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

Photo
- - - - -

C60 - I just learned about this. Why didn't this get more attention?

c60 rats lifespan

  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#31 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,667 posts
  • 1,507
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 20 June 2016 - 06:25 PM

I seriously doubt the veracity of their response if Ichor is testing it and finding that it's been degraded. My guess is that if they're telling the truth, it's the source of their EVOO. Also, if vacuum oven drying doesn't get it to 99.95%, what does? Isn't that what SES does?

 

 

 

 

They say there's no degradation due to light exposure. Maybe so, but I doubt they have the equipment to determine if it's been oxidized some other way. As for purification of C60, it starts off as a mix of various fullerenes along with a lot of carbon muck of all kinds, and that has to be separated by various steps then purified with HPLC. Thus getting really pure stuff gets more and more expensive. SES sells a cheap extract that is apparently before the HPLC step(s), and it is described as "approx. 70% C60, 28% C70, 2% higher." They describe how they express purity--

 

Purity is expressed   of fullerene content compared to other carbon fullerenes content.
Tested by HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography)

https://www.sesres.com/fullerene.asp

 

So it doesn't have anything to do with any residual solvent content.

 


Edited by Turnbuckle, 20 June 2016 - 06:36 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#32 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Peru

Posted 20 June 2016 - 06:36 PM

NATE-2004:

"I seriously doubt the veracity of their response if Ichor is testing it and finding that it's been degraded. My guess is that if they're telling the truth, it's the source of their EVOO. Also, if vacuum oven drying doesn't get it to 99.95%, what does? Isn't that what SES does?"

 

Ichor would be receiving the product as a customer (likely) therefore the time between when the product analysis for quality control and when Ichor receives it may be months...who knows how long. We are discussing the time being the culprit during the last many posts.

 

C60 is a solid. Carbon may attract many things. If it is attracting moisture then an over and/or vacuum will remove the moisture, as well as some other things that may be volatile.

 

It sounds to me that the C60 being acquired is 99.95% quality, correct?. What needs to be done is to get a quantitative analysis of the C60 to find out what exactly is the other 0.05% of the product. The chemical supplier should have this data on hand. Most likely it is not moisture nor volatilizes if in fact they are stating that after heating and vacuum the product is 99.95%, correct? What is the other 0.05% is the $50,000 question, correct?

 

How to further purify the C60. The supplier and the researchers should know this answer. In many instances, the cost of further purification (remove the 0.05%) of many substances costs as much or more than the product at 99.95%. In this instance, if the substances making up the 0.05% in question are neutral and have no known negative effects on human health, then we are good to go. But if not, then the cost is not very relevant, if in fact the C60 does what is being claimed it will do for a human.

 

The mode of operation of C60 is not publicly known as of yet (not published anywhere). If C60 is a carrier into the DNA, then ANY substrate used to mobilize the C60 (any oil) will need to be without contaminates or substances that may generate any negative consequence on health, correct? Not a very easy task at hand.

 

Is this a matter of C60 playing a direct roll in health or is it that the C60 bound to an oil and that oil is a direct roll in improved health? Does anyone know?


  • Ill informed x 3
  • Disagree x 1

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for C60 HEALTH to support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Peru

Posted 20 June 2016 - 09:32 PM

Is this a matter of C60 playing a direct roll in health or is it that the C60 bound to an oil and that oil is a direct roll in improved health? Does anyone know?

The questions in Post #32 (above) have gone unanswered. Interesting that no one takes a moment to comment. ha.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Unfriendly x 2

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#34 Nate-2004

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,322 posts
  • 320
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • NO

Posted 20 June 2016 - 10:38 PM

 

Is this a matter of C60 playing a direct roll in health or is it that the C60 bound to an oil and that oil is a direct roll in improved health? Does anyone know?

The questions in Post #32 (above) have gone unanswered. Interesting that no one takes a moment to comment. ha.

 

 

I don't know the answer for sure but if I were to guess based on everything I've read and watched it's the C60 itself, because it's a "powerful" antioxidant, but it needs a vehicle and for some time now that's been EVOO. Turnbuckle surmised that it may partly be the polyphenols in the OO but no one is entirely certain of that. Ichor is busy testing all these things to get more answers. Supposedly there are three other labs attempting to replicate the original experiment using a very large sample size of rats (200+). I don't know who those labs are or what the status is as of now. This is what those involved in the original experiment had implied in a video from last year. I linked the video in the other C60 polyphenol hypothesis thread I think.


Edited by Nate-2004, 20 June 2016 - 10:39 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#35 niner

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

Posted 20 June 2016 - 11:43 PM

I don't consider the oil to be merely a vehicle, because c60 is known to react with vegetable oils.  I consider the active agent to be the c60-fatty acid adduct.


  • Agree x 2
  • Informative x 1

#36 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Peru

Posted 20 June 2016 - 11:59 PM

NATE-2004;

Thank you for your reply. I have spent the afternoon contemplating this subject of C60 and the comments in the thread, looking up research articles and evaluating the data. TURNBUCKLE has been at this for years now (@2012) and I have to agree with his position concerning the polyphenol Hydroxytyrosol found in olive trees, it's fruit and oil. It is certainly a very high ORAC value antioxidant...but just how high. A lot of information came out a few years ago (2010-2013) claiming it has the highest antioxidant value and since then other polyphenols have claimed to be the highest. Oh well, it is a matter of Hydroxytyrosol and being a very high antioxidant. It has not been very long ago that Hydroxytyrosol was discovered and that was by analyzing waste water from olive washing prior to oil extraction processing. Another happenstance?

