166 replies to this topic

[GVA]

Greetings to all of you! In this sub-forum I would like to convey my popular science message to all members and visitors of the LONGECITY website and invite you to reflect on the fact that the positive biological effect of administering fullerene Ñ60 in olive oil (C60/OO) in ‘Large’ and small rats is not pure C60 fullerene molecule, but rather it is the unique symbiosis with molecules of water – hydrated C60 fullerene (C60HyFn). Please find the relevant information in the attached pdf-files here. GVA

Attached Files

•  About C60_Olive Oile and C60HyFn_EN.pdf   78.33KB   61 downloads
•  About C60_Olive Oile and C60HyFn_RUS.pdf   142.73KB   13 downloads

[Turnbuckle]

To conclude this long monologue, let’s return to the question of extending life span.

In particular, the question is as follows: should we seek to extend the life span in any way (for example, to affect the telomeres or take heavy doses of certain antioxidants in attempts to saturate our mitochondria with them) and then, having extended it, turn into a "plant"?

I wouldn't worry too much about it since we are symbionts to begin with, as mitochondria of bacterial origin outnumber our cells by a factor of a thousand.

[DeadMeat]

1. All of them studied the biological activity of C60 in the form of oily solutions: in the first case – of olive oil (with effects observed), in the second case – of corn oil (no effects observed). And what is most important here, regardless of the type of oil used, is that no hazardous or toxicological effects of C60 were observed!

As already mentioned a couple of times in other threads. Unlike the French, the Japanese used a suspension(big aggregates of C60 floating around, see fig. 1) not a solution(single C60 molecules in solution). So its not really strange that its not absorbed there. Further the Japanese study only lasted 6 weeks, used young rats and none of the control or treatment rats died. So the "no effects" is irrelevant(other than that aggregates are non toxic).

However, upon feeding rats with C60/OO for 7 days (daily dose of C60 equal to 4 mg/kg), the French researchers managed to discover fullerene C60 in the animals’ various organs (blood, liver, spleen, brain), although the doses were very low. These doses comprised 0.003% and 0.007% of the total accumulated dose (TAD) of C60 administered to to the “small rats” on the first and eighth day respectively. In conversion, the average dose corresponds to one a hundred-thousandth (1:100000 or 10-5, or 10 ppm) dose of C60 TAD.

The 0.003% and 0.007% TAD is for the brain only. See table 2. Also the liver and spleen have much higher TAD. Liver: 0.14% and 0.39%. Spleen: 0.18% and 0.51%. And since there is a lot of the rat that's not liver, spleen or brain, I expect the total bioavailability to be quite good. The TAD of liver, spleen and brain at D8 combined would be 0.91% but these organs only account for about 1/28 of the total mass of a rat. So I assume a total TAD of anything between 0.91% and 100% would be possible.

Edited by DeadMeat, 27 December 2012 - 07:47 AM.

[GVA]

To conclude this long monologue, let’s return to the question of extending life span.

In particular, the question is as follows: should we seek to extend the life span in any way (for example, to affect the telomeres or take heavy doses of certain antioxidants in attempts to saturate our mitochondria with them) and then, having extended it, turn into a "plant"?

I wouldn't worry too much about it since we are symbionts to begin with, as mitochondria of bacterial origin outnumber our cells by a factor of a thousand.

To "saturate" all our cells and its mitochondrions with a certain antioxidant, we should eat of kgs
it, however we usually accept them in mg quantities. And all is works! So, what is the general
reason which stipulates the biological mechanisms of action of many antioxidants? Let's think!
And, I hope, C60HyFn will help to it.

[SarahVaughter]

This is hardly the first time we see endorsements (AKA spam) for your staggeringly expensive and unproven Ukrainian hydrated fullerene product here, but as was asked before, where are your animal trials to prove that it prolongs life?

Also, where is your evidence that the life extension effect of C60 in olive oil is in fact due to hydrated fullerenes?

In the PDF you attached I found no evidence for either of your claims, but perhaps you can point to concrete evidence I have missed.

[somecallmetim]

Dr. Andrievsky,


Thank you for writing this interesting and thought-provoking paper. The ideas presented sound plausible, but as I'm sure you're already aware, more research in this area will be needed before it is widely accepted.

