3585 replies to this topic

[mikey]

As far as I know, there's no reason to believe that C60 would lengthen telomeres. As such, I would recommend waiting a while for the next telomere test. Considering the error bars of the test, I suspect it will take a fair amount of time to see a difference.

Not directly, I'd think. And while it is known that telomere dysfunction can cause mitochondrial dysfunction, I haven't found anything on the reverse. But it seems reasonable to suppose that it might, and conversely, if a cell isn't starved for energy, all its processes would work at a higher level including any process that lengthens telomeres.

...telomere dysfunction is associated with impaired mitochondrial biogenesis and function, decreased gluconeogenesis, cardiomyopathy, and increased reactive oxygen species...We demonstrate that telomere dysfunction activates p53 which in turn binds and represses PGC-1α and PGC-1β promoters, thereby forging a direct link between telomere and mitochondrial biology. We propose that this telomere–p53–PGC axis contributes to organ and metabolic failure and to diminishing organismal fitness in the setting of telomere dysfunction.

http://www.nature.co...ature09787.html

If it lengthens' lifespan, then it seems reasonable to assume that it must lengthen telomeres as there's a direct corelation between telomere length and lifespan. As well, there's TA-65 and its competitor TSX that lengthen telomeres. I chose to experiment with C60 rather than them, but they were considered.

We shall see when I get my second telomere test, and you're right. I'll wait at least six months.
I also expect to also see changes in my blood tests. But I'm not sure what. I have chronically slightly low white blood cells and my glucose and hemoglobi n A1c have been trendiing at the high end of normal recently. And there are other measurements I'll be testing.

Does anyone have suggestions for blood tests that might tell us something specific about C60's effects?

[Turnbuckle]

If it lengthens' lifespan, then it seems reasonable to assume that it must lengthen telomeres as there's a direct corelation between telomere length and lifespan. As well, there's TA-65 and its competitor TSX that lengthen telomeres. I chose to experiment with C60 rather than them, but they were considered.

It might not be that great of a correlation.

Conclusion: This longitudinal study of the elderly and oldest old does not support the hypothesis that telomere length is a predictor for remaining lifespan once age is controlled for.

Source

There are two DNA systems in the body, and they both age, so if you're serious about life extension you'll look into both of them. C60 may improve the health of mitochondria, but not necessarily nDNA, at least not by any presently known mechanism. As for supplements to extend telomeres, you might consider astragalus extract, which I take and at least one person here has experimented with and found it did extend telomeres.

In the post partially quoted below, GreenPower compares the effects of cycloastragenol, astragaloside IV, and astragalus extract on telomeres and finds the latter to be superior. He says--

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION

Using Astragaloside IV had a quite large negative effect on the telomere lengths. All of the telomeres in the measured cell types decreased in length. Several of the changes were quite large and well outside the possible fault limits of the test. Based on these results and the similar results Anthony had, I would hesitate to recommend anyone from taking Astragaloside IV as a supplement.

Using Cycloastragenol had a more neutral result. The changes were within the fault limits of the test, but at least 75% of the cell types which showed any change at all showed a slight increase in telomere length. I'm still waiting to see the results Anthony got from his test. If they are posted in this thread I must have missed them.

Using "Standardised Astragalus Root Extract" for six months (+ physical training, meditation, less work, gingko biloba, orlistat and LCHF ) had a more interesting result. The median telomere length of my NK cells increased in length by a whopping 1 800 base pairs. This is an increase with 44 percent and well outside the error margin of the test!

http://www.longecity...060#entry444060

Edited by Turnbuckle, 01 August 2012 - 10:16 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Here's a picture of the Black Oil of Turnbuckle. It's black because the .5mg/ml of fullerenes is 30% C70 and higher (with the balance being C60), and fullerenes of different molecular weights exhibit different colors, combining to a dark brown that appears black in bulk. I've now taken this eleven times over the past few weeks, generally a tablespoon full. My dogs have tried it and my wife has as well--she takes it when she wants to feel smarter. So far I've found no negatives and it may even be better than C60, though that's hard to say since the effects of fullerenes are so persistent.

I mixed the SES Research Fullerne Extract, I believe the same 70% mix you used, and it came out dark red.

I have a new batch going, this time using Newman's Own Organic EVOO, and after three hours it seems completely dissolved. I'll let it go all night, but I doubt it will get any darker. It's a deep, port red color--the Red Oil of John.

