3585 replies to this topic

[BioFreak]

Whilst I'm conversant with the study. I'm unsure if the 18 % increase for the rats on OO include all the rats ? as one was noted through luck or something else living longer than all the others on OO. If that is the case the 18% is skewed and is an abnormality which for percentage purposes if done by a statistician would be ignored. this would bring the average down to a lower figure.

 

I am pretty sure 30% of a group living longer is no outlier that would(or should) be ignored.

 

Skewed does not mean we can ignore the data. It just means its not distributed normally(quite a lot of data is, actually). The 18% must have been the mean of the OO rats compared to the mean of the water rats. Makes sense that from this perspective the mean of the c60oo rats was much higher, since almost all died at the end of the maximum lifespan observed in this experiment.

 

See, you can't exclude data just because it looks funny. You can only discard it if it is an outlier, and thats (by convention) mathematically defined as 1,5 standard deviations below q1 or above q3. I haven't calculated it but just by looking at the data I doubt this is the case.

 

It was  6 rats per group. In my country it is not allowed to use more rats per group unless necessary, by law. I can't recall the exact number, but it was really low, around 6-8. It seems to be standard for animal experiments. Do not forget, human studies often tend to use way more people to have a statistical value because we normally can not control the humans in an experiment a lot so we have to increase numbers and use other tricks to reduce the effect of unknown variables. In a lab animal model, there is a LOT of control:

 

• we can control what and how much they eat and drink
• we have control over their environment (physically and psychologically)
• we can use special breed animals that are very alike

We can pretty much exclude a lot of stuff that would influence the experiment otherwise. That means, we can use smaller groups and still get statistically valid results. Also, do not confuse experiments with observational studies, where we need even WAY more data, because we do not only have the benefits of lab tests I listed above but in addition we also can only observe, not manipulate (i.e. give group 1 substance a, group b substance b).

 

From that perspective I would say that randomness may not play a that big role, given the group size.

[pleb]

I understand what your saying. But 1 rat out of 6 is nearer 17% not 30% what is the average for the other 5 if that one is ignored. it was far enough out from the other five for a number of posters to question wether the rat had been fed C60 by mistake which was discounted for the reasons you mention regarding. food . control etc.

Edited by pleb, 26 July 2014 - 08:27 PM.

[niner]

Is there any progress in the replication of that old study? I know some people here were working on citizen science rat projects -- which are great -- but all seems rather still & quiet on what seemed like a promising compound.

 

You mean Baati?  I don't think it qualifies as 'old', just yet.  It takes a LONG time to run a lifespan experiment.  It also seems to take forever to get them started.  It's more expensive and resource-consumptive than you might think.  At the moment, there are a couple citizen-science experiments underway, an experiment with mice in Kiev that was supposed to have started by now, and other efforts in the planning stage.   It will be a while before there is any solid data.

 

I understand what your saying. But 1 rat out of 6 is nearer 17% not 30% what is the average for the other 5 if that one is ignored. it was far enough out from the other five for a number of posters to question wether the rat had been fed C60 by mistake which was discounted for the reasons you mention regarding. food . control etc.

 

It wasn't one rat- there were two in the OO group that had exceptional LS.  There's not a break in the step curve of Baati's LS graph because the last two OO rats died in the same time interval.  Thus it's 2/6, or 33% of the OO rats.  That's not an outlier.

 

We could speculate as to the many ways errors could have happened in this experiment.  Contamination of OO with c60oo is conceivable, as are a lot of other things. 

[YOLF]

Just a reminder:

 

We're doing a study to determine the cancer properties of C60. If you are a member, please vote on it here where you can see the study proposal and will have access to the rest of the study details and a chance to bring up your concerns with Ichor CEO Kelsey Moody. To purchase a membership, please go here. Membership discounts are available, follow the link to see if you qualify.

[pleb]

Biofreak my apologies 

My memory was playing up it was two rats not the one as I had thought. So the figures you quoted were correct.

[SteveF]

Has anyone found if c60 stays in the body as a transporter or is it eliminated? Also is it possible that c60 transport out of the cells nutrients needed before they can be effective?  Seems to me something as powerful as transpoting out or nuetralize from the liver carbon tetracloride in rats could also transport out or nuetralize benificail items also. How can it discriminate?