 

Are there unknown unidentified factors in olive oil? Probably. Are these potential health of long life/anti-aging components too? Maybe. let's see what the recent studies say, since 2014 several very interesting studies have be published on PUBMED, here is one:
 

Hydroxytyrosol improves mitochondrial function and reduces oxidative ... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25885653
by A Zheng - ‎2015 - ‎Cited by 5 - ‎Related articles.
Apr 17, 2015 - Hydroxytyrosol improves mitochondrial function and reduces oxidative stress in the brain of db/db mice: role of AMP-activated protein kinase ...

 

An article siting the ORAC value of a product containing concentrated Hydroxytyrosol:

 

December 18, 2012
Certified Nutraceuticals Inc. (Murrieta, CA) is reporting that its Olea25 hydroxytyrosol ingredient has the highest ORAC value for any plant extract tested to date.
 
Brunswick Laboratories (Southborough, MA) confirmed the ingredient’s ORAC value at a record 68,756 µmolTE/g (6,876,600 µmolTE/100 g) across all five predominant free radical species found in the body. That score, says Certified Nutraceuticals, puts Olea25 at an ORAC value 15 times higher than green tea and more than 3 times higher than coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10).

 

Now then, C60 is claiming to be a very high ORAC value antioxidant too. Humm...a nice study published in 2011 concerning C60's antioxidant activity, looks impressive. This is worth taking a look at; concerning C60 solubility in an organic substrate (BHT) as well as in water:

 

http://repositorio.i...roxytoluene.pdf

 

I don't have more hours today to do this investigating but it is very interesting indeed. I do believe it may be found that the residual 0.05% of the 95.95% C60 BEFORE making C60oo will reveal some disturbing matter. The HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography) will selectively isolate this in fractions which can be easily analysed, a no brainer. 

 

The subject of olive oil quality, oxidation and misc components is a whole other matter. It is assuring to see that there are some laboratories investigating this subject now because some very revealing things will surface about olive oil in general as well as the specifics of the oxidation question and what is created during that process.

 

NATE-2004, Your comment "I linked the video in the other C60 polyphenol hypothesis thread I think." , is it possible for you to post the link to that thread, I will sort through and see if the video link is there or not...there are now a number of C60 threads, so that is why I am asking...please. Again, thanks for your reply and some dialog here :-)



#37 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Peru

Posted 21 June 2016 - 01:36 AM

I don't consider the oil to be merely a vehicle, because c60 is known to react with vegetable oils.  I consider the active agent to be the c60-fatty acid adduct.

NINER: Your comment "...because c60 is known to react with vegetable oils." is this saying the reaction with vegetable oils creates adduct's; distinct molecular species? If so, would this go on to create DNA adduct? Just as some chemicals that eventually cause cancer through this mechanism of becoming an adduct to DNA.  

 

C60 is a carbon molecule with oleic fatty acid(s), maybe others? Carbon attracts metals and maybe the C60 is attracting some toxic metals providing additional benefit to the cell/mitochondria besides it's role with ROS and electron attraction.

 

Are you aware of any other trials/studies with C60 in water or non lipids?

 

How are the 30 rats doing? Is there a thread on this project, if so could you post the thread link please.

 

I think that in the Baatis study, the rats may have died within the same 90 day window due to the extent they had survived, having surpassed their normal average life span considerably. I think it would have been odd if one or two lived considerably longer than the others. For what it's worth :-)

 

Thank you for your comments, this helped me look in another direction and do more research.


  • like x 1

#38 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 141 posts
  • 22
  • Location:US

Posted 21 June 2016 - 04:14 AM

 

Are you aware of any other trials/studies with C60 in water or non lipids?

 

 

 

There have been some studies on hydrophilic C60 with various preparations(with additives) showing its damaging characteristic(generating ROS) as well as protective effects.

It appears that it depends on how C60 is prepared as argued in the previous thread.


  • Informative x 1

#39 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,667 posts
  • 1,507
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 21 June 2016 - 11:16 AM

I don't consider the oil to be merely a vehicle, because c60 is known to react with vegetable oils.  I consider the active agent to be the c60-fatty acid adduct.

 

I've found that C60 dissolved in a saturated (MCT) oil with added hydroxytyrosol to be at least as good as C60/EVOO, which suggests otherwise.



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#40 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • 42
  • Location:East

Posted 21 June 2016 - 12:02 PM

 

Excellent! I've gone in that direction as well, replacing olive oil with MCT oil for my personal use. However, I am also adding hydroxytyrosol to it. As for light exposure, do you have an idea of how fast it goes south?

Completely depends on level of exposure. We haven't done a full dose response yet, but on the order of minutes with UV light and certainly within a few days by normal light. It is on our "to do" list to figure that out, but we thought the more pressing question was how much of the oxidized form is toxic, since we will want to know how long it takes for that to rise to unacceptable levels. Of course, the rates could vary too depending on sunlight vs. UV vs. room lights (type of room lights?) and certainly what vehicle we decide to go with as a carrier.

 

 

This sounds like an important discovery. I think most of us had presumed that such relatively short periods of light exposure would not make any difference. 

 

On a related point, I had read somewhere that olive oil wouldn't degrade in light if it was kept in "colored" glass bottles.  In fact, I recall seeing a study that appeared to show that green glass reduced oxidation.  The other day I came across an article where a guy found that green beer bottles do not stop UV light.  

 

http://www.wired.com...n-beer-bottles/

"However, it seems clear that the green and clear glasses let more UV through than brown glass."

 

Now, a lot of olive oil, including many of these premium online oils, come in green glass bottles.

 

Given new information suggesting olive oil degradation by light is a primary source of toxicity, I think a lot of things we have all taken for granted in the procurement, manufacture and storage of c60 now need to be reexamined.   

