3585 replies to this topic

[mikey]

I'm surprised at you, Turnbuckle. That was shockingly stated -- and it seems that it comes from a defensive posture.

But, yes, I trust his knowledge of C60 far more than I do yours and your theory that they stumbled on something good when they decreased the frequency of dosing.

I don't agree with you.

He's a known expert in multiple disciplines and has been studying C60 for 18 years. His statement is the summation of his knowledge of many, many studies over a tremendous period of time.

And as you know, scientists of his stature don't make statements like that without carefully considering the words they use.

Your statement seemed to try to dismiss what he said (twice in the video) as trite and careless.

It seemed so odd to see you do that in what appeared to be anger. Do you fear a difference of opinion?

So, yes. I believe that C60oo is completely non-toxic. In fact, I believe that it improves overall health tremendously and that taking it every day is the best application - and that's my experience with it since I started taking it in early August.

My skin collagen is years younger. You noted that scars faded. I have two big, deep scars that are almost invisible now.
Wrinkles melted. My hair is healthier.

C60 is the closest thing to an anti-aging elixir of anything I've experienced.

So, yes, I will continue to take 7 mg every morning to protect my mitos, collagen, liver, brain and - well, more will be revealed.

I'm sorry you took offense, mikey, but my statement stands. Moussa was careless in assuring us that C60 was absolutely harmless. And as for Anthony being a vendor, yes, he is, and is certainly not in the position to make any assurances either. Nothing more was implied. As for yourself, with the "more will be revealed," you have the sound of a true believer. This can be dangerous when combined with unproven drugs. I agree that C60 in EVOO is a terrific breakthrough, but like all drugs, will be found to have a dark side. I've already seen that C70 has very negative effects, and there are enough papers out there raising doubts about C60's safety to give a prospective user pause. For myself, I'm not concerned enough not to take it, but I would never tell anyone that there's no concern at all.

If that was an apology, I accept it.
But, "true believer" is rather insulting and dismissive. All I've seen that passes the smell test is that C60oo is safe. I'm waiting to see credible information that says otherwise.

I've seen complex biochemical theories, starting with you and then others, that propose that C60oo might cause mito problems that do NOT pass the smell test and seem to go against what is known about C60oo.

You're guessing - and in my estimation, wasting your own time.

And that you would dismiss what Dr. Moussa said so cavalierly - making it sound like he was sloppy and careless further does nothing except expresses your seeming anger at someone disagreeing with your theories which makes you respond by issuing personal put-downs to me - as a "true believer" and Anthony as a untrustable "vendor"and even more telling, Dr. Moussa, a highly respected research scientist who likely knows library's full of information more about C60oo than you ever will - who was quite clear in what he said.

As to the groups of you passing around theories about why infrequent dosing for C60oo is necessary, it smells more like a bunch of educated people who are way off track - lost in the scientific woods.

If that makes me a true believer, then I'll stand on what I've said.

No one here has presented a credible reason that intermittent C60oo dosing makes sense.

I've contributed to the fund to do a rat study. Maybe that or a study by Moussa or others will tell us what's true.
For now, I'll sit back and let you guys run through your theories about how infrequently it's prudent to take C60oo.

I made my statement to let readers know that some of us think that those theories are a waste of time.

[Turnbuckle]

I'm surprised at you, Turnbuckle. That was shockingly stated -- and it seems that it comes from a defensive posture.

But, yes, I trust his knowledge of C60 far more than I do yours and your theory that they stumbled on something good when they decreased the frequency of dosing.

I don't agree with you.

He's a known expert in multiple disciplines and has been studying C60 for 18 years. His statement is the summation of his knowledge of many, many studies over a tremendous period of time.

And as you know, scientists of his stature don't make statements like that without carefully considering the words they use.

Your statement seemed to try to dismiss what he said (twice in the video) as trite and careless.

It seemed so odd to see you do that in what appeared to be anger. Do you fear a difference of opinion?

So, yes. I believe that C60oo is completely non-toxic. In fact, I believe that it improves overall health tremendously and that taking it every day is the best application - and that's my experience with it since I started taking it in early August.

My skin collagen is years younger. You noted that scars faded. I have two big, deep scars that are almost invisible now.
Wrinkles melted. My hair is healthier.

C60 is the closest thing to an anti-aging elixir of anything I've experienced.

So, yes, I will continue to take 7 mg every morning to protect my mitos, collagen, liver, brain and - well, more will be revealed.

I'm sorry you took offense, mikey, but my statement stands. Moussa was careless in assuring us that C60 was absolutely harmless. And as for Anthony being a vendor, yes, he is, and is certainly not in the position to make any assurances either. Nothing more was implied. As for yourself, with the "more will be revealed," you have the sound of a true believer. This can be dangerous when combined with unproven drugs. I agree that C60 in EVOO is a terrific breakthrough, but like all drugs, will be found to have a dark side. I've already seen that C70 has very negative effects, and there are enough papers out there raising doubts about C60's safety to give a prospective user pause. For myself, I'm not concerned enough not to take it, but I would never tell anyone that there's no concern at all.

If that was an apology, I accept it.
But, "true believer" is rather insulting and dismissive. All I've seen that passes the smell test is that C60oo is safe. I'm waiting to see credible information that says otherwise.

I've seen complex biochemical theories, starting with you and then others, that propose that C60oo might cause mito problems that do NOT pass the smell test and seem to go against what is known about C60oo.

You're guessing - and in my estimation, wasting your own time.

And that you would dismiss what Dr. Moussa said so cavalierly - making it sound like he was sloppy and careless further does nothing except expresses your seeming anger at someone disagreeing with your theories which makes you respond by issuing personal put-downs to me - as a "true believer" and Anthony as a untrustable "vendor"and even more telling, Dr. Moussa, a highly respected research scientist who likely knows library's full of information more about C60oo than you ever will - who was quite clear in what he said.