Btw, I have followed your work with C60 ever since I became interested in C60 & shungite back in 2006 - when I came across your Fullwater.com website. So I am happy to see you here posting on this forum.

[Turnbuckle]

To conclude this long monologue, let’s return to the question of extending life span.

In particular, the question is as follows: should we seek to extend the life span in any way (for example, to affect the telomeres or take heavy doses of certain antioxidants in attempts to saturate our mitochondria with them) and then, having extended it, turn into a "plant"?

I wouldn't worry too much about it since we are symbionts to begin with, as mitochondria of bacterial origin outnumber our cells by a factor of a thousand.

To "saturate" all our cells and its mitochondrions with a certain antioxidant, we should eat of kgs
it, however we usually accept them in mg quantities. And all is works! So, what is the general
reason which stipulates the biological mechanisms of action of many antioxidants? Let's think!
And, I hope, C60HyFn will help to it.

This makes no sense on any level.

[SarahVaughter]

I may have misunderstood something in the PDF from the OP, but if I understand correctly, he claims that EVOO is a very bad "transporter" of C60 into the cells.

Then why, when rats are fed C60-in-EVOO, are their livers extremely protected against ROS damage? This shows that C60 dissolved in EVOO is in fact a very effective means of transporting the C60 into the blood and from there into liver cells?

Am I correct in saying that the OP claims that the olive oil is irrelevant, that the lipofullerenes somehow revert to C60 powder on the intestinal lining and that from there they become Hydrated C60 and that it is hydrated C60, not lipofullerenes, that are bioactive?

I'm working through the posted PDF and will write an article with my views on it, so your help in explaining your POV is appreciated.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 27 December 2012 - 10:16 PM.

[daouda]

I thought this was indeed a thought-provoking piece, and there's no denial that the effects reported by the giant rats here seem to fit in nicely with the effects advertized by this C60HyFn seller.

There's one thing I would like you to develop here though : how did you come to the following conclusion? (which numbers have you used etc) :

Upon analysing the data received in the process of working with Baati et al. and considering the invaluable experience being reported with respect to the “Large Rats” in the LONGECITY →…. C60health forum, I can note that, in order to achieve positive biological effects that are similar in their nature and intensity (including that pertaining to antioxidants), as revealed in the application of C60HyFn (as C60FWS, see the example at: http://www.ipacom.co...notation_en.pdf), it is necessary to apply doses of C60 (in form of C60/OO) that are approximately one million (106) times higher than the doses of C60HyFn!

Edited by daouda, 27 December 2012 - 10:20 PM.

[daouda]

OK so here's the recommended dosage protocol of C60HyFn from that company. From http://www.ipacom.co...notation_en.pdf

(This is for 100ml bottles containing 0.0002mg c60)

50ml (=0.0001mg c60) 3x/day for 3 days
then 2x/day for 3 days
then 1x/day for 15 days

repeat 3-4 x per year

Now if I were to use your estimate for HyFnC60 to C6/OO dosage translation :
0.0001mg of C60 (HyFn form) x 1 000 000 = 100mg of C60 (C60/OO form) in "potency"
A bottle of SV's C60/oo contains 45mg C60 in 50ml of solution
So, in order to get 100mg of C60, you'd need 111.11ml of C60/OO solution (2.22 bottles)

Thus, in order to replicate the effects obtained with C60HyFn using the recommended protocol above, here's what the C60/OO dosage should look like according to your estimation :

333.3ml for 3 days
then 222.2ml for 3 days
then 111.1ml for 15 days

Not many people have been taking this kind of dosage over here (actually I think Loera is the only one to have taken this kind of amounts), and those that did are not the one that have reported the most dramatic effects. Actually I think that reports of effects similar to those advertised by that company were all obtained with CONSIDERABLY lower doses.
So I really dont know how you could come to the conclusion (quoted in my post above) that C60HyFn is basically a million times more potent than C60/OO.
I am not "attacking" you here, I'd just really like to read a minimally elaborated explanation from you.

Edited by daouda, 27 December 2012 - 11:26 PM.

[SarahVaughter]

I find many things objectionable in the OP's PDF. He apparently takes it as a given that the positive effects reported on this forum are real, and he uses that to underpin rather large scientific leaps of faith in Hydrated fullerenes.

