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

Photo
- - - - -

Has anyone beat cancer naturally and since started C60OO?

c60oo c60 cancer beat cancer naturally cancer & c60

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 lakesurfer

  • Registered User
  • 13 posts
  • -0
  • Location:Southern Ontario Canada
  • NO

Posted 22 November 2017 - 05:20 PM


My wife had Non-Hodgkins Follicular Lymphoma cancer on August 4, 2015 (diagnosed). She beat it naturally...info...cancer beaten naturally on facebook.

I am now giving her C60 olive oil and wonder if anyone else beat cancer naturally and also takes C60OO?  I know they say it helps clear radiation and chemo poisons. I am wondering if it may hurt her in any way? (if someone knows).

Has any one tried to treat/kill their cancer with C60OO? (no chemo, radiation, naturally) Do existing cancers die or thrive on C60? I know the rats did not grow tumors. We take apricot kernels (B17) every day to keep cancer away. I look forward to learning more.


  • Good Point x 1

#2 Astroid

  • Member
  • 144 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Pensacla, FL
  • NO

Posted 14 January 2018 - 10:49 PM

C60 might benefit those with liver cancer.. I'd think it would detox anyone being treated for cancer. 

 

I have taken it for 2 years and noticed no negative results. 

 

But it made me feel like a 16 year old kid when I woke up after taking it.. and I still feel that way even just taking a nap now. 

 

I don't even take it on a regular bases even.  



#3 JadawinUK

  • Registered User
  • 5 posts
  • 2
  • Location:German y
  • NO

Posted 17 January 2018 - 08:54 PM

Hi, I had been using C60 for some time and consumed at least 20 50ml bottles - then I was diagnosed with testicular cancer. I was in a high risk group for that anyway, so it's very doubtful that it was in any way related to the C60. Because I had to battle a very dangerous infection after the surgery for several weeks, there was no follow-up one-off chemotherapy, which would have beeen the usual thing to do (cisplatin). I had the "best" possible kind of tumor (pure seminoma) and so far it looks like no metastasis without further treatments. I will have MRT check-ups, though, twice year now, once a year later.

 

The interesting thing is: I had detected the tumor just by checking my testicle a year before the surgery, but had no health insurance at the time. Once I had, I went to the doctor and had the surgery - and then they actually praised me for detecting it and coming in so early. Never told them how long I waited. Testicular cancer is a fast growing tumor, so one thing I can say is that C60 did not make things worse. Maybe... just maybe it did the opposite.

 



#4 Turnbuckle

  • Registered User
  • 2,798 posts
  • 988
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 17 January 2018 - 09:23 PM

I know the rats did not grow tumors.

 

 

In the paper that got this started in 2012, there were six C60/EVOO rats, six EVOO rats, and six control rats. The paper mentions only one rat having tumors--a control rat. So that's not much to base a belief in C60 as a prophylactic against cancer.


  • Informative x 1

#5 JadawinUK

  • Registered User
  • 5 posts
  • 2
  • Location:German y
  • NO

Posted 17 January 2018 - 09:27 PM

But as far as I know those rats usually are more likely to get cancer with age? Wouldn't a much higher age with C60 EVOO and no cancer be some kind indicator of anti-cancer properties? At least it would be an indicator of not causing cancer :)



#6 Turnbuckle

  • Registered User
  • 2,798 posts
  • 988
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 17 January 2018 - 09:32 PM

But as far as I know those rats usually are more likely to get cancer with age? Wouldn't a much higher age with C60 EVOO and no cancer be some kind indicator of anti-cancer properties? At least it would be an indicator of not causing cancer :)

 

The small sample size from the Baati paper, along with the single mention of tumors in one rat, doesn't justify any conclusion about cancer. 


  • Good Point x 1

#7 JadawinUK

  • Registered User
  • 5 posts
  • 2
  • Location:German y
  • NO

Posted 17 January 2018 - 09:34 PM

True. Not enough "participants". And this is my last post I'm allowed to make for today as a new member, so pardon me if I don't answer anymore.



#8 hav

  • Registered User
  • 1,037 posts
  • 185
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2018 - 06:39 PM

But as far as I know those rats usually are more likely to get cancer with age? Wouldn't a much higher age with C60 EVOO and no cancer be some kind indicator of anti-cancer properties? At least it would be an indicator of not causing cancer :)

 

The small sample size from the Baati paper, along with the single mention of tumors in one rat, doesn't justify any conclusion about cancer. 

