131 replies to this topic

[Mind]

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The same could be said of the Baati study. With n=6 , one of the groups could have been long-lived, or short lived genetic siblings.

 

[aribadabar]

The same could be said of the Baati study. With n=6 , one of the groups could have been long-lived, or short lived genetic siblings.

 

No, you can't reach that conclusion with such a large deviation from the maximal lifespan of the Wistar strain:

[Turnbuckle]

Note that the authors submitted a correction to their graph in 2012--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[platypus]

Sorry for jumping in the middle of this thread but when exactly are we going to see the Baati-study replicated? I'm willing to donate some money to make it happen. 

[sensei]

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The same could be said of the Baati study. With n=6 , one of the groups could have been long-lived, or short lived genetic siblings.

 

 

Not really.

 

The lifespan of Wistar Rats is a known quantity.   

Per The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals --

 

The maximum for males is ~1200 days, 38 months

 

for females Approximately 1400 days -- 44 months

 

Every single C60-OO rat exceeded the acknowledged Maximum male Wistar lifespan of 38 months by at least 30%

 

That is a greater than 3 sigma event even with n=6

 

I am quite sure that there is epidemiological data concerning the mean, median and SD of the strain of mice used in the Ichor study

Edited by sensei, 18 January 2016 - 08:05 PM.

[stefan_001]

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

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.

The same could be said of the Baati study. With n=6 , one of the groups could have been long-lived, or short lived genetic siblings.

Not really.

The lifespan of Wistar Rats is a known quantity.
Per The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals --

The maximum for males is ~1200 days, 38 months

for females Approximately 1400 days -- 44 months

Every single C60-OO rat exceeded the acknowledged Maximum male Wistar lifespan of 38 months by at least 30%

That is a greater than 3 sigma event even with n=6

I am quite sure that there is epidemiological data concerning the mean, median and SD of the strain of mice used in the Ichor study

Well looking at the revised graphs of the Baati study you could also conclude that there is hardly any difference in max life span between olive oil and the C60oo + olive oil so the lengthening of the lifespan is mostly coming from the olive oil. It is then debatable whether C60oo brings some extra benefits in delaying some diseases or whether there was some bad luck in the olive oil n=6 group that caused couple early casualties.

Edited by stefan_001, 18 January 2016 - 10:29 PM.

[sensei]

 

 

Not really.

The lifespan of Wistar Rats is a known quantity.
Per The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals --

The maximum for males is ~1200 days, 38 months

for females Approximately 1400 days -- 44 months

Every single C60-OO rat exceeded the acknowledged Maximum male Wistar lifespan of 38 months by at least 30%

That is a greater than 3 sigma event even with n=6

I am quite sure that there is epidemiological data concerning the mean, median and SD of the strain of mice used in the Ichor study

Well looking at the revised graphs of the Baati study you could also conclude that there is hardly any difference in max life span between olive oil and the C60oo + olive oil so the lengthening of the lifespan is mostly coming from the olive oil. It is then debatable whether C60oo brings some extra benefits in delaying some diseases or whether there was some bad luck in the olive oil n=6 group that caused couple early casualties.

 

 

 

No, not at all.

 

There is a huge difference -- throw out the outlier, and you get 33 months for Olive Oil and 53 months for C60 OO -- hardly similar

 

In human terms that is comparable to a group of people living to 112-115 vs another group living to 150-155.

 

5 of the 6 Olive Oil cohort died months prior to the max lifespan of Wistar Rats (32-36 months)   -- number 6 (50 months) is such an outlier (even far outside the maximum lifespan) that occam's razor leads one to posit he was likely fed C60 by mistake, or perhaps his age was measured incorrectly.

 

What we could reasonably conclude is that Olive Oil helps rats live Close To The Normal Maximum Lifespan for Their Strain and Species , but C60+OO helps male wistar rats exceed the previously measured maximum for their species and strain by at least 30%.