[niner]

Does anyone have suggestions for blood tests that might tell us something specific about C60's effects?

Anything that speaks to your redox status would be interesting, if you can get a before and after. Since you've already started, that might rule out the 'before' test unless you've already done it. One such test that comes to mind is glutathione ratio; the ratio of oxidized to reduced glutathione. A malondialdehyde level might be interesting. I know there are others, though I don't remember names at the moment. These are fairly specialized tests, and probably wouldn't be found at just any old lab. The antiaging doc that you use might have the name of a more sophisticated lab, or maybe you already have one. If you have a link to the available tests, I'd be happy to look at it and tell you which ones might be useful.

Edit: typo. (glutathione ratio, not "ration"...)

Edited by niner, 10 September 2012 - 08:02 PM.

[mikey]

So I got the LifeLength telomere test this morning and started taking Carbon's C60, 12 mg. My best friend, who is 32 started with 2 mg.
We both felt it. I just feel like I'm standing up straighter and there's a feeling of internal power. He echo's what I'm feeling.
I'll get the results of the telomere test in about two weeks. I'll re-do the test in some amount of time - maybe 3 months, maybe 6 and I expect to see that the C60 has lengthened my telomeres.
I generally do 2 to 4 comprehensive blood tests a year, looking at all kinds of things. I expect that there will be changes in my blood tests using C60. This is going to be FUN 300 years!

Thanks Mikey for your input. Thus far (and I may have missed a few posts) I haven’t see anyone else doing anywhere near as comprehensive self-testing regarding C60. I'm very interested to see your results.

As far as the discussion regarding potential positives and negatives I have to side with AgeVivo. I really don't know how many years of testing we would need to see a situation where we obtain some level of certainty regarding net positives/negatives. Given the life span of a Human how many years would it take? 5? 10? 15+?

I’m taking a dramatically lower dose (2mg/day) than the majority due to this risk factor. When the animal experiments have been verified a couple of times over perhaps that will be a good time to up the dose.

On a new issue is anyone else in the Lab Rat division experiencing issues with Vision or Hearing?

You're welcome. I love documenting with tests.
Yes. I had a moment of wondering if even though the rat's lifespans almost doubled, the poor devils found that their brains turned to pudding and maybe the notion of replicating the first week loading dose - ultra high dose - was less than prudent.

However, my BFF gave his 60-year old mother 4.8 mg this afternoon and she reported later that her migraines, which build during the day stopped after she took it. Needless to say, she wants some!

[mikey]

Does anyone have suggestions for blood tests that might tell us something specific about C60's effects?

Anything that speaks to your redox status would be interesting, if you can get a before and after. Since you've already started, that might rule out the 'before' test unless you've already done it. One such test that comes to mind is glutathione ration; the ratio of oxidized to reduced glutathione. A malondialdehyde level might be interesting. I know there are others, though I don't remember names at the moment. These are fairly specialized tests, and probably wouldn't be found at just any old lab. The antiaging doc that you use might have the name of a more sophisticated lab, or maybe you already have one. If you have a link to the available tests, I'd be happy to look at it and tell you which ones might be useful.

I haven't done those tests. However, if they're available from the lab I use, or one my doc knows of, then I might get them soon, where I've only done 10-12 mg three days in a row - before I do a one week loading dosing - mimicking the high dose in the study - followed by a 1/3 maintenance daily dose ongoing.

And then test again in a couple of months and see if there are improvements.

I'll email my doc and get back to you. And thanks.

[niner]

I had a moment of wondering if even though the rat's lifespans almost doubled, the poor devils found that their brains turned to pudding and maybe the notion of replicating the first week loading dose - ultra high dose - was less than prudent.

However, my BFF gave his 60-year old mother 4.8 mg this afternoon and she reported later that her migraines, which build during the day stopped after she took it. Needless to say, she wants some!