 

 

I don't believe the necropsies of the 18 Baati subjects used in the longevity part of their study were done at the time that the study was published.  Apparently they only did dissections of the other 82 rats used for toxicity and other parts of their study. The comment above about the one tumour was mentioned as outwardly visible on the abdominal region of one of the water-control rats before it died. I think the plan was to dissect the 18 longevity-study subjects later and I was hoping they'd publish an addendum or something to supplement their initial report.

 

Although not ever reported in print, the necropsies were apparently completed because results were mentioned by Dr Moussa in the interview he subsequently did with Anthony in Paris.  Although his comments are in French, the latest version of the video has a running text translation which other French-speaking researchers tell me is fair and accurate. In summary, Dr Moussa reveals that all rats usually die with tumors, that all of the 12 water-only and olive oil-only control rats died with tumors, and that none of the 6 c60 treated rats died with tumors.  Here's the video:

 

 

He also makes mention of follow-up studies with more subjects that I expect should be getting closer to completion and publication by now.

 

Howard

 

Note: For some reason that the cue-up url gets stripped of the cue-time on this site. If you manually append "&t=477" to the youtube url it should jump to the quote of interest.


Edited by hav, 24 January 2018 - 06:49 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#9 Turnbuckle

  • Registered User
  • 2,798 posts
  • 988
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2018 - 06:48 PM

At what point does he say this?



#10 hav

  • Registered User
  • 1,037 posts
  • 185
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2018 - 06:58 PM

At what point does he say this?

 

Let me try quoting the url so you can cut and paste it into your browser:

 

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLZS1WQl_1E&t=477"

 

Howard

 

note: if you want to manually cue it, use the slider and advance to just before the 8 minute mark.


Edited by hav, 24 January 2018 - 07:05 PM.


#11 Turnbuckle

  • Registered User
  • 2,798 posts
  • 988
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2018 - 09:40 PM

He says that when rats get old they always get tumors, and this is almost true--Frequency of spontaneous tumors in Wistar rats in 30-months studies. It's a large percentage, and is likely due to the long telomeres found in lab mice (and likely rats as well). In lab mice they are 5 to 10 times longer than in humans. That's an enormous difference, so it's rather speculative to generalize that to humans.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 24 January 2018 - 09:40 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#12 sensei

  • Registered User
  • 785 posts
  • 92

Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:38 AM

 

But as far as I know those rats usually are more likely to get cancer with age? Wouldn't a much higher age with C60 EVOO and no cancer be some kind indicator of anti-cancer properties? At least it would be an indicator of not causing cancer :)

 

The small sample size from the Baati paper, along with the single mention of tumors in one rat, doesn't justify any conclusion about cancer. 

 

 

Actually the fact that at most 1 and possibly none of the C60OO cohort had tumors is a 5  sigma event, considering at 30 months 80% of wistar rats (that are still alive -- median is 22-26 months) have tumors (your citation (716/900)

 

.2*.2*.2*.2*.2*.2= .000064  -- which is five sigma -- and significant regardless of cohorts being only 6 rats

 

Seriously, do the math regarding the probability that NONE of the C60 OO rats had tumors, based on the normal distribution of cancer occurrence in male wistar rats 

 

Fixed it based on turnbuckles citation


Edited by sensei, 25 January 2018 - 06:46 AM.


#13 Turnbuckle

  • Registered User
  • 2,798 posts
  • 988
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 25 January 2018 - 10:03 AM

 

 

But as far as I know those rats usually are more likely to get cancer with age? Wouldn't a much higher age with C60 EVOO and no cancer be some kind indicator of anti-cancer properties? At least it would be an indicator of not causing cancer :)

 

The small sample size from the Baati paper, along with the single mention of tumors in one rat, doesn't justify any conclusion about cancer. 

 

 

Actually the fact that at most 1 and possibly none of the C60OO cohort had tumors is a 5  sigma event, considering at 30 months 80% of wistar rats (that are still alive -- median is 22-26 months) have tumors (your citation (716/900)

 

.2*.2*.2*.2*.2*.2= .000064  -- which is five sigma -- and significant regardless of cohorts being only 6 rats

 

Seriously, do the math regarding the probability that NONE of the C60 OO rats had tumors, based on the normal distribution of cancer occurrence in male wistar rats 

 

Fixed it based on turnbuckles citation

 

 

 

Nice try, but you can't get 5 sigma out of 6 rats and assumptions based on vague statements in an interview.



