7 replies to this topic

[Brainbox]

Although at this moment in time I'm severely limited in the possibilities to contribute to this fine forum and it's members, I would like to raise a point that also has been raised by AgeVivo (among others).

The use of c60 in medical science and practice is in it's bare footed, completely naked and prenatal infancy.

Some are already executing experiments to asses the various claims and broader hypothetical use of c60.

I'd like to raise an important issue and half-baked solution. As the rabbits are running now, all experiments and trials are executed differently and foremost, reporting of results is not very uniform. This results in the situation that assessing these reports by readers is almost impossible. Some amazing results have been reported while others did report no effects, at least as being noticeable on the short term. Negative side effects haven't been reported at all, although these seem to be inevitable in case c60 actually lives up to the current hypothetical expectations. My personal assessment is that the risk that reports are based on placebo effects is huge, for the entire noticeability spectrum. We lack a certain level of objectivity.

Add to that the already emerging commercial initiatives to serve a certain demand for c60 products.

In this context, it is very easy to (intentionally or unintentionally) skew reports or link the use of c60 to already existing products to boost sales.

First I would like to ask for a reasonable amount of decency and appliance of good ethics. At longecity (and on imminst in the past) we have seen many examples of the good and of the bad and the ugly. The good are welcome on this forum. The point here is the question what your core business consists of: participating in a scientific discussion or using the situation to exploit fear for ill health or to create unrealistic and unproven expectations.

Secondly I would like to mention the OpenScience and OpenResearch movements.

Open science is the umbrella term of the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society, amateur or professional. It encompasses practices such as publishing open research, campaigning for open access, encouraging scientists to practice open notebook science, and generally making it easier to publish and communicate scientific knowledge.

→ source (external link)

What we could do is to find out if there are already existing methods and procedures for execution and documenting of open and distributed research trails that we could use. The goal of this exercise is not to be 100% compliant to de-facto standards and procedures, but to learn from them and apply them wisely to solve the objectivity issues we are experiencing now on this excellent forum.

You are all invited to participate in this discussion!

Thanks for your attention, cheers,
B.

Edited by Brainbox, 21 July 2012 - 11:10 PM.

[cesium]

Yeah, too many of the conversations reguarding this substance appear devoid of objectivity. The poster tintenit (sp?) is apparently an MD, well acquainted with the placebo affect, I put a premium upon his dispassionate assessments of no discernable effects. (Those with mito disfunction, various disease states perhaps having a different response.) The rapidity with which the consensus on this forum embraced this substance amazes me, this isn't a natural substance like resveratrol. They seemed all too happy to quickly dismisss any possible toxicity to residue solvents, being water soluble, ect, before any substantial studies were posted here. Where are the more cynical posters theses days to call them out? I want an objective scientific assessment of things, with perhaps an optimistic bias, but not one where the emotional factors take control. The dialogue with this substance, on this forum, at least to me has edged into that area.

[Marcus Gitterle]

One, simple method we could adopt from the world of big-science, is to create a simple "registry;" a web-page (perhaps accessible from the Longecity site), where individuals who assert that they are adhering to this or that protocol, can anonymously login, and be assigned a registration number uniquely identifying them.

These folks (perhaps myself included), will identify the protocol they are utilizing, as rigorously as possible (this is the key limitation of the method, obviously - a lack of controls at multiple levels), such as A) I'm taking C60, B) Dose, C) Frequency, D) Solvent (EVOO, MCT Oil, etc).

Most importantly, there would be an expectation that, as registrants, we would login to our "page" (all anonymous, of course), and fill out a brief questionnaire regarding our health status at reasonable intervals. I'm thinking this might capture enough detail to identify big events, important symptoms, and capture macro effects we are all interested in seeking and tracking, as well as some fields like "I have a new disease diagnosis since starting the protocol: __________".

Weight might be tracked, and there would be an opportunity for capture of other, *objective* health data, such as BP, and laboratory test data, should they be available to the individual registrant. The data would be crunched by the registry backend, in a very simple fashion (php scripts for example), and presented on the front page of the registry, in synoptic fashion, with negative and positive symptoms, and objective negative and positive diagnoses which have been applied to the individual registrant in question, which would be listed in descending order for each protocol.

This is not rigorous science, and nobody ought to represent it as such. It would be simply a convenience to all of us bleeding edgers, to help catch unfortunate trends early, and hopefully, to catch positive trends and indicators, as well, over time. At the very least, this would help us all to have a sense of just how many of us are doing some of these things at any given time. I'm willing to donate some time and energy to this.

Marcus L. Gitterle, M.D.

Edited by Marcus Gitterle, 07 July 2012 - 01:58 PM.

[Lister]

If a database is developed I don't have a problem logging in and providing any and all useful information. I should probably look for Medical professionals studying anti-aging in Vancouver... but I guess if this idea helps it's a good idea for now. Without the influence of others I would imagine these trends would be vastly easier to spot.

I look forward to the launch of this database. Who would make the questions and manage the database? I can't see anyone but Medical Professionals administering it... Is there no group researching anti-aging out there? Wouldn't they want all this free research material?

[niner]

Wouldn't they want all this free research material?

Perhaps not, since it is extremely random. Most people are using different materials, with different dosing. No unbiased (third party) observations were made prior to initiating use, and no biological samples have been analyzed, as far as I'm aware. Even if we were to provide a number of fullerene-naive subjects to a researcher, then dose them in a controlled manner, I have a strong suspicion that it wouldn't make it past any Institutional Review Board (the bodies that make sure research on human subjects is ethical), so researchers probably couldn't use it even if we did everything right. That doesn't mean we couldn't use the information ourselves, though.

[Marcus Gitterle]

As niner points out, the point of a registry is purely one of utility for *we* end-users of bleeding edge anti-aging concepts. It would be an expedient to help us spot problems early, and bolster the weak anecdotal "evidence" that constitutes all we have right now.

[AgeVivo]

anyone to propose a structured document that we can fill online to document all C60 tests discussed throughout longecity?

[AgeVivo]

I am surprised to see how much C60 discussion has sprouted forth here. I would be personally more conservative about consuming the stuff myself until there is more data though.