"Finally, we conduct a lifespan and health span study in males and females C57BL/6 J mice comparing oral treatment with pristine C60-EVOO and EVOO alone versus untreated controls. We failed to observe significant lifespan and health span benefits of C60-EVOO or EVOO supplementation compared to untreated controls, both starting the treatment in adult or old age. Our results call into question the biological benefit of C60-OO in aging."
"Commercial C60-OO has unpredictable concentration and activity
We first obtained samples C60-OO from 4 popular online sources (labeled Source 1–4) and formulated pristine C60-OO in-house. C60-OO should be a transparent deep purple (f. 1a). However, there was marked discrepancy in the visual appearance of the commercial formulations, appearing dark brown and almost black (Fig. 1a). We performed HPLC on the samples and found a notable increase in impurity peaks in the commercial samples (Fig. 1b, inset). Again, with HPLC, we measured the concentration of C60 in each sample and compared it to the claimed concentration of the label. We again found remarkable variability in C60 concentration and in deviation from the stated concentration. The highest concentration found was in the freshly made in-house Pristine C60-OO at 1.4 mg mL-1, with the lowest being Source 3, at 0.57 mg mL−1 (Fig. 1c). When we compared these concentrations with the claimed concentrations on the labels, we found deviations ranging from negligible for Source 4, to > 38.5% for Source 2, with all except Source 4 deviating by > 18%."
For those who had experimented with C60, did you make your own, or purchase? I passed on C60 because of concerns about purity issues of both the C60 and the extra virgin olive oil (EVOO).
Remember the old internet axiom (which I just now made up): "There is about 3 times as much EVOO sold as there is produced". (Some sources say that claims of fake olive oil are overstaed but, in the interest of preserving urban legend, I'll maintain that those claims of overstatement are overstated.)
And, in other news:
"A sophistical rhetorician [Gladstone], inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself"
That famous line was coined by Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881), the British Prime Minister and novelist, to mock William Gladstone, his political rival.
Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 25 April 2025 - 07:34 AM.
I think menopause reversal with NMN is anecdotal and there is no research paper about it. David Sinclair said that he knows woman who reversed menopause with NMN.
There is VIBRANT study on prolongation of menopause star with weekly small dose of Rapamycin.
As I went under a lot egg retrievals for egg cryopreservation I noticed that every time I was on weekly dose of Rapamycine (for few months) they said that eggs looked good morphologically so I guess Rapamycin did something good.
I think the point is to try to revers epigenetic aging as this reversal could revers ovarian aging too.
Thats why I think Tumbuckle steam cell protocol is a great option and I don t think that there is better option to revers epigenetic age,
I am not sure if (in this instance) there are crossed wires, as your quote is of an older post - the recent one, is still in part advisory rather than factual, but more conciliatory (and free of capitalisations!).
"As I went under a lot egg retrievals for egg cryopreservation I noticed that every time I was on weekly dose of Rapamycine (for few months) they said that eggs looked good morphologically so I guess Rapamycin did something good."
It has been considerably over a decade now and yet still no replication of the orginal study. Mice to us do seem a lot like rats to us and the lack of replication in mice, does not add weight to Baati, but should only serve as a limited detraction.
These studies below demonstrate a stark difference between the metabolisms of mice and rats. Two studies, one where a cervical spinal cord injury was performed, and the other where underwent a T10 thoracic contusion spinal cord injury, showed a clear benefit to fasting over Calorie Restriction (as well as ad libitium controls) in rats.
But in these transgenic mice, there was no benefit to intermittent fasting on recovery, with the lack of raised ketones a suggested cause (or indicator).
And it has been shown that fasting promotes mitchondrial fusion, which in turn has shown to increase symmetric stem cell division, and so increase stem cell numbers - which would presumably encourage injury repair.
I believe it was theorised rather than stated by Baati et al, or perhaps illuded to, that the rats in the study were routinely fasted, and proposed by Turnbuckle, that c60oo synergised with this state - that fasting increased stem cell pools, and c60 stimulated their released.
Taking c60 without a fusion protocol such as fasting or supplementation, was dangerous, TB suggested because, stem cell level pools risked depletion. But to date we have no evidence in humans that there has been some accelerated aging experienced from long term users, with undoubtedly stem cell depleted aged individuals amongst them - and so this assumption seems questionable.
It is also worth noting the oil used was quite old in the Baati study, when still being administered to the rats iirc.
Nevertheless, Turnbuckle who had an extreme (positive) intitial response to c60oo, appeared to have recovered many of those benefits through a protocol, after finding the benefits of just c60 wore off (as it seemed to with many).
So, gang -- Are we still using Turnbuckle's C-60 stem cell protocol? Is the general idea still valid, or are we abandoning it in favor of his new protocol he's published on LinkedIn? It seems they are distinct and for different purposes, but can someone confirm this for me? Turnbuckle seems to be a bit mum on the matter. Probably because he's in development of a supplement etc, which I get, but I wonder what the wisdom of the group says we do now?? And if so, how do we weave in the new protocol with the C-60 stem cell protocol? Do we just do them on different days or ??
Thanks in advance.
They are two separate protocols. The new protocol published on Linked in is a supplement to the mitochondrial protocol that is located here
"In contrast to rats on an intermittent fasting regimen, mice exhibited no increase in blood ketone bodies by the end of the second, third, and fourth day of fasting"
So in the study you linked:
"After 8 h of fasting, serum KB significantly increased and serum glucose significantly decreased in fasted compared to fed mice."
Maybe these studies are not as inconsistent as they appeared at first blush. The first referennce doesn't cite low levels of ketones on the first day of fasting only on days 2 onwards - so perhaps ketone levels are elevated initially in mice then drop off?
I suppose one question is whether ketone levels are involved with signalling of (or explicitly signal) mitochondrial fusion within the fasted state - and hence symmetric stem cell division.
Thanks.... Is it a REPLACEMENT for the previous Mito protocol - or is it a supplement?
I understanding is this:
1) The 100-120mg PQQ along with 1-2 grams of either AKG or AAKG is the replacement for the previous mitochondrial protocol that Turnbuckle came out with in early 2022.
2) The recent "uplatching" and "downlatching" protocol he came out with on LinkedIn appears to be a supplement to the high dosage PQQ protocol mentioned in 1).
I can tell you based on personal experience the previous and high dose PQQ protocol has worked wonders for me (giving me the physique and tone of a 20 something - I'm 62). I have not tried the uplatching protocol (LinkedIn) because it appears to be more for athletic optimization rather than general life extension, I don't feel I need it, and he has not posted exactly what compounds he used to do the uplatching effect.
1) The 100-120mg PQQ along with 1-2 grams of either AKG or AAKG is the replacement for the previous mitochondrial protocol that Turnbuckle came out with in early 2022.
