77 replies to this topic

[Nate-2004]

So recently I began reading Aubrey de Grey's book from 2008 on Ending Aging. Simultaneously I saw an ad/post on FB linked to a blog post (obviously an ad posing as an article on Scientific American about NR) which lead me to this site. I watched a more recent interview with Aubrey de Grey yesterday from 2015 (or the video was posted in 2015).  He complained that funding was a problem and that the goal, were he to get significantly more funding, was to see a doubling in the lifespan of rats within 10 years.

 

Well... he makes no mention of this study from 2012 on C60. What is going on LOL?

 

In fact this rat study on C60 has gotten very little press and no one so far has tried to replicate it that I can find doing Google searches. Maybe I'm looking in all the wrong places, sorry if I am not looking hard enough.

 

You would think this would have been replicated at least 10 times now and be getting more press at least.  Some guy in Japan claimed to synthesize stem cells and immediately 2 groups of students try replicating it everywhere, fail, and the guy commits suicide.  Some guy doubles the lifespan of rats with Buckyballs in Olive Oil and nothing? WTF? I'm baffled. This is utterly baffling to me. Why is SENS not jumping all over this? 

 

People are selling this stuff online for $60 per 100ml and nobody's even sure how good the oil is or what's in it. One guy's making claims that he's looking 20 years younger... I'm just a computer engineer and no biologist but that makes me wonder where the new collagen came from?

 

I'm tempted to begin trying it but at the same time, I only have so much to invest in myself, I'd like to spend it in the right places.

 

 

 

Edited by Nate-2004, 25 April 2016 - 09:31 PM.

[marcobjj]

It hasn't been researched enough to be taken seriously. it would be irressponsible of him to endorse buckyballs just based on that one random study in mice.

[Nate-2004]

It hasn't been researched enough to be taken seriously. it would be irressponsible of him to endorse buckyballs just based on that one random study in mice.

 

This is a frustrating response, as obviously you've completely misunderstood or misread my post.  Where did I say that I wanted SENS or Abrey de Grey to endorse Buckeyballs??

 

I was asking why nobody's jumped on replicating the research. Why is nobody researching this further and trying to repeat the experiments again and again?

 

If it hasn't been researched enough, then that's exactly what SENS should be doing, researching. Attempting to repeat and replicate the results of that experiment and not only that, if successful, discover why it works.

Edited by Nate-2004, 26 April 2016 - 04:04 AM.

[marcobjj]

lot's of people trying to replicate the buckyball experiment independently. You'll find a few on this board who are feeding their rats CC60. As to why no academic or big pharma experiments I have no idea.

[maximum411]

It's quite possible that others have tried to replicate it and failed. Negative results are rarely published unless the original results were high-profile and received a lot of publicity.

[Nate-2004]

It's quite possible that others have tried to replicate it and failed. Negative results are rarely published unless the original results were high-profile and received a lot of publicity.

 

Terribly tragic and baffling that SENS, if they've tried replicating this at all, wouldn't at least publicize their attempts and negative results. Think of how much time, energy and money is wasted going in the wrong direction because no one bothered to publish any negative results or replicate the tests. I realize people want positive results but oh my gods. Nobody makes progress spending all that valuable time and investment money heading the wrong way, and that's the way they keep going if nobody tells them to stop. Publishing negative results is how people stop the spread of misinformation. I figure people know this, but knowing the negative results are just as vitally important as knowing the positive ones.

 

I read on the board somewhere that a research project was conducted by Ichor labs on rats with cancer using C60 and from what I gather it had no effect. If I understood correctly I'm not sure if the rats died early, of cancer, or what. As far as I could tell, they didn't replicate the results.

 

Some lab techs from Ichor also tested C60 from three different sources which is great. Also important. 

 

I'm just finding this really weird is all.

 

I'm new, and not a scientist, and still reading. So maybe I'm just not up to date here and need to keep looking but am I off base here?

Edited by Nate-2004, 26 April 2016 - 06:54 PM.

[maximum411]

You're absolutely right, and this is a problem with scientific publication as a whole. As useful as publishing negative results may be to society, few journals will publish a paper reporting negative results no matter how high quality the science, unless the results refute commonly held assumptions or recent high profile findings. This is why I have always been in favor of a Journal of Negative Results. Large amounts of time, effort, and money are undoubtedly wasted every year by scientists redoing failed experiments that others have already tried.

[sthira]

No, Nate, FWIW, I don't think you're off-base at all, and many of us here have also wondered why c60 in olive oil hasn't received further attention and study. Seemed like a no-brainier for SENS, but what do I know? As you note, Kmoody and Ichor received some indigogo funding matched by longecity, I think.

You've probably already read this: http://www.longecity...t-model-of-aml/

Many positive anecdotal reports exist here on this site, obviously, and many have made their own batches. Niner is probably the most eloquent supporter of this experimental concoction aimed at slowing aging.

