2503 replies to this topic

[coinperson]

Are the two of you (Coinperson and Kelvin) doing this protocol regularly? Or are you doing it intermittently, say 3 to 5 rounds every 6 months?

 

1 teaspoon daily.  Been on C60 for 5+ years, there was a time where I was testing with between 1-4 tablespoon once a week, however I feel better taking it daily.  This discussion would probably better be moved to another thread though. 

[Kelvin]

I take the protocol 3 times every 6 months.

[coinperson]

Oh, I think I misunderstood.  I am doing this protocol once every month...

[Mind]

LongeCity members (like turnbuckle) can moderate the threads they start. It is a membership perk, and a good one.

[Daniel Cooper]

BTW - let me clear the air a bit with respect to a prior post I made.

 

Way back there somewhere, I posted that members could not moderate their own threads. I was wrong. I was simply unaware that this was a perk of membership. However, Mind contacted Turnbuckle directly via PM and informed him that he did have the ability to moderate his thread as a member. 

 

Perhaps there was some confusion and I'm sorry that I contributed to it. But there was an effort to let Turnbuckle know that as a member he could moderate this very thread. 

 

I have reached out to Turnbuckle a couple of times via PMs but have heard nothing back.

 

So if any of you have contact with Turnbuckle outside the forum, you might ask him to drop into his thread and have a look.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 July 2023 - 05:04 AM.

[ambivalent]

There were no mindless personal attacks from me, I would question the theory or ideas where I believed there was valid questioning.

 

Yes, there were plenty of mindless personal attacks. You behaved in the purest troll fashion, and you were not the only one.

 

It is not fair to call it question the ideas  if the attitude and the intellectual level is that of a flat-earther.

 

Also, shit talking about someone who is absent and can not defend himself is tasteless. Stop trolling.

 

Spoken like a true acolyte. 

 

The all too common irony of those tossing out the flat-earth ad hominem, is the all too frequent accompaniment of a steadfast refusal to provide supporting evidence, allied to a patholigical rejection of counter positions: the essence of a contemporary flat-earther. 

 

There were no acts of trolling, refined or otherwise - by all means cite some evidence. 

 

And as for suggesting it is tasteless to criticise in absentia, but undiluted praise, bordering on worship, is somehow tasteful and should remain unchallenged? 

 

Let's be clear on the context: why i posted. It was in response to the seemingly popular suggestion that Turnbuckle should be permitted to moderate his own threads and indeed had earned the right to do so. This declaration naturally leans on his historical contribution to the site as supporting evidence - which you appear to vocally support, whether Turnbuckle is here or not to receive such accolades.

 

Now, I challenge this self-moderating threads idea in principle and specifically to Turnbuckle. If you're prepared to hold conversation about Turnbuckle without Turnbuckle present, then you should be prepared to hear counter-opinions - to permit only praise is distasteful. The criticism is framed within the factual history of longecity posts - recorded and referenced. There are no murky, gossipy half-truths - it is about the community and the threads. More to the point, I have consistently praised Turnbuckle's efforts over the last decade, but that doesn't mean to say I don't call out unsubstantiated statements or faulty logic where I believe I see it, even if at times, that assertion is disproved. As a self-confessed round-earther, you should support this. Progress is made through challenging orthodoxy not blindly accepting it, to borrow from Zamyatin, there is always one more revolution. 

 

I would state pretty confidently, that Turnbuckle had no desire to be a moderator, he seemed wanted to create an in effect sub-space of longecity which he could independently run and presumably felt he had the status to do so. I doubt five to ten years ago he would have felt that way, there were a lot of big hitters around and his stock has risen through both his work and the depaparture absence others.  

 

Turnuckle, was not someone who would ban people for dissenting opinions, I would say he has too much conscious intellectual and scientific pride to do so but he wasn't tolerant of them either - from an implied position of power and authority he, in recent years too, too often Ifelt slapped dissenters down. The result, over time, given his expertise and authority on the protocols created, was to render something a supine community. Learner, astutely obeserving the thread participants were too preoccupied with 'defending the master, and not the truth". She was right and it was telling that barely anyone took this position and, as was her way, she heaped more praise than anyone on Turnbuckle, but also believed his feet should be held to the fire too, she was right, its too important a business not to. And rest asssured if Turnbuckle was on the other side of his position, he would do exactly that. Learner's behaviour was at times very poor, but she was right on this point. The rest of the community rightly viewed Turnbuckle as a valuable asset, and such as the demise of the longecity community in recent years, an irreplacable one, and became default accepting rather than challenging - this created a warped community and not one suited for scientific discussion, which is precisely what longecity should be about.       

