3585 replies to this topic

[solarfingers]

Here's the test of my vacuum pump for filtering the c60-oo next week...

Edited by solarfingers, 16 June 2013 - 09:27 PM.

[davidd]

I've been trying to catch up on the C60 threads, but due to the large number of posts, there is no way I can read all of them. My recollection from bits and pieces I've read is that the rats in the C60-OO study that were taking C60-OO didn't get cancer. The rats that were given Olive Oil without C60 lived a lot longer than the other control rats (no olive oil and no C60. I thought I read 70-80% longer, but please correct me if that is incorrect.

Did the rats that were given olive oil without C60 die of cancer, or did they die in similar ways to the C60-OO rats?

I'm asking, because I'm wondering if they simply lived longer, or if it also allowed them to live healthier.

Thanks,
David

[pleb]

from My recollection of the Baahti study the rats on olive oil lived on average 18 perccent longer than the controls, and the C60 rats were given as 90 percent longer i think the olive oil only rats died of the same things the controls did but with the extra 18 percent,average life span and that the C60 rats had no disease when they examined them,
there was a discussion that the figures didn't add up when looking at the graph, but the group who carried out the trails said that the chart was wrong and the figures as given in the conclusions and the ages were correct,
if i am wrong i'm sure someone will give the correct figures,

Edited by pleb, 17 June 2013 - 11:53 PM.

[solarfingers]

The most remarkable thing about the Baahti study is that the rats they used are bred because of their proficiency for cancers. What the study does not mention is that a number of the rats treated with c60-oo were sacrificed at the end for testing. They could have potentially have lived 100% longer or more. So, to answer your question they were both healthier and lived longer.

[davidd]

I found the following:

 c60_oo_rat_survival_percentage_over_time.jpg   30.29KB   22 downloads

And this text:

...
Fig. 3 shows the animal survival and growth. After five months of treatment (M15) one rat treated with water only exhibited some palpable tumours in the abdomen region. Due to the rapid development of tumours (about 4 cm of diameter) this rat died at M17. As rats are known to be sensitive to gavages, we decided to stop the treatment for all rats and to observe their behaviour and overall survival.

All remaining animals survived with no apparent sign of behavioural trouble until M25 (Fig. 3a). At the end of M25 the animals of the control groups showed signs of ulcerative dermatitis with ageing while C60-treated animals remained normal. As the growths of all surviving animals showed no significant difference until M30 (Fig. 3b) indicating that the treatment did not alter their food intake, we continued observing their survival.

At M38 all water-treated control rats were dead (Fig. 3a). This agrees with the expected lifespan of this animal species that is thirty to thirty six months. At this time 67% of olive-oil-treated rats and 100% of C60-treated rats were still alive.

The survival distributions for C60-olive oil-treated rats and controls were estimated by the non-parametric KaplaneMeier estimator (Fig. 3) and compared by a log-rank estimated test. The estimated median lifespan (EML) for the C60-treated rats was 42 months while the EMLs for control rats and olive oil-treated rats were 22 and 26 months, respectively. These are increases of 18 and 90% for the olive-oil and C60-treated rats, respectively, as compared to controls.

The log-rank test leads to c2 values (one degree of freedom) of 7.009, 11.302, and 10.454, when we compare water-treated and olive oil-treated rats, water-treated and C60-treated rats, and olive oil-treated and C60-treated rats, respectively. This means that olive oil extends the lifespan of rats with respect to water with a probability of 0.99 while C60-olive oil extends the lifespan of C60-treated rats with a probability of 0.999 and 0.995 with respect to water and aolive oil treatments, respectively.
...

It looks like your recollection was correct.

That's going by the median. Looking at the graph, we can see that some water-treated rats lived a little longer than some olive oil-treated rats and some olive oil treated-rates came very close to living as long as some C60-olive oil-treated rats.

I couldn't find where it mentioned the cause of death, other than of the first rat in the water-treated group that developed a tumor early on.