 

Since we can't test for spoilage by light, and knowledge of the light exposure history of any given bottle is hard to come by, it seems to me there is a lot to recommend Turnbuckle's approach: switching from olive oil to MCT oil base and adding HT, an olive polyphenol.  Turnbuckle's most recent observation is rather encouraging: http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=778158


Edited by Empiricus, 21 June 2016 - 12:35 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • like x 1

#41 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 141 posts
  • 22
  • Location:US

Posted 21 June 2016 - 01:34 PM

 

Given new information suggesting olive oil degradation by light is a primary source of toxicity, I think a lot of things we have all taken for granted in the procurement, manufacture and storage of c60 now need to be reexamined.   

 

Since we can't test for spoilage by light, and knowledge of the light exposure history of any given bottle is hard to come by, it seems to me there is a lot to recommend Turnbuckle's approach: switching from olive oil to MCT oil base and adding HT, an olive polyphenol.  Turnbuckle's most recent observation is rather encouraging: http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=778158

 

 

Isn't it too early to test C60+MCT oil+ whatever additives to prevent oxidation for human consumption? Even life-extension effects of C60 with different carrier oil has not been tested. It still remains as a hypothesis and theories.

There are sparse information on C60 interaction with carrier oil. And, we do not know how either stability of C60 or degradation of oil affect human physiology in the context to life extension, health span.

Different preparation of C60 combination with subjective trials would not give that much data. (Possibly, it would yield safety concerns).

 

If C60 merely works as a transporting agent to the system that most supplement cannot reach, then life extension, health span improvement in vitro studies could be PARTIALLY replicated in vivo studies.

If this holds to be partially true, then would this study with C60 give the different results?

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC4039264/

(Under the assumption that decreased in life-span or no effect in life-span of the most supplements might be due to the poor bioavailability while some high bioavailable stuffs exert negative effects).


  • Good Point x 1

#42 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,667 posts
  • 1,507
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 21 June 2016 - 02:17 PM

 

 

 

Isn't it too early to test C60+MCT oil+ whatever additives to prevent oxidation for human consumption? Even life-extension effects of C60 with different carrier oil has not been tested. It still remains as a hypothesis and theories.

 

 

 

No one here is interested in C60 as a preservative for oil, they are interested in the potential in other areas, such as life extension, exercise enhancement, more youthful skin, etc. We won't know if C60 works for human life extension for a very long time, but other things are more quickly evident, even without formal trials. I've been taking C60 in olive oil for more than four years now, and I've seen a number of interesting benefits, as have many here. But after personally testing a number of olive oils with different polyphenol contents and even adding polyphenols, I've found that a saturated oil with added hydroxytyrosol works as well as any of them for immediately visible benefits, and better than most. It is also likely to be more stable as saturated oils are much less prone to oxidation. 


Edited by Turnbuckle, 21 June 2016 - 02:21 PM.

  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#43 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Peru

Posted 21 June 2016 - 02:57 PM

 

 

Excellent! I've gone in that direction as well, replacing olive oil with MCT oil for my personal use. However, I am also adding hydroxytyrosol to it. As for light exposure, do you have an idea of how fast it goes south?

Completely depends on level of exposure. We haven't done a full dose response yet, but on the order of minutes with UV light and certainly within a few days by normal light. It is on our "to do" list to figure that out, but we thought the more pressing question was how much of the oxidized form is toxic, since we will want to know how long it takes for that to rise to unacceptable levels. Of course, the rates could vary too depending on sunlight vs. UV vs. room lights (type of room lights?) and certainly what vehicle we decide to go with as a carrier.

 

 

This sounds like an important discovery. I think most of us had presumed that such relatively short periods of light exposure would not make any difference. 

 

On a related point, I had read somewhere that olive oil wouldn't degrade in light if it was kept in "colored" glass bottles.  In fact, I recall seeing a study that appeared to show that green glass reduced oxidation.  The other day I came across an article where a guy found that green beer bottles do not stop UV light.  

 

http://www.wired.com...n-beer-bottles/

"However, it seems clear that the green and clear glasses let more UV through than brown glass."

 

Now, a lot of olive oil, including many of these premium online oils, come in green glass bottles.

 

Given new information suggesting olive oil degradation by light is a primary source of toxicity, I think a lot of things we have all taken for granted in the procurement, manufacture and storage of c60 now need to be reexamined.   

 

Since we can't test for spoilage by light, and knowledge of the light exposure history of any given bottle is hard to come by, it seems to me there is a lot to recommend Turnbuckle's approach: switching from olive oil to MCT oil base and adding HT, an olive polyphenol.  Turnbuckle's most recent observation is rather encouraging: http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=778158

 

If any laboratory proves that the glass currently being used for bottling olive oil is unsafe to use, we may see an incident similar to when Oprah Winfrey made her statement about beef in 1996. This should open up a series of investigations into colored glass and the ability to filter certain wavelengths of light.

 

Turnbuckle's self experiments are important; maybe there are other forum lookers who have experimented with C60mct as well whom will comment on their experience. Apparently Turnbuckle did not get any noticeable results with C60mtc until he started adding HT (hydroxytyrosol).

 

One thing I do here (Peru) is help small farming groups, cooperatives, with applied technology as well as find alternative crops for market. I have been researching saffron, since it appears to be the highest priced agricultural product on the planet. I have found research that states by adding saffron to sunflower oil has negated negative aspects of the oil in respect to exposure to light and processing. I will add some research links later this afternoon; this looks promising.

