3585 replies to this topic

[sensei]

Lipo-Fullerenes ( LF-SQ) in the Japanese "radical sponge: is only approved for topical skin cosmetic  applications in Japan and worldwide and not for internal use;  After 5 years, why have the Japanese not developed any internal use applications from Radical Sponge from Vitamin C60 Bioresearch Corp which is a far bigger and a much more lucrative market?  Because it is toxic when used internally.

 

 

 

Baseless and unfounded nonsense as the Baati study proved.

 

It is a fact that C60 forms adducts with lipid molecules in OO.

 

According to the patent you posted  section [0019] 22+/- 2 water molecules are needed for the first water layer of the hydrated fullerene

 

Adding more shells, as the patent states occurs, -- and you end up with a tiny fraction of the C60 ever binding with the vestigal water (even if it would)

[sensei]

 

 

 

I dissolved it in pure squalene and it was clear. It ought to be possible to test Walter's contention by adding water to this clear solution of C60 in squalene and agitating it. If on settling the water fraction is yellow, then he might be right.

 

 

The patent states it requires 22+/- 2 H2O molecules per C60 for the first shell of hydrated fullerene , and that multiple shells form (using up more water)--

 

there is no way all the molecules of C60 added to the OO can form the poly-hydroxylated hydrated fullerene (aggregates per the patent) because the ~1000 ppm water in EVOO would be used up by the first 5% of available C60 -- the rest forms lipo-fullerenes, which are obviously non-toxic per Baati

 

It is simple numerical chemistry

 

All the literature I can find regarding water soluble poly-hyrdoxylated water bound C60 states it requires acids or hydrogen peroxides to synthesize, it does not just magically form

 

BTW where do the OH molecules come from? if you propose that somehow C60 causes hydrolysis -- we have an abundant and cheap method for creating hydrogen from water -- I think someone would be using C60 for that, and we have even less water molecules to form shells with C60, meaning even more left over C60 to form adducts with the lipids.

Edited by sensei, 10 January 2015 - 08:43 PM.

[Walter Derzko]

 

>According to the patent you posted  section [0019] 22+/- 2 water molecules are needed for the first water layer of the >hydrated fullerene

 

>Adding more shells, as the patent states occurs, -- and you end up with a tiny fraction of the C60 ever binding with the vestigal water (even if it would)

 

So what?  I don't get what point you are making.  It forms clusters and supper clusters of water or 4th phase of water according to Dr Gerald Pollack; C60 itself does NOT come into contact with any free radicals, only  the water shells, which attract ROS or NOS and other free radicals, which self neutralize.

Edited by Walter Derzko, 10 January 2015 - 08:39 PM.

[sensei]

 

 

>According to the patent you posted  section [0019] 22+/- 2 water molecules are needed for the first water layer of the >hydrated fullerene

 

>Adding more shells, as the patent states occurs, -- and you end up with a tiny fraction of the C60 ever binding with the vestigal water (even if it would)

 

So what?  I don't get what point you are making.  It forms clusters and supper clusters of water or 4th phase of water according to Dr Gerald Pollack; C60 itself does NOT come into contact with any free radicals, only  the water shells, which attract ROS or NOS and other free radicals, which self neutralize.

 

The point I'm making is that lots of C60 would be left after using up all the water if there was a perfect reaction (according to the patent OH radicals are required to bind the water shells, and Hydronium is also formed, see sheet 2) each successive shell requires more water molecules. 

 

In [0003] of the patent the formula for the supramolecular compound is defined a m (water molecules)  +,  (OH molecules) are greater than or equal to 20.

 

Therefore AT LEAST 20 molecules are needed for each carbon 60 -- for a single shelled compound

 

The molar ratio of C60 and water in olive oil based on known values ( 1000ppm vestigal water, and 900 mg/ liter C60) is 45 molecules of water to 1 molecule of C60

 

(turnbuckle please check my math I'm using 1 gram water and 18g per mole water --- 900mg C60 and 720g per mole C60)

 

once the water shells exceed 2 -- the WATER becomes exhausted

Edited by sensei, 10 January 2015 - 09:08 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

 

The patent states it requires 22+/- 2 H2O molecules per C60 for the first shell of hydrated fullerene , and that multiple shells form (using up more water)--

 

there is no way all the molecules of C60 added to the OO can form the poly-hydroxylated hydrated fullerene (aggregates per the patent) because the ~1000 ppm water in EVOO would be used up by the first 5% of available C60 -- the rest forms lipo-fullerenes, which are obviously non-toxic per Baati

 

It is simple numerical chemistry

 

All the literature I can find regarding water soluble poly-hyrdoxylated water bound C60 states it requires acids or hydrogen peroxides to synthesize, it does not just magically form

 

BTW where do the OH molecules come from? if you propose that somehow C60 causes hydrolysis -- we have an abundant and cheap method for creating hydrogen from water -- I think someone would be using C60 for that, and we have even less water molecules to form shells with C60, meaning even more left over C60 to form adducts with the lipids.