As to the groups of you passing around theories about why infrequent dosing for C60oo is necessary, it smells more like a bunch of educated people who are way off track - lost in the scientific woods.

If that makes me a true believer, then I'll stand on what I've said.

No one here has presented a credible reason that intermittent C60oo dosing makes sense.

I've contributed to the fund to do a rat study. Maybe that or a study by Moussa or others will tell us what's true.
For now, I'll sit back and let you guys run through your theories about how infrequently it's prudent to take C60oo.

I made my statement to let readers know that some of us think that those theories are a waste of time.

I'm beginning to see why you get into arguments with people.

[Kevnzworld]

I'm surprised at you, Turnbuckle. That was shockingly stated -- and it seems that it comes from a defensive posture.

But, yes, I trust his knowledge of C60 far more than I do yours and your theory that they stumbled on something good when they decreased the frequency of dosing.

I don't agree with you.

He's a known expert in multiple disciplines and has been studying C60 for 18 years. His statement is the summation of his knowledge of many, many studies over a tremendous period of time.

And as you know, scientists of his stature don't make statements like that without carefully considering the words they use.

Your statement seemed to try to dismiss what he said (twice in the video) as trite and careless.
It seemed so odd to see you do that in what appeared to be anger. Do you fear a difference of opinion?
So, yes. I believe that C60oo is completely non-toxic. In fact, I believe that it improves overall health tremendously and that taking it every day is the best application - and that's my experience with it since I started taking it in early August.
My skin collagen is years younger. You noted that scars faded. I have two big, deep scars that are almost invisible now.
Wrinkles melted. My hair is healthier.

C60 is the closest thing to an anti-aging elixir of anything I've experienced.

So, yes, I will continue to take 7 mg every morning to protect my mitos, collagen, liver, brain and - well, more will be revealed.

I'm sorry you took offense, mikey, but my statement stands. Moussa was careless in assuring us that C60 was absolutely harmless. And as for Anthony being a vendor, yes, he is, and is certainly not in the position to make any assurances either. Nothing more was implied. As for yourself, with the "more will be revealed," you have the sound of a true believer. This can be dangerous when combined with unproven drugs. I agree that C60 in EVOO is a terrific breakthrough, but like all drugs, will be found to have a dark side. I've already seen that C70 has very negative effects, and there are enough papers out there raising doubts about C60's safety to give a prospective user pause. For myself, I'm not concerned enough not to take it, but I would never tell anyone that there's no concern at all.

If that was an apology, I accept it.
But, "true believer" is rather insulting and dismissive. All I've seen that passes the smell test is that C60oo is safe. I'm waiting to see credible information that says otherwise.

I've seen complex biochemical theories, starting with you and then others, that propose that C60oo might cause mito problems that do NOT pass the smell test and seem to go against what is known about C60oo.

You're guessing - and in my estimation, wasting your own time.

And that you would dismiss what Dr. Moussa said so cavalierly - making it sound like he was sloppy and careless further does nothing except expresses your seeming anger at someone disagreeing with your theories which makes you respond by issuing personal put-downs to me - as a "true believer" and Anthony as a untrustable "vendor"and even more telling, Dr. Moussa, a highly respected research scientist who likely knows library's full of information more about C60oo than you ever will - who was quite clear in what he said.

As to the groups of you passing around theories about why infrequent dosing for C60oo is necessary, it smells more like a bunch of educated people who are way off track - lost in the scientific woods.

If that makes me a true believer, then I'll stand on what I've said.

No one here has presented a credible reason that intermittent C60oo dosing makes sense.

I've contributed to the fund to do a rat study. Maybe that or a study by Moussa or others will tell us what's true.
For now, I'll sit back and let you guys run through your theories about how infrequently it's prudent to take C60oo.

I made my statement to let readers know that some of us think that those theories are a waste of time.

Baati's rats weren't dosed daily until death. Since that is the only longevity study that we have to date, it would be a credible reason to dose intermittently.
A rat safety study is fine, but it doesn't necessarily translate to humans. There is no way to know the long term effects of taking a substance like C60. We are all free to take C60OO if and as we please and assume the obvious health risk.
I don't think it's a " waste of time " to hypothesize about C60Oo's mode of action based on existing science and studies since there is so much that is still unknown. I, for one, have learned a lot and have become more cautious in my dosing.
Anthony is a vendor and a longecity member. He is not a scientist and his opinions on C 60 are no more, or less valid than anyone else's here.
Based on everything I've read, I continue to dose in relatively small amounts ( .7 mg ) on an intermittent basis.

[niner]

He is not a scientist and his opinions on C 60 are no more, or less valid than anyone else's here.

I agree with just about everything you said, but I want to take a tiny bit of issue with this. This is not to pick on Anthony or anyone in particular, but people should be aware that there are real scientists, with PhDs, patents, and papers in pubmed who read and comment in these fora. There are also some people who don't have the background to understand this material, but comment as though they do. If we were dealing with issues of, say, religion or personal values or favorite flavors of ice cream, I would agree that everyone's opinions are equally valid. However, we are dealing with very complicated issues of fact. Whatever is, say, the mechanism of action of c60-oo, it is what it is. Two wildly different explanations of the MOA can not both be true. One is going to be less wrong than the other. C60 can't be both profoundly toxic and safe as mother's milk. There's right and wrong here, or at least wrong and less wrong.

We should probably consider the whole concept of "opinion", as well. Science is supposed to be about demonstrable facts, and the models of reality that are sufficiently backed up by experimental testing to deserve the term "theory" are not "opinions". A "Hypothesis" is more of an "educated guess". It may have greater or lesser degrees of comportment with known facts, and that will certainly impact its value. Given two competing educated guesses that are untested, the one from a fullerene chemist is more likely to be correct than the one from an untrained mentally ill person. If that sounds like an argument from authority, it is; sort of. This is not to say "Fathi Moussa said it, so it must be true"; just that some people have a better idea what they're talking about than others, sometimes by a wide margin.

