131 replies to this topic

[ambivalent]

Wouldn't it make sense to create a distinct thread or stickie explicitly warning of the potential risk of using SES c60oo? Not everybody on the forum will read this thread through: I'm sure many readers see themselves predominantly as c60oo users and avoid the sciency topics. Also I really feel we need a beginners guide or FAQ - citing what we understand both anecdotally and scientifically of c60oo - after the Al Jazeera expose with albeit light reference to c60 there might be a fair few people turning up on the forum's doorstep without a clue where to start.

Edited by ambivalent, 01 January 2016 - 01:28 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Wouldn't it make sense to create a distinct thread or stickie explicitly warning of the potential risk of using SES c60oo? Not everybody on the forum will read this thread through: I'm sure many readers see themselves predominantly as c60oo users and avoid the sciency topics. Also I really feel we need a beginners guide or FAQ - citing what we understand both anecdotally and scientifically of c60oo - after the Al Jazeera expose with albeit light reference to c60 there might be a fair few people turning up on the forum's doorstep without a clue where to start.

 

 

If SES is smart, they will either pull their product or change the process. 

[kmoody]

Wouldn't it make sense to create a distinct thread or stickie explicitly warning of the potential risk of using SES c60oo? Not everybody on the forum will read this thread through: I'm sure many readers see themselves predominantly as c60oo users and avoid the sciency topics. Also I really feel we need a beginners guide or FAQ - citing what we understand both anecdotally and scientifically of c60oo - after the Al Jazeera expose with albeit light reference to c60 there might be a fair few people turning up on the forum's doorstep without a clue where to start.

This is an interesting idea, though strictly speaking, we have not demonstrated anything about their product yet. We will not be able to make any claims until the ongoing studies are completed, probably within a month or so. Reporting potentially concerning trend data is different than issuing a public service announcement condemning their product. If a sticky is created, it should be very articulate about what has been shown and what has not been. I think it is important that the information we communicate accurately reflects the data we have.

 

 

Wouldn't it make sense to create a distinct thread or stickie explicitly warning of the potential risk of using SES c60oo? Not everybody on the forum will read this thread through: I'm sure many readers see themselves predominantly as c60oo users and avoid the sciency topics. Also I really feel we need a beginners guide or FAQ - citing what we understand both anecdotally and scientifically of c60oo - after the Al Jazeera expose with albeit light reference to c60 there might be a fair few people turning up on the forum's doorstep without a clue where to start.

 

If SES is smart, they will either pull their product or change the process. 

I have a call scheduled with their production head on Monday. I spoke with the owner of SES last week. He was very receptive and they are genuinely doing everything on their end to provide us with the information we require to figure out what is going on. Rather than pull their product or change the process, I think they would be wise to try to manufacture under GMP. I spoke with the owner a bit about this. While they have considered GMP manufacturing among other things, this style of manufacturing, product characterization, and pre-clinical testing represent areas that seem to be beyond the scope of their expertise.

 

Of course, SES C60 is what we used for our pilot study (which gave very favorable results), so any product issue is likely linked to the olive oil or their mixing process, not the C60 itself. Given this, I think a good direction might be for someone to source C60 from SES research, but to have the C60oo made up in a GMP facility and properly characterized for shelf-life, degradation products, etc.

 

I would certainly like to do this myself, but I am not sure if this is something my group has the bandwidth or infrastructure for... We are discussing this possibility with several of our sponsors as GMP/GLP compliance is a direction we want to move in. I just don't know if we can do it in a reasonable time-frame.

Edited by kmoody, 01 January 2016 - 03:52 PM.

[aconita]

I suspect SES embarked in a field is not their own and didn't consider enough sonification on a biological compound as olive oil and its implications.

 

Maybe C60 itself doesn't get a dent by exposure to ultrasound waves but olive oil certainly does big time.as probably any biological compound would.

 

An approach a bit superficial and not very smart at all...

[ambivalent]

I'd be very concerned if all that was done by SES was simply change the procedures or pull the product. Until its safety can be verified consumption needs to stop now; I'm sure there are customers with frozen SES c60oo who will still be consuming SES's product potentially a couple of years after it has been pulled or procedures altered.  

 

Certainly an announcement has to be carefully worded, but I'd have thought summarising what has been articulated so far in the thread is more than sufficient to provide the alert/advice people need. Any sticky would of course be updated as the research unfolds but surely it needs indefinite visibility, not lost in some long thread the title of which bears no indication of the potentially vital information it contains.

