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

Photo

VaughterWellness


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#1 SarahVaughter

  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 02 November 2017 - 11:21 AM


Just FYI, just now we received an email from our domain REGISTRAR (not host!), telling us they have received a complaint from someone in the US, saying we're selling C60-EVOO without FDA permission. False claims of illegal operation were made for nearly everything else we sell as well, on other sites of ours. And copies of the same complaint were sent to our web host as well. As well as to officers of our company. It seems that someone really wants to get us out of business, or at least severely intimidate us. There are often considerable consequences for people trying to damage our fully legally operating company. The person who made the complaints is savy in the pharma business, because he copied several Novartis people in on the email sent to our registrar and host. Novartis is the original manufacturer of the now patent-expired generic Lufenuron we sell for veterinarian flea control in dogs for kennels. We've given Ichor sufficient time by now to publish an apology + retraction, or evidence substantiating their libel. We'll start fighting back today.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 02 November 2017 - 11:57 AM.

  • Enjoying the show x 3
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 3
  • Unfriendly x 3
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#2 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:18 PM

Just FYI, just now we received an email from our domain REGISTRAR (not host!), telling us they have received a complaint from someone in the US, saying we're selling C60-EVOO without FDA permission. False claims of illegal operation were made for nearly everything else we sell as well, on other sites of ours. And copies of the same complaint were sent to our web host as well. As well as to officers of our company. It seems that someone really wants to get us out of business, or at least severely intimidate us. There are often considerable consequences for people trying to damage our fully legally operating company. The person who made the complaints is savy in the pharma business, because he copied several Novartis people in on the email sent to our registrar and host. Novartis is the original manufacturer of the now patent-expired generic Lufenuron we sell for veterinarian flea control in dogs for kennels. We've given Ichor sufficient time by now to publish an apology + retraction, or evidence substantiating their libel. We'll start fighting back today.

 

Sarah,

 

This the most recent example of you charging Ichor with libel in this thread.  Does it not occur to you that if they are not the party that complained to your registrar that *you* have just libeled them?

 

 

 


Edited by Daniel Cooper, 02 November 2017 - 12:23 PM.

  • Off-Topic x 4
  • Agree x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Adverts help to support LongeCity's non-profit work. To go ad-free join as Member.

#3 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 02 November 2017 - 02:10 PM

@Daniel: Nowhere did I claim that Ichor complained to our registrar or host. But since you brought it up: I think it's extremely likely, and we will act from the assumption that they did, but not that this matters for the libel case against them. It does matter though for other purposes: It enticed us to investigate the company and publish an article on their practices, warning their potential investors.

 

@caliban: Please allow my (UK) company to defend itself against accusations of crimes on this forum you personally control (I'd consider selling a product that can kill a mouse in 24 hours when, for example, some UV light from a window falls through it a prisonable offense and I agree that all our officers in management positions should be jailed for such a thing). In the post by Daniel Cooper I'm here replying to for example, I've just been accused of possible libel myself, and the accusation is wholly without merit, since I never named Ichor as the party making the complaint. I merely said that the complainer is well-versed in pharma matters and clearly wants to shut us down. Meanwhile, I have of course very good grounds to suspect that Kelsey Moody of Ichor Therapeutics is responsible for these dirty tricks but of course I can't be 100% certain, so I took care not to directly accuse them. If I understand anything well, it's libel law so I never libel anyone unless I have proof that will stand up in court - and then it's not libel anymore in the relevant jurisdictions. As long as the Longecity forum is used to libel my company, I will defend our company on the Longecity forum. If Longecity decides to delete our defense without deleting the libel, then that makes Longecity a willing accessory to libel - aggravatedly so - since not only you'd publish libel and you'd not take it down but instead you'd take sides by depriving us of a means to defend our reputation.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 02 November 2017 - 04:47 PM.

  • Off-Topic x 4
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#4 Captain Obvious

  • Guest
  • 82 posts
  • 28
  • Location:Finland
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:38 AM

 

 

Toxicity can be quite obvious to the user. I described it in 2012--

 

I noticed a pain in both calves that lasted several days and a pulsing pain in the back of my neck that lasted several hours.This was after a few days of taking a dose of .25 mg twice a day. And it wasn't C60, it was a mixture of C60 & C70--about 28% C70 and 2% higher. Previously I'd used C60 @ 99.5% purity, but now I've switched to 99.95% purity, as it seems that even a small amount of higher fullerenes may prove to be a problem.

http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=550179

 

 

 

So basically you are saying that based on these neck and calf pains you can be certain that C70 fraction in your fullerene-EVOO mixture is acutely toxic to humans in these amounts, and these pains could not have been caused by any other reason?
 