Thanks for that report- very interesting. With regard to dose, remember that the rat study was a tox study. They were trying to find even minor toxicities, so they gave the rats a huge dose. Really, I think we should look at the rat dose (1.8mg/kg) as an OD. It was certainly a loading dose, and I think that the rat dosing protocol, 24 doses over seven months, heavily front-loaded, did in fact load up their mitochondrial and other membranes with the C60-olive oil adduct, and it stayed there for a very long time. One of the reasons that I think it was an OD is that so many people have seen effects at vastly lower doses, like your friend's mother and many others. Whether it was a "bad" OD, or just an unnecessary one is hard to know, but the rats lived a long time and it doesn't seem to have hurt Anthony thus far. If anything, the high dose of olive oil might have been more important. We now have some pretty decent epidemiological data showing a dose response to olive oil, with higher doses resulting in reduced mortality. While C60 appears to be active at very low doses, it's clear that you need a lot of olive oil for the optimum effects.

When I finally get my C60-oo experiment off the ground, I'll probably be first looking for effects at doses of 2-5mg, then move to 15-20 for a week, then start stretching out the time between doses, and ending with a maintenance dose that will be fairly low; something like a few mg per week. I'd like to find biomarkers that can assist in dosing, and would be interested in doing some testing before I start. Let me know if you find a place to get the glutathione ratio or any other redox-sensitive tests.

I'm trying to consume 30ml per day of good olive oil. I probably hit that on some days, but miss on others. Baati's results with the olive oil-only arm of his study make a pretty good case for at least occasional guzzling of disgustingly huge quantities of olive oil. That study still needs to be replicated, and rats aren't humans.

[mikey]

I had a moment of wondering if even though the rat's lifespans almost doubled, the poor devils found that their brains turned to pudding and maybe the notion of replicating the first week loading dose - ultra high dose - was less than prudent.

However, my BFF gave his 60-year old mother 4.8 mg this afternoon and she reported later that her migraines, which build during the day stopped after she took it. Needless to say, she wants some!

Thanks for that report- very interesting. With regard to dose, remember that the rat study was a tox study. They were trying to find even minor toxicities, so they gave the rats a huge dose. Really, I think we should look at the rat dose (1.8mg/kg) as an OD. It was certainly a loading dose, and I think that the rat dosing protocol, 24 doses over seven months, heavily front-loaded, did in fact load up their mitochondrial and other membranes with the C60-olive oil adduct, and it stayed there for a very long time. One of the reasons that I think it was an OD is that so many people have seen effects at vastly lower doses, like your friend's mother and many others. Whether it was a "bad" OD, or just an unnecessary one is hard to know, but the rats lived a long time and it doesn't seem to have hurt Anthony thus far. If anything, the high dose of olive oil might have been more important. We now have some pretty decent epidemiological data showing a dose response to olive oil, with higher doses resulting in reduced mortality. While C60 appears to be active at very low doses, it's clear that you need a lot of olive oil for the optimum effects.

When I finally get my C60-oo experiment off the ground, I'll probably be first looking for effects at doses of 2-5mg, then move to 15-20 for a week, then start stretching out the time between doses, and ending with a maintenance dose that will be fairly low; something like a few mg per week. I'd like to find biomarkers that can assist in dosing, and would be interested in doing some testing before I start. Let me know if you find a place to get the glutathione ratio or any other redox-sensitive tests.

I'm trying to consume 30ml per day of good olive oil. I probably hit that on some days, but miss on others. Baati's results with the olive oil-only arm of his study make a pretty good case for at least occasional guzzling of disgustingly huge quantities of olive oil. That study still needs to be replicated, and rats aren't humans.

Now on re-reading the study I find dosing confusing. I understand that they dosed the rats with a very high dose attempting to find toxicity, which turned out to extend their lifespans.

But while I see the 1.7 mg/kg bw noted in the abstract, the text of the study shows 4 mg/kg bw in the 22.1 Pharmacokinetics and 22.2 Biodistribution studies with Chronic toxicity and oxidative toxicity following them with the same dose.

Certainly, if 1.7 mg/kg is a high dose, 4 mg/kg is considerably higher.

Can anyone clear this up?

If we are looking at a loading dose for one week followed by the same dose in decreasing frequency is it 1.7 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg bw?

And thank you.

[niner]

Now on re-reading the study I find dosing confusing. I understand that they dosed the rats with a very high dose attempting to find toxicity, which turned out to extend their lifespans.

But while I see the 1.7 mg/kg bw noted in the abstract, the text of the study shows 4 mg/kg bw in the 22.1 Pharmacokinetics and 22.2 Biodistribution studies with Chronic toxicity and oxidative toxicity following them with the same dose.