#14 sensei

  • Registered User
  • 785 posts
  • 92

Posted 25 January 2018 - 12:45 PM

 

 

 

But as far as I know those rats usually are more likely to get cancer with age? Wouldn't a much higher age with C60 EVOO and no cancer be some kind indicator of anti-cancer properties? At least it would be an indicator of not causing cancer :)

 

The small sample size from the Baati paper, along with the single mention of tumors in one rat, doesn't justify any conclusion about cancer. 

 

 

Actually the fact that at most 1 and possibly none of the C60OO cohort had tumors is a 5  sigma event, considering at 30 months 80% of wistar rats (that are still alive -- median is 22-26 months) have tumors (your citation (716/900)

 

.2*.2*.2*.2*.2*.2= .000064  -- which is five sigma -- and significant regardless of cohorts being only 6 rats

 

Seriously, do the math regarding the probability that NONE of the C60 OO rats had tumors, based on the normal distribution of cancer occurrence in male wistar rats 

 

Fixed it based on turnbuckles citation

 

 

 

Nice try, but you can't get 5 sigma out of 6 rats and assumptions based on vague statements in an interview.

 

 

 

Sure you can.

 

Same as flipping a fair coin heads (or tails) 15-16 times in a row (.5^15) -- statistically speaking that is a 5+-6 sigma event

 

They even did a kaplan meier comparison of median lifespan -- C60OO increased the median lifespan by 90% -- again a 5+ sigma event

 

The issue is repeating the 5+ sigma event -- so it can be attributed to C60 OO.

 

All 6 having tumors would have been a between 1 and 2 sigma event (26%) -- well inside the normal distribution


Edited by sensei, 25 January 2018 - 01:05 PM.


#15 Turnbuckle

  • Registered User
  • 2,798 posts
  • 988
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 25 January 2018 - 01:23 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Sure you can.

 

Same as flipping a fair coin heads (or tails) 15-16 times in a row (.5^15) -- statistically speaking that is a 5+-6 sigma event

 

They even did a kaplan meier comparison of median lifespan -- C60OO increased the median lifespan by 90% -- again a 5+ sigma event

 

 

 

You are making unwarranted assumptions and trying to dress it up with mathematical certainly. In the paper Moussa's group mentioned only one rat with tumors, and these were enormous--4 cm--while there was no mention of evaluation methods beyond visual and palpitation. In the interview Moussa states that the treated rats did not have tumors, but there is no mention of how he determined that. Were these also visual examinations? The Bomhard paper I referred to above examined Wistar rats very thoroughly, finding many types of tumors and examining every organ in detail. Pituitary tumors were the most common, but there were six other tumor types found in the brain alone. Did Moussa's group make the same extensive and detailed examinations? This was, after all, the single purpose of the Bomhard paper but only peripheral for the C60 paper. We don't know as Moussa made only the most vague reference to it. So the cancer incidence of Moussa's rats cannot be compared to the cancer incidence in Bomhard's rats unless you know precisely how Moussa's group examined their rats. Perhaps they all had pituitary cancers and Moussa's group didn't look for that.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 25 January 2018 - 01:41 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#16 sensei

  • Registered User
  • 785 posts
  • 92

Posted 25 January 2018 - 04:04 PM

Sure you can.
 
Same as flipping a fair coin heads (or tails) 15-16 times in a row (.5^15) -- statistically speaking that is a 5+-6 sigma event
 
They even did a kaplan meier comparison of median lifespan -- C60OO increased the median lifespan by 90% -- again a 5+ sigma event

 
 
You are making unwarranted assumptions and trying to dress it up with mathematical certainly.



Nope, I simply said that 6 Wistar Rats having no tumors at death was a 5+ to 6 sigma event.

I never made any representation that what was reported was FACT.

However, simply their ages at death make it a 6+ sigma event.

95% of all rats (Fischer, Wistar, etc) die by 36 months.

www.scielo.br/pdf/abcd/v25n1/en_11.pdf

The probability that all C60OO animals survived past 36 months by chance is .05^6 = .000000015625

None of this means that C60OO was responsible -- simply that it is EXTREMELY unlikely to have happened by chance.

To show the converse, any group of 6 rats has a 73% probability of ALL dying before 36 months, based on random chance.

Edited by sensei, 25 January 2018 - 04:08 PM.


#17 Iuvenale

  • Member
  • 37 posts
  • 13
  • Location:Boulder
  • NO

Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:24 PM

This is an interesting article about a man who took a self-researched cocktail of anti-cancer drugs and became cancer-free. For what it's worth... http://www.telegraph...sease-free.html







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: c60oo, c60, cancer, beat cancer naturally, cancer & c60

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users