I've had plenty of pains in my body (especially neck) that have lasted for several hours without ingesting anything toxic. I've also had plenty of stomach and other aches which I at the time attributed to some supplement or other only to later discover that they were not the source of the ailment in the first place.

 

Why hasn't Sensei, who was consuming copious amounts of the Vaughter's C60-EVOO ("36 bottles over 6 months" in his own words), reported these serious toxic effects? To my knowledge has reported mainly amazing positive results on hair growth etc. Has anybody else reported these toxic effects?

 


Edited by Captain Obvious, 03 November 2017 - 06:51 AM.

  • Good Point x 3
  • Ill informed x 2

#5 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:36 AM

Why hasn't Sensei, who was consuming copious amounts of the Vaughter's C60-EVOO ("36 bottles over 6 months" in his own words), reported these serious toxic effects? To my knowledge has reported mainly amazing positive results on hair growth etc. Has anybody else reported these toxic effects?

 

 

 

 

Given that C70 has been reported to target the ER rather than the mitochondria as C60 does, different effects are likely, so use it at your own risk. I have reported a toxic result for myself with an oil dose having less than a hundred micrograms of C70 (not SV's), used twice a day for several days, and like all anecdotal results, it can be questioned as just a coincidence. However, the pulsing pain in my neck was quite scary, and I've never experienced anything like it before or since. (I first used C60 in early 2012 and SV used one of my early reports on her website for a while.) As for SV's oil, it is mislabeled with a purity higher than the actual purity. If that doesn't bother you, then by all means use it.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 03 November 2017 - 11:28 AM.

  • Informative x 2
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Agree x 1

#6 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 11:58 AM

I just want to comment on Turnbucke's libelous post, claiming we currently sell mislabeled C60-EVOO. He's referring to a test of which I have not seen the original data (who performed the testing, was our bottle sealed etc.), done two years ago on one batch of our product, when we labeled it as 50 mg/50 ml. We now label it 40 mg/50 ml, lowered the price very substantially and stepped up our quality control. It is trivial to prove Turnbuckle is lying, so I hope he retracts and apologizes, because since we're talking to a libel attorney anyway, the next thing this forum can expect is a supoena for his IP address, followed by a supoena of his ISP for his actual name & address. I say it again: Any libel, especially when made deliberately in an obvious attempt to cause us great financial damage will result in swift legal action. We sell sufficient C60-EVOO (yesterday 125 bottles) to make an investment of 100,000 USD in legal costs worthwhile, especially when we can recoup these costs on the libeler. Turnbuckle, apologize and retract, or the only other way to avoid legal action is a moderator removing your falsehood. Your only defense in a libel case would that you could prove that our CURRENT batches are significantly and structurally mislabeled. And a rumor of test results done on a couple of our products is not even proof that our batches were mislabeled in the past either. We give you/a moderator 48 hours to do limit the damage, and we'll hold Longecity fully responsible when they decide to permit the libel to stand. We're currently selling for USD 63,000 per month of our C60-EVOO product. I estimate that the damage will be 50% of our sales for the coming 10 years, be the libel allowed to stand. So we'll sue for damages of 3.78 million dollars if it comes to a case. We'll go for Turnbuckle's and Longcity's officers' assets to recoup our expected loss. That includes a pension, anything over the amount needed to have food and a roof over your head.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 04 November 2017 - 05:42 PM.

  • Cheerful x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#7 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:12 PM

I just want to comment on Turnbucke's libelous post, claiming we currently sell mislabeled C60-EVOO. He's referring to a test of which I ahev not seen the original data (who performed the testing, was our bottle sealed etc.), done two years ago on one batch of our product, when we labeled it as 50 mg/50 ml. We now label it 40 mg/50 ml, lowered the price very substantially and stepped up our quality control. It is trivial to prove Turnbuckle is lying, so I hope he retracts and apologizes, because since we're talking to a libel attorney anyway, the next thing this forum can expect is a supoena for his IP address, followed by a supoena of his ISP for his actual name & address. I say it again: Any libel, especially when made deliberately in an obvious attempt to cause us great financial damage will result in swift legal action. We sell sufficient C60-EVOO (yesterday 125 bottles) to make an investment of 100,000 USD in legal costs worthwhile, especially when we can recoup these costs on the libeler. Turnbuckle, apologize and retract, or the only way to stop legal action is a moderator removing this content. We give you/a moderator 48 hours to do so.