[Kevnzworld]

I agree. I didn't phrase my message well. I am not a scientist so I rely on the interpretations and opinions from those with the knowledge to make an informed analysis. That's what makes this forum valuable for many of us lay people...!

[free10]

I would like to point out the only reason the mice were not given the solution daily, as pointed out by the scientist in charge, was because the mice might be affected badly over time by such a steady diet of olive oil, which their bodies would probably react negatively too. Humans don't seem to have the same problem with small amounts of oil and we so far lack any reason to say it should be done like the mice with large breaks in between. We are all just playing our hunches and rolling the dice and making our bet, or not on amounts and frequency or to do it at all. We could wind up dead from doing it or could wind up dead if we don't.

[niner]

I would like to point out the only reason the mice were not given the solution daily, as pointed out by the scientist in charge, was because the mice might be affected badly over time by such a steady diet of olive oil, which their bodies would probably react negatively too. Humans don't seem to have the same problem with small amounts of oil and we so far lack any reason to say it should be done like the mice with large breaks in between. We are all just playing our hunches and rolling the dice and making our bet, or not on amounts and frequency or to do it at all. We could wind up dead from doing it or could wind up dead if we don't.

Good point, but bear in mind that it started out as a toxicity test, not as a life extension experiment. They were just trying to determine the long term toxicity of what I'm pretty sure they thought was pristine (unsubstituted) c60 "dissolved" in olive oil. In a tox test, you give animals very large doses so that if there is any tox, you don't miss it. They didn't want to induce stray tox from too much oil. Now that the experiment is over and the rats lived way longer than anyone thought they would, that experiment serves as the only form of published evidence that c60-oo causes life extension in a mammal. Thus, the intermittent dosing strategy is the only one that has actually been shown to work. That doesn't mean continuous dosing won't work as well or better, but it's never been demonstrated in a mammal or any other species as far as I know. It's just an added risk.

[mikey]

I'm surprised at you, Turnbuckle. That was shockingly stated -- and it seems that it comes from a defensive posture.

But, yes, I trust his knowledge of C60 far more than I do yours and your theory that they stumbled on something good when they decreased the frequency of dosing.

I don't agree with you.

He's a known expert in multiple disciplines and has been studying C60 for 18 years. His statement is the summation of his knowledge of many, many studies over a tremendous period of time.

And as you know, scientists of his stature don't make statements like that without carefully considering the words they use.

Your statement seemed to try to dismiss what he said (twice in the video) as trite and careless.

It seemed so odd to see you do that in what appeared to be anger. Do you fear a difference of opinion?

So, yes. I believe that C60oo is completely non-toxic. In fact, I believe that it improves overall health tremendously and that taking it every day is the best application - and that's my experience with it since I started taking it in early August.

My skin collagen is years younger. You noted that scars faded. I have two big, deep scars that are almost invisible now.
Wrinkles melted. My hair is healthier.

C60 is the closest thing to an anti-aging elixir of anything I've experienced.

So, yes, I will continue to take 7 mg every morning to protect my mitos, collagen, liver, brain and - well, more will be revealed.

I'm sorry you took offense, mikey, but my statement stands. Moussa was careless in assuring us that C60 was absolutely harmless. And as for Anthony being a vendor, yes, he is, and is certainly not in the position to make any assurances either. Nothing more was implied. As for yourself, with the "more will be revealed," you have the sound of a true believer. This can be dangerous when combined with unproven drugs. I agree that C60 in EVOO is a terrific breakthrough, but like all drugs, will be found to have a dark side. I've already seen that C70 has very negative effects, and there are enough papers out there raising doubts about C60's safety to give a prospective user pause. For myself, I'm not concerned enough not to take it, but I would never tell anyone that there's no concern at all.

If that was an apology, I accept it.
But, "true believer" is rather insulting and dismissive. All I've seen that passes the smell test is that C60oo is safe. I'm waiting to see credible information that says otherwise.

I've seen complex biochemical theories, starting with you and then others, that propose that C60oo might cause mito problems that do NOT pass the smell test and seem to go against what is known about C60oo.

You're guessing - and in my estimation, wasting your own time.

And that you would dismiss what Dr. Moussa said so cavalierly - making it sound like he was sloppy and careless further does nothing except expresses your seeming anger at someone disagreeing with your theories which makes you respond by issuing personal put-downs to me - as a "true believer" and Anthony as a untrustable "vendor"and even more telling, Dr. Moussa, a highly respected research scientist who likely knows library's full of information more about C60oo than you ever will - who was quite clear in what he said.

As to the groups of you passing around theories about why infrequent dosing for C60oo is necessary, it smells more like a bunch of educated people who are way off track - lost in the scientific woods.

If that makes me a true believer, then I'll stand on what I've said.

No one here has presented a credible reason that intermittent C60oo dosing makes sense.

I've contributed to the fund to do a rat study. Maybe that or a study by Moussa or others will tell us what's true.
For now, I'll sit back and let you guys run through your theories about how infrequently it's prudent to take C60oo.

I made my statement to let readers know that some of us think that those theories are a waste of time.

I'm beginning to see why you get into arguments with people.

Some people are abusive and someone should stop them and make them think about it.
My aunt was the first women's libber I'd ever known.
In the early 60's when men around her used the N-word or did something that was misogynist she would stop the conversation and make them aware that what they were doing was not ok.

I liked her then, and I like her now. I don't suffer bullies and you acted like a bully, Turnbuckle.

I was rather shocked, but it shows that you can't stand someone not agreeing when you have a theory.
You're quite a brilliant man. It's obvious. But that doesn't make your pedantic posture OK.