 

 

 

No, I'm not proposing any chemistry at all. I'm simply saying that if you added water to C60 in squalene and agitated it and allowed the fraction to separate, and the water fraction was yellow (unlikely), then Walter might be right. As for your numerical chemistry, I'm not sure about your numbers. 0.8 grams of C60 would require .44 grams of water to make hydrated fullerene at 100% efficiency, while 1000 ppm water in 1 liter of EVOO amounts to .91 grams of water. That's the first layer (the hard layer) and the rest would be added in the body when consumed. So its not impossible from that standpoint.

 

But once again, I'm just proposing a way of testing Walters's unlikely contention.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 10 January 2015 - 09:11 PM.

[sensei]

 

 

 

No, I'm not proposing any chemistry at all. I'm simply saying that you added water to C60 in squalene and agitated it and allowed the fraction to separate, and the water fraction was yellow (unlikely), then Walter might be right. As for your numerical chemistry, I'm not sure about your numbers. 0.8 grams of C60 would require .44 grams of water to make hydrated fullerene at 100% efficiency, while 1000 ppm water in 1 liter of EVOO amounts to .91 grams of water. That's the first layer (the hard layer) and the rest would be added in the body when consumed. So its not impossible from that standpoint.

 

But once again, I'm just proposing a way of testing Walters's unlikely contention.

 

 

But the patent states that multiple shells form (superclusters), that C60 causes water to dissociate to Hydronium and OH.

 

And we can falsify it [Walter's hypothesis] because we know that C60 does dissolve in lipids and that a saturation point in OO is reached that is approximately 900mg/liter

 

if the water created aggregates from the C60, the saturation amount would be much higher than 900mg/liter (e.g. you could dissolve 1.6 grams of C60 in the water alone)

 

Not to mention the patent specifically states" depending on method of preparation of I or II" - in [0006] -- yet does not describe such preparation.  The patent would mention spontaneous formation in water -- it however does not.

 

The superclusters require the a priori preparation of such molecules identified as I or II.  Such preparation will not occur in olive oil by stirring -- it requires acids like H2SO4 or hydrogen peroxides (search literature on synthesis of poly-hydroxylated fullerenes)

Edited by sensei, 10 January 2015 - 09:31 PM.

[sensei]

 

 

>According to the patent you posted  section [0019] 22+/- 2 water molecules are needed for the first water layer of the >hydrated fullerene

 

>Adding more shells, as the patent states occurs, -- and you end up with a tiny fraction of the C60 ever binding with the vestigal water (even if it would)

 

So what?  I don't get what point you are making.  It forms clusters and supper clusters of water or 4th phase of water according to Dr Gerald Pollack; C60 itself does NOT come into contact with any free radicals, only  the water shells, which attract ROS or NOS and other free radicals, which self neutralize.

 

 

You do realize that the initial C60 hydroxylated hydrated molecule must be prepared prior to placement in bulk water, don't you?  They don't just spontaneously form. Even the patent calls out that there is a method of preparation necessary in section [0006], yet does not identify it, because there is plenty of prior art regarding synthesis of poly-hydroxylated hydrated fullerenes.

[Turnbuckle]

So I tried it--mixing a previously prepared 0.3 g/l C60 solution in squalene (originally clear) with equal parts water. I gave it just a few minutes of shaking for a first trial, expecting it would settle out into two clear phases. It did not. One phase was yellow/sienna, and the other was clear. Oddly, the yellow phase is the squalene, not the water as you might expect. 

 

The yellow/sienna soon settled out at the bottom of a test tube. It had a a burnt sienna color, and I wonder if it had settled out in the two years it was sitting in a drawer in a dark bottle and I simply didn't notice it. 

[Hebbeh]

Would be interesting to repeat with just plain pure squalene and water (no C60).

