Organizing a c60oo blind life extension te...
AgeVivo 08 Jun 2013
Should we provide some way, for people who are preparing to give C60-in-olive-oil to their cat or dog, to instead give a "treatment or placebo", in a blind manner?
One year ago I would not have asked the question. But my one year test in mice so far seems to match well Batti et al's observations, several veterinarians and researchers have indicated their interest in the distributed lifespan test in mice and rats at home; we have defined a protocol to get solutions for a blind test (c60oo or colored olive oil; who receives what is in an encrypted file); and people have started to give c60 to cats and dogs (and to themselves in some few cases) for months now without appearent side effects.
So it seems to me it could be a wise approach. The people who test "c60oo or placebo" would be slowed down in the process of deducing whether it works, but it would provide more robust data for a more rationale spread (or not) of C60.
Kind regards.
Edited by AgeVivo, 08 June 2013 - 09:06 AM.
niner 08 Jun 2013
BTW, I wouldn't say that people are giving c60-oo to themselves in a few cases. I'd say in a few thousand cases. Just from what I can gather about the magnitude of Sarah and Tom's operations, and the number of people who have reported here, I'd guess that the worldwide number of c60 users may exceed 10,000 people.
AgeVivo 08 Jun 2013
niner 08 Jun 2013
I've thought about that you are very right but I'm not sure what other way to go there is?
I'd like to see some in vitro work looking at mitochondrial function, redox parameters, gene expression, and stem cell differentiation. All of this could be done fairly quickly by people who already have the assay systems set up. I'd like to see some chemical analysis to figure out exactly what the structure of the active compound(s) is/are. I suspect there are more than one active structure, since olive oil is heterogeneous in terms of its fatty acid content, and c60 can be multiply substituted in a variety of ways. It would be great if someone could separate the various species, and test each independently. Some are undoubtedly better than others, and some might even be harmful, or at least not helpful. I've been told by one fullerene chemist that characterization of fullerene isomers is hard... but it sure seems like some grad student could get a thesis or two out of this work.
Everything I've mentioned is aimed at learning things quickly. Lifespan tests in higher organisms take a long time, although starting with 18 month old mice is quite brilliant, since we are already seeing them living longer than any of the controls in a large, well-tended colony of similar animals in the NIA studies. It remains to be seen if we will see extreme LE starting at that age or not. We certainly need at least one reasonable-sized controlled rodent experiment. Returning to the theme of learning things quickly, we could do lifespan experiments in shorter-lives species like worms (c. elegans), flies (d. melanogaster), or maybe even single celled organisms. All this would require someone with expertise in raising such organisms. The relevance of non-mammalian results to humans would not be as great as with long-lived higher mammals, but we could learn things.
Experiments with humans get tricky because of human subject rules, but I could imagine some under-the-radar work that we could do. We could do before/after bloodwork that looked at a variety of redox parameters. All that would take is some willing subjects and a lot of money. (probably in the vicinity of $1500 per person for two panels) We might be able to find some exercise physiologists in the athletics community who could look at parameters like oxygen utilization while steering clear of bothersome institutional review committees. The before/after physical performance data that mikefromnaples generated was quite good. I would love to see some more of that. We would need people in good condition, already trained on each exercise so that there wouldn't be a confounding training effect, and finally, we would need them to be fullerene-naive, or at least to have abstained from it for a year or two, depending on how much they'd been taking. I'd rather see people who'd never used it for that kind of experiment. Boris Sala, the Dutch rowing champion, is running a loose version of this kind of experiment, but I think he's just handing it out to people at his gym rather than organizing the kind of data that we'd like to see. Something may yet come from that, but if we had half a dozen athletes, we could probably do something publishable. More people would be better.
Lest I go on all night, I'll end with a few thoughts about a controlled rodent experiment. We need someone who could run a small colony of animals. I wouldn't have a problem with Longecity paying for supplies for such an experiment, but it is a huge commitment of time, not to mention space. The person would need to be in a stable housing situation for the following four years. I wouldn't feel right asking someone to take that on unless they were already committed to the colony, like Creveterebelle.
YOLF 09 Jun 2013
I'll add that using the banking method along with cryopreservation could be an avenue for sustainable cryonics. Imagine if rodents and test animals were routinely frozen and reanimated for testing purposes, it could be a major step forward and this could help us get there.
Adaptogen 11 Jun 2013
niner 13 Jun 2013
I think it would be interesting to see some testing done on new born and very young rats, showing C60oo's effects on growth and development.
I'd particularly like to see it tested in pregnant rats, to see what happens over the full course of development. I don't think anyone is dumb enough to give c60-oo to infants and toddlers just yet, but there a lot of women who might benefit from it, but don't (or shouldn't) use it because they could get pregnant. We have to work under the assumption that it is harmful during development until proven otherwise.
mikeinnaples 14 Jun 2013
I think it would be interesting to see some testing done on new born and very young rats, showing C60oo's effects on growth and development.