[mikey]

I'm surprised at you, Turnbuckle. That was shockingly stated -- and it seems that it comes from a defensive posture.

But, yes, I trust his knowledge of C60 far more than I do yours and your theory that they stumbled on something good when they decreased the frequency of dosing.

I don't agree with you.

He's a known expert in multiple disciplines and has been studying C60 for 18 years. His statement is the summation of his knowledge of many, many studies over a tremendous period of time.

And as you know, scientists of his stature don't make statements like that without carefully considering the words they use.

Your statement seemed to try to dismiss what he said (twice in the video) as trite and careless.
It seemed so odd to see you do that in what appeared to be anger. Do you fear a difference of opinion?
So, yes. I believe that C60oo is completely non-toxic. In fact, I believe that it improves overall health tremendously and that taking it every day is the best application - and that's my experience with it since I started taking it in early August.
My skin collagen is years younger. You noted that scars faded. I have two big, deep scars that are almost invisible now.
Wrinkles melted. My hair is healthier.

C60 is the closest thing to an anti-aging elixir of anything I've experienced.

So, yes, I will continue to take 7 mg every morning to protect my mitos, collagen, liver, brain and - well, more will be revealed.

I'm sorry you took offense, mikey, but my statement stands. Moussa was careless in assuring us that C60 was absolutely harmless. And as for Anthony being a vendor, yes, he is, and is certainly not in the position to make any assurances either. Nothing more was implied. As for yourself, with the "more will be revealed," you have the sound of a true believer. This can be dangerous when combined with unproven drugs. I agree that C60 in EVOO is a terrific breakthrough, but like all drugs, will be found to have a dark side. I've already seen that C70 has very negative effects, and there are enough papers out there raising doubts about C60's safety to give a prospective user pause. For myself, I'm not concerned enough not to take it, but I would never tell anyone that there's no concern at all.

If that was an apology, I accept it.
But, "true believer" is rather insulting and dismissive. All I've seen that passes the smell test is that C60oo is safe. I'm waiting to see credible information that says otherwise.

I've seen complex biochemical theories, starting with you and then others, that propose that C60oo might cause mito problems that do NOT pass the smell test and seem to go against what is known about C60oo.

You're guessing - and in my estimation, wasting your own time.

And that you would dismiss what Dr. Moussa said so cavalierly - making it sound like he was sloppy and careless further does nothing except expresses your seeming anger at someone disagreeing with your theories which makes you respond by issuing personal put-downs to me - as a "true believer" and Anthony as a untrustable "vendor"and even more telling, Dr. Moussa, a highly respected research scientist who likely knows library's full of information more about C60oo than you ever will - who was quite clear in what he said.

As to the groups of you passing around theories about why infrequent dosing for C60oo is necessary, it smells more like a bunch of educated people who are way off track - lost in the scientific woods.

If that makes me a true believer, then I'll stand on what I've said.

No one here has presented a credible reason that intermittent C60oo dosing makes sense.

I've contributed to the fund to do a rat study. Maybe that or a study by Moussa or others will tell us what's true.
For now, I'll sit back and let you guys run through your theories about how infrequently it's prudent to take C60oo.

I made my statement to let readers know that some of us think that those theories are a waste of time.

Baati's rats weren't dosed daily until death. Since that is the only longevity study that we have to date, it would be a credible reason to dose intermittently.
A rat safety study is fine, but it doesn't necessarily translate to humans. There is no way to know the long term effects of taking a substance like C60. We are all free to take C60OO if and as we please and assume the obvious health risk.
I don't think it's a " waste of time " to hypothesize about C60Oo's mode of action based on existing science and studies since there is so much that is still unknown. I, for one, have learned a lot and have become more cautious in my dosing.
Anthony is a vendor and a longecity member. He is not a scientist and his opinions on C 60 are no more, or less valid than anyone else's here.
Based on everything I've read, I continue to dose in relatively small amounts ( .7 mg ) on an intermittent basis.

The study's authors said that they don't know how much longer the rats would have lived if they would have continued dosing them. This pointed at the authors believing that decreasing dosing allowed the rats to die and that perhaps the rats would be alive longer, maybe even alive today if they had continued dosing them.

So, the study's design of descending dosing combined with the author's statement doesn't give good cause to think that intermittent dosing is superior to continuous dosing.

Have you watched the video interview of Dr. Moussa?

Because once you see what a world-class expert research scientist says about his ground-breaking study your view may change.

It certainly added to my understanding of C60, creating an even stronger perspective that supports my taking it every day - 7 mg a day, which is just a number I picked after reading what a bunch of people here said they had tried and considering that the full rat dose for me would be 145 mg a day.

Since they are trying to find toxicity and the bioequivalent dose for humans would be about one sixth the 145 mg = 24 mg/day I decided on a lower dose, but a higher dose than many are taking.

I've been taking it every day since early August and at 59 years old I've been guessed quite seriously as being 42 or early 40's several times by people who generally were shocked when I told them I was 59.

However, I've been living an orthomolecular nutrient/natural foods diet with regular exercise since I was 14.

But the C60 has definitely made my facial skin look younger.

I've experienced no deleterious effects, only benefits.

The biggest problem is that my tolerance for alcohol has increased tremendously, so I make myself drink less because I don't get drunk unless I have a tremendous amount of alcohol.

But, if you haven't watched the video, please do. It will give you more information to go on.

[mikey]

Another thing noted in the video, which I just watched again...

Dr. Moussa said that the reason that they dosed the rats intermittently was because the rats would suffer lipid overload from too much olive oil.

This is particular to these rats. Humans don't have the same problem.

He further clearly stated - two times - that C60 is non-toxic. The second time he says even when dosed long-term.

Hear it for yourself at http://c60.net/full-...r-fathi-moussa/

[niner]

The biggest problem is that my tolerance for alcohol has increased tremendously, so I make myself drink less because I don't get drunk unless I have a tremendous amount of alcohol.

