166 replies to this topic

[mait]

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).

Please do not take may previous comments as signs of aggressiveness. I just wanted to point out that at least on the level of preclinical studies and experiments on lab animals Andrievsky's claims about short term effects of HyC60 treatment are scientifically rationalized.

As for costs of hes products argument. Andrievsky's products contain miniscule amounts HyC60 so the per liter cost argument here may be little misplaced. And its important to point out that there are documented effects in articles published by Andrievsky that show that beneficial effects have been achieved with this low level dosing regime.

Again- please do not take my comments as antagonistic toward You. I am expressing my point of view in order to help bring some constructive and respectful spirit to this topic. I am scared to see some kind of echo chamber effect emerging in C60 sub-forum lately where people just do not take effort to try to think outside of their own mental frame of things and by so doing they mistakenly take others comments and criticism toward one's ideas as a sign of attack.

Edited by mait, 28 December 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[GVA]

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!

As you have noted earlier
"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»

It means, that for 21 days the person accepts C60HyFn in a total dose approximately 3 microg or 0,04 micro/kg.
If rats accept 21 day Ñ60-ÎÎ in a dose 1700 microg/kg (1.7 mg/kg) per day than the total C60 dose will equal to 35 000 microg/kg.
Let's divide 35 000 on 0.04 and we will receive value of an order 1 000 000.

Edited by GVA, 28 December 2012 - 08:52 PM.

[daouda]

Thanks, now I understand where you came from.

[GVA]

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.

After 18 years of scientific research and extended preclinical and clinical trials, at the end of 2010 in Ukraine the products “Concentrated solutions of hydrated Ñ₆₀ fullerene” (C₆₀FWS) and “Water with hydrated Ñ₆₀ fullerene (C₆₀HyFn)” were approved by the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine for use as a component in food products and cosmetics. This includes their administration as a multifunctional dietary supplement, which has unique medicinal and preventive properties while, at the same time, being absolutely safe for humans.
Evidences about it can be found on following links:
- copiesof the conclusions of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine on http://ipacom.com/im...s/c60water1.pdf and http://ipacom.com/im...ticles/fws1.pdf (all in russ/engl/ukr);
- official reports about pre-clinical and clinical trials http://ipacom.com/in...bout-c60hyfn/70 (inruss/engl/ukr);
- list of scientific publications and presentation on the international congresses:
- - about Biological properties on http://ipacom.com/in...bout-c60hyfn/72;
- - about Physical and chemical properties on http://ipacom.com/in...bout-c60hyfn/71;
- - general scientific presentation on http://ipacom.com/in...bout-c60hyfn/92;
- - in the History of our scientific cooperation on http://ipacom.com/in...eration-left/53.
Nevertheless, despite our numerous researches of C₆₀HyFn, we did not have a possibility to conduct test of its influence on life extension of animals. Not so long ago Prof. Fathi Moussa has told us his the wish and proposition to carry out a similar sort of research. However, at present time the sufficient conditions and finances are not available for us to carry out such works.

[GVA]

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 ?

WRT homoeopathy, my strong opinion is that C60HyFn and its water solutions, are the excellent tool for scientific knowledge about what is the mechanisms of action of homoeopathic stuffs and another substances which are used in small and super-small doses (But it is already a separate scientific problem).

[GVA]

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).

Eexcuse me in advance and that is compelled me to give this information, but 1 litre of the dietary additive (Water with HydratedÑ60 Fullerene, http://www.ipacom.com/index.php/en/production-left/68) costs in Ukraine of an order 15 USD

[SarahVaughter]

Am I mistaken that in reply #35 you imply that you believe in Homeopathy?

I refer to http://www.ipacom.co...duction-left/88 for my reference of $425000,- for 1 l of your product FWS144, with 144 mg C60.

[somecallmetim]

Sarah,

According to the IPAC website, the recommended concentration for C60HyFn as a dietary supplement is .002 mg/l. So, the 144 mg/l product you are referring to is meant to be diluted first if used at the concentration mentioned above. Once diluted to the proper concentration, this would supply about 72,000 courses. This would equate to roughly $5.90 per course.