Certainly, if 1.7 mg/kg is a high dose, 4 mg/kg is considerably higher.

Can anyone clear this up?

If we are looking at a loading dose for one week followed by the same dose in decreasing frequency is it 1.7 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg bw?

The 4mg/kg dose was for a very brief time, probably a single dose. In that experiment, they were taking blood samples to see how long it stayed in the blood, (that's the PK) and then they sacrificed the animals to see which organs the C60 was located in. The were also looking for acute tox effects, like legs in the air.

For the long term (chronic) tox experiment, where the extreme life extension was observed, they used 1.7mg/kg. (sorry, I said 1.8 in my post above). There is a concept of "Human Equivalent Dose", having to do with the differing metabolic rates of different animals. The HED for rats is 1/6 the dose, or 0.283 mg/kg. If you want to stay with 1.7mg/kg and do the whole enchilada, it probably won't hurt you, based on Anthony's experience, but it is a hell of a lot of olive oil to drink in a day if you have 0..8mg/ml olive oil, even worse if you are using .5mg/ml as some people here are.

[mikey]

If it lengthens' lifespan, then it seems reasonable to assume that it must lengthen telomeres as there's a direct corelation between telomere length and lifespan. As well, there's TA-65 and its competitor TSX that lengthen telomeres. I chose to experiment with C60 rather than them, but they were considered.

It might not be that great of a correlation.

Conclusion: This longitudinal study of the elderly and oldest old does not support the hypothesis that telomere length is a predictor for remaining lifespan once age is controlled for.

Source

There are two DNA systems in the body, and they both age, so if you're serious about life extension you'll look into both of them. C60 may improve the health of mitochondria, but not necessarily nDNA, at least not by any presently known mechanism. As for supplements to extend telomeres, you might consider astragalus extract, which I take and at least one person here has experimented with and found it did extend telomeres.

In the post partially quoted below, GreenPower compares the effects of cycloastragenol, astragaloside IV, and astragalus extract on telomeres and finds the latter to be superior. He says--

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION

Using Astragaloside IV had a quite large negative effect on the telomere lengths. All of the telomeres in the measured cell types decreased in length. Several of the changes were quite large and well outside the possible fault limits of the test. Based on these results and the similar results Anthony had, I would hesitate to recommend anyone from taking Astragaloside IV as a supplement.

Using Cycloastragenol had a more neutral result. The changes were within the fault limits of the test, but at least 75% of the cell types which showed any change at all showed a slight increase in telomere length. I'm still waiting to see the results Anthony got from his test. If they are posted in this thread I must have missed them.

Using "Standardised Astragalus Root Extract" for six months (+ physical training, meditation, less work, gingko biloba, orlistat and LCHF ) had a more interesting result. The median telomere length of my NK cells increased in length by a whopping 1 800 base pairs. This is an increase with 44 percent and well outside the error margin of the test!

http://www.longecity...060#entry444060

Great. Thanks. Where do I buy the specific Astragalus extract?

[Turnbuckle]

Here's a picture of the Black Oil of Turnbuckle. It's black because the .5mg/ml of fullerenes is 30% C70 and higher (with the balance being C60), and fullerenes of different molecular weights exhibit different colors, combining to a dark brown that appears black in bulk. I've now taken this eleven times over the past few weeks, generally a tablespoon full. My dogs have tried it and my wife has as well--she takes it when she wants to feel smarter. So far I've found no negatives and it may even be better than C60, though that's hard to say since the effects of fullerenes are so persistent.

I mixed the SES Research Fullerne Extract, I believe the same 70% mix you used, and it came out dark red.

Here's a picture of C60/70 in Newman's Own Organic EVOO at .5mg/ml, looking quite black in bulk, and a test tube full of the same stuff. The two best colors I've achieved to date have been with oils labeled "organic."

Attached Files

•  C60-C70 in Newmans Own organic EVOO.jpg   141.68KB   10 downloads

[mikey]

Now on re-reading the study I find dosing confusing. I understand that they dosed the rats with a very high dose attempting to find toxicity, which turned out to extend their lifespans.

But while I see the 1.7 mg/kg bw noted in the abstract, the text of the study shows 4 mg/kg bw in the 22.1 Pharmacokinetics and 22.2 Biodistribution studies with Chronic toxicity and oxidative toxicity following them with the same dose.