[wbray123]

I just found the following research note within a claim of success using C60 to treat a form of leukemia. However, this was a very disturbing note, "While initial research with C60 showed a reduction in tumor growth, the study Grohn conducted using commercially available C60 found a massive increase in tumor growth.
 Grohn set out to solve this mystery and in doing so developed a method to detect specific degradants of C60 which were previously undetected. Ultimately, Grohn discovered that C60-olive oil solutions are sensitive to light and that commercially available options show evidence of degradation due to light, which may cause them to become toxic." Has this been discussed before? I've been buying from Vaughter and keeping the bottles (amber glass) in a dark desk drawer. Would anyone know if Vaughter has discussed this? Thanks.

 

http://www.weyburnre...earch-1.2261882

 

[Nate-2004]

I just found the following research note within a claim of success using C60 to treat a form of leukemia. However, this was a very disturbing note, "While initial research with C60 showed a reduction in tumor growth, the study Grohn conducted using commercially available C60 found a massive increase in tumor growth.
 Grohn set out to solve this mystery and in doing so developed a method to detect specific degradants of C60 which were previously undetected. Ultimately, Grohn discovered that C60-olive oil solutions are sensitive to light and that commercially available options show evidence of degradation due to light, which may cause them to become toxic." Has this been discussed before? I've been buying from Vaughter and keeping the bottles (amber glass) in a dark desk drawer. Would anyone know if Vaughter has discussed this? Thanks.

 

http://www.weyburnre...earch-1.2261882

 

Do you think the distributer they're referring to is SES? 

 

I'm actually making my own and I've been pretty diligent about minimizing light exposure, however I don't know how much light is too much. The big question is to what degree can these mixtures, the OO and the C60 itself, separated or together, be exposed to light without degradation?  I turned the lights off when mixing, which made it hard to see what I was doing. It would be good to have a better technique.

 

I store mine in a cabinet I never open inside a dark amber bottle. It was mixed magnetically while covered by a large box in my closet, and most of the time the closet light was turned off and the door shut. I can't be sure to what degree the C60 was exposed in the lab before shipping from SES.

[Turnbuckle]

I just found the following research note within a claim of success using C60 to treat a form of leukemia. However, this was a very disturbing note, "While initial research with C60 showed a reduction in tumor growth, the study Grohn conducted using commercially available C60 found a massive increase in tumor growth.
 Grohn set out to solve this mystery and in doing so developed a method to detect specific degradants of C60 which were previously undetected. Ultimately, Grohn discovered that C60-olive oil solutions are sensitive to light and that commercially available options show evidence of degradation due to light, which may cause them to become toxic." Has this been discussed before? I've been buying from Vaughter and keeping the bottles (amber glass) in a dark desk drawer. Would anyone know if Vaughter has discussed this? Thanks.

 

http://www.weyburnre...earch-1.2261882

 

 

C60 is easily oxidized in solution if oxygen and light are present. Especially visible light, as it seems that visible light is more effective than UV at promoting oxidation. What's not clear is how bad that is. C60 epoxides are said to be better antioxidants than pristine C60, so maybe it isn't a problem at all, but what happens to the oil at the same time? Everyone is thinking about the C60 while forgetting that the oil produced an 18% increase in lifespan by itself. So certainly it is an important factor. Once oxygen is allowed in, the polyphenols in the oil begin to decay, and this can be rather more rapid than people generally think. So the mix may have a good lifetime of a few months if not frozen. 

Edited by Turnbuckle, 31 May 2016 - 10:09 PM.

[Nate-2004]

 

I just found the following research note within a claim of success using C60 to treat a form of leukemia. However, this was a very disturbing note, "While initial research with C60 showed a reduction in tumor growth, the study Grohn conducted using commercially available C60 found a massive increase in tumor growth.
 Grohn set out to solve this mystery and in doing so developed a method to detect specific degradants of C60 which were previously undetected. Ultimately, Grohn discovered that C60-olive oil solutions are sensitive to light and that commercially available options show evidence of degradation due to light, which may cause them to become toxic." Has this been discussed before? I've been buying from Vaughter and keeping the bottles (amber glass) in a dark desk drawer. Would anyone know if Vaughter has discussed this? Thanks.

 

http://www.weyburnre...earch-1.2261882

 

 

C60 is easily oxidized in solution if oxygen and light are present. Especially visible light, as it seems that visible light is more effective than UV at promoting oxidation. What's not clear is how bad that is. C60 epoxides are said to be better antioxidants than pristine C60, so maybe it isn't a problem at all, but what happens to the oil at the same time? Everyone is thinking about the C60 while forgetting that the oil produced an 18% increase in lifespan by itself. So certainly it is an important factor. Once oxygen is allowed in, the polyphenols in the oil begin to decay, and this can be rather more rapid than people generally think. So the mix may have a good lifetime of a few months if not frozen. 

 

 

I would love to see more research into just how much light it takes to degrade C60 both by itself and mixed in olive oil. Based on that report it seems like either they were sloppy with making it or people will have to mix it in a vacuum chamber devoid of all light somehow.  It'd be better if Ichor made it themselves with quality oil.

Edited by Nate-2004, 01 June 2016 - 02:43 AM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

I just found the following research note within a claim of success using C60 to treat a form of leukemia. However, this was a very disturbing note, "While initial research with C60 showed a reduction in tumor growth, the study Grohn conducted using commercially available C60 found a massive increase in tumor growth.
 Grohn set out to solve this mystery and in doing so developed a method to detect specific degradants of C60 which were previously undetected. Ultimately, Grohn discovered that C60-olive oil solutions are sensitive to light and that commercially available options show evidence of degradation due to light, which may cause them to become toxic." Has this been discussed before? I've been buying from Vaughter and keeping the bottles (amber glass) in a dark desk drawer. Would anyone know if Vaughter has discussed this? Thanks.

