OK here's my response to the most recent comments:
- I don't think KMoody is lying about his HPLC results. He did find another band in the light-exposed C60OO.
- We know that there's evidence that C60 absorbs light and creates free radicals as a result.
- There is a very high likelihood that whatever is being created by light exposure in C60OO is not what we want, whether it is highly carcinogenic or not.
- Even taking C60OO at all is potentially risky and very speculative, since it is based on a single very small study. So maximizing safety is probably a good idea.
- We also know from the original paper that the C60OO used in the study was scrupulously kept in the dark.
The prudent thing to do is to make sure that you have the best quality material, and that means that it should be made according to the original specifications, which include keeping it scrupulously in the dark at all times. No manufacturer that I know of promises that this is the case, so it would be imprudent to assume that it is.
Where does that leave us (in my opinion)? Either:
a) Make it yourself according to the specifications in the paper (keeping it in the dark)
b) Trust that random manufacturers who have not committed to keeping it in the dark are nevertheless doing so
c) Assume that KMoody was lying or that the extra band he found via HPLC is completely harmless
Of these, the most prudent seems to be a).
Now if there was a manufacturer who did commit to in-the-dark production, perhaps documented it, and shipped the product in bottles that were really light-protective (for example something like Miron Violetglass), it could be more reasonable to trust manufactured C60OO.
But for me (someone who just took 15mg of rapamycin yesterday), the risk of buying a potentially toxic product is just not worth the convenience.
The fear in this response is out of proportion with the publications that looked for C60 toxicity and rather found benefits or a complete lack of toxicity, even with ultra-high doses.
Similarly, taking C60 is based on considerably more evidence than the single Fathi Moussa study.
One that explained how C60 could be made to create toxicity is attached.
Others looked for toxicity and found none or found benefits. Here I list just two.
http://exp-oncology..../2011/11/10.pdf
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jts/37/2/37_2_353/_pdf
"Since rapamycin-based therapy suppresses immune function and may cause serious side effects such as thrombocytopenia and hyperlipidemia, impaired wound healing, nephrotoxicity, and altered insulin sensitivity, the safety of long-term use still remains uncertain."
https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3972801/
With all due respect, rapamycin has much more published data that have inhibited me from experimenting with it. Taking rapamycin, especially over a long term seems considerably more dangerous than taking C60oo that is produced by several vendors that state that they manufacture it in UV-free environments. As well, making it at home simply requires that the mixing takes place without UV exposure.
On balance, C60oo has been shown to be considerably safer than rapamycin.
.
Attached Files
Edited by mikey, 15 August 2019 - 08:54 PM.