 

As for why specifically, I wouldn't want Turnbuckle to moderate his own threads, it is for the obvious reason that his ideas would be even less challenged not more. As is the case of modern language, defintitions of words seemed to broaden and widen to suit individuals - trolling, it would seem by your defintion, encompasses challenging orthodoxy. The contentions were always backed up with reason - flawed or otherwise, but reason nevertheless. Nor would I suggest that Learner trolled, as such. Whether it was a condition of something age-related or not, or some underlying disorder - she seemed to gravitate between one of two poles. She was through in her correspondence with me, genuinely frustrated and wanted her questions answered. She took those failures to respond far too personally and those responses too often lacked empathy, and her behaviour at times was obviously bad and would be tough for anyone to bear. Turnbuckle too often x10 a discourteous comment, but in Learner ran into someone who would x100. She had a very successful career in a male dominated field, populated by sharks, she wasn't going to readily back down, and perhaps those mechanisms that served her so well, became over expressed. But I do feel at the time that his response to what I felt was a mild discourtesy, which as is the way with the net, could have been misinterpreted, was harsh. In that response Turnbuckle stated the thread was not a debating society, which seemed to suggest that the ideas should not be challenged, that this is not the place. That I feel was the wrong message.  

  

Learner was a very unusual case, though, and I was rather dismayed at the casualness many displayed in trying to sanction her eviction because of her quite obvious capricious and difficult behaviour - this isn't a forum for baseball card enthusiasts. Learner was and hopefully still is a woman in her 80s, with a dependent son, who was trying to push back her date with death, extend life as long as possible - that is what this site was set up for, and there really was nowhere else quite like it, certainly not years ago. A solution, I felt needed to be found, and at her best, she was a good contributor, a fact that even Turnbuckle would acknowledge. That said, I do not blame Turnbucke not wanting Learner on his thread, or contirbuting while she was here, the attacks were deeply unpleasant, and as much as we may wish to make allowances, it is diffcult not to be deeply affected by those personal attacks. 

 

Around this time, I had a run in with TB on another thread, in which he took the most weirdest position, and refused to budge no matter how clear the evidence. Turnbuckle asserted that c60oo was only beneficial if accompanied with fusion and used a large mouse life-span study as further evidence - the 16 strong c60oo group did around averagely well amongst the 240 or so population which had a diverse range of protocol arms.

 

However, 7 out of 8 as I recall, of the longest lived mice were in the c60oo group of 16 mice and indeed at the half stage only 8 out of the 100 + or so mice were alive. For - if I recall - 7 out of 8 mice to occupy the top 8 positions by chance from that half-way position was of lottery proportions and they did so quite comfortably. Tunbuckle refused to accept there was anything to see or understand here, eventually accusing me of working for a c60 vendor, trying to implicitly turn the irrationality tables by inferring the unreasonableness of my position, through the accusation, that I must be driven by some personal financial bias in trying to tease out distrorted data to demonstrate c60oo has longevity properties - as if somehow the astonomical improbability of those c60 mice occupying those positions out of such a large sample wasn't enough to substantiate my position. It wa a crazy stubborn take driven either through some personal bias or because his own theories were sacrosanct. It is impossible to imagine Turnbuckle would not have been incredibly curious about these results before he converged on his theories and protocols which were inconsistent with that longevity inference. There was very clearly something very significant to understand here, but he held no interest in doing so. Moreover he took my refusal to answer as some admission of guilt, when quite simply I refused to accept the premise, the validity of the question - that my position was so unreasonable that it required some explaining - it provided an out. But it was all completely unneccessary and frustratingly the discussion was not directed towards possible explanations, presumably because to accept there was something strange going on, would require accepting the possibiity that c60oo might have life-extending properties independent of fusion - which Turnbuckle had persistently been dismissing for quite some time, and stated it almost as fact, when no such fact had been established.

 

Adding further to this Tunbuckle would state just as factually that C60oo was dangerous over the long term since it depleted stem cell supplies - this may be true but it wasn't proven and the anecdotal evidence simply didn't back it up. It was conjecture and was primarily based on his experience that c60 wore off, for him and others. That was one possible explanation, but there of course will be others and there was no clear evidence that c60 does this. It just so happened that Turnbuckle's theory of stem cell depletion was consistent with his experiences - but that quite obviously is not enough, and that should have been clearly expressed by him and the community. There was plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary - plagiarising Fermi, where were are all the Dorian Greys? That many aged individuals had taken c60 for several years and no one reported falling off an accelerated aging cliff, one might consider this to be substantial reason to revise that theory. There was one Youtuber who took c60 almost daily over 3 years and looked good on it, better than at the beginning I would suggest. That should lead to a revision of the theory (or accepting the possibility) and there are likely those who've taken it for a decade. If there was evidence of a person in their mid 70s with already depleted stem cells taking it daily, then we can be fairly confident that c60 doesn't destroy stem cell stores. Turnbuckle, though was not interested in this possibility - many here will still commit to this belief and restate it as fact, when they shouldn't - there isn't evidence to support it. It is a theory and we must follow the evidence, not ignore it. Turnbuckle's protocols were built on objective scientific reason - I have been present as he developed them - but they were not defended with the same scientific objectivity. This matters. 