I've noticed this too. I suppose it could come in handy some time, but it's kind of a pain when you just want to catch a buzz... I wonder what the mechanism is here, and what the health implications are? Time for some Buffalo Trace. Maybe the answer will come to me...

[clairvoyant]

to Mikey,

Thank you for information, Mikey: from 59 back to 40 within 6 months. If this is true, this is biblical event and C60 is the nectar of immortality.
You could have identity card photography problems, such as not recognition of your real estates as well as receiving your pension.
Who is going to give you old age pension if you look decades younger?

Could you, please, put some after-before snap shots for us.

[anagram]

I know its irrelevant and a bit aberrant, but does anyone else dislike the comparison of c60 to something with a divine nature.
C60 is the greatest invention of the century, we all agree, but why so many comparison's to holy beings, when the substance described disproves the existence of god?

[docTorpedo]

Please anagram, it really doesn't matter. I'd rather read posts from excited religious posters than to discuss how it disproves the existence of God. Nothing disproves the existence of a God. Why do someone always waste their time on writing opposing arguments on subjects like this!? Its not fun to read, and it takes space on the forum. Cool if people don't reply to this post thank you.

Edited by docTorpedo, 07 February 2013 - 02:47 AM.

[d4shing]

Does anyone else think that this thread and forum have really gone downhill recently?

I'm interested in reading the results/experiences of people who self-experimenting (or animal-testing) c60OO. I check back every couple of days for new posts on this, and there are quite few lately.

If a bunch of people with varying degrees of biochemical training want to theorycraft mechanisms of action, there are threads for that, too.

But I am not at all interested in reading a bunch of ad hominem attacks, crazed ramblings, narcissistic preening, five-post-deep nested bickering, and (like this post!) pleas for civility/moderation/reasoned discussion.

[Kevnzworld]

Does anyone else think that this thread and forum have really gone downhill recently?

I'm interested in reading the results/experiences of people who self-experimenting (or animal-testing) c60OO. I check back every couple of days for new posts on this, and there are quite few lately.

If a bunch of people with varying degrees of biochemical training want to theorycraft mechanisms of action, there are threads for that, too.

But I am not at all interested in reading a bunch of ad hominem attacks, crazed ramblings, narcissistic preening, five-post-deep nested bickering, and (like this post!) pleas for civility/moderation/reasoned discussion.

In the absence of new studies or scientific data there is little else to talk about. I've found the discussion of the mechanisms of action and the resulting risks and rewards informative. It's influenced how I dose C60.
There are so many confounding factors that its hard to make a correlation between C60 and the observed anecdotal effects.
I am in my fourth month , and I haven't experienced anything that I can directly attribute to my intake of C60.
That doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial.

[waa1964]

Hi Guys, apologies if this has already been discussed. I recall the original study mentioned the C60 is excreted from the body of the rats quite quickly (within 10 hours I think). Does anyone know how this was determined? Did they examine the rat waste and find the same amount of C60 in it as they were dosing. How confident are we that it is also excreted from humans?

[mikey]

to Mikey,

Thank you for information, Mikey: from 59 back to 40 within 6 months. If this is true, this is biblical event and C60 is the nectar of immortality.
You could have identity card photography problems, such as not recognition of your real estates as well as receiving your pension.
Who is going to give you old age pension if you look decades younger?

Could you, please, put some after-before snap shots for us.

LMAO! But please let me clarify.I've been studying life extension under the mentorship of my biochemist father since I was 14.
I was a frail kid with multiple health problems. When I was 14 I found "health foods" and started taking multiple progressive dietary supplements and eating a natural, whole foods type diet, exercising and pretty much living a very healthy lifestyle.

My biochemist father saw what was happening to me and I got him involved in studying health with me. His natural inclination was an interest in life extension and so we made it our mission in life to study it together, with him as my mentor.

As well, I've been living a healthy lifestyle, taking very progressive supplements, exercising regularly, etc... for all that time. 45 years of it. So I'm not typical of the average American male.

I'm basically a 45 year life extension experiment.

I've looked like I'm in forties before C60 - well, my skin does. I have grey and white hair, but it's darkened with taking Tocomin SupraBio tocotrienols, and it seems, C60.

What C60 has appeared to do is take my skin back about 3 to 5 years - less wrinkles, as noted by two friends who hadn't seen me since before I started C60.

As to photos, I have put one up on my profile and am waiting for the photog who took it to return to come to take another another and then we will have two at the same location, light etc... to view so that they are both similar and a good comparison.

[mikey]

The biggest problem is that my tolerance for alcohol has increased tremendously, so I make myself drink less because I don't get drunk unless I have a tremendous amount of alcohol.

I've noticed this too. I suppose it could come in handy some time, but it's kind of a pain when you just want to catch a buzz... I wonder what the mechanism is here, and what the health implications are? Time for some Buffalo Trace. Maybe the answer will come to me...

Alcohol intoxication is said to be dependent on the speed of metabolism by the liver.

Since the study showed C60oo caused a fantastic reduction in liver toxicity (from CCl4) - it would seem that this is the factor that makes our tolerance for alcohol increase as much as it does for those of us who are taking C60oo.

Good news for our livers, but not as good if we just want to catch a buzz from a couple beers or a couple shots of vodka.

Now, I find that it takes me a lot more to get the same happy-making effect, as you said, too.

[Junk Master]

For what it's worth, I don't think c60/oo has made much, if any, long term improvement on my recovery times, endurance, or strength. I don't know if I should chalk it up to placebo effect, though, since I do think it noticeably improved my skin texture while taking it, increased my alcohol tolerance, and increased my "energy" levels, including ease of respiration and perceived effort during training runs; though oddly, only for the first one or two workouts after resuming a 3mg-5mg per day dose.