[niner]

If dissolved c60 spontaneously forms hydrated clusters in water, then why do you need a horn sonicator to get it to form from a toluene solution layered on water?  How do you explain the superoxide dismutase activity that Dugan found with her tris-malonate?  Is it forming water clusters too?  The C60 in olive oil is not dissolved; it reacts with the unsaturated hydrocarbon chains of the triglyceride.  In the adduct form, the putative water sphere will be strongly disrupted by the alkyl groups, and probably wouldn't form.  If anything, I suspect that HyFn is a way of getting c60 into the body where it ultimately dissolves in lipid, perhaps in a mitochondrial (or other) membrane.  Once in contact with the appropriate unsaturated lipid, it might even react with it, forming a compound much like the ultimate fate of c60oo after digestion.  Frankly, I think that's a lot more likely than the other way around.

[Walter Derzko]

If dissolved c60 spontaneously forms hydrated clusters in water, then why do you need a horn sonicator to get it to form from a toluene solution layered on water?  How do you explain the superoxide dismutase activity that Dugan found with her tris-malonate?  Is it forming water clusters too?  The C60 in olive oil is not dissolved; it reacts with the unsaturated hydrocarbon chains of the triglyceride.  In the adduct form, the putative water sphere will be strongly disrupted by the alkyl groups, and probably wouldn't form.  If anything, I suspect that HyFn is a way of getting c60 into the body where it ultimately dissolves in lipid, perhaps in a mitochondrial (or other) membrane.  Once in contact with the appropriate unsaturated lipid, it might even react with it, forming a compound much like the ultimate fate of c60oo after digestion.  Frankly, I think that's a lot more likely than the other way around.

 

C60 does NOT spontaneously form C60 Hydrated Fullerenes. It has very low solubility in water. Part of the hydration process involves cavitation hydro-vibration

Edited by Walter Derzko, 11 January 2015 - 06:23 AM.

[sensei]

 

 

C60OO works too because after centrifuging for weeks it eventually binds with water in the olive oil.

 

 

According to you cavitation hydro-vibration is required

 

 

C60 does NOT spontaneously form C60 Hydrated Fullerenes. It has very low solubility in water. Part of the hydration process involves cavitation hydro-vibration

 

 

Wait, earlier you said it will happen simply from stirring for a few weeks.

 

Oh, wait -- I see your mistake, you thought the C60OO was CENTRIFUGED for weeks. -- It was only centrifuged prior to filtration after the 2 weeks of stirring.

 

Nope, it is simply stirred; or you can also make it like Mr. Bond prefers, simply shaken. (shaken by hand a few times a day for a week has been stated to work for many that make their own on this forum)

Edited by sensei, 11 January 2015 - 04:52 PM.

[Walter Derzko]

Sensei, niner  and others,

 

If you have any stereochemistry related question about Carbon 60 Hydrated Fullerenes I  suggest you direct them to the patent holder and not me.

 

Re: 0.3g C60/1L of solution in squalene

 

I suspect macro concentrations of C60 in OO exhibit radically different chemistry in the body then 0.002mg/L of C60 Hydrated Fullerenes in C60 Water of Life.

 

 

regards

 

Walter Derzko

[sensei]

Sensei, niner  and others,

 

If you have any stereochemistry related question about Carbon 60 Hydrated Fullerenes I  suggest you direct them to the patent holder and not me.

 

Re: 0.3g C60/1L of solution in squalene

 

I suspect macro concentrations of C60 in OO exhibit radically different chemistry in the body then 0.002mg/L of C60 Hydrated Fullerenes in C60 Water of Life.

 

 

regards

 

Walter Derzko

 

 

Walter, with all due respect; we are questioning YOUR hypothesis and statements regarding:

 

C60OO being toxic

 

and

 

hydrated fullerenes being created in C60OO vestigal water.

 

It is now clear from your own words that you are mistaken regarding the way C60OO is made. It is not centrifuged for weeks, therefore the basic premise/mechanism by which you proposed that C60 hydrated fullerenes are created in C60OO is falsified.

[Walter Derzko]

Is C60 OO approved anywhere for internal use ? ONLY topical cosmetic applications. Ask the Japanese Vit C60 Bioresearch people if they will sell it to you for internal human use and they will say NO. Several people/companies  from North America have called them and they all got the same answer. NOT FOR INTERNAL HUMAN USE. If they had valid safety/toxicity studies for LI-FN they would have submitted them long ago. Why didn't they?