2) The recent "uplatching" and "downlatching" protocol he came out with on LinkedIn appears to be a supplement to the high dosage PQQ protocol mentioned in 1).
I can tell you based on personal experience the previous and high dose PQQ protocol has worked wonders for me (giving me the physique and tone of a 20 something - I'm 62). I have not tried the uplatching protocol (LinkedIn) because it appears to be more for athletic optimization rather than general life extension, I don't feel I need it, and he has not posted exactly what compounds he used to do the uplatching effect.
Hope this helps as well.
kurt9, I did try it - didn't get results as spectacular as turnbuckle, but still amazing (biceps curl to failure went from 21 to 37).
Kind of similar to early days of C60 (before 'saturation').
It is worth repeating (Kelvin's?) comment - this can be dangerous if you are not careful. Muscle strength/endurance goes up extremely fast (within hours), and ligaments/tendons do not follow quite as fast. I knew this and still managed to strain/sprain couple of things.
"Maybe these studies are not as inconsistent as they appeared at first blush. The first referennce doesn't cite low levels of ketones on the first day of fasting only on days 2 onwards - so perhaps ketone levels are elevated initially in mice then drop off?".
Yeah, it's too bad that the researchers didn't clearly state the initial conditions for their study. It leaves the reader to speculate instead of actually knowing what was going on.
Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 26 April 2025 - 06:41 PM.
kurt9, I did try it - didn't get results as spectacular as turnbuckle, but still amazing (biceps curl to failure went from 21 to 37).
Kind of similar to early days of C60 (before 'saturation').
It is worth repeating (Kelvin's?) comment - this can be dangerous if you are not careful. Muscle strength/endurance goes up extremely fast (within hours), and ligaments/tendons do not follow quite as fast. I knew this and still managed to strain/sprain couple of things.
This is good to hear. I have not tried it because I am generally happy with me as I am. But I will keep it in mind.
I am well aware that muscles grow must faster than tendons and other tissues and that proper body-building requires one to grow all of these things in proportion. This is one reason why I have never used any body-building compound or supplement. I have used supplement for life extension purposes only.
This is good to hear. I have not tried it because I am generally happy with me as I am. But I will keep it in mind.
I am well aware that muscles grow must faster than tendons and other tissues and that proper body-building requires one to grow all of these things in proportion. This is one reason why I have never used any body-building compound or supplement. I have used supplement for life extension purposes only.
I hear you :-)
I am in my 60s as well and have been lifting weights most of my adult life.
It is quite a novel feeling that I now need to consciously do a half-ass job lifting in order to let my ligaments/tendons catch up.
So, gang -- Are we still using Turnbuckle's C-60 stem cell protocol? Is the general idea still valid, or are we abandoning it in favor of his new protocol he's published on LinkedIn? It seems they are distinct and for different purposes, but can someone confirm this for me? Turnbuckle seems to be a bit mum on the matter. Probably because he's in development of a supplement etc, which I get, but I wonder what the wisdom of the group says we do now?? And if so, how do we weave in the new protocol with the C-60 stem cell protocol? Do we just do them on different days or ??
Thanks in advance.
I'm still using the C60 protocol.
The latching protocol is meant to replace the mito protocol, not the C60 protocol, although I haven't used the latching protocol.
It has been considerably over a decade now and yet still no replication of the orginal study. Mice to us do seem a lot like rats to us and the lack of replication in mice, does not add weight to Baati, but should only serve as a limited detraction.
It hasn't been replicated because no one has fed C60 to lab rodents SIMULTANEOUSLY with a fusion promoter (either with a fusions supplement fed to the rodents or by fasting them).
Fusion promotion combined with C60 is what makes Turnbuckle's protocol work.
So long as they do not trigger fusion with C60 supplementation none of these studies will be relevant to this discussion.
And fasting by itself would not be enough to cause symmetric division of stem cells on a large scale because the C60 is needed to knock large numbers of stem cells out of a quiescent state where fusion will then tilt them to symmetric division.
Only taking fusion supplements or fasting will not cause large scale symmetric division because only a small percent of stem cells are out of quiescence at a given time.
It hasn't been replicated because no one has fed C60 to lab rodents SIMULTANEOUSLY with a fusion promoter (either with a fusions supplement fed to the rodents or by fasting them).
Fusion promotion combined with C60 is what makes Turnbuckle's protocol work.
So long as they do not trigger fusion with C60 supplementation none of these studies will be relevant to this discussion.
And fasting by itself would not be enough to cause symmetric division of stem cells on a large scale because the C60 is needed to knock large numbers of stem cells out of a quiescent state where fusion will then tilt them to symmetric division.
Only taking fusion supplements or fasting will not cause large scale symmetric division because only a small percent of stem cells are out of quiescence at a given time.
This is far too orthodox - this is a place of scientific reasoning - we should establish what is known and what is not known. All of us including Turnbuckle are lab rats in white coats, experminenting and guessing albeit educatedly, especially in Turnbuckle's case.
It has not been established why the rats in Baati's study lived as long as they did. There has been no attempt to replicate the Baati study - replication is replication and that would involve Wistar rats. Doing it in mice was a gamble, if it failed the study is dismissed without attempts to replicate - leaving us with an additonal varaible to consider - mice - rather than a reduction of them which would have happened were it redone with Wistar rats sans fasting or old oil.
As far as I know, fusion in Baati has been guessed at, I don't believe from memory, though I could be wrong, that the rats were fasted routinely. Nor do we know that even if they were, that it is this study characteristic combined with c60oo that promoted life extension in those rats. That is still an hypothesis. That doesn't mean that fission/fusion isn't beneficial, that those protocols aren't good but that fasting plus c60 equals double life extension in rats (and would so in mice if we had bothered to do so) is still very much a guess - and we should not insert a "because" when that relationship is guessed at and so far from having been established.
It is worth recounting the early days here where TB w/o any fusion protocol recorded some of, if not the most remarkable effects from C60oo intervenion (including feet and height and head hair growth!) - and only 2 ml or so if recalled. He went overnight from being able to run only a few hundred metres to a couple of km's. This effect wore off, which led TB to wonder how those effects could be re-created - and to some remarkable interventions.
I never doubted those reportings or indeed those of other respondees.
Turnbuckle's success left a couple of issues to resolve, if this protocol works correct, then how to reconcile C60's initial effects, and why was Turnbuckle such an outlier (and seems to remain one today)?