 

The reason that in principle self-moderation of threads is a bad idea for all, should be obvious once considering the objective. Moderation has a purpose, it isn't a right earned through some life-time achievement. 

 

A while ago I was on a stockholder sub-forum hosted by a major platform - it was heavily trolled. Eventually, a couple of investors decided to create a reddit subgroup to weed out the relentless negative postings which hampered discussion. It became a place of  due-diligence, though there wasn't too much acceptance of dissenters. At some point I discovered the CEO's extemely checkered past, I made lengthy detailed posts and they were well received by the community, despite the despairing news. Then the moderator in chief without warning deleted the post history and I was banned from the site - I was indirectly told that my posts would put people off buying the stock - no kidding. And subsequently no reference was permitted to the CEO's past indiscretions. So  a newbie turns up witnessing the detailed product line due diligence, a large community of investors well invested, oblivious to the that key information which would have those stopped those deep-in-the red presently invested from investing. The attitude seemed to be "we were duped, why shouldn't they be".  

 

When looking at the foot of the longecity home page, there are a handful of users, and sometimes one or two thousand guests. These people may be viewing threads well over a decade old, with contributors, including thread creators, mostly long gone. Many viewing those discussions may well be looking at them to aid informed health choices, for themselves or others. Longecity is their host, a portal to the past, and with it comes responsibility. The integrity and honesty of those threads is something longecity should and have tried to ensure, it is a duty to the truth as best can be guaranteed. Those seeking answers are not interested in the conflicts, biasses or egos of the contributors - they are trying to understand the science and make the good decisions. Nor are they interested to the attachments an individual has to a particular theory, supplement or health practise. Those attachments we create help us to drive understanding but they also become difficult to let go. We know all too well that almost every theory in biology becomes superseded, rejected or more nuanced. More to the point we understand that bias, we are all full of them, and it is better for others that they aren't able to undermine the integrity of the commuity and the discussions. Just as an individual wandering into the stock-forum mentioned, wouldn't necessarily sense what key information had been censored by a biassed moderator, so too on health forums - it doesn't have to be explicit censorship, just a product of the endowment effect, and longecity should guard against it as best they can - self moderating threads does just the opposite.

 

Within this field and health in general there are some huge egos, and those often leading one particular health movement behave like evangelical preachers, it can be quite unpalatable to watch, even though there is useful information embedded with those sermons, one can't help but feel at times you're sitting in on a cult gathering. 

 

The notion of thread ownership is an illusion, but a tenacious one, which creates unavoidable biasses. Whatever the forum we know the experience of playing host and guest and so adjust our behaviour. This though when it comes to honest debtate creates an obvious problem.

 

The threads on longecity are not owned by any one individual and should not be considered so, the creation of a thread is merely to start a conversation, to frame the discussion - its not a personal diary hidden under the pillow, nor a blog. For the most part is to ascertain some truth that has some value to the individual and the community. The thread creator is not by definition of being the its instigator a natural arbiter of determing and managing the conditions required to fulfill that quest - the person is essentally just getting the game started. The thread community if it works well is self-regulating, with minimum intervention.

 

The idea of the thread creator, the perhaps most interested and biassed contributor, being responsible for moderating the posts is a terrible one - even if largely unavoidable over much of the web. The purpsoe of moderation is to secure certain objectives, and is ultimately the site host's responsbility.  The presence of thread ownership creates an unavoidable behaviourable bias, influencing the direction of conversation, but it should be sought to be minimised not amplified. 

 

A seasoned boxer doesn't get to referee his own fight because of his lengthy contribution to the sport, nor should he be able to pay for the privielge of doing so. I understand longecity has to meet its bills and ambitions, but to allow an indiviual to sign up as a member and then moderate threads they start as a membership perk, really undermines the integrity of the site.

 

A moderator should be an individual who demonstrates understanding and exercises good judgement - and we all know from experience, and try to build our institutions (forlornly) on the decisions of those free from a conflict of interest. In acquiescing to Turnbuckle's and others requests to self-moderate, or indeed to pay for the right to do so, Longecity moves in the opposite direction.

   

Buying moderating rights, owning them often simply by virtue of being first to the discussion is a bad idea for a site seeking to host discussions trying to further understanding of science. It rightly rejects empowering those seeking to gain financially by advancing some position, but does not seek to mitigate those with an obvious psyhcological investment - the latter can often be more powerful because it frequently goes under our radar, despite our best of intentions - we may cover up our ego-gains from ourselves, but not  to so easily our financial ones.

