• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

How to measure C60 properly with cc/mL syringe?

measurements c60

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 JBForrester

  • Guest
  • 348 posts
  • 146
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 10 November 2013 - 05:01 AM


So I've read that a few drops of C60 equals around 1.5/2 mg. I accidentally took 7 drops...! Am I in trouble? Also is there an easier way of measuring 1.5 mg of C60 aside from using guess work droplets? Apologies in advance for my dyscalculia.

#2 hav

  • Guest
  • 1,089 posts
  • 215
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 10 November 2013 - 08:19 PM

You sure about your mix? I think the maximum c60 solubility in olive oil is 0.9 mg per ml. My home brew is mixed at .8 mg per ml. One drop wouldn't hold anywhere near a mg. I've never counted out the number of olive oil drops in a ml but it's probably more than 7. I doubt you are in any kind of trouble.

Howard

ps: I just looked at a typical insulin syringe. It holds 1 cc total which equals 1 ml. The 100 units marked along the length are 1/100 of a cc each. That's probably the most accurate way to measure off small dosages.

Edited by hav, 10 November 2013 - 08:27 PM.


#3 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:16 PM

JB, the commercial c60-oo is 0.8 (carbon60oliveoil.com) or 0.9 (Sarah Vaughter) mg/ml, not mg/drop. A reasonable dose would be one or two cc per day. If it were me, I'd put 15ml on a salad and another 15ml on vegetables or other suitable foods, and dose again in a month. At any rate, you've not OD'd. We had one guy taking 50mg/day, and one who took 140mg per day for a little while.

#4 JBForrester

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 348 posts
  • 146
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 11 November 2013 - 08:46 AM

Okay, thanks both of you. So the guys who are taking 50/140 mg/day, how have their results been? Also, how do you know if this isn't just a hormetic reaction that happened in the rats?

#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 11 November 2013 - 01:00 PM

Okay, thanks both of you. So the guys who are taking 50/140 mg/day, how have their results been? Also, how do you know if this isn't just a hormetic reaction that happened in the rats?


The 140mg guy mentioned improvements in weightlifting, but that's been seen in people taking 1/100 the dose. I don't remember what the other guy noted, but in all of the reports I've followed there has been no difference in the initial reports between low and high dose people. The higher doses last longer- that seems to be the only difference. This doesn't mean that there is no dose-response relationship; if you want to see that, you'd need to look at sub-milligram doses.

It's hard to explain Baati's results by hormesis. C60 isn't stressful in any way that I'm aware of, so I don't know what any possible hormesis would be in response to. I think the best explanation that's consistent with Baati's data, our observations, and what we know about c60 from the rest of the literature is that it is a membrane-bound catalytic antioxidant with phenomenally good pharmacokinetics, that also acts to improve the efficiency of oxidative phosphorylation. The improvement in oxphos might be due to a reduction in oxidative damage to certain enzymes like aconitase, or by improved electron transit by virtue of having conductive elements positioned in the mitochondrial membrane, or some combination of these.
  • like x 1

#6 hav

  • Guest
  • 1,089 posts
  • 215
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 11 November 2013 - 08:49 PM

Okay, thanks both of you. So the guys who are taking 50/140 mg/day, how have their results been? Also, how do you know if this isn't just a hormetic reaction that happened in the rats?


My wife and I started daily dosing with the same 45 ml shot glass we still use (36 mg c60) for about 6 weeks but have scaled back over time to the once every 2 week dosage we take now. No great shakes on noticeable effects for either of us but we were supplementing with other antioxidants like resveratrol and using olive oil liberally for quite a while before and during c60 usage.

The Wistar rats used in the Baati study usually die of tumors. All of the Baati control rats did. Logic alone suggests that the longevity of those that took c60 might have something to do with that. A tumor suppressing effect would not necessarily be something one would feel.

Unfortunately the incidence of tumors being a cause of death in humans is much lower than Wistar rats, so if that is in fact the sole mechanism of c60 life extension in rats, the average lifespan increase from c60 in humans would be proportionately lower than the 90% increase observed in Baati.

