50 replies to this topic

[maxwatt]

I suspect the "different compartments" hypothesis is most probable.

FWIW, my daughter is on the crux of continuing to a Phd in neuroscience or medical school. One of her lab mates is an immunologist. They think we are crazy, doubt Baati's results will be replicable, much less work in humans, and that it is vastly premature to use the stuff, at best. Very conservative. I hope they are wrong.

[niner]

FWIW, my daughter is on the crux of continuing to a Phd in neuroscience or medical school. One of her lab mates is an immunologist. They think we are crazy, doubt Baati's results will be replicable, much less work in humans, and that it is vastly premature to use the stuff, at best. Very conservative. I hope they are wrong.

That's the standard (and correct) response to Baati, at first blush. It's not until you look at the literature on the biological properties of molecular (as opposed to aggregates, the "evil cousin") fullerenes, as well as consider the effects that have been observed in countless humans, that it becomes apparent that "there is something going on here". Something good, that is. If the pharmaceutical industry had come out with this and gotten it through the FDA, my doctor would be doing cartwheels. Whether it extends human lifespan or not, it's a medical breakthrough. Too bad so few people know about it- there are millions of sick people who would be helped by it.

[hav]

I suspect the "different compartments" hypothesis is most probable.

FWIW, my daughter is on the crux of continuing to a Phd in neuroscience or medical school. One of her lab mates is an immunologist. They think we are crazy, doubt Baati's results will be replicable, much less work in humans, and that it is vastly premature to use the stuff, at best. Very conservative. I hope they are wrong.

Perhaps she should consider it as a thesis subject.

Howard

[Turnbuckle]

that it is vastly premature to use the stuff, at best. Very conservative. I hope they are wrong.

Children these days, so timid!

In any case, you can point out that tens of millions are using statins in the unproven belief that they will live longer, with many suffering tragic consequences.

[maxwatt]

that it is vastly premature to use the stuff, at best. Very conservative. I hope they are wrong.

Children these days, so timid!

In any case, you can point out that tens of millions are using statins in the unproven belief that they will live longer, with many suffering tragic consequences.

Actually, she told me not to take statins, as they have no effect on mortality.

[ambivalent]

Admittedly, I don't hold a strong scientific background, but I find it quite surprising that members in the scientific comunity believe it unlikely the results of Baati will be reproduced. It's not as though the researchers will say 'our bad, it was a loose cable': they doubled the lifespan of a group of rats! It is almost certainly not a statistical anomaly, as such, if the results are not repeatable the integrity of the scientists would be flagged: flawed experimental conditions don't double (known) lifespans. Certainly, skeptisim relating to the transferrance of these benefits to people is justified and caution should be born by the wider population, but, as a general remark, the scientific and medical community, it appears, hold a default position of extreme risk aversion when it comes to uncertain treatments. People, fundamentally want a judgement which represents a balance of probabilities - extrapolating current science, drawing on small sample sizes contribute to an informed choice, albeit one of low confidence and potentially greater risk - it is not requisite for people to select only from options which have undergone comprehensive experimentation.

I recently wrote to a scientist who studies the science of fasting, I'd asked if they had researched dry-fasting; he said they hadn't as it was too risky. It would seem that to research the subject implies a tacit endorsement of the activity; plenty of people are dry-fasting and do so independently of scientific research, so why not simply measure them? Similarly with c60, so many results have already slipped through the sands of time and so delayed our understanding of its effect on our physiology and as such impacted on decision-making. A great service the scientific community could perform to those of us taking it (and to those who will be) is to take metrics (with urgency if they suspect it is likely to be harmful) - the objective of measurement is always to reduce uncertainty, you don't need ideal experimental conditions to achieve that goal.

Edited by ambivalent, 09 March 2014 - 02:22 PM.

[niner]

Scientists are very conservative about things like poorly-supported hypotheses or unproven treatments. This comes from their training, which is aimed at differentiating truth from non-truth. Neither scientists nor doctors would put their stamp of approval on a strange new compound that had only been used in rats, because they don't want to be responsible if someone is hurt by the treatment, or is hurt by something else and blames it on the treatment. I don't mind using it on myself, but I'm kind of hesitant to recommend c60-oo to just anyone. I've given it to a friend and to a relative, but there are tons of people who would likely benefit from it, yet I don't push it on them.

[geo12the]

Admittedly, I don't hold a strong scientific background, but I find it quite surprising that members in the scientific comunity believe it unlikely the results of Baati will be reproduced. It's not as though the researchers will say 'our bad, it was a loose cable': they doubled the lifespan of a group of rats! It is almost certainly not a statistical anomaly, as such, if the results are not repeatable the integrity of the scientists would be flagged: flawed experimental conditions don't double (known) lifespans.