 

PARAMOUNT FACTOR: I keep thinking about the adduct factor that NINER has mentioned (a pharmacologist). C60 reacts to oil, it molecularity becomes with oil; a new specie (adduct). Think about a cat and a dog coming into contact and changing into a dogcat or catdog, whereby nothing is left over as in most all chemical reactions. The C60cc then acts as a catalyst; not changed but causes reactions.

 

Oil is NOT a carrier, as I mistakenly thought/presumed when combining with C60. Adding anything to C60 needs to be carefully considered, especially any oil. Ohhppps. Carbon is VERY much similar to a magnet for metals, (think toxic metals) and is used extensively in processing gold wherein the carbon binds with cyanide/gold solution (goldcyanide - AuCN); the carbon is then reduced by fire to give up the gold. The carbon does not become part of the molecule; the AuCN. C60 and any impurities found with it (ie., C70 + whatever is the 0.05% of C60) will possibly be part of the new molecule and have it's place, when degraded and assimilated, into the mitochondria and/or other organelle of the cell. Possibly a toxin.

 

Whatever is in the C60/oil adduct is going to the mitochondria sites or adjacent to them, associated with reactive oxygen species (ROS). In this respect, HT is a good thing, so it appears.

 

We need to know what is in the 0.05% impurities of C60; paramount factor.


Edited by LongLife, 21 June 2016 - 03:27 PM.


#44 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 141 posts
  • 22
  • Location:US

Posted 21 June 2016 - 03:18 PM

I still wonder how you can determine that C60+other oil (other than olive oil) can give the similar results as C60 in EVOO did. This issue is not mentioning about your personal experiences and visible effects of your body. As you said C60 EVOO has been taken by many people, and it seems that there is not that much of negative effects reported here.

In some senses, taking trials with different oil other than olive oil can give you safety profile, but how can you know you can get the similar effects as did in C60 EVOO, excluding most of Placebo effects?

At least for C60 EVOO, Baati study give some implications in somewhat objective ways, but other oil combination did not.(i.e. C60 EVOO did, but C60+other oils has not yet been done).

Trials with less oxidized(or others) oils + HT appear to be based on some observations, but is it worthy for consumption to replace C60 EVOO for the reason of oxidation issue at this point?

 


Edited by Graviton, 21 June 2016 - 03:24 PM.


#45 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,667 posts
  • 1,507
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 21 June 2016 - 04:19 PM

is it worthy for consumption to replace C60 EVOO for the reason of oxidation issue at this point?

 

No one is forcing anyone to take anything. This site is filled with people interested in longevity who are trying all sorts of things and discussing it. Some here are of the age that if they waited for research trials to be published, they wouldn't live long enough to read them. But taking C60 oils sold by vendors is beginning to look like a bad idea, especially with the research trial showing that at least one of the supplier oils produced cancer in rats.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 21 June 2016 - 04:20 PM.

  • Good Point x 3

#46 Nate-2004

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,322 posts
  • 320
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • NO

Posted 21 June 2016 - 04:30 PM

I'm not entirely able to determine the color of the bottles coming from De Carlo. They appear to be green but they're so dark that for a while I thought they were completely black and opaque until I froze them and was able to see through. This new information regarding UV light and green bottles has me really concerned. I left the bottles out in the kitchen for a week or two before putting them in the freezer. While there's probably very little if any UV light in my kitchen (depending on how much UV light is put out by the compact fluorescent bulbs).  I need to switch the entire apartment to the phillips LED bulbs or something similar.



#47 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • 42
  • Location:East

Posted 21 June 2016 - 05:08 PM

I'm not entirely able to determine the color of the bottles coming from De Carlo. They appear to be green but they're so dark that for a while I thought they were completely black and opaque until I froze them and was able to see through. This new information regarding UV light and green bottles has me really concerned. I left the bottles out in the kitchen for a week or two before putting them in the freezer. While there's probably very little if any UV light in my kitchen (depending on how much UV light is put out by the compact fluorescent bulbs).  I need to switch the entire apartment to the phillips LED bulbs or something similar.

 

It hit me yesterday when I came across a bottle of olive oil in a local market that's a mid-May 2016 harvest. But the guy was keeping it near a window in a green glass bottle. Before I would have bought the oil without hesitation. Now I'm thinking that the 5-month-old oil in brown ceramic bottles I saw in another store might be the safer bet. The light issue can really change the way you evaluate olive oil.


Edited by Empiricus, 21 June 2016 - 05:19 PM.

  • Good Point x 2

#48 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Peru

Posted 21 June 2016 - 05:32 PM

I'm not entirely able to determine the color of the bottles coming from De Carlo. They appear to be green but they're so dark that for a while I thought they were completely black and opaque until I froze them and was able to see through. This new information regarding UV light and green bottles has me really concerned. I left the bottles out in the kitchen for a week or two before putting them in the freezer. While there's probably very little if any UV light in my kitchen (depending on how much UV light is put out by the compact fluorescent bulbs).  I need to switch the entire apartment to the phillips LED bulbs or something similar.

Good point. Although there has been a number of articles regarding LED lighting and how it is messing with the sleep cycle and causing neurological disturbances. There is now a concern about the use in street lights being adapted with LED, see image below of before and after LED street light installation.

 

"I need to switch the entire apartment to the phillips LED bulbs or something similar.":

BE AWARE:

"Researchers still don't fully understand the impact of lighting on non-visual receptors in humans, as we covered in a recent interview. Still, many companies are ready to move forward with solid-state lighting (SSL) technology intended to optimize sleep/wake cycles."  http://www.ledsmagaz...dian-lamps.html

 

MEANWHILE, light oxidizing effect, how to avoid light?