All in all, I won't be taking it continuously just as I wouldn't take anti-oxidants that way, and I won't be purchasing anymore "commercial" preparations-- cost to benefit ratio (at least as far as we know) is too low.

I will, however, do the motar and pestle thing with some high grade OO and cycle it at some point. Right now my thinking is 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off.

I enjoy both Turnbuckle and Mikey's contributions to the forum, though I'd kind of like to see a few pics of Mikey's physique, hairline etc (purely for scientific purposes, I've been happily married for over ten years.)

Finally, Niner is "da man" and is a paragon of taste-- I'm toasting him with a healthy measure of Buffalo Trace, even though I'm usually a Laphroaig guy.

[anagram]

Can someone help me with something? I received my bottle of 5 grams of c60(from SES) in the mail, and wanted to ask you guys some things becuase several things seem a little off in the package I got, just as a forewarning though, I am not saying anything is "wrong", I am just asking for comparison.
.-first off, after opening the box I noticed that the label on the bottle of c60 had a black fingerprint on it, as if someone had c60 on they're hands and touched the bottle.
Secondly, the amount of c60 i received seems fairly miniscule, to give reference, the amount of powder I received from my 5 gram purchase is equal to one half an inch of olive oil in a Sarah Vaugtner bottle of c60. Is this normal? I feel like I should be getting a fairly large amount.
- the bottle itself came in a bag that was stapled to a post card, which I assume was to prevent a lot of tumbling during shipping.
All seems a little strange to me however I have practically no experience of receiving chemicals in the mail. If bottles of c60 normally have a bit of stuff on the sides then all in all I must say that I am impressed with SES's product, it came with post it notes which is awesome, and it pamphlet explaining the fullerene extraction process.

BTW, I am not using SES's c60 for consumption.

Edited by anagram, 08 February 2013 - 12:29 AM.

[mikey]

For what it's worth, I don't think c60/oo has made much, if any, long term improvement on my recovery times, endurance, or strength. I don't know if I should chalk it up to placebo effect, though, since I do think it noticeably improved my skin texture while taking it, increased my alcohol tolerance, and increased my "energy" levels, including ease of respiration and perceived effort during training runs; though oddly, only for the first one or two workouts after resuming a 3mg-5mg per day dose.

All in all, I won't be taking it continuously just as I wouldn't take anti-oxidants that way, and I won't be purchasing anymore "commercial" preparations-- cost to benefit ratio (at least as far as we know) is too low.

I will, however, do the motar and pestle thing with some high grade OO and cycle it at some point. Right now my thinking is 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off.

I enjoy both Turnbuckle and Mikey's contributions to the forum, though I'd kind of like to see a few pics of Mikey's physique, hairline etc (purely for scientific purposes, I've been happily married for over ten years.)

Finally, Niner is "da man" and is a paragon of taste-- I'm toasting him with a healthy measure of Buffalo Trace, even though I'm usually a Laphroaig guy.

Graci! I am waiting for the photographer who took the hi-def photo from April, 2011 that I have up on my profile to come back and take an "after" photo with the same light, etc... But he's been extremely busy.

Maybe I'll push harder for it because I, too, am curious to see if the changes that I and a few friends have perceived show up in an "after" photo.

I can't trust my own perceptions and must get more objective information if I am to be successful in extending my lifespan.

[anagram]

For what it's worth, I don't think c60/oo has made much, if any, long term improvement on my recovery times, endurance, or strength. I don't know if I should chalk it up to placebo effect, though, since I do think it noticeably improved my skin texture while taking it, increased my alcohol tolerance, and increased my "energy" levels, including ease of respiration and perceived effort during training runs; though oddly, only for the first one or two workouts after resuming a 3mg-5mg per day dose.

All in all, I won't be taking it continuously just as I wouldn't take anti-oxidants that way, and I won't be purchasing anymore "commercial" preparations-- cost to benefit ratio (at least as far as we know) is too low.

I will, however, do the motar and pestle thing with some high grade OO and cycle it at some point. Right now my thinking is 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off.

I enjoy both Turnbuckle and Mikey's contributions to the forum, though I'd kind of like to see a few pics of Mikey's physique, hairline etc (purely for scientific purposes, I've been happily married for over ten years.)

Finally, Niner is "da man" and is a paragon of taste-- I'm toasting him with a healthy measure of Buffalo Trace, even though I'm usually a Laphroaig guy.

Graci! I am waiting for the photographer who took the hi-def photo from April, 2011 that I have up on my profile to come back and take an "after" photo with the same light, etc... But he's been extremely busy.

Maybe I'll push harder for it because I, too, am curious to see if the changes that I and a few friends have perceived show up in an "after" photo.

I can't trust my own perceptions and must get more objective information if I am to be successful in extending my lifespan.

Taking a photo is pretty definitive evidence I think. Part of aging is the way you look, so if you look different and younger compared to your previous self, then you solved part of the problem of aging!

[Kevnzworld]

I have noticed a lot of variability in photos taken at the same time. Camera angle and lighting, even facial expression can dramatically change ones perceived age. I recently went through this when loading a new FB profile picture. ( attempting to pick the one that made me the most youthful looking of course! ).
Some days, depending on sleep, stress or even sunlight exposure I can look a lot better...or worse, depending on the day. Photos are nice, but they aren't evidence of anything unless they are dramatic...like the " lifestyle lift " commercial before and after pictures, and even then the effects are magnified by photoshop and cherry picking .

[stephen_b]

For what it's worth, I don't think c60/oo has made much, if any, long term improvement on my recovery times, endurance, or strength.

I tend to agree. I've started taking c60 in July of last year (I'm still 48). In October, I ran my first sub-4 hour marathon in 3:59:05, which was about a 12.5 minute improvement over my previous PR. In January, I improved my half marathon time of 1:52:30 to 1:46:06, again a nice step up in pace. The thing is, the gains were in line with what my coach told me to expect based on training, and the paces I ran during both races were on plan to within several seconds per mile. I've been very compliant with my training program, perhaps 99%.