Obviously, the 144 mg/l product isn't meant for the average 'Joe Longevity' to purchase. I'm sure it's intended for health/science institutions. The lower concentrations are better suited for individuals.

[somecallmetim]

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

While perusing the link, I came across the article entitled Fungal Growth on Buckminsterfullerene, and this caught my eye:

"These observations once again illustrate the marked ability of fungi to grow in the apparent
absence of nutrients. They also suggest that buckminsterfullerene, even when not contaminated with other substances, will become overgrown with molds when stored under a moist condition - a possibility that should be borne in mind should buckminsterfullerene eventually be used in industry or medicine."


This could possibly explain why the member known as trance found mold growing in his purchased C60oo.

[SarahVaughter]

I am doing some math now, and I am writing an article examining Dr. Andrievsky's claims, taking into account his published research and the statements on the IPAC website.

I'll post the link to my article later. It contains a lot of calculations and if I am incorrect, this can be discussed here, perhaps.

I calculated that a one-year treatment with "water of life" for a human being (against atherosclerosis) would cost half a million dollars, when the same dose/kg would be used as in rabbit experiment D, and product FWS144 would be used.

I also calculated that when consuming one "course" of the commercially available "water of life" as he calls it, approx. 50 cells of the human body would have to share a single C60 molecule. That is one C60 molecule per thousand trillion molecules in the human body. We're talking homeopathic dilutions here, not pharmacology. Dr. Andrievsky has just implied that he believes in homeopathy, and it indeed appears that his business model is selling homeopathic remedies that ride on trial successes of experiments performed by himself, but with Hydrated fullerene concentrations that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, when purchased from his company.

I found many statements that "do not compute" and I am just going to list a bunch of calculations with moles and Daltons and prices and concentrations, no "nastiness" as I have just been accused of.

Then, if my calculations are wrong, I can be corrected here.

[niner]

As you have noted earlier
"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»

It means, that for 21 days the person accepts C60HyFn in a total dose approximately 3 microg or 0,04 micro/kg.
If rats accept 21 day Ñ60-ÎÎ in a dose 1700 microg/kg (1.7 mg/kg) per day than the total C60 dose will equal to 35 000 microg/kg.
Let's divide 35 000 on 0.04 and we will receive value of an order 1 000 000.

There's a problem with this analysis. The rats that got 1.7 mg/kg weren't being given a minimal therapeutic dose, they were being given a huge dose as part of a toxicity test. The idea was to try to induce a toxic effect, thus the dose was very large. As we continue to gain experience with c60-oo, it is becoming apparent that therapeutic doses are as low as 500 micrograms for an average adult, or perhaps lower. In your 2009 radioprotection paper, it was seen that the 1 mg/kg dose was distinctly more protective than the 0.1 mg/kg dose, so it seems that c60-oo and HyFn are of relatively similar potency.

With c60-oo, we've observed an extremely long duration of action. Have you characterized the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of HyFn? Is it also extremely long lasting, or is it better to dose frequently?

Have you ever looked at the distribution of HyFn in different cellular or sub-cellular compartments? This would probably require that you synthesize a 14C-labeled HyFn, which perhaps you have done in the past. Biological distribution experiments with other fullerene compounds have found them to be located in membranes, but I would expect to find HyFn in the cytosol and other aqueous compartments.

[Turnbuckle]

Am I mistaken that in reply #35 you imply that you believe in Homeopathy?

I refer to http://www.ipacom.co...duction-left/88 for my reference of $425000,- for 1 l of your product FWS144, with 144 mg C60.

Since homeopathy works even where there are no molecules of the original material left, you could buy a ml and dilute it endlessly. You would never run out.

[pleb]

or dilute it with olive oil and sell it for half the price !!!