Like the OP, I sell a C60 product, but I would never be so rash in saying that I believe that the reported beneficial effects in humans are real. There is not much concrete evidence that they are real, in my opinion. I distrust scientists who take a few anecdotal reports (Placebo effect..) as data points as a foundation for scientific claims, esp. when those claims are used to sell product. From our store description:

ABOUT SHORT-TERM POSITIVE EFFECTS
We do not think there will be any.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 27 December 2012 - 10:57 PM.

[niner]

Dr. Andrievsky has been studying the biological effects of HyFn for a long time, and as he pointed out in the thread about colds/flu and c60, he has seen most if not all of the effects we've been finding. I think it's good that we're seeing this consistency in results with fullerenes from different formulations, if not different chemistry. I think that the Donor Acceptor (Charge Transfer) complexes proposed in the pdf above are probably not the major form of c60 in olive oil, though there might be a small amount. People have had good results making c60-oo with "light" olive oils which contain very little chlorophyll and rather low levels of polyphenols. We have good reason to think that c60 is reacting with the fatty acid chains in olive oil. Cataldo has shown that such reactions occur, not only in olive oil but in a variety of other (chlorophyll and polyphenol free) oils, including methyl esters of the fatty acids themselves. In the UV/Vis spectra of these products, there are several large and broad peaks, while the peak at 450nm expected from a C60 CT complex is a small shoulder in the spectrum.

The fact remains that biological effects have been reported from very small doses of HyFn. Some of us experimenting with c60-oo find that sub-milligram doses are effective. I don't think anyone has attempted to see an effect from sub-microgram doses of c60-oo. The pharmacokinetics reported by Baati are that the extremely large doses of c60-oo he used are cleared from plasma relatively quickly. It may well be that most of it is eliminated. I think that Moussa's lab is working on a biodistribution paper, but from other fullerene work, we've seen that fullerenes tend to localize in membranes, as would be expected from their hydrophobic nature. I think it's likely that both c60-oo and HyFn are delivering c60 to membranes, particularly mitochondrial membranes, and it's possible that HyFn is a very efficient way to do this. This would require that the solvent cage surrounding c60 in HyFn be stripped away. This leads me to some questions.

How hard is it to get the c60 out of the solvent cage? What would happen, for example, if you extracted a water solution of HyFn with toluene?

Have there been any attempts to structurally characterize HyFn? (Light scattering, xray diffraction, mass spec, etc) Are we sure that the c60 is not becoming hydroxylated, at least to some extent?

[GVA]

Dr. Andrievsky has been studying the biological effects of HyFn for a long time, and as he pointed out in the thread about colds/flu and c60, he has seen most if not all of the effects we've been finding. I think it's good that we're seeing this consistency in results with fullerenes from different formulations, if not different chemistry. I think that the Donor Acceptor (Charge Transfer) complexes proposed in the pdf above are probably not the major form of c60 in olive oil, though there might be a small amount. People have had good results making c60-oo with "light" olive oils which contain very little chlorophyll and rather low levels of polyphenols. We have good reason to think that c60 is reacting with the fatty acid chains in olive oil. Cataldo has shown that such reactions occur, not only in olive oil but in a variety of other (chlorophyll and polyphenol free) oils, including methyl esters of the fatty acids themselves. In the UV/Vis spectra of these products, there are several large and broad peaks, while the peak at 450nm expected from a C60 CT complex is a small shoulder in the spectrum.

The fact remains that biological effects have been reported from very small doses of HyFn. Some of us experimenting with c60-oo find that sub-milligram doses are effective. I don't think anyone has attempted to see an effect from sub-microgram doses of c60-oo. The pharmacokinetics reported by Baati are that the extremely large doses of c60-oo he used are cleared from plasma relatively quickly. It may well be that most of it is eliminated. I think that Moussa's lab is working on a biodistribution paper, but from other fullerene work, we've seen that fullerenes tend to localize in membranes, as would be expected from their hydrophobic nature. I think it's likely that both c60-oo and HyFn are delivering c60 to membranes, particularly mitochondrial membranes, and it's possible that HyFn is a very efficient way to do this. This would require that the solvent cage surrounding c60 in HyFn be stripped away. This leads me to some questions.

How hard is it to get the c60 out of the solvent cage? What would happen, for example, if you extracted a water solution of HyFn with toluene?