My thought on this is that my personal limitation might not be mitochondrial, or perhaps I've already reaped the benefits of mitochondrial conditioning due to the training I've been doing. Another factor could be that I've taken 2 g of ALCAR daily for 6 or more years now. It could be that c60/oo extends lifespan without improving athletic performance in trained individuals, or that it helps for some forms of exercise but not others.

[mikey]

I have noticed a lot of variability in photos taken at the same time. Camera angle and lighting, even facial expression can dramatically change ones perceived age. I recently went through this when loading a new FB profile picture. ( attempting to pick the one that made me the most youthful looking of course! ).
Some days, depending on sleep, stress or even sunlight exposure I can look a lot better...or worse, depending on the day. Photos are nice, but they aren't evidence of anything unless they are dramatic...like the " lifestyle lift " commercial before and after pictures, and even then the effects are magnified by photoshop and cherry picking .

Agreed. But what value they have is best had by making them hi-def.
That's why the photo I have on my profile is hi-def and the "after" photo will be too.

You can see every spider vein in my Irish face.
LOL.

And they are not and will not be photo-shopped.
Like I said, I can't trust myself. I need other points of view.

For what it's worth, I don't think c60/oo has made much, if any, long term improvement on my recovery times, endurance, or strength.

I tend to agree. I've started taking c60 in July of last year (I'm still 48). In October, I ran my first sub-4 hour marathon in 3:59:05, which was about a 12.5 minute improvement over my previous PR. In January, I improved my half marathon time of 1:52:30 to 1:46:06, again a nice step up in pace. The thing is, the gains were in line with what my coach told me to expect based on training, and the paces I ran during both races were on plan to within several seconds per mile. I've been very compliant with my training program, perhaps 99%.

My thought on this is that my personal limitation might not be mitochondrial, or perhaps I've already reaped the benefits of mitochondrial conditioning due to the training I've been doing. Another factor could be that I've taken 2 g of ALCAR daily for 6 or more years now. It could be that c60/oo extends lifespan without improving athletic performance in trained individuals, or that it helps for some forms of exercise but not others.

From the study, C60oo takes a considerable burden off the liver via its antioxidant effects.

This might allow more energy production from the liver.

[niner]

For what it's worth, I don't think c60/oo has made much, if any, long term improvement on my recovery times, endurance, or strength.

I tend to agree. I've started taking c60 in July of last year (I'm still 48). In October, I ran my first sub-4 hour marathon in 3:59:05, which was about a 12.5 minute improvement over my previous PR. In January, I improved my half marathon time of 1:52:30 to 1:46:06, again a nice step up in pace. The thing is, the gains were in line with what my coach told me to expect based on training, and the paces I ran during both races were on plan to within several seconds per mile. I've been very compliant with my training program, perhaps 99%.

My thought on this is that my personal limitation might not be mitochondrial, or perhaps I've already reaped the benefits of mitochondrial conditioning due to the training I've been doing. Another factor could be that I've taken 2 g of ALCAR daily for 6 or more years now. It could be that c60/oo extends lifespan without improving athletic performance in trained individuals, or that it helps for some forms of exercise but not others.

I really don't think that c60 is a performance drug. The only way that you will feel anything is if you have a condition that's characterized by hypoxia or mitochondrial dysfunction. You may notice an effect on ROS-mediated muscle fatigue if you are doing the sort of exercise that brings you to that point. That wouldn't be likely to happen during an aerobic exercise like running. Many people have reported a greater tolerance for alcohol. Some people notice some odd peripheral sensations or autonomic effects when they first take it, but these never seem to recur. This has also been reported with NAC, as has the muscle fatigue effect. Although you may be too healthy to feel anything from c60, it should still be providing protection.

[mikey]

For what it's worth, I don't think c60/oo has made much, if any, long term improvement on my recovery times, endurance, or strength. I don't know if I should chalk it up to placebo effect, though, since I do think it noticeably improved my skin texture while taking it, increased my alcohol tolerance, and increased my "energy" levels, including ease of respiration and perceived effort during training runs; though oddly, only for the first one or two workouts after resuming a 3mg-5mg per day dose.

All in all, I won't be taking it continuously just as I wouldn't take anti-oxidants that way, and I won't be purchasing anymore "commercial" preparations-- cost to benefit ratio (at least as far as we know) is too low.

I will, however, do the motar and pestle thing with some high grade OO and cycle it at some point. Right now my thinking is 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off.

I enjoy both Turnbuckle and Mikey's contributions to the forum, though I'd kind of like to see a few pics of Mikey's physique, hairline etc (purely for scientific purposes, I've been happily married for over ten years.)

Finally, Niner is "da man" and is a paragon of taste-- I'm toasting him with a healthy measure of Buffalo Trace, even though I'm usually a Laphroaig guy.

Thanks, but as far as my physique, I'm converting from a weight-lifting exercise lifestyle to a yoga and hiking exercise lifestyle, so I'll hold off on showing my bare chest for now.

Weights builds muscle but yoga is FAR harder exercise than weights.

The photo I have up shows my hair from April, 2011.
The next photo will be interesting. I want to see what difference there is myself, since I can't be entirely objective.

[Junk Master]

For what it's worth, I don't think c60/oo has made much, if any, long term improvement on my recovery times, endurance, or strength.

I tend to agree. I've started taking c60 in July of last year (I'm still 48). In October, I ran my first sub-4 hour marathon in 3:59:05, which was about a 12.5 minute improvement over my previous PR. In January, I improved my half marathon time of 1:52:30 to 1:46:06, again a nice step up in pace. The thing is, the gains were in line with what my coach told me to expect based on training, and the paces I ran during both races were on plan to within several seconds per mile. I've been very compliant with my training program, perhaps 99%.