"If a green and a red filter are placed together, what colours would you expect to be transmitted? (Answer - no colour will be transmitted, it will appear black. This is because a pure red filter only allows through red light and a pure green filter only allows through green light. Together this means that they allow no light and appear black.)"  https://www.le.ac.uk...fstudy/lht5.htm

 

 

custom-fancy-suff-hot-selling-essential-  Mini-square-shape-black-glass-bottle-wit

 

When the dust settles, it looks like there will be a market for small do-it-yourself kits; stirrer, black jars, C60 (99.9%), HT, an oil with certification of purity, vitamin E, etc. :-) 



#49 Nate-2004

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,322 posts
  • 320
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • NO

Posted 21 June 2016 - 05:54 PM

I think CFL lighting is worse in the context you're talking about. I see a lot of conflicting and contradictory conclusions and information regarding LED lights and UV. In this video a guy demonstrates that LED gives off zero UV light while CFL gives off a ton.  I tend to pick the LED bulbs with a yellow or amber like shield so as to block blue light. 

 

That said I turn out the lights at a certain hour and have no problems keeping my circadian rhythm undisrupted. 

 

We're getting off topic here though. My main concern is getting UV light out of the room and making sure the containers of EVOO are either a very dark amber or completely opaque.

 

I'm going to buy from a source with amber or opaque jars next time. I don't see why this isn't just the standard at this point.



#50 niner

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

Posted 21 June 2016 - 06:03 PM

Carbon is VERY much similar to a magnet for metals, (think toxic metals) and is used extensively in processing gold wherein the carbon binds with cyanide/gold solution (goldcyanide - AuCN); the carbon is then reduced by fire to give up the gold. The carbon does not become part of the molecule; the AuCN. C60 and any impurities found with it (ie., C70 + whatever is the 0.05% of C60) will possibly be part of the new molecule and have it's place, when degraded and assimilated, into the mitochondria and/or other organelle of the cell. Possibly a toxin.

 

Carbon and cyanide (CN-) are not at all the same thing.  The cyanide ion reacts with gold because of its unique electronic structure.  The forms of carbon that we're dealing with (alkanes, alkenes, and fullerenes) have a very different electronic structure, and don't react with metal to a significant degree.

 

The 0.05% impurity in 99.95% c60 is mostly c70. 


  • Good Point x 1

#51 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 141 posts
  • 22
  • Location:US

Posted 22 June 2016 - 07:48 AM

I see. Then, you guys make your own C60 in oil by yourself? Purchasing C60 from SES, then centrifuge and mix it for a couple of weeks?

I heard that carbon60oliveoil.com fulfill their C60 content in the previous thread before although it is not relevant to light exposure possiblility in their process.

I have sent them about the concerns on UV/Visible light exposure and possible adduct formation, but I haven't received a reply yet.

Any suggestion or recommendation for a person who do not have enough scientific devices to make my own C60 oil?



#52 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,667 posts
  • 1,507
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 22 June 2016 - 12:17 PM

 

Any suggestion or recommendation for a person who do not have enough scientific devices to make my own C60 oil?

 

Yes. Wait a year or so and these issues will likely be sorted out.


  • Good Point x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#53 kmoody

  • Guest, F@H
  • 202 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 22 June 2016 - 12:55 PM

Is this a matter of C60 playing a direct roll in health or is it that the C60 bound to an oil and that oil is a direct roll in improved health? Does anyone know?

The questions in Post #32 (above) have gone unanswered. Interesting that no one takes a moment to comment. ha.

We are testing this...

 

Ichor would be receiving the product as a customer (likely) therefore the time between when the product analysis for quality control and when Ichor receives it may be months...who knows how long. We are discussing the time being the culprit during the last many posts.

Quality control does not mean testing it once, showing it meets specs, and sitting it on the shelf until it is sold. You need to determine the shelf life empirically and each bottle should have an expiration date listed on it. SES makes a specific shelf life claim of 3 years on their website. So either they are sending us expired product, or their product is out of specification with their claims. Either is their responsibility. It is not reasonable for a grocery store to say milk is good for 3 years and list product specifications, then when I place an order, hand me milk that is 1 year old and outside of product specifications. The grocery store is wrong on two counts, 1) the claim that the delivered product is within product specifications (it is not), and 2) that the milk is good for 3 years (it is not good for 3 years, it is not even good for 1 year).

 

Of course we contacted them about this and they were not able to produce any good quality control data. I don't care if people want to peddle stuff on the internet, but you cannot make claims about shelf life stability and product specifications without proving them.


  • Agree x 3
  • Good Point x 2
  • Well Written x 1

#54 stolpioni

  • Guest
  • 113 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 23 June 2016 - 05:44 PM

kmoody: I had ordered a bottle from carbon60oliveoil.com but cancelled once I read your posts.

 

You said most companies failed your tests, would that include that site or which site(s) passed the test?

Would be nice if you could elaborate a bit here, I think many people would appreciate some more details.

 

Second question is, when are you coming out with your C60 product?



#55 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Peru

Posted 24 June 2016 - 03:40 AM

 

Is this a matter of C60 playing a direct roll in health or is it that the C60 bound to an oil and that oil is a direct roll in improved health? Does anyone know?

The questions in Post #32 (above) have gone unanswered. Interesting that no one takes a moment to comment. ha.

We are testing this...

 

Ichor would be receiving the product as a customer (likely) therefore the time between when the product analysis for quality control and when Ichor receives it may be months...who knows how long. We are discussing the time being the culprit during the last many posts.