 

 

This is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to my my previous post on this thread where I quoted what you say on your website--

 

We purchase 99.5% C60 from Solaris and to ensure and control the absolute highest achievable purity, instead of relying on testing of random samples and hoping that others are of the same purity, we vacuum-oven dry to a purity of greater than 99.95% in our own lab.

 

 

 

You are  buying one purity and selling bottles labeled with a higher purity. The impurities are C70 and other fullerenes, which cannot be reduced by oven drying. If you can justify what you are doing, please do so now.


  • Good Point x 5

#8 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:16 PM

You are, from the posts on this forum, an obviously utterly illogical person, claiming things like (paraphrasing): "I took some C60-EVOO and I got some aches so it's clear that theirs is polluted with C70 and I think C70 is toxic and their product poisoned me". You demonstrated literally hundreds of examples of magical thinking so I won't discuss facts with you. If you can prove the claims you have made and keep making about our product in court, you have nothing to worry about. If you can't, we will recoup the damage you chose to cause. As to us using 99.5% and purifying it oursleves to 99.95 becasue the significant costs involved with the kilos/year we purchase: We do not have to disclose the entire complex, frankly scary-sounding purification process to our customers in our online store, neither do we have to explain our competitors in detail how we do it. The most important stage by far is complete solvent removal, since the solvent is carcinogenic and the C70 is not.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 03 November 2017 - 12:34 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Ill informed x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • dislike x 1

#9 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:25 PM

You are, from the posts on this forum, an obviously utterly illogical person, claiming things like (paraphrasing): "I took some of Vaughter's C60-EVOO and I got some aches so it's clear that theirs is polluted with C70 and I think C70 is toxic and their product poisoned me" so I won't discuss facts with you. If you can prove the claims you have made and keep making about our products, company and officers in court, you have nothing to worry about. If you can't, we will recoup the damage you chose to cause.

 

 

I've never bought any of your oil and I clearly said it wasn't your oil. So please justify your method of reducing the impurities in your C60 by a factor of ten, or give it a rest with your threats.

 

And after your edit, I see that you are falling back on solvent removal. But the solvent content does not factor into the stated purity of the C60, as you should know.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 03 November 2017 - 12:33 PM.

  • Good Point x 3
  • unsure x 1
  • Agree x 1

#10 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:30 PM

You again claim we sell "impure" (where your alleged imputity is in fact an even more expensive, provenly non-toxic, better antioxidant) C60-EVOO. Unless you can prove this in court with bottles from our batches produced at the time of your libel, purchased by an independent expert and independently tested, you will have to answer for libel. I suggest you give it a rest with your allegations and retract and apologize and refrain from further libel, or you'll be forced to put your money where your mouth is.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 03 November 2017 - 12:33 PM.

  • dislike x 4
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#11 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:34 PM

You again claim we sell "impure" (where your alleged imputity is in fact an even more expensive, provenly non-toxic, better antioxidant) C60-EVOO. Unless you can prove this in court with bottles from our batches produced at the time of your libel, purchased by an independent expert and independently tested, you will have to answer for libel. I suggest you give it a rest with your allegations and retract and apologize and refrain from further libel, or you'll be forced to put your money where your mouth is.

 

 

You threaten people constantly with lawsuits. So do you mind telling us how many such lawsuits you have actually filed?


  • Good Point x 4
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#12 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:37 PM

I just want to comment on Turnbucke's libelous post, claiming we currently sell mislabeled C60-EVOO. He's referring to a test of which I have not seen the original data (who performed the testing, was our bottle sealed etc.), done two years ago on one batch of our product, when we labeled it as 50 mg/50 ml. We now label it 40 mg/50 ml, lowered the price very substantially and stepped up our quality control. It is trivial to prove Turnbuckle is lying, so I hope he retracts and apologizes, because since we're talking to a libel attorney anyway, the next thing this forum can expect is a supoena for his IP address, followed by a supoena of his ISP for his actual name & address. I say it again: Any libel, especially when made deliberately in an obvious attempt to cause us great financial damage will result in swift legal action. We sell sufficient C60-EVOO (yesterday 125 bottles) to make an investment of 100,000 USD in legal costs worthwhile, especially when we can recoup these costs on the libeler. Turnbuckle, apologize and retract, or the only other way to avoid legal action is a moderator removing your falsehood. Your only defense in a libel case would that you could prove that our CURRENT batches are significantly and structurally mislabeled. And a rumor of test rsults done on a couple of our product is not even proof that our batches were mislabeled in the past either. We give you/a moderator 48 hours to do limit the damage, and we'll hold Longecity fully responsible when they decide to permit the libel to stand. We're currently selling for USD 63,000 per month of our C60-EVOO product. I estimate that the damage will be 50% of our sales for the coming 10 years, be the libel allowed to stand. So we'll sue for damages of 3.78 million dollars if it comes to a case. We'll go for Turnbuckle's and Longcity's officers' assets to recoup our expected loss. That includes a pension, anything over the amount needed to have food and a roof over your head.

