285 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

It sounds like what you're saying is that it up to other people to prove that your product is not safe.  Then your proceed to attack Ichor's credibility?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SarahVaughter]

You're turning around the burden of proof. Of course it's not on us to disprove any claims, are you serious?? When I claim that you raped your little sister, am I then to be believed with my claim until you prove that you did not? And how exactly are you going to prove your innocence? How should we prove that UV light does not cause a toxic brew in our product when Ichor even refuses to disclose what frequency, intensity and exposure time of the light they allegedly used?  If we'd show that _some_ type of UV light exposure to C60-EVOO in a brown bottle does not kill mice, which is trivial to do, Ichor would simply say that we fudged the experiment, did not use the right UV light etc. So we're asking them how to replicate their experiment, to provide evidence for their accusations so that we can defend ourselves against their wholly unsubstantiated claims! Ichor, our direct competitor in the C60 space, made a claim that we sell an unsafe product. I responded by asking Ichor to provide the flimsiest of evidence to that claim, which is reasonable, because their unsubstantiated and highly dubious claim may cause us enormous reputational and financial damage. I could just ask an attorney to sue them for defamation and damages and then they can present their evidence in court, but I have nothing to hide, on the contrary I am very confident that we're not selling an unsafe product, so I'm not only offering $1000 for a simple description on how to replicate their simple UV experiment that "killed  mice in days", I'm also prepared to pay them 50,000 USD if they can prove their claims. Here, that's on the record now. Please hold me to it and publicly shame me if I renege on it please! Since it's impossible to prove a negative, that's all I can do to entice them to prove their libelous assertion.  I've read here that I'm litigious. Ichor made a mistake when they libeled all C60-EVOO vendors, assuming we're all small fry. We're not small fry. We can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a libel suit and we will take every last penny of their assets when we win. They would have to prove in court that they can use UV light, through an amber bottle with our product, to kill mice in days. If they can't do it, it's criminal libel (deliberate libel with premeditated intent to do great financial harm to a direct competitor). Damages and penalties in the millions. We sold 4200 bottles in the last 30 days. We have much more liquidity than they do. The hundreds of thousands of dollars in our profits are accumulating rapidly and we can dedicate it all to litigation. So I advise Ichor to tell us how they did it, or face a possible lawsuit for lying for financial gain. Ichor has nothing to lose, disclosing their evidence, if they are truthful. So I'm waiting. Even better: I promise you that I will very soon post an update here of actual legal action against them, if they don't disclose their methods soon. We will contact them. I will tell you here who our NY attorney will be, and I'll keep you updated on the action. We'll be initially demanding a retraction and an apology if they keep refusing to disclose their methods, and we'll sue for millions if they refuse. On the other hand, if their experiment _can_ be replicated, I will pay them USD 51,000 and I will issue here an apology. What a very "dangerous and irresponsible and unfriendly" proposal, hm? We'll await Ichor's products. So far it's all vaporware, funded by perhaps naive investors. We'll be testing their products, if they ever materialize. It will then be up to them to disprove our claims, and you will agree, correct? lol.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 01 November 2017 - 04:45 PM.

[hamishm00]

Rant of the year right there....

[Daniel Cooper]

Rant of the year right there....

 

 

It was most impressive.

[ambivalent]

Of course it's not on us to disprove any claims, are you serious??

 

Of course it is, if the consequences matter to you i.e. people stop purchasing your product, your current customer base carry on consuming but do so with a nagging fear of tumour growth (or worse still carry on chugging in complete ignorance of the research).

 

You may well be right that your product is safe but Ichor's work demonstrated the huge risk of c60oo under certain conditions. Yes you have a moral obligation and a financial incentive to ensure your product is risk-free. C60oo is not FDA approved - they'd make you jump through far more hoops.

[Captain Obvious]

Calling SarahVaughter's message a "rant" is a nice cop out. 

 

I happen to agree with the statement. The burden of proof is on Ichor. Please provide verifiable evidence for the toxicity of C60-EVOO products or details on the Ichor experiment so that it can be duplicated.

