Posted 15 February 2020 - 03:26 PM
I hope they don't use sonicated c60 in olive oil.
It also sounds like the rats will not be in a fasted state when they receive the c60 olive oil.
I wonder if this will make a difference?
I would like to see a written description of their experimental design. I will keep looking.
Posted 16 February 2020 - 06:37 PM
We should condsider contacting them directly to make sure they have the experimental design set-up appropriately. SES should also contact Ichor about their experiences in trying to create a standardized C60 therapeutic.
Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:42 PM
I am confused. I first thought it was SES that was doing the study. But it is C60EVO.com. Perhaps this company is related to SES? I can't anything about reproducing the Baati study on their website. https://www.c60evo.com/
Posted 18 February 2020 - 01:10 PM
I am confused. I first thought it was SES that was doing the study. But it is C60EVO.com. Perhaps this company is related to SES? I can't anything about reproducing the Baati study on their website. https://www.c60evo.com/
SES appears to be the parent company. Both are located in Houston.
Posted 18 February 2020 - 01:18 PM
C60 Evo is was founded in October 2019 by Patty Greer, who sounds like a quack. She is openly working with SES Research however, according to this article (http://voyagedenver....-films-boulder/) so I expect she is just a reseller for them (at higher price, I might add). In the C60 Evo You tube clip, she seems to be interviewing a guy from SES Research. So, I think it is SES Research who are going to replicate the Baati study. But like you I can’t find any evidence for that on their website.
Edited by QuestforLife, 18 February 2020 - 01:19 PM.
Posted 22 February 2020 - 02:54 PM
Here is the thread for podcast questions. https://www.longecit...s-ses-research/
Posted 22 February 2020 - 03:57 PM
Call me skeptical, but does no one else see anything wrong with SES Research, who has been aggressively capitalizing on consumer interest in C60 since the Clif High broadcast in 2018, in designing and funding their own study? If the outcome is not as desired, how likely are we to hear of the results? As is common in pharmaceutical testing nowadays, the potential for confirmational bias and skewed results are a legitimate concern.
Posted 22 February 2020 - 04:08 PM
If the outcome is not as desired, how likely are we to hear of the results? As is common in pharmaceutical testing nowadays, the potential for confirmational bias and skewed results are a legitimate concern.
Please ask them if they will publish the results in all cases.
Also, ask them if they will have "rat cams".
If I recall correctly, a member here had a web cam going on some mice that were given c60 olive oil.
It would be nice to have a web cam going on the test rats.
Posted 22 February 2020 - 11:02 PM
Call me skeptical, but does no one else see anything wrong with SES Research, who has been aggressively capitalizing on consumer interest in C60 since the Clif High broadcast in 2018, in designing and funding their own study? If the outcome is not as desired, how likely are we to hear of the results? As is common in pharmaceutical testing nowadays, the potential for confirmational bias and skewed results are a legitimate concern.
I have been told they are contracting out this research project. Hopefully this means there will be less chance of bias.
Posted 23 February 2020 - 07:54 PM
Continuing with my skepticism, unless SES Research is prepared to define and establish a biological standard for the C60 they are selling as a ‘consumable’, the results of any in-vivo testing will be of dubious merit.
The field of nanotechnology has advanced tremendously since the Baati rat study, to the point where we now know that it is a particle’s size, shape, surface charge and concentration that are critical in determining its biological response in living organisms. The range of conflicting and contradictory outcomes in biological testing of C60 bears this out. Some studies are overwhelmingly positive, while others are frightening. It’s concerning to me that, while most fullerene manufacturers refuse to sell to consumers, SES Research has chosen to capitalize on the surge in consumer demand, touting the results of the Baati rat study, while deliberating downplaying (if not outright attempting to discredit) the Ichor Therapeutics research. This willful deceit should make any consumer question SES Research's ethics.
