• 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

#61 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,628 posts
  • 1,483
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 01 July 2016 - 08:39 PM

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

So what method were they using? And why would they want tests on a product they weren't selling? 



#62 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,127 posts
  • 305

Posted 03 July 2016 - 03:23 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.

 

 

So what method were they using? And why would they want tests on a product they weren't selling? 

 

 

I don't think SES was sponsoring Kmoody's study. His lab just decided to use their product as one to perform tests on. SES may have changed their methodology since I talked with them a few years ago.

 

What Kmoody said was:

- SES said they didn't use sonication on that batch

- His preliminary analysis was that oxidation wasn't the problem, but he was planning to get more advanced analytical equipment to verify that.

 

At the moment, we really have no idea what about that batch or about C60OO in general could be increasing cancer cell proliferation. Until we have more data it seems reckless to continue to use it.


  • Needs references x 3
  • Good Point x 1

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

#63 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,628 posts
  • 1,483
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 July 2016 - 10:19 AM

 

 

 

I don't think SES was sponsoring Kmoody's study. His lab just decided to use their product as one to perform tests on. SES may have changed their methodology since I talked with them a few years ago.

 

What Kmoody said was:

- SES said they didn't use sonication on that batch

- His preliminary analysis was that oxidation wasn't the problem, but he was planning to get more advanced analytical equipment to verify that.

 

At the moment, we really have no idea what about that batch or about C60OO in general could be increasing cancer cell proliferation. Until we have more data it seems reckless to continue to use it.

 

 

Right, SES is not sponsoring the study, though one might have expected they would know what they were doing. In fact, they obviously do not. As for sonification, they said they were doing that on the stuff they were selling, which likely makes it even worse. They claim the sample they sent to Ichor was prepared by the method described in the paper, but given their unfounded belief that their product has a shelf life of 3 years, this submission was probably an early mix that had been siting in a drawer and already some years old. We previously had an inkling that old C60EVOO was problematical when one member here did a trial on mice, using the mix from the original study that was likely years old by that point. He learned next to nothing as he didn't use controls and he only used 3 mice, but all of them had cancer when they died. So that was a clue the mix does go bad with time (assuming it was good to begin with).

 

As for "preliminary analysis was that oxidation wasn't the problem," did Moody actually say that? I had speculated that epoxides might actually make things better, given the research that they were stronger antioxidants than pristine C60, thus detecting them didn't mean they were the root cause. But I can't find where Moody said what you attribute to him.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 03 July 2016 - 11:03 AM.

  • Informative x 1

#64 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,127 posts
  • 305

Posted 04 July 2016 - 04:54 AM

 

 

 

 

I don't think SES was sponsoring Kmoody's study. His lab just decided to use their product as one to perform tests on. SES may have changed their methodology since I talked with them a few years ago.

 

What Kmoody said was:

- SES said they didn't use sonication on that batch

- His preliminary analysis was that oxidation wasn't the problem, but he was planning to get more advanced analytical equipment to verify that.

 

At the moment, we really have no idea what about that batch or about C60OO in general could be increasing cancer cell proliferation. Until we have more data it seems reckless to continue to use it.

 

 

Right, SES is not sponsoring the study, though one might have expected they would know what they were doing. In fact, they obviously do not. As for sonification, they said they were doing that on the stuff they were selling, which likely makes it even worse. They claim the sample they sent to Ichor was prepared by the method described in the paper, but given their unfounded belief that their product has a shelf life of 3 years, this submission was probably an early mix that had been siting in a drawer and already some years old. We previously had an inkling that old C60EVOO was problematical when one member here did a trial on mice, using the mix from the original study that was likely years old by that point. He learned next to nothing as he didn't use controls and he only used 3 mice, but all of them had cancer when they died. So that was a clue the mix does go bad with time (assuming it was good to begin with).

 

As for "preliminary analysis was that oxidation wasn't the problem," did Moody actually say that? I had speculated that epoxides might actually make things better, given the research that they were stronger antioxidants than pristine C60, thus detecting them didn't mean they were the root cause. But I can't find where Moody said what you attribute to him.

 

 

 

I've been corresponding with him privately, and he said that about oxidation in a message. Today, he said that he does think it's probably photo-oxidation and that the SES C60OO had a separate peak in HPLC which could be the problem compound. The C60OO they prepared according to Baati's protocol didn't have that peak.

 

I've asked him if he could post his latest information here or would give me permission to post his message, and hopefully one or the other of those will happen soon to get us all up to date.

 

One thing to note: In the paper Baati specifically mentions that he kept the C60OO in the dark:

 

2. Materials and methods
2.1. C60-olive oil solution preparation
Virgin olive oil is obtained from a Chemlali Boughrara cultivar from Tunisia planted in the Sahel area. C60 (purity 99.98%) was obtained from SES Research Corporation (USA) and used without further purification.
Fifty mg of C60 were dissolved in 10 ml of olive oil by stirring for 2 weeks at ambient temperature in the dark. The resulting mixture was centrifuged at 5.000 g for 1 h and the supernatant was filtered through a Millipore filter with 0.25 mm porosity.