David

[davidd]

The most remarkable thing about the Baahti study is that the rats they used are bred because of their proficiency for cancers. What the study does not mention is that a number of the rats treated with c60-oo were sacrificed at the end for testing. They could have potentially have lived 100% longer or more. So, to answer your question they were both healthier and lived longer.

Did they sacrifice them all at the same time? If so, then from that graph, it looks like 30% were sacrificed. If they were sacrificed over time, then there is no way to tell from the graph how many were terminated early.

My question is about the health of the olive oil-treated rats. I couldn't find in the study where it said what they died of (any of the 3 groups). Does anyone have an additional source other than the study paper? Or did I just miss it, as I admittedly didn't read every word in the study.

Thanks,
David

[solarfingers]

My question is about the health of the olive oil-treated rats. I couldn't find in the study where it said what they died of (any of the 3 groups). Does anyone have an additional source other than the study paper? Or did I just miss it, as I admittedly didn't read every word in the study.
Thanks,
David

I read the entire study... Here is my write-up:

 

The Baati Rat Study

 

The world was abuzz when the news came out. Scientists in the lab were able to double the lifespan of mice using a substance known as c60 fullerenes. The implications of this study has yet to be realized in human beings. The study is often referred to as the Baati Rat Study because Dr. Baati's name is the first on the study. There are a number of people involved in this study who are notably Tarek Baati , Fanchon Bourasset , Najla Gharbi , Leila Njim , Manef Abderrabba, Abdelhamid Kerkeni , Henri Szwarc and Fathi Moussa. Dr. Fathi Moussa is the contact on the paper and the individual who has seen the most public recognition.

 

What is a fullerene? Wikipedia describes fullerenes: "A fullerene is any molecule composed entirely of carbon, in the form of a hollow sphere, ellipsoid or tube. Spherical fullerenes are also called buckyballs, and they resemble the balls used in football (soccer). " There are a number of fullerenes depending on the number of atoms present. C60 is a particular form of fullerene consisting of 60 carbon atoms. Each of these atoms potentially have a weak attraction to other atoms and show potential for anti-oxidation by attracting free radicals within the body. Free radicals are dangerous because they are broken chemical links who's unmatched electrons can attach themselves to cells and rob them of energy causing detriment to the cells.

 

Here is the abstract and conclusion these men found in their test as stated in the paper. I have read the Baati rat study and created my own synopsis (human readable explanation) of the study providing my own assumptions. The original paper can be found in the "Links" section to the left.

 

The prolongation of the lifespan of rats by repeated oral administration of [60] fullerenes

 

A b s t r a c t

 

Countless studies showed that [60]fullerene (C60) and derivatives could have many potential biomedical applications. However, while several independent research groups showed that C60 has no acute or subacute toxicity in various experimental models, more than 25 years after its discovery the in vivo fate and the chronic effects of this fullerene remain unknown. If the potential of C60 and derivatives in the biomedical field have to be fulfilled these issues must be addressed. Here we show that oral administration of C60 dissolved in olive oil (0.8 mg/ml) at reiterated doses (1.7 mg/kg of body weight) to rats not only does not entail chronic toxicity but it almost doubles their lifespan. The effects of C60-olive oil solutions in an experimental model of CCl4 intoxication in rat strongly suggest that the effect on lifespan is mainly due to the attenuation of age-associated increases in oxidative stress. Pharmacokinetic studies show that dissolved C60 is absorbed by the gastro-intestinal tract and eliminated in a few tens of hours. These results of importance in the fields of medicine and toxicology should open the way for the many possible -and waited for- biomedical applications of C60 including cancer therapy, neurodegenerative disorders, and ageing.

 

Conclusion

 

The effect of pristine C60 on lifespan emphasizes the absence of chronic toxicity. These results obtained with a small sample of animals with an exploratory protocol ask for a more extensive studies to optimize the intestinal absorption of C60 as well as the different parameters of the administration protocol: dose, posology, and treatment duration. In the present case, the treatment was stopped when a control rat died at M17, which proves that the effects of the C60 treatment are long-lasting as the estimated median lifespan for C60-treated rats is 42 months. It can be thought that a longer treatment could have generated even longer lifespans. Anyway, this work should open the road towards the development of the considerable potential of C60 in the biomedical field, including cancer therapy, neurodegenerative disorders and ageing. Furthermore, in the field of ageing, as C60 can be administered orally and as it is now produced in tons, it is no longer necessary to resort to its water-soluble derivatives, which are difficult to purify and in contrast to pristine C60 may be toxic.

