C60 experiments @ home
#2191
Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:26 PM
Would you really classify c60-oo as a drug? I wouldn't classify it this way since there are no proven claims to its effect. If anything it can ONLY be classified as a supplement until the effects on the human system can be quantified. The FDA does not have to approve supplements. Also, there are supplements that many believe are harmfull. My thinking is that from an evolutionary position, c60 is likely something that was more prevelent in nature and humans and animals consumed a great deal of it at one time. This might explain the long life spans recorded of early man in the Christian Bible. I am wondering what the half-life of c60 is. Being a form of carbon it must break down at some point. Could it be that in the early violent history of the earth that c60 was created in some abundance? This can't be the first time this question has been asked.
On another front, the idea that UV can convert c60 into a toxic state may classify it as a hazardous substance and if its use becomes widespread we may see some negative backlash from the FDA. I am wondering how much O2 is available to the c60 while suspended in Olive Oil and if the oil acutally insulates c60 from oxidation. I suspect it acts in a similar way as petroleum oil insulates metal from oxidation.
#2192
Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:03 PM
True, yet after a year of people on c60-oo in these threads nobody has developed any symptoms of toxicity. I read that a few actually follow-up with blood testing and regular checkups. This, anecdotal evidence and the Baati rat studies "highly" create confidence in this sceptic. I guess I am not alone since so many people are already trying the substance.
Would you really classify c60-oo as a drug? I wouldn't classify it this way since there are no proven claims to its effect. If anything it can ONLY be classified as a supplement until the effects on the human system can be quantified. The FDA does not have to approve supplements. Also, there are supplements that many believe are harmfull. My thinking is that from an evolutionary position, c60 is likely something that was more prevelent in nature and humans and animals consumed a great deal of it at one time. This might explain the long life spans recorded of early man in the Christian Bible. I am wondering what the half-life of c60 is. Being a form of carbon it must break down at some point. Could it be that in the early violent history of the earth that c60 was created in some abundance? This can't be the first time this question has been asked.
On another front, the idea that UV can convert c60 into a toxic state may classify it as a hazardous substance and if its use becomes widespread we may see some negative backlash from the FDA. I am wondering how much O2 is available to the c60 while suspended in Olive Oil and if the oil acutally insulates c60 from oxidation. I suspect it acts in a similar way as petroleum oil insulates metal from oxidation.
I think toxic state should be replaced with oxidative. And I suspect that this may be a positive thing where you can periodically purge weak cells through light therapies.
This may explain some of the more detox like reactions that some people are reporting. I would expect a net gain of health though.
#2193
Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:59 PM
Regarding toxicity which is contradicted by the rat study, I thought this article on Publmed.com was quite conclusive in their findings. It also reiterates the importance of keeping the c60 out of UV light and stored in a dark place.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18217343
"Due to their unique properties, fullerenes, a model of carbon-based nanoparticles, have attracted considerable interest in many fields of research including material science and biomedical applications. The potential and the growing use of fullerenes and their mass production have raised several questions about their safety and environmental impact. Available data clearly shows that pristine C60 has no acute or sub-acute toxicity in a large variety of living organisms, from bacteria and fungal to human leukocytes, and also in drosophila, mice, rats and guinea pigs. In contrast to chemically--either covalently or noncovalently--modified fullerenes, some C60 derivatives can be highly toxic. Furthermore, under light exposure, C60 is an efficient singlet oxygen sensitizer. Therefore, if pristine C60 is absolutely nontoxic under dark conditions, this is not the case under UV-Visible irradiation and in the presence of O2 where ffullerene solutions can be highly toxic through 1O2 formation..."
Isn't this why the Baati study mixed C60 in the dark?
From looking at all the data, C60 is non-toxic as presented in the solution created in the Baati study, but can exhibit toxicities with some other methods and with exposure to UV in those methods.
#2194
Posted 17 May 2013 - 06:05 PM
Isn't this why the Baati study mixed C60 in the dark?
From looking at all the data, C60 is non-toxic as presented in the solution created in the Baati study, but can exhibit toxicities with some other methods and with exposure to UV in those methods.