 

http://www.weyburnre...earch-1.2261882

 

 

C60 is easily oxidized in solution if oxygen and light are present. Especially visible light, as it seems that visible light is more effective than UV at promoting oxidation. What's not clear is how bad that is. C60 epoxides are said to be better antioxidants than pristine C60, so maybe it isn't a problem at all, but what happens to the oil at the same time? Everyone is thinking about the C60 while forgetting that the oil produced an 18% increase in lifespan by itself. So certainly it is an important factor. Once oxygen is allowed in, the polyphenols in the oil begin to decay, and this can be rather more rapid than people generally think. So the mix may have a good lifetime of a few months if not frozen. 

 

 

I would love to see more research into just how much light it takes to degrade C60 both by itself and mixed in olive oil. Based on that report it seems like either they were sloppy with making it or people will have to mix it in a vacuum chamber devoid of all light somehow.  It'd be better if Ichor made it themselves with quality oil.

 

 

From what I've heard about this case, this C60-EVOO was supplied by a company that was taking a shortcut to dissolve it. In any case, I expect none of the people selling this stuff appreciate how sensitive it, and I'd be surprised if any are buying high polyphenol oil of a recent harvest and deaerating it after mixing. One company--SES--claims a shelf life of three years, which is ridiculous.

 

Short of someone purchasing C60 epoxide and running an experiment with rats, we won't know how dangerous the epoxide really is. However, I expect it won't be a problem at all as it seems to be a better anti-oxidant that C60 itself. The bigger problem is the oil. It's known that oxidized oils can produce liver damage, obesity, and cancer, and I suspect that C60 may magnify this problem by acting as a transport for oil-derived adducts into the mitochondria. It's also known that the olive oil polyphenols are degraded and begin disappearing from the oil after only a couple of months.

 

So the best solution is make it yourself using a high polyphenol oil of a recent harvest date, supplied by a company specializing in olive oil that lives or dies by its reputation (since 60-80% of the olive oil in this country has been adulterated by criminals). The mixing should be done in the dark, excluding as much light and air as possible, then placed into small amber bottles and frozen until use. If you have a bell jar chamber to deaerate before mixing and/or freezing, all the better.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 01 June 2016 - 11:31 AM.

[wbray123]

Thanks for the responses. I ordered mine from Vaughter, and may try to contact them about this issue. I got about 6 bottles and use each one in about 4-6 weeks. I'm on my last bottle and it says use before March 2017. Now I'm wondering if I should try to get a fresh batch each time, or if I should refrigerate or freeze the bottles.

[Nate-2004]

From what I've heard about this case, this C60-EVOO was supplied by a company that was taking a shortcut to dissolve it. In any case, I expect none of the people selling this stuff appreciate how sensitive it, and I'd be surprised if any are buying high polyphenol oil of a recent harvest and deaerating it after mixing. One company--SES--claims a shelf life of three years, which is ridiculous.

 

Short of someone purchasing C60 epoxide and running an experiment with rats, we won't know how dangerous the epoxide really is. However, I expect it won't be a problem at all as it seems to be a better anti-oxidant that C60 itself. The bigger problem is the oil. It's known that oxidized oils can produce liver damage, obesity, and cancer, and I suspect that C60 may magnify this problem by acting as a transport for oil-derived adducts into the mitochondria. It's also known that the olive oil polyphenols are degraded and begin disappearing from the oil after only a couple of months.

 

So the best solution is make it yourself using a high polyphenol oil of a recent harvest date, supplied by a company specializing in olive oil that lives or dies by its reputation (since 60-80% of the olive oil in this country has been adulterated by criminals). The mixing should be done in the dark, excluding as much light and air as possible, then placed into small amber bottles and frozen until use. If you have a bell jar chamber to deaerate before mixing and/or freezing, all the better.

 

 

 

A response from SES:

 

 

 

Hi Nate,

Thanks for your interest in our Carbon 60.  C60 by itself is very stable material up to
800 degree C, and is stable in light.  In saying that, once the C60 is manufactory and
isolate into the pure powder form, the exposure to light is limited to a few hours before
it is package in large containers.  A larger concern of the research that is related to
Ichor's work is the actual exposure of the Olive Oil.  Olive oils itself will degrade over
time to exposure to light.

Thanks,

Stacey Wong

SES Research

 

Also, I looked for a bell jar on Amazon, it was a little too small for this kind of thing and I'm not sure how I'd get my hands in there to do the mixing or how it'd be used exactly.

 

How well does C60OO react to freezing? Apparently freezing OO alone doesn't do any damage to it so far as the experts say.  

 

I have two frozen bottles of the stuff from De Carlo left in my freezer, though I didn't start freezing them unopened till 2 weeks after I'd gotten them. I'm sure they'll be good for a while. Supposedly they're good for 6 months unopened, 2 years frozen and 2 months opened. Gotta use it up fast once I open it I guess. I've been putting it in the boiling water for my rice, on my chicken before baking, on seasoned tomatoes, etc.