Have there been any attempts to structurally characterize HyFn? (Light scattering, xray diffraction, mass spec, etc) Are we sure that the c60 is not becoming hydroxylated, at least to some extent?

Please follow this link http://www.ipacom.co...bout-c60hyfn/92
I hope, there you will find many answers to your questions.

Edited by GVA, 27 December 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[niner]

Like the OP, I sell a C60 product, but I would never be so rash in saying that I believe that the reported beneficial effects in humans are real. There is not much concrete evidence that they are real, in my opinion. I distrust scientists who take a few anecdotal reports (Placebo effect..) as data points as a foundation for scientific claims, esp. when those claims are used to sell product. From our store description:

ABOUT SHORT-TERM POSITIVE EFFECTS
We do not think there will be any.

But you think there will be long term positive effects? There's no evidence whatsoever for human life extension from c60. At least there are a number of people who have seen near-term positive effects. I know, we haven't run an RCT, but more than a few people have reported positive effects. The kinds of effects that people are seeing would be hard to ascribe to a placebo effect. We know from animal experiments and an abundant literature on c60 compounds that it is a very potent compound, so dismissing reports of efficacy because they aren't from a peer reviewed RCT seems at least a bit extreme. I wouldn't want to see this thread turn into another vendor vs. vendor affair.

[daouda]

GVA, I still dont get where you got that C60HyFn is a million times more potent than C60 (in terms of beneficial effects on humans)
Its of great interest to me because if this is right, this gives us actual (approximative) guidelines for human dosage of C60/OO (we have NONE atm), since the recommended administration protocol that comes with the C60HyFn product is intended for humans and seems to stem from extensive research and more practical knowledge on its effect on humans than what we have gathered with C60/OO so far.
I mean, my goal here isnt just to challenge your claims, I'm willing to beleive this and use it, IF you can give an (even very brief) explanation as to how you came to that number/conclusion!

Edited by daouda, 28 December 2012 - 02:00 AM.

[SarahVaughter]

I think we should not take any positive effects at face value until serious studies have been done (double-blind, control group, placebo-controlled etc.)

Example: People have said that c60-in-EVOO protected their skin greatly against sun damage. I am in the skin protection/restoration business, so if anyone would seize on this effect it would be me. However, I am also a scientist. As a scientist, I say: What is the evidence that it is the C60 and not merely the olive oil itself that protects the skin against UV? I need to see much more solid evidence before I go claim that people should shell out 29 dollars for 50 ml of my product, when later it may turn out that EVOO by itself has the same (or better!) effect.

I say "better", because the principal author of the rat study warned that UV + C60 could cause damage to the skin (formation of free radicals, IIRC).

Edited by SarahVaughter, 28 December 2012 - 08:46 AM.

[pleb]

Vincent Giuliano posted a long list of articles on the site a few weeks ago, literally everything that has been published on C60 and one of them indicated it showed a level of protection against UV and other low level radiation

i believe one of the members on here Andey has tried C60HyFn but had better results with C60-oo

Edited by pleb, 28 December 2012 - 09:21 AM.

[SarahVaughter]

@niner:

I strongly believe in beneficial long-term effects, and in fact I am extremely excited about C60-in-oil. Reading much of the available medical literature (or at least familiarizing me with it - it's nearly all toxicity studies that found major beneficial effects in every organism they tested).
We both (my husband and I) take the substance regularly, and it is the only thing we take - no vitamins etc.

I think humans will see a strong cancer-protective effect and I estimate that on average, they may live 15 years longer in good health. That's just what I think. No guarantees :-)

However I am also of a scientific mind and I do not see much evidence for the reported short-term positive effects. I also have a hard time visualizing/understanding how they could possible happen. I chose to disregard all of them until I see more (and more solid) evidence. Please note that I am only looking for the "truth" and that it is good to keep an open mind and take note of anecdotal reports, but much better is studies. I am so sceptical, that I don't even believe or downright disagree in/with roughly half of the conclusions in the studies I read. So there :-)

Edited by SarahVaughter, 28 December 2012 - 09:26 AM.

[Andey]

I think we should not take any positive effects at face value until serious studies have been done (double-blind, control group, placebo-controlled etc.)