 

Your constant labeling of differing opinion as "libel" and your incessant threats of lawsuits are not in the spirit of open scientific debate which Longecity attempts to foster.  Please stop.

 

 

 

 

 


  • Agree x 5
  • Off-Topic x 1

#13 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:42 PM

@Turnbuckle: Any successful eCommerce company in the niches we operate in is constantly attacked from many angles. It's like vultures circling the most successful actors in a space. It is off-topic, but if you like I can link here to some salacious stories we've been embroiled in. We deal with dishonest competitors, suppliers and customers and when we have a strong legal case, there is no need to file an actual lawsuit because the lawyers for the defense will advise their client that they will lose a case. We simply find an attorney willing to take the case, pay a retainer, let them write letters and so far, we've always gotten libel removed, compensation paid etc. So we've always settled. Sometimes it costs us 1000 or 1500 dollars to get a malicious, false claim removed from a forum, but we always publish the details in a corner of one of our sites, so that people searching for names, websites etc. will always discover that those people are unconvicted criminals who were made to settle. Us threatening legal action is imoprtant for several reasons: To give a settlement or lawsuit greater likelihood of success. When the injuring party has been insufficiently elucidated and warned, a court can look unfavorably upon our complaint. It is harder to succeed unless we formally demand the libeling party to cease & desist and of course we must make clear what the consequences will be of noncompliance. That will be the first thing our attorney and later a judge will ask: "Have you told them what they're doing is against the law and did you ask them to retract, and did you warn them legal consequences can ensue?". And their next request will be for us to PROVE it. So these pages will all be saved, screenshotted, zipped up and sent to our attorney, who will then visit the page and certify that indeed he saw the content himself. 

 

We've made countless settlements in the past for all kinds of reasons. I can email you several legal letters on letterhead of our attorneys, worldwide if you like. Just PM me your email address.

 

@Daniel Cooper:

 

Libel is defined (from the top of my head) as making a false claim, knowingly or unknowingly, that can damage the reputation of he who the claim is made against. Whenever I claim libel, that term is correctly applied. You claim that I cry "libel" falsely. Please provide evidence for your claim. Or please stop.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 03 November 2017 - 12:51 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#14 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:50 PM


 

@Daniel Cooper:

 

Libel is defined (from the top of my head) as making a false claim, knowingly or unknowingly, that can damage the reputation of he who the claim is made against. Whenever I claim libel, that term is correctly applied. You claim that I cry "libel" falsely. Please provide evidence for your claim. Or please stop.

 

Show me where Turnbuckle libeled you when he specifically said that he had an adverse effect from a batch of C60oo he made up with 99.5% purity C60 that was not your product.

 

Also, tell me how you are increasing the purity of the 99.5% C60 you are starting from by baking when the predominate impurity is C70 which absolutely can not be removed by baking.

 

You can not simply label every opinion you do not like as libel in order to shut it down.


Edited by Daniel Cooper, 03 November 2017 - 01:15 PM.

  • Agree x 4
  • unsure x 1

#15 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:51 PM

You are making all kinds of claims that you can not substantiate and you're putting words in my mouth, putting up a strawman. The burden of proof of every claim you make is squarely on you, not on me to disprove. Logic 101.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 03 November 2017 - 01:45 PM.

  • Ill informed x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#16 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:54 PM

Sarah,

 

If you are worried about your company's reputation, then let me suggest that you stop posting now.  Your post have done far more to damage it than anything anyone else has said.

 

 

 


Edited by Daniel Cooper, 03 November 2017 - 12:55 PM.

  • Agree x 4
  • Off-Topic x 2
  • Needs references x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#17 katzenjammer

  • Guest
  • 292 posts
  • 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:55 PM

 

Also, tell me how you are increasing the purity of the 99.5% C60 you are starting from by baking when the predominate impurity is C70 which absolutely can no be removed by baking.