Turnbuckle believed that c60 stimulated a cascade of stem cells, through the blocking of UCP pores - when the stem cell pool reserve was depleted, the effects wore off. It is a clever theory but must be presently for the birds- or at least in part. Turnbuckle warned repeatedly that those taking c60 repeatedly ran the risk of accelerated aging - a Dorean Grey effect, rather than a Benjamin Button one. But this simply has to be dismissed, or deemed highly unlikely, because there is no evidence to support it - if these stem pools were raided and depleted by c60 to the detriment of the host, then we would know. People have been taking this for more than a decade, many senior in age, and no one has reported this. I took very large doses at times, amongst the highest (behind Sensei, who was off the scale), and did sense that those doses were not especially beneficial, and perhaps modestly harmful - but there was been no accelerated aging, ten years on.
This was a clear basis to reject this theory, yet it was not tolerated by TB, or indeed his followers - it was clear at this point the thread had descended in to an orthodoxy, not a place of scientific inquiry - which was saddening and demonstrated the level to which discussion had decayed here. This would not have been possible a decade ago with those estemmed posters here.
C60 is not ravaging stem cell reserves, and if it did happen, then, as I suggested, there must have been some sort of adaptive response - which of course we would hope to have happened.
Why Turnbuckle responded so differently to most, in the early days is still an open question. There may have been some synergy with past experimentation, which would seem likely be impossible to reverse engineer - but Turnbuckle believed he had suffered mitochondrial damage from statins, and that was a good place to start, even though statins are common. This of course is where the benefit of c60 was perceived to have derived from - it was a ROS sponge, an SOD mimic, if memory serves.
This was a known effect of c60 - there was a remarkable study in rodents, where nano particles restored normal levels of ROS within minutes after a brain injury.
This was c60's standout property - yet rather than pursue a theory which integrated this characteristic, it was rejected, for an unproven an effect, that c60 blocked UCP pores resultint in raids the stem cell stock, flaring rejuvenating effects, at the expense of the health and youth of our future selves.
That theory of UCP blocking, with some adaptive response when stem cell levels deplete beyond a certain, should be one to keep an open mind upon, not one to default to, and certainly not close off to other theories around restoring mitochodrial function - but that it is how it was here, with no dissent tolerated.
This closed off mindset was never more clearly demonstrated than in the posting of a 200 + mouse study where a group of 16 mice were given c60. No fusion.
I found this study remarkable, and it is barely mentioned.
C60 had given up something here, but the question was what? But there was no interest in understanding - my persistent challenge was framed to be so unreasonable, that a disclaimer to having no conflicts of interest, of not working for a c60 company. That this challenge may not have seemed unreasonable to many, demonstrated a loss of reason - and pursuit of science.
To recap. 240 mice were divided into various different protocols, 16 on c60 with MCT oil.
The group fared a little above average, 5%. Why no success, was it due to mice being used not rats, MCT rather than Olive oil, lack of fusion - or something else?
Now while the average was unexceptional 7 of the 16 c60 mice were the longest lived out of 240. When there were something around 120 mice remaining, there were 8 of the 16 c60oo left - and 7 of those were the longest lived. This was a statisically incredible result - in the order of improbability, one suspects, of Baati's original study (many many millions to one that this was a chance effect).
However, this was a different metric. The mice didn't live exceptionally long for the strain, but they won the competition - occupying around 7 of spaces, an incredible result. And remarkably 8 of the mice performed averagely - C60 appeared to do nothing.
Poor husbandry could be one explanation - just looking looking at the spreadsheet, 3 c60oo mice not included in the c60oo longevity data appeared to die of "clogged water".
In addition the c60 with MCT Oil didn't fare well by comparison. Maybe the benefit was in the olive oil or some combined effect of the two together. Unfortunately, there were no olive oil or MCT comparison groups.
So a large study with c60oo in mice might not have produced exceptional life-extending results, compared to contriols, but something strange could have been going on when opening up the data - as appears the case here.
To note, KMoody, reported when using an off the shelf C60oo, found the mice dying off quicker than the controls, (this was a distinct preparation method, dissolving through sound iirc).
The broad point is that this study shoud have been treated with an open mind, one that potentially contradicts the theory proposed in the thread, and needs to be understood and resolved - and from a statistical basis, acknowledged.
This is a discussion I would still like to see.
These theories are not proven, and should not be treated as such - which is not to dispute that the effects are real for many, or that the theory may well be correct.
I take the reported effects as very likely being real, but the c60 theory shaky - if getting the theoy right, then more progress can be made more rapidly.
Didn't realize there was still some consternation around initial vs continual effects.
If I could speculate-
The body/brain attempts to regulate energy output to match the activity you are engaging in, on a predictive basis.
People who's brains are bad at this get labeled bipolar. Mania/Depression, are the two mistargeting states.
More subtly, the resistance to starting at the gym (I don't want to get off the couch), vs how good you feel after a moderate workout- these are time lag energy production mismatches.
These dynamics affect health interventions.
Whenever you have a health intervention that works, there is a brief overshoot, as your body works better than your brain expects.
You then have a period of excess energy- which feels fantastic and often allows progress on some chronic issues which were energy limited.
That bounce doesn't last forever, before you return to 'baseline + 1', instead of the high levels of energy you had in the bounce.
Over repeated use your baseline gets higher, and your brain gets better at predicting the overshoot.
Meaning chronic use tends towards no energy bounce spikes and baseline + 5.
You see this across a range of these health interventions.
Methyl blue, c60, etc...
People's initial expectations and experiences trail off to baseline +3.
And everyone just sort of skims past case reports where people have clearly gone all the way manic,
as the mania is weird and makes the intervention look bad, when it's clearly not.
--------
I find Turnbuckle's protocols to be unique, in that they are looking to maximize the use of that extra energy, in ways that allow chronic improvements.
A boom and bust cycle to keep populations (celluar, mito) healthy. Or improve them.
I suspect using wild speculation that an array of things that trigger energy bounces could be used. C60's just particularly potent.
This is far too orthodox - this is a place of scientific reasoning - we should establish what is known and what is not known.
What we know is that in order for a study to support or not support Turnbuckle's hypothesis it needs to replicate the TEST CONDITIONS of the protocol which is to SIMULTANEOUSLY combine -
1) C60
2) A fusion promoter agent
And give those two conditions to lab rats.
All you have put forward are studies that give lab rodents C60 only.
As you have been told multiple times on this thread, C60 alone tells us NOTHING about what happens when C60 is used in tandem with a fusion promoter.
Until you find a study that shows what happens when C60 is combined WITH mito fusion in lab rats (as opposed to spewing your normal bullshit) no study you post or have posted here will either support or refute that hypothesis because studies using C60 only are NOT USING THE CORRECT TEST CONDITIONS.
Why this hasn't been tested yet is curious because some smart teenagers could do it by creating three groups of lab rats: one group takes C60 with a fusion promoter, one group takes C60 only, and one group takes neither C60 or a fusion agent.