 

It is up to longecity what it does - Learner has gone and I have already stated I will not contribute to his threads if it is a condition of Turnbuckle's return. Longecity have in effect met his demands, so there should be nothing holding him back.

 

Turnbuckle has created these protocols for others to follow and report back, and that does entail some responsibility - if he wished to fulfill it that's up to him. While it is possible, it would seem quite unlikely he does not check in on this thread. Turnbuckle made a choice, and that choice was his alone - the reasons he cited have been resolved. His choice to stay away is also a choice, not one forced upon through unresolved unreasonable conditions.  

 

I have stated before and will do again that I am enormously grateful for Turnbuckle's remarkable contributions and his departure was and remains a loss to the community.

Edited by ambivalent, 04 July 2023 - 05:25 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Mind wrote, in post 2404:

 

"LongeCity members (like turnbuckle) can moderate the threads they start. It is a membership perk, and a good one."

 

It's funny that you write that, Mind, considering your past excoriations of Twitter (pre-Musk), YouTube, Google, some foreign-government entities, particular US Government agencies such as the CDC, as well as certain elements of mainstream media, for having censored (moderated) COVID19-related content that didn't conform to their own politico-ideological bents or confirmation biases.  After all, the aforementioned examples were merely exercising a right to moderate their own content without challenge. Correct?

 

I suggest that a person, or entity, that wields the power of censorship (aka "moderation"), will almost inevitably use it to insure that only conforming thought-- those thoughts which mirror his/its own eisegetic leanings--will ever see the light of day. So, the power of a thread-starter to "moderate" their threads is a "good one"?--I think not. What do you suppose would happen to the free exchange of ideas if  Anthony Fauci became a Member of LongeCity and started threads related to the use of masks, the efficacy of mRNA vaccines (injections, as you put it), or the suspected origin of the virus that causes COVID19?

 

Turnbuckle has used argumentum ad lapidem as well as expressing advocation that thread readers use the post-rating system to dissuade "trolls" (me, for one, apparently) from continuing with their questions/assertions that didn't adhere to his apparent de facto thread orthodoxy. The "trolls" appear to be those who, at times, challenged, or outright disagreed with, his edicts. I'd cite a personal example, save for the fact that an agent of LongeCity's "Ministry of Truth" had relegated my would-be exemplar to the "memory hole". Note that here I normally would have explicitly mentioned that the particular LongeCity agent is "Daniel Cooper", but since that might be construed as being a personal attack, rather than a simple statement of fact, I will refrain from doing so, in order to possibly avoid a potential ban which might be performed if I actually did mention said fact.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 04 July 2023 - 10:31 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Turnbuckle has used argumentum ad lapidem as well as expressing advocation that thread readers use the post-rating system to dissuade "trolls" (me, for one, apparently) from continuing with their questions/assertions that didn't adhere to his apparent de facto thread orthodoxy. The "trolls" appear to be those who, at times, challenged, or outright disagreed with, his edicts. I'd cite a personal example, save for the fact that an agent of LongeCity's "Ministry of Truth" had relegated my would-be exemplar to the "memory hole". Note that here I normally would have explicitly mentioned that the particular LongeCity agent is "Daniel Cooper", but since that might be construed as being a personal attack, rather than a simple statement of fact, I will refrain from doing so, in order to possibly avoid a potential ban which might be performed if I actually did mention said fact.

 

You can certainly say anything you care to about me without any fear that I will commit any reprisal against you.

 

However, we are quickly sliding away from the topic of this thread which may a reason at least some of your posts were memory holed. The thread had become very chaotic with many off topic diversions and it simply had to be cleaned up.

 

For what it's worth, I have tried minimally moderating this thread (and others) because I don't much enjoy limiting speech. But this thread in particular ended up spinning out of control on multiple occasions, convincing me that this approach simply did not work. If a thread degenerates in to "poop flinging" as this one has on several occasions, it doesn't serve the purpose of the site and it doesn't serve the interests of the membership. So, I had to moderate more actively. There was a cleanup, a poster was banned (I permanently banned Learner56 along with a number of his duplicate accounts), and things got back on track. This thread went from being the most problematic thread on the site, generating the most complaints (by a lot), to being mostly a place of reasonable discussion.

 

I regret that Turnbuckle has left, and that my mistake may have had a role in it, but every effort was made to let him know that he did in fact have the ability to moderate the thread. I reached out to him, Mind reached out to him. I've even attempted to contact him by email outside the site. Ironically the thread is now moderated more actively and a poster he took issue with was banned, so he got much of what he wanted as he left.