[HighDesertWizard]

I'd be very concerned if all that was done by SES was simply change the procedures or pull the product. Until its safety can be verified consumption needs to stop now; I'm sure there are customers with frozen SES c60oo who will still be consuming SES's product potentially a couple of years after it has been pulled or procedures altered.  

 

Certainly an announcement has to be carefully worded, but I'd have thought summarising what has been articulated so far in the thread is more than sufficient to provide the alert/advice people need. Any sticky would of course be updated as the research unfolds but surely it needs indefinite visibility, not lost in some long thread the title of which bears no indication of the potentially vital information it contains.

 

I strongly agree...

[stefan_001]

I looked at the SES product description:

https://sesres.com/C60-olive-oil.asp

Perhaps I am not looking well enough but I don't see a description of the manufacturing process. So you would not even know they have a special manufacturing method. Caution comes first in my opinion also. They should put sales on hold and send a note to buyers to make them aware that for their "research activities" (that is what the product is sold for) they should take into account possible risks due to the special manufacturing process. Quite frankly if they do not do that it's a signal to me that this company doesn't take ethical behavior too serious and it will stop me from buying ever anything from them.

Edited by stefan_001, 01 January 2016 - 07:08 PM.

[ambivalent]

 

Of course, SES C60 is what we used for our pilot study (which gave very favorable results), so any product issue is likely linked to the olive oil or their mixing process, not the C60 itself. Given this, I think a good direction might be for someone to source C60 from SES research, but to have the C60oo made up in a GMP facility and properly characterized for shelf-life, degradation products, etc.

 

I would certainly like to do this myself, but I am not sure if this is something my group has the bandwidth or infrastructure for... We are discussing this possibility with several of our sponsors as GMP/GLP compliance is a direction we want to move in. I just don't know if we can do it in a reasonable time-frame.

 

 

This would be great of course. The trade-off in price for the extra rigour in production would be worth it for most, I'd have thought, given the apparent downside of getting wrong. I also believe many of us would gladly pay extra if we felt some of the profits would go back into researching c60oo.

[sensei]

I looked at the SES product description:

https://sesres.com/C60-olive-oil.asp

Perhaps I am not looking well enough but I don't see a description of the manufacturing process. So you would not even know they have a special manufacturing method. Caution comes first in my opinion also. They should put sales on hold and send a note to buyers to make them aware that for their "research activities" (that is what the product is sold for) they should take into account possible risks due to the special manufacturing process. Quite frankly if they do not do that it's a signal to me that this company doesn't take ethical behavior too serious and it will stop me from buying ever anything from them.

 

As stated previously in the thread, member smithx was verbally informed of the sonication process by an SES rep when he asked about how their C60OO was manufactured.

[smithx]

Yep! Sometimes it pays to pick up the phone and call.

 

 

 

As stated previously in the thread, member smithx was verbally informed of the sonication process by an SES rep when he asked about how their C60OO was manufactured.

 

[niner]

Of course, SES C60 is what we used for our pilot study (which gave very favorable results), so any product issue is likely linked to the olive oil or their mixing process, not the C60 itself. Given this, I think a good direction might be for someone to source C60 from SES research, but to have the C60oo made up in a GMP facility and properly characterized for shelf-life, degradation products, etc.

 

I would certainly like to do this myself, but I am not sure if this is something my group has the bandwidth or infrastructure for... We are discussing this possibility with several of our sponsors as GMP/GLP compliance is a direction we want to move in. I just don't know if we can do it in a reasonable time-frame.

 

Although GMP may be required in the long term, in the near term what we'd really like to do is determine the chemical nature of c60oo.  Olive oil is a triglyceride, and the fatty acids are the part that have the functionality that c60 is known to react with.  In the body, c60oo will be digested like any other fat, meaning that the fatty acids will be removed from the glycerol backbone by a lipolytic enzyme.  C60oo is thus a prodrug, and the active agent is the fatty acid adduct.  This is a good thing for us, since it simplifies analysis.  It wouldn't require any special equipment beyond what Ichor already has to hydrolyze a sample of c60oo with a lipase, acidify the resulting mixture, and extract it into a nonpolar solvent.  With any luck, it would be possible to chromatographically separate the various free fatty acids and c60 adducts.  It's highly likely that there will be more than one adduct structure, since reaction with either oleic acid or linoleic acid should be facile.  There are other fatty acids that are minor components, as well as other dissolved substances in olive oil.   If one were to see a distinctly different peak or peaks with the SES c60oo versus the c60oo prepared according to Baati, that might point to the problem.  Ultimately it may be necessary to farm some of the analysis out to a lab with more sophisticated analytical hardware, like LC/MS and NMR.  Determining exactly what molecule is responsible for what effect is not a simple problem, but it's one that would be required in order to take a compound to the FDA.