Most consumers don't know that the number of process variables in fullerene production are many, and although these variables may be of little significance for industrial applications, they are often confounding factors in whether they elicit a favorable or detrimental response in a biological system. C60 is nanotechnology, which makes it profoundly powerful on the cellular level. Nano size molecules can and do override normal cellular defenses, influencing molecular signaling in ways that are unpredictable and incompletely understood. Contrary to what consumers tend to believe, solvent-extracted, industrially-produced C60 “powder” is actually a highly-crystalline aggregate of C60 molecules. Actual single molecules of C60 in these "powders" are the exception. Mortar-and-pestle grinding, pulverizing and jet milling are only moderately successful in breaking down these crystals into individual, single molecules; most of the aggregates remain in the 10-micron range. Although a single molecule of C60, by virtue of its Golden Mean ratio, is exceptionally biocompatible and activates pathways associated with DNA repair and cellular rejuvenation, the vast array of irregular sizes and shapes of C60 aggregates are often NOT biocompatible. Aggregates of C60 that are large and jagged become a source of “phagocyte frustration” and may become lodged in various tissues and organs. Impurities (i.e., other metals) in the carbon rod feedstock, as well as solvent residues from the fullerene purification process, can also elicit toxic and detrimental responses in biological systems. These factors have been determined to be the likely cause of adverse outcomes in several biological studies examining C60. They likely also account for the number of adverse reactions that many people have reported to various C60-OO preparations. This is not surprising in the case of an industrially-produced product such as C60, with no process controls for an established biological standard. Lot variability is a given and can be expected to result in unpredictable biological responses.
I would be surprised if SES Research is prepared to control for all of these process variables in the production of their C60. And unless all of these parameters were noted for the C60 which they supplied for the Baati rat study, how could SES possibly claim to be in a position to replicate it? They have already admitted to changing their production process, having most recently added a "proprietary wash" to try to remove more of the solvent residues. To me, this study that they are proposing seems like nothing more than a marketing ploy to bolster sales and consumer confidence for a product that may well have genuine potential as a dietary supplement, but is in dire need of a defined biological standard and legitimate testing for biocompatibility, purity, safety and efficacy.
Edited by ShoreBird, 23 February 2020 - 08:20 PM.
Posted 23 February 2020 - 10:04 PM
C60 Evo is was founded in October 2019 by Patty Greer, who sounds like a quack. She is openly working with SES Research however, according to this article (http://voyagedenver....-films-boulder/) so I expect she is just a reseller for them (at higher price, I might add). In the C60 Evo You tube clip, she seems to be interviewing a guy from SES Research. So, I think it is SES Research who are going to replicate the Baati study. But like you I can’t find any evidence for that on their website.
The article cited above states that SES supplied the C60 used in the Baati study. It states that Greer has "partnered" with SES to form her current company which is selling C60 EVOO. And the prices are quite high.
Posted 23 February 2020 - 10:26 PM
Continuing with my skepticism, unless SES Research is prepared to define and establish a biological standard for the C60 they are selling as a ‘consumable’, the results of any in-vivo testing will be of dubious merit.
The field of nanotechnology has advanced tremendously since the Baati rat study, to the point where we now know that it is a particle’s size, shape, surface charge and concentration that are critical in determining its biological response in living organisms. The range of conflicting and contradictory outcomes in biological testing of C60 bears this out. Some studies are overwhelmingly positive, while others are frightening. It’s concerning to me that, while most fullerene manufacturers refuse to sell to consumers, SES Research has chosen to capitalize on the surge in consumer demand, touting the results of the Baati rat study, while deliberating downplaying (if not outright attempting to discredit) the Ichor Therapeutics research. This willful deceit should make any consumer question SES Research's ethics.
Most consumers don't know that the number of process variables in fullerene production are many, and although these variables may be of little significance for industrial applications, they are often confounding factors in whether they elicit a favorable or detrimental response in a biological system. C60 is nanotechnology, which makes it profoundly powerful on the cellular level. Nano size molecules can and do override normal cellular defenses, influencing molecular signaling in ways that are unpredictable and incompletely understood. Contrary to what consumers tend to believe, solvent-extracted, industrially-produced C60 “powder” is actually a highly-crystalline aggregate of C60 molecules. Actual single molecules of C60 in these "powders" are the exception. Mortar-and-pestle grinding, pulverizing and jet milling are only moderately successful in breaking down these crystals into individual, single molecules; most of the aggregates remain in the 10-micron range. Although a single molecule of C60, by virtue of its Golden Mean ratio, is exceptionally biocompatible and activates pathways associated with DNA repair and cellular rejuvenation, the vast array of irregular sizes and shapes of C60 aggregates are often NOT biocompatible. Aggregates of C60 that are large and jagged become a source of “phagocyte frustration” and may become lodged in various tissues and organs. Impurities (i.e., other metals) in the carbon rod feedstock, as well as solvent residues from the fullerene purification process, can also elicit toxic and detrimental responses in biological systems. These factors have been determined to be the likely cause of adverse outcomes in several biological studies examining C60. They likely also account for the number of adverse reactions that many people have reported to various C60-OO preparations. This is not surprising in the case of an industrially-produced product such as C60, with no process controls for an established biological standard. Lot variability is a given and can be expected to result in unpredictable biological responses.
I would be surprised if SES Research is prepared to control for all of these process variables in the production of their C60. And unless all of these parameters were noted for the C60 which they supplied for the Baati rat study, how could SES possibly claim to be in a position to replicate it? They have already admitted to changing their production process, having most recently added a "proprietary wash" to try to remove more of the solvent residues. To me, this study that they are proposing seems like nothing more than a marketing ploy to bolster sales and consumer confidence for a product that may well have genuine potential as a dietary supplement, but is in dire need of a defined biological standard and legitimate testing for biocompatibility, purity, safety and efficacy.
The issues you bring up are what stymied research at Ichor - at least that is what I strongly inferred after talking with scientists as Ichor.
Posted 24 February 2020 - 03:22 PM
The issues you bring up are what stymied research at Ichor - at least that is what I strongly inferred after talking with scientists as Ichor.
My problem with Ichor is that they parachuted in, claimed that C60oo was causing tumors in mice but their proprietary method of making C60oo avoided the issues, all without providing a scintilla of evidence.
I think their last communication in that thread was a promise to provide their research data "this summer" two or three years ago.
Seemed a lot like an attempt to spread FUD about other vendor's product. Perhaps I'm wrong in that judgement but they certainly acted in every way possible to leave that impression.
Has Ichor ever published anything?
Posted 24 February 2020 - 06:50 PM
Ichor had not published anything as far as I am aware.
Ichor is a "stand-up company". The leaders I have met are ethical and driven to cure aging. They took-on the research because they received an outside grant to do so. Otherwise they might not have even touched the supplement.
This issue in creating novel C60 therapuetic, is standardization. NO company is going to go through a billion dollar drug development process if they can't even get a standardized product. As a GRAS herbal/natural extract, sure, but then it would be difficult to make a profit. Ichor wants to cure aging and rejuvenate people, so C60 is probably still very low on their list of priorities
Posted 24 February 2020 - 07:26 PM
Well, maybe my impression is off base then. I was just very off put by their "bombshell" that C60oo causes tumors followed their complete failure to document any research to back that up.
I my mind, if you're not prepared to release your data, don't bother making a claim.
Posted 24 February 2020 - 08:55 PM
Well, maybe my impression is off base then. I was just very off put by their "bombshell" that C60oo causes tumors followed their complete failure to document any research to back that up.
I my mind, if you're not prepared to release your data, don't bother making a claim.
Agreed. They did drop the ball on that one.
Posted 24 February 2020 - 10:12 PM
Posted 24 February 2020 - 11:17 PM
Published or not, Ichor’s research is worthy of consideration. Rather than dismissing it as FUD, more appropriate would be some gratitude for their efforts, candor and generosity in sharing it. If nothing else, Ichor aptly elucidated the dual nature of C60 as both a pro-oxidant and anti-oxidant, depending on conditions. On the other hand, SES Research has rather tediously exploited the Baati rat study for their own financial gain. The fact Patty Greer (marketer, consumer and avid promoter of C60 Purple Power, and now ESS C60) announced she was operated on for cancer this past November lends some credence to Ichor’s research. Whether the C60 Patty Greer had been taking for the past few years might have contributed to or exacerbated her cancer is purely speculative. But we certainly can’t say it prevented it.
Posted 29 February 2020 - 07:57 PM
FWIW, a team of researchers at University of Paris (including Fathi Moussa) just published this paper last August citing the contaminant issues in the raw C60 powder as a reason for the unpredictable outcomes in biological studies, and why further biological research is hampered.
[60]Fullerene for Medicinal Purposes, A Purity Criterion towards Regulatory Considerations
https://www.mdpi.com.../12/16/2571/htm
Edited by ShoreBird, 29 February 2020 - 07:57 PM.
Posted 29 February 2020 - 11:43 PM
FWIW, a team of researchers at University of Paris (including Fathi Moussa) just published this paper last August citing the contaminant issues in the raw C60 powder as a reason for the unpredictable outcomes in biological studies, and why further biological research is hampered.
[60]Fullerene for Medicinal Purposes, A Purity Criterion towards Regulatory Considerations
The same problem that hampered Ichor. Purity of the C60 (and purity of the oil).
Posted 02 June 2020 - 08:50 AM
Continuing with my skepticism, unless SES Research is prepared to define and establish a biological standard for the C60 they are selling as a ‘consumable’, the results of any in-vivo testing will be of dubious merit.