Certainly, if 1.7 mg/kg is a high dose, 4 mg/kg is considerably higher.

Can anyone clear this up?

If we are looking at a loading dose for one week followed by the same dose in decreasing frequency is it 1.7 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg bw?

The 4mg/kg dose was for a very brief time, probably a single dose. In that experiment, they were taking blood samples to see how long it stayed in the blood, (that's the PK) and then they sacrificed the animals to see which organs the C60 was located in. The were also looking for acute tox effects, like legs in the air.

For the long term (chronic) tox experiment, where the extreme life extension was observed, they used 1.7mg/kg. (sorry, I said 1.8 in my post above). There is a concept of "Human Equivalent Dose", having to do with the differing metabolic rates of different animals. The HED for rats is 1/6 the dose, or 0.283 mg/kg. If you want to stay with 1.7mg/kg and do the whole enchilada, it probably won't hurt you, based on Anthony's experience, but it is a hell of a lot of olive oil to drink in a day if you have 0..8mg/ml olive oil, even worse if you are using .5mg/ml as some people here are.

I understand. However, the only dose stated in the full text is 4 mg/kg bw for Pharmacokinetics aand Biodistribution, which was administered for seven days. After that, if there wasn't a statement in the abstract saying 1.7 mg/kg, a reader would only have the 4 mg to go by. I find no statement of 1.7 mg/kg in the full text. I am not trained to construct research studies, so is it usual practice to state the reiterated dose in the abstract and that's all that's necessary?

[Turnbuckle]

Now on re-reading the study I find dosing confusing. I understand that they dosed the rats with a very high dose attempting to find toxicity, which turned out to extend their lifespans.

But while I see the 1.7 mg/kg bw noted in the abstract, the text of the study shows 4 mg/kg bw in the 22.1 Pharmacokinetics and 22.2 Biodistribution studies with Chronic toxicity and oxidative toxicity following them with the same dose.

Certainly, if 1.7 mg/kg is a high dose, 4 mg/kg is considerably higher.

Can anyone clear this up?

If we are looking at a loading dose for one week followed by the same dose in decreasing frequency is it 1.7 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg bw?

The 4mg/kg dose was for a very brief time, probably a single dose. In that experiment, they were taking blood samples to see how long it stayed in the blood, (that's the PK) and then they sacrificed the animals to see which organs the C60 was located in. The were also looking for acute tox effects, like legs in the air.

For the long term (chronic) tox experiment, where the extreme life extension was observed, they used 1.7mg/kg. (sorry, I said 1.8 in my post above). There is a concept of "Human Equivalent Dose", having to do with the differing metabolic rates of different animals. The HED for rats is 1/6 the dose, or 0.283 mg/kg. If you want to stay with 1.7mg/kg and do the whole enchilada, it probably won't hurt you, based on Anthony's experience, but it is a hell of a lot of olive oil to drink in a day if you have 0..8mg/ml olive oil, even worse if you are using .5mg/ml as some people here are.

I understand. However, the only dose stated in the full text is 4 mg/kg bw for Pharmacokinetics aand Biodistribution, which was administered for seven days. After that, if there wasn't a statement in the abstract saying 1.7 mg/kg, a reader would only have the 4 mg to go by. I find no statement of 1.7 mg/kg in the full text. I am not trained to construct research studies, so is it usual practice to state the reiterated dose in the abstract and that's all that's necessary?

The 1.7 mg/kg was also mentioned in Fig. 3, but nevertheless I agree with you. They should have spelled it out more clearly.

[sunshinefrost]

i'm confused, was it toxic at 1.7 mg/kg ?

Also, i believe the title if this forum was changed but why isn't there anymore discussion about the neurites outgrowth ?

thanks

[Turnbuckle]

i'm confused, was it toxic at 1.7 mg/kg ?

thanks

The paper is here. There was no toxicity at any dose.

And the original thread was broken up by moderators.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 03 August 2012 - 03:27 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

If you are going to try the whole enchilada :D...
Try to take the large amount of C60oo in the mornings.. I suppose you can divy it up through out the day.

At night It can keep ya awake.

This week I am taking my third batch of C60oo oil. I started 2 days ago and today I'm taking my 3rd cup of it. I am likely going to schedule a Biophysical 250 after this batch. I don't feel any different except for that increase in max weight lifting I mentioned in an earlier post.