 

Olive oil is a complex mixture, and at some level no two batches are the same.  If the active agent is a specific fatty acid adduct, it may be preferable to start with a purified version of olive oil rather than a more complex product.

[aribadabar]

Olive oil is a complex mixture, and at some level no two batches are the same.  If the active agent is a specific fatty acid adduct, it may be preferable to start with a purified version of olive oil rather than a more complex product.

 

What does purified mean in this context?

 

Thanks!

[sensei]

 

Olive oil is a complex mixture, and at some level no two batches are the same.  If the active agent is a specific fatty acid adduct, it may be preferable to start with a purified version of olive oil rather than a more complex product.

 

 

There are only 3 fatty acids that make up any significant amount of Olive Oil to matter (in order of magnitude): Oleic, Linoleic, and Palmitic.  Of those, Oleic Acid comprises anywhere from 55-83% of olive oil.

 

 Stearic Acid may comprise up to 5% but ranges from .5%-5%

 

Alpha-linoleic acid comprises 0-1.5%

 

Did you mean purified Fatty Acid vs purified Olive oil?

 

Or did you mean a permutative process by which 1-n fatty acids are removed from the olive oil

 

Wouldn't it be a better methodology to create

 

Oleic Acid C60

Linoleic Acid C60

Palmitic Acid C60

Edited by sensei, 07 January 2016 - 03:39 AM.

[niner]

There are several levels of "purity" that could be applied.  You could use a "refined" olive oil, where all the interesting stuff (polyphenols, chlorophyll, etc) is removed, and it's just a clear oil, or you could get into more elaborate schemes like creating glycerol tri-oleate, etc.   Hav, one of our members, made the c60 adduct of ethyl oleate.  As I recall, he was able to get a lot of c60 to react with it, like 2 mg/ml.  I'm not sure what would happen if you drank ethyl oleate, but this paper suggests it's safe.  At least with triglycerides, we know that the body can deal with them.   glycerol trioleate, also known at triolein, is commercially available.  It might turn out that the linoleic acid adduct is the active entity, or maybe something else, or some combination.  It's also likely that there are some oxygenated compounds, like epoxides or hydroxides, that are part of the mix.

[aconita]

I would be careful to reduce the C60oo proprieties to the fatty acids only, in facts olive oil is not just fatty acids and the health effects of olive oil goes well beyond just fatty acids, poliphenols for example definitely play a role, if that apply to C60oo too is all to be seen but can't be ruled out.  

 

Like with most biological compounds research gets in trouble due to the complexity of the chemical structure, of course it is much easier to isolate molecules in order to eliminate confounding variables but in doing so we miss the interactions and synergies that are often key to the results observed when the compound in its integrity is used.

 

Not of main concern but since I live in one of the biggest olive oil producing country I like to point out that (possibly unlike USA produced olive oil) here and in most other olive oil producing countries (like Spain, Greece, north Africa, etc..) many different farmers take their crops to a milling facility serving a relatively wide area, the olives are all trowed in 2 big piles, the green olives (harvested from the tree and much more expensive) and the black olives (harvested from the ground, naturally fallen off the tree, cheaper but undergoing a fermenting process which alters taste and composition).

 

The mill mixes up according to the quality (and price) of the intended final product the 2 piles in appropriate proportions.

 

It is easy to understand that the final product is a mix of many different olives, degree of ripeness, degree of fermentation, area of production, often different strains too (high poliphenols containing olives give a strong bitter aftertaste not everybody likes, for commercial reasons those strains are very seldom left alone but mixed with "softer" tasting ones).

 

In other words most olive oil on the planet is very unpredictable in its exact composition, nevertheless C60oo seems to be relatively homogeneous in the perceived effects users reports. 

