166 replies to this topic

[Hebbeh]

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).

You deserve to be sued for libel.

[SarahVaughter]

Dr. Andrievsky deserves to be sued for making claims that are a criminal offense in the US and Europe, namely claiming that his homeopathic food supplement can cure and prevent disease.

If you disagree with my article, it would be more productive to point out mistakes. Channel your anger into something useful.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 29 December 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[daouda]

I must say I'm quite suprised by this article (its form, not so much its substance - and that's all I'll say)

Edited by daouda, 29 December 2012 - 09:15 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

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.

I started reading this but the comparison to a UFO researcher based solely on appearance was too much. You should stick to the facts.

[SarahVaughter]

The facts are that Dr. Andrievsky uses cheap tricks to appear more authoritative than he really is.

I have great respect for genuine UFO researchers. Rael certainly is not amongst them.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 29 December 2012 - 09:06 PM.

[GVA]

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.

Dear NINER and Turnbuckle,
Excuse me, but it is real, all is more complex problems than it seems. Complexity is what? It consists that on this forum the questions stimulated here go beyond the scope of the forum. One of them (question) is discussed on the Annual Conference on the Physics, Chemistry and Biology of Water <http://www.watercon....08/index2.html>, and in my report (primary, in the list) you can see on <http://www.watercon....abstracts.html>.
And, if it is short, Ñ60 and C70 influences on water (organises and supports water structures) by various manner. Hence, it is possible to expect various biological effects C60 and C70.

Irrespective of it, and once again,
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All!

[Turnbuckle]

The facts are that Dr. Andrievsky uses cheap tricks to appear more authoritative than he really is.

I have great respect for genuine UFO researchers. Rael certainly is not amongst them.

But what is the connection? That they both wear turtlenecks and have beards? Come on, now.

[trance]

The facts are that Dr. Andrievsky uses cheap tricks to appear more authoritative than he really is.

I have great respect for genuine UFO researchers. Rael certainly is not amongst them.

But what is the connection? That they both wear turtlenecks and have beards? Come on, now.

I found that portion of the article extremely odd as well ...

It must be a whole different world being a vendor of C60 that we're just not attuned with.

[Kevnzworld]

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.

I read SV 's " critique " of Andrievsky and his water of life product. She did make a few good points, but they were obscured by the exaggerated personal attacks. This is a guy that has published dozens of peer reviewed scientific studies on C60 for almost 15 years. Whatever you think of " water of life ". , his expertise on the subject is undeniable.
I think SV would have been better served by just sticking to the science. His grammar and syntax is " off " because English is not his first language (!!! ). Making fun of that is low, and childish.
The UFO charlatan comparison based on clothing style is shocking in its audacity.
Andey is " his sock puppet " . ?
And I thought the SV vs Anthony thread was salacious ....wow.

Edited by Kevnzworld, 30 December 2012 - 01:08 AM.

[niner]

When Pfizer can make Lipitor for pennies, and earns a hundred billion dollars selling it at an enormous markup, we call that "Intellectual Property", the foundation of capitalism in the modern world. When Dr. Andrievsky works for the better part of two decades to characterize and demonstrate the efficacy of HyFn, finally obtains official approval and sells it at a huge markup, Sarah calls it a "scam". That doesn't seem consistent.

I pulled up some of Dr. Andrievsky's papers from pubmed, and of four in vivo applications, the '07 antiamyloid paper used a dose of 5 mcg/ventricle, the '08 EtOH paper didn't give a dose in the abstract, but did mention "efficacy even in super-small doses". The '08 radioprotection paper is the only one that uses a really large dose, 1 mg/kg for the best response. the '11 paper on diabetes used a dose of 4 mcg/kg orally in water. Aside from the radioprotection paper, which is a very unusual application, the rest of these are pretty low, with the diabetes paper approaching the low end of doses that have been used with c60-oo, if you don't do any interspecies scaling. It's true that in order to replicate the doses used in these papers, you would have to use a lot of HyFn in the dilution at which it's sold. In America, it would be illegal to make such health claims for a supplement, which seems to be how it's classified in Ukraine. Apparently health claims are ok there. I don't know if the claims are justified at the dose that's recommended, although they might be. I would need to do some more digging.

My advice to Sarah would be to delete the entire piece that you linked here. It's an unjustified and vitriolic screed, as it stands, and is unbecoming. If you want to comment on specific health claims and the evidence for them, that seems reasonable, providing that you skip the ad hominem part.