 

Their stuff is a great substitute for butter. I'm sure it'd taste good in a bowl with fresh garlic for dipping bread in too.

[kmoody]

Hello all. I wish I had more time to frequent this forum to keep everyone updated on the latest, but given the relevance I'll take a crack at this one.

 

 

It hasn't been researched enough to be taken seriously. it would be irressponsible of him to endorse buckyballs just based on that one random study in mice.

 

This is a frustrating response, as obviously you've completely misunderstood or misread my post.  Where did I say that I wanted SENS or Abrey de Grey to endorse Buckeyballs??

 

I was asking why nobody's jumped on replicating the research. Why is nobody researching this further and trying to repeat the experiments again and again?

 

If it hasn't been researched enough, then that's exactly what SENS should be doing, researching. Attempting to repeat and replicate the results of that experiment and not only that, if successful, discover why it works.

 

We are doing exactly this. We ran into an issue in that as soon as we sourced C60oo rather than making it in house, we found most vendors sell oxidized C60oo which, in my hands, doubled the cancer rate in our mice. We are working to develop a C60 product produced under FDA compliant GMP standards. For translation, an issue with C60oo is that olive oil is not chemically defined and varies from batch to batch -- an undesirable quality for a drug vehicle. We are currently screening half a dozen or so different vehicles to assess PK/PD to see if any of them are able to get into the body like C60oo. Those studies are done, we are just compiling the data. After that, we will be doing pilot toxicity and efficacy studies with winning candidates using several different animal studies.

 

SENS cannot do this work even if they wanted to. They have no animal facility, and not a single MD or DVM on staff.

 

We are picking this up but there is a lot of prep work needed. It is nearly impossible to get to market with an anti-aging drug (legally through FDA). We are looking at numerous alternative indications that would support a legitimate product development pipeline, and those studies will be commencing in the next month or so.

 

 

 

No, Nate, FWIW, I don't think you're off-base at all, and many of us here have also wondered why c60 in olive oil hasn't received further attention and study. Seemed like a no-brainier for SENS, but what do I know? As you note, Kmoody and Ichor received some indigogo funding matched by longecity, I think.

You've probably already read this: http://www.longecity...t-model-of-aml/

Many positive anecdotal reports exist here on this site, obviously, and many have made their own batches. Niner is probably the most eloquent supporter of this experimental concoction aimed at slowing aging.

The original Baati paper was under powered and the lifespan impact an after thought -- it was a chronic toxicity study where they happened to let the rats live longer and saw a lifespan effect, it was never designed as a lifespan study. I think this plays in to why no serious scientists or companies have picked this up. I didn't even want to go into the space until our friends convinced us to run the Indigogo pilot study. Those preliminary results were sufficiently compelling that we are doing a proper and comprehensive workup of C60 as a possible product line through Ichor.

 

I just found the following research note within a claim of success using C60 to treat a form of leukemia. However, this was a very disturbing note, "While initial research with C60 showed a reduction in tumor growth, the study Grohn conducted using commercially available C60 found a massive increase in tumor growth.
 Grohn set out to solve this mystery and in doing so developed a method to detect specific degradants of C60 which were previously undetected. Ultimately, Grohn discovered that C60-olive oil solutions are sensitive to light and that commercially available options show evidence of degradation due to light, which may cause them to become toxic." Has this been discussed before? I've been buying from Vaughter and keeping the bottles (amber glass) in a dark desk drawer. Would anyone know if Vaughter has discussed this? Thanks.

 

http://www.weyburnre...earch-1.2261882

Yes. Virtually all C60oo purchased online were outside of product specs and likely are a toxicity concern. No one has performed proper stability testing of C60oo, and we have confirmed this over and over again in my lab. We posted somewhere on Longecity the initial results of this. We are planning to publish a comprehensive report of our previous and ongoing studies in a peer reviewed journal sometime within the next 3 months or so.

 

Vaughter's failed QC and did not meet their own product specifications in my hands.

 

Apologies that I don't have time to comment further. So far as I am aware, my group is the only group that is looking into proper development of C60 as a drug candidate, so feel free to follow our social media or website. We're planning to post updates about project progress there and will try to post on Longecity as well as time permits.

[Nate-2004]

Fantastic response. Thanks for all that!

 

From what I understand the issue is more specifically the olive oil quality and poor handling with light and oxygen exposure.

 

You said you didn't want to go into this space initially. Why wouldn't scientists want to investigate an incredibly interesting accident? I mean, penicillin's discovery was an accident too.

 

I found a comment on reddit that may be of interest or cause for concern regarding Vaughter:

 

I read the study on C60 (buckminsterfullerenes) and visited the website that sells this supplements VaughterWellness and it doesn't seem relevent to neuroscience so I'm not sure that anyone here is ideally what you're looking for in terms of a professional opinion e.g. someone with a graduate degree in Biochemistry. Regardless, the study claims that the lives of rats were extended two-fold which is a bold claim to make and without additional studies confirming these results this seems dubious at best.