[Andey]

I rethougth and deleted this post ) Hope this thread will return to scientific discussion, thanks to Niner )
Happy holidays ))

Edited by Andey, 29 December 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[Logic]

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

Yes; way overpriced considering how easy it is to make.

http://www.longecity...post__p__527984

[maxwatt]

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

Yes; way overpriced considering how easy it is to make.

http://www.longecity...post__p__527984

If it were lower priced they'd have to make it up on volume; considering how much they sell, primarily to researchers purchasing for institutions it's likely a fair price. For retail consumption, not so much.

That is a very interesting thread you linked to. Thank you. I'd missed it

[GVA]

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.

About similar action of C60HyFn small doses it is possible to look in the official reports about pre-clinical tests of “Water with Hydrated Fullerene” (= "C60Water of Life" TM) on
http://www.ipacom.com/images/Articles/report_pre_clinical_pharm_en.pdf ,
(Para 7. (on page 63) Study of the influence of C60FWS on the processes of cytolysis, lipid peroxidation (LPO) and antioxidant protection in rats under conditions of subchronic liver lesion, induced by ethanol and tetrachlormethane.)

[GVA]

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

Really, if people with normal health accept or Ñ60_OO or water solutions of C60HyFn they should not feel any essential changes. Changes will be observed when with health not everything is all right.

[SarahVaughter]

I just read that page you refer to. No "small doses" were used, as far as I can see. Nowhere do you mention in that study how many mg C60/kg body weight was used, only how many ml/kg of an unspecified concentration of HyFn.
From that data, I conclude that if FWS144 was used, the dose was absolutely gigantic, instead of "small". In spite of the enormous dosages used, nowhere in that study do you claim any kind of dramatically protective effect such as in the Baathi study, where the entire control group died in hours from liver failure, whereas the C60-in-oil group survived with healthy livers.

[GVA]

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.

In the true science there should not be a concept "believe it or not". My relation to homoeopathy is based only on the strict scientific facts, and also is connected with understanding of special properties of water and behaviour in it of substances in small and super-small concentration. Also I agree on many points with opinion of Professor Martin Chaplin (SBU, London) as it is necessary to perceive homoeopathy. Pl see on http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html (I recommend it very much!)

[Turnbuckle]

I just read that page you refer to. No "small doses" were used, as far as I can see. Nowhere do you mention in that study how many mg C60/kg body weight was used, only how many ml/kg of an unspecified concentration of HyFn.
From that data, I conclude that if FWS144 was used, the dose was absolutely gigantic, instead of "small". In spite of the enormous dosages used, nowhere in that study do you claim any kind of dramatically protective effect such as in the Baathi study, where the entire control group died in hours from liver failure, whereas the C60-in-oil group survived with healthy livers.

He does say what he's using. -- “As concentrated C60FWS, provided for the study, is a liquid, containing 1 mg/l of active substance,” and later he says he’s using 1.8 ml/kg of that preparation. Which would be 1.8 microgram/kg, or 155 micrograms for a rat of my size. Could such a small amount have an effect? I think so, as I noted strong negative effects from taking a 500 microgram mixture of C60/C70, and I'm pretty sure it was only the C70 that was responsible. That was only 140 micrograms of C70. This was a real dose, however, and obviously did not depend on water memory or any such nonsense, especially considering it was an oil mixture.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 29 December 2012 - 04:15 PM.

[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.

In the true science there should not be a concept "believe it or not".

There are some things that come up so often that one can't waste time examining every mistaken assumption or debunking every fallacious result. Like perpetual motion, which has gone by any number of names and thousands of incarnations. The simplest approach is just to point to the second law of thermodynamics and say it's impossible. Now with C60 you are using a real dose. It's small, but many drugs are active at such concentrations, and thus homeopathic explanations are not necessary.

[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

Really, if people with normal health accept or Ñ60_OO or water solutions of C60HyFn they should not feel any essential changes. Changes will be observed when with health not everything is all right.

that may be the case if the amount of fullerine and the solution were equal but those taking C60- oo are taking much larger amounts of fullerine per mli litre compared to that in your mix,
don't you think that would make a difference initially,

Edited by pleb, 29 December 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[SarahVaughter]

I also have difficulties seeing the effect in the study, Turnbuckle. In the Baathi study, all C60-treated rats survived the liver-toxic treatment, whereas the control group died. I see no noteworthy effects in the HyFn experiment, but I may be wrong. Being an aspie, I find the OP's studies to be impenetrable.

