I certainly understand your conflict: one of the problems, I suspect, lies in the contrast between norms of the internet world and real life: particularly in domains where we have little knowledge. The internet pools people together of, at times, obscure interests and seduces within us a sense of normality within that community. Last year I became interested in fasting - I undertook a 7 day water-fast, this was fairly draw-dropping to the inhabitants of my real-life world, yet on the fasting forums it wouldn’t have seemed to be a noteworthy fast - there were guys climbing everest, doing 30 day fasts and I was at base-camp. I recall one guy saying he just completed a ‘quick 7-day fast’: I felt a little belittled! The contrast between the virtual and real-world communities was stark: probably more so here.
Of course, I would be confident of doing longer fasts knowing there are people ploughing tougher fields: advanced parties as it were. Fasting, of course, has a history, (although not extensively researched within the science community but that is changing). And well, when I say knowing there are people ploughing the fields, therein lies the problem, I am trusting in the judgement of people I’ve never met or spoken to. Nevertheless, it is a judgement and mostly, a reasonable one, I suspect.
The key question is: what is the cost in delay. This is down to each individual’s risk profile One year in human trials we can probably conclude the water, at least, in the c60 pool is warm. But if we’re holding back because we want the bacterial water analysis results of the pool-water, we’ll probably be waiting a long time: it’s hard to imagine we are going to receive the news within a couple years that c60 is safe for people - only that we are more confident it is safer. But in waiting, for the short term, we might receive news that will actively discourage us from taking c60, but probably nothing, I can imagine, that will in a highly significant way clinch us into stepping in the breach. I defer though, to better judgement, if that’s not the case.
Since it is early stages, one would imagine there is much to be learnt in one year (doubling the length of current human trials): how significant is the value of that information, against one additional year of aging? The cost of a year of age depends on the individual. Being non-technical, I at least struggle to grasp what it is that it is likely to emerge. As I pointed out in one post, it is difficult to establish entry-level criteria - but I’ve probably reached a decision.
I would say that in age at least, you are comparable in risk profile to the likes of niner and turnbuckle. Their judgement to take c60 could be completely wrong, (expert judgement in life isn’t often flawed); but you know in these guys their judgement is sophisticated, non-casual and they are extremely mindful about their health, probably more than anyone you or I know. But all of us are prone to cognitive biases which tend to distort risk and human judgement in this sphere is pretty poor.
In summary, I would think, if you are waiting for information to put you off taking c60 then there is some value in waiting but conversely, if you’re holding back waiting for rubber-stamped approval, a grand statement before taking the plunge then I suspect you will wait a long time: at least that is how I see it. I stand to be corrected, though.
My advice is very broad-brushed (I have no knowledge in this field) and there are very many better qualified than I to advise you. No doubt you could find a community of experts in the medical world who would think it highly irrational to take c60 at this stage (as one could infer from one poster’s interaction within the medical field on this forum): it is very tough to be objective and your (and my) worldview could change easily with exposure to a different community of thinking. For the better? Who knows? Good luck.
You talking about the fasting and how those in the real world reacted reminded me of an interview with Dick Gregory comic and activist and him talking about his first political fast/hunger strike in the 60-70s. In the first days of it he held a press conference and told the reporters he had stopped eating (he was drinking lots of water though). Well the reporters were shock and started asking him how long he thought he had before his DEATH. They were so insistent that it would kill him he got worried, even though he had gotten an OK from his doctor to do it. With the press conference over he called his doctor more than a little worried and the doctor asked him one question. How do you feel? He said great and lots of energy and his doctor told him theirs your answer. Things don't change much and ignorance is everywhere.
On the subject of to take C60 or not it may not be about lifespan directly as some of us have noticed benefits such as a large resistance to burns and other odd little bonuses, that seem to come from taking it. I burn one and then the other hand with the flame of propane torch, in days of starting it and other than extreme pain for about 4 hours it did not react like any burn I have ever seen. You couldn't tell by looking I had burned them and not even pain or soreness after about 6 hours. In a week or two I notice those areas felt different to the touch and hard and cracking and I peeled this up, and underneath this plasticly surface skin beginning to crack and come up it looked more like baby skin, and I am 65. A few months later I burned the back of my hand in an oven while cooking. Pain for hours, but nothing afterword. This summer in 100 degree heat at an altitude of 4,000 feet where I live I went out in my Tshirt, with pale white skin and no tan for 2 hours with my weedeater and came back in. No sunburn and within hours a tan was showing up, and I have not tanned that fast and easy since I was a young child.
In my view it is safer to have it in you then not, even if no extension of lifespan results from aging, and maybe a lot safer.