 

 

[Turnbuckle]

 

In other words most olive oil on the planet is very unpredictable in its exact composition, nevertheless C60oo seems to be relatively homogeneous in the perceived effects users reports. 

 

 

If you look at the C60 poll, you will see this is not true. A wide variety of effects have been seen.

[aconita]

I have the impression that the differences are more due to different conditions experienced by the users than of C60oo action itself, true is that the range of effects is quite wide therefore a bit overwhelming...but overall kind of predictable in some way.

 

For example all users report increased lung capacity or functionality both in a pathology scenario as in athletics, better skin, better sleep, orthopedic pains relief, more stamina, etc....

 

I am not saying that the composition of olive oil is irrelevant, the opposite is probably true but to try to isolate olive oil compounds may reveal as a quite time consuming exercise and maybe right now we all need more urgent answers from research.

 

Of course it would be extremely intriguing to get all the answers, including which component of olive oil does what and how but I suspect research on C60oo is not going to be a short or quick one, in the future as more and more interest will develop around this compound probably all the aspects of it will surface, right now maybe is better to focus on few questions avoiding complications difficult to solve.    

 

 

[HighDesertWizard]

I'm confused about a couple things. Perhaps some questions will help...

• Isn't the C60oo Open Scientific Discussion thread the more appropriate place for the most recent posts here about Olive Oil and F-C60?
   
• I take this study containing the Survival Curve pic below to be one of three studies suggesting a Lifespan Benefit can be achieved via F-C60. The other two are Baati et all, 2012, and Kelsey Moody's, LongeCity sponsored, confirming study from last year. But the F-C60 formulation driving the Survival Curve data in the pic below didn't use Olive Oil. So I've imagined that study changes the questions we should be asking. It suggests that Olive Oil isn't a required component of the key Independent Intervention Variable(s) driving some still TBD biological mechanism of action.

Did I miss a post referencing a study showing that Olive Oil was required to achieve the F-C60 Lifespan Benefit? If yes, could someone please point me to it? 

 

If not, are there problems with the study I linked to above that indicate its finding about F-C60 Lifespan Impact without Olive Oil shouldn't be taken seriously?

 

If not, why does this discussion appear to still presume Olive Oil is required to achieve the Lifespan Benefit Impact?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm fine with having this post moved to the appropriate place...

 

Edited by HighDesertWizard, 07 January 2016 - 01:44 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

For example all users report increased lung capacity or functionality both in a pathology scenario as in athletics, better skin, better sleep, orthopedic pains relief, more stamina, etc....

 

 

 

No, all don't report this. 65% report more physical stamina, 41% report more energy, 37% better skin, 36% more alcohol tolerance, 11% more libido, and 11% new hair growth. So it's a mixed bag of effects, far more good than bad, but not all are experiencing them.

[aconita]

I may reply that a 25 years old is unlikely to report increased stamina, energy better skin or new hair growth since those are already at top levels at that age, quite a different scenario for a 65 years old... which may explain the relative inconsistency of pool results.

 

I took the time to read all the main tread on C60oo at once (it took me several days ) and I confirm that my impression is that the results are quite consistent within the subjects of comparable status.

 

I am very well aware you are probably one of the first if not the first human taking C60oo and that you did your deal of experiments with it, you deserve all my respect, of course and I apologies if I sound redundant or arrogant in my statements but really the pool is not to be ignored but has its own limits.

 

If one already has good skin and hairs is unlikely it will experience any noticeable improvement about those from C60oo, here we are not talking about a drug for a specific pathology where all users suffer that very same pathology and results are ready comparable, here there are people of very different ages and health taking C60oo for many different reasons, many if not most just in the hope of a longevity outcome as the Baati study suggest and from where this all started.

 

To answer HighDesertWizard C60 alone undoubtedly exerts positive effects as suggested by the fact that the Ukrainian water based C60 showed in clinical research interesting outcomes to the point of gaining the legal status of supplement there but the range of their results don't seem as wide as the ones reported by C60oo users, maybe because the water based C60 is in very tiny concentrations but possibly because olive oil plays an important role.

 

The fact that with sonificated C60oo (which likely effects only the olive oil structure) the outcomes are quite negative seems to confirm that olive oil plays a role beyond being just a carrier.