 

Supplements claiming to slow aging by combating anti-oxidants are a dime-a-dozen and bank on the naivete of most people who will buy into their buzzwords. For example, this website claims that these buckyballs fit into the minor groove of and prevent the methylation of DNA which "apparently" degrades DNA. Methylation is a process by which certain cells will shut off portions of DNA that contain proteins that they don't wish to express (create) and is essential to the natural process by which cells differentiate. This website claims that cells become "reset" to "age zero" because C60 demethylates DNA but even if this were true I hardly believe that the dedifferentiation of your cells is in any way beneficial. And besides, many chemicals that slide into DNA have been implicated as being dangerously carcinogenic (dioxins or ethidium bromide for example) although these chemicals intercalate (slide between base pairings) rather than fit in the grooves of DNA.

 

Although I don't expect the effects of C60 to be as dangerous as the previously mentioned carcinogens, the website selling these supplements raised several red flags. The first of which was when the author of the site proposed a conspiracy theory about Big Pharma hiding the miraculous effects of these drugs because they want to keep you sick by selling you drugs that don't help you. This is patently false and although I haven't had experience at a pharmaceutical company, I can assure that there are many well-intentioned and hard-working individuals there that are looking for ways to cure diseases and extend human life. Most pharmaceutical companies would jump at the chance of a drug "like this" because it would mean tremendous profits for them.

 

From everything I've seen, I would advise you to save your money because this product is, I believe, a placebo at best and dangerous at worst. I work out at the gym pretty frequently and the claims made by Vaughter are no different than the hundreds of other supplement retailers that they are privy to some miraculous health secret but each lacks the evidence to back it up. Although I only have an undergraduate degree in Biochemistry, I think most other redditors on this subreddit would agree with me; hopefully someone here more qualified than I can take a more critical look at the study I mentioned and point out potential flaws.

 

 

Edited by Nate-2004, 03 June 2016 - 01:06 PM.

[Nate-2004]

 If you have a bell jar chamber to deaerate before mixing and/or freezing, all the better.

 

I was trying to find a means of storing the olive oil and mix before, during and after mixing. This item is a little large for the amount I would mix and I don't know if the stir stick would spin inside of this container, but it seems ideal as far as the idea goes to store both Olive Oil by itself or the C60OO after and perhaps even during mixing.

 

What do you think?

 

kmoody if you guys mixed your own using verified quality olive oil and C60 and used something like this as a means of blocking light and air exposure would that work?

Edited by Nate-2004, 03 June 2016 - 03:33 PM.

[Wilberforce]

I think it's fair to say that * most* participants have experienced positive change, be that fitness/strength, wrinkle reduction or whatever. The jury is out on long term effects for humans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kmoody]

From what I understand the issue is more specifically the olive oil quality and poor handling with light and oxygen exposure.

This has been suggested by several parties. In our hands, we are observing no differences based on where the olive oil is sourced, but that data is entirely anecdotal so this remains an open question. I suspect the issue exclusively relates to light exposure of the C60 and has little or nothing to do with olive oil, but that is not yet confirmed. However, it may be that this question is not worth answering. We have identified several carries that from a PK/PD perspective perform much better than olive oil, so it may be we prefer to move those forward in a development pipeline and forego an olive oil formulation entirely. We are running a number of studies now to determine toxicity and efficacy using these alternative carriers.

 

You said you didn't want to go into this space initially. Why wouldn't scientists want to investigate an incredibly interesting accident? I mean, penicillin's discovery was an accident too.

 

There are a few reasons. Most academic scientists don't bounce around to new research areas. If they don't happen to be studying a particular topic already they (as a general trend) do not seek out unrelated topics/disciplines. They prefer to remain the experts in what they are already familiar with. So I suspect this plays a large role in why academics didn't jump on board. Industry didn't follow up on this because C60 in olive oil for aging is not a commercializable product for a multitude of different reasons. My lab is working to address many of those reasons presently (chemically heterogenous vehicle, unknown mechanism of action, etc).

 

On a more personal level, most of the time such claims are complete BS, especially in the anti-aging space. The group size was n=6, and the Baati study was a chronic toxicity study, NOT a lifespan study, so even as trend data the utility of the study was limited. The reality is there is no shortage of good projects to work on, so the question is less about whether a new project is worth pursuing, it is whether the new project is so promising that it should bump an existing project, even one further along in development. Interestingly, there also seems to be no shortage of funding for those projects. The issue, in my experience and opinion, is virtually always that there is a lack of good personnel to work on the good projects. So "cool ideas" or "promising pilot studies" are rarely enticing for serious researchers. They are a dime a dozen. That is why my go to response when someone puts something like this in front of me is, "Cool, well why aren't you working on it?" When they give me the usual answers -- no degree, inadequate training, no funding, no facility, etc. -- I offer those things through my company if only they will work on their idea. Few people take me up on the offer, though those that do are often exceptional.

 

 

kmoody if you guys mixed your own using verified quality olive oil and C60 and used something like this as a means of blocking light and air exposure would that work?

Sure. You can mix under nitrogen or other inert gas to prevent oxidation. If I recall correctly, we found that this wasn't necessary though. Just prevent light exposure.

[Turnbuckle]

 

From what I understand the issue is more specifically the olive oil quality and poor handling with light and oxygen exposure.

