13 replies to this topic

[caliban]

While the medical uses of C60 carbon nanomolecules - buckminsterfullerenes or 'buckballs' - have been under investigation for some time, a recent paper by by a French-Tunisian team lead by Fathi Moussa (Baati T, et al., The prolongation of the lifespan of rats by repeated oral administration of [60]fullerene, Biomaterials (2012), doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.03.036) using C60 and olive oil, has generated significant attention in the community. This (potentially temporary) sub-forum collates discussions about this study and the broader work.

Our user agreement applies to unregistered visitors and registered users alike and to this section as to any other.
In particular:

NO WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER
Some people have begun their own animal studies, others are self-administering and reporting perceived effects. LongeCity does not endorse or indeed control any content posted to these forums. Readers are reminded that any reports or assertions herein may be subjective, false or misleading.

NO MARKETING
Some people are already thinking of making money from this debate. As a reminder, moderators will delete all spam and marketing without warning. This includes 'viral' marketing where a product name and link is woven into a discussion with a commercial motive.
Discussions and topics mentioning specific products are only permitted in the retailer forum. (NOT a space for advertising).

Edited by caliban, 09 July 2012 - 10:34 PM.
typo

[Lister]

Thanks Caliban for making the forum.

[AgeVivo]

I propose that anyone saying here that he is testing C60 (on animals, on himself, etc) should regularly provide pictures on LongeCity, of the solutions he is using, how he made it if he made it; he should provide elements that demonstrate what he does as well as possible. Obvious failure to do that should lead posts to be removed.

Edited by AgeVivo, 07 July 2012 - 06:26 AM.

[Hebbeh]

I propose that anyone saying here that he is testing C60 (on animals, on himself, etc) should regularly provide pictures on LongeCity, of the solutions he is using, how he made it if he made it; he should provide elements that demonstrate what he does as well as possible. Obvious failure to do that should lead posts to be removed.

Posts removed??? Really??? Censorship now??? You can choose to believe me or not...I don't really care....make your own determinations. Censorship will kill Lounge City. Who really are the radicals....dangerous ground this talk of censorship.

[Mind]

I propose that anyone saying here that he is testing C60 (on animals, on himself, etc) should regularly provide pictures on LongeCity, of the solutions he is using, how he made it if he made it; he should provide elements that demonstrate what he does as well as possible. Obvious failure to do that should lead posts to be removed.

Posts removed??? Really??? Censorship now??? You can choose to believe me or not...I don't really care....make your own determinations. Censorship will kill Lounge City. Who really are the radicals....dangerous ground this talk of censorship.

I think you are going a little over the top Hebbeh. AgeVivo is mostly interested in objective data. We could have a forum for people who are more scientific with their experiments and share higher fidelity information and a separate forum for people who just want to say "it makes me feel good" and such things. Easy solution.

Some suggestions for objective evidence are being made here.

[Hebbeh]

I propose that anyone saying here that he is testing C60 (on animals, on himself, etc) should regularly provide pictures on LongeCity, of the solutions he is using, how he made it if he made it; he should provide elements that demonstrate what he does as well as possible. Obvious failure to do that should lead posts to be removed.

Posts removed??? Really??? Censorship now??? You can choose to believe me or not...I don't really care....make your own determinations. Censorship will kill Lounge City. Who really are the radicals....dangerous ground this talk of censorship.

I think you are going a little over the top Hebbeh. AgeVivo is mostly interested in objective data. We could have a forum for people who are more scientific with their experiments and share higher fidelity information and a separate forum for people who just want to say "it makes me feel good" and such things. Easy solution.

Some suggestions for objective evidence are being made here.

I thought that is what we already had? What is the point of advocating removing posts on the users forum where we are posting our experiences? That is advocating censorship plain and simple and certainly deserved a response.

[niner]

I propose that anyone saying here that he is testing C60 (on animals, on himself, etc) should regularly provide pictures on LongeCity, of the solutions he is using, how he made it if he made it; he should provide elements that demonstrate what he does as well as possible. Obvious failure to do that should lead posts to be removed.

Posts removed??? Really??? Censorship now??? You can choose to believe me or not...I don't really care....make your own determinations. Censorship will kill Lounge City. Who really are the radicals....dangerous ground this talk of censorship.