 

Even the EU court has ruled that the burden of proof on the safety of food supplements is on the regulator and not the manufacturer because it is impossible to prove that something is completely safe. It is however possible to prove that something is unsafe with peer reviewed studies.

 

Edited by Captain Obvious, 01 November 2017 - 04:04 PM.

[katzenjammer]

While I don't agree with threatening lawsuit in such a public way (I doubt her attorney would approve her doing so), I do think that Ichor should provide the method by which he or his lab produced those results.  

[Daniel Cooper]

Should Ichor publish the details of their testing?  Without a doubt, absolutely.

 

On the other hand, Vaughtner and her company have to my knowledge not done their own safety tests that they have published, so they should take any hint of a problem seriously and investigate.  They seem to be dismissing out of hand any suggestion that there may be an issue when they themselves have, again to my knowledge, not done their own tests.  

 

And this threatening of lawsuits is just not how scientific inquiry works.  You must be prepared to receive information contrary to your desired outcome.

 

There is plenty of blame to go around here.  Once Ichor raised the flag that there might be a problem, it became incumbent upon them to publish .... in some form .... their data.  If they are not prepared to do that they should have remained silent.  On the other hand, Vaughtner's apparent attempt to bully via threats of lawsuits isn't exactly keeping to the standards of scientific inquiry either.  

 

I see both parties coming off looking pretty bad here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SarahVaughter]

You're distracting from the fact that he who makes an extremely serious allegation must provide evidence of such. As to us doing "safety tests": Those safety tests have been done by Baathi et al in their toxicity test. They found no toxicity but instead a near-doubling of lifespan. We faithfully reproduced their C60-EVOO product. There is no conceivable manner in which our product could be unsafe, since it's produced exactly the same way, likely even under more controlled circumstances (total darkness for the mixing, very low oxygen perfusion during mixing, very cold storage) and much fresher, as they used product that was years old and we sell fresh batches. What you are asking is that we spend 20 million dollars on FDA-approved human trials. But that is a separate issue from a competitor claiming they are 100% certain we sell dangerous stuff, but refusing to prove it. If I irradiate a product with a gigantic amount of ionizing radiation or something, is there a safety concern? No it is not. The burden of evidence is always with the ones making the claims! When a prosecutor claims you killed someone, it is not on you to prove your innocence but it is on him to prove guilt. Like I said, I'll keep you updated as to how things develop because unless Kelsey Moody comes here VERY soon and retracts and apologizes, or gives exact instructions on how to reproduce his mouse-killing experiment VERY soon, it's a certainty that we'll pursue aggressive legal action against him personally as well as his company. And to be absolutely sure that it is clear to everyone that there are consequences of deliberately libeling a competing tech company (we've been selling self-developed medical devices to nearly 1000 US clinics, we're a medical tech startup just as they are, only we have been selling actual products for a decade), I'll be updating here with the legal state of affairs, all the way up to an actual court case/settlement.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 01 November 2017 - 07:07 PM.

[katzenjammer]

 

On the other hand, Vaughtner and her company have to my knowledge not done their own safety tests that they have published, so they should take any hint of a problem seriously and investigate.  They seem to be dismissing out of hand any suggestion that there may be an issue when they themselves have, again to my knowledge, not done their own tests.  

 

And this threatening of lawsuits is just not how scientific inquiry works.  You must be prepared to receive information contrary to your desired outcome.

 

 

As to your first point above, I wonder:  should any company be expected to respond to "hints" of "a problem" suggested by a potential competitor and without further elaboration?  If there is indeed a real problem suggested by methodical research, said research should be fully elaborated by the "hinter" so that anyone - including Vaughter and Co. - can investigate.  But who, including Vaughter, can investigate a mere conclusion sans a method?  Quite serious about that. 

 

As to your second point, Vaughter & Co. seem utterly willing to "receive information contrary" to their business model.  They are indeed willing to pay for it.  