Not surprising at all. Whenever results are this dramatic it is often the result of unknown factors and the experiments cannot be reproduced. Lots and lots of factors unrelated to treatments can have effects on lifespan (even double lifespan). The fact that the effect was so huge should not be taken as automatic proof that it must be true, if anything it should raise a red flag. Not saying its not true, but lots of irreproducibility in these kinds of studies makes me cautious.We have to wait and see.

[niner]

The large effect size certainly isn't proof that it's real, but it's a huge, blatant effect. It's not subtle at all. That means it's not going to be some minor loose control like one cage was under an air conditioning duct or something. The only explanations are 1) that the compound actually does extend the lifespan of Wistar rats by a lot, or 2) that there was actual fraud, i.e. Moussa is just lying, or 3) that they were scammed by a third party, like someone periodically entered the animal facility and replaced the rats with younger ones. I don't think that Moussa would throw away his career by fabricating a story that would never be reproduced, so that leaves options 1 and 3. I have no way to rule out option 3, but based on the biological effects of the compound in humans, along with the effects of molecular fullerenes in various other species, option 1 seems plausible.

I think it is sad, tragic in fact, that anyone in a position to attempt replication would fail to do so out of an unfounded belief that "this can't be right". Someone should at least try it in yeast, worms, or flies- the "usual suspects", as a way of generating data more quickly.

Edited by niner, 10 March 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[Invariant]

Another explanation would be an honest mistake: maybe the rats in the C60 group were not actually the same age as the other ones at the beginning of the experiment, or maybe multiple experiments were being caried out at the same time and the cages got mixed up somehow. The more unlikely the conclusion (e.g. doubling lifespan) the more probability mass we should place on such alternative (and a priori unlikely) explanations.

[Chupo]

Another explanation would be an honest mistake: maybe the rats in the C60 group were not actually the same age as the other ones at the beginning of the experiment, or maybe multiple experiments were being caried out at the same time and the cages got mixed up somehow. The more unlikely the conclusion (e.g. doubling lifespan) the more probability mass we should place on such alternative (and a priori unlikely) explanations.

The graph of their body weights doesn't show a sudden drop in weight in any of the groups which we should have seen if any had gotten mixed up with younger rats.

[Kevnzworld]

It is interesting that neither Baati, Moussa or any of the other authors ( Baati T, Bourasset F, Gharbi N, Njim L, Abderrabba M, Kerkeni A, Szwarc H, Moussa F.) did any follow up studies regarding their findings. Their subsequent published work is unrelated. One would think that this would have been a career changing discovery.
On the other hand, it's not likely that researchers of this calibre would have either faked, or screwed up this study to the extent that some are suggesting.

[Hebbeh]

Why would of they? They weren't funded to study longevity. They were funded to study toxicity of C60. With the toxicity study complete, the project funding was satisfied. I'm sure they proceeded to the next funded project. Without established funds or paying customers, I'm sure they can't afford to do whatever they want. They have to take paying customers and projects just like the rest of us. Pay them to study C60 and longevity and I'm sure they would.

[APBT]

It is interesting that neither Baati, Moussa or any of the other authors ( Baati T, Bourasset F, Gharbi N, Njim L, Abderrabba M, Kerkeni A, Szwarc H, Moussa F.) did any follow up studies regarding their findings. Their subsequent published work is unrelated. One would think that this would have been a career changing discovery.

Yes, I'm befuddled as to why follow-up studies weren't pursued. With impressive results like those achieved in the original study, why not - if for no other reason than their own curiosity.

[Kevnzworld]

It is interesting that neither Baati, Moussa or any of the other authors ( Baati T, Bourasset F, Gharbi N, Njim L, Abderrabba M, Kerkeni A, Szwarc H, Moussa F.) did any follow up studies regarding their findings. Their subsequent published work is unrelated. One would think that this would have been a career changing discovery.

Yes, I'm befuddled as to why follow-up studies weren't pursued. With impressive results like those achieved in the original study, why not - if for no other reason than their own curiosity.

Yes, Nevermind a Nobel prize, or a place in aging science history at the very least .....eight authors, and two years later nothing? These guys work at academic institutions, not for profit pharma, where patent protection is an issue. This , if valid , is a major finding...if Moussa googles his name, this is the study that comes up. It's his legacy!
Very odd.