Example: People have said that c60-in-EVOO protected their skin greatly against sun damage. I am in the skin protection/restoration business, so if anyone would seize on this effect it would be me. However, I am also a scientist. As a scientist, I say: What is the evidence that it is the C60 and not merely the olive oil itself that protects the skin against UV? I need to see much more solid evidence before I go claim that people should shell out 29 dollars for 50 ml of my product, when later it may turn out that EVOO by itself has the same (or better!) effect.

I say "better", because the principal author of the rat study warned that UV + C60 could cause damage to the skin (formation of free radicals, IIRC).

Example: You sells C60oo to people not having any serious study on man (double-blind, control group, placebo-controlled etc.) in hands.
Weird to hear such arguments from you. Am I missing something and you have state approved supplement or drug product for man ? Andrievsky have one.

I think dr Andrievsky contribute an interesting hypothesis here. Until proven or unproven with experimental data we could just talk of its probability here.
Anyway there are a huge blind spots in C60 science now, so we cant take anything for granted. If Turnbackle hypothesis is right than even antioxidant effect of C60 may be small and irrelevant to its positive effects.
May be real cause of its effects is completely out of sight now.
We are here to share ideas, please dont make this forum/thread another SarahVaughterVsAnthonyLoera 'masterpiece'.


P.S. Sorry to Anthony for mentioning him in this context.

[SarahVaughter]

These are not valid arguments.

Having a more or less homeopathic product approved in the Ukraine is not proof of your hypotheses.

Neither are ad-hominems about how I conduct discussions, what the status of FDA approval is for my products etc.

Also the existence of blind spots is not evidence to your claims. When you make a claim, you need to back it up, that's how it works in science.

I suggest you let an independent party perform a similar rat study as the Baathi study.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 28 December 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[Andey]

These are not valid arguments.

Having a more or less homeopathic product approved in the Ukraine is not proof of your hypotheses.

Neither are ad-hominems about how I conduct discussions, what the status of FDA approval is for my products etc.

Also the existence of blind spots is not evidence to your claims. When you make a claim, you need to back it up, that's how it works in science.

I suggest you let an independent party perform a similar rat study as the Baathi study.

I am not affiliated with GVA in any kind.
I pointed you that you have double standarts in your opinion - on the one hand you say that only GMP studies can be arguments in this forum, on the other hand we have sero such studies on man so following your logic we cant talk about anything here. Fact that you pretennd to be a medical scientist and sells to people untested (GMP) product leads me to conclusion that you are 1. bad doctor (if you are at all) 2. Biased on this topic.
I mentioned your previous behaviour in this forum because I think it is destructive and as I see you continiue on it.
For the studies - as I see Andrievsky positioned his info as hypothesis on how C60oo works. Its a hypothesis, not a proven by studies fact.

Please, dont answer me here - start another thread if you want to do more offtopic. I am already regret that I answer on your offensive behaviour here.

[Turnbuckle]

Having a more or less homeopathic product approved in the Ukraine is not proof of your hypotheses.

Homeopathic ideas run counter to modern science and can generally be dismissed as hog-swaddle without further consideration. Nevertheless, I looked at GVA's postings and they don't make any sense at all. If anyone here can point to a single contention that makes sense--just one!--I'd appreciate it.

[maxwatt]

Like the sheriff used to say to the mob in the old west: "You cain't just lynch a man; first we have to give him a fair trial and then we'll hang him."

[Junk Master]

Well, even though I agree with Turnbuckle, I'm still glad he found this place and stimulated some discussion.

[Andey]

Having a more or less homeopathic product approved in the Ukraine is not proof of your hypotheses.

Homeopathic ideas run counter to modern science and can generally be dismissed as hog-swaddle without further consideration. Nevertheless, I looked at GVA's postings and they don't make any sense at all. If anyone here can point to a single contention that makes sense--just one!--I'd appreciate it.

I thought before that definative sign of homeopatic treatment is when single dosage of resolved solution didnt contain active substance at all. As I understand Its not a case with C60HyFn. Some could say that your dosages of 1gm lasts...for 2 or 3 years ? is also homeopathic. Where is the edge ?

[Andey]

Well, even though I agree with Turnbuckle, I'm still glad he found this place and stimulated some discussion.

+1.
No sense in fighting here - we all could win on sharing ideas.