 

It seems to me that Vaughter has always been honest and upfront; I've seen nothing to the contrary in the years I've done business with her.  Are some of her posts unnecessarily inflammatory?  Yup.  But that seems rather besides the point.  

[Daniel Cooper]

 

 

On the other hand, Vaughtner and her company have to my knowledge not done their own safety tests that they have published, so they should take any hint of a problem seriously and investigate.  They seem to be dismissing out of hand any suggestion that there may be an issue when they themselves have, again to my knowledge, not done their own tests.  

 

And this threatening of lawsuits is just not how scientific inquiry works.  You must be prepared to receive information contrary to your desired outcome.

 

 

As to your first point above, I wonder:  should any company be expected to respond to "hints" of "a problem" suggested by a potential competitor and without further elaboration?  If there is indeed a real problem suggested by methodical research, said research should be fully elaborated by the "hinter" so that anyone - including Vaughter and Co. - can investigate.  But who, including Vaughter, can investigate a mere conclusion sans a method?  Quite serious about that. 

 

As to your second point, Vaughter & Co. seem utterly willing to "receive information contrary" to their business model.  They are indeed willing to pay for it.  

 

It seems to me that Vaughter has always been honest and upfront; I've seen nothing to the contrary in the years I've done business with her.  Are some of her posts unnecessarily inflammatory?  Yup.  But that seems rather besides the point.  

 

 

 

Inchor says that they intend to publish their results in a peer reviewed journal.  I think it's been about a year since they made that statement, which is unfortunately not an unrealistic time frame to get something published.  I do expect them to make good on that promise or look very bad indeed.

 

As to Vaughter's honesty, let me quote something Sarah said just a few posts back.  

 

There is no conceivable manner in which our product could be unsafe, since it's produced exactly the same way, likely even under more controlled circumstances (total darkness for the mixing, very low oxygen perfusion during mixing, very cold storage) and much fresher, as they used product that was years old and we sell fresh batches.

 

Really?  This is cutting edge stuff here.  There hasn't been the first controlled human trial for this compound and she can't think of any way it could be unsafe?  That statement is either dishonest or foolish, take your pick.

 

I fully support her right to sell C60oo and your right to buy it.  But let's not fool ourselves, we are out on the edge here.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 01 November 2017 - 07:11 PM.

[katzenjammer]

 

 

 

On the other hand, Vaughtner and her company have to my knowledge not done their own safety tests that they have published, so they should take any hint of a problem seriously and investigate.  They seem to be dismissing out of hand any suggestion that there may be an issue when they themselves have, again to my knowledge, not done their own tests.  

 

And this threatening of lawsuits is just not how scientific inquiry works.  You must be prepared to receive information contrary to your desired outcome.

 

 

As to your first point above, I wonder:  should any company be expected to respond to "hints" of "a problem" suggested by a potential competitor and without further elaboration?  If there is indeed a real problem suggested by methodical research, said research should be fully elaborated by the "hinter" so that anyone - including Vaughter and Co. - can investigate.  But who, including Vaughter, can investigate a mere conclusion sans a method?  Quite serious about that. 

 

As to your second point, Vaughter & Co. seem utterly willing to "receive information contrary" to their business model.  They are indeed willing to pay for it.  

 

It seems to me that Vaughter has always been honest and upfront; I've seen nothing to the contrary in the years I've done business with her.  Are some of her posts unnecessarily inflammatory?  Yup.  But that seems rather besides the point.  

 

 

 

Inchor says that they intend to publish their results in a peer reviewed journal.  I think it's been about a year since they made that statement, which is unfortunately not an unrealistic time frame to get something published.  I do expect them to make good on that promise or look very bad indeed.

 

As to Vaughter's honesty, let me quote something Sarah said just a few posts back.  

 

There is no conceivable manner in which our product could be unsafe, since it's produced exactly the same way, likely even under more controlled circumstances (total darkness for the mixing, very low oxygen perfusion during mixing, very cold storage) and much fresher, as they used product that was years old and we sell fresh batches.

