LONGECITY

We are interested in feedback on our rationale for recommending a daily human dose of 1.5 mg:

http://c60antiaging....-vs-rat-dosing/

The legal stuff is hilarious. As for the dose recommendation, note Fig. 3b in the original paper. It appears that the average weight of the rats is more like 600 grams.
Edited by Turnbuckle, 26 May 2012 - 09:55 PM.

Sarah,

Rock on! I love it!

Ben

Well,

A regular 5 Liter stirrer is absolutely useless, when trying to stir olive oil in large quantities. Folks attempting it will note the futility of using any Hanna magnetics stirrers in 4 to 5 liter quantities.

However, i do have a solution in the works. As for filtering... you also need to use a pump to increase speed... if you are doing large quantities.

Most of you already know about my company RevGenetics, so we will make it available through that site once it's available.

Cheers
A

Circle me: https://profiles.goo...236572014252197

We are interested in feedback on our rationale for recommending a daily human dose of 1.5 mg:

http://c60antiaging....-vs-rat-dosing/

We ship from Europe.

How about 0mg, at this stage of knowledge about safety and benefits? Isn't it a bit early to recommend anything others than testing at your own risks for human? Do we even know what dose can work for humans? I don't think so.

(I'm not criticizing those who can't wait for years of more studies)

By the way, HappyPhysicist, I'm am with you, I really hope buckyballs are the medecine you need.
Love from France
Edited by Raphy, 26 May 2012 - 11:05 PM.

An update... I've got a shipping number for my C60s. Also, suppose I lived a few blocks from this place. Is there a downside to using one of their flavored olive oils?
http://www.oldtownoi...ored_olive_oils
-----------
I've read and understand the objections to my recent 80% comment. You know folks, I put a huge piece of the puzzle on the table with those posts about the Vagus--CAIP--HRV--HighFatDiet literature. When I got no response, I made that 80% statement deliberately to provoke a response and I got the kind of responses I expected. Is that the best anyone can do? You've got more time before I reply by Monday evening. I want someone to make this harder for me.

Here's a clue... For you to have a winning argument, you're gonna have to be familiar with that Vagus--CAIP--HRV--HighFatDiet literature I pointed to up thread on this page... 8-)

Oh, and malbecman...
-----------
malbecman, on 24 May 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:
I seriously wish this forum offered the emoticon which shows the person munching on some popcorn and watching the thread.

This is one of the more interesting threads on this forum, IMHO..........
-----------
... are you still chomping on popcorn? Heat me up a bag will ya? I'll take a lemon flavored olive oil on it...
-----------
Oh, and yes, I'm being deliberately provocative to stir up a more passionate and fun but also INFORMED discussion... 8-)
------
Explanations that transform the world are the beginning of Infinity -- David Deutsch
Edited by wccaguy, 27 May 2012 - 12:47 AM.

I am too lazy (or sane?) to go the the trouble of a magnetic stirrer and centrifuge, but I will probably buy one or more of the preparations when they come out. Thank you carbon, Anthony et al. My 14 year old terrier has been on resveratrol for six years and outlived her peers, but does not have the same spring in her step as when she was 12. Except when chasing a cat. I will report if there is any improvement to her health. If there s a mitochondrial effect, it should be noticeable. FWIW, methylene blue in her drinking water had no noticeable effect.

Normally we wouldn't leave references to websites and commercial ventures slide by, but at this stage, in this context, I'm not about to expunge them. And if your ventures are profitable, do remember longecity with a donation and/or advertising, as Anthony has done with his venture.

By the way, HappyPhysicist, I'm am with you, I really hope buckyballs are the medecine you need.
Love from France

Thanks Raphy, I understand that the chances of this helping are approximately zero. But the chances are exactly zero if I don't try.

Turnbuckle.... Did your doctors diagnose you as having Myasthenia gravis based on your statin use?

No.

My reading of the literature says that's what you had that vanished... Right? Wrong?

Wrong.

http://c60antiaging....-vs-rat-dosing/
We ship from Europe.

Putting a legal disclaimer at the beginning of the site is not going to protect you against U.S. FDA or legal action when it is clear from the name of the site and the discussion that follows that you intend the product for human use. I don't know how your being in Europe will effect that. I would just drop the disclaimer, it looks silly.

i am not convinced that C60 is a metabolite, and thus I am not convinced allometric scaling is appropriate. I have no idea what the recommended dose should be. I don't think you should recommend a dose.

From your site: "... C60 is separated from the other fullerenes, some of which are highly harmful to health, such as carbon nanotubes (single- and double-walled)"... what is your source for claiming that some fullerenes are highly harmful to health?
Edited by JohnD60, 27 May 2012 - 04:31 PM.

Thank you - we removed the disclaimer and will look into the other things you brought up as well.
It may be a bad idea to use allometric scaling because as you say, it doesn't look like C60 being a metabolite at all.