 

I think a lot of people may have not paid attention to the phrase "in the dark" and hence did not really follow Baati's protocol.


  • Informative x 1

#65 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,628 posts
  • 1,483
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 July 2016 - 09:53 AM

 

 

 

I've been corresponding with him privately, and he said that about oxidation in a message. Today, he said that he does think it's probably photo-oxidation and that the SES C60OO had a separate peak in HPLC which could be the problem compound. The C60OO they prepared according to Baati's protocol didn't have that peak.

 

I've asked him if he could post his latest information here or would give me permission to post his message, and hopefully one or the other of those will happen soon to get us all up to date.

 

One thing to note: In the paper Baati specifically mentions that he kept the C60OO in the dark:

 

2. Materials and methods
2.1. C60-olive oil solution preparation
Virgin olive oil is obtained from a Chemlali Boughrara cultivar from Tunisia planted in the Sahel area. C60 (purity 99.98%) was obtained from SES Research Corporation (USA) and used without further purification.
Fifty mg of C60 were dissolved in 10 ml of olive oil by stirring for 2 weeks at ambient temperature in the dark. The resulting mixture was centrifuged at 5.000 g for 1 h and the supernatant was filtered through a Millipore filter with 0.25 mm porosity.

 

I think a lot of people may have not paid attention to the phrase "in the dark" and hence did not really follow Baati's protocol.

 

 

 

Best not jump to conclusions. Yes, there is likely oxidation of the C60, but there is likely oxidation of the oil as well. Oxidation of C60 may make it a better antioxidant, but that is unlikely for the oil. Has SES said what oil they are using, by the way? If it is years old, then it is likely rancid.



#66 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 140 posts
  • 22
  • Location:US

Posted 04 July 2016 - 11:32 AM

 

 

“We did not expect that the laboratory grade chemicals we purchased from a major distributor would be the cause for these problems. Recognizing this issue not only improves our research but will positively impact any other labs using C60,” Grohn said. - See more at: http://www.weyburnre...h.gDlkAxLc.dpuf

Can you get the information of what "a major distributor" is? If publicly posting is a problem, can anyone know about the distributor he is referring?

Ichor would know this distributor.



#67 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,628 posts
  • 1,483
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 July 2016 - 11:48 AM

 

 

 

“We did not expect that the laboratory grade chemicals we purchased from a major distributor would be the cause for these problems. Recognizing this issue not only improves our research but will positively impact any other labs using C60,” Grohn said. - See more at: http://www.weyburnre...h.gDlkAxLc.dpuf

Can you get the information of what "a major distributor" is? If publicly posting is a problem, can anyone know about the distributor he is referring?

Ichor would know this distributor.

 

 

 It's SES, the only one that is not a mom-and-pop shop, and the only one that claims a 3 year shelf life.



#68 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 140 posts
  • 22
  • Location:US

Posted 04 July 2016 - 12:32 PM

Turnbuckle,

You mentioned that purple color C60evoo might be due to light olive oil(easily oxidizable), and you said C60 mixed with almond oil also has a color of purple, and C60evoo changed a color from purple to brown as it aged. Even so, in Baati's study, C60 mixed with olive oil for two weeks was colored with purple. What do you think of the normal(stable) color of C60 evoo?



#69 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,628 posts
  • 1,483
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 July 2016 - 01:23 PM

Turnbuckle,

You mentioned that purple color C60evoo might be due to light olive oil(easily oxidizable), and you said C60 mixed with almond oil also has a color of purple, and C60evoo changed a color from purple to brown as it aged. Even so, in Baati's study, C60 mixed with olive oil for two weeks was colored with purple. What do you think of the normal(stable) color of C60 evoo?

 

 

There is no normal or stable color of C60EVOO. It depends on the color of the oil and the aging of the mix. Back in 2012 one member here (AgeVivo) obtained oil from the original researchers and posted pictures of it here. As you can see, the original oil appears to have little chlorophyll and thus won't turn whiskey colored, at least not immediately. But once filtered, it is generous to call the color "purple," and once AgeVivo obtained it (possibly years after it was originally mixed), you can see that its color has darkened and turned to mud. Not purple at all. Even the base oil seems to have changed color, becoming lighter while the mix became darker. In a saturated oil, by contrast, the color of dissolved C60 is the classic purple, and is stable, at least over a period of months. A small batch I made early this year never changed. Here is a more recent batch with the classic color also seen in non-reactive solvents such as in toluene.

 

BTW, AgeVivo then fed this Baati oil over a couple of years to three rats, which all got cancer.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 04 July 2016 - 01:42 PM.


#70 Nate-2004

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,292 posts
  • 312
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • NO

Posted 04 July 2016 - 01:42 PM

There is no normal or stable color of C60EVOO. It depends on the color of the oil and the aging of the mix. Back in 2012 one member here (AgeVivo) obtained oil from the original researchers and posted pictures of it here. As you can see, the original oil appears to have little chlorophyll and thus won't turn whiskey colored, at least not immediately. But once filtered, it is generous to call the color "purple," and once AgeVivo obtained it (possibly years after it was originally mixed), you can see that its color has darkened and turned to mud. Not purple at all. In a saturated oil, by contrast, the color is the classic purple, and is stable, at least over a period of months. A small batch I made early this year never changed. Here is a more recent batch with the classic color also seen in non-reactive solvents such as in toluene.