Quality control does not mean testing it once, showing it meets specs, and sitting it on the shelf until it is sold. You need to determine the shelf life empirically and each bottle should have an expiration date listed on it. SES makes a specific shelf life claim of 3 years on their website. So either they are sending us expired product, or their product is out of specification with their claims. Either is their responsibility. It is not reasonable for a grocery store to say milk is good for 3 years and list product specifications, then when I place an order, hand me milk that is 1 year old and outside of product specifications. The grocery store is wrong on two counts, 1) the claim that the delivered product is within product specifications (it is not), and 2) that the milk is good for 3 years (it is not good for 3 years, it is not even good for 1 year).

 

Of course we contacted them about this and they were not able to produce any good quality control data. I don't care if people want to peddle stuff on the internet, but you cannot make claims about shelf life stability and product specifications without proving them.

 

KMOODY:

There were increases in tumor growth, not the number of tumors, correct?

 

For sake of the following discussion it is assumed that C60oo is C60 EVoo or C60 Extra Virgin olive oil.

 

I do not know if the injection of cancer into the rats occurs before during or after the ingestion of C60oo.

 

The current general hypothesis concerns the quality of the olive oil used with these rats (ie quality of the C60oo molecules) that developed increased tumor size "massive tumors".

 

C60oo has not been shown to cause tumors, cancers, increase the number of tumors or increase the growth of existing tumors, etc. Although C60 mixed with water has shown negative results; from what I have been reading via studies on the subject matter.

 

C60oo (C60+olive oil) is a new specie, molecule, a new animal if you will; adduct. The C60+oo=C60oo does not produce any "by product" as in a chemical equation. It is not a compound, a mix that metabolically gets degraded or broken down into C60 and olive oil as separate components (or so it appears). It is one molecule and it is catalytic in nature; it's presence is the cause of some reactions. It is not consumed, not changed, during the chemical equation that occurs because of it's presence and it has to be "in the right place at the right time", to do what we would like to see; long life and other positive results. C60 when formulated with an oil is an "adduct"; new species, new molecule.

 

If the olive oil is incorrect (rancid, degraded, polluted, etc) before, during or after the formulation, then the C60oo- is likely to do something different than if the olive oil is pristine/correct. Many people have taken C60oo, some have experimented with other oils and therefore we know now that C60+other oil+HT=similar (apparent) results as C60oo.

Note: HT is a phenolic called hydroxytyrosol that is found in olive oil; "super" antioxidant. Oh, BTW C60 is also a "super antioxidant". Two Free Radical scroungers that give up  / donate electrons to complete the "free radical" whereby these completed molecules can also scrounge out free radicals or go about doing some other business.

 

"...adding hydroxytyrosol to EVOO to artificially increase its natural phenolic content. I first tried a dose of 50 mg hydroxytyrosol without olive oil and found that it gave me a definite boost after about half an hour. While running, I found breathing to be even lighter than with C60EVOO,..."

http://boardreader.c...1chneX1u7b.html SEE: REPLY ONE

 

Well, with all that being said and laying a ground work...

 

What else could cause increase tumor growth (size of tumors) from C60oo? Well I am glad I asked :-) ...

 

The thought occurred to me, based on last years research I was doing on antioxidants and what all that is about, antioxidants defeat cancer development AND they cause cancer. Oh, humm, uhh...what does that mean? Right. What is that about? I find myself frustrated when I run across these paradoxes and notice I tend to "go away" from these and find something else to look at. Usually these paradoxes have no currently known answers. IMHO I find these frustrating. Now I am back to thinking of this antioxidant paradox again in light of the C60oo/tumor paradox.

 

So why do antioxidants cause cancer and why do antioxidants defend against cancer? No, there is no known answer, so if your interested, here is a 2015 published explanation:

http://sci-hub.bz/10...anslmed.aad3740

 

Oh, you like videos, then here:

 

Got it? Two "super" antioxidants, making an adduct, plugging into the double cell wall of the mitochondria. What are mitochondria about? Have they not been found to be replicates of bacteria (double cellular walls, produce their own specific energy, etc.) and has it not been recently determined that to kill cancer one should attack, really attack, the mitochondria of the cancer? Isn't it interesting that antioxidants "protect" the mitochondria, as well as other cell organelle from free radical damage and "aging", senescence and apoptosis (suicide), autophagy, mitophagy, yayaya...AND isn't it interesting that antioxidants also can cause the mitochondria to go whacko and "pooph" tumor, cancer? You did watch the video, correct?

 

The subject of the thread is "Comercially available C60 olive oil causing tumors". A specific commercial supplier's C60oo has been observed to increased existing tumor growth in some genetically modified laboratory rats. Well maybe those "super" antioxidants did their job quite handsomely.

 

Just maybe those folks taking C60oo for years now, whom have had no problems to report, do not have any genetically modified cells in their body and they did not get injected with live cancer cells AND the "super" antioxidants are doing their job protecting against cancer and/or tumor growth. Humm...just maybe it has nothing to do with the quality of the olive oil in question. Or does it?

 

Any comments or observations?


Edited by LongLife, 24 June 2016 - 03:41 AM.


#56 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 141 posts
  • 22
  • Location:US

Posted 24 June 2016 - 04:16 AM

C60oo has not been shown to cause tumors, cancers, increase the number of tumors or increase the growth of existing tumors, etc. Although C60 mixed with water has shown negative results; from what I have been reading via studies on the subject matter.

C60oo (C60+olive oil) is a new specie, molecule, a new animal if you will; adduct. The C60+oo=C60oo does not produce any "by product" as in a chemical equation. It is not a compound, a mix that metabolically gets degraded or broken down into C60 and olive oil as separate components (or so it appears). It is one molecule and it is catalytic in nature; it's presence is the cause of some reactions. It is not consumed, not changed, during the chemical equation that occurs because of it's presence and it has to be "in the right place at the right time", to do what we would like to see; long life and other positive results. C60 when formulated with an oil is an "adduct"; new species, new molecule.