[Andey]

Andey is " his sock puppet " . ?

Hmm... I even didn't know how to react, it's out of my understanding. I can only advise Sarah to seek for psychiatric help, seriously.

[SarahVaughter]

@kvnzworld:

I have spent very much time (approx. 1 year) in various former soviet republics, met many scientists there, but I never met a scientist who uses four exclamation marks behind his sentences regularly. That kind of "style" has nothing to do with not having English as a native language, that kind of style is the kind of style of someone who is manic, a person who proclaims that he has the "answer to life" as Dr. Andrievsky does, "correcting" a Nobel prize winner and making wild, unsubstantiated health claims.


@niner:

You are using a straw man, claiming that I have said that Big Pharma are not scammers. From the about page on my site:

"Sarah is no fan of Big Pharma - she considers it a criminal kartel - and the worldwide legislation they lobbied for, Codex Alimentarius."

As to me attacking a person's style of dressing: When a person goes over the top in using the way he presents himself in his works of propaganda, to inspire confidence in his science then that is a bad sign and certainly should be mentioned in an overall critique. "Dressing up as a guru" is standard procedure with kooks and scammers but it is very rare in legitimate scientists. Since Dr. Andrievsky is an admitted Homeopathist and since there is no science apart from his own to back up his outrageously expensive "mother tincture", he squarely falls in the scammer category to me. Your accusation of "ad hominem" is inappropriate, because "ad hominem" is or should be reserved for non-arguments directly against the person such as "you are an asshole", not for: "You spend a lot of money and effort on paraphernalia in order to create an illusion of competence". All I am doing is pointing out aspects of the show he puts on, nowhere am I directly attacking his very person. When you dress up like a guru, expect to be called out on it. Legitimate gurus do not need to dress up to put on a show.


@Andey: I dislike being called mentally ill just for my opinion. I know that when you were younger, in the Ukraine, people with a dissenting opinion were routinely locked up in mental hospitals. But you should let go of that mindset.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 31 December 2012 - 07:11 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Well, Sarah, I don't agree with you in attacking people like this and it seemed at first a bad business plan, but what do I know? I've never been any good at business and it now occurs to me that creating any sort of controversy might be a good thing. The oil-and-water-don't-mix controversy. Lorenzo’s oil vs the Fountain of Youth, etc. There's potential, I'll admit.

[SarahVaughter]

It is not I who is creating a controversy, but the OP. The OP claims (see the title of this thread) that C60-in-oil does not cause longevity. In effect, he says that my product and the product of "Carbon" and Revgenetics only work because they are "contaminated" with his patented homeopathic product. If we let this stand, the next step may be that he'll claim that we (3 companies) are frauds and that we'll have to pay him licence fees.

Now, if Mr. Andrievsky had been a reputable scientist, we would not have much to work with, in terms of our defense. However, someone who dresses up like a cult leader, uses childish style all over his writings, "corrects" a Nobel prize winner, believes in Homeopathy and charges half a million dollars for a liter of his mother tincture which contains three dollars worth of C60 but claims he never had the money to do a small-scale rat longevity study with his product, someone who has no other evidence to prove his (illegal all over the western world) health claims than his own research, there are so many holes in his story that it was easy to mount a defense.

Note that in the 18 years of his "extensive C60 research", he never had the money to buy 18 rats and feed them for half a dozen years. He states in this thread that he wanted to do a similar study as the Baathi study, but that he never got the money together for 18 rats, a cage, a bag of food and a little of his own hydrated fullerenes. And neither will he have the funds in the future. Yet we have to believe his claim that hydrated fullerenes caused the longevity, not the lipofullerenes?

Pulling rank and saying: "Because he studied fullerenes for 18 years, you have to believe him" is not a valid argument. In science, it is studies that count. He never produced any evidence for his claim that he presents in this thread. Pointing out the lack of evidence is not "being nasty" or "mentally ill", it is being sceptical.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 30 December 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[niner]

It is not I who is creating a controversy, but the OP. The OP claims (see the title of this thread) that C60-in-oil does not cause longevity. In effect, he says that my product and the product of "Carbon" and Revgenetics only work because they are "contaminated" with his patented homeopathic product. If we let this stand, the next step may be that he'll claim that we (3 companies) are frauds and that we'll have to pay him licence fees.