[GVA]

Sarah,

According to the IPAC website, the recommended concentration for C60HyFn as a dietary supplement is .002 mg/l. So, the 144 mg/l product you are referring to is meant to be diluted first if used at the concentration mentioned above. Once diluted to the proper concentration, this would supply about 72,000 courses. This would equate to roughly $5.90 per course.

Obviously, the 144 mg/l product isn't meant for the average 'Joe Longevity' to purchase. I'm sure it's intended for health/science institutions. The lower concentrations are better suited for individuals.

Thanks for your help to answer for Sarah as of her present and future questions!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All!
Best wishes in 2013 year!
But sometimes we should have a rest!
Sincerely yours,
GVA

[GVA]

I just read that page you refer to. No "small doses" were used, as far as I can see. Nowhere do you mention in that study how many mg C60/kg body weight was used, only how many ml/kg of an unspecified concentration of HyFn.
From that data, I conclude that if FWS144 was used, the dose was absolutely gigantic, instead of "small". In spite of the enormous dosages used, nowhere in that study do you claim any kind of dramatically protective effect such as in the Baathi study, where the entire control group died in hours from liver failure, whereas the C60-in-oil group survived with healthy livers.

FWS144 is one of concentrates from which it is possible to prepare a certain prototype of "C60Water…" (not for advertising, see an example on http://www.ipacom.co...es/r_fws_en.pdf) and after that please make own calculations.

[trance]

What if it is the "impurity" microgram doses of C70 that is actually causing all the beneficial effects being noted in C60oo & HyFn, and not C60 at all?

[niner]

What if it is the "impurity" microgram doses of C70 that is actually causing all the beneficial effects being noted in C60oo & HyFn, and not C60 at all?

C60 and C70 are relatively similar, and have similar properties. I can't rule out this hypothesis, but if it were the case, then instead of explaining the effects that GVA has seen at picomolar doses, you'd have to explain them for femtomolar doses. It's possible to get very high purity sublimed c60 that would have an even lower c70 content, or, alternatively, you could get high purity C70, and see if it's effective at doses that are three orders of magnitude lower than we're using for 99.95% C60. I have a strong feeling that C60 is the active agent, and I suspect that c70 may also work, perhaps not as well. Turnbuckle was experimenting with a c70 mixture, noted some strange pains, and decided to stop taking it.

[Turnbuckle]

In my experience C70 was very different from C60, but there is a remote possibility that it was the even higher fullerenes that were responsible for the weird pains I experienced. The mix I used was 28% C70 and 2% higher in EVOO, and I was taking 250 micrograms twice a day, so that amounted to 140 micrograms daily of C70 and 10 micrograms daily of a variety of higher fullerenes. I previously used as much as 10 mg of C60 for several days at 99.5% purity, so that would have been a maximum of 15 micrograms of fullerenes higher than C60. I didn't notice any pains at that dose. In any case, I've switched to 99.95% purity and lowered the dose to 1.3 mg weekly, which would reduce my C70+ exposure to about one tenth microgram per day.

As for the higher fullerenes being the actual active ingredient, I doubt that. There is one paper that someone posted that said C70 was preferably attracted to the endoplasmic reticulum (as I recall, perhaps incorrectly) instead of the mitochondria as with C60. But the increase in oxygen utilization that some have seen points to the mitochondria.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 29 December 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[SarahVaughter]

I wrote my POV on hydrated fullerenes as currently sold by Dr. Andrievsky here:

http://c60antiaging....omeopathy-scam/

If anyone finds errors in it, I'd like to hear, so I can correct things. Images etc. are used in Fair use (scientific discussion & criticism).

If my article constitutes libel, I am sure that a company like IPAC can take case of legal matters.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 29 December 2012 - 08:40 PM.