 

 

I'ld like to know this too.  


Sarah,

 

If you are worried about your company's reputation, then let me suggest that you stop posting now.  Your post have done far more to damage it than anything anyone else has said.

 

Indeed.  


  • Good Point x 1

#18 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:58 PM

SV, you could put this issue to rest by posting the results of your C60 after you've baked out the impurities to get it from 99.5% C60 to 99.95%. Surely you had it tested?


  • Good Point x 4
  • Agree x 2
  • Well Written x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#19 markymark

  • Guest
  • 188 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:42 PM

There is a chromatogram on SVs website: http://c60antiaging....uction-process/ showing two peaks (you have to scroll down). For the 310 nm detection wavelength, the big one at min 7.587 is the c60 (% area under curve: 99.934) and there is another one at min 4.983 (% area under the curve: 0.065). At channel 2 with 325 nm C60 is given 99.60 %  and peak 1: 0.039% area under the curve.

 

If peak 1 is C70, the numbers seem to fit. The chromatogram was obtained / uploaded in 05/2012. If peak 1 is not C70, what is it?

 

Irrespectively of the on going dispute. To me description of the manufacturing process by SV et al. on their site is quite meticulous and thorough by (wording and showing the technical equipment etc.) 

 

An when we look at the "first" posting by SV in which they inquire for the exact experimental setup in which another party reported to have found detrimental effects of UV-exposure, IMO they (SV) hat the "right" (in scientific meaning) to get these information from the one who reported the effects in public.

 

mm

 

 

 

 

 


  • Good Point x 3
  • Agree x 1

#20 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:57 PM

@Daniel Cooper: I understand that you very much would like me to stop defending the reputation of my company. I noticed that you vigorously defended Ichor Therapeutics, yesterday. However, your repeated requests for me to stop defending against defamation of my company will be ignored, not even when you try to intimidate me by claiming that my defense "harms your company". You see, the entire "libel arena" is in a way our bread and butter. From extensive experience over the past ten years, we know the optimal way of dealing with both accusations of libel, as well as being libeled. That is because we regularly get accused (and threatened with legal action) of libeling companies whom we call scammers. Our business model used to be to give information and expose scammers in the Health & Beauty shpere. We wrote a long article on MMS and many other fraudulent "cures" or supplements. We've settled for 65,000 dollars with a UK company ten times larger than us. We've settled with a Canadian forum who refused to remove libel. We've settled with an Australian young woman who libeled us online. We've settled with Scribd for keeping to copy our user manuals, a huge company compared to us, via a Californian attorney. We investigated Scribd and found ample evidence that they in our opinion and at that time were are a criminal organisation, dedicated to make money by deliberate violation of Copyright. We found that they hired programmers to download all PDF's online. We found that our PDF's were kept being uploaded by bots instead of real people. Scribd placed ads for competing products alongside our Copyrighted PDF's with valuable information. So in order to avoid a lawsuit, we settled with them. Scribd did not like having a criminal complaint filed against them in California. Yes we are EXTREMELY litigious but since we're always in the right when we initiate legal action, we always manage settle to our full satisfaction. I am autistic, and Libel is one of my "special interests". I follow libel law changes in the UK, Canada and Australia for example. Until recently, not even the truth was a valid defense in the UK. Meaning, if you caused a company damage by saying something that was TRUE, you'd be fully liable to compensate for the damages. Crazy if you ask me, but it made the UK a good jurisdiction for "libel tourism". There still are plenty of countries where damaging a company by disclosing TRUTH about them is a prisonable offense, I kid you not. Crazy. As long as you did it with intent to do harm, that's all it takes. Not a good thing in my opinion.

 

One of the reason we're so litigious is the fact that many of our competitors are real criminals. Many of them moved to jurisditions that do not extradite becasue they've been convicted for selling a product that killed people. We have reviewed such people and companies on our site. These people are ruthless multimillionaires and one of their strategies is to libel us online, as well as trying to get our operations shut down in a variety of other ways. The thing is, we sometimes don't even care to "win" a settlement. In some cases, cases where the offender lives in Ecuador or the Dominical Republic to name two examples of people we exposed, all we need to find out is the identity of the libeler via a simple double supoena. We can then take effective measures in different ways, such as investigating that company's products, reviewing them, or even effectively competing with them. In some cases we can't obtain evidence who libeled us, but we know who they are. So we publish highly SEO'ed articles about them in return.