I would think this is what they had in mind yet I still wonder about the insulating factor of the Olive Oil. This may have been something they did not consider at the time or just wanted to eliminate the posibility of UV contamination.
#2195
Posted 17 May 2013 - 06:10 PM
#2196
Posted 17 May 2013 - 06:15 PM
I was under the impression that it was stored in the dark to avoid any fungal or other growth in the bottle due to the length of time it was stored ?
That too...
#2197
Posted 17 May 2013 - 06:44 PM
Would you really classify c60-oo as a drug? I wouldn't classify it this way since there are no proven claims to its effect. If anything it can ONLY be classified as a supplement until the effects on the human system can be quantified.
It's a small molecule that I take for a variety of biological effects. I would certainly consider it a drug. I consider most supplements to be drugs. Even vitamins can be drugs if you are taking pharmacological doses of them.
I was under the impression that it was stored in the dark to avoid any fungal or other growth in the bottle due to the length of time it was stored ?
No, it's just to avoid UV-induced oxidation. Fungus grows in the dark.
#2198
Posted 17 May 2013 - 06:50 PM
#2199
Posted 17 May 2013 - 07:33 PM
It's a small molecule that I take for a variety of biological effects. I would certainly consider it a drug. I consider most supplements to be drugs. Even vitamins can be drugs if you are taking pharmacological doses of them.
Perhapse, but I am referring to the FDA's definition of a drug... I hope to experience positive biological effects to c60 very soon as well. If all goes well I will be experiencing these effects for a very long time... Is there any data as to how much of the c60 stays in the body? I know that the study says that all of it is eliminated in 10 days, yet one would have to think if it bonds to DNA that a great deal of it must remain in the body. If I remember correctly it actually is passed on to new cells as well... Am I just wishing here or is this just a theory that I have latched onto? I guess it doesn't matter mutch... If all of it takes 10 days to pass through the body then some kind of cycling would be prudent from a financial point of view. I'm thinking two weeks on two weeks off should be an easy regiment.
#2200
Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:32 AM
True, yet after a year of people on c60-oo in these threads nobody has developed any symptoms of toxicity. I read that a few actually follow-up with blood testing and regular checkups. This, anecdotal evidence and the Baati rat studies "highly" create confidence in this sceptic. I guess I am not alone since so many people are already trying the substance.
Would you really classify c60-oo as a drug? I wouldn't classify it this way since there are no proven claims to its effect. If anything it can ONLY be classified as a supplement until the effects on the human system can be quantified. The FDA does not have to approve supplements. Also, there are supplements that many believe are harmfull. My thinking is that from an evolutionary position, c60 is likely something that was more prevelent in nature and humans and animals consumed a great deal of it at one time. This might explain the long life spans recorded of early man in the Christian Bible. I am wondering what the half-life of c60 is. Being a form of carbon it must break down at some point. Could it be that in the early violent history of the earth that c60 was created in some abundance? This can't be the first time this question has been asked.
On another front, the idea that UV can convert c60 into a toxic state may classify it as a hazardous substance and if its use becomes widespread we may see some negative backlash from the FDA. I am wondering how much O2 is available to the c60 while suspended in Olive Oil and if the oil acutally insulates c60 from oxidation. I suspect it acts in a similar way as petroleum oil insulates metal from oxidation.
AFAIK, lifespans in the bible don't reflect any actual change in longevity... Rather, they reflect either a change in calendar metrics or represent something else.
#2201
Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:39 AM
AFAIK, lifespans in the bible don't reflect any actual change in longevity... Rather, they reflect either a change in calendar metrics or represent something else.
Sounds more like an opinion which you are certainly welcome to... However, can you in fact prove that these reflect a change in calendar years? That's not what the account says at all. Since the Bible has so many proven archeological and anthropological facts, it is just as likely true as untrue if there is no outside source to disprove it. All faith aside, the Bible has proven to be a reliable historical resource.
#2202
Posted 18 May 2013 - 01:18 AM
Edited by cryonicsculture, 18 May 2013 - 02:12 AM.
#2203
Posted 18 May 2013 - 01:43 AM
Well, either the pope is hiding the fountain of youth, aliens have modified our genetics leaving us to live with death by force, or it is an abstract representation of something else. Unless you can use one disillusioning word to explain the trinity to a 5 year old, I imagine you're missing a big part of what religion in general is. PM me if you want to take a guess.