My thought on this is that my personal limitation might not be mitochondrial, or perhaps I've already reaped the benefits of mitochondrial conditioning due to the training I've been doing. Another factor could be that I've taken 2 g of ALCAR daily for 6 or more years now. It could be that c60/oo extends lifespan without improving athletic performance in trained individuals, or that it helps for some forms of exercise but not others.

I really don't think that c60 is a performance drug. The only way that you will feel anything is if you have a condition that's characterized by hypoxia or mitochondrial dysfunction. You may notice an effect on ROS-mediated muscle fatigue if you are doing the sort of exercise that brings you to that point. That wouldn't be likely to happen during an aerobic exercise like running. Many people have reported a greater tolerance for alcohol. Some people notice some odd peripheral sensations or autonomic effects when they first take it, but these never seem to recur. This has also been reported with NAC, as has the muscle fatigue effect. Although you may be too healthy to feel anything from c60, it should still be providing protection.

Niner, I'm intrigued by your assertion c60/OO might improve performance under hypoxic conditions. That's something I can easily test as I will be doing some high altitude trail running/training this summer, as well as some mountain climbing.

BTW Is there any evidence besides anecdotal reports of increased alcohol tolerance of this proposed "fantastic" increase in liver toxicity? With the liver being such a resilient organ, what sort of physical markers of improved liver health would we see besides more "energy;" since I find energy to be so subject to mood?

[niner]

I really don't think that c60 is a performance drug. The only way that you will feel anything is if you have a condition that's characterized by hypoxia or mitochondrial dysfunction. You may notice an effect on ROS-mediated muscle fatigue if you are doing the sort of exercise that brings you to that point. That wouldn't be likely to happen during an aerobic exercise like running. Many people have reported a greater tolerance for alcohol. Some people notice some odd peripheral sensations or autonomic effects when they first take it, but these never seem to recur. This has also been reported with NAC, as has the muscle fatigue effect. Although you may be too healthy to feel anything from c60, it should still be providing protection.

Niner, I'm intrigued by your assertion c60/OO might improve performance under hypoxic conditions. That's something I can easily test as I will be doing some high altitude trail running/training this summer, as well as some mountain climbing.

I was almost going to mention that in my last post, but it was hypothetical, so I skipped it. I've been thinking that c60 should be helpful in high altitude conditions, and maybe in something like free diving, where you have to hold your breath for a long time. In both of those cases, there are physiological adaptations that occur over time, governing the ability of hemoglobin to deliver oxygen to tissues. If there's an improvement from c60, it would be in addition to the normal adaptations, I'd think. I'm basing my thoughts about hypoxic conditions on three case reports. One man who was a smoker, and had what sounded like early COPD would get winded from a short walk. C60 turned this around dramatically. Another guy was severely asthmatic, and had similar exercise intolerance, and was also dramatically improved. I have postural hypotension (caused by a hereditary venous issue), such that when I stood up from a crouch, I would get lightheaded. C60 eliminated that effect in me. Turnbuckle had a dramatic turnaround in exercise tolerance, but his case was caused by a statin injury. The mechanism for all four cases may or may not be the same. One possibility is that C60 is just serving as a mitochondrial electron shuttle. It has a pretty low reduction potential; -169 mV, so it's very easy to put an electron on c60. That's one of the things that makes it such a good antioxidant. However, I think this is still a little too high of a reduction potential for the electron shuttle mechanism to make a lot of sense. Methylene blue's reduction potential is close to zero, and it's known to work as a shuttle. Another possibility is that C60 is lowering the superoxide concentration a lot. Superoxide goes up in hypoxia, and superoxide ions can damage aconitase resulting in Electron Transport Chain defects. Of course, this is all hypothetical, and we need a lot of bench biochemistry to tease out exactly what's going on.

At any rate, healthy people don't normally find themselves in hypoxic states, but high altitudes would be a really interesting test case where hypoxia could be created. There is one catch to this: I've looked at the time dependence of both the muscle fatigue effect and the anti-hypoxia effect in myself, and found that the muscle fatigue effect declined with a half life of something like a week to ten days, and the hypoxia effect lasts far longer. So long, in fact, that I haven't really found the point where the problem returns. The longest I've gone without c60 is about a month. Depending on how much c60 you've been taking, you might need something like a year-long washout period, or possibly even longer, in order to get a valid "before" measurement. If you have a friend who's never taken c60 and would be game for it, you might be able to do a before/after that way.

BTW Is there any evidence besides anecdotal reports of increased alcohol tolerance of this proposed "fantastic" increase in liver toxicity? With the liver being such a resilient organ, what sort of physical markers of improved liver health would we see besides more "energy;" since I find energy to be so subject to mood?

I think Andrievsky has a paper on alcoholic rats, using his hydrated c60. Baati gave rats carbon tetrachloride, which is metabolized to a powerful oxidant, and saw some really impressive liver protection from c60. The alcohol effect that I and a lot of other people are noticing is something different than a lack of liver damage, I think. Basically, you don't feel as drunk for a given dose of alcohol. I haven't really pushed the envelope on it, but I certainly haven't had a hangover in a while. There is probably a lot of oxidative damage involved in hangovers, but as far as feeling drunk or the lack thereof, I don't know what's going on there. I consider that one of the negative side effects of c60...

You might be able to look at the standard ALT/AST liver enzyme levels as a function of a significant dose of alcohol, plus or minus c60, as a thing that a doctor could order. Biochemists would have more tools at their disposal. I don't think that the liver will have much effect on energy as long as it's healthy, but if it gets damaged sufficiently then you'd start to feel pretty lousy. I think it takes quite a lot of damage to actually feel it, but you can see problems with blood tests before you'll feel them.