Howard
  • like x 1

#7 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 11 November 2013 - 11:01 PM

Unfortunately the incidence of tumors being a cause of death in humans is much lower than Wistar rats, so if that is in fact the sole mechanism of c60 life extension in rats, the average lifespan increase from c60 in humans would be proportionately lower than the 90% increase observed in Baati.


I'll guarantee you that humans will not see the 90% that Baati reported. Not only do we have better cancer resistance than Wistar rats (and nearly all rodents), but we also have better endogenous antioxidant defenses. I have a hard time seeing how cancer-proofing could be the sole mechanism acting here, since it doesn't explain the protection against CCl4 toxicity for one thing, and based on what we know about the chemistry of c60 and the behavior of mitochondria, we would need to explain why an antioxidant mechanism wouldn't work. Also, there's not even a hypothetical mechanism for the elimination of tumors in Baati's rats that excludes redox effects.

#8 hav

  • Guest
  • 1,089 posts
  • 215
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2013 - 12:25 AM

I just did a simplistic calculation to guesstimate a proportionate lower boundary of human life extension from c60 usage focusing first on c60's anti-tumor effect. Not to minimize the tragic significance of the 7 million or so people that died of cancer that year, the 2001 global disease and death statistics show human deaths from those causes were 12.7% of all deaths. I only use that year because I happen to have the numbers handy. By simple proportion to Baati's 90% rat life extension, the human number would come out to 11.43%. To put it another way, if we had totally wiped out tumors and cancer as a cause of death in 2001, a worldwide life extension 11.43% would be as good as it got. CCL4 poisoning resistance and other possible general benefits to health would tend to have increased that number.

Howard

#9 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 12 November 2013 - 01:06 AM

I think it was one of Reason's posts that said that if we completely "cured" cancer, we'd only add something like three years to average human lifespan. I think the idea is that if you don't die of cancer, something else will get you soon enough. That's not really that hard to imagine- if 25% of people die of cancer, you eliminate those deaths and they live an average of 12 more years, that would move the overall average by only 3 years. Or something like that.

#10 JBForrester

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 348 posts
  • 146
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 12 November 2013 - 01:33 AM

Niner, are you talking about those who are diagnosed with cancer in their 60s? Because if cancer is completely eliminated from every age group, I'm not sure if you can say it elongates years by an average of 12. I have a mentor who was recently diagnosed with cancer at age 47. So you are saying if he didn't have cancer he would die naturally at age 59?

Also, I'm thinking of logging my results with C60. Any recommendations of what I should pay attention to and how I should log? What I've noticed thus far is that this morning I felt well rested and extremely perky, just like how I felt in high school and college, before ever having health issues with my thyroid and important fat removed from my body. However, it immediately went away once I had a bowl of shredded wheat with milk, which I don't usually have, and I felt tired again.

Then I had coffee a few hours later, and I have never felt as wired! It's as if the C60 is exaggerating all the positive effects AND negative effects of my biological reactions to certain substances, or it's just that I've become more sensitive. However, I do remember when I was in high school that I became very wired whenever having caffeine, and later on in life I felt normal whenever having it and zoned out whenever not having it. I normally stay away from caffeine, so I can't say me feeling zoned out all the time is due to any type of caffeine withdrawl or having become accustomed to it.

#11 hav

  • Guest
  • 1,089 posts
  • 215
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2013 - 01:47 AM

I think it was one of Reason's posts that said that if we completely "cured" cancer, we'd only add something like three years to average human lifespan. I think the idea is that if you don't die of cancer, something else will get you soon enough. That's not really that hard to imagine- if 25% of people die of cancer, you eliminate those deaths and they live an average of 12 more years, that would move the overall average by only 3 years. Or something like that.