Nevertheless, that it is the test that needs to be run because that would test Turnbuckle's hypothesis, and not the irrelevant studies you did post.
So I say "dude you are too orthodox" and your response is to double down on orthodoxy:
"because studies using C60 only are NOT USING THE CORRECT TEST CONDITIONS."
There it is. You've defined what is correct, without any supporting evidence, as is your way - this is orthodoxy, to state as fact, which has not been proven.
This is your belief, an hypothesis you share with Turbuckle, that is your right - and it could well be correct but it remains a theory. Your statement can only be proven true if a study in rodents using c60oo and C60oo plus fusion sees one group double lifespan and the other not. There is no clear evidence that fusion is part of Baati or even if it were that there is not another factor in the study group producing the longevity benefit (I think there might be). Additionally, if I recall, it was the paper I found showing fasting triggered mitochondrial fusion which led to this fasting-fusion inference on the Baati study.
Moreover, there is zero evidence, none, that c60 blocks UCP pores - and yet you and Turnbuckle state this as fact too, which newbies absorb (it was a guess, routinely restated as fact). And you too, like Turnbuckle, I am sure have cited the potential risk of c60 depleting stem cells, when there is no evidence to support they deplete stem cells in the first place, and when it is perfectly clear that there has been no recorded evidence of accelerated aging in anyone just taking c60 to date.
Here is a guy taking 5ml a day 5 days a week for three years, in his late sixties, initially c60oo and then at some point c60MCT.
And a little over three years later (not two as titled)
Now he is in my opinion better after three years than at the beginning, and continued to extol the benefits of taking c60oo. Over the three years he will have taken several litres of c60 in oil without any disclosed fusion protocol. That is a lot of ingested c60 oil without rapid aging, to the contrary I would say, despite being of an age where stem cell levels have been depleted. Again, there have been no reports of any accelerated aging through taking just c60oo over a number of years.
This really needs to not only be put to bed, but not stated as fact, as it so often is here.
You seem to believe it is for me or others to disprove your theory, and until then you will continue to state it as fact. This is the complaint, until it is proven to be fact it should not be stated as fact, and there is no evidence to support this, presently. This is how science works.
We do not know that fusion was part of Baati, or indeed if it were that it was this that promoted life-extension in the rats, and not some other factor, such as I don't know, like just the c60 oil. We have not given Wistar rats c60 in oil since. Again I will repeat rats are not mice. There could be differences around fasting response to explain this, contributing to the c60oo + fusion line, which I keep open, and have researched upon here (this is why I have looked for differences between ketosis in rats and mice, evidence which could support the c60 + fusion theory)
I do not say that "c60oo + fusion is life extending" is false, I say it has not proven to be true, and it should not be stated as true - and if it is by you or anyone else, it should be contested. I believe it is a credible explanation, one of several.
I also believe Turnbuckle has experienced benefit from fusion protocols, and potentially with it c60, but this may be due to other reasons, and not impact on life-extension. Both fission/fusion and c60oo have mitochondrial benefits, and this might be synergistic and rejuvenating. Turnbuckle has been doing a lot of stuff, and he clearly did not think that c60 + fusion did enough.
But there is no proof that Baati introduced fusion, and even if so, zero proof that fusion catalysed c60 to promoted life extension, since there were no c60 controls without fusion. And to date we have no study at all, that I am aware of, that shows c60 + fusion is life extending - yet you state, to repeat "studies using C60 only are NOT USING THE CORRECT TEST CONDITIONS.!
This is what you believe, what is correct, as you put it, has not been established. It is authoratarian behaviour, which you have previously demonstrated in this thread. You are not its custodian, that is the moderator's job - at times it seems from the way you act, take yourself to be Turnbuckle's heir apparent - as the authority on the subject, and at times authoritarian. And really you should stop trying to infer authority though the repeated inulgent captialisations of words - or written shouting - it is clear to most that this to compensate for the lack of a reasoned argument, to choose to be bludgeoned into submission or refuse accept enduring Mr Angry. It is rude to keep doing this, and disrespectful, especially from the get go. This is a place for reporting experiences and scientific discussion - not for, as I state again, orthodoxy.
Turnbuckle has experienced rejuventaing effects, whether they are life extending or not remains to be seen. At one point I seem to recall, Turnbuckle reported what I interpret as accelerated aging, several people he claimed had observed that he aged. This became a problem to fix, which he may well have done.
This is suggestive of some measure of instability in these protocols, the reversal gains are not necessarily banked what is done might easily be undone this doesn't "feel" like Baati - but TB has done so much more than trying to reccreate Baati.
I have tried Turnbuckle's protocols and frequently reported benefits, and have always believed he is onto something with his work. However, when evidence contradicts his theories, then it should be pointed out. That is how progess is made - he knows this as well as anyone.
Now here is a thing the confusion over the Bucklabs study posted earlier and discussed a couple of years ago seems to have been cleared up - and should not have been missed in 2022.
There were two study groups separated through time of c60oo one appears to have suffered considerable neglect - three dying of thirst - and none of the star performers came from this group (so this has group has been dismissed from the c60 data, by Quest, along with other groups suffering neglect). From the other c60oo group 7 of the ten lived longer than the other 200 mice and the group of ten lived on average 26% longer than the rest of the rats in the study (courtesy of Quest). So we have a clear comparative longevity benefit of c60oo with no fusion.
What to read into the study is questionable, they were not exceptionally long lived for the strain, as QuestforLife has pointed out, but this is clearly an exceptional within-study result. There was no benefit of taking MCT with C60. Now I don't take this as a validation of the Baati study, or one disproving of the necessity of c60oo+fusion - there was a significant benefit in the Baati study for those just taking olive oil, this could be the cause of life extension here - there were no "olive oil controls".
There is one important observation to make here: mice who took c60oo or C60MCT did not suffer shortened lives as a result of taking c60 without a fusion protocol, as Turnbuckle's assertions suggested could be the case. Again I say there is no evidence to suggest C60 rapidly depletes stem cell reserves - this is not proof, but supporting evidence to the contrary. Mice are not humans, of course - but long term human c60 users as best we can deduce, have not experienced accelerated aging as a result of depleted stem cell reserves, as a consequence c60 consumption.
As said, I don't believe this study disprovesTurnbuckle's assertion of the need for fusion, that could only have occurred with a 90% life extension (and probably for both c60 MCT and OO) but to dismiss the study, and steadfastly claim there was nothing to see here, when 7 of the c60oo mice lived longer than 200 others because the average of the 16 was just variance, was simply blinkered - and now we know why.