Edited by Walter Derzko, 11 January 2015 - 05:37 PM.

[pleb]

Walter. Your talking without actually have studied who whole C60-oo phenomena or trails.
The name Japanese sponge is simply a name given to C60 as used in face cream of course it warns you not to take it internally . the same as many hundreds and thousands of products are not for internal use.

Vince Giuliani put many links to C60 on the thread a long time ago and even at the rate of 3 grams per cubic metre floating in the air a Japanese trail showed it to be none toxic even when breathed in in an industrial situation.and as many others have shown its totally inert.
And as many on here have also shown it doesn't need centrifuging to mix with olive oil. It just has a little bit more waste carbon in it.
You've reached the stage where your arguing for arguing sake.defending your view.

Edited by pleb, 11 January 2015 - 05:54 PM.

[sensei]

Is C60 OO approved anywhere for internal use ? ONLY topical cosmetic applications. Ask the Japanese Vit C60 Bioresearch people if they will sell it to you for internal human use and they will say NO. Several people/companies  from North America have called them and they all got the same answer. NOT FOR INTERNAL HUMAN USE. If they had valid safety/toxicity studies for LI-FN they would have submitted them long ago. Why didn't they?

 

 

That's what the Baati study was -- a toxicity study.  It ended up showing the rats live twice as long as controls.

 

And -- they can't patent C60OO -- it's been in the literature for years, so prior art kills a US patent.

 

Plus, even if patented, you can still make it yourself, legally without patent infringement -- 

Edited by sensei, 11 January 2015 - 09:54 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

And -- they can't patent C60OO -- it's been in the literature for years, so prior art kills a US patent.

 

 

 

Plus, even if patented, you can still make it yourself, legally without patent infringement -- 

 

 

 

We shall see if it's patentable. They have a US application with a priority date of Jun. 30, 2011. The first claim: A stable biocompatible composition comprising: (a) a carrier selected from the group consisting of fats and oils; and (b) one compound selected from the group consisting of water-insoluble fullerenes, wherein said fullerenes are mostly dissolved in said carrier. 

 

As for making a patented product for your own use, that's not actually legal, though it is very hard to enforce.

[sensei]

 

 

 

As for making a patented product for your own use, that's not actually legal, though it is very hard to enforce.

 

 

Actually it is legal:

 

There is the overall experimental exemption:

 

Use of a patented invention "for the mere purpose of philosophical experimentation, or to ascertain the verity and exactness of the

specification" is exempt from infringement  Sawin v. Guild, 21 F. Cas. 554, 555 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813) (No. 12,391).

 

To be deemed philosophical experimentation, the experiment must be "for

amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry."  Roche Prods., Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F.2d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856 (1984)

 

If you review patent law, you will find almost without exception that infringement must constitute a use(s) that are "in keeping with the patent holder's legitimate business"

 

A simple statement of -- "I wanted to see what it would do to me because I was bored" -- satisfies the "idle curiosity" requirement of the '"philosophical experimentation" prong.

 

http://www.btlj.org/...vol7/Michel.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by sensei, 12 January 2015 - 02:39 AM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

 

 

As for making a patented product for your own use, that's not actually legal, though it is very hard to enforce.

 

 

Actually it is legal:

 

There is the overall experimental exemption:

 

Use of a patented invention "for the mere purpose of philosophical experimentation, or to ascertain the verity and exactness of the

specification" is exempt from infringement  Sawin v. Guild, 21 F. Cas. 554, 555 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813) (No. 12,391).

 

To be deemed philosophical experimentation, the experiment must be "for

amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry."  Roche Prods., Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F.2d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856 (1984)

 

If you review patent law, you will find almost without exception that infringement must constitute a use(s) that are "in keeping with the patent holder's legitimate business"

 

A simple statement of -- "I wanted to see what it would do to me because I was bored" -- satisfies the "idle curiosity" requirement of the '"philosophical experimentation" prong.

 

http://www.btlj.org/...vol7/Michel.pdf

 

 

I think there might be a difference between "idle curiosity" and making it yourself for long term use instead of buying it from a licensed source, as that could be argued as having an economic incentive. In any case, no small company can afford to waste money on suing individuals. And no one has to worry at this point because no patent has issued.

[sensei]

 

 

I think there might be a difference between "idle curiosity" and making it yourself for long term use instead of buying it from a licensed source, as that could be argued as having an economic incentive. In any case, no small company can afford to waste money on suing individuals. And no one has to worry at this point because no patent has issued.