 

Really?  This is cutting edge stuff here.  There hasn't been the first controlled human trial for this compound and she can't think of any way it could be unsafe?  That statement is either dishonest or foolish, take your pick.

 

I fully support her right to sell C60oo and your right to buy it.  But let's not fool ourselves, we are out on the edge here.

 

 

Well, I agree that anyone who takes c60 is taking something that hasn't been proven to be safe.  True enough.  

 

As to Ichor publishing the results - that would be great.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is:  until and when (or if) that information is published, you can hardly expect Vaughter et al to respond to it, given that there really isn't much to respond to except an unsubstantiated conclusion.  

 

To my ears, that excerpted quotation sounds a little different in its proper context: 

 

 

As to us doing "safety tests": Those safety tests have been done by Baathi et al in their toxicity test. They found no toxicity but instead a near-doubling of lifespan. We faithfully reproduced their C60-EVOO product. There is no conceivable manner in which our product could be unsafe, since it's produced exactly the same way, likely even under more controlled circumstances (total darkness for the mixing, very low oxygen perfusion during mixing, very cold storage) and much fresher, as they used product that was years old and we sell fresh batches. 

[Daniel Cooper]

 

 

 

Well, I agree that anyone who takes c60 is taking something that hasn't been proven to be safe.  True enough.  

 

As to Ichor publishing the results - that would be great.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is:  until and when (or if) that information is published, you can hardly expect Vaughter et al to respond to it, given that there really isn't much to respond to except an unsubstantiated conclusion.  

 

To my ears, that excerpted quotation sounds a little different in its proper context: 

 

 

 

 

To me, someone saying that "there is no conceivable manner in which our product could be unsafe" is expressing a religious rather than scientific conviction, no matter what the context.  

 

And I don't expect her to respond to anything.  It is she that chose to respond, I have certainly never called for a response.  And in that response she attacked Inchor's motives and threatened more than once to bring a lawsuit.  I am for the open discussion of this issue, and I simply don't believe that attitude is helpful in that context. At the end of the day, we all want to get to the truth here.

 

Look, I fully understand her wanting Inchor to publish their data. I hope they drop into this thread and update us on that effort.  If they have decided not to formally publish their test method and results, I expect them to publish it informally here in this forum since they raised the issue.  But, Vaughtner's whole response came off a bit unhinged and counterproductive.  And looking at her website, that doesn't appear to be an anomaly.  I just read one post where she accuses one detractor of "looking like a cult leader".  

[SarahVaughter]

Saying that a homeopathist (= a scammer) looks like a cult leader (which he does) is a benign personal opinion and not by far as bad as very seriously libeling a direct competitor without offering the slightest substantiation for over a year. Funny how you seem to think that me calling a scammer "looking like a cult leader", and ignoring all the hard scientific arguments I used as well, somehow justifies a competing company doing a potential seven-figure amount of damage to us without any consequences or need to prove their allegations. BTW that homeopathist, just like Ichor, posted on this forum that our product is toxic/inferior to his... Without evidence.. But you care about how polite I am and how inoffensive I must be to curry your favor, lol. A competitor, a very dodgy company at that, constantly burning up investor funds without results, posts that we're selling stuff that, paraphrased "can easily kill you when you're unlucky", endangering entire families (our employees) without any evidence whatsoever but Sarah sounds inflammatory oh boy, no, that makes her lose the argument by default! The only people who are inflammatory are those libeling competitors without evidence. Have a look at Kelsey Moody's TEDex talk. He never mentions any passion for his trade. All he talks about is how to get funding, and he says at 5:18 that he prefers selling symptom relievers than ever finding a cure. When a sleazeball tells the world we're a bunch of criminals, selling dangerous stuff, he'd better be prepared to suffer the inevitable consequences, which are being worked on as we speak.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 01 November 2017 - 08:07 PM.

[katzenjammer]

But, Vaughtner's whole response came off a bit unhinged and counterproductive.  