Was that the C60oo? I am leaning that it was, but I may go to the gym and get some of the regular lifters to try it out after we start producing some test batches.

Cheers
A

Circle me on Google+
https://profiles.goo...236572014252197

[mikey]

Thanks, Anthony. I learn from your posts. I'm going to get a Biophysical 250, too, thanks to your post.

I've just started a low dose protocol last Monday ~10 mg a day now, planning on going full study dose for a week after I complete the Biophysical 250 and another test I had already purchased then keeping a maintenance plan of probably 1/3 ongoing.

So, are you eating low carbs so that extreme amount of OO you're consuming turns to ketones, rather than adipose tissue?

[Hebbeh]

Anthony, do you filter your C60/OO? I went through several bottles of both Vaughter and Carbon's oil with positive effects but recently started on some home brew. I put 500mg of C60 in 750ml of very high polyphenol oil and let it soak for a month with a couple of daily shakes. I didn't filter...just used directly. This should produce a concentration of approximately 0.67mg/ml. I started on the home brew several days ago and it seems to have a stronger effect than the commercial varieties. The last couple nights, I have had difficulty sleeping which is very unusual for me...but I didn't consider C60 as the cause as I've been using C60 for about 6 weeks...but only started the home brew 3 days ago.

[mikey]

Thanks, Anthony. I learn from your posts. I'm going to get a Biophysical 250, too, thanks to your post.

I've just started a low dose protocol last Monday ~10 mg a day now, planning on going full study dose for a week after I complete the Biophysical 250 and another test I had already purchased then keeping a maintenance plan of probably 1/3 ongoing.

So, are you eating low carbs so that extreme amount of OO you're consuming turns to ketones, rather than adipose tissue?

And I'll get another Biophysical 250 in a year.

[Turnbuckle]

Anthony, do you filter your C60/OO? I went through several bottles of both Vaughter and Carbon's oil with positive effects but recently started on some home brew. I put 500mg of C60 in 750ml of very high polyphenol oil and let it soak for a month with a couple of daily shakes. I didn't filter...just used directly. This should produce a concentration of approximately 0.67mg/ml. I started on the home brew several days ago and it seems to have a stronger effect than the commercial varieties. The last couple nights, I have had difficulty sleeping which is very unusual for me...but I didn't consider C60 as the cause as I've been using C60 for about 6 weeks...but only started the home brew 3 days ago.

The better way is to use a magnetic stirrer and then to filter it with a disposable filter using a hand vacuum pump. (Centrifuging is overkill.) Then keep the solution in the fridge.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi guys,

Yes I filter the C60oo. I was sent a small filter by Dr. V.... Which was made of plastic and eventually had cracks from the suction used to pull the C60oo through the filter. I have gone through a couple of them.... And through 2 Hannah HI 311N magnetic stirrers.

Well, you that's the last time I buy Hannah stirrers.

I'm taking a very low carb diet of 1200 calories a day while try this batch. My previous 2 times I ate normally, and didn't see much of a change. This time I am trying to lose a little weight for the next 2 months, and the C60oo happens to be during one of my 1200 calorie weeks.



Circle me on Google+
https://profiles.goo...236572014252197

[Turnbuckle]

What I've noticed about the Autofil filters is you don't want to pull much more than 10 inches of mercury. If you pull 20 inches--as I first did--the jar will crack. Doesn't matter though, as 20 inches doesn't improve the flow rate significantly.

[zen]

I have used two Millipore filter + 500 ml bottle combo, one have developed a crack the second did fine.
I am going to try autofil next time. As for stirrers two of Hannah magnetic stirred have failed miserably after a short usage. I have switched to Benchmark H4000-S which is working pretty well so far not to mention it is also about 30% cheaper than Hannah.

[AgeVivo]

@hebbeh, Turnbuckle, mikey, and other persons developping c60 or similar solutions: once you have a protocol working, before selling, testing yourself, sending.. you should first inject the solution in mice (one good bolus in a few mice should be a good trick). There is no toxicity found with the protocol of the authors of the paper; but changes in the protocol can surely make things very toxic: to be tested!!

Edited by AgeVivo, 04 August 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

...you should first inject the solution in mice (one good bolus in a few mice should be a good trick)

Really? How do you figure that? Seems to me that if there is any toxicity, it would be long term and you would not see it from a single application.