 

It would be interesting to test the outcomes of some mice given nothing, some only olive oil and another group given only sonificated olive oil, since we already know that olive oil alone extend mice life if sonificated group lives as long as group nothing we know is C60oo that makes the difference, if they live less we know even tiny amount of sonificated olive oil is toxic enough to shorten life.

 

In some way it may prove that C60oo is different than C60 or that olive oil is just a carrier and doesn't really play any role.

 

This should explain why these last posts are maybe slightly off topic but maybe not really as much to raise to much concern.  

 

[niner]

I take this study containing the Survival Curve pic below to be one of three studies suggesting a Lifespan Benefit can be achieved via F-C60. The other two are Baati et all, 2012, and Kelsey Moody's, LongeCity sponsored, confirming study from last year. But the F-C60 formulation driving the Survival Curve data in the pic below didn't use Olive Oil. So I've imagined that study changes the questions we should be asking. It suggests that Olive Oil isn't a required component of the key Independent Intervention Variable(s) driving some still TBD biological mechanism of action.

Did I miss a post referencing a study showing that Olive Oil was required to achieve the F-C60 Lifespan Benefit? If yes, could someone please point me to it?

If not, are there problems with the study I linked to above that indicate its finding about F-C60 Lifespan Impact without Olive Oil shouldn't be taken seriously?

If not, why does this discussion appear to still presume Olive Oil is required to achieve the Lifespan Benefit Impact?

It's been known for a long time that various fullerene compounds do good things for animals.  Life extension has been seen before (e.g. Laura Dugan's work) , but Baati was extraordinary in the degree of life extension that was seen with c60oo.  It's not that we don't take the other examples of c60 lifespan impact seriously, it's just that the fatty acid adducts seem to be far superior.   The study you've linked here isn't about lifespan, but rather about fullerol ameliorating graft vs host disease.  The animals do live longer, because they aren't dying as fast, but these are not healthy animals.

[Logic]

"...We have also identified oleuropein, a phenolic compound in
Olea europaea leaf extract, olive oil, and olives, as a
potent stimulator of proteasome activities in vitro. Human
primary fibroblasts treated with oleuropein were also more
resistant to oxidative stress and exhibited extended cellular
life span. We have suggested that oleuropein most
likely alters the conformation of 20S α -gated channels..."

http://www.tandfonli...762.2013.792926

 

I'm way out of my depth and probably off topic here, but after reading Niner's above post on the 'far superior fatty acid adducts', I wonder if C60oo might not be potentiating the above effect?

(The study is a goldmine of information on the whys and hows of decreasing AGEs and ALEs including the upregulation of 'built in' defence mechanisms)

[Major Legend]

"...We have also identified oleuropein, a phenolic compound in
Olea europaea leaf extract, olive oil, and olives, as a
potent stimulator of proteasome activities in vitro. Human
primary fibroblasts treated with oleuropein were also more
resistant to oxidative stress and exhibited extended cellular
life span. We have suggested that oleuropein most
likely alters the conformation of 20S α -gated channels..."

http://www.tandfonli...762.2013.792926

 

I'm way out of my depth and probably off topic here, but after reading Niner's above post on the 'far superior fatty acid adducts', I wonder if C60oo might not be potentiating the above effect?

(The study is a goldmine of information on the whys and hows of decreasing AGEs and ALEs including the upregulation of 'built in' defence mechanisms)

 

It's likely that c60 by itself has strong antioxidant effects if it's not in a derivative form that promotes oxidation instead. The olive oil is in probably adding to a "net positive" effect as olive oil by itself is good for health, it could also be that C60 is potentiating olive oil by transporting these oleuropeins deeper into the cells than olive oil alone would have done.

 

I also agree that the effects likely to be more prominent for aged people or people whose health has been compromised rather than healthy people (like every other anti-aging product really). There is no reason to see why somebody 25 taking C60 will be getting spectacular results.

 

If the effects of C60 are preventative than there is essentially no way of finding that out immediately anecdotally and would not be easily detectable by self experimentation. The balance is pretty iffy here imo - somebody who is too aged e.g. 65 to 80 ish c60 may be too late to reverse the damaging factors. Somebody too early may simply not feel any effect, so I think 40-60 is probably the best age for observation.

 

Also I would be very surprised if the C60's effects replicate onto humans to scale, to me its unlikely any single compound can extend human life for that much, for humans live longer than rats and also have larger bodies and larger brains.