 

While not scientific in the least , of note is that Marie Calment, the longest lived DOCUMENTED human being (123 years) ate olive oil on her food - supposedly with every meal, and consumed a kilogram of dark chocolate every week.  This is a combination of olive oil and strong anti-oxidant

 

--- much like C60-OO ---

Edited by sensei, 19 January 2016 - 01:19 AM.

[stefan_001]

[quote name="sensei" post="758602" timestamp="1453165750"][quote name="stefan_001" post="758573" timestamp="1453156056"]
[quote name="sensei" post="758547" timestamp="1453147485"]

[/quote]
 
5 of the 6 Olive Oil cohort died months prior to the max lifespan of Wistar Rats (32-36 months)   -- number 6 (50 months) is such an outlier (even far outside the maximum lifespan) that occam's razor leads one to posit he was likely fed C60 by mistake, or perhaps his age was measured incorrectly.
 
[/quote]

Looking at the graphs there are two olive oil treated rats that lived 50 months so I would not call that an outlier.

[sensei]

[quote name="stefan_001" post="758573" timestamp="1453156056"]
[quote name="sensei" post="758547" timestamp="1453147485"]

[/quote]
 
5 of the 6 Olive Oil cohort died months prior to the max lifespan of Wistar Rats (32-36 months)   -- number 6 (50 months) is such an outlier (even far outside the maximum lifespan) that occam's razor leads one to posit he was likely fed C60 by mistake, or perhaps his age was measured incorrectly.
 

Looking at the graphs there are two olive oil treated rats that lived 50 months so I would not call that an outlier.

 

 

Apparently the numbers are inconsistent. AFAIK Baati only reported 1 (one) 54 month rat that was supposedly euthanized.

 

Reading the graph does show two living to that age, as well as 2 OO only rats living to 50 months.

 

From the Baati paper:

 

"The survival distributions for C60-olive oil-treated rats and controls were estimated by the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimator (Fig. 3) and compared by a log-rank estimated test.

 

The estimated median lifespan (EML) for the C60-treated rats was 42 months while the EMLs for control rats and olive oil-treated rats were 22 and 26 months, respectively. These are increases of 18 and 90% for the olive-oil and C60-treated rats, respectively, as compared to controls."

 

As the lowest age at death for the OO treated animals was ~32 months -- the EML of 26 obviously sees the 50 months as a single outlier, or the graph is incorrect.

[Nate-2004]

Edited: Nevermind.

Edited by Nate-2004, 26 April 2016 - 08:25 PM.

[shifter]

I used to work with NodSCID mice... Absolutely horrible mice to look after. Everything had to be so sterile. Gloves had to be changed after every cage change and if I touched anything outside the cage, I had to throw them out and put on a new (and very expensive) pair of gamma irridated disposable sterile gloves. Despite all these precautions, I'd see a dead mouse at least once a week at times. And usually meant the entire cage could be written off. They are horrible to work with experimentally because everything you do is a variable.

Our immune system is constantly keeping cancer in check. Using a NodSCID mouse with no immune system to use in cancer studies seems a bit weird and not relative for humans (unless you are immuno compromised to the point you have no immune system).

For longevity studies there should be better mouse models than NodSCID. Too many variables and these mice are just sickly ticking time bombs from the moment they are born. Find a normal mouse with a known maximum life span and see if c60 at a normal dose a human could stomach does the trick. Do some from the moment they are weaned until death, start some from old age and some from middle aged and a few doses only.

The order you change the cages on NodSCID is also a variable. Did you start from the controls first? Do you change gloves after handling each cage? Do different technicians change them? My supervisor was adamant that no one handle the mice except me. Because again, another technician = another variable. How sterile is everything associated with their maintenance? That's what sucks about NodSCID mice. Everything is a variable and they drop dead at the slightest thing.

Is there a mouse model which like the Nod developing diabetes, another model develops cancer. Maybe that would be better. You might not get spot on 7 day post cancer treatment to begin c60oo but then again '7' days is an arbitrarily plucked number

[andprosper]

Does this thread continue elsewhere? What was the outcome of testing of the vendors' C6000? Where are the research trials at now?