To address the criticism above:
Firstly, the paper from Baati et al
did contain serious flaws in data presentation that the authors had to admit and retract.
Moreover and perhaps more importantly, any research report paper in science benefits from replication. It could be argued that no purported scientific data can be considered evidence until it has been independently verified. Research with small cohorts, as in this case, are a particular concern.
I don't want to establish a debate between 'two camps' in this: the swapping of anecdotal reports in this sub-forum may attract some very justified scepticism, but also some justified applause, and it definitely has its place at LongeCity.
But I would be
deeply concerned if the people so interested in the alleged life extension effects of C60 that they engage in self-experimentation were not also supportive of parallel attempts by the community to generate more objective life extension data in animal models!
Even if you do not 'believe in the C60 hype' - surely the very effort must be inspiring: ordinary people join together to make, in their own ways and in their own spare time, a contribution to scientific life extension research.
This the reason why LongeCity is supporting this and why we want to give others a chance to show their support as well.