 

.

[niner]

Has anyone found if c60 stays in the body as a transporter or is it eliminated? Also is it possible that c60 transport out of the cells nutrients needed before they can be effective?  Seems to me something as powerful as transpoting out or nuetralize from the liver carbon tetracloride in rats could also transport out or nuetralize benificail items also. How can it discriminate?

 

It's not a transporter.  The way that it protected rat livers from carbon tetrachloride was by neutralizing free radicals formed during CCl4 metabolism.  One concern that people have raised is the possibility that c60oo might interfere with beneficial free radical signalling or with hormesis.  In practice this doesn't appear to be a problem, although it's conceivable that it plays a role in the alteration of the effects of alcohol, which some consider a negative.

[Kalliste]

I wonder if C60 would be beneficial for smokers?

[pleb]

There are a few on here that smoke including me and I don't recall any who have reported that it had helped them stop including me.  :>(

I've been taking it for 22 months

Edited by pleb, 27 July 2014 - 08:45 PM.

[Kalliste]

I was thinking more about the interaction-issue. Im thinking about giving this to a relative who smokes to protect against disease but I remain uncertain.

Edited by Cosmicalstorm, 27 July 2014 - 08:48 PM.

[niner]

I wouldn't expect c6O to help you stop smoking.  It might reduce the damage to your lungs and cardiovascular system, though, to the extent that the damage is oxidative.  I wouldn't consider that a ticket to safe smoking, however, as the limited history of antioxidants with smoking is rather poor.

[SteveF]

Thank you for the link. Could c60 act as both? Nuetralizing free radicals and because of it's hollow nature a transport? Has it ever been shown as to transport anything? I might be deluded thinking it was.

 

 

 

Has anyone found if c60 stays in the body as a transporter or is it eliminated? Also is it possible that c60 transport out of the cells nutrients needed before they can be effective?  Seems to me something as powerful as transpoting out or nuetralize from the liver carbon tetracloride in rats could also transport out or nuetralize benificail items also. How can it discriminate?

 

It's not a transporter.  The way that it protected rat livers from carbon tetrachloride was by neutralizing free radicals formed during CCl4 metabolism.  One concern that people have raised is the possibility that c60oo might interfere with beneficial free radical signalling or with hormesis.  In practice this doesn't appear to be a problem, although it's conceivable that it plays a role in the alteration of the effects of alcohol, which some consider a negative.

 

 

[Kalliste]

I wouldn't expect c6O to help you stop smoking. It might reduce the damage to your lungs and cardiovascular system, though, to the extent that the damage is oxidative. I wouldn't consider that a ticket to safe smoking, however, as the limited history of antioxidants with smoking is rather poor.

It would be interesting to see if it could protect the body. The Chinese government should want something like that re their massive pollution problem. We should write them a letter asking to approach this subject.

Edited by Cosmicalstorm, 27 July 2014 - 09:54 PM.

[BioFreak]

 

One concern that people have raised is the possibility that c60oo might interfere with beneficial free radical signalling or with hormesis.  In practice this doesn't appear to be a problem, although it's conceivable that it plays a role in the alteration of the effects of alcohol, which some consider a negative.

 

Its likely that the localization of c60 plays a critical role in this. Upon supplementation, the free c60oo should just like normal antioxidants interfere with free radical signaling etc. because it would be collecting free radicals everywhere.

 

Once c60oo has been built into the cell however, radicals should only be neutralized when they approach the "hardware", a place where radicals would do more harm then good. So, if c60oo is incorporated into the cell membrane and/or mitochondria, the whole free radical feedback mechanisms that occur elsewhere in or outside the cell should not be affected. Kind of a reason not to take c60oo daily, or before training*, but afterwards or before a contest.

 

* there is however the exception that antioxidant capabilities are reduced with age, and daily c60oo at a dose that would only increase antioxidant capability back to baseline, but not higher, should not hurt but be beneficial. This combined with higher dosages once a week could be the old guy's equivalent to a young subject taking the only once a week approach.

Edited by BioFreak, 29 July 2014 - 12:23 PM.

[NLTCrow]

Has anyone tried mixing this stuff up with Hemp Oil?