For there to have been no no intellectual/scientific curiosity expressed from TB or from others in the thread of this remarkable result for c60oo, was a warning sign - a demonstration that there was not enough challenge to Turnbuckle and his theories, just conformity. It seemed easier for Turnbuckle (and others) to believe in a hidden agenda, than to accept an obvious result which could produce some rebuttal to those theories - and one that has now become quite clear.
In summary, I see this BuckyLabs study as a partial or likely potential but not convincing endorsement of Baati, since olive oil was life extending in Baati (at perhaps what could be considered possible at these levels in mice) . I also do not consider it to be too undermining of the claimed need for fusion with c60, since lifespan didn't double. However, I do believe it stronglyresists the line that c60 without fusion is dangerous, that it likely depletes stem cell levels, leading to rapid aging later in life, and early death.
Until evidence emerges to the contrary this claim should be dismissed and not repeated as fact, and if quoted should not be done so without at least without the caveat of this study and that many humans have taken c60 for years without a fusion protocol and there have been no reports of accelerated aging.
One more point, it should be reasonable to expect fusion to be beneficial all by itself, since stem cell levels are being repleted - it is tough to imagine our metabolism sitting on this new found wealth and do nothing with it, until c60oo arrives to liberate them. So increasing stem cells, through fusion, should be a good thing and confer benefit.
This appears to be precisely what happens during fasting - Longo demonstrated that when refeeding after a fast, stem cells are released, and it appears those reserves increase during fasting, it appears through fused mitochondrial induced symmetric stem cell division. And in the case of white blood cells, the post-fast level white blood cells, are increased above those pre-fast levels, despite "low grade" white blood cells being metabolised for energy during the fast: those lost are replaced, but too additional cells created. Repeating this process can reconsititute, he argues, a damaged immune system (such as results from chemotherapy).
It's funny I say "dude you are too orthodox" and your response is to double down on orthodoxy:
"because studies using C60 only are NOT USING THE CORRECT TEST CONDITIONS."
There it is. You've defined what is correct, without any supporting evidence, as is your way - this is orthodoxy, to state as fact, which has not been proven.
This is your belief, an hypothesis you share with Turbuckle, that is your right - and it could well be correct but it remains a theory. Your statement can only be proven true if a study in rodents using c60oo and C60oo plus fusion sees one group double lifespan and the other not. There is no clear evidence that fusion is part of Baati or even if it were that there is not another factor in the study group producing the longevity benefit (I think there might be). Additionally, if I recall, it was the paper I found showing fasting triggered mitochondrial fusion which led to this fasting-fusion inference on the Baati study.
Moreover, there is zero evidence, none, that c60 blocks UCP pores - and yet you and Turnbuckle state this as fact too, which newbies absorb (it was a guess, routinely restated as fact). And you too, like Turnbuckle, I am sure have cited the potential risk of c60 depleting stem cells, when there is no evidence to support they deplete stem cells in the first place, and when it is perfectly clear that there has been no recorded evidence of accelerated aging in anyone just taking c60 to date.
Here is a guy taking 5ml a day 5 days a week for three years, in his late sixties, initially c60oo and then at some point c60MCT.
And a little over three years later (not two as titled)
Now he is in my opinion better after three years than at the beginning, and continued to extol the benefits of taking c60oo. Over the three years he will have taken several litres of c60 in oil without any disclosed fusion protocol. That is a lot of ingested c60 oil without rapid aging, to the contrary I would say, despite being of an age where stem cell levels have been depleted. Again, there have been no reports of any accelerated aging through taking just c60oo over a number of years.
This really needs to not only be put to bed, but not stated as fact, as it so often is here.
You seem to believe it is for me or others to disprove your theory, and until then you will continue to state it as fact. This is the complaint, until it is proven to be fact it should not be stated as fact, and there is no evidence to support this, presently. This is how science works.
We do not know that fusion was part of Baati, or indeed if it were that it was this that promoted life-extension in the rats, and not some other factor, such as I don't know, like just the c60 oil. We have not given Wistar rats c60 in oil since. Again I will repeat rats are not mice. There could be differences around fasting response to explain this, contributing to the c60oo + fusion line, which I keep open, and have researched upon here (this is why I have looked for differences between ketosis in rats and mice, evidence which could support the c60 + fusion theory)
I do not say that "c60oo + fusion is life extending" is false, I say it has not proven to be true, and it should not be stated as true - and if it is by you or anyone else, it should be contested. I believe it is a credible explanation, one of several.
I also believe Turnbuckle has experienced benefit from fusion protocols, and potentially with it c60, but this may be due to other reasons, and not impact on life-extension. Both fission/fusion and c60oo have mitochondrial benefits, and this might be synergistic and rejuvenating. Turnbuckle has been doing a lot of stuff, and he clearly did not think that c60 + fusion did enough.
But there is no proof that Baati introduced fusion, and even if so, zero proof that fusion catalysed c60 to promoted life extension, since there were no c60 controls without fusion. And to date we have no study at all, that I am aware of, that shows c60 + fusion is life extending - yet you state, to repeat "studies using C60 only are NOT USING THE CORRECT TEST CONDITIONS.!
This is what you believe, what is correct, as you put it, has not been established. It is authoratarian behaviour, which you have previously demonstrated in this thread. You are not its custodian, that is the moderators job, or even perhaps it seems judged from your authoratitive behaviour, Turnbuckle's heir apparent. And really you should stop trying to infer authority though the repeated inulgent captialisations of words - or written shouting - it is clear to most that this to compensate for the lack of a reasoned argument, to choose to be bludgeoned into submission or refuse accept enduring Mr Angry. It is rude to keep doing this, and disrespectful, especially from the get go. This is a place for reporting experiences and scientific discussion - not for, as I state again, orthodoxy.
Turnbuckle has experienced rejuventaing effects, whether they are life extending or not remains to be seen. At one point I seem to recall, Turnbuckle reported what I interpret as accelerated aging, several people he claimed had observed that he aged. This became a problem to fix, which he may well have done.
This is suggestive of some measure of instability in these protocols, the reversal gains are not necessarily banked what is done might easily be undone this doesn't "feel" like Baati - but TB has done so much more than trying to reccreate Baati.
I have tried Turnbuckle's protocols and frequently reported benefits, and have always believed he is onto something with his work. However, when evidence contradicts his theories, then it should be pointed out. That is how progess is made - he knows this as well as anyone.
Now here is a thing the confusion over the Bucklabs study posted earlier and discussed a couple of years ago seems to have been cleared up - and should not have been missed in 2022.
There were two study groups separated through time of c60oo one appears to have suffered considerable neglect - three dying of thirst - and none of the star performers came from this group (so this has group has been dismissed from the c60 data, by Quest, along with other groups suffering neglect). From the other c60oo group 7 of the ten lived longer than the other 200 mice and the group of ten lived on average 26% longer than the rest of the rats in the study (courtesy of Quest). So we have a clear comparative longevity benefit of c60oo with no fusion.