I think you're a bit confused and likely not aware of the Biblical account of which I speak of. The Pope has nothing to do with the historical record nor does it require faith in God to accept the possiblity the account is true. The Bible is the oldest surviving written record on the planet. To discount it because it is also a book of faith is an error. Great scholarly discoveries have been made because of the accuracy of the HISTORICAL RECORD in the Bible. You can argue this fact if you wish yet it is apparent to me your bias is showing. I have made no appeal to a faith or belief in God but only to the historical record that ancient man lived extrodinarily long lives compared to people today.
To bring this back around to topic, the question being, is it possible that c60 could have existed then in an abundance and could it be attributed to the POSSIBLE long lifespans recorded in the Biblical record?
Edited by solarfingers, 18 May 2013 - 02:07 AM.
#2204
Posted 18 May 2013 - 02:11 AM
http://www.shungitecanada.com/home.htm
One of the proposed theories could suggest my premise is true.
"Some researchers assert that the form and structure of shungite have volcanic features. The volcanic ejection of the shungite substance would have played the same role as the hypothetical Phaeton fragment."
The earth's early history was erruptive and violent in nature. It is certainly possible that this activity created large amounts of fullerenes which would have been greater in number in the ancient past and lesser as they deteriated over time.
Edited by solarfingers, 18 May 2013 - 02:16 AM.
#2205
Posted 18 May 2013 - 02:18 AM
The Bible is the oldest surviving written record on the planet.
Many other surviving written records are older. ऋग्वेद for example.
#2206
Posted 18 May 2013 - 02:20 AM
I was just saying that being an edict implies that *someone* had a hand in the determination. As I'm not aware of any human tech that existed in that time, I imagine it must have been something different, It wasn't written that way for nothing. The text is also only one of the oldest, and can be predated. I really don't think the quantity of C60 would have changed enough to matter in the last 10K years. It would have had to be much earlier and some other missing link that benefitted from C60. As of right now, we don't know any way to get it into the blood stream except by injection or adding it to EVOO. That kind of change takes some time.
The Bible is the oldest surviving written record on the planet.
Many other surviving written records are older. ऋग्वेद for example.
What's that say?
Edited by cryonicsculture, 18 May 2013 - 02:25 AM.
#2207
Posted 18 May 2013 - 02:31 AM
The Bible is the oldest surviving written record on the planet.
Many other surviving written records are older. ऋग्वेद for example.
I would like to read that record... Is there an english translation?
Thanks...
Another thought... An abundance of fullerenes seem to be found around meteor sites. The early history of the earth is shown the earth to be scarred by meteor pounding. This could be a secondary source supporting an abundance of c60 early in the earths history.
Hindi, Rig-Veda... I'll have to search for an english version.
#2208
Posted 18 May 2013 - 02:37 AM
#2209
Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:12 AM
#2210
Posted 18 May 2013 - 11:31 AM
Regarding the presence of c60 in nature, it's a product of combustion. C60 is present in cigarette smoke and barbeque smoke, among other things. If you've ever barbecued a piece of meat, you probably got a very tiny amount of a c60-fat adduct, just not enough to really do you much good.
Interesting, and I guess it's another unknown but at least in the theoretical realm may AGEs be a factor in consuming c60 and olive oil? Charred meat may equal more AGEs so maybe also c60 in olive oil? Forgive me if this has been discussed to death already -- I couldn't find it.
#2211
Posted 18 May 2013 - 01:36 PM
Regarding the presence of c60 in nature, it's a product of combustion. C60 is present in cigarette smoke and barbeque smoke, among other things. If you've ever barbecued a piece of meat, you probably got a very tiny amount of a c60-fat adduct, just not enough to really do you much good.
...may AGEs be a factor in consuming c60 and olive oil? Charred meat may equal more AGEs so maybe also c60 in olive oil?
No, there won't be any AGEs in c60-oo. AGE formation requires sugar, heat and protein, none of which are present in sufficient amounts in the production of c60-oo.