I'd particularly like to see it tested in pregnant rats, to see what happens over the full course of development. I don't think anyone is dumb enough to give c60-oo to infants and toddlers just yet, but there a lot of women who might benefit from it, but don't (or shouldn't) use it because they could get pregnant. We have to work under the assumption that it is harmful during development until proven otherwise.
Then there are the women that do use it that unexpectedly get pregnant.
1todd960 15 Jun 2013
Thanks
YOLF 15 Jun 2013
1todd960 15 Jun 2013
Many of us have been putting it in wet food. AgeViVo gives it to his mice on bread. I would think it should still work.
Mind 16 Jun 2013
We should continue to look for people willing to host rodents.
As far as some of the other chemistry/test for C60 (in vtiro), if anyone knows of a lab with the correct equipment, please encourage them to apply for the LongeCity grant. They could receive anywhere from $200 to $21,000.
Edited by Mind, 16 June 2013 - 10:47 AM.
YOLF 17 Jun 2013
mikeinnaples 18 Jun 2013
YOLF 18 Jun 2013
AgeVivo 19 Jun 2013
This could be something arranged between people without being "a LongeCity thing" but rather some organised project between people within the general worldwide gerontology/life-extension community. Typically pet owners who wish to test "treatment of placebo" in their pets would pay the medium price between a treatment and a placebo price, so that the organizing people can buy the required products (c60 in olive oil, olive oil, bottles, etc) and send either treatment or placebo.
Let me know what you think
Logic 19 Jun 2013
Agree with Niner, pet cats and dogs have too much emotional connection to be used in a PLACEBO control study.
We should continue to look for people willing to host rodents.
I agree.
People who keep rodents are as emotionally attached to them as you and I are to our cats and dogs.
The chance that their beloved pet rodents may get placebo is partly why the effort to find C60oo testers hasn't turned up more takers IMHO.
The scientists here wanting to be rigorous and produce publishable data is clouding their ability to see the advantages of simply providing C60oo:
The average lifespan of pet-shop rodents is known and the difference in expected lifespan is so large that results will be seen without the need for placebos.
This will greatly simplify things,get the word out and motivate research institutions to do the kind of studies that we want Joe Pet-Lover to do 'right now'!
I hope that at some point we will all realise we are trying to put the cart before the horse by trying to organise Home, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled, Clinical trials!
Joe Soap is far more likely to try sup stacks designed to prolong life, cure cancer, etc. on his ailing pet than on himself. Ask yourself what he will do when they work..?
Ask yourself if you can think of a better way to get the word out, avoid legal repercussions, and perhaps even make a buck or 2 for longecity in the process?
Edited by Logic, 19 June 2013 - 08:14 AM.
platypus 19 Jun 2013
mikeinnaples 19 Jun 2013
I already gave my pet a commercially produced C60. Also, if a placebo animal's condition worsens, we could move them to the C60 group with the next shipment.
Umm, what condition would that be? Aging? That is getting worse every day in an untreated pet.
YOLF 19 Jun 2013
one possibility would be to give "treatment or placebo" until the pet owner asks to know what is being given.
This could be something arranged between people without being "a LongeCity thing" but rather some organised project between people within the general worldwide gerontology/life-extension community. Typically pet owners who wish to test "treatment of placebo" in their pets would pay the medium price between a treatment and a placebo price, so that the organizing people can buy the required products (c60 in olive oil, olive oil, bottles, etc) and send either treatment or placebo.
Let me know what you think
I'm for this idea!
YOLF 19 Jun 2013
Agree with Niner, pet cats and dogs have too much emotional connection to be used in a PLACEBO control study.
We should continue to look for people willing to host rodents.
I agree.
People who keep rodents are as emotionally attached to them as you and I are to our cats and dogs.
The chance that their beloved pet rodents may get placebo is partly why the effort to find C60oo testers hasn't turned up more takers IMHO.
The scientists here wanting to be rigorous and produce publishable data is clouding their ability to see the advantages of simply providing C60oo:
The average lifespan of pet-shop rodents is known and the difference in expected lifespan is so large that results will be seen without the need for placebos.
This will greatly simplify things,get the word out and motivate research institutions to do the kind of studies that we want Joe Pet-Lover to do 'right now'!
I hope that at some point we will all realise we are trying to put the cart before the horse by trying to organise Home, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled, Clinical trials!
Joe Soap is far more likely to try sup stacks designed to prolong life, cure cancer, etc. on his ailing pet than on himself. Ask yourself what he will do when they work..?
Ask yourself if you can think of a better way to get the word out, avoid legal repercussions, and perhaps even make a buck or 2 for longecity in the process?
What if we were to go as comissioned salespeople to pet store owners and sell them the product to put on their shelves and put a QR code with a link to the forum topic in it?
Logic 22 Jun 2013
What if we were to go as comissioned salespeople to pet store owners and sell them the product to put on their shelves and put a QR code with a link to the forum topic in it?
Good idea.
Some promo posters, perhaps CDs and C60oo in pet shops would get C60oo out there without legal issues.
When it works in pets it wont be long before the owner comes looking for human dosage info.