I read the first 30 pages of this thread, very informative, I learned a lot, but didn't see any mention.

I apologize for my laziness in not reading the whole thing, but I haven't started on the c60 yet so don't have that kind of endurance.

Thanks

[niner]

Hemp oil is very high in polyunsaturates, while olive oil is mostly monounsaturated oleic acid.  You could mix c60 with hemp oil, and no doubt it would react with it, but I don't know what the products would be.  It would be a chemistry experiment, and then a Guinea pig situation...  With olive oil, there's a lot of human experience now.

[YOLF]

I was thinking more about the interaction-issue. Im thinking about giving this to a relative who smokes to protect against disease but I remain uncertain.

I would suggest waiting until LongeCity and Ichor labs finish the C60 cancer study. It could go either way. I quit smoking because I didn't want to worry about having more complicated risks with using C60. 

 

I would phrase things like this:

If you quit smoking, you can take C60 and will be able to recover from the damages of smoking more rapidly (Increased lung capacity and/or more efficient oxygen metabolism that has been reported).

 

 

FWIW, I thinking my next counter smoking stack will be a cycle of methylene blue taken three days after starting the anti-metastasis regimen of cimetidine along with workout. I'd go without C60 during this time and then resume when I finish the cimetidine regimen which would last longer than the MB cycle.

[niner]

FWIW, I thinking my next counter smoking stack will be a cycle of methylene blue taken three days after starting the anti-metastasis regimen of cimetidine along with workout. I'd go without C60 during this time and then resume when I finish the cimetidine regimen which would last longer than the MB cycle.

 

You can't cycle c60oo that quickly, because the half life in membranes is weeks, if not longer.  That's how people get away with dosing once a month.   I don't recommend cimetidine in a situation where there is no primary tumor.  Cimetidine has pharmacologic effects of its own, and they are not necessarily good for you.   Finally, I don't think that MB does much unless you take tens of milligrams.  It's very placebogenic, though...

[Adamzski]

Wow amazing stuff, could people in the future take anti cancer drugs like Cimetidine or others just to prevent cancer?

 

I have done 2 bottles of c60 in the past but was thinking that as a heavy smoker I would wait and see for a bit after reading some theories on it accelerating cancer.

Smoking and cancer have been well studied and my attitude to it at the moment is I have just bought a few hundred more tickets to the cancer lottery by smoking but taking something like C60 or Ta-65 is like buying a few hundred more tickets. 

 

Have not been keeping up with these threads and just seen this http://c60antiaging....0-anti-cancer/ 

 

So whats most peoples verdict? have a go at slowing a potential cancer down or wait?

[Kalliste]

It could go either way. I'm positive about it as a chemoprevention-compound. It could also be accelerating it through some quirky biochemical pathways we don't understand yet.

Thinking about it I realize that our complex biological circuitry could be doing both with C60. It might open some cancer-doors and close others. We know too little so far.

[Kenbar]

Quick update, started on bottle #3. Nothing remarkable to report...feel fine. I am trying it on a nail fungus on a finger as well...see how that goes. So far...I *think* I might see an improvement...been fighting it for 3 years or so...hopeful.

[ambivalent]

Quick update, started on bottle #3. Nothing remarkable to report...feel fine. I am trying it on a nail fungus on a finger as well...see how that goes. So far...I *think* I might see an improvement...been fighting it for 3 years or so...hopeful.

 

O/T

 

Have you tried allicin?

 

http://www.treatings...ouseHealers.pdf

 

(page 62)

[Kenbar]

Quick update, started on bottle #3. Nothing remarkable to report...feel fine. I am trying it on a nail fungus on a finger as well...see how that goes. So far...I *think* I might see an improvement...been fighting it for 3 years or so...hopeful.

 
O/T
 
Have you tried allicin?
 
http://www.treatings...ouseHealers.pdf
 
(page 62)

Thank you for pointing this out. No I have not. I will give this OOc60 more time, see how it goes. If no/poor results I will give that a try

[TRUGAN]

I notice olive oil doesnt absorb through the skin. Are we absorbing the c60 from topical use or is it just sitting on the surface of the skin with the olive oil?