 

 

 

BTW, AgeVivo then fed this oil over a couple of years to three rats, which all got cancer.

 

 

He got the oil from the original authors and the mice all died early of cancer?! I think I'm going to stop taking it then, at least till we discover more. In light of all these difficulties with replication, I don't think I'll get cancer from it but I'm starting to think the original study was some kind of wild fluke.


Edited by Nate-2004, 04 July 2016 - 01:43 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#71 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 140 posts
  • 22
  • Location:US

Posted 04 July 2016 - 02:11 PM

I need to know what type of mice AgeVivo experimented with. I guess some genetically defected mice are more prone to getting cancers and dying, caused from it.


Edited by Graviton, 04 July 2016 - 02:25 PM.


#72 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,628 posts
  • 1,483
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 July 2016 - 02:13 PM

 

There is no normal or stable color of C60EVOO. It depends on the color of the oil and the aging of the mix. Back in 2012 one member here (AgeVivo) obtained oil from the original researchers and posted pictures of it here. As you can see, the original oil appears to have little chlorophyll and thus won't turn whiskey colored, at least not immediately. But once filtered, it is generous to call the color "purple," and once AgeVivo obtained it (possibly years after it was originally mixed), you can see that its color has darkened and turned to mud. Not purple at all. In a saturated oil, by contrast, the color is the classic purple, and is stable, at least over a period of months. A small batch I made early this year never changed. Here is a more recent batch with the classic color also seen in non-reactive solvents such as in toluene.

 

 

 

BTW, AgeVivo then fed this oil over a couple of years to three rats, which all got cancer.

 

 

He got the oil from the original authors and the mice all died early of cancer?! I think I'm going to stop taking it then, at least till we discover more. In light of all these difficulties with replication, I don't think I'll get cancer from it but I'm starting to think the original study was some kind of wild fluke.

 

 

Olive oil is an unstable medium and C60 is rather more reactive that people think, so that it went bad after years is not surprising at all.



#73 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 140 posts
  • 22
  • Location:US

Posted 04 July 2016 - 03:08 PM

 

 

There is no normal or stable color of C60EVOO. It depends on the color of the oil and the aging of the mix. Back in 2012 one member here (AgeVivo) obtained oil from the original researchers and posted pictures of it here. As you can see, the original oil appears to have little chlorophyll and thus won't turn whiskey colored, at least not immediately. But once filtered, it is generous to call the color "purple," and once AgeVivo obtained it (possibly years after it was originally mixed), you can see that its color has darkened and turned to mud. Not purple at all. In a saturated oil, by contrast, the color is the classic purple, and is stable, at least over a period of months. A small batch I made early this year never changed. Here is a more recent batch with the classic color also seen in non-reactive solvents such as in toluene.

 

 

 

BTW, AgeVivo then fed this oil over a couple of years to three rats, which all got cancer.

 

 

He got the oil from the original authors and the mice all died early of cancer?! I think I'm going to stop taking it then, at least till we discover more. In light of all these difficulties with replication, I don't think I'll get cancer from it but I'm starting to think the original study was some kind of wild fluke.

 

 

Olive oil is an unstable medium and C60 is rather more reactive that people think, so that it went bad after years is not surprising at all.

 

Then, adding hydroxytyrosol to C60evoo(commercial) may decrease the oxidation and degradation of C60+evoo, according to your hypothesis? It seems that you have already tried it. Did you just open a capsule of hydroxytyrosol from swanson or other companies, and then pour it to the bottle of C60evoo? How many mg of hydroxytyrosol did you put? Did you observe any changes of quality of C60evoo?



#74 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,127 posts
  • 305

Posted 04 July 2016 - 06:20 PM

Please see the update from Kmoody which I posted in this other thread:

http://www.longecity...e-2#entry781237

 



#75 adoado

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • -0
  • Location:China

Posted 30 August 2016 - 03:33 AM

Hello,

 

I wonder if the rat study was replicated by any other team? It has been 4 years, it should and could be replicated, i searched the web but could not get anything useful.

 

 

 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • like x 1

#76 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,340 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 30 August 2016 - 07:53 AM

Hello,

 

I wonder if the rat study was replicated by any other team? It has been 4 years, it should and could be replicated, i searched the web but could not get anything useful.

I'm also wondering about this. Why hasn't this been funded? I've pledged some money for this but of course crowd-funding should be organised in order to pull this off. 



#77 Vany

  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 6
  • Location:France
  • NO

Posted 01 September 2016 - 09:08 AM

Maybe the rats are living so long that the studies arent over yet !
  • Cheerful x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#78 IP3

  • Guest
  • 101 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Poland

Posted 23 October 2016 - 12:02 PM

I have one important question. Did anyone tried to replicate c60 lifespan experiment in fruit flies? We would have fast confirmation if c60 study isn't faked.
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1





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

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users