I don't see that happening. I think that GVA was trying to stimulate scientific discussion. In order to make you pay him license fees, he would have to show that there was a significant amount of HyFn in your product, and that the effects of C60-oo were due to that and not an intrinsic property. If he wants to sue you, you've given him a pretty good case with your libelous screed. I continue to advise you to delete it before any more damage is done. You've managed to be insulting to GVA, to Andey, and now to the entire nation of Ukraine! Honestly, I find this despicable. You are following in Anthony's footsteps, damaging yourself far more than you are damaging your competitors.

What is it about c60 vendors and self-immolation?

[SarahVaughter]

Where did I insult the nation of Ukraine??

You are entitled to your opinion on the motives of the OP. He has been claiming that it is his product, not C60-EVOO, responsible for the anti-aging effects. Unless he presents evidence, I consider his repeated postings commercial SPAM for a homeopathic product with unproven efficacy.

As to all the claims made about curing cancer and Alzheimer and Diabetes - they are not only a criminal offense everywhere, including likely in the Ukraine itself, but they are extremely bad taste and wholly unsubstantiated.

I hope he will publicly distance himself from these claims.

As to your threat that if I do not cease posting my opinion, I will suffer financial damage: I do not post for financial motives. I post to have a civillized discussion about the scientific merits of certain claims. If I were mainly interested in making money, I would be making similar claims about our C60 product as Mr. Andrievsky and/or his sales force/affiliates is/are making. I am on the record as saying that I do not believe that our product can cure disease or make healthy people healthier. I am also on the record in saying that I do not believe in any short-term beneficial effects. Andrievsky should first behave as a responsible scientist, then he can be taken seriously.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 30 December 2012 - 04:12 PM.

[SarahVaughter]

As to who will suffer financial damage: I contributed to the organization that made you a moderator, but since you insulted me, I see no reason why we would continue donating money to its causes. Noone likes to be called "despicable" by an organization they just gave money to. We already withdrew $2400,- in advertizing that we had already paid - now there will be no more donations either. I was very excited about having found imminst and I was planning to donate much more money to various projects. Before you say that it was self-serving to donate money: I don't think so, because in a mere 2.5 years it can now be established that C60-in-EVOO does not work to prolong the lives of rats after all, collapsing the C60 market before it takes off. We donated to establish the truth, not to serve our agenda. We would not want to charge people for a product that does not work, hence we wanted to be sure that it works.

I thought I had discovered a forum where people could refrain from insulting those with different opinions. Perhaps your organization will get more donations when their moderators stop slandering those that disagree with their beliefs.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 30 December 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[SarahVaughter]

And, niner, you have failed as a moderator. Someone who writes a one-liner with the advice to seek psychiatric help is in clear violation of your terms of service, and that posting should have been deleted by you, not endorsed. I have just PM'ed the principals of imminst that it is your failure as a moderator to prevent personal abuse from happening, as well as you yourself personally abusing me, that there will be no more donations forthcoming from my company.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 30 December 2012 - 04:31 PM.

[Andey]

@Andey: I dislike being called mentally ill just for my opinion. I know that when you were younger, in the Ukraine, people with a dissenting opinion were routinely locked up in mental hospitals. But you should let go of that mindset.

You didnt understand me, this is not a personal attack, although I have right to answer like this after your ridiculous insult.
From the begining your behavior in this forum looks inadequate. Your attitude to people looks shifted. This produced 3 or more scandalous threads here.
In this thread you didnt argue, you tried to humiliate your opponent instead, what is looked rude and uncivilized.
When somebody continiously behave inadequete most probably she is inadequete. I am really think you need to look at youself from the side and consult somebody on this matter.


As for your insult I will talk your words
I dislike being called "sock puppet" just for my opinion. And my opinion is still the same - Nobody could sell unproven and untested on human substances and at same time call yourself doctor or medical scientist. All your clients encouraged by advertisement on your site could loose own health because of you. Even more - if Turnbackle right and daily regimen (that you propose on your site) is dangerous your clients WILL loose own health because of you.

P.S. For your accusation you could check my posts and log thread - and see that I bought few bottles from you and didnt say wrong word about it, I also trialed C60HyFn from Andrievsky and my conclusion is far from advertisement of it.

[Andey]

May be can finish this scandal somehow ? Honestly, such "discussions" make this forum quite unpleasant place to be.