 

 

" to ascertain the verity and exactness of the specification" is another prong

 

My Response  to long term self-manufacture and use:

 

"I wanted to see if it performs as the patent says, since my expected lifespan is ~80 years, and some humans live to be 100+, it will take a while for me to ascertain the TRUTH [verity] of the claim in the patent regarding the extension of human lifespan"

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

 

I think there might be a difference between "idle curiosity" and making it yourself for long term use instead of buying it from a licensed source, as that could be argued as having an economic incentive. In any case, no small company can afford to waste money on suing individuals. And no one has to worry at this point because no patent has issued.

 

 

" to ascertain the verity and exactness of the specification" is another prong

 

My Response  to long term self-manufacture and use:

 

"I wanted to see if it performs as the patent says, since my expected lifespan is ~80 years, and some humans live to be 100+, it will take a while for me to ascertain the TRUTH [verity] of the claim in the patent regarding the extension of human lifespan"

 

 

A good argument. As the patent (application) claims longer life in mammals, including humans, but gives no evidence for humans, you would be doubly entitled to test their claims. On the other hand, once you've verified that you can make it according to the specification, what is the justification for continuing to make it instead of buying it? To determine if it really extends human life, you say, but the lifespan of one individual doesn't constitute a valid experiment.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 12 January 2015 - 02:32 PM.

[sensei]

 

 

A good argument. As the patent (application) claims longer life in mammals, including humans, but gives no evidence for humans, you would be doubly entitled to test their claims.

 

 

I'm ordering from sesres this week, 5 grams if I can swing it.

 

Things are happening to my body since I have started taking the dosages I take that I cannot believe.

 

My beard that had turned a dull brown with salt "gray" sprinkled through by 40, is now coming in with the color it had in my 20's an auburn with gold highlights.

 

Even the blue in the iris of my eye has started to return to the more vibrant blue of my youth instead of the greyish blue it had become.

 

This stuff is unbelievable.

 

milligram scale ordered from Amazon

Edited by sensei, 12 January 2015 - 03:11 PM.

[resting]

I am reproducing and recording images. (Also been documenting decline from 2008 in detail). Same Product.

Dosages taken 30th Dec, 1st,3rd,5th,7th,9th,11th Jan.

 

Will release details on completion. 

 

I will not be cross post (after this one) and will start a new thread for results etc.

 

[resting]

Nothing much to report at the moment other than the my previous posts.

 

[sensei]

A good argument. As the patent (application) claims longer life in mammals, including humans, but gives no evidence for humans, you would be doubly entitled to test their claims. On the other hand, once you've verified that you can make it according to the specification, what is the justification for continuing to make it instead of buying it? To determine if it really extends human life, you say, but the lifespan of one individual doesn't constitute a valid experiment.

 

 

 

It is my philosophical determination what constitutes proof of verity to me. The claim is that it will extend my life.

 

Not many people are aware of this general exception to patent infringement.

 

There is actually also another prong -- simple amusement -- I can make it and take it for the sake of amusement.

 

Like I said before -- it is completely legal for a person to make and use any patented invention for themselves.

 

The reason most people don't make and use expensive medicines, or other patented inventions -- is quite simply that they cannot actually make them.

 

"It amuses me" is an absolute defense, affirmed by precedent and decision in federal court.

Edited by sensei, 12 January 2015 - 03:48 PM.

[Walter Derzko]

The patent states it requires 22+/- 2 H2O molecules per C60 for the first shell of hydrated fullerene , and that multiple shells form (using up more water)--
 
there is no way all the molecules of C60 added to the OO can form the poly-hydroxylated hydrated fullerene (aggregates per the patent) because the ~1000 ppm water in EVOO would be used up by the first 5% of available C60 -- the rest forms lipo-fullerenes, which are obviously non-toxic per Baati
 
It is simple numerical chemistry
 
All the literature I can find regarding water soluble poly-hyrdoxylated water bound C60 states it requires acids or hydrogen peroxides to synthesize, it does not just magically form
 
BTW where do the OH molecules come from? if you propose that somehow C60 causes hydrolysis -- we have an abundant and cheap method for creating hydrogen from water -- I think someone would be using C60 for that, and we have even less water molecules to form shells with C60, meaning even more left over C60 to form adducts with the lipids.