 

Honestly, I haven't read or followed this controversy closely, including Vaughter's posts here or elsewhere.  The posts today seemed a bit inflammatory, yes.  But probably they are also a measure of frustration that is somewhat understandable when one considers how easy it is for a person to materially undermine a business by making unsubstantiated claims about one of it's core products.

 

Now, it may well be that Ichor is a deeply disinterested researcher who has strong research behind his claims and fully intends to publish everything - if so, that's great.  But until then, we really don't know how strong his research is.  At least I don't.   

 

Anyway, it's not hard to see at least the potential for abuse here.  Surely, Vaughter is not the first nor the last business owner to express exasperation when addressing unsubstantiated claims on the innerwebs. 

[ambivalent]

It is crazy to state there is no conceivable way your product could be unsafe.  Not least since no one would consider a single rat-trial to indicate human safety (or rat safety for that matter). Who knows if Baati's processes were accurate or someone in your supply chain produces poor c60 or olive oil or quite simply a human error creeps in to the process.

 

Moreover, you have a duty to investigate the effects of inevitable variations in transport and end-storage conditions of your product. It is no defense to sell a product known to be toxic after an hour in the sun to claim 'well I put on the label: store in a dry dark environment'.

 

You are not regulated and as such you have a duty to meet those standards yourselves - simply claiming to replicate the product under Baati rat conditions isn't sufficient. Would you accept such guarantees from an unregulated company where deviations might possibly result in tumours? 

 

It is your absolute certainty of the infallibility of your product which gives me less confidence, not more.

 

It would have been reassuring if you'd offered customers the chance to submit their samples to an independent lab to confirm or refute the concentration level deviations Ichor found. And then if replicated seek to correct the error in your processes. I don't believe it is your intention to deliver sub-standard products any more than it was for Ichor to use off-the-shelf-product which turned out to be toxic; but once there is doubt, sure, you have a duty to investigate it at the very least for the well being of your customers - I know I'd like to think I would.

 

 

Edited by ambivalent, 01 November 2017 - 08:42 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

...

 

As to Vaughter's honesty, let me quote something Sarah said just a few posts back.  

 

There is no conceivable manner in which our product could be unsafe, since it's produced exactly the same way, likely even under more controlled circumstances (total darkness for the mixing, very low oxygen perfusion during mixing, very cold storage) and much fresher, as they used product that was years old and we sell fresh batches.

 

Really?  This is cutting edge stuff here.  There hasn't been the first controlled human trial for this compound and she can't think of any way it could be unsafe?  That statement is either dishonest or foolish, take your pick.

 

I fully support her right to sell C60oo and your right to buy it.  But let's not fool ourselves, we are out on the edge here.

 

I've pointed this out before, but as she hasn't changed anything I'll have to do it again. Her website says--

 

We purchase 99.5% C60 from Solaris and to ensure and control the absolute highest achievable purity, instead of relying on testing of random samples and hoping that others are of the same purity, we vacuum-oven dry to a purity of greater than 99.95% in our own lab.

 

Nonsense. 99.5% is a cheap reagent grade, and baking it will not increase the purity. The impurities are C70 and a few other fullerenes, and C70 is not removed by baking and doesn't act like C60 in cells. It goes to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) instead of the mitochondria. And in my own experience, using very small amounts of C70 over a period of days can be toxic, as the ER is where proteins are folded. Misfold them and they are useless.

 

Solaris 99.5% C60 is $249 for ten grams, and SES 99.95% vacuum baked is $890 for the same ten grams--more than 3.6 times as much. So this is all about cost savings, not about "hoping that others are of the same purity."

 

The results demonstrating that C70-based fullerenes are endocytosed and localize to ER differentiate from previously published results showing that endocytosed C60-based fullerenes localize to the mitochondria and lysosomes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2888797/

Edited by Turnbuckle, 01 November 2017 - 08:19 PM.