 

Now, when it comes to you claiming that defending ourselves against anonymous hostile parties who damage our reputation by making false claims here: It is very important that every defamatory claim is vigorously defended against. Depending on the jurisdiction (and we can choose to sue in the jurisdiction of our incorporation, our tax residency, the jurisdiction of the libeler or of any of the readers, since judgments can not be appealed against by itl. treaties and will be executable by default w/o further ado by a bailiff in the place of residence of the offender), there is the concept of "having one's good reputation damaged". The important thing to note is that when you did not have a good reputation prior to the libel, there is no damage. So it is of vital importance to actively deny false allegations, or it be considered that "silence is admittance of guilt". If the libeled party neglects to defend themselves for a few years, if the libel is permitted by them to spread, if no legal action is taken, then it is considered that the company permitted their good reputation to disappear, and subsequently, no such good reputation existed at the time of later libel, and hence no damage was done, and hence the libeler is innocent of libel. Public figures also have a very hard time pursuing libel. This concept is similar to neglecting to defend Trademark violations. We know what we're doing. It's a bit tiresome to spend time on trolls but it always pays off for us in the end. Try emailing any company that employs their own attorneys that you'll publish a bad review on them, for legitimate reasons. We lately did that to our previous Company Secretary. Their CEO immediately threatened to ruin us in the courts.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 03 November 2017 - 02:42 PM.

  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#21 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:05 PM

What false claims exactly have been make by anonymous hostile parties in this thread?

 

 

 


  • Agree x 2
  • Needs references x 1
  • Off-Topic x 1

#22 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:05 PM

There is a chromatogram on SVs website: http://c60antiaging....uction-process/ showing two peaks (you have to scroll down). For the 310 nm detection wavelength, the big one at min 7.587 is the c60 (% area under curve: 99.934) and there is another one at min 4.983 (% area under the curve: 0.065). At channel 2 with 325 nm C60 is given 99.60 %  and peak 1: 0.039% area under the curve.

 

If peak 1 is C70, the numbers seem to fit. The chromatogram was obtained / uploaded in 05/2012. If peak 1 is not C70, what is it?

 

Irrespectively of the on going dispute. To me description of the manufacturing process by SV et al. on their site is quite meticulous and thorough by (wording and showing the technical equipment etc.) 

 

An when we look at the "first" posting by SV in which they inquire for the exact experimental setup in which another party reported to have found detrimental effects of UV-exposure, IMO they (SV) hat the "right" (in scientific meaning) to get these information from the one who reported the effects in public.

 

mm

 

 

Is SV willing to state that this was 99.5% C60 that she purified to 99.95% C60 by baking?


  • Agree x 4

#23 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:49 PM

Turnbucke, if you do not provide proof to your claim that we currently sell anything inferior to what we currently claim to sell, you're guilty of criminal libel and we will supoena this forum for your IP address, then we will supoena your ISP for your identity and then our attorney will offer a settlement to compensate for the estimated damage you've caused us. A settlement will have to include our attorney's fees to reach such a settlement. The damage will depend on how much your allegations have spread to our potential customer base. The longer the libel is permitted to stand, the higher our claim will be, especially when it spreads to other places. And if you're unwilling to settle to our satisfaction, we will sue you in a jurisdiction of our choosing and get a judgement enforced. This is my final request to you to cease, desist, retract, rectify and apologize. Your libel has a much higher priority than Ichor's, since you are claiming that we're scammers who currently sell an inferior product. Those are fighting words. You can do that unpunished to a small manufacturer but libeling us has consequences. As soon as our patience runs out, you can not stop the process by retracting. At that stage, we'll either settle or sue. What we want from you at this stage is delete every libelous allegation you ever made against our company, everywhere online, plus publish a rectification and apology every place you libeled us. 


Edited by SarahVaughter, 03 November 2017 - 04:51 PM.