[niner]

I agree. It's weird. They should have started more studies as soon as it was obvious that they had extraordinary lifespans. Had they done that, particularly if they had used a short-lived mouse or lower animals, they'd have the results already. For what it's worth, two of our members have visited Moussa, and he seemed quite excited about the idea of someone replicating the work. He gave AgeVivo enough c60-oo to run his small mouse experiment. It's possible that Moussa doesn't have the resources needed to do another long rat study- either money, manpower, time, or space in the animal facility might be in short supply. Another thing to consider is that it doesn't really count as a replication unless someone else from an unrelated lab does it.

[revenant]

Please forgive me if this is a reach. Here is a humble hypothesis on a possible action of C60 on murine lifespan: does C60 impart a "stabilizing" affect on lysosomal membranes which works to prevent membrane rupture? Could this in turn inhibit Nlrp3 inflammasome signaling > inflammation > apoptosis?
http://www.sciencedi...142961211001463
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23708522


best..smooch

[hav]

It is interesting that neither Baati, Moussa or any of the other authors ( Baati T, Bourasset F, Gharbi N, Njim L, Abderrabba M, Kerkeni A, Szwarc H, Moussa F.) did any follow up studies regarding their findings. Their subsequent published work is unrelated. One would think that this would have been a career changing discovery.

Yes, I'm befuddled as to why follow-up studies weren't pursued. With impressive results like those achieved in the original study, why not - if for no other reason than their own curiosity.

The Baati study took over four years. There may be a bunch of follow-up studies on the longevity findings but it will take just as long if they use the same approach of measuring the full lifespans of treated and untreated rats.

Howard

Edited by hav, 19 March 2014 - 01:49 PM.

[mait]

Maybe some research groups should use SAM (Senescence Accelerated Mice) strains to study the effects C60 on aging. This animal model seems to be pretty good in mimicing pathological processes taking place in normal aging if articles are to be believed.

[Kentavr]

Исследования токсичности уже сделаны. Именно так был обнаружен потенциал. Нет ничего более, чтобы доказать, что это потребует дальнейших инвестиций для уже завершенных исследований. И они не могут запатентовать C60 для использования, которого они не обнаружили, поскольку лошадь уже вышла из сарая и ее свободно продают в качестве дополнения рядом продавцов. И это был бы тривиальный рынок для производителей C60. Итог - нет никаких финансовых стимулов для того, чтобы кто-либо мог заниматься исследованиями.

 

You are not quite right.

 

1. They can add some neutral additive and re-conduct more extensive research.

2. Having obtained very good positive results, they can apply for a patent.

3. In parallel with the patent application, they can publish the results.

4. Next - prepare the production according to standards

5. Say: "buy from us, because we have a unique patented composition."

 

And people will buy! The reasons are as follows:

 

1. Even if the "neutral" additive does not give anything, the product itself has shown its effectiveness, and most people will not care! Many do not understand chemistry!

2. When buying the drug, people will say to themselves: "I will not risk, there is a proven result.There is a patent.I would rather overpay 50-70 dollars a month, but I will drink it.This is a fee for reducing risks." Man is used to looking for easier ways. And so will make 80-90% of people, and this is very, very much!

 

So many companies do:

 

1. mix 2 compatible additives,

2. conduct a study

3. Get results (sometimes not very good).

4. Sell, saying that they have a patent for this combination of drugs, and it works!

 

People believe, and take, and praise the company for what they get the result.

[Hebbeh]

 

You are not quite right.

 

1. They can add some neutral additive and re-conduct more extensive research.

2. Having obtained very good positive results, they can apply for a patent.

3. In parallel with the patent application, they can publish the results.

4. Next - prepare the production according to standards

5. Say: "buy from us, because we have a unique patented composition."

 

And people will buy! The reasons are as follows:

 

1. Even if the "neutral" additive does not give anything, the product itself has shown its effectiveness, and most people will not care! Many do not understand chemistry!

2. When buying the drug, people will say to themselves: "I will not risk, there is a proven result.There is a patent.I would rather overpay 50-70 dollars a month, but I will drink it.This is a fee for reducing risks." Man is used to looking for easier ways. And so will make 80-90% of people, and this is very, very much!

 

So many companies do:

 

1. mix 2 compatible additives,

2. conduct a study

3. Get results (sometimes not very good).

4. Sell, saying that they have a patent for this combination of drugs, and it works!

 

People believe, and take, and praise the company for what they get the result.

 

 

My post was over 4 years old.... as they say, show me the money.... after all, plenty of time has passed and what do we hear?  Nothing.  Post some evidence to back your contentions and dispute my quoted comment.