We think that chronically ingesting relatively large quantities of carbon nanotubes would be a bad idea, as studies showed that they can cause similar damage as asbestos fibers, making me fear that carbon nanotubes might be carcinogenic. The mode of causing cancer would be the same as how asbestos fibers cause cancer: Due to their size and shape they are ideally poised to sever DNA strands.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia....notube#Toxicity) - abridged:

"The available data clearly show that, under some conditions, nanotubes can cross membrane barriers, which suggests that, if raw materials reach the organs, they can induce harmful effects such as inflammatory and fibrotic reactions.

A study led by Alexandra Porter from the University of Cambridge shows that CNTs can enter human cells and accumulate in the cytoplasm, causing cell death.

The needle-like fiber shape of CNTs is similar to asbestos fibers. This raises the idea that widespread use of carbon nanotubes may lead to pleural mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs or peritoneal mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the abdomen (both caused by exposure to asbestos). A recently published pilot study supports this prediction. Scientists exposed the mesothelial lining of the body cavity of mice to long multiwalled carbon nanotubes and observed asbestos-like, length-dependent, pathogenic behavior that included inflammation and formation of lesions known as granulomas.

The available data suggests that under certain conditions, especially those involving chronic exposure, carbon nanotubes can pose a serious risk to human health."

----

Since people are going to take this for years on end on a daily basis, we think only the absolute purest C60 can be considered for our products, since absolutely nothing is known about the long-term toxicity of carbon nanotubes, like when they are ingested on a daily basis for many, many years. We consider 99.95% purity to be the minimum purity that is defensible in a product that humans will take chronically. As soon as we have sold our first batch of 99.95% (we have 100 grams C60 of that purity), we will move to 99.97 - 99.99% sublimated C60, just because we want to avoid bad surprises twenty or thirty years down the road, when it turns out that carbon nanotubes cause cancer. Based on what we read in the research..

Example:

http://nanotoxcore.m...et al, 2004.pdf

"Pulmonary exposures to SWCNT in rats produced a non-dose-dependent series of multifocal granulomas"

..we suspect they are carcinogenic. So this suspicion, partially backed up by a little available mouse research, prompted us to use 99.95% C60 as a baseline and warn about less pure carbon soot mixtures, since there are cheap mixtures on the market with a very large percentage of non-C60/C70, including all types of nanotubes, wide, narrow, long, short, single-walled and double-walled - a lot of potential for trouble. SWCN's remained at least 4 months in mouse macrophages so when you ingest them, they may accumulate for years. Some of them may have the ideal shape to wreak havoc on cell nuclei.

Addendum:

http://www.olonano.c...ene_safety.html

With reference to nanotubes, a recent study by Poland et al. (2008)[49] on carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice led the authors to suggest comparisons to "asbestos-like pathogenicity".
Edited by SarahVaughter, 27 May 2012 - 05:58 PM.

What's the rationale behind suggesting people will need to take this " for years on end a daily basis,"?

Seems to me cycling c60/olive oil would be the way to go. How long between cycles is anyone's guess, but the usual two weeks off between using wouldn't be a bad place to start under the broad theoretical framework of compensatory adaptation.

Our rationale is based on the total "treatment duration" of the rats, which was 7 months, or 20% of their natural lifespan.
That would be 15 years for humans.

One would either take, as the rats were given, one dose on average every nine days, but that is a relatively large dose of oil.
We suggest a daily dose instead, so that a much smaller quantity is taken. Not everyone likes olive oil.

Of course, it may be that much less C60 over a much shorter duration will have a beneficial effect on humans. All we can do is guess at this time, speaking for ourselves at least :-)
Edited by SarahVaughter, 27 May 2012 - 06:04 PM.

While concern about carbon nanotubes as a contaminant in the fullerene mix is valid, the concern appears to focus on ingestion via the lungs, not oral ingestion.

For example, Kolosnjaj-Tabi et al. (2010) reported that when SWCNT were administered orally (1000 mg/kg body weight), neither
death nor growth or behavioral troubles were observed. This matches up with earlier toxicology studies on the oral ingestion of asbestos.

Carbon nanotubes are assumed to have similar toxicity to asbestos fibres. Studies on oral toxicity of asbestos are not unduly worrying, for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2744821

The effects of ingested asbestos fibres were studied in Wistar Han rats. Chrysotile and a mixture of chrysotile/crocidolite (75%/25%) in palm oil were given for 24 months to 70 males and 70 females per group (daily doses 10, 60 and 360 mg); one control group was fed with normal diet, a second with normal diet plus palm oil. The animals were observed for a further 6 months after the end of the treatment. The results indicate that ingestion of asbestos fibres at high doses had no toxic effects and did not affect animal survival; in addition, there was no evidence of carcinogenic effects

That being said, large rats would be advised to use the purest fullerene practicable, in line with the rat's owner's own cost-benefit analysis, and risk assessment.