  • dislike x 4
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 2
  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Informative x 1

#24 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:43 PM

Turnbucke, if you do not provide proof to your claim that we currently sell anything inferior to what we currently claim to sell, you're guilty of criminal libel and we will supoena this forum for your IP address, then we will supoena your ISP for your identity and then our attorney will offer a settlement to compensate for the estimated damage you've caused us. A settlement will have to include our attorney's fees to reach such a settlement. The damage will depend on how much your allegations have spread to our potential customer base. The longer the libel is permitted to stand, the higher our claim will be, especially when it spreads to other places. And if you're unwilling to settle to our satisfaction, we will sue you in a jurisdiction of our choosing and get a judgement enforced. This is my final request to you to cease, desist, retract, rectify and apologize. Your libel has a much higher priority than Ichor's, since you are claiming that we're scammers who currently sell an inferior product. Those are fighting words. You can do that unpunished to a small manufacturer but libeling us has consequences. As soon as our patience runs out, you can not stop the process by retracting. At that stage, we'll either settle or sue.

 

What's the big deal? Just tell us this is the analysis of 99.5% C60 that you've improved to 99.95% with baking. Why make all these threats when that would be so easy?


  • Cheerful x 2
  • Agree x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#25 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:46 PM

We are under no legal obligation to disprove your defamatory accusations. On the contrary, unless you can prove your accusation in front of a judge, you will be liable to pay the court costs, our legal costs, damages (awarded and/or statutory) as well as penalties. Persisting in your allegations after having being informed of your legal position will likely be considered an aggravating circumstance.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 03 November 2017 - 04:47 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 3
  • Disagree x 2
  • dislike x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#26 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:49 PM

Come on Sarah. If you've tested your product and discovered you can upgrade 99.5% C60, that is a great advance. You could patent it and sell it to the C60 manufacturers. So why not take credit for your discovery?


  • Good Point x 4
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Agree x 1

#27 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:54 PM

What we want from you is to delete all libel perpetrated against us on this forum and all other places that can be considered a "publication", a pledge not to libel us again, a rectification every place you libeled us, plus an obviously sincere apology. Failure to do so within 24 hours of this posting will result in legal action against you personally, and we will be seeking compensation for all damages material and immaterial, penalties and all our legal costs. Legal action against you will be initiated also in case Longecity instead of you deletes the libel or when any other libel by you, Turnbuckle, against us remains anywhere else on this forum or when you delete the libel more than 24 hours after this posting.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 03 November 2017 - 05:20 PM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 4
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 3
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • dislike x 1

#28 ambivalent

  • Guest
  • 744 posts
  • 167
  • Location:uk
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:03 PM

When I've previously read statements like: Yes we are EXTREMELY litigious. The sentiment I experience is one of a threatening, bullying, uncooperative agent wishing to convey 'I will protect my myself at ANY COST'. That almost sounds like a noble sentiment, though unfortunately it isn't. The issue is of responsbility. We frequently witness in a range of areas in life how the persistent threat of litigation facilitates indefinite wrong-doing since the risk-reward profile of risking litigation isn't justifiable for the complainant. Legitimate complaints, failures, abuse, neglect go unreported and the suffering grows until at best some critical level is reached and the fall-out starts. With c60 there is no much uncertainty there needs to be open dialogue, continual investigation not repression of analysis of products.

 

Independent testing of an unregulated product, as Ichor did, is a responsible thing to do for the c60 community. We were/are all taking risks with c60, for the betterment of ourselves and for mankind. Surely you see this as a worthwhile thing to do? You may question their intentions, that is your right; however, quality-testing c60oo vendor's products is a necessary function for the entire c60 community, whose future well-being is something in which you hold a vested interest. Surely you must agree that regulation of c60oo vendors is necessary, or are you against regulation in general, if not then why specifically should c60 oil be excluded from it? I have never heard your champion such a cause, you have simply only offered your word and unshakeable belief in your product. I'm quite certain with your knowledge of the industry, you would not consider verbal reassurance sufficient from a person you've never known who could profit from blind faith. This is the problem we all face in the supplement industry: sorting the wheat from the chaff. As consumers we need evidence of proof and confidence.  

 

You expected us all to accept your word that your product is as described, cannot be harmful, that your processes are faultless; yet you do not accept the word of anyone challenging it.  We are to believe your integrity not Kelsey Moody's - when most of us know neither of you. Now fine, you may feel aggrieved with their findings, believe the results  to be false, perhaps you're right.  But getting your product tested by an independent third party is something you should be doing and should have done from the outset. That is the responsible thing to do - the product is not regulated but it very clearly should be regulated since there is uncertainty over toxicity. This was the case regardless of Kmoody's toxicity claims - as the saying goes 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. We are all taking a risk with c60oo and you are providing a service and profiting from it. That's fine but mitigating our risk, through ensuring the quality of your product and sponsoring further safety studies should be in your domain of responsibility and charged in the price. A race to zero on price, unfortunately is in nobody's interest, since it can induce the irrational compromisation of both vendor and consumer risk.   