 

My recollection of your posts in this thread is that you very much enjoy debating for the sake of debate. I understand that, at times I do myself. But as you might say, debate is not the raison d'etat for the site. Longecity doesn't exist to hone anyone's debating skills per se. Debate is just a tool to try to get at the truth. Debate just for the sake of debate where it goes well beyond the point where further discussion has any chance of being productive simply aggravates and inflames other members in the thread and invariably there is a blow up and a good ol' internet slap fight ensues that serves no productive purpose. Sometimes I have to make a judgement call and shut down some of these lines of debate when I can see that they are headed for the cliff. I'm not perfect, sometimes I may make the wrong call. But the way the thread was being run previously with no moderation simply was not working. So when I have to do something like that, I'm not targeting you, I'm just trying to keep the thread on topic and not let it descend into chaos.

 

I'm sorry you may feel that you've been treated unfairly. I do the best I can but obviously imperfectly. I can tell you that it's definitely impossible to make all parties in a thread like this happy. If I make you happy I will certainly make someone else unhappy. All I can do is try to chart the best course as I see it and try to serve the interests of the members as a whole. But, I'll make mistakes along the way.

 

As to the ability for thread starters to moderate their thread, I'm going to disagree with Mind somewhat - I don't really like it but it is a feature of the site so it is available and therefore "them's the rules".  I've only been on one other forum where thread starters had that ability and it was frequently used and it was problematic. Certain members had very thin skins, wouldn't tolerate criticism very well, and their threads invariably became "hallelujah choruses" where they would only allow supportive comments. If you're trying to get at the truth of a matter, that's not likely to be a very productive approach. It really hasn't been an issue here since apparently almost no one knows the feature exists (including myself). I suppose if some started moderating their threads to cut out disagreeing positions those on the other side of the issue could start their own thread, but that doesn't seem like the best approach. This is just a personal opinion. Maybe it would work better here than I suspect.

 

So I'm sorry if I deleted your magnum opus AD. I was just trying to take a thread that had really become chaotic and get it back on track. If it's any consolation there was plenty of blame to go around on a lot of different parties. A lot of posts needed to be deleted but I can't claim I got every one of them right.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 July 2023 - 02:59 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re post 2408

 

"So I'm sorry if I deleted your magnum opus AD."

 

Ok, Daniel, now you're being sour caustic (my eggcorn of the day, heh heh). But, anyway, thanks for the mordant (and not-needed) apology. Good to hear that you abide by the rules, even if they may be contrary to your personal liking.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 05 July 2023 - 04:08 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Re post 2408

 

"So I'm sorry if I deleted your magnum opus AD."

 

Ok, Daniel, now you're being sour caustic (my eggcorn of the day, heh heh). But, anyway, thanks for the mordant (and not-needed) apology. Good to hear that you abide by the rules, even if they may be contrary to your personal opinion.

 

Hey, I know what it's like to spend a half hour crafting the perfect rebuttal to a previous post only to hit the send button and find that the thread has been locked or to come back the next day and find a piece of your soul (nay, your child ) disappeard.

 

Honestly, it's not something that I take likely. My hope is that now things are running on a more even keel that mass cleanups won't be necessary going forward.

[ambivalent]

One perk of membership that would be a good one is 24 hour editing - as Blaise Pascal said, if I had more time it would have been shorter.

 

On the issue at hand, I would go further and say that if choosing to return I won't contribute to Turnbuckle's threads, rather than him be required to stipulate it. It is only Turnbuckle standing in Turnbuckle's way - as much as can be done has been done. I would be glad to see his return, as would the site's community.

 

As for self-moderation, for the reasons stated, I think its a bad idea, but can do no more than vocalise it. I understand why AD objected to the post deletions, especially when writing-effort is invested, but I have no issue with DC doing so at the time, it was an unpleasant business which didn't further the thread - opinons needed to be aired but not recorded, I would say. It would only have had voyeuristic appeal to thread viewers ten years down the line.

Edited by ambivalent, 05 July 2023 - 02:43 PM.

[kurt9]

Adding further to this Tunbuckle would state just as factually that C60oo was dangerous over the long term since it depleted stem cell supplies - this may be true but it wasn't proven and the anecdotal evidence simply didn't back it up. It was conjecture and was primarily based on his experience that c60 wore off, for him and others.

 

He said that stem cell depletion was a theoretical possibility, not an absolute certainty. But the consequences of such, if true, are severe enough that it is reasonable to act as though it is true. I think he is correct in this assumption. The underlying theory of his protocols is that the reduction of stem cell proliferation IS the cause of aging. But left unanswered is WHY stem cell proliferation declines over time. Until this question is answered, I think it prudent to assume stem cell depletion is a real possibility.