[SarahVaughter]

@ambivalent You are changing the topic. You're either incapable of logical thought or you're employing dirty discussion tricks to "win" the argument. I accuse you of raping your little sister on a regular basis. You ask me for proof. I will simply tell you it is your responsibility that there is absolutely no possibility that you never, under no circumstance, ever rape your little sister. You must provide proof that you do not suffer from sleepwalking, that you have no multiple personality disorder, that you're not a pedophile, that no criminals are blackmailing/forcing you to produce snuff porn with your sister, that you are not a substance abuser of very strong mind-altering drugs, that it is impossible for anyone to slip you drugs into your drink - don't you realize how pathetic you sound, how desperate your case? You're a sister-rapist because I say so, and unless you prove beyond any possibility of any doubt your absolute innocence, you're irresponsible and reckless and may indeed very well be a sister-rapist. Because I say so, and because you are unwilling and unable to "prove" that I'm wrong.

 

Thurnbuckle also changed the subject: Instead of talking about the issue of alleged UV exposure resulting in a deadly concoctions, he changes the subject as to an alleged small fraction of C70 in our product. The topic, I remind you again, is a competing company claiming, but refusing to provide evidence, that all C60-EVOO turns acutely lethal when UV light is shone into the bottles they come in. I see you guys are not interested in debating the topic and mix in all kinds of further attacks/use childish discussion tricks, so I'll rightfully consider this place hostile and have nothing more to discuss here - except, when applicable, updating this thread later with info on legal action against Ichor.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 01 November 2017 - 08:21 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

Thurnbuckle also changed the subject: Instead of talking about the issue of alleged UV exposure resulting in a deadly concoctions, he changes the subject as to an alleged small fraction of C70 in our product. The topic, I remind you again, is a competing company claiming, but refusing to provide evidence, that all C60-EVOO turns acutely lethal when UV light is shone into the bottles they come in. I see you guys are not interested in debating the topic and mix in all kinds of further attacks, so I'll rightfully consider this place hostile and have nothing more to discuss here - except, if appliccable, updating this thread later with info on legal action against Ichor.

 

 

That post is in reference to your statement that--

 

There is no conceivable manner in which our product could be unsafe, since it's produced exactly the same way, likely even under more controlled circumstances (total darkness for the mixing, very low oxygen perfusion during mixing, very cold storage) and much fresher, as they used product that was years old and we sell fresh batches.

 

 

[ambivalent]

Really, I have to say to repeatedly use the analogy of fraternal rape is rather desperate, vulgar and unprofessional. It is easy to counter your argument but unpalatable to do so.

 

You are selling an unregulated product which people are taking on limited information - if it is claimed this product could be unsafe, especially from a reputable source (yes, I would consider a professional scientist to fit that category) then you have a duty to investigate and have not as far as I know.

 

If I were marketing this product and I'd learned that under certain conditions it has shown to be lethally toxic to mice, I'd want to find out more about the effect of variations in storage conditions on the stability of my product. You don't feel this obligation to your customers, most of whom wouldn't have a clue about the research?     

Edited by ambivalent, 01 November 2017 - 08:45 PM.

[SarahVaughter]

Pulling rank is not a valid argument. He who makes the claim must provide evidence. He who makes a libelous claim has only proven truth as a valid legal defense, and like I said, it will come to that unless he proves his claims. You're basically saying you believe him on his word because he has a diploma, whereas I use words you dislike. Good for you, but things don't work like that in science and courts.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 01 November 2017 - 08:37 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Ok Sarah, you still can't think of anyway your product might be harmful?  I'll help you out.

 

What sort of incoming inspection do you do on your bulk olive oil?  HPLC? MS? NMR?  Anything? Nothing?  How do you know that the olive oil you start from isn't adulterated?  Unless you're picking the olives and pressing them to oil yourself OR doing some meaningful tests then you're simply taking someone's word on it.

 

Same question on the C60.  And as Turnbuckle points out, your 99.5% material has some unpleasant side products.

 

How about your finished C60oo?  What tests do you run on that?  Again, HPLC? MS? NMR? Anything? Nothing? Some testing to see if you formed unwanted epoxides during manufacturing? Do you take it on faith that every step of your manