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

Photo
- - - - -

Commercially available C60 Olive Oil causing tumours

c60 c60 oo cancer

  • Please log in to reply
285 replies to this topic

#91 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 August 2016 - 05:21 AM

 


I ran into a problem once before with a very small dose of C70. As I reported in 2012--

 

To clarify, I noticed a pain in both calves that lasted several days and a pulsing pain in the back of my neck that lasted several hours.This was after a few days of taking a dose of .25 mg twice a day. And it wasn't C60, it was a mixture of C60 & C70--about 28% C70 and 2% higher. Previously I'd used C60 @ 99.5% purity, but now I've switched to 99.95% purity, as it seems that even a small amount of higher fullerenes may prove to be a problem.

 

http://www.longecity...joint-pain-and/

 

So this was only 70 micrograms C70 twice a day. I'd taken a much lager dose of C70 before without any problem, but the problem here seems to have come from taking it twice a day. C70 has been reported to go into the endoplasmic reticulum, where it could conceivably interfere with protein folding. Do that on a continuous basis and cells could run low on important proteins.

 

One of the things we look for when ascribing a biological effect to a molecule is dose response.  We expect to see a larger effect with a larger dose.  Here you found no effect from a much larger dose of C70, but saw a large effect when taking a very small dose. 

 

Another thing that we would look for is reproducibility.  This effect sounds like a one-off event.  I think it's a lot more likely that the calf and neck pains were due to something else, like exercise, injury, tension headache, or some other cause. 

 

Chris Kepley's group has reported some very desirable biological effects from two different compounds containing c70 groups.  While these were not quite the same as a c70-fatty acid adduct, they aren't wildly different. 

 

While there is very little evidence that c70 is harmful, VW's claim that they could create a 99.95% c60 by heating a lower grade under vacuum betrays a lack of understanding of the nature of c60 contaminants and methods for their removal.


  • Well Written x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#92 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,433 posts
  • 451

Posted 07 August 2016 - 06:36 AM

Lots of people get cancer.

 

Not everyone happens to mention it.

 

Til now, there was no reason to think that if someone got it that C60oo was to blame.

 

So we just do NOT have that data. Assuming that it would have been reported if it has been happening is making a big and unwarranted guess.

 

 

 

 


 

So this was only 70 micrograms C70 twice a day. I'd taken a much lager dose of C70 before without any problem, but the problem here seems to have come from taking it twice a day. C70 has been reported to go into the endoplasmic reticulum, where it could conceivably interfere with protein folding. Do that on a continuous basis and cells could run low on important proteins.

 

 

Could -- yes --

 

if that was an effect of C70 -- one would expect lower purity C60 (99.5%) to inhibit cell proliferation (cancer) 

 

 

If we apply Occam's Razor in an adapted manner:

 

Over the course of several years and likely thousands of human users of many different C60OO preparations, some of which, have, without a doubt:

 

been rancid

been exposed to oxygen and light

used lower purity C60

were not prepared per Baati (many of us just shake and decant no .22 micron filter)

 

 

 

and there is no reported incidence of tumors.

 

And that previous C60OO did not enhance AML,

 

One may reasonably conclude that the difference may more likely be attributed to something other than C60OO - regardless of manufacture -- such as laboratory specimen feed.

 

Furthermore,

 

I have not seen any evidence presented regarding the mean and SD of AML progression in an immunocompromised xenograft model in the strain of mice used.

 

It is entirely possible that the "enhanced tumorogenesis" is actually within the 3 sigma bound of proliferation, and that the current protocol simply did not have a preventative effect, regardless of progression in the non-C60 AML cohort.

 

 

 


  • Agree x 1

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

#93 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 07 August 2016 - 10:26 AM

One of the things we look for when ascribing a biological effect to a molecule is dose response.  We expect to see a larger effect with a larger dose.  Here you found no effect from a much larger dose of C70, but saw a large effect when taking a very small dose. 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't compare the large dose with the small dose directly. The large dose wasn't twice a day, nor did the small dose cause a problem only once a day. If C70 has a relatively short residence time in the ER (as reported) then a brief interference with protein folding would have only a minor influence on the cell, as cells surely have a reserve. But if C70 is present all the time by taking it twice a day for some days, a problem could easily develop when some cells ran low on vital proteins and began malfunctioning. However I never felt a pain like the one I had in my neck, and it was actually quite scary. I'm quite aware that this is an anecdotal report and could have some other cause, nevertheless I have no interest in repeating it. If any other self-experimenter wants to try it, I would be very interested in hearing the results. Such an experiment should not require the C70-rich extract I used. SV oil is made with 99.5% C60 with the balance mostly C70 (roughly 93% of the non-C60 fraction if in the same proportion as the extract), thus a dose of 15 mg mixed fullerenes should deliver the same 70 micrograms of C70. If one took that twice a day for three or four days, that would provide the C70 dosing that likely caused the problem.

 

For the suppliers using 99.95% purity, the same experiment would require 150 mg twice a day--roughly half a liter of oil solution a day.

 

Other nanoparticles are known to induce ER stress to the point of killing the cell--

 

Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles Induce Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress-Mediated Autophagic Cell Death via Mitochondria-Associated Endoplasmic Reticulum Membrane Disruption in Normal Lung Cells.

 

Gold nanoparticles induce apoptosis, endoplasmic reticulum stress events and cleavage of cytoskeletal proteins in human neutrophils.

 

Silver nanoparticles activate endoplasmic reticulum stress signaling pathway in cell and mouse models: The role in toxicity evaluation.

 

 


Edited by Turnbuckle, 07 August 2016 - 11:20 AM.


#94 sensei

  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 07 August 2016 - 03:58 PM

 

 

 

 

and there is no reported incidence of tumors.

 

 

 

AgeVivo gave his three mice C60 (apparently the same oil Baati used, years old by that point), and they all got cancer. Mikeinnaples gave his dog C60 for three years (preparing the C60 solution himself), and his dog developed a "massive tumor." And of course the Kmoody rats got cancer while being dosed with the SES oil. So there are reports, at least with animals. As for humans, I haven't seen any reports, but that's not to say people taking C60 haven't gotten cancer and attributed it to something else, or just back luck. There isn't anyone polling them, after all. Nor would such reports be all that meaningful unless we had an age matched control group.

 

 

 

It is expected for mice and dogs to get cancer at those ages:

 

Mice get cancer -- frequently -- I also went back and read the thread -- apparently AV's mice had single tumors (which is uncommon).

 

Cancer is the #1 cause of death for dogs age 10 and older -- in fact at age 10,  40% of dogs of all breeds die from cancer it trends down to about 28% by age 13

 

Mine did -- of the exact type of most prevalent neoplasm -- for her breed.

 

Furthermore, in a very large percentage of breeds the likelihood of cancer being the cause of death exceeds 60%

 

http://onlinelibrary...011.0695.x/full

 

 

Show me some evidence of tumorogenesis in a 40 year old human that isn't attributed to anything but  C60OO

 

 

 

----

 

 

I also read your post about using C and glutathione to counter lipid peroxidation.

 

I was taking (and still do) anywhere from 8 -16 grams of mixed ascorbate salts daily.

 

At the time I was also taking Goji juice, and taking home-made aqueous and ethanol extracts of ground dried goji berries (per tech papers I found).

 

It would be interesting if Kelsey could replicate the latest study and add ascorbate


Edited by sensei, 07 August 2016 - 04:16 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#95 sensei

  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 07 August 2016 - 04:42 PM

I'm also curious regarding any potential contaminants in the Olive Oil used by SES to make their C60OO. (maybe just that batch that Ichor ended up sourcing)

 

The incidence of remaining extraction solvents, process contamination, substituted oils -- etc in the Olive Oil industry are systemic and legion.

 

Has Ichor done a full spectrum GC/MS MS HPLC  and checked all the ions and IR/UV spectra to identify possible contaminants in the oil?

 

Even a small amount of contaminant is of concern as the dose is daily, and mice can be extremely susceptible to volatiles and aromatics.

 

 

IMHO it is vastly more likely that a contaminant in the oil (pre or post SES process) is the culprit, and not the  C60/C70 ratio because of 99.5%.

 

 

.


Edited by sensei, 07 August 2016 - 04:50 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#96 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 07 August 2016 - 05:04 PM

@sensei

 

You said there were "no reported incidence of tumors," and I pointed out there are indeed reports. In animals, yes, but it's in animals that we got the idea C60 might protect against cancer. As for C70, I wasn't indicating that it could cause cancer, only that there's another problem with it that could produce severe symptoms when a supplier (like SV) is not using the most pure C60.



#97 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 07 August 2016 - 08:55 PM

Which suppliers are using the purest kind of C60 in their c60oo, if SV isn't?



#98 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 150 posts
  • 26
  • Location:US

Posted 07 August 2016 - 10:43 PM

Which suppliers are using the purest kind of C60 in their c60oo, if SV isn't?

As far as I know, carbon60oliveoil.(However, remember that we are not 100% sure of the exact things they do and the source). There are other supplies available, but less history remains.



#99 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 07 August 2016 - 11:37 PM

 

Which suppliers are using the purest kind of C60 in their c60oo, if SV isn't?

As far as I know, carbon60oliveoil.(However, remember that we are not 100% sure of the exact things they do and the source). There are other supplies available, but less history remains.

 

 

 

All I see on their website is that their C60 is "research grade." Since they are not giving the actual purity, I would assume this is no better than the powder SES is selling as reagent grade, which is only 99.5%, same purity that SV is selling. SES itself is selling C60/EVOO with "the purest form of C60." The purest form they have is 99.99% C60, which would be great except their oil might be very old and rancid, and/or mixed with sonic energy. Bucky Labs claims 99.95% purity.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 08 August 2016 - 12:13 AM.

  • Informative x 2
  • Agree x 1

#100 sensei

  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 07 August 2016 - 11:49 PM

@sensei

 

You said there were "no reported incidence of tumors," and I pointed out there are indeed reports. In animals, yes, but it's in animals that we got the idea C60 might protect against cancer. As for C70, I wasn't indicating that it could cause cancer, only that there's another problem with it that could produce severe symptoms when a supplier (like SV) is not using the most pure C60.

 

Agreed, however:

 

Mice and a 13 year old dog are expected to get cancer.  

 

My dog died of the most likely breed specific cancer at pretty much the exact expected time for the breed.



#101 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 08 August 2016 - 02:28 AM

I didn't compare the large dose with the small dose directly. The large dose wasn't twice a day, nor did the small dose cause a problem only once a day. If C70 has a relatively short residence time in the ER (as reported) then a brief interference with protein folding would have only a minor influence on the cell, as cells surely have a reserve. But if C70 is present all the time by taking it twice a day for some days, a problem could easily develop when some cells ran low on vital proteins and began malfunctioning. However I never felt a pain like the one I had in my neck, and it was actually quite scary. I'm quite aware that this is an anecdotal report and could have some other cause, nevertheless I have no interest in repeating it. If any other self-experimenter wants to try it, I would be very interested in hearing the results. Such an experiment should not require the C70-rich extract I used. SV oil is made with 99.5% C60 with the balance mostly C70 (roughly 93% of the non-C60 fraction if in the same proportion as the extract), thus a dose of 15 mg mixed fullerenes should deliver the same 70 micrograms of C70. If one took that twice a day for three or four days, that would provide the C70 dosing that likely caused the problem.

 

For the suppliers using 99.95% purity, the same experiment would require 150 mg twice a day--roughly half a liter of oil solution a day.

 

Other nanoparticles are known to induce ER stress to the point of killing the cell--

 

Considering that SV is a major supplier with 99.5% c60, and a number of people here have used c70 in there own preparations as well, it's pretty likely that this experiment has already been run a number of times.   The c70 compound that had a short residence time in the ER was probably a water soluble c70 compound.  The fatty acid conjugates, on the other hand, are likely to have a long residence time.  I have some c60-c70 mixture on hand, so I'll try the experiment myself (one of these days; I've been busy lately) and see what it does to me. 

 

The nanoparticles that cause ER stress are aggregates with very different properties than c70oo, which is molecular unless very large doses are used, so I don't think we can make much of a comparison there.



#102 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 09 August 2016 - 02:46 PM

 

 

 

 

 

and there is no reported incidence of tumors.

 

 

 

AgeVivo gave his three mice C60 (apparently the same oil Baati used, years old by that point), and they all got cancer. Mikeinnaples gave his dog C60 for three years (preparing the C60 solution himself), and his dog developed a "massive tumor." And of course the Kmoody rats got cancer while being dosed with the SES oil. So there are reports, at least with animals. As for humans, I haven't seen any reports, but that's not to say people taking C60 haven't gotten cancer and attributed it to something else, or just back luck. There isn't anyone polling them, after all. Nor would such reports be all that meaningful unless we had an age matched control group.

 

 

http://onlinelibrary...011.0695.x/full

 

 

Interesting... leading cause of death for my dog's breed is trauma. That is so very typical JRT. Neoplasia is at 17% however.
 



#103 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 150 posts
  • 26
  • Location:US

Posted 09 August 2016 - 09:45 PM

I am not talking about moisture content in C60.

But, doesn't whether increasing purity of C60 by oven-drying is right or not depend on what the rest of 0.01 or 0.05% components are? Or, oven drying can blow up solvents or other unstable components(by vibrating, giving some enough energy) from the original compounds?

I found that bonding energy for C70 is even larger than C60(http://www.sciencedi...166128096049317). Then, how can C60 powder company purify C60 from C70?



#104 sensei

  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 09 August 2016 - 10:21 PM

 

 


 

 

Interesting... leading cause of death for my dog's breed is trauma. That is so very typical JRT. Neoplasia is at 17% however.
 

 

 

I'm not sure, but I'd wager that trauma is NOT the leading COD for 13 year old JRTs. I'd bet trauma falls below: metabolic (diabetes, thyroid etc), genetic/inherited brain degenerative (common in JRTs), cancer, and kidney failure.

 

 

Cancer as a COD -- or even as a co-morbid condition is not unlikely for 13 year old dogs of any breed.


Edited by sensei, 09 August 2016 - 10:22 PM.


#105 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 09 August 2016 - 10:26 PM

I am not talking about moisture content in C60.

But, doesn't whether increasing purity of C60 by oven-drying is right or not depend on what the rest of 0.01 or 0.05% components are? Or, oven drying can blow up solvents or other unstable components(by vibrating, giving some enough energy) from the original compounds?

I found that bonding energy for C70 is even larger than C60(http://www.sciencedi...166128096049317). Then, how can C60 powder company purify C60 from C70?

 

 

From the SES website--

 

 

Purity is expressed of fullerene content compared to other carbon fullerenes content.
Tested by HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography)
 
Example:  Carbon 70 98%-     contains 98% C70 and   2% other carbon fullerenes

 

 

 

So this has nothing to do with moisture or solvent content, and oven drying won't change the purity as they measure it. As for purification, this is done by chromatographic methods. For example, see this paper.


  • Informative x 1

#106 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 10 August 2016 - 12:36 PM

 

 

 


 

 

Interesting... leading cause of death for my dog's breed is trauma. That is so very typical JRT. Neoplasia is at 17% however.
 

 

 

I'm not sure, but I'd wager that trauma is NOT the leading COD for 13 year old JRTs. I'd bet trauma falls below: metabolic (diabetes, thyroid etc), genetic/inherited brain degenerative (common in JRTs), cancer, and kidney failure.

 

 

Cancer as a COD -- or even as a co-morbid condition is not unlikely for 13 year old dogs of any breed.

 

 

Please show me where I read the information wrong on the link you posted. I was looking specifically at pathophysiologic process categories on table 2.


Edited by mikeinnaples, 10 August 2016 - 12:39 PM.


#107 sensei

  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 10 August 2016 - 11:15 PM

 

 


 

Please show me where I read the information wrong on the link you posted. I was looking specifically at pathophysiologic process categories on table 2.

 

 

That table is for all deaths regardless of age.



#108 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 August 2016 - 12:06 PM

 

 

 


 

Please show me where I read the information wrong on the link you posted. I was looking specifically at pathophysiologic process categories on table 2.

 

 

That table is for all deaths regardless of age.

 

 

Right. That makes my statement wrong how?