[ambivalent]

He said that stem cell depletion was a theoretical possibility, not an absolute certainty. But the consequences of such, if true, are severe enough that it is reasonable to act as though it is true. I think he is correct in this assumption. The underlying theory of his protocols is that the reduction of stem cell proliferation IS the cause of aging. But left unanswered is WHY stem cell proliferation declines over time. Until this question is answered, I think it prudent to assume stem cell depletion is a real possibility.

 

He was much stronger than that, and no I don't agree it is reasonable to act as if were the case - 2013 perhaps, but not in 2023. It has been ten years.

 

C60 doesn't rapidly deplete stem cell niches - that's obvious, aged people have taken this for a decade without a fusion protocol. I put out a couple of other explanations as to what might be occurring. 

 

C60 blocking UCP2 pores was a jump and there was no evidence accept that they are "about the right size". c60 stopped working for Turnbuckle in the early days after some spectacular results and quite clearly wasn't because he ran out of stem cells. Maybe there was some homeostatic response - but to believe it to be true, when it is a real leap of faith, after a decade of popular usage with no evidence of it just makes little sense. 

 

As I said, I don't argue with his results, but it became something of a closed shop. It wasn't possible  to start a conversation with "let's assume c60 isn't depleting stem cell niches, and figure out what's going on in the event that it isn't'.  There was no moving to such a position - and the anecdotal evidence suggested there was little risk in doing so.

 

C60 blocking UCP2 pores was real guess work, it just fitted to his results.

[Empiricus]

He was much stronger than that, and no I don't agree it is reasonable to act as if were the case - 2013 perhaps, but not in 2023. It has been ten years.

 

C60 doesn't rapidly deplete stem cell niches - that's obvious, aged people have taken this for a decade without a fusion protocol. I put out a couple of other explanations as to what might be occurring. 

 

On the one hand we have several individuals who are getting measurable results with this Turnbuckle protocol, on the other hand we have a lot people who tried c60 for several months or years and discontinued it.  I'm not aware of long term c60 users outside of this protocol being able to point to reductions in their epigenetic age (or even self-reported age regression).  Do you have any examples in mind? 

C60 blocking UCP2 pores was a jump and there was no evidence accept that they are "about the right size". c60 stopped working for Turnbuckle in the early days after some spectacular results and quite clearly wasn't because he ran out of stem cells. Maybe there was some homeostatic response - but to believe it to be true, when it is a real leap of faith, after a decade of popular usage with no evidence of it just makes little sense. 

 

As I said, I don't argue with his results, but it became something of a closed shop. It wasn't possible  to start a conversation with "let's assume c60 isn't depleting stem cell niches, and figure out what's going on in the event that it isn't'.  There was no moving to such a position - and the anecdotal evidence suggested there was little risk in doing so.

 

C60 blocking UCP2 pores was real guess work, it just fitted to his results.

 

 

It's a mechanism that Turnbuckle surmised could explain the biological age reduction some people are seeing with this protocol and their lack of results prior to it.  

 

Turnbuckle started this topic as a place to gather and share experiences testing his theory.  This topic isn't the place to entertain other assumptions in depth, even if they appear to merit a lot of discussion.  

Edited by Empiricus, 05 July 2023 - 06:07 PM.

[ambivalent]

Empiricus,

 

You're inventing a position and asking me to defend it. I have made no such statement such that c60oo = c60oo + fusion but rather that c60oo does not equal rapid stem cell depletion. We have zero cases - with many users - of people reporting accelerated aging following years of c60oo usage.Turnbuckle's own experience points to this - he had a boon for while then it stopped, he didn't die or age rapidly, the benefits stopped before the stem cells ran out, and of course while he was still using c60. 

 

We do have evidence of c60oo + TBs fusion protocol reducing dna methylation age. We have no evidence and I suspect we won't of c60oo alone reducing dna methylation age over the long term. Nobody has replicated Turnbuckle's level of reduction, that I am aware, though many have reported substantial benefits. 

 

"Turnbuckle started this topic as a place to gather and share experiences testing his theory.  This topic isn't the place to entertain other assumptions in depth, even if they appear to merit a lot of discussion. "

 

This is wrong, longecity is not a site for orthodoxy. If Turnbuckle is making statements which are erroneous, contradicted by evidence then this must be cited. Do you think users on longecity, those reading the thread, adopting the protocol, should not hear challenges?  This site has been founded on lively and vigorous sceintific debate - whatever his achievements, if someone makes illogical statements, assertions not substantiated or contradicted by facts then they must be challenged. Turnbuckle would not conform to someone else's dogma - that's why he joined the community - and he has no status enabled or moral right to impose such restrictions.

 

And as for other evidence pointing to c60oo repairing DNA without fusion - I've already provided it. The Wistar Thioacetamide / c60oo study posted in the forum. 

 

Thioacetamide on its own causes huge comet tail damage. C60oo and Thioacetamide combined reduced comet tail length compared to controls. This is a remarkable and documented result. And yet we are still supposed to presume the UCP2 blocking mechanism for which there are no documented studies.

