. Then, don't we have to wait to take NR supplement until all C60 is eliminated from the body like a few weeks after taking C60? Still not known if such negative effects are caused from the interaction between C60 and NR.


Edited by Graviton, 28 June 2016 - 02:48 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: c60, c60 oo, cancer

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users