#109 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 150 posts
  • 26
  • Location:US

Posted 11 August 2016 - 09:14 PM

It may be off-topic, but I touched C60oo dropper with my tongue for a second while dosing. Do I have to throw the dropper and C60oo in touched with the dropper?

C60 itself seems to be anti-bacterial, but I am concerned with degradation due to this.



#110 sensei

  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 12 August 2016 - 01:59 PM

 


 

Right. That makes my statement wrong how?

 

 

Never said it was wrong. Simply pointed out it is not valid wrt your 13 year old dog.


It may be off-topic, but I touched C60oo dropper with my tongue for a second while dosing. Do I have to throw the dropper and C60oo in touched with the dropper?

C60 itself seems to be anti-bacterial, but I am concerned with degradation due to this.

 

Wash it.



#111 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 150 posts
  • 26
  • Location:US

Posted 12 August 2016 - 03:34 PM

 

 


 

Right. That makes my statement wrong how?

 

 

Never said it was wrong. Simply pointed out it is not valid wrt your 13 year old dog.


It may be off-topic, but I touched C60oo dropper with my tongue for a second while dosing. Do I have to throw the dropper and C60oo in touched with the dropper?

C60 itself seems to be anti-bacterial, but I am concerned with degradation due to this.

 

Wash it.

 

already put that dropper into the mix of C60oo before washing. Is it OK to consume within two weeks? Or, just not OK?

And, I am afraid to wash it since possible water contamination to C60oo even after drying cause an issue.


Edited by Graviton, 12 August 2016 - 03:35 PM.


#112 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 12 August 2016 - 05:18 PM

 

already put that dropper into the mix of C60oo before washing. Is it OK to consume within two weeks? Or, just not OK?

 

And, I am afraid to wash it since possible water contamination to C60oo even after drying cause an issue.

 

 

 

Relax. Nothing bad will happen. People have used olive oil for thousands of years without any sterilization. In fact, it has been used to preserve foods. As for water, olive oil already has it in small amounts.


  • Cheerful x 2

#113 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 321 posts
  • 105
  • Location:Pergamon

Posted 12 August 2016 - 06:17 PM

It may be off-topic, but I touched C60oo dropper with my tongue for a second while dosing. Do I have to throw the dropper and C60oo in touched with the dropper?

C60 itself seems to be anti-bacterial, but I am concerned with degradation due to this.

 

There are so many events that, theoretically, could spoil a given mixture of c60 in olive -- some hard to even detect -- that the issue you've raised wouldn't be on my list.  Higher on my list of issues would be: whether the oil or c60 had ever been exposed to light or high temperature for any significant duration, whether the oil is of adequate grade, whether the oil is actually fresh, whether I'm satisfied no solvents remain from c60, whether the c60 is of high grade (low in c70), and whether the current state of research and reports has convinced me it's safe. The issue you describe wouldn't make my list. In other words, I'd either keep it or throw it out based on one or more of these other criteria.


Edited by Empiricus, 12 August 2016 - 06:21 PM.

  • Cheerful x 1

#114 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 150 posts
  • 26
  • Location:US

Posted 12 August 2016 - 11:51 PM

Then, what about stomach acid for C60oo ingestion?

Do you guys take C60oo as a liquid? Would acidity cause an issue for stability of C60oo? Anyone thinking to capsulate with stomach acid resistant capsules?

 I guess there are discussions about taking C60oo with food or without food.

1. empty stomach

2. with food(normal diet as usual)

3. with a little bit of fat to enhance absorption but not with normal diet.

 

Which one would be the best condition?


Edited by Graviton, 12 August 2016 - 11:55 PM.

  • Off-Topic x 3
  • Good Point x 1

#115 Graviton

  • Guest
  • 150 posts
  • 26
  • Location:US

Posted 13 August 2016 - 05:35 AM

Sorry if you think it's kind of off-topic. But, not sure where to post this question. In some sense, somewhat related to stability issue. And, it might be related to the first post regarding tumor growth problem.


  • Off-Topic x 3
  • Good Point x 1

#116 sensei

  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 13 August 2016 - 07:44 PM

I'd like to propose that a de-novo mutation  in the AML cell line used for xenograft injection - that induces a more invasive and robust tumor profile is also a possibility.