 

It is worth stating again c60 when administered with a DNA damaging toxin actually - at the right dose - net decreases DNA damage, not just recover the would be toxin damage, but decreases it over controls with no exposure to the toxin or c60oo.

 

This paper didn't surface before Turnbuckle left, but if he had read this a few years ago I am sure this would formed the basis of his research, and likely led to a different theory.

 

The study also showed that more c60oo was not better but worse when administered with Thioacetamide.

 

This is a paper where c60 is administered with a toxin to reduce DNA damage, there is no fusion protocol here. We know that Turnbuckle has reduced DNA damage by combining it with stearic acid, not Thioacetamide. This has to be the starting point - did Turnbuckle stumble across the same DNA reparing mechanism evident in the Wistar Rat / c60oo / Thioacetamide study? 

 

Turnbuckle may well be increasing his stem cell stores as a result of the stearic acid, but perhaps the c60 is working with the stearic acid distinctly or perhaps the palmitric acid present to shorten the DNA.

 

The reason why I believe Turnbuckle may have had such exceptional results early on, where others didn't, was because of statin use damage - that there were endogenous toxins present which c60 combined hormeitcally with to repair DNA - and may account for those intitial effects, which wore off when they disappeared and mitochondria were repaired.

 

It is possible at least, and certainly justifies consideration given the Thiacetamide paper, to consider the possibility that Turnbuckle was not in fact building up stem cells for C60oo to unleash but administering the toxin c60 needs to repair DNA. 

 

And of course perhaps both have occurred - stearic acid builds up stem cell supplies, and the c60oo repairs the DNA independently, withthe toxin.

 

In addition, another point I never understood, was why isn't replenishing the stem cell pools enough on its own - would we not expect substantial benefits from replenishing stem cells without the need for c60 to unlock them? We would expect there to be mechanisms to adjust, especially as fusion occurs during fasting.

 

There is an indoctrination here, and Turnbuckle excesses in defending his theories enabled it - that on this forum there has been no discussion on the Thioacetamide paper I put up months ago underscores this - it was the most important c60 paper since Baati, and offers the potential for real insight, but it has been completely ignored because it would seem, users here have the explanation they are satisifed with.  

 

There is science on this thread, but it is only subject to the premises set out by Turnbuckle - those, it felt, were not allowed to be tested, and that was and is not good enough.  

 

Edited by ambivalent, 05 July 2023 - 09:16 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Ok guys, this thread has drifted off topic enough. Going back and forth on who did or said what last year is not productive. Back to the subject of the thread.

 

 

[Rocket]

He said that stem cell depletion was a theoretical possibility, not an absolute certainty. But the consequences of such, if true, are severe enough that it is reasonable to act as though it is true. I think he is correct in this assumption. The underlying theory of his protocols is that the reduction of stem cell proliferation IS the cause of aging. But left unanswered is WHY stem cell proliferation declines over time. Until this question is answered, I think it prudent to assume stem cell depletion is a real possibility.

This is where turnbuckle lost me. We know there are many many tissues that don't replenish themselves every few years with stem cells. Many tissues are grown by the body and the cells stick around and age until the body dies.

If stem cells could be depleted then people like bodybuilders would all die at say 35 after they used up all their stem cells to grow muscle.

Turn buckle seemed to ignore epigenetics, telomeres, ROS and mitochondria. He was a trick pony as they say and nothing was going to change that.

Stem cells play a role... But they aren't the star of the show. A leading character but not the star. I would say the stars are eoigenetics, ros, and mitochondria health

Edited by Rocket, 13 July 2023 - 01:19 AM.

[Danniel]

Turnbuckle seemed to ignore epigenetics, telomeres, ROS and mitochondria.

 

Yes, he sure does! Else he would write a protocol for manipulating mitochodrial dynamics! or, he would check his epigenetic age! But, did he do any of these?

Did he?!

[gamesguru]

He has made multiple statements about telomeres and epigenetic age.

 

I think this is no doubt a complicated endeavor, and not all avenues have been explored. We should all be glad to assist the community in any way possible, but purely negative criticism seems out of place.

[stephen_b]

Chemically induced reprogramming to reverse cellular aging was published 2 days ago. It examines using small molecule cocktails to achieve the same results as complicated genetic interventions in reducing aging. There are 6 cocktails examined.

 

There are a lot of ideas in the paper. Some of the small molecules might be candidates for incorporating into this protocol. I see that alpha ketoglutarate is mentioned as increasing iPSC efficiency. Forskolin and valproic acid were mentioned as being "likely to work in the early stages of CiPSC formation", where work means "achieve age reduction without altering cell identity". 