This has been suggested by several parties. In our hands, we are observing no differences based on where the olive oil is sourced, but that data is entirely anecdotal so this remains an open question. I suspect the issue exclusively relates to light exposure of the C60 and has little or nothing to do with olive oil, but that is not yet confirmed. However, it may be that this question is not worth answering. We have identified several carries that from a PK/PD perspective perform much better than olive oil, so it may be we prefer to move those forward in a development pipeline and forego an olive oil formulation entirely. We are running a number of studies now to determine toxicity and efficacy using these alternative carriers.

 

 

Excellent! I've gone in that direction as well, replacing olive oil with MCT oil for my personal use. However, I am also adding hydroxytyrosol to it. As for light exposure, do you have an idea of how fast it goes south?

[Nate-2004]

This has been suggested by several parties. In our hands, we are observing no differences based on where the olive oil is sourced, but that data is entirely anecdotal so this remains an open question. I suspect the issue exclusively relates to light exposure of the C60 and has little or nothing to do with olive oil, but that is not yet confirmed. However, it may be that this question is not worth answering. We have identified several carries that from a PK/PD perspective perform much better than olive oil, so it may be we prefer to move those forward in a development pipeline and forego an olive oil formulation entirely. We are running a number of studies now to determine toxicity and efficacy using these alternative carriers.

 

There is so much I want to respond to here. 

 

I think a that question is super worth answering.  The response I got back from SES where Baati and everyone else sources their C60 is that it is stable and does not react to light, and is exposed to light before packaging. It would be interesting if you proved them wrong on that.  Also Turnbuckle was hypothesizing that the polyphenols are related to the outcome of the Baati study so even with his new carry MCT oil he adds HT. I would love to know if that's true. 

 

I can't wait to hear back on which carries are non-toxic and work well with C60, much more I can't wait to see if they have some kind of impact. 

 

There are a few reasons. Most academic scientists don't bounce around to new research areas. If they don't happen to be studying a particular topic already they (as a general trend) do not seek out unrelated topics/disciplines. They prefer to remain the experts in what they are already familiar with. So I suspect this plays a large role in why academics didn't jump on board. Industry didn't follow up on this because C60 in olive oil for aging is not a commercializable product for a multitude of different reasons. My lab is working to address many of those reasons presently (chemically heterogenous vehicle, unknown mechanism of action, etc).

 

On a more personal level, most of the time such claims are complete BS, especially in the anti-aging space. The group size was n=6, and the Baati study was a chronic toxicity study, NOT a lifespan study, so even as trend data the utility of the study was limited. The reality is there is no shortage of good projects to work on, so the question is less about whether a new project is worth pursuing, it is whether the new project is so promising that it should bump an existing project, even one further along in development. Interestingly, there also seems to be no shortage of funding for those projects. The issue, in my experience and opinion, is virtually always that there is a lack of good personnel to work on the good projects. So "cool ideas" or "promising pilot studies" are rarely enticing for serious researchers. They are a dime a dozen. That is why my go to response when someone puts something like this in front of me is, "Cool, well why aren't you working on it?" When they give me the usual answers -- no degree, inadequate training, no funding, no facility, etc. -- I offer those things through my company if only they will work on their idea. Few people take me up on the offer, though those that do are often exceptional. 

 

 

I truly appreciate what you're doing for science, going outside a trend of related topics and that your lab is making itself available to the cool ideas and questions people are actually more curious about.  These issues you list are what really frustrates me a lot about academia and the state of science today, from publishers hiding science behind paywalls, to the incentives system that discourages reproduction and quality, to the clamoring for prestige and conformity over anything else.  It sounds like Ichor is eschewing those things to explore the cool ideas people are interested in.  One question here: Is anything really commercializable from the start? It sounds like you're trying to solve that problem, why wouldn't they want to solve that if it's even the least bit promising? 

 

Sure. You can mix under nitrogen or other inert gas to prevent oxidation. If I recall correctly, we found that this wasn't necessary though. Just prevent light exposure.

 

So from this I'm assuming you were ultimately able to create a mixture that was not degraded?

Edited by Nate-2004, 17 June 2016 - 03:32 PM.

[kmoody]

Excellent! I've gone in that direction as well, replacing olive oil with MCT oil for my personal use. However, I am also adding hydroxytyrosol to it. As for light exposure, do you have an idea of how fast it goes south?

Completely depends on level of exposure. We haven't done a full dose response yet, but on the order of minutes with UV light and certainly within a few days by normal light. It is on our "to do" list to figure that out, but we thought the more pressing question was how much of the oxidized form is toxic, since we will want to know how long it takes for that to rise to unacceptable levels. Of course, the rates could vary too depending on sunlight vs. UV vs. room lights (type of room lights?) and certainly what vehicle we decide to go with as a carrier.

[LongLife]

 

Excellent! I've gone in that direction as well, replacing olive oil with MCT oil for my personal use. However, I am also adding hydroxytyrosol to it. As for light exposure, do you have an idea of how fast it goes south?

Completely depends on level of exposure. We haven't done a full dose response yet, but on the order of minutes with UV light and certainly within a few days by normal light. It is on our "to do" list to figure that out, but we thought the more pressing question was how much of the oxidized form is toxic, since we will want to know how long it takes for that to rise to unacceptable levels. Of course, the rates could vary too depending on sunlight vs. UV vs. room lights (type of room lights?) and certainly what vehicle we decide to go with as a carrier.