[Kevnzworld]

I think Dr Andrievsky should be afforded a little latitude here. I assume from reading his posts that English is probably his second if not third language. Unlike others here, he has actually made the study of C60 his life's work and has a long record of published articles and studies.
http://scholar.googl...=en&as_sdt=0,10

With respect to SV, GVA never contended that " having a more or less homeopathic product approved in the Ukrraine as proof of your hypothesis ". Who's hypothesis ? Andey is not GVA. How did homeopathy even enter into this discussion ?

[niner]

I looked at GVA's postings and they don't make any sense at all. If anyone here can point to a single contention that makes sense--just one!--I'd appreciate it.

I spent several hours going through the following presentation, which summarizes much of the science behind HyFn. There's a lot here and non-scientists will find it a tough slog, if not impenetrable, but I have a new respect for HyFn. GVA has shown by a variety of sophisticated analytical methods that there is a tightly bound concentric water structure around HyFn. Regarding "homeopathy", compounds that work catalytically are often active at extremely low concentrations. Not all of GVA's work has used tiny doses. In his Free Rad Biol Med 2009 paper, they looked at the effects of HyFn on rodents that got a lethal (1-7 Gy) dose of radiation. The best radioprotection was observed at a dose of 1 mg/kg, which is significantly larger than doses we're using. On p. 114 of the presentation, several in vivo experiments were mentioned that used doses of .2 - .45 mg/kg, with i.p. or i.v. delivery. A very interesting point is presented on p. 121: From research in a variety of other laboratories, biological antioxidant activity has been observed with other nanoparticles (CeO2, Y2O3, Ag, nanodiamond, and BaTiO3). These aren't compounds that would be expected to chemically react with radicals, but they probably do create ordered water structures similar to HyFn. The drinkers among us might be interested in p.111, the abstract of a paper published on the effects of HyFn on the immediate and long term consequences of alcohol consumption. A lot of us have noticed this with c60-oo.

Here's the extensive collection of evidence for HyFn structure and activity: (This is a single postscript file, not a collection of links)

Please follow this link http://www.ipacom.co...bout-c60hyfn/92
I hope, there you will find many answers to your questions.

[mait]

@niner:

I strongly believe in beneficial long-term effects, and in fact I am extremely excited about C60-in-oil. Reading much of the available medical literature (or at least familiarizing me with it - it's nearly all toxicity studies that found major beneficial effects in every organism they tested).
We both (my husband and I) take the substance regularly, and it is the only thing we take - no vitamins etc.

I think humans will see a strong cancer-protective effect and I estimate that on average, they may live 15 years longer in good health. That's just what I think. No guarantees :-)

However I am also of a scientific mind and I do not see much evidence for the reported short-term positive effects. I also have a hard time visualizing/understanding how they could possible happen. I chose to disregard all of them until I see more (and more solid) evidence. Please note that I am only looking for the "truth" and that it is good to keep an open mind and take note of anecdotal reports, but much better is studies. I am so sceptical, that I don't even believe or downright disagree in/with roughly half of the conclusions in the studies I read. So there :-)

No offense but please show some more respectful tone towards Andrievsky. He has authored many papers in respectful peer reviewed scientific magazines on topics concerning c60 biological activity. And those scientific articles have been published in period of last 10 years. So he is not one of those opportunistic scientists hopping in hot scientific topic called c60 after Baatis et al work. Vice versa he was already publishing on c60 effect in vitro and in vivo much before this topic became generally popular.

As You can see from papers published by Andrievsky he and he’s colleagues have documented specifically the effects of HyC60 on many in vivo animal models in short time scales (protective effects of C60 in ethanol, radiation and beta-amyloid induced pathologies and toxicities etc). So at least at preclinical level Andrievsky’s claims about short term effects of HyC60 treatment are scientifically rationalized contrary to arguments of S.V.

All in all let’s stop this nasty infighting and try to keep our criticism and discussions constructive. S.V. - your superb work as EU based vendor of quality C60 is very appreciated by many from Longecity community (including me). So I see no reason from You to protect Your market share in so strong mannered way.

Edited by mait, 28 December 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[SarahVaughter]

I would like to point out that this scientist also sells the product he published about. 1 liter costs USD 425000.

I think that extraordinary claims need at least a little evidence before paying close to half a million dollars for 144 mg of C60 dissolved in water.

There is no need to become agressive at me merely for asking questions (that remain unanswered).