 

Have the tumors ifrom the AML and no C60OO been evaluated against tumors from the C60OO cohort for polymorphisms that code for more invasive and robust tumors?

 

 

It is absolutely necessary to exclude all the possible reasons for the difference in tumors that isn't C60OO related , before hanging the cause on C60OO.


Edited by sensei, 13 August 2016 - 07:46 PM.


#117 ClarkSims

  • Life Member
  • 232 posts
  • 36
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 August 2016 - 08:37 PM

i have made many batches of c60 olive oil. I use the Spanish Olive oil from Trader Joes's, that comes in the 1 litter  brown bottles. I use the 99.5% vacuum backed c60 from Solaris. I do my best to keep everything in the dark, all the time. I have never had a batch change color. It starts out ruby red, and stays ruby red.
 
If the allegation that SES is using sonication to increase the speed of the c60 reacting with olive oil, then that would almost certainly alter the chemestry, and cause carcinogenic compounds. The small bobbles of air within the olive oil would be heated to several thousand degrees F, thus carbonizing the oil next to it. Here is a nice article on sonoluminescence.

During bubble collapse, the inertia of the surrounding water causes high pressure and high temperature, reaching around 10,000 Kelvin in the interior of the bubble,

https://en.wikipedia...onoluminescence
 
I am inclined to interpret the report as an admonishment to adhere as closely as possible to Baati's methods and avoid light. I think anything else is an over reaction.

 
Two questions stick out in my mind however:
1) hos much light is too much light? Even in the Baati experiment, the C60OO was exposed to light in the brief period from the time it was taken from the dark, and given to the rats. So some light is obviously OK.
2) How could one test a batch of oil?
 
IMHO, if the oil has changed colors, it is unfit for consumption. Though as I mentioned, I have never seen a batch change color.

 



#118 ClarkSims

  • Life Member
  • 232 posts
  • 36
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 August 2016 - 08:55 PM

Another thought just occurred to me. If SES uses any kind of industrial mixer, or blender, cavitation will be an issue.

 

 When a volume of liquid is subjected to a sufficiently low pressure, it may rupture and form a cavity. This phenomenon is coined cavitation inception and may occur behind the blade of a rapidly rotating propeller or on any surface vibrating in the liquid with sufficient amplitude and acceleration. A fast-flowing river can cause cavitation on rock surfaces, particularly when there is a drop-off, such as on a waterfall.

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Cavitation

 
 
 


#119 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 21 August 2016 - 09:20 PM

 

i have made many batches of c60 olive oil. I use the Spanish Olive oil from Trader Joes's, that comes in the 1 litter  brown bottles. I use the 99.5% vacuum backed c60 from Solaris. I do my best to keep everything in the dark, all the time. I have never had a batch change color. It starts out ruby red, and stays ruby red.

 

 

 

I've made many mixes in EVOO over the past 4 years, and every single one got darker with time (unless frozen). Even one that began magenta in perfectly clear avocado oil. Only when I switched to MCT oil did the color stabilize to a clear magenta. But even with MCT oil I put it in dark amber bottles and freeze it for long term storage.



#120 ClarkSims

  • Life Member
  • 232 posts
  • 36
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 August 2016 - 09:59 PM

Well it looks like I need to buy a spectrometer, and start taking measurements.  Do you have any suggestions on which machine I should buy?  I obviously want something that will save the data to usb stick, or other electronic form, that I can save, analyze and share.

 

 

i have made many batches of c60 olive oil. I use the Spanish Olive oil from Trader Joes's, that comes in the 1 litter  brown bottles. I use the 99.5% vacuum backed c60 from Solaris. I do my best to keep everything in the dark, all the time. I have never had a batch change color. It starts out ruby red, and stays ruby red.

 

 

 

I've made many mixes in EVOO over the past 4 years, and every single one got darker with time (unless frozen). Even one that began magenta in perfectly clear avocado oil. Only when I switched to MCT oil did the color stabilize to a clear magenta. But even with MCT oil I put it in dark amber bottles and freeze it for long term storage.

 

 







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

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users