 

Rather than simply deny the problem or threaten litigation - the responsible response should have been 'what if he is right, what's going on here, how could this have happened?'.

Why not immediately have posted to this effect. How impressive it would have been to have suspended sales, investigated the matter, encouraged users to send samples to another independent lab recommended by say longecity. Then if the concentration levels are confirmed encourage users to send in samples once you've corrected the process to assure them it is safe.

 

A company acknowledging the need for consumer confidence in what an is unregulated industry and sets up a regulatory framework would have the respect and custom of this community and the wider c60 community. One that simply threatens any dissenting voices with litigation is a company I wold avoid, since I would sense its singular objective is its own survival and well-being.     

 

As for threatening Kmoody with litigation. The vendor product which caused toxicity in the leukemia mice wasn't yours, but rather SES. He has had dialogue with them, yet they didn't litigate. The acute toxicity caused by extreme light exposure with your product but rather Ichor's own mix, you have no patent on c60oo: he can do that. So your problem is with concentration levels. This you want to litigate over. My understanding is that the concentration levels can be off through the product of damaging epoxides within the oil - no vendor has consistently passed test with Ichor: you're not being singled out. Why not simply encourage people to send in their VW samples to another lab and see what the results are and critically how consistent they are. That would be of far greater service to your customers, than silencing dissenting voices with law-suits. 

 

In addition you have claimed that Turnbuckle is lying. Are you aware of the legal definition of lying? Making a false statement doesn't constitute lying: you need intent. My understanding is quite simple. Turnbuckle took significant doses of c70. He experienced unpleasant side-effects. He has explained how this can be harmful at a cellular level. He has claimed that your baking process doesn't eliminate the c70 impurities. Can you refute that claim? If you can prove this then there is no problem and your potential customers will be reassured that they don't have to worry about c70 contaminants: this is quite straightforward and important.     

 

 


Edited by ambivalent, 03 November 2017 - 05:03 PM.

  • Well Written x 4
  • Agree x 2
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • WellResearched x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#29 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:16 PM

What we want from you is to delete all libel perpetrated against us on this forum and all other places that can be considered a "publication", a pledge not to libel us again, a rectification every place you libeled us, plus an obviously sincere apology. Failure to do so within 24 hours of this posting will result in legal action against you personally, and we will be seeking compensation for all damages material and immaterial, penalties and all our legal costs. Legal action against you will be initiated also in case Longecity instead of you deletes the libel, when any other libel by you, Turnbuckle, against us remains anywhere else on this forum or when you delete the libel more than 24 hours after this posting.

 

 

Well, it would help if you'd tell us exactly what you believe has been said that was libelous and why.  Please be specific.


  • Off-Topic x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Adverts help to support LongeCity's non-profit work. To go ad-free join as Member.

#30 SarahVaughter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • -61
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:22 PM

@ambivalent: Turnbuckle claimed that we are currently selling a product under false pretenses that not meet our current claims for the product. He also claimed that the product we're currently selling is damaging to health. So he claims that we are a criminal organization, selling products of which we know are adulterated and cause harm to health. Unless he can prove this extremely serious allegation in court and yet he chooses to let it stand, it is criminal libel (libel with intent to do harm). A colloquial synonym for libel would be "damaging falsehood" (= lie in case it is not retracted when asked for proof which is not offered). A court will have to establish whether it is indeed libel (= a lie, becasue it's not libel when it's true, and it's a lie when you claim a bad thing but you can't prove it, not even when the consequences of not proving it are very severe for you) by examining his evidence. In order to win a case, he'd have to purchase quite a few bottles from us, over a longer time period and have those purchases done by a trusted (by a court) 3rd party, have them tested by a trusted 3rd party. He'd then have to prove from the test results that there is a structural, significant mismatch, preferably to the detriment of our customers between what's in those bottles and what we claim there is. If he can not prove that, he is guilty of libel with intent to do harm, which is a prisonable offense in most or all of the relevant jurisdictions. When libeling a company that stands to lose millions in revenue due to that libel, the result usually is personal bankruptcy after all assets are used to provide compensation as well as legal costs and penalties. I'm not saying this to "bully", I'm pointing it out again in the hope that we don not have to waste precious resources on this issue and have Turnbuckle remove his falsehoods.


Edited by SarahVaughter, 03 November 2017 - 05:51 PM.

  • Disagree x 4
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users