 

TO WHOM IT MAY INTEREST:

In lightly following this topic of C6Ooo, I decided to order some. Not knowing too much about it. The I started to dig in and found an array of threads on this forum, which would serve to be compiled. It is amazing how long it takes to read all of this information, which I have yet to accomplish. Notwithstanding, the thread: 

 

http://www.longecity...rs/#entry779339

 

certainly caught my attention! As well as the ones from 2012 and 2013 concerning duplicating the rat investigations here with LongeCity members/followers. Interesting to say the least...still reading though. THEN I stumbled upon this thread, oh brother!

So as not to duplicate the aforementioned thread concerning "tumor causing", I would like to contribute to the idea of investigating potential oils for replacing olive oil, to wit:

 

"I would include FLAX SEED OIL to the list of potential oils to research for producing C60 because of its high Omega3 (ALA) content.

 

I would include SUNFLOWER SEED OIL because of its high lecithin content (phospholypid complex of phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidylserine, phosphatidylethanolamine and some phosphatidylglycerol),since it comprises about 40%+ of our brain and 35%+ of neurons, thereby being a well accepted oil and bioavailable.

 

In all due respect, I do thank you CERIDWEN for being concerned and calling attention to the neurodegenerative effects of vegetable oils, although once they have been over heated (250-275F) enough to degrade and constitute the formation of toxic aldehydes  substances +." From "tumor causing" thread, Post #12.

 

Small electric seed presses are readily available and most any seed can be cold pressed to remove @65% to 80% of it's oil; thinking about pristine oil for lab work. EXTRA Virgin oil, as a classification is used commercially for olive oil. NO other oil has this formality, they are Regular or Virgin but not Extra Virgin. For oxygen free environment, this procedure can easily be set up inside a simple typical Sterile or Nitrogen environment lab isolation "glove box" .

 

Covered with a black-out cloth similar to an old style photography rig to block out light and either use an CCTV camera with a small InfraRed illumination light to "see" externally what is going on and/or one of the many night vision glasses set-ups.

 

I would be VERY INTERESTED in knowing which oils are currently being examined by KMOODY's team :-), as an alternative to making C60 using olive oil. Perhaps some of these contemplated oils are resistant to changes caused by light...doubt it though.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

Excellent! I've gone in that direction as well, replacing olive oil with MCT oil for my personal use. However, I am also adding hydroxytyrosol to it. As for light exposure, do you have an idea of how fast it goes south?

Completely depends on level of exposure. We haven't done a full dose response yet, but on the order of minutes with UV light and certainly within a few days by normal light. It is on our "to do" list to figure that out, but we thought the more pressing question was how much of the oxidized form is toxic, since we will want to know how long it takes for that to rise to unacceptable levels. Of course, the rates could vary too depending on sunlight vs. UV vs. room lights (type of room lights?) and certainly what vehicle we decide to go with as a carrier.

 

 

I would be VERY INTERESTED in knowing which oils are currently being examined by KMOODY's team :-), as an alternative to making C60 using olive oil. Perhaps some of these contemplated oils are resistant to changes caused by light...doubt it though...

 

"I would include FLAX SEED OIL to the list of potential oils to research for producing C60 because of its high Omega3 (ALA) content.

 

 

 

Flax seed oil would be going in the wrong direction as ALA is even more light sensitive and more reactive.

 

Apart from oxidation of the oil, C60 itself will oxidize, and quite rapidly, even in visible light. It's unknown if that is actually a bad thing as C60 epoxide has been found to be a stronger anti-oxidant than C60 itself. C60 can also form adducts with components of the oil, so using a pure saturated oil might be best in that regard as saturated oils are relatively unreactive. Also, antioxidant components in olive oil can be lost due to light and aging, and the olive oil used in the original trial appears to be an important factor, as the rats getting only olive oil lived 18% longer. This would have been seen as remarkable except it was overshadowed by the combined C60/olive oil results. Minor constituents such as hydroxytyrosol (HT) are very powerful antioxidants and are likely the source of the 18% improvement.

 

Chronological lifespan (CLS) is defined as the duration of quiescence in which normal cells retain the capacity to reenter the proliferative cycle...These results demonstrate that HT extends CLS by increasing MnSOD activity and decreasing age-associated mitochondrial reactive oxygen species accumulation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21384152

 

 

 

Edited by Turnbuckle, 20 June 2016 - 11:45 AM.

[Nate-2004]

Apart from oxidation of the oil, C60 itself will oxidize, and quite rapidly, even in visible light. It's unknown if that is actually a bad thing as C60 epoxide has been found to be a stronger anti-oxidant than C60 itself. C60 can also form adducts with components of the oil, so using a pure saturated oil might be best in that regard as saturated oils are relatively unreactive. Also, antioxidant components in olive oil can be lost due to light and aging, and the olive oil used in the original trial appears to be an important factor, as the rats getting only olive oil lived 18% longer. This would have been seen as remarkable except it was overshadowed by the combined C60/olive oil results. Minor constituents such as hydroxytyrosol (HT) are very powerful antioxidants and are likely the source of the 18% improvement.