 

If the olive oil is incorrect (rancid, degraded, polluted, etc) before, during or after the formulation, then the C60oo- is likely to do something different than if the olive oil is pristine/correct. Many people have taken C60oo, some have experimented with other oils and therefore we know now that C60+other oil+HT=similar (apparent) results as C60oo.

 

 

"...adding hydroxytyrosol to EVOO to artificially increase its natural phenolic content. I first tried a dose of 50 mg hydroxytyrosol without olive oil and found that it gave me a definite boost after about half an hour. While running, I found breathing to be even lighter than with C60EVOO,..."

http://boardreader.c...1chneX1u7b.html SEE: REPLY ONE

 

You are claiming C60 with other oils is effective as much as C60oo just based on your personal experiences. Also, it is overgeneralization that " C60 mixed with water has been shown to have negative results". Some studies show water soluble C60 may act as an antioxidant as liposomal C60 does, and toxicity and application of both(water and oil) might seem to be related with their formulations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19482914

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3731423/



#57 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Peru

Posted 25 June 2016 - 07:22 AM

 

C60oo has not been shown to cause tumors, cancers, increase the number of tumors or increase the growth of existing tumors, etc. Although C60 mixed with water has shown negative results; from what I have been reading via studies on the subject matter.

C60oo (C60+olive oil) is a new specie, molecule, a new animal if you will; adduct. The C60+oo=C60oo does not produce any "by product" as in a chemical equation. It is not a compound, a mix that metabolically gets degraded or broken down into C60 and olive oil as separate components (or so it appears). It is one molecule and it is catalytic in nature; it's presence is the cause of some reactions. It is not consumed, not changed, during the chemical equation that occurs because of it's presence and it has to be "in the right place at the right time", to do what we would like to see; long life and other positive results. C60 when formulated with an oil is an "adduct"; new species, new molecule.

 

If the olive oil is incorrect (rancid, degraded, polluted, etc) before, during or after the formulation, then the C60oo- is likely to do something different than if the olive oil is pristine/correct. Many people have taken C60oo, some have experimented with other oils and therefore we know now that C60+other oil+HT=similar (apparent) results as C60oo.

 

 

"...adding hydroxytyrosol to EVOO to artificially increase its natural phenolic content. I first tried a dose of 50 mg hydroxytyrosol without olive oil and found that it gave me a definite boost after about half an hour. While running, I found breathing to be even lighter than with C60EVOO,..."

http://boardreader.c...1chneX1u7b.html SEE: REPLY ONE

 

You are claiming C60 with other oils is effective as much as C60oo just based on your personal experiences. Also, it is overgeneralization that " C60 mixed with water has been shown to have negative results". Some studies show water soluble C60 may act as an antioxidant as liposomal C60 does, and toxicity and application of both(water and oil) might seem to be related with their formulations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19482914

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3731423/

 

GRAVITON:

Thank you for these two studies. I will soon post those studies/information that I had read regarding the ill effects of C60 and water formulation...another paradox? :-( No generalizations, nor personal opinions, just relaying what I have read...humm, maybe there is some bias in there somewhere, I admit I am still human.

 

I agree with your comment about C60 being an antioxidant. I will post a PUBMED REVIEW (I think 2015) that stresses the question of toxicity and issues concerning lack of investigation, lalala...a lot of research needs to be performed on C60. Let;s hope a buuch of great stuff comes out of this!

 

FYI, I posted the same information on another C60oo thread "Commercial C60oo...tumor". Very informative what NINER replied. You might want to take a look.

 

BTW, I myself can make no claims concerning using C60oo. I recently took the dive and ordered some...after checking around. These are small batches made consequence of orders received. I have notified the supplier and they are following along, reading these threads. Therefore I can only state what other LongeCity members have confided, as I have communicated my interest in their OPINIONS based on their personal experience. Without breaking confidence, I am forwarding the information on in my post(s). 

 

I do see now that the type or kind of antioxidant is an underlying issue to be closely examined. Since HT, olive oil and C60 are considered "strong", it is a matter of seeing what cells are receptive to these molecules...be they water or oil/lipid. The current research is showing that again, more is not better and concerning antioxidants, this appears to be the case. Again, it may be in the kind or type of antioxidant, water or oil. No one knows yet. We are on a frontier again, cutting edge stuff.

 

Thanks for your comments and observation. I appreciate it. The learning curve and all. 



#58 LongLife

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Peru

Posted 26 June 2016 - 06:49 AM

GENERAL INFORMATION (C60):

 

http://www.siliconin...?msgid=19972320

 

At first they were considered laboratory-created freaks. Then some of them turned up in outer space. Now they're being sent to *ORNL from the frozen reaches of northern Russia. What's going on here? 

*ORNL's Bob Hettich was on the case. He analyzed. He checked. He double checked. His conclusion? 

"Buckyballs. Definitely buckyballs." 

These enigmatic clusters of carbon atoms have been puzzling scientists since 1985 when they were discovered in a research laboratory among the by-products of laser-vaporized graphite. Their hollow spherical structure, reminiscent of the geodesic domes of eccentric architect Buckminster Fuller, earned them the names "buckyballs" and "fullerenes." 