@Metrodorus:

The last study I mentioned administered the nanotubes peritoneally and found asbestos-like pathogenicity.

We are not proposing injecting ourselves with peritoneal fullerene.

The intestinal mucosa seems to be an effective barrier to nanotube penetration,as it does to asbestos fibres.
Edited by Metrodorus, 27 May 2012 - 06:53 PM.

Hello all. Just an update on the carbon60oliveoil.com site. We've made a bunch of changes. Most notably, we are designing the site around rat pet owners. We scraped the idea of having a forum because you guys have such a great one here Instead we are focusing on producing C60 olive oil exactly as it was produced in the study, and offering it for sale to people who want to give it to their pet rats to copy the study. Larger bottles are available for people who want to do multiple rat tests. We are aiming to have our first batch available for purchase on Monday, June 4th. We are still designing the website, so feedback would be very helpful. Thanks!

I applaud your entrepreneurial spirit carbon! The site looks good. Sometimes a simple clean interface is the best. Aiming for pet owners is a great way to avoid a huge crap ton of regulation and 50 different alphabet soup government agencies (in the U.S. anyway).

Our rationale is based on the total "treatment duration" of the rats, which was 7 months, or 20% of their natural lifespan.
That would be 15 years for humans.

One would either take, as the rats were given, one dose on average every nine days, but that is a relatively large dose of oil.
We suggest a daily dose instead, so that a much smaller quantity is taken. Not everyone likes olive oil.

Of course, it may be that much less C60 over a much shorter duration will have a beneficial effect on humans. All we can do is guess at this time, speaking for ourselves at least :-)

As others have mentioned, be careful selling it for human consumption. Pretty much every government in the world will try to shut your operation down in a minute - the minute they find out. Also, maybe a good time to introduce a universal waiver. Make all your customers sign a wavier that says they will never sue you under any circumstances from now to eternity throughout the known and unknown universe.

As others have mentioned, be careful selling it for human consumption. Pretty much every government in the world will try to shut your operation down in a minute - the minute they find out. Also, maybe a good time to introduce a universal waiver. Make all your customers sign a wavier that says they will never sue you under any circumstances from now to eternity throughout the known and unknown universe.

Wouldn't the style of disclaimer used for DMSO be sufficient?

Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is a chemical compound which is a by-product of wood processing. It is a somewhat oily liquid that looks like mineral oil and has a slightly garlicky odor. It has long been used as a chemical solvent. In the late 1960s, it also became popular as a topical pain relief medication for pulled, strained, and sprained muscles and joints.
Disclaimer
These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Thank you, Mind and others. It's indeed a risk. We'll see what we can do to minimize the risk of getting shut down.
We are hoping that it is mainly quacks they're after, companies claiming to be able to cure AIDS and cancer without the slightest scientific evidence, making millions off gullible folk.

I applaud your entrepreneurial spirit carbon! The site looks good. Sometimes a simple clean interface is the best. Aiming for pet owners is a great way to avoid a huge crap ton of regulation and 50 different alphabet soup government agencies (in the U.S. anyway).

Thanks! I had to step back and re-evaluate my whole approach to this thing. There is just no way of doing this without involving either the FDA or a SWAT team. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I will be applying for a conditional approval of a drug for use in a minor species. In the mean time, my products are available for sale to 'qualified researchers'.

Great advice everyone. I took down all recommendations. If you are a qualified researcher, you're on your own.

This stuff might even need to be sold as 'The compound [60]fullerene dissolved in oil', with no mention of what it could possibly be used for.
Edited by carbon, 27 May 2012 - 09:31 PM.

Nanotubes and buckyballs are very different beasts.
Edited by HappyPhysicist, 27 May 2012 - 09:37 PM.

The problem with the below-quoted study is that it was performed with chrysotile asbestos, which is relatively benign. The amphibole form of asbestos has long needle-like crystals that penetrate and impale cells, and destroy any leucocyte that tries to ingest them. The asbestos industry sponsored many studies on chrysotile asbestos to show it was harmless, whereas they knew the amphiboles weso sanre lethal. (Another unfortunate example of corporate morality demonstrating a psychopathic streak.)

I would not be sanguine about oral ingestion of nanotubes being harmless, especially if the asbestos studies were performed with chrysotile. Carbon nanotubes are physically similar to the more lethal amphibole.

While concern about carbon nanotubes as a contaminant in the fullerene mix is valid, the concern appears to focus on ingestion via the lungs, not oral ingestion.

For example, Kolosnjaj-Tabi et al. (2010) reported that when SWCNT were administered orally (1000 mg/kg body weight), neither
death nor growth or behavioral troubles were observed. This matches up with earlier toxicology studies on the oral ingestion of asbestos.