I think you are going a little over the top Hebbeh. AgeVivo is mostly interested in objective data. We could have a forum for people who are more scientific with their experiments and share higher fidelity information and a separate forum for people who just want to say "it makes me feel good" and such things. Easy solution.

Some suggestions for objective evidence are being made here.

I thought that is what we already had? What is the point of advocating removing posts on the users forum where we are posting our experiences? That is advocating censorship plain and simple and certainly deserved a response.

I agree with Hebbeh here. Talk of removing posts because of lack of pictures is problematic. If someone does a good job with an experiment, chances are they will take pictures anyway, but these fora are full of low quality posts that should be removed before we start punishing people for lack of pictures. Pictures can be faked anyway; how do we know anything is real? Someone could easily claim that AgeVivo faked all his pictures, and isn't feeding his mice anything but ordinary olive oil. How do we know what's in the pictures? I'll tell you: We know because we are a community of interested individuals that has some degree of knowledge about each other, and some degree of trust among ourselves. That's how science works; it's a social endeavor. We should try to be a little more social and a little less paranoid. When it gets to the point of someone making an extraordinary claim, like "my mouse lived twice as long as he should have", then it's appropriate to ask for evidence. If someone says "I fed my gerbil some C60", who cares? The data won't be in for a long time; maybe never.

[AgeVivo]

Don't take me wrong, I certainly have not used the right words. I tried to use strong words to create some reaction and get some intermediate solution, but for now I have only seen critism and no solution. What I meant is that at present many reported use of C60oo at LongeCity are extremely vague, if not doubtful sometimes. It is essentially a matter of having enough details to grab well what is happening/ details that may bring more than what the person testing may perceive alone (eg color or solution being used, pictures to look): stronger rigor would be very useful. What solution do you propose?

Edited by AgeVivo, 08 July 2012 - 08:18 PM.

[Hebbeh]

He, I might not have used the right words. Don't take me wrong. What I meant is that at present many reported use of C60oo at LongeCity are extremely vague, if not doubtful. Stronger rigor.would be very useful. What solution do you propose? (Hebbeh in particular)

If somebody is going to fake...or embellish their self or other experiments, there is no way to prevent that....pictures or otherwise. A number of renowned scientists have been exposed of faking and outright fraud preformed in university settings under peer review even recently...how are you going to assure anonymous self reporting on an internet forum is quality information under any circumstances?

The internet has always been a place to regard everything with skepticism, do your own research, get a second opinion, and make your own determinations. And certainly, any kind of experiments we do even as a group here under any guide lines and/or circumstances will never be taken seriously in the scientific or medical community...as well they shouldn't be.

The basic premise of the internet forum has always been to share information, knowledge, and experiences...but to realize that everything you read needs to be taken with a grain of salt until verified. And even self reporting under the best of circumstances is n=1 and may mean nothing for the rest of us for a variety of reasons....the least being the huge variation of genetics, epigenetics, and/or pre-existing health conditions which will influence the outcome of just about everything...and probably a major reason why on just about any topic you will find responders...and non-responders shouting placebo. Examples that come to my mind are the Uridine thread which I (and others) had an extremely positive response while others apparently had none (though it's not clear what they may have been expecting) and then the methylene blue thread where the opposite occurred for me and even after repeatedly retrying at every different dose, I only had negative outcomes until finally pitching the fish meds in the garbage.

And now it's C60 where some, including myself, have experienced a variety of effects...mostly appearing positive (though not all) and sharing those experiences as n=1, we once again have non-responders (as probably expected for the previous reasons stated) shouting placebo and going so far as labeling us loopy and/or questioning our credibility, and as such, has left me more hesitant to share my experiences. In fact, I was going to post a possibly informative response to your mice experiment in regards to the mice eating more but decided it wasn't worth the pain of being scrutinized....(but for what it's worth...I eat a very disciplined diet and maintain a very disciplined weight/body fat%....and when I started C60, I initially experienced increased hunger which I had difficulty controlling...but, being able to control the increased hunger, my weight has dropped an average of >2 lbs in 2 weeks...And I weigh every morning and my weight doesn't fluctuate much...so it was definitely noticeable...for what's its worth).