 

*ORNL = Oak Ridge National Laboratory is an American multiprogram science and technology national laboratory managed for the United States Department of Energy (DOE) by UT-Battelle. ORNL is the largest science and energy national laboratory in the Department of Energy system by surface and by annual budget. WIKIPEDIA  https://en.wikipedia...onal_Laboratory

 

...When Buseck and Tsipursky told Hettich (ORNL) that the rock had come from Russia and not a meteorite, he was somewhat surprised. "In the laboratory," says Hettich, "fullerenes are created in an atmosphere of inert gases, like helium, because common diatomic gases, like nitrogen and oxygen inhibit fullerene growth. This is why fullerenes are not found in ordinary soot, like that in household fireplaces. It seemed more likely to find naturally occurring fullerenes in meteorites, where interaction with these gases would be less of a problem." 

 

...The shungite fullerenes are notable not only for their earthly origin, but also because they may have been formed as solids--most laboratory-created fullerenes are grown in the gas phase. "This is the first example of solid-phase fullerene growth," says Hettich, "It has raised a lot of questions about how the rock was formed, how old it is, and how its composition may have changed over time. Because the shungite sample may be volcanic in origin, you can imagine conditions, like those in a volcano, that would be hot enough to form fullerenes and, at the same time, have little or no oxygen or nitrogen present. But right now, no one is sure exactly how these fullerenes were produced." 

 

...To dispel any lingering doubt, Hettich repeated the analysis without a laser, this time using a 400°C stainless steel probe to vaporize the sample and introduce it into the mass spectrometer for ionization. This technique, known as thermal desorption, cannot create fullerenes in fullerene-free graphite material, yet it yielded identical results, confirming the presence of the two types of buckyballs in the sample. 

"This kind of discovery raises more questions than it answers," says Hettich, "but that's not necessarily a bad thing."--Jim Pearce 

===========================

 

http://www.derivativ...in-pillow-lava/

 

Basalt and andesite are the two most common igneous rocks of volcanic and magmatic origin. When a submarine volcano erupts underwater or flows into the sea, it forms basalt and andesite pillow lava. 
 
In Mitov, Czech Republic, "solid bitumin," i.e. hydrocarbons, have been directly observed in pillow lava. This can leave no doubt, save in the mind (or lack thereof) of the most dogmatic biogenic fundamentalist, that hydrocarbons have a volcanic origin. However a biogenic origin is assumed without any evidence whatsoever based upon prejudice, ignorance, and a lack of education. Evidence for fullerenes in solid bitumen from pillow lavas of Proterozoic age from Mítov.
 
Andesitic pillow lavas containing biogenic, solid bitumen (SB) are a constituent of a Neoproterozoic volcanosedimentary sequence (Teplá-Barrandian unit, Bohemian Massif) in the Mítov area of the Czech Republic.
 
How can molten igneous Proterozoic pillow lava contain biogenic hydrocarbons? What evidence is there that the bitumin is biogenic? They just ASSUME it's biogenic because it's a hydrocarbon. Wouldn't the lava melt the bitumin if it were biogenic?
 
Fullerenes (C60) were observed in the "bitumin." Fullerenes have also been observed in Shungite which is elemental igneous carbon. 

================================

 

http://www.thunderbo...917a5&start=765

 

It should be obvious that the geological source of helium for fullerene generation is in the mantle.
 
More recently, C60 and C70 have also been found in a sample of glassy rock from the mountains of Colorado. Known as a fulgurite, this type of rock structure is formed when lightning strikes the ground.
 
Maybe life started when lightning struck a mud puddle after all although this has yet to be repeated in laboratory experiments.
 
Busek, Tsipursky, and Hettich speculated in a 1992 paper that lightning strikes could provide conditions that are favorable for the formation of buckyballs.
========================
 
 
Secrets of "Marcial Waters"
 
Since the times of Peter I the "Marcial Waters" resort existed in Karelia ( NorthWest Russia). Many years no one could definitively explain the therapeutic properties of this resort. It was assumed that the high content of iron is the cause of health effects. However, there are many sources of iron on earth, and, as a rule, no therapeutic effect.
 
In 1992, the fullerenes were first discovered on the ground, in the Karelian shungite stone. After that, suspicions arose that the fullerenes are the reason for the healthy effects of the Marcial Waters. However, until now scientists could not determine how this therapeutic effect occurs.
 
Although the amazing properties shungite are proved by a number of study and practical application. So, for example, during preparation of water from shungite, water is being purified from excess of free radicals. It is known that an excess of free radicals in our bodies is the cause of many diseases. The shungite or fullerene acts in such a way that it defines this excess of free radicals and neutralizes it, thereby purifying the water.
 
Andrievsky Grigoriy Vladimirovich, Ph.D. in Bioorganic Chemistry, and Klochkov Vladimir Kirillovich, Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry claim that the Martian Water, passing the shungite deposits, is being enriched by fullerenes. Fullerene is not transferred itself in the water, so the water made from shungite cannot hold long the fullerene properties without shungite.
 
It should be also noted that despite the claims of many scientists about the insolubility and toxicity fullerenes, the team of Andrievsky and Klochkov has developed, however, the method of dissolution of fullerenes in water and proved that such a solution is not toxic. Thus, an aqueous solution of hydrated fullerenes contains the fullerene molecules and holds the fullerene properties for a long time.

              SOURCES: http://www.shungite-...en/sources.html

 


  • unsure x 1

#59 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 320

Posted 30 June 2016 - 05:06 AM

 

 

From what I've heard about this case, this C60-EVOO was supplied by a company that was taking a shortcut to dissolve it.

 

That's not actually the case. KMoody asked SES and they claimed that they did not use sonication on the batch which he tested.



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#60 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 320

Posted 30 June 2016 - 05:09 AM

These bottles might be useful, if light is indeed the problem:

 

http://www.miron-gla...ON-violet-glass

 







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

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users