What to read into the study is questionable, they were not exceptionally long lived for the strain, as QuestforLife has pointed out, but this is clearly an exceptional within-study result. There was no benefit of taking MCT with C60. Now I don't take this as a validation of the Baati study, or one disproving of the necessity of c60oo+fusion - there was a significant benefit in the Baati study for those just taking olive oil, this could be the cause of life extension here - there were no "olive oil controls".
There is one important observation to make here: mice who took c60oo or C60MCT did not suffer shortened lives as a result of taking c60 without a fusion protocol, as Turnbuckle's assertions suggested could be the case. Again I say there is no evidence to suggest C60 rapidly depletes stem cell reserves - this is not proof, but supporting evidence to the contrary. Mice are not humans, of course - but long term human c60 users as best we can deduce, have not experienced accelerated aging as a result of depleted stem cell reserves, as a consequence c60 consumption.
As said, I don't believe this study disprovesTurnbuckle's assertion of the need for fusion, that could only have occurred with a 90% life extension (and probably for both c60 MCT and OO) but to dismiss the study, and steadfastly claim there was nothing to see here, when 7 of the c60oo mice lived longer than 200 others because the average of the 16 was just variance, was simply blinkered - and now we know why.
For there to have been no no intellectual/scientific curiosity expressed from TB or from others in the thread of this remarkable result for c60oo, was a warning sign - a demonstration that there was not enough challenge to Turnbuckle and his theories, just conformity. It seemed easier for Turnbuckle (and others) to believe in a hidden agenda, than to accept an obvious result which could produce some rebuttal to those theories - and one that has now become quite clear.
In summary, I see this BuckyLabs study as a partial or likely potential but not convincing endorsement of Baati, since olive oil was life extending in Baati (at perhaps what could be considered possible at these levels in mice) . I also do not consider it to be too undermining of the claimed need for fusion with c60, since lifespan didn't double. However, I do believe it stronglyresists the line that c60 without fusion is dangerous, that it likely depletes stem cell levels, leading to rapid aging later in life, and early death.
Until evidence emerges to the contrary this claim should be dismissed and not repeated as fact, and if quoted should not be done so without at least without the caveat of this study and that many humans have taken c60 for years without a fusion protocol and there have been no reports of accelerated aging.
One more point, it should be reasonable to expect fusion to be beneficial all by itself, since stem cell levels are being repleted - it is tough to imagine our metabolism sitting on this new found wealth and do nothing with it, until c60oo arrives to liberate them. So increasing stem cells, through fusion, should be a good thing and confer benefit.
This appears to be precisely what happens during fasting - Longo demonstrated that when refeeding after a fast, stem cells are released, and it appears those reserves increase during fasting, it appears through fused mitochondrial induced symmetric stem cell division. And in the case of white blood cells, the post-fast level white blood cells, are increased above those pre-fast levels, despite "low grade" white blood cells being metabolised for energy during the fast: those lost are replaced, but too additional cells created. Repeating this process can reconsititute, he argues, a damaged immune system (such as results from chemotherapy).
To recap. 240 mice were divided into various different protocols, 16 on c60 with MCT oil.
The group fared a little above average, 5%. Why no success, was it due to mice being used not rats, MCT rather than Olive oil, lack of fusion - or something else?
There was an error here - there were two groups one on c60 with MCT oil and another with c60 on olive oil (and 20 more interventions in the study).
There it is. You've defined what is correct, without any supporting evidence, as is your way - this is orthodoxy, to state as fact, which has not been proven.
You're damned right I defined what a correct hypothesis test for this is because it IS THE CORRECT WAY to test Turnbuckle's hypothesis: The test MUST determine what happens to lab rats when they take C60 simultaneously with a fusion agent because Turnbuckle's hypothesis is that combining C60 with fusion extends lifespan and healthspan.
Testing only what happens when they take C60 WITHOUT fusion does not test the 2 conditions of his hypothesis (C60 and fusion).
Therefore, the studies you posted that only study taking C60 by itself are irrelevant to the hypothesis.
But you know they aren't relevant to the hypothesis, you just post them so you can hijack and disrupt the thread for your own amusement.
These studies are not being performed incorrectly because they are not testing yours or Turnbuckle's hypothesis, since they are not designed to do so. If they were, and failed to integrate a fusion element to the study, then they would of course be performed incorrectly. There are, though, other hypotheses.
Or indeed, if had been clearly documented that within Baati and Moussa's study there had been some fusion element, then attempts at replication of these studies, with that intention in mind, would have been performed incorrectly - I would agree. But this is not known, and as such that is not where we are.
It is possible that c60 + fusion is additive or synergistic in benefit, but also not responsible for the life extenstion in Baati, I believe there is as strong possibility it isn't. c60 has known remarkable properties, blocking UCP pores is not one of those known properties.
There should be much more fluidity around ideas but there was no welcoming to any challenge around what has essentially been the doctrine of these protocols. This was never how this forum was many years ago - it was really quite exceptional, challenges had to be accepted, and answered - it was a plce for scientific discourse.
Quest on the other thread has an alternative explanation for C60's role in increasing stem cell levels, through its known exceptional ROS scavenging property - this is how this forum was, and how it should still aspire to be: open.
That litres of c60oo have been comsumed by many over the years, without fusion protocols, and without experiencing accelerated aging as Turnbuckle feared they could, is a serious rebuttal to this theory - and this challenge should have been accepted with attempts at either adaptation or refutation, not attacked. And this Bucky labs study is a clear refutation of this effect in mice - there was no life shortening effect in mice taking c60 without fusion, which does not, naturally, mean fusion would not extend life in mice, had it been included, it is very possible - repleting stem cell levels would seem to be a pretty good thing to do.
I am fine with this hypothesis for why Baati and Moussa's rats lived so long, but it should not be stated as fact and remain open to challenge respecting there exists other legitimate hypotheses - and this one might be wrong.
These studies are not being performed incorrectly because they are not testing yours or Turnbuckle's hypothesis, since they are not designed to do so.
Exactly.
They do not test the hypothesis of whether C60 combined with fusion extends lifespan.
Which means they can no more be used as evidence against or in favor of Turnbuckle's hypothesis anymore than an astronomical study testing the hypothesis of whether there is a ninth planet in the solar system can be used as evidence against or in favor of Turnbuckle's hypothesis.
Therefore, stop fucking up the thread for your own personal amusement by referring to studies that test only C60 without fusion because (as you have been told repeatedly) they are neither evidence for or against the hypothesis being discussed, and because people are still looking to this thread for relevant information and they will not be informed by you confusing the relevant issues with irrelevancies.