The best we can do on an internet forum is to try and get a feel for who the other anonymous posters are, establish their credibility (at least in our own eyes), realize that all self reports are n=1 and may not apply to me, and take with a healthy dose of skepticism until you are personally able to either prove or disprove somebody else’s results...at least in how they apply to your own n=1.

You also have to realize that not everybody here has the same agenda....some (such as yourself) are after the knowledge for the greater good of the scientific community (which is admirable), while others are more concerned with only improving their own health, while still others are only interested in self-promotion...But that is what the internet is about...and that will never change...no matter how hard we try.

Emptor caveat.

[AgeVivo]

Thank you for your long thought post; indeed nothing can be fully demonstrated and medium quality reports might be better than not reporting. But, sincerely, puting a few pictures, details, videos is not so difficult and much better than "I haven't said it yet but I started c60 2 months ago, and with time it seems I am getting clever and clever".

An exemple of video: http://agevivo.com/l...-very-small.mp4

Edited by AgeVivo, 09 July 2012 - 08:12 PM.

[Lister]

Giving objective results and attaching specific pictures is something that would likely exclude some of the community from the conversation (myself included). My understanding of the medical field is extremely limited. All I can give you is what I think is a possible result; positive or negative. Never having participated in a scientific study or health study I have no idea what I’m doing.

My hope is that those with the knowledge necessary will review my reports and take from those results what they need and comment on what they’d like to. Perhaps I’m right and perhaps I’m wrong however this is the best I can contribute.

And honestly if you’re looking at my results or others like me as factual and making critical decisions (such as to take C60 or not) based on those results you’re not thinking things through. In fact I’ve gone out of my way to point out results that I feel cannot be confirmed or connected. At this point Vague and Subjective results are what we’ve got.

My goal is to stand in the danger zone and shout back what I see to those who can confirm (or make an educated guess) at what I’m seeing. Hopefully this will help me avoid land minds and other risks as well as help others doing exactly what I’m doing.

If a half dozen of us report better cardio health then maybe it’s a good idea to include cardio health as a check in your professional studies. If another half a dozen of us report Kidney Pain or Lung Pain then again perhaps you should include that in your study.

In the end if you treat this forum as a professional medical discussion with proven source material and loads of credentials you’re a fool. The medial professionals we have on here we’re lucky to have; but they don’t elevate this discussion to a Doctoral level.

This is not a Lab, this is just a discussion. Hebbeh, you shouldn’t feel bad about being critiqued here; Grants are not on the line. And I’m sorry; we’re taking something that for all we know is Radiation in the 1900’s:

http://www.environme...ually-used/1388

We are on the fringe and we are kind of nuts! But I would imagine you have your reasons for taking the risks you are and so do I. Let’s hope that we can vaguely find the walls of this product and figure out whether it’s a good idea or not. I’m sure we don’t have long before science is able to properly light up what’s going on but until then being in the dark is scary. Talking about what is happening here helps.

It’s called the Bleeding edge because you bleed.

[LetMusicRule]

I guess the idea of having actual objective results is ruled out by the fact that there is no blinding involved when you know you are taking an active substance. I mean the literature is pretty clear that placebo effects account for up to 40% of all reported positive effects in any non-blinded study. So lets not fool ourselves into being objective, and scientific in our inquiry. This is all pure discussion and speculation. Nothing of scientific or academic value can be taken out of it as far as a study goes. However, some of us may get ideas or see effects in the long term that may be of value someday. So who knows. 

[Mind]

I guess the idea of having actual objective results is ruled out by the fact that there is no blinding involved when you know you are taking an active substance. I mean the literature is pretty clear that placebo effects account for up to 40% of all reported positive effects in any non-blinded study. So lets not fool ourselves into being objective, and scientific in our inquiry. This is all pure discussion and speculation. Nothing of scientific or academic value can be taken out of it as far as a study goes. However, some of us may get ideas or see effects in the long term that may be of value someday. So who knows. 

 

 

I thought the placebo effect only accounted for 33% of observed changes.

[LetMusicRule]

Placebo Effects: From the Neurobiological Paradigm to Translational Implications.

Benedetti F.

Neuron. 2014 Nov 5;84(3):623-637.

 

There are many many ways for the mind to simulate a positive response. The exact number accounting for this effect is not the issue here and will depend on the effect being measured in a particular study.