 

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

 

Synopsis

 

The remarkable conclusion of this test is that olive oil mixed with c60 fullerenes (c60-oo) can double the life expectancy of rats. In the test three groups of six rats were administered water, olive oil and c60-oo respectively. These rats were kept only for observation. Another group of 60 rats was selected for further testing and divided into 10 groups of six rats. These 10 groups were then separated into five different groups: A, B, C, D and E.

 

One half of group A (3 rats) were injected with 1ml of water. The second half of group A (3 rats) were given 1ml water orally.

One half of group B (3 rats) was injected with 1ml of olive oil and the second half of group B (3 rats) was given 1ml of olive oil orally.

One half of group C (3 rats) was injected with 1ml of olive oil and the second half of group C (3 rats) was given 1ml of olive oil orally.

One half of group D (3 rats) was injected with 1ml of olive oil with c60 fullerenes and the second half of group D (3 rats) was given 1ml of olive oil with c60 fullerenes orally.

One half of group E (3 rats) was injected with 1ml of olive oil with c60 fullerenes and the second half of group E (3 rats) was given 1ml of olive oil with c60 fullerenes orally.

24 hours before being sacrificed for dissection Groups A, C & E were injected with the toxin CCI4. Groups B and D were injected with NaCl as a control group. All the rats were sacrificed within 48 hours.

 

The results concluded that the rats given olive oil and c60-oo recovered from CC14 toxicity within five hours. The rats given water were ill till they were sacrificed. Tests for C60 were conducted on the blood, urine, liver, spleen, lungs and brain. When dissected the rats showed c60 in the spleen, brain and in the liver. There was no evidence of the c60 in the lungs. Presence of c60 in the brain demonstrates its ability to traverse the blood brain barrier. The time it takes the c60 to reach one half of the amount of the peak concentration in the blood shows that c60 is completely eliminated after 97 hours from the blood stream. The lack of c60 in the organs after 7 daily administrations of c60-oo shows that all of the c60 clears the organs a few hours after oral consumption. The presence of c60 had little effect if any in the spleen and the liver. In fact it was proven that the presence of c60 was a powerful agent in protecting the liver. The c60-oo is digested, later excreted through the bile duct and is eliminated through the feces. This would indicate to me the c60 that is eliminated is still clinging to a lipid form (olive oil) since that is how lipids are excreted from the body. No c60-oo is excreted through the urinary tract. Basically c60-oo was demonstrated to be extremely non-toxic and demonstrated super anti-oxidant effects.

 

Concerning the original three groups of six rats, the rats were orally given 1ml of water, olive oil or c60-oo. They were administered daily for the first week. Thereafter, till the end of the second month they were given a weekly dosage. After the second week they were given bi-weekly administration until the 15th month. At this time one of the rats began to show stress due to sensitivity to the oral administration and all dosages were subsequently stopped. By the end of the 38th month all of the water fed rats were dead. By the end of 58 months the olive oil fed rats were all dead. The c60-oo rats lived up to 66 months where the remaining rats were sacrificed for testing. The median lifestyle for this breed of rats (Wistar rats) is 24 to 36 months which is in keeping with the results of the test. In conclusion the rats given c60-oo lived twice as long and could potentially have lived longer if not sacrificed for the test. This is an exciting discovery since lab activities that have consequences for rats have subsequent consequences for human beings.

 

Predominant Theories of Activation

 

1) C60 passes through cell membranes where it:

 

A) Aides in repairing mitochondria, promotes bio-genesis (creation of new mitochondria), prevents or delays ROS (Cell destroying) activity, or perhaps resets the mitochondrial age.

B) Prevents oxidative stress and provides anti-oxidant action on the cellular level.

C) Renews DNA by demethylation when it binds itself to the DNA winding that is prone to degradation.

D) Deposits olive-oil in the cell where it normally could not permeate providing extra anti-oxidants and fuel.

 

2) It acts as a catalytic scavenger neutralizing free radicals in the body until they can do something useful. At that point the c60 is released and is available for scavenging again.

 

Assumptions

 

Even though the cause of the double life extension of the Wistar rats is not completely understood I can conclude a number of things. Firstly, c60-oo is reasonably safe to experiment with. The purpose of the test was not to determine the effects of longevity of rats on c60-oo. The purpose of the test was to show the level of toxicity. The test proves c60 has no toxic affects on the body when suspended in olive oil and actually shows protective super-antioxidant properties. If it remains in the body it is likely doing something useful. Secondly, there are possible benefits of cell protection, repair or maintenance. If any one of these benefits, either alone or in tandem, are true then c60-oo can be an elixir providing a route to greater health and longevity. Couple this with c60's ability to scavenge free radicals from the body, c60's promises are too good to ignore. It should be noted that there has been no reproduction of this experiment. One is currently on the way but it will take four years to complete. Also, there has been no peer review of this test and it's data. There has been a number of people who have taken c60-oo during the last year. Anecdotal evidence shows that it has positive benefits.

Edited by solarfingers, 18 June 2013 - 01:30 AM.

[niner]

Also, there has been no peer review of this test and it's data.

When you say "this test and its data", do you mean Baati? That was a peer-reviewed paper, if I'm not mistaken.

[solarfingers]

Also, there has been no peer review of this test and it's data.

When you say "this test and its data", do you mean Baati? That was a peer-reviewed paper, if I'm not mistaken.

Well Niner, you know I respect your opinion here. I thought that I read this somewhere. Are you saying the paper was a peer-review or that a peer-review exists?

Thanks...

A Google search shows people talking about a peer-review yet I can find no evidence of one online.

Edited by solarfingers, 18 June 2013 - 01:56 AM.

[YOLF]

I could be wrong also, but peer review just means published in a media in completeness so that it can be reviewed, I don't think anyone has to approve it through peer review, it just has to not be proven false by logical standards. The next step is for a lab to repeat a similar study and report on their findings.

[markymark]

Peer-review means, that the manuscript has to be reviewed by two or more reserachers, who remain anonymos to the authors of the manuscript. These referees are selected by the editors according to the main criterium, as to whether, they have sufficient expertise about the paper's content. The referees then make their judgements, which are returend back to the authors. The referee's judgement can be: i.) accepted without modifications, ii.) acceptable after minor revision (in this case the submitting authors have to get back to all the major and minor issues raised by the referees, point by point. iii.) possibly acceptable after major changes and addititional experimets etc. iv.) rejected e.g., because not relevant or importand enough for the journal. Finally the editor do also have a say, e.g., they might overrule a referee's decision. I went though all this, when I was at the university and published some papers.
mm

[niner]

Thanks for that nice description of the peer review process, markymark. I just checked, and Biomaterials is in fact a peer-reviewed journal. Here is the journal's main page for reviewers.

[solarfingers]

Thank you everyone for clearing that up. So, if I understand it, a peer-review is simply to say that the Baati study was provided in a form that could be studied and critiqued by peers and,

that the manuscript has to be reviewed by two or more reserachers, who remain anonymos to the authors of the manuscript.

How do we know this occurred? Are there any published findings of a peer-review? I can find people making reference to a peer-review but have not been able to find any actual published findings.

I believe this is what I am after. I cannot honestly say a peer-review was performed without something to back it up. Hearsay can not be adequate in these matters.

Thanks...

Edited by solarfingers, 18 June 2013 - 02:11 PM.

[daouda]

I cannot honestly say a peer-review was performed without something to back it up. Hearsay can not be adequate in these matters.

Solarfinger, what markymark and niner have clarified above is enough and much more than "hearsay"!

How do we know this occurred?

Because the study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal! Which means that journal only publishes studies after they've been reviewed by peers (other researchers). Which means that study has been reviewed by AND approved by "peers" before being cleared for publication in that journal. The "peer review" does not have to be recorded or published, it happens "in the background", as it's merely a process required by the journal before granting publication of an article. Kind of like certain newspapers double checks facts before publication. The "peer review" It's not itself a to-be-published study/review per se. Is that clear enough now?

Edited by daouda, 18 June 2013 - 05:14 PM.

[solarfingers]

Solarfinger, what markymark and niner have clarified above is enough and more than "hearsay"!

How do we know this occurred?

Because the study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal! Which means that journal only publishes studies after they've been reviewed by peers (other researchers). Which means that study has been reviewed by AND approved by "peers" before being cleared for publication in that journal. Is that clear enough now?

Crystal clear, thank you.

Daouda, there is nothing wrong with seeking clarification. You are a fool if you just accept things without question. I honestly missed Niner's comment about the journal. I appreciate your input yet I am taken back a bit by your tone...

Edited by solarfingers, 18 June 2013 - 05:23 PM.

[hav]

Also, there has been no peer review of this test and it's data.

When you say "this test and its data", do you mean Baati? That was a peer-reviewed paper, if I'm not mistaken.

Well Niner, you know I respect your opinion here. I thought that I read this somewhere. Are you saying the paper was a peer-review or that a peer-review exists?

Thanks...

A Google search shows people talking about a peer-review yet I can find no evidence of one online.

Just took a quick look at the original e-version of the article to see what history was indicated. Here it is:

submitted: January 10, 2012
accepted: March 10, 2012

The peer review apparently took 3 months. Sounds like a fairly brisk turn around time to me suggesting there probably wasn't much in the way of challenges, critiques, or rewrites. I suppose one could contact the publisher and ask but I don't know that they would publish the editorial correspondence or prior drafts. I know as a music publisher, I wouldn't intentionally do that unless there was need to correct a printing error with an errata. The authors themselves are sometimes inclined and able to comment on editorial history, however.

Via the abstract available on pubmed and the publisher's web site some additional information is available:

available online date: April 10, 2012
hard-copy publication:Biomaterials Volume 33, Issue 19, June 2012, Pages 4936–4946 (publisher: Elsevier)

Doesn't look like there's any doubt it was peer reviewed, accepted, and in fact published both online and in print. There also seems to have been a followup errata published here: Biomaterials, Volume 33, Issue 26, September 2012, Pages 6292-6294 correcting a misprint of some of the hard-copy images. It's here.

Howard

[solarfingers]

Thanks Howard... Very constructive.

[daouda]

Daouda, there is nothing wrong with seeking clarification.
You are a fool
if you just accept things without question. I honestly missed Niner's comment about the journal. I appreciate your input yet I am taken back a bit by your tone...

Please keep that uncalled for and unneeded BS lecture for yourself. The "tone" you read was in your head, sorry for not putting smileys at the end of every sentence. Now you can read me with a pissed off tone if you want and it'd be right this time.

[solarfingers]

[YOLF]

I'm generally not in favor or fly trials (mostly for the eugenics approach to life extension they used in life span trials), but after reading this (link below), I was thinking they would be pretty cheap to run and could provide us with several lifetimes of data in a short amount of time. Would something like this be possible?

http://www.longecity...life-extending/

Edited by cryonicsculture, 19 June 2013 - 04:00 AM.

[free10]

One tiny tiny thing bothers me about the mice trial, and that is them stating no C60 was found in the lungs and that seems way way wrong, since the blood would take it to them just like everything else. Can I get an amen on that.

[niner]

One tiny tiny thing bothers me about the mice trial, and that is them stating no C60 was found in the lungs and that seems way way wrong, since the blood would take it to them just like everything else. Can I get an amen on that.

This is going to be dependent on the limit of detection for the analytical method they used. C60 is extremely potent- that's one of the reasons that it works as well as it does. If it were found in membranes at a femtomolar concentration, they'd probably miss it, but it would probably have a significant pharmacological activity nonetheless.

[niner]

I'm generally not in favor or fly trials (mostly for the eugenics approach to life extension they used in life span trials), but after reading this (link below), I was thinking they would be pretty cheap to run and could provide us with several lifetimes of data in a short amount of time. Would something like this be possible?

You find Michael Rose's "Methuselah Fly" breeding experiment to be morally wrong? And therefore you aren't in favor of ANY experiments done with flies? That is mind boggling. Pretty much all domesticated animals were the result of selective breeding.

It would be possible to do fly experiments on c60, and generate lifespan data very quickly. We would need to know how to breed flies, which I suppose could be learned. The main problem with species like worms and flies is that the data is not very applicable to humans. The speed advantage would be incredible, though.

[free10]

One tiny tiny thing bothers me about the mice trial, and that is them stating no C60 was found in the lungs and that seems way way wrong, since the blood would take it to them just like everything else. Can I get an amen on that.

This is going to be dependent on the limit of detection for the analytical method they used. C60 is extremely potent- that's one of the reasons that it works as well as it does. If it were found in membranes at a femtomolar concentration, they'd probably miss it, but it would probably have a significant pharmacological activity nonetheless.

Yes, and I would guess since the lungs are lacking the mass of other organs might make the amounts harder to detect. Thanks, I guess that would be the answer that it was just below their level of detection.

[YOLF]

I'm generally not in favor or fly trials (mostly for the eugenics approach to life extension they used in life span trials), but after reading this (link below), I was thinking they would be pretty cheap to run and could provide us with several lifetimes of data in a short amount of time. Would something like this be possible?

You find Michael Rose's "Methuselah Fly" breeding experiment to be morally wrong? And therefore you aren't in favor of ANY experiments done with flies? That is mind boggling. Pretty much all domesticated animals were the result of selective breeding.

It would be possible to do fly experiments on c60, and generate lifespan data very quickly. We would need to know how to breed flies, which I suppose could be learned. The main problem with species like worms and flies is that the data is not very applicable to humans. The speed advantage would be incredible, though.

No, I had just written them off while I had heard about them in progress, b/c it leaves much of the species behind as a result. Doing the same with humans would just be wrong... so considering this, I figured fly experiments were a realm of science that wasn't likely to go very far in it's applicability to humans.

How much would it cost to hire a lab? What if we were to just to design the experiment as a community and shop it around to universities?

[solarfingers]

Well talking about Methuselah Flies... I filtered my c60... Sorry no video. The syringe nalgene filter turned out to be a major fail. The electric vacuum pump died within 15 minutes and it hardly pulled any oil through. The hand vacuum pump was no better. I just gave up and filtered it through a coffee filter. I know that won't do much. On the positive side there was absolutely no aggregates on the bottom of the mixture. I only saw a tiny bit on the coffee filter. So, I crushed the c60 first and mixed it using a home made magnetic mixer for three weeks. I took 1ml with aprox .8mg of c60 to see if I have any adverse reactions. I will take my first bi-weekly dosage of 15ml every two weeks starting this coming Friday. I will probably cut it into two 7.5 ml dosages Friday and Saturday.

[solarfingers]

I took my trial dosage last evening. I went to sleep faster than the last few evenings. I just started taking Centrophenoxine and my brain has so much energy it's taken some effort to get to sleep. I slept pretty hard last nite and woke up with a mild headache. There is a pressure front moving through my area and I attribute the headache to this. I have seen no energy boost nor experienced any of the cited effects. I do feel a little more dull than that of lately today. I feel as if my lunchtime power nap can't come quick enough.

[Adamzski]

I have just had a look at Centrophenoxine, interesting, it might be a good low cost thing to try out. Has it had a positive effect for you?

[solarfingers]

I have just had a look at Centrophenoxine, interesting, it might be a good low cost thing to try out. Has it had a positive effect for you?

I think so... I have much more mental energy than before. Let's see how long till it becomes the new normal.

[anagram]

Some people don't respond to C60 as well as others, smoking weed cleared up some of the troubles I was having with C60.