[mikey]

I won't be selling, although I'd considered it before I found this group.

Another revenue stream would be nice, but I think sellers will have a target on their forehead, even if they only sell "For research purposes only."

FDA will absolutely want to stop people from using this fountain of youth.

I'm using Carbon's product, but plan on DIY at some point, in part because I wonder how long sellers will survive.

[zorba990]

I won't be selling, although I'd considered it before I found this group.

Another revenue stream would be nice, but I think sellers will have a target on their forehead, even if they only sell "For research purposes only."

FDA will absolutely want to stop people from using this fountain of youth.

I'm using Carbon's product, but plan on DIY at some point, in part because I wonder how long sellers will survive.

Looks like 10 grams or about 13.69 years at 2mg/day of the really pure stuff is $850.00 here:
https://sesres.com/Fullerene.asp

Any other cheaper sources? Long term storage issues?
Looking forward to the C60 price comparison spreadsheet (and trying it out when I get brave enough).

[Turnbuckle]

Luna has applied for a patent for the use of fullerenes in preventing arterial plaque:

METHOD FOR INHIBITING THE BUILD-UP OF ARTERIAL PLAQUE BY ADMINISTERING FULLERENES

...

[0078] Free radical "scavengers" such as vitamins A, E, C, and selenium are believed to react with oxidized LDLs and render them incapable of oxidation. The inhibitory action of these antioxidants thus inhibits the formation of oxidized LDL, thereby lowering the levels of arterial plaque deposits in blood vessels. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,326,031 for additional background regarding LDL, O-LDL, HDL, and arterial plaque.

[0079] Fullerenes effectively block the immune cascade that follows subcutaneous injection of phorbol myristate (PMA). Without wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that a mechanism of action of this blockade may involve free radical scavenging. Membrane trafficking and permeability may be contributing to the biological response.

[0080] Peripheral blood monocytes, when placed in a tissue culture dish will adhere and become macrophages. However they do not normally ingest LDL added to the culture medium. Chemical modification of LDL, e.g., by oxidation, will stimulate macrophages to take up LDL. Another technique for stimulating human peripheral monocytes to ingest LDL is to incubate the macrophages with PMA, as shown by Kruth et al., J Biol Chem, 277:34573 (2002).

[0081] Without wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that a compound that blocks PMA inflammatory response in skin could also block the same pathway in foam cells. Thus, a proposed intracellular mechanism for controlling the uptake of LDL is to use fullerenes to block the inflammatory mechanism in foam cells and thereby preventing these cells from accumulating lipids.

http://www.faqs.org/...1#ixzz22gws8mHI

Edited by Turnbuckle, 05 August 2012 - 04:58 PM.

[smithx]

Lots of things work in vitro but not in vivo. That patent is all in vitro.

Here's another substance which apparently blocks a PMA inflammatory response in vitro:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20673574

Phosphorylated glucosamine inhibits the inflammatory response in LPS-stimulated PMA-differentiated THP-1 cells.

Kim JA, Kong CS, Pyun SY, Kim SK.

Source

Department of Chemistry, Pukyong National University, Busan 608-737, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

This study evaluated the effect of phosphorylated glucosamine (pGlc) on the regulation of cytokines involved in immunological activities. Changes in the inflammatory profiles of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated phrobol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA)-differentiated THP-1 macrophage models were investigated following pGlc treatment. Treatment with pGlc inhibited the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta), and interleukin-6 (IL-6). In addition, pGlc suppressed the regulation of inflammatory mediators such as TNF-alpha, IL-1beta, IL-6, inducible NO synthase (iNOS), and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in LPS-stimulated THP-1 macrophages. Furthermore, we confirmed that the LPS-stimulated transcription of MAP kinases in PMA-differentiated THP-1 macrophages was inhibited by pGlc. According to this study, pGlc can be considered as a potential anti-inflammatory agent. PMID: 20673574 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Turnbuckle]

Lots of things work in vitro but not in vivo. That patent is all in vitro.

Here's another substance which apparently blocks a PMA inflammatory response in vitro:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20673574

The point is, here we have a molecule that has been shown to increase the lifespan of rats by a degree never reported before, and may also inhibit the formation of plaque in arteries. Which is big news. As for the patent, we'll have to see if they elaborate on it in a continuation, but the number of inventors suggests a lot of work is going on at Luna.