I guess my estimate is more than double Reason's 3 year estimate. Assuming an average lifespan of 67 years, an 11.43% increase would be 7.6 years. My calculation might be over simplistic. Just: (90% * 12.7%)/100% I didn't actually recalculate death rates in each age bracket. The numbers I used also factor in infant crib deaths, war, and everything else, age related or not. The biggest cause of human death, across all brackets, btw, is cardiovascular related. Something Baati doesn't tell us much about c60's effect on.

Howard

#12 hav

  • Guest
  • 1,089 posts
  • 215
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:00 AM

Also, I'm thinking of logging my results with C60. Any recommendations of what I should pay attention to and how I should log? What I've noticed thus far is that this morning I felt well rested and extremely perky, just like how I felt in high school and college, before ever having health issues with my thyroid and important fat removed from my body. However, it immediately went away once I had a bowl of shredded wheat with milk, which I don't usually have, and I felt tired again.

Then I had coffee a few hours later, and I have never felt as wired! It's as if the C60 is exaggerating all the positive effects AND negative effects of my biological reactions to certain substances, or it's just that I've become more sensitive. However, I do remember when I was in high school that I became very wired whenever having caffeine, and later on in life I felt normal whenever having it and zoned out whenever not having it. I normally stay away from caffeine, so I can't say me feeling zoned out all the time is due to any type of caffeine withdrawl or having become accustomed to it.


First of all, glad to hear you are considering logging your effects. Right now my wife is the lone female. She doesn't really post here but I got her to log in just to post into the log. I suspect there are other spouses using c60 be we have no feedback on them.

Your caffeine observation is interesting. I was on decaf a year or so when I started c60 and only started using regular coffee again recently. And notice a stronger effect from it than I remember from years past. Not keeping me up or anything but feeling wired if I have more than a cup or two. I thought it was just taking a while to reacclimate.

Howard

Edited by hav, 12 November 2013 - 02:02 AM.


#13 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 12 November 2013 - 03:42 AM

Niner, are you talking about those who are diagnosed with cancer in their 60s? Because if cancer is completely eliminated from every age group, I'm not sure if you can say it elongates years by an average of 12. I have a mentor who was recently diagnosed with cancer at age 47. So you are saying if he didn't have cancer he would die naturally at age 59?


No, it's only valid in a statistical sense. There will be some who will live longer; i.e., those who got cancer at a young age, and some who will live less than the average- those who were already quite old when they died of cancer. The majority of cancer deaths occur in older people, a group that statistically doesn't have a lot of years left.

#14 JBForrester

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 348 posts
  • 146
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 15 November 2013 - 05:27 AM

Update:

I have used C60 3 times, 1 mL each time, within the past week. I feel horrible.

This is not normal-horrible like I usually feel. This feels on the verge of being drunk, slur and slowing of my speech and though process, lethargy, typos in my writing, and my facial skin has become very sunken, the texture has become bumpy and unsmooth and very irritated, and my nasolabial fold on the right side of my face has begun to stretch from my nose to the bottom of my mouth without smiling, whereas the week before it was line-less (which I'm aware of because I was admiring). My hollow under my eyes are very prominent. Eating enough calories but my face is very gaunt and wan right now. I almost feel like my brain has been permanently fried, maybe as though I've taken a lot of hard drugs.

I realize I am again being a guinea pig to self-experimentation, and there is a chance I have caused oxidative stress. It is foolish of me. I do care about my life but I am trusting my insticts now and will not continue. C60 fullerene is a known toxin to fish, and we honestly have no ideas what it will do to humans long-term. Once we get to study humans even then we will not know how it will effect different genders, race, or ages, which would need even further studies.

After noticing how shitty I feel, I researched if indeed there are dangers to fullerene. And I realize I should have previously. Because I am convinced something is not at all right here. I felt it almost immediately after dose #3.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1247377/
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2421009/
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2685830/

What an idiot I am not to look this up and follow something that hasn't been studied and hence do damage to myself.
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#15 hav

  • Guest
  • 1,089 posts
  • 215
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 15 November 2013 - 05:06 PM

Wow, if I had that reaction, I'd stop it too. Do you normally use olive oil? Wonder if you're getting a reaction with something else you take. Is this still your list?