 

In the discussion section, the authors had this to say about forskolin:
 

 

 

The final chemical in our most efficacious C1 cocktail, forskolin, is an activator of adenylyl cyclase that has been shown to drive reprogramming and trans differentiation, depending upon the combination of other compounds present [74, 75]. While the mechanism of action of forskolin in the context of rejuvenation remains to be identified, increasing cellular levels of cAMP and the triggering of signal cascades that are critical for adaptations in cell identity may be key.

 

[eighthman]

Interesting report.   The cocktail mixtures are defined in the supplementary table towards the end

[Danniel]

Chemically induced reprogramming to reverse cellular aging was published 2 days ago. It examines using small molecule cocktails to achieve the same results as complicated genetic interventions in reducing aging. There are 6 cocktails examined.

 

 

While interesting, the article is off-topic on this thread. Might deserve it's own thread.

[kurt9]

There is a cellular reprogramming thread. 

 

https://www.longecit...-reprogramming/

 

We can put it in there.

[stephen_b]

I put the post in the cellular reprogramming thread here. I'll report my own post since I'm not sure how to take it down.

 

I thought it was relevant to see how elements of that paper's findings might be incorporated into this protocol. After all, the protocol has changed over time.

 

For example, could forskolin be helpful when taken on the fusion day?

Edited by stephen_b, 16 July 2023 - 05:20 PM.

[stephen_b]

I just got my second TruMe report back.

 

First test date 2021-08-04

Biological age: 40.7 years

Chronological age: 57.5 years

Delta: 16.8 years

 

Second test date 2022-03-06

Biological age: 37.8 years

Chronological age: 58.1 years

Delta: 20.3 years

 

I started the stem cell protocol rounds on 2020-09-04. I did 11 rounds before my first test and 8 rounds between the 1st and 2nd tests. I kept up with the protocol updates along the way.

 

Third test date 2022-12-08

Biological age: 51.7

Chronological age: 58.8

Delta: 7.1

 

There were about 10 stem cell protocol rounds between the 2022-03-06 measurement The latest test was not the  best of results. My delta decreased by 13.2 years. I'm not taking resveratrol.

[Empiricus]

I put the post in the cellular reprogramming thread here. I'll report my own post since I'm not sure how to take it down.

 

I thought it was relevant to see how elements of that paper's findings might be incorporated into this protocol. After all, the protocol has changed over time.

 

For example, could forskolin be helpful when taken on the fusion day?

 

I assumed it must be relevant, just that the full implications of its relevance might be over my head.  What some were probably waiting for was the question you ask above, "For example, could forskolin be helpful when taken on the fusion day?"   

 

The latest test was not the  best of results. My delta decreased by 13.2 years. I'm not taking resveratrol.

 

Were you taking resveratrol prior to getting the better score? (As I recall, resveratrol was posited to be detrimental to the protocol somehow). Any changes to diet, supplements, or lifestyle that could explain the reduced delta? 

Edited by Empiricus, 16 July 2023 - 06:05 PM.

[njurkovi]

Third test date 2022-12-08

Biological age: 51.7

Chronological age: 58.8

Delta: 7.1

 

There were about 10 stem cell protocol rounds between the 2022-03-06 measurement The latest test was not the  best of results. My delta decreased by 13.2 years. I'm not taking resveratrol.

 

Stephen_b,

 

How does your general 'state' correspond to these biological ages reported by tests (ages 47/37/51)

(e.g. apparent skin age, hair (re)growth), vision, strength etc)

Can you see a correlation?

[stephen_b]

Stephen_b,

 

How does your general 'state' correspond to these biological ages reported by tests (ages 47/37/51)

(e.g. apparent skin age, hair (re)growth), vision, strength etc)

Can you see a correlation?

 

In general I think appearance correlates pretty well. I'm turning 60 next year and still look young for my age, but I'm seeing definite signs of aging recently.

 

I have been using aerobic endurance as a proxy for biological age, but some other issues might be confusing things (it takes a while to build back up after a layoff like my hip surgery, and some GI issues might be playing a role).

[ryukenden]

Third test date 2022-12-08

Biological age: 51.7

Chronological age: 58.8

Delta: 7.1

 

There were about 10 stem cell protocol rounds between the 2022-03-06 measurement The latest test was not the  best of results. My delta decreased by 13.2 years. I'm not taking resveratrol.

It looks like your biological age went up again by several years. Any reasons you can think of?

[Blu]

Third test date 2022-12-08

Biological age: 51.7

Chronological age: 58.8

Delta: 7.1

 

There were about 10 stem cell protocol rounds between the 2022-03-06 measurement The latest test was not the  best of results. My delta decreased by 13.2 years. I'm not taking resveratrol.

 

What is the standard error of this kind of test? A single datapoint off could be not meaningful.