[SarahVaughter]

So you say I am maybe endangering people's health and at the same time you're asking me not to respond to those extremely serious allegations?

You, as Andrievsky's #1 cheerleader, don't you believe him when he says that C60 is non-toxic then? And Baathi is wrong too, when he says that C60 is non-toxic?

Edited by SarahVaughter, 30 December 2012 - 05:01 PM.

[Andey]

So you say I am endangering people's health and at the same time you're asking me not to respond to those extremely serious allegations?

You, as Andrievsky's #1 cheerleader, don't you believe him when he says that C60 is non-toxic then? And Baathi is wrong too, when he says that C60 is non-toxic?

I dont know why I need to say you obvious things. There is huge difference between GMP tested and untested drugs. I dont trust anybody in this matter especcially drug creators or sellers.
Should C60oo and C60HyFn and any other substance be tested for longtime safety ? (toxicity is only one and tiny aspect of it)
Yes
Should everybody who administrate it be aware of GREAT risk ?
Yes
Even now we can assume that administrating C60oo when you have an autoimmune disorder can be dangerous. If C60 really extends our lifes significantly it must have large influence on many systems in human body, therefore it will have very long list of precautions and side effects. This is not hot cakes on main street sales.

At the end I am software developer and this is not my job to tell doctor things like that )

P.S. By answering your post I didnt agree that I somebodies cheerleader, for me its about respect and politeness in this forum.
I abandoned this thread with relief and return only when saw eventually Kevnzworld citing.
If you can live without disscusion with me I will appreciate this, if I owe you apologies for been rude or something like this - than I give you my apologies.

[SarahVaughter]

It's pretty obvious who you are cheerleading for, when you suddenly change the subject, warning people that they may get sick when they use a product that competes with hydrated fullerenes.

The topic of this thread is not that C60-in-olive oil may be a dangerous substance, the topic is the claim that C60-in-olive oil only works because it contains hydrated fullerenes.

When I ask for evidence, someone from the same country (Ukraine) as the OP suddenly starts to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about a product that competes with hydrated fullerenes, instead of answering critical questions about hydrated fullerenes.

The fact that a homeopathic product has been given the green light in the Ukraine is not evidence for the health claims being made for it, neither is it evidence that C60 in oil is dangerous. Let's stick to the topic of this thread instead of attacking C60 in olive oil. Defend "your" product and the claims of the OP, since his claims are the topic of this thread. Deflecting critical questions by attacking the competing product of the one asking them is a very transparent discussion trick.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 30 December 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[Andey]

It's pretty obvious who you are cheerleading for, when you suddenly change the subject, warning people that they may get sick when they use a product that competes with hydrated fullerenes.

The topic of this thread is not that C60-in-olive oil may be a dangerous substance, the topic is the claim that C60-in-olive oil only works because it contains hydrated fullerenes.

When I ask for evidence, someone from the same country (Ukraine) as the OP suddenly starts to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about a product that competes with hydrated fullerenes, instead of answering critical questions about hydrated fullerenes.

The fact that a homeopathic product has been given the green light in the Ukraine is not evidence for the health claims being made for it, neither is it evidence that C60 in oil is dangerous. Let's stick to the topic of this thread instead of attacking C60 in olive oil. Defend "your" product and the claims of the OP, since his claims are the topic of this thread. Deflecting critical questions by attacking the competing product of the one asking them is a very transparent discussion trick.

You miss the point completely on the matter what I wrote above.

[Turnbuckle]

It is not I who is creating a controversy, but the OP. The OP claims (see the title of this thread) that C60-in-oil does not cause longevity. In effect, he says that my product and the product of "Carbon" and Revgenetics only work because they are "contaminated" with his patented homeopathic product. If we let this stand, the next step may be that he'll claim that we (3 companies) are frauds and that we'll have to pay him licence fees.

I don't see any patents with his name on them. Do you know of any?

[Turnbuckle]

Since GVA speculates that EVOO works and corn oil does not because of the presence or absence of chlorophyll, I'm making up a batch with extra chlorophyll to see if I can tell any difference. Before filtering, this batch contains 0.7 mg/ml C60 in EVOO and 1 mg/ml freeze-dried blue-green algae, with the algae and C60 ground together in a stainless steel mortar.