Howard

#16 JBForrester

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 348 posts
  • 146
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 15 November 2013 - 06:48 PM

Thank you Howard. I'm of Mediterranean descent, so olive oil is almost in my blood :) That list is no longer something I use actually. I no longer do the Ester C, Magnesium L-Threonate, the Maca Root, or Tocomin Suprabio, and sparingly use the Biosil or Trace Minerals. I have included in my supplements B-12 dropper, Vitamin E, Folic Acid, and occassionally L-Carnosine 500mg 2xdaily. Perhaps I took it after drinking water? I know it negatively mixes with water, but that's all I can think of...

Note: I realize it probably sounded like I was calling anyone who used C60 an idiot, but I was simply whacking myself on the forehead because I continuously have bad reactions to random experiments I do on myself, mainly because I forget to look at the possibly negative side effects, or lack there of. My apologies if I unintentionally offended anyone.
  • dislike x 1

#17 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 15 November 2013 - 09:01 PM

I have used C60 3 times, 1 mL each time, within the past week. I feel horrible.

This is not normal-horrible like I usually feel. This feels on the verge of being drunk, slur and slowing of my speech and though process, lethargy, typos in my writing, and my facial skin has become very sunken, the texture has become bumpy and unsmooth and very irritated, and my nasolabial fold on the right side of my face has begun to stretch from my nose to the bottom of my mouth without smiling, whereas the week before it was line-less (which I'm aware of because I was admiring). My hollow under my eyes are very prominent. Eating enough calories but my face is very gaunt and wan right now. I almost feel like my brain has been permanently fried, maybe as though I've taken a lot of hard drugs.

I realize I am again being a guinea pig to self-experimentation, and there is a chance I have caused oxidative stress. It is foolish of me. I do care about my life but I am trusting my insticts now and will not continue. C60 fullerene is a known toxin to fish, and we honestly have no ideas what it will do to humans long-term. Once we get to study humans even then we will not know how it will effect different genders, race, or ages, which would need even further studies.

After noticing how shitty I feel, I researched if indeed there are dangers to fullerene. And I realize I should have previously. Because I am convinced something is not at all right here. I felt it almost immediately after dose #3.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1247377/
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2421009/
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2685830/


Sorry to hear that you're feeling so poorly, JB. Pubmed is down at the moment, so I've not looked at those refs, but I don't know of any published work on c60-oo in humans, or even animals, other than Baati. There's not really any research you could have done, except looking at different molecules that happen to contain c60. The problem with that is that they're different, and they have different properties. Over the past year in this forum, I think we've talked about every scary paper ever published on c60. They always seem to boil down to the use of aggregates instead of molecular c60, the use of photo-excited c60, or some reference to the erroneous report of c60 toxicity (to fish, in fact) that turned out to be caused by THF, the solvent that was used to prepare the aqueous suspension.

The question now is what caused this reaction? Was it c60-oo, something else in the olive oil mixture, or something entirely different that's not related to c60-oo? Has anything ever made you feel this way before? You've mentioned some of the skin / facial symptoms in the past, but never anything like being drunk or lethargic, at least that I can remember. Have you been using any other supplements or drugs over the same time period as the c60?

I hope you feel better soon.
  • like x 2

#18 Layberinthius

  • Guest
  • 298 posts
  • 26
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 16 November 2013 - 12:18 AM

Thank you Howard. I'm of Mediterranean descent, so olive oil is almost in my blood :)


Hot.

Note: I realize it probably sounded like I was calling anyone who used C60 an idiot, but I was simply whacking myself on the forehead because I continuously have bad reactions to random experiments I do on myself, mainly because I forget to look at the possibly negative side effects, or lack there of. My apologies if I unintentionally offended anyone.


Welcome to the club, *twitch* *twitch*





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: measurements, c60

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users