Carbon nanotubes are assumed to have similar toxicity to asbestos fibres. Studies on oral toxicity of asbestos are not unduly worrying, for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2744821

The effects of ingested asbestos fibres were studied in Wistar Han rats. Chrysotile and a mixture of chrysotile/crocidolite (75%/25%) in palm oil were given for 24 months to 70 males and 70 females per group (daily doses 10, 60 and 360 mg); one control group was fed with normal diet, a second with normal diet plus palm oil. The animals were observed for a further 6 months after the end of the treatment. The results indicate that ingestion of asbestos fibres at high doses had no toxic effects and did not affect animal survival; in addition, there was no evidence of carcinogenic effects

That being said, large rats would be advised to use the purest fullerene practicable, in line with the rat's owner's own cost-benefit analysis, and risk assessment.

http://www.ipme.ru/e...0_gerasimov.pdf
an interesting study on declared C60 concentration vs. actual C60 concentration of 4 different suppliers of 99.5% C60. It appears 2 or the 4 are significantly below the 99.5% purity claim. The contaminates are defined as C70, C58, C62 and C60 oxide. I am not sure what to make of it, they are all foriegn suppliers. Most noteworthy to me is that nanotubes are not discussed as a contaminate at any concentration in this study, or any other study I can find, which leads me to believe that the debate regarding whether nanotubes are a serious health concern is, although very interesting, moot with regards to the purchase of C60.

We've been discussing the Longevity that Olive Oil ingestion provides. In post #551 in this thread, I cited studies showing that Heart Rate Variability is a profound predictor of the most Long Lived among us.

Amazingly, the Best Explanation of both those observations is the same... So, the issue is settled. Oh, but wait... Hot off the press... Got a link to it in my email inbox just this morning...


A data point that our hard won attempt at a Best Explanation for Extreme Longevity can't explain. Oh, wait, but it can... I've posted about what underlies this 3rd kind of independent variable and how it relates to the Olive Oil and Heart Rate Variability explanation here.

In short, the explanations underlying the importance of Olive Oil, Heart Rate Variability, and Positive Emotions to Extreme Longevity are, in fact, the same explanation.

I'm NOT saying the Fullerenes didn't do something important. I believe they did do something. Olive Oil alone cannot explain Turnbuckle's remarkable change in health by itself. And I've bought some Fullerenes. And I'm going to try it.

It is important to note, however, that there is now another data point suggesting that the importance of Olive Oil to The Potion ought not be underestimated. I'm happy to see that Olive Oil is now becoming a topic others are talking about in this thread... So I can shift my focus to thinking about Fullerenes... 8-)
Edited by wccaguy, 28 May 2012 - 06:18 PM.

Should I occasionally be drinking a half cup of it? Umm, yuck, but I guess we'd only have to do it 24 times in our life. Or should that be scaled to our longer lifespan?

I'm saying all of this as though it were reasonable to take Baati at face value, but that olive oil result is just crazy! How can that possibly be right? Was someone playing a huge practical joke on these guys, periodically replacing their rats with younger ones? This study really, REALLY needs replication. And yet the wheels of commerce are spinning already... Gotta strike while the iron is hot, I guess.

Hi niner,

On the GRG mail list, there was a communication from Edouard Debonneuil describing his meeting with two of the authors of the C60 study.

I have emailed Edouard to see if i can republish his email.

First off, they are not in the gerentology field, they have been working with C60 for 2 decades. Mainly regarding its physical and chemical properties. The experiment was done with toxicity in mind.

The gist of it was that the authors did make some mistakes on the lifespan curve graph, however the text regarding the lifespan curves is completely accurate.

When asked if they could redo the study, they mentioned that if doing it again, they would concentrate on doses and administration schedules, as other health benefits other than life extension were striking 'and more amenable'.

I am not sure what that last part meant, but the email appears very positive regarding the authors of the study.

Cheers
A

Circle me: https://profiles.goo...236572014252197

I'd sure like to know what he meant by, "more amenable."

I'm guessing he just meant focusing on one health benefit, such as lowered cholesterol, so they have less variables, better data.

Plus, they avoid the stigma of the label "longevity."

Anyone here dissolved PQQ in olive oil and taken it for a couple weeks?

So, the issue is settled.

I wouldn't go that far. Assuming that the issue is explaining a large lifespan enhancement from 24 oral doses of Tunisian olive oil at 2ml/kg, I think we need a replication from a competent lab, like any of NIA's ITP labs, before we can even consider the effect to be real. At this point, we have an effect that may or may not be real, and we have a hypothesis as to mechanism of action.

OT DIM posts were moved to their own thread. Let's reserve this thread for discussion of C60/Olive oil only.

Remember, the extremely small tiny minuscule sample size from this study. I absolutely love this discussion, and can't wait to see where it leads, but if the study can't be replicated, don't be surprised.