[resveratrol_guy]

Reply to: http://www.longecity...benefits/page-5

 

I would suggest you investigate making your own c60.  It's a small fraction of the cost of the pre-prepared stuff and I've yet to read any justification for filtering, centrifuging or any other extra steps beyond add c60 to oo, agitate until purple and no more "dust" on bottom.

 

There's even debate as to whether oxygenated c60oo might be a pro or con.

 

 

In principle I think making one's own c60oo is a great idea, particularly in light of the very high cost of this stuff. There are members here who do that. Based on niner's comments, it sounds like oxygenation of the C60 powder is required for some of the antiinflammatory benefits. My concern, which one other poster mentioned somewhere, is that this would inevitably involve C60 powder inhalation. The biggest hazard, it seems to me, is this stuff getting into the air conditioning system, as it's small enough to pass through a HEPA filter. Granted, I have no clue as to whether inhalation is healthy or unhealthy, but in the absence of good human data, I can only assume the latter. Passing C60 powder through the lungs is a very different physical process than passing c60oo through the digestive system. In theory, it should pass into the bloodstream, but clumping could prevent that and create something similar to pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (also known as "silicosis", but the longer version is more fun ) The "official" safety threshold for chronic exposure is in the micrograms/meter^3 level:  (but this is based on extrapolation from noisy rat data). On this plus side, this suggests that lung half-life of dust (even C60 aggregates) is only on the order of a month in rats, so we're probably not dealing with anything like cigarette tar here.

 

But more producers using different techniques is a good thing, so I hope the DIY crowd continues its efforts.

 

Edited by resveratrol_guy, 11 September 2014 - 02:02 PM.

[pleb]

Some time ago Vince Giuliani posted a link to the various trails to C60 , one was a Japanese study into its toxicity in air as it is used in industry for various items the study found that as high as 3 grams per cubic metre it was none toxic

[Hebbeh]

C60 doesn't come as a powder.  It is granular like little beads and has to be dissolved.  It would be very difficult to try and snort the little C60 beads.  Some here try to grind it first but most don't and it certainly isn't necessary.  I don't see how it would be possible to inhale.  I'm way more worried about what I'm inhaling driving down the freeway back and forth from work every day.

[niner]

In principle I think making one's own c60oo is a great idea, particularly in light of the very high cost of this stuff. There are members here who do that. Based on niner's comments, it sounds like oxygenation of the C60 powder is required for some of the antiinflammatory benefits. My concern, which one other poster mentioned somewhere, is that this would inevitably involve C60 powder inhalation. The biggest hazard, it seems to me, is this stuff getting into the air conditioning system, as it's small enough to pass through a HEPA filter.

 

There is really very little danger of inhalation in my experience.  The material is quite soft, so "grinding" in a mortar and pestle is really more like crushing.  It forms a thick smear in the mortar that then needs to be scraped out.  It doesn't tend to get airborne like some other substances do.  It behaves as though it were slightly "sticky".   You could wear a dust mask if you're really concerned, but there really doesn't seem to be much need for it.  I own quite a collection of dust masks and respirators, and am pretty careful with my lungs, but didn't use a mask when working with c60.  The crushed c60 is still in an aggregated form, with relatively large particles.  I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of it would in fact be stopped by a HEPA filter, were it to get airborne. 

[mikey]

It isn't water soluble, so if it got in the lungs it would likely just sit there and do nothing or take some incredibly long amount of time to be broken down.

 

Niner, as to grinding it, doesn't that just break the molecule into useless carbon? 

 

We have carbon arranged in a molecule with a specific configuration (12 pentagons, 20 hexagons) that has extraordinary characteristics. 

 

Wouldn't grinding it break up the molecule into simple carbon, which would have then lost all of those extraordinary characteristics?

[Adamzski]

Im pretty sure you have to melt the stuff to kind of break it.

 

I have more on the way after not taking it for a year, will be interesting to see if it makes me able to sleep up to 24hrs like last time.

These days I have gotten into a pattern of staying awake for 2 days then sleeping 12-14hrs with 200mg of doxylamine or other OTC sleeping tabs. If I can sleep more than 8 hours without pills then it is definitely the C60. 

Hoping to get back into a normal pattern of sleeping, I also am fairly unfit at the moment, getting out of breath slightly when quickly going up stairs or hills, no problems just I know my fitness is not the same as a few years ago.