 

To me if we can somehow ensure that the quality of c60 is good, verify that its safe to take in the long run, then I don't think there is a reason to not take it. Seeing as olive oil itself would be good for you anyways. If we can eliminate the downsides than it would be like taking another vitamin, where you probably won't see the difference that much until years later.

 

The issue we are finding in these studies is that controlling for the quality of c60 may not be as easy as we think.

 

So to me a high priority problem is identifying whether we have the right c60, given that we know nanocarbons or chemicals of this level can penetrate deeply into organelles, also if C60 of bad quality has pro oxidant effect it's unlikely a human taking it will detect the effects for years. And when the problems happen it may be hard if not impossible to trace back to c60.

[sensei]

The issue we are finding in these studies is that controlling for the quality of c60 may not be as easy as we think.

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

But it is interesting that a large number of posters on this board, including myself, have had very good results from VW brand C60OO.

 

VW uses a very unprocessed extremely extra virgin oil (I believe this is a major cause of the brown color in VW product - unfiltered polyphenols and solids)

 

I have obtained the same results regarding color by using a very dark extra virgin oil, the resultant homemade C60OO is a brownish dark ruby only when backlit -- it is brown in the spoon or cup.  When I use a light olive oil, the resultant C60OO is a very bright ruby/magenta (actually quite pink after the first shaking).

[docmaas]

Two questions:  Any progress on the c60oo source providers?  Any of the mice die yet and if not how are they looking compared to the other mice and if so anything notable in necropsies?

 

Mike

[kmoody]

Two questions:  Any progress on the c60oo source providers?  Any of the mice die yet and if not how are they looking compared to the other mice and if so anything notable in necropsies?

 

Mike

Hello Mike. Keeping me on task I see.

 

Our first mouse from the AML study died today, suggesting the death curve is underway. We have done HPLC quantification on the samples we have received and see stark contrasts among the various vendors (some actually appear to be quite good). These results will be posted soon -- I'm hoping in the next few days, but we have a lot of activity going on at the lab so it could get pushed back a bit longer than that.

 

I concur with a number of niner's earlier suggestions and we are actively looking into many of them. A few important notes. SES research claims that the batches we used in our studies were not prepared by sonication. They were in fact mixed like in the Baati study. They did confirm that no shelf-life stability data was obtained. The 3-year listing was based on olive oil and powder c60 having shelf lives of 3-years reported by the manufacturer, so 3 years was listed. However, this was never actually tested.

 

We are doing a lot of reading and experimental planning to try to determine whether the issue is sonication (seems not to be based on what SES research says), crosslinking, oxidation, or aggregation. We are also planning on doing some work to try to find the active components. Longecity has actually helped out a great deal in this regard. If our death curves match what we saw on bone marrow, we could use relative tumor burden in bone marrow as a functional endpoint for screening C60 mixes in different olive oil subpopulations. No specific plans have been made yet, but there are lots of directions we could go with this.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

 SES research claims that the batches we used in our studies were not prepared by sonication. They were in fact mixed like in the Baati study. 

 

 

Odd that they didn't send you what they are selling. It suggests they weren't confortable with it. It also suggests that the samples they sent you predate their present production, and thus are quite old. 

[sensei]

When will you be able to post age at death distribution graphs for the controls and the cohorts, for any of the studies you have going on?

 

You had said there were previous studies [completed?]. Can you post the age at death distribution graphs for the controls and the cohorts for those studies?

Edited by sensei, 17 January 2016 - 07:13 PM.

[Mind]

When will you be able to post age at death distribution graphs for the controls and the cohorts, for any of the studies you have going on?

 

You had said there were previous studies [completed?]. Can you post the age at death distribution graphs for the controls and the cohorts for those studies?

 

I think you are referring to this study Sensei http://www.longecity...ored-aml-study/

[sensei]

 

 

I think you are referring to this study Sensei http://www.longecity...ored-aml-study/

 

 

Apparently, yes.

 

I have to agree with AgeVivo that a "days alive after inoculation" mean and SD would place illumination on the results.

 

This all goes to representative control samples.

 

We really can't ascribe pro or anti longevity to the C60OO in the current Ichor longevity study -- without a mean and SD for C57BL6 mice in general.

 

The control group could simply be a long-lived or short-lived outlier, not a representative sample; or it could be very representative matching the normal distribution perfectly. We wont know without a known mean and SD for the strain to measure against.