Trying to summarize what you two have just said. Let me know if I have either wrong:
Ambient:
Good results and the theory inspiring those results being correct are two different things.
(Which is correct- Techno priests are a thing- Copernicus vs Ptolemy, being a prominent example. Ptolemy was more predictive. Copernicus was right.)
Ambient's point seems to be that believes c60's good results- and even believes turnbuckle has found useful actions to take on-top of that. But he doesn't believe the theory behind it (Many people don't), and points to a place where it seems to be failing.
The theory claims that improper use could cause premature aging, a result that has only been seen with Turnbuckle. which he finds suspect, not because Turnbuckle isn't credible and accurate (he very much is) but because Turnbuckle has been doing a lot of experimenting and what he observed and reported could be from something else he was doing.
So he'd like to see that replicated elsewhere- because passive anecdotal evidence seems to contradict it- what seems to be occurring with a lot of other users is merely stagnation. Which is not what the theory predicts.
Kevin seems to be defending that Turnbuckle's theory gives good results.
Saying that to prove it doesn't produce good results requires fusion + c60, which no one has done.
This is correct. No one has done this. (Additionally, the epigenetic age marker regression accounts would additionally need to be explained away.)
That said, no one seems to be disputing the claims Kevin is making. (The epigenetic age marker regression accounts are pretty convincing)
It very much looks like you two are talking past each other, on slightly different subjects.
Edited by Garrick Peschke, 01 May 2025 - 01:40 AM.
They do not test the hypothesis of whether C60 combined with fusion extends lifespan.
Which means they can no more be used as evidence against or in favor of Turnbuckle's hypothesis anymore than an astronomical study testing the hypothesis of whether there is a ninth planet in the solar system can be used as evidence against or in favor of Turnbuckle's hypothesis.
This, to be polite, is neither a reasonable nor logical response. Your statement is untrue - and more importantly misdirects.
Turnbuckle, has effectively made the following statement:
If this and this then that
but also the following:
if this and not this then (a different) that.
It is the second statement that is being challenged, because we have a lot of this and not this not leading to this particular that.
Now, Turnbuckle asserted the first implied the second, or perhaps more weakly, the theory underpinning the first statement implied the second statement. We have quite reasonable evidence to suggest the second statement is false. This therefore challenges the first statement. It either renders the first statement false, or challenges the theory proving it, or undermines the interpretation of that theory leading to the second statement.
As for your point that no evidence can be provided in favour or against Turnbuckle's assertion of "if this and this then that" beyond that which explicitly demonstrates the effects of "this and this" is simply not true.
It is true, that much like my assertion of there being a tub of Wall's chocolate ice cream presently orbiting Neptune, the claim can only be fully refuted once we've man-missioned out there, a good deal of evidence and reason, though, can be produced to undermine this far-fetched claim.
Put simply, if the Baati and Moussa could be replicated in Wistar rats without fusion, this would all but diminish Turnbuckle's assertion, though not disprove it. Turnbuckle would dump the claim under such evidence, by your logic I'm not so sure you would.
I would not expect Turnbuckle to dispatch fusion as a result, not if he is found benefit from it - a lot of scientific discovery is luck, as we all know.
Any evidence that supports or challenges those statements should be presented, as well as alterntative theories.
If you are suggesting, as seems the case, that the only studies permitted on this thread, are those which directly carry out c60 + fusion on longevity, then you are pushing orthodoxy via the backdoor, appearing to be open minded while closing off all objections.
"A challenge is only permitted when and if the studies I define to be capable of a legitimate validatation or refutation of this doctrine are completed (which coincidentally ain't going to happen any time soon)"
Studies, anecdotal evidence, or theories, that offer contradiction to these claims are legitimate, whether directly or indirectly doing so.
Just as if I wish to convince you a popular 1970's dessert has a lonely gas giant for company, I need to provide strong evidence, it is not on you to completely disprove that assertion - but you can certainly discredit, with lots of reasonable arguments, such as "how could it get there?".
This thread, as per the ambitions of this site, should be a place of constant challenge - let us not forget the objective of the site, and its community.
It's purpose is not to shield one person's impressive theories and research from criticism out of some fear said person will not play ball any more, if doing so - it is to confirm, progress or reject them.
Garrick,
Thanks for the attempted conciliation!
I would say that describes things pretty well, as Turnbuckle knows, I followed his protocols (quite early) and experimented, finding success along the way, routinely expressing gratitude and admiration of his work, as he also knows.
I have always held true Turnbuckle is on to something, from my experience, his and others - but as you well point out, history shows that mankind is always making stabs in the dark as to what's going on with the effects we see, often wrong sometimes right. Then progress.
Turnbuckle has been experimental, got things right ,got things wrong, revised, another go and so on. There is a lot of educated guesswork, resulting in validating effects.
But of course, this does not prove the theory - we could as you illude to be getting the right effects for the wrong reasons (or theories). Now it is possible Turnbuckle was right - that this caused that for these reasons. But if this caused that for those not these reasons - then we will run into a wall at some point, if looking to build on those observations - the foundations of future theories will be wrong and collapse at some point.
Turnbuckle absolutely should have been asking himself why people who have taken copious amounts of C60oo over many years haven't not reported accelerated aging or indeed why the mice in the bucky labs study did so remarkably (comparatively) well without fusion, and certainly were not harmed by not doing so. He may have done so privately, but not to do so here, is to be too protective of his theory, over pursuit of truth - which is what we are here for.
On the accelerated aging reported/suggested by Turnbuckle (which testifies to the integrity of his truthful reporting of effects, for the decade or so I was jointly here with him), I don't believe this to be consistent with his suggestion of this risk due to c60's stem cell depletion risk.
For one TB has not cumulatively taken that much c60, based on my intermittent following of his reportings, always small amounts going back to 2013, I and others have taken far more, I would guess at singificantly less than a litre over 12 years. And of course, he had taken considerable countermeasures against this perceived risk, unlike those who had taken much much more over shorter time intervals.
I associate his reported aging experience akin to all experimenters, albeit perhaps more exaggerated inTurnbuckle's case, to see some remarkable benefit disappear, as some corrective or homeostatic mechanism kicks in.
His measurements seem more volatile, than what we sense of the Baati & Moussa study - whether it is cosmetic or epigentic aging - which drove the interest in c60 ever since.
It is possible that it is the additional stuff Turnbuckle has done that has been more changeable and cosmetic, and the Baati/Moussa extrapolated-intervention that has stayed true and serving him well, as per the Wistar rats.
The epigentic results have been remarkably impressive, but does not appear to have been an aging reset, due to volatility - and effects. Ten years off epigenetic age doesn't equate to ten years off our biological age, from what we have seen - that is not possible so rapidly (much has to be undone), and would certainly take time - but that there appear to have been rejuvenating effects, corresponding to it, appears to be true.