The field of nanotechnology has advanced tremendously since the Baati rat study, to the point where we now know that it is a particle’s size, shape, surface charge and concentration that are critical in determining its biological response in living organisms. The range of conflicting and contradictory outcomes in biological testing of C60 bears this out. Some studies are overwhelmingly positive, while others are frightening. It’s concerning to me that, while most fullerene manufacturers refuse to sell to consumers, SES Research has chosen to capitalize on the surge in consumer demand, touting the results of the Baati rat study, while deliberating downplaying (if not outright attempting to discredit) the Ichor Therapeutics research. This willful deceit should make any consumer question SES Research's ethics.
Most consumers don't know that the number of process variables in fullerene production are many, and although these variables may be of little significance for industrial applications, they are often confounding factors in whether they elicit a favorable or detrimental response in a biological system. C60 is nanotechnology, which makes it profoundly powerful on the cellular level. Nano size molecules can and do override normal cellular defenses, influencing molecular signaling in ways that are unpredictable and incompletely understood. Contrary to what consumers tend to believe, solvent-extracted, industrially-produced C60 “powder” is actually a highly-crystalline aggregate of C60 molecules. Actual single molecules of C60 in these "powders" are the exception. Mortar-and-pestle grinding, pulverizing and jet milling are only moderately successful in breaking down these crystals into individual, single molecules; most of the aggregates remain in the 10-micron range. Although a single molecule of C60, by virtue of its Golden Mean ratio, is exceptionally biocompatible and activates pathways associated with DNA repair and cellular rejuvenation, the vast array of irregular sizes and shapes of C60 aggregates are often NOT biocompatible. Aggregates of C60 that are large and jagged become a source of “phagocyte frustration” and may become lodged in various tissues and organs. Impurities (i.e., other metals) in the carbon rod feedstock, as well as solvent residues from the fullerene purification process, can also elicit toxic and detrimental responses in biological systems. These factors have been determined to be the likely cause of adverse outcomes in several biological studies examining C60. They likely also account for the number of adverse reactions that many people have reported to various C60-OO preparations. This is not surprising in the case of an industrially-produced product such as C60, with no process controls for an established biological standard. Lot variability is a given and can be expected to result in unpredictable biological responses.
I would be surprised if SES Research is prepared to control for all of these process variables in the production of their C60. And unless all of these parameters were noted for the C60 which they supplied for the Baati rat study, how could SES possibly claim to be in a position to replicate it? They have already admitted to changing their production process, having most recently added a "proprietary wash" to try to remove more of the solvent residues. To me, this study that they are proposing seems like nothing more than a marketing ploy to bolster sales and consumer confidence for a product that may well have genuine potential as a dietary supplement, but is in dire need of a defined biological standard and legitimate testing for biocompatibility, purity, safety and efficacy.
Hello
I found this point extremely interesting and wondered if the industrial clients of SES do care about having a powder with individual C60 molecules, or are they OK with aggregated ones ?
Do we know anything about the other manufacturers ? Solaris Chem in Canada ? What about the company of Ian Mitchell ?
Thank you !
Posted 03 June 2020 - 07:40 PM
Most industrial applications of C60 take advantage of the fact that C60 molecules can be coaxed into different sizes and shapes of crystallized aggregates. In this fashion, the instrinic solid state properties of C60 can be altered to suit a particular application (photovoltaics, semiconductors, lubricants, etc.). Dissolving C60 into different organic solvents causes the molecules to agglomerate into different sizes and shapes of C60 crystals, depending on which solvent is used. It is the influence of the solvent that determines the size and shape of these crystals, and that also determines C60's "color". Most people are familiar with the characteristic magenta (purple) color of C60 in toluene, however, if a solvent such as acetonitrile is used, then C60 is yellow. Individual molecules of C60 are invisible to the naked eye; using hydrocarbon solvents which cause the individual molecules to arrange themselves into various aggregated forms, allows us to detect them and "see" them.
No one has tested the countless possibilities for these varying shapes and sizes of C60 aggregates that can result from variations in feed stock and production processes in living organisms, and until they do, it’s a complete crap shoot as to what their biological safety profile looks like. Size, shape and surface charge are critical attributes of ANY nano-size molecule being introduced for a therapeutic effect into a living organism. Second to that is dose and concentration. More is not necessarily better when it comes to nano size molecules.
Edited by ShoreBird, 03 June 2020 - 07:43 PM.
0 members, 22 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