Questions about Carbon[60] hydrated fullerene stereochemistry should be addressed directly to the patent holder

[resting]

I suggest Walter starts a dedicated Carbon[60] hydrated fullerene thread which just states :-

 

Questions about Carbon[60] hydrated fullerene stereochemistry should be addressed directly to the patent holder.

 

[niner]

We shall see if it's patentable. They have a US application with a priority date of Jun. 30, 2011. The first claim: A stable biocompatible composition comprising: (a) a carrier selected from the group consisting of fats and oils; and (b) one compound selected from the group consisting of water-insoluble fullerenes, wherein said fullerenes are mostly dissolved in said carrier.

 

Maybe this is picking nits (isn't that what patent language is all about?), but said fullerenes are not mostly dissolved.  They are mostly (almost entirely) reacted to form a new compound.  Could you use that to break the patent?  Further, if instead of fats or oils, you used ethyl oleate or ethyl linoleate, what then?

Edited by niner, 12 January 2015 - 06:14 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

We shall see if it's patentable. They have a US application with a priority date of Jun. 30, 2011. The first claim: A stable biocompatible composition comprising: (a) a carrier selected from the group consisting of fats and oils; and (b) one compound selected from the group consisting of water-insoluble fullerenes, wherein said fullerenes are mostly dissolved in said carrier.

 

Maybe this is picking nits (isn't that what patent language is all about?), but said fullerenes are not mostly dissolved.  They are mostly (almost entirely) reacted to form a new compound.  Could you use that to break the patent?  Further, if instead of fats or oils, you used ethyl oleate or ethyl linoleate, what then?

 

 

 

Right, patent language is very precise, but the claims have to be read in light of the specification. In general use, the word solution might be used even if there is some reaction between the solute and solvent, but the specification here suggests that reactions are undesirable--

 

Another method, disclosed in J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 3186-3188 uses polyvinyl-pyrrolidone to solubilize C6o; however this vehicle can react with fullerene and the formed complex may cause harmful effects on mice embryos. 

 

 

Though it's not entirely clear. Maybe they mean only this specific case? In getting the patent, there will be correspondence between the examiner and the inventor's lawyer--the prosecution history--and that's what you go to in a legal battle, in addition to the specification and claims. They may be forced to define the word solution by reference to some dictionary, and then they will be stuck with it. Patent litigation is very expensive and not entered into lightly--

 

It’s no secret patent litigation costs are immense.  According to the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the cost of an average patent lawsuit, where $1 million to $25 million is at risk, is $1.6 million through the end of discovery and $2.8 million through final disposition.

 

http://www.ipwatchdo...ation/id=34808/

 

As for which oils are covered, the application says this--

 