It looks, a little as if, when Turnbuckle took his foot off the gas - stopped doing what he had been doing to generate those effects, aging kicked in. I don't know this for certain, but this is what I would surmise - and I think this is consistent with his epigentic aging results, which if I recall correctly, were very changeable. So while those epigentic reversals are held, then we have rejuvenating effects, lose them and it is full steam ahead to mortaility. Perhaps.
My assumption (and I am no expert on this) is that let's say TB through his protocols reversed epigentic aging by 25 years and then decided to free-wheel the next 12 months, I doubt he would expect (assuming accurate measurements) to still be minus 25 o 24 years off his epigenitic age, that his body is biologically tracking his chronological age minus 25 years indefintiely - I suspect we and he would expect some substantial closing of this gap, and I believe he has indicated as such. This is from recollection of his reportings.
The sense, that I have from the Baati/Moussa study is something different, if the study was as we believe it to have been.
I would need to check the paper again, but these rats didn't take C60oo for their entire lives, just a decent fraction, it might have been something like 18 months from the age of 12 months (it needs checking), they had not taken c60 for several years before death.
This feels like something fundamental - an upstream aging reversal - the intervention, if the study is to be believed, bestowed upon the rats additional lifespan equal or above the duration of the intervention. There wasn't some rapid accelerated catch up as best we can gage when the intervention stopped, and of course, we would have to assume it likely that this intervention was far from optimal. If more was bad, then less might have been better, and if less was worse, well, obviously, then more could have seen even longer lived rats.
Studies, anecdotal evidence, or theories, that offer contradiction to these claims are legitimate, whether directly or indirectly doing so.
And, as you said just, these studies you posted did not test combining fusion with C60 which means none of the studies you posted can be used to contradict or support Turnbuckle's hypothesis because they did not test the conditions of the hypothesis (fusion + C60).
A hypothesis is a statement that explains what happens under certain conditions.
Therefore, the only way to test a hypothesis is to include its conditions in the test.
If a hypothesis test does not include ALL conditions of the hypothesis then the test results can neither be used as evidence in favor or against the hypothesis BECAUSE THE HYPOTHESIS BY DEFINITION WAS NOT WHAT WAS TESTED if all conditions were not included!
That's not a problem with "orthodoxy" that's you posting irrelevant studies to troll the thread.
The theory claims that improper use could cause premature aging, a result that has only been seen with Turnbuckle. which he finds suspect, not because Turnbuckle isn't credible and accurate (he very much is) but because Turnbuckle has been doing a lot of experimenting and what he observed and reported could be from something else he was doing.
So he'd like to see that replicated elsewhere- because passive anecdotal evidence seems to contradict it- what seems to be occurring with a lot of other users is merely stagnation. Which is not what the theory predicts.
To clarify what he said, Turnbuckle thought using C60 alone would cause premature aging.
As Turnbuckle explained, he had tried C60 alone for years and he seemed to get positive results for a time. However, after a certain period of time he noticed a reversal of gains.
For example, early when he used C60 alone Turnbuckle reported that he was able to partially reverse a bald spot
However, eventually this benefit faded and the bald spot returned which he presumed was caused by the hair stem cell niche being exhausted.
It was this and other signs of diminishing returns that made him think C60 alone was triggering stem cell proliferation in the short term but potentially depleting the niches over the longer term. This made replenishment by adding fusion with C60 necessary, in his view.
Although there could be other explanations for the results he experienced, the epigenetic aging reversals users of Turnbuckle's C60 protocol have reported on this site are harder for critics of Turnbuckle to explain away.
This is because epigenetic/biological age relative to chronological age is considered one of the most important (if not the most important) metric to ue among the longevity community such as Dr. Michael Lustgarten (who posts on this website) and Dave Pascoe.
Both of them have achieved epigenetic age reductions using complex nutritional and supplementation regimens, but not (as far as I know) using the C60 protocol. Compared to Lustgarten and Pascoe, users of the Turnbuckle protocol here have also achieved epigenetic improvements in the 10 to 28 year range without significant alterations to their diet.
That users of Turnbuckle's C60 protocol report achieving similar epigenetic reductions without adopting the complex diet, supplement, and lifestyle changes as those Lustgarten and Pascoe used to achieve their results is evidence (though not definitive proof) that Turnbuckle's hypothesis is correct.
See these videos by Lustgarten and Pascoe for more information on their successes reducing epigenetic/biological age relative to their chronological age -
22y Younger Biological Age: Supplements, Diet (Blood Test #2 in 2025)
Lustgarten's website and his comments on this website are VERY useful for understanding scientific concepts discussed here and wading through a lot of misinformation from both non-conventional "health advocates" and mainstream medicine -
"A hypothesis is a statement that explains what happens under certain conditions."
No it doesn't - that's ridiculous - if it did it wouldn't be an hypothesis. It is a educated guess at explaining.
Here is the thing: an hypothesis is effectively a hybrid of fact and some extrapolated or appropriated theory - it will have justification in it's formation, it is made up of stuff. That is how Turnbuckle introduced his protocols.
Now to suggest that once this hypothesis' first breath is drawn the only way to debunk it is through testing it, is crazy - because if the factual or theoretical assumptions underpinning its inception can be rendered doubtful or false, then the hypothesis must be reconstituted subject to those challenges.
If Baati and Moussa declared there was no fasting, no fusion protocols, then Turnbuckle's hypothesis needs revaluating - why waste time trying to recreate Baati with fusion when there was none in the first place? You look instead for something else within the study, that differentiated it from subsequent attempts and recreation: if recreation is what you're after.
It seems that you feel once created, the hypothesis is sacrosanct. And as you implied it is about attempts to explain an effect, if those explanations appear faulty, then the basis of the hypothesis is clearly undermined. Yes you can say, "ah but we haven't disproved it". So what, if the reason justifying the testing of the hypothesis were proven to be flawed, why bother? Form a more sound hypothesis and test that instead.
"A hypothesis is a statement that explains what happens under certain conditions."
No it doesn't - that's ridiculous - if it did it wouldn't be an hypothesis. It is a educated guess at explaining.
Here is the thing: an hypothesis is effectively a hybrid of fact and some exrapolated or appropriated theory - it will have justification in it's formation, it is made up of stuff. That is how Turnbuckle introduced his protocols.
I never said the statement in a hypothesis was true or false.
I meant only that the statement is proposing something is true under certain conditions.
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: c60, stem cells, mitochondria, fusion, stearic acid, aging, hydroxytyrosol, olive oil, mct oil, proliferation
You Are Using Ad Block Plus or some other advert blocking software. More info here: "https://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/84454-please-disable-adblockers/