[Hebbeh]

Since GVA speculates that EVOO works and corn oil does not because of the presence or absence of chlorophyll, I'm making up a batch with extra chlorophyll to see if I can tell any difference. Before filtering, this batch contains 0.7 mg/ml C60 in EVOO and 1 mg/ml freeze-dried blue-green algae, with the algae and C60 ground together in a stainless steel mortar.

If I understood correctly, it was supposed to be the water content of the natural chlorophyll in the EVOO that was allowing the formation of HyFn. Freeze-dried chlorophyll would have the water content removed and not contribute to any potential HyFn. A better experiment would be to add C60 to a corn oil and water emulsion.

[Turnbuckle]

Since GVA speculates that EVOO works and corn oil does not because of the presence or absence of chlorophyll, I'm making up a batch with extra chlorophyll to see if I can tell any difference. Before filtering, this batch contains 0.7 mg/ml C60 in EVOO and 1 mg/ml freeze-dried blue-green algae, with the algae and C60 ground together in a stainless steel mortar.

If I understood correctly, it was supposed to be the water content of the natural chlorophyll in the EVOO that was allowing the formation of HyFn. Freeze-dried chlorophyll would have the water content removed and not contribute to any potential HyFn. A better experiment would be to add C60 to a corn oil and water emulsion.

There's a little water in oils and there's a little water in freeze dried products. If it's the chlorophyll that makes the difference, I should see something, for as he says, the amount of C60 being used in EVOO is relatively enormous compared to the hydrated C60 he's using. Of course, you are free to do your own experiments.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 30 December 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Since GVA speculates that EVOO works and corn oil does not because of the presence or absence of chlorophyll, I'm making up a batch with extra chlorophyll to see if I can tell any difference. Before filtering, this batch contains 0.7 mg/ml C60 in EVOO and 1 mg/ml freeze-dried blue-green algae, with the algae and C60 ground together in a stainless steel mortar.

If I understood correctly, it was supposed to be the water content of the natural chlorophyll in the EVOO that was allowing the formation of HyFn. Freeze-dried chlorophyll would have the water content removed and not contribute to any potential HyFn. A better experiment would be to add C60 to a corn oil and water emulsion.

There's a little water in oils and there's a little water in freeze dried products. If it's the chlorophyll that makes the difference, I should see something, for as he says, the amount of C60 being used in EVOO is relatively enormous compared to the hydrated C60 he's using. Of course, you are free to do your own experiments.

Perhaps eventually. I've resorted to the low tech hand shake method and have enough C60/EVOO to last me at least 6 months. Perhaps I will invest in a sonificator to experiment as the method described to make HyFn in another post used C60 dissolved in toluene sonified into water and then evaporated the toluene which I find scary if not done correctly. A safer DIY method might be to dissolve C60 in oil and then sonify into water. I'll need more equipment besides an empty bottle and vigorous shaking. But it would be interesting.

[niner]

Since GVA speculates that EVOO works and corn oil does not because of the presence or absence of chlorophyll, I'm making up a batch with extra chlorophyll to see if I can tell any difference. Before filtering, this batch contains 0.7 mg/ml C60 in EVOO and 1 mg/ml freeze-dried blue-green algae, with the algae and C60 ground together in a stainless steel mortar.

If I understood correctly, it was supposed to be the water content of the natural chlorophyll in the EVOO that was allowing the formation of HyFn. Freeze-dried chlorophyll would have the water content removed and not contribute to any potential HyFn. A better experiment would be to add C60 to a corn oil and water emulsion.

There's a little water in oils and there's a little water in freeze dried products. If it's the chlorophyll that makes the difference, I should see something, for as he says, the amount of C60 being used in EVOO is relatively enormous compared to the hydrated C60 he's using. Of course, you are free to do your own experiments.

Maybe I mis-read it, but I thought that GVA's idea was that chlorophyll and/or polyphenols formed charge-transfer complexes with c60, and that these complexes became hydrated only after consuming them, the chlorophyll or polyphenol being displaced by water in the body. If this happens at all, in my opinion it would only be a very minor side reaction. It's not consistent with Cataldo's spectroscopic data that shows intense bands outside of the CT region. Cataldo does see a very small CT peak, so there must be some sort of complex formation. I think a good way to test this would be to try to make an adduct using corn oil or some other oil that's free of both polyphenols and chlorophyll. I think you'll get a red product just like with olive oil, and it will have the same biological effects. I would try it myself but I'm fresh out of c60.