#2212
Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:58 PM
Guys, let's try to steer this discussion away from religion and back towards the science of c60. Religion is a fine thing to talk about, but we have a forum devoted specifically to that. Regarding the presence of c60 in nature, it's a product of combustion. C60 is present in cigarette smoke and barbeque smoke, among other things. If you've ever barbecued a piece of meat, you probably got a very tiny amount of a c60-fat adduct, just not enough to really do you much good. Probably not enough to outweigh the harm of the other stuff in there.
You know? I used to be a smoker... I'm really wondering why I shouldn't just take the C60... I've had it in me before, but now it won't included tobacco crap... Overall that should be good in any case? How much C60 is in cancer smoke?
#2213
Posted 18 May 2013 - 04:09 PM
Niner... I agree. I wasn't trying to start a Religious discussion. I was speculating on the viabilitly of c60 in early history. My comment met with disdain because I mentioned the Bible as a historical source. It likely would have gone a different direction if I had mentioned the Rig-Veda. The basic premise of science is experimentation and observation. From prehistoric layers it can be shown that large amounts of c60 were somehow present 2 billion years ago in abundance. Science has only recently discovered fullerenes but it is more than possible they have had a lasting affect on our planet and the obvious emplications would be human life extension. Since the majority of records going far enough in ancient memory where humans lived extra-ordinary long times is in religious records I might appeal to you that discussing these records is in fact a form of scientific inquiry. Since we were not there in ancient days we have to look at the accounts of people who lived closer to that time and ask a pertainant question. This answers the question, "Is there any record in where ancient people lived beyond the age of modern man." We are calling on the observation of history, looking for clues that could suggest that 1) The expanded age of mice who ingest c60-oo is not novel and 2) It is likely that humans have experienced this effect in the past. That is, unless there is some other mechanism not known to us that might explain any life extension in ancient man (if at all). I've pretty much exhausted this premise and don't wish to discuss it again... It was a musing which I feel is particullary unwelcome in a so-called open-minded discussion of c60-oo.
Nah, I'd beat hindu with the stick I use on christianity... I just don't know it quite as well. As far as I am concerned, both religions practice negative, rather than positive eugenics and we shouldn't have a place for them.
Negative - cutting w/in the category AKA literal translation of genocide.
Positive - existing to ensure the survival of human diversity and continued evolution.
#2214
Posted 18 May 2013 - 05:43 PM
#2215
Posted 18 May 2013 - 06:06 PM
Edited by cryonicsculture, 18 May 2013 - 06:10 PM.
#2216
Posted 18 May 2013 - 06:27 PM
#2217
Posted 19 May 2013 - 07:26 PM
Thanks...
#2218
Posted 20 May 2013 - 03:59 AM
I have created a website/blog where I will trace my experimentation with c60 and other preventive geriatrics. I won't be able to start my c60-oo for another month... Purchase in two weeks when I get paid again and then two more weeks for preparation. I want to share my appreciation to all of you who braved this attempt before me... Lastly, is there anything that I should be aware of before moving forward?
Thanks...
I'd like to get some volunteers here:
http://www.longecity...60-human-trial/
It's a C60 human trial. We're looking for people who haven't taken it yet.
#2219
Posted 20 May 2013 - 05:01 AM
It looks like a noble effort and I appreciate the offer yet I'm pretty much for sure my insurance wouldn't go for this since I have already tried to get them to go for experimental therapies for my ADHD. It sounds like something I wouldn't want to pay for out of pocket. The DIY route seems the best way for me to go and my wifey is already balking at paying for $60 of c60. She did however give me the nod and I will start in another two weeks.
#2220
Posted 20 May 2013 - 02:06 PM
I have created a website/blog where I will trace my experimentation with c60 and other preventive geriatrics. I won't be able to start my c60-oo for another month... Purchase in two weeks when I get paid again and then two more weeks for preparation. I want to share my appreciation to all of you who braved this attempt before me... Lastly, is there anything that I should be aware of before moving forward?
Thanks...
It seems I neglected to leave a link to my website/blog... I would appreciate any feedback.
http://livelog.weebly.com/
Thanks!
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: buckyball, c60, fullerene, buckyballs
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users