The carrier used in the present invention is a pharmaceutically acceptable and biocompatible carrier, selected from the group consisting of fats and oils. The fat or oil may be any natural or synthetic fat or oil suitable for administration to a mammal. They are not particularly restricted inasmuch as they are components which can be used in pharmaceutical preparations or in foods. Oils and fats can be hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated. They are used at a solid, a semisolid, or a liquid state. Vegetable and animal fats and oils are preferred, vegetable fats and oils are most preferred. Oils and fats include, without limitation fatty acid esters, fatty acids, fatty alcohols and fatty alcohol esters. Synthetic lipids can also be used. Fatty acids, as defined herein, are intended to mean aliphatic monocarboxylic acids having a chain of 4 to 40 carbon atoms, which may be branched or unbranched, saturated or unsaturated, cyclic or acyclic. Fatty acids may be natural or synthetic, polyunsaturated, mono-unsaturated or saturated. Natural fatty acids, which are usually unbranched and C4-C28 even-numbered, are preferred. Examples of fatty acids include, but are not limited to, linoleic acid, arachidonic acid, linolenic acid, gamma-linolenic acid, caprylic acid, stearic acid, myristic acid, a palmitic acid, behenic acid, undecylenic acid, oleic acid, an decosahexaenoic acid (DHA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), isostearic acid, 12-hydroxy-stearic acid. Salts thereof [e.g. alkali metal salts (sodium salts, potassium salts, etc.), alkaline earth metal salts (calcium, magnesium salts etc.)] can also be employed. Fatty acid esters are preferably esters of fatty acid as defined hereinabove with C-1-C40 aliphatic or aromatic alcohols, preferably aliphatic, saturated or unsaturated, straight-chain or branched-chain, cyclic or acyclic. Alcohols can be polyols, having preferably up to five hydroxyl groups. Examples of fatty acid esters include, but are not limited to, triglycerides i.e. tri-esters of glycerol with fatty acids cited above, sterids i.e. esters of sterols with fatty acids cited above, the group consisting of the lower alkyl esters thereof (preferably methyl, propyl, butyl, isopropyl and hexyl), 1,2- or 1,3-diglycerides, 1- or 2-monoglycerides, polyglycolysed glycerides such as sucrose fatty acid esters, polyglyceryl fatty acid esters, propylene glycol fatty acid esters. Specific examples of fatty acid esters are octyldodecyl behenate; isocetyl behenate; isocetyl lactate; isostearyl lactate; linoleyl lactate; oleyl lactate; isostearyl octanoate, isocetyl octanoate, decyl oleate, isocetyl isotearate, isocetyl laurate; isocetyl stearate; isodecyl octanoate; isodecyl oleate; isononyl isononanoate; isostearyl palmitate; myristyl isostearate; octyl isononanoate; 2-ethylhexyl isononanoate; octyl isostearate; octyldodecyl erucate; isopropyl palmitates, 2-ethylhexyl palmitate, 2-octyldecyl palmitate, branched alkyl myristates such as isopropyl myristate, t-butyl myristate, 2-octyldodecyl myristate, hexyl isostearate, butyl isostearate, isobutyl stearate, hexyl laurate, 2-hexyldecyl laurate, propylene glycol monostearate and distearate. Examples of giycerides (fatty acid esters) include, without limitation, triolein, trilinolein, tripalmitin, tristearin, trimyristin, and triarachidonin. Examples of sterids (fatty acid esters) include, without limitation, cholesteryl oleate, cholesteryl linoleate, cholesteryl myristate, cholesteryl palmitate, cholesteryl arachidate. Examples of fatty alcohols include, without limitation, cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, lauryl alcohol, myristyl alcohol, palmityl alcohol, behenyl alcohol, hexadecyl alcohol, oleic alcohol, isostearyl alcohol, cetostearyl alcohol. They can be used as esters with C4-C40 dicarboxylic, tricarboxylic or tetracarboxylic acids. Oils may be natural oils such as vegetable oils and animal oils (composed predominantly of triglycerides), or mineral oils such as silicon oils, fluorinated oils. Liquid paraffin can also be used. Examples of natural oil include, but are not limited to, oils from plant sources, such as corn oil, wheat germ oil, soybean oil, rice bran oil, rapeseed oil, canola oil, sesame oil, palm (kernel) oil, olive oil, camellia oil, peanut oil, coconut oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil, orange oil, evening primrose oil, borage oil, blackcurrant seed oil, cottonseed oil, beaver oil, pineapple oil, safflower oil, copra oil, oils found in coffee, and animal oils such as turtle oil, fish oil, cod-liver oil. Fats may be mineral fats or natural fats such as vegetable fats and animal fats. Petrolatum, paraffin can also be used. Examples of natural fat include, but are not limited to, butter, cocoa butter, theobroma, peanut butter, lard, beef fat, chicken fat, horse fat, lanolin and lanolin derivatives. Oils and fats can be polyunsaturated such as corn, soybean, safflower oils, or saturated, such as palm, coconut oils and butter, or mono-unsaturated, such as olive oil and canola oil. Other suitable carriers according to the invention are diisopropyl sebacate; diisopropyl adipate; diisostearyl adipate; octyldodecyl stearoyl stearate; pentaerythrityl tetra-isononanoate; pentaerythrityl tetraisostearate; triisopropyl citrate; triisostearyl citrate; and trioctyldodecyl citrate. Preferred carriers according to the invention are butter, cocoa butter, peanut butter, olive oil, soybean oil, cod-liver oil and liquid paraffin. As defined above, carriers may be used each alone or in a combination of two or more species. [60]fullerene is dissolved in the carrier, depending on the nature of the carrier. Some carriers are able to dissolve substantial amounts of water-insoluble fullerenes (several mg/g of carrier). In one embodiment, at least 0.8 mg of fullerene is dissolved per ml of the carrier (the carrier being a liquid). As an example, it is possible to dissolve a total weight up to 1 mg of C60 per g of olive or soybean oil in less than one week. The compositions according to the invention may be pharmaceutical compositions comprising the fullerene in a therapeutically effective amount.

 

 

Edited by Turnbuckle, 12 January 2015 - 07:41 PM.