 

Does this mean SES's response is incorrect?

 

Hi Nate,

Thanks for your interest in our Carbon 60.  C60 by itself is very stable material up to
800 degree C, and is stable in light.  In saying that, once the C60 is manufactory and
isolate into the pure powder form, the exposure to light is limited to a few hours before
it is package in large containers.  A larger concern of the research that is related to
Ichor's work is the actual exposure of the Olive Oil.  Olive oils itself will degrade over
time to exposure to light.

Thanks,

Stacey Wong

SES Research

Edited by Nate-2004, 20 June 2016 - 01:41 PM.

[katzenjammer]

 

 

Vaughter's failed QC and did not meet their own product specifications in my hands.

 

 

I know you might not be able or willing, but might u provide a few more details about this?  

 

Unfortunately, I took hers for a year; hope to God I haven't damaged myself.

 

 

 

EDIT:  by the way, here's her response:  "We mix in dark brown glass vessels in a room which is totally dark, in the town of Malå, 120 km south of the arctic circle. In addition, we use our own oven to remove all organic solvents. There is no rancidity in our products or any other degradation due to light exposure."

Edited by katzenjammer, 20 June 2016 - 02:11 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

Apart from oxidation of the oil, C60 itself will oxidize, and quite rapidly, even in visible light. It's unknown if that is actually a bad thing as C60 epoxide has been found to be a stronger anti-oxidant than C60 itself. C60 can also form adducts with components of the oil, so using a pure saturated oil might be best in that regard as saturated oils are relatively unreactive. Also, antioxidant components in olive oil can be lost due to light and aging, and the olive oil used in the original trial appears to be an important factor, as the rats getting only olive oil lived 18% longer. This would have been seen as remarkable except it was overshadowed by the combined C60/olive oil results. Minor constituents such as hydroxytyrosol (HT) are very powerful antioxidants and are likely the source of the 18% improvement.

 

Does this mean SES's response is incorrect?

 

Hi Nate,

Thanks for your interest in our Carbon 60.  C60 by itself is very stable material up to
800 degree C, and is stable in light.  In saying that, once the C60 is manufactory and
isolate into the pure powder form, the exposure to light is limited to a few hours before
it is package in large containers.  A larger concern of the research that is related to
Ichor's work is the actual exposure of the Olive Oil.  Olive oils itself will degrade over
time to exposure to light.

Thanks,

Stacey Wong

SES Research

 

 

The paper I linked to showed that C60 will oxidize in solution when exposed to visible light. As a dry solid it will likely also oxidize when exposed to light, if oxygen is present, but that will be much slower as the surface area is thousands or millions of times less. The response by Stacey Wong admits there is a concern about Ichor's research on C60 in olive oil. But light is only one issue with SES's olive oil product as they are apparently using a more muscular method of dissolving it.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 20 June 2016 - 04:14 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

 

Vaughter's failed QC and did not meet their own product specifications in my hands.

 

 

I know you might not be able or willing, but might u provide a few more details about this?  

 

Unfortunately, I took hers for a year; hope to God I haven't damaged myself.

 

 

 

EDIT:  by the way, here's her response:  "We mix in dark brown glass vessels in a room which is totally dark, in the town of Malå, 120 km south of the arctic circle. In addition, we use our own oven to remove all organic solvents. There is no rancidity in our products or any other degradation due to light exposure."

 

 

Her website says they use--

 

99.5% C60 from Solaris in Canada, vacuum-over dried to > 99.95% in our lab. 

 

 

 

But the .5% that is not C60 is primarily other fullerenes (mostly C70) and not volatiles, thus vacuum oven drying won't get rid of them and won't turn it into "> 99.95%" C60. C70 is known to go to other places in the cell such as the endoplasmic reticulum where it can interfere with protein folding, so that is yet something else to worry about.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 20 June 2016 - 04:54 PM.

[Nate-2004]

 

 

 

 

Vaughter's failed QC and did not meet their own product specifications in my hands.

 

 

I know you might not be able or willing, but might u provide a few more details about this?  

 

Unfortunately, I took hers for a year; hope to God I haven't damaged myself.

 

 

 

EDIT:  by the way, here's her response:  "We mix in dark brown glass vessels in a room which is totally dark, in the town of Malå, 120 km south of the arctic circle. In addition, we use our own oven to remove all organic solvents. There is no rancidity in our products or any other degradation due to light exposure."

 

 

Her website says they use--

 

99.5% C60 from Solaris in Canada, vacuum-over dried to > 99.95% in our lab. 

 

 

 

But the .5% that is not C60 is primarily other fullerenes (mostly C70) and not volatiles, thus vacuum oven drying won't get rid of them and won't turn it into "> 99.95%" C60. C70 is known to go to other places in the cell such as the endoplasmic reticulum where it can interfere with protein folding, so that is yet something else to worry about.

 

 

I seriously doubt the veracity of their response if Ichor is testing it and finding that it's been degraded. My guess is that if they're telling the truth, it's the source of their EVOO. Also, if vacuum oven drying doesn't get it to 99.95%, what does? Isn't that what SES does?

Edited by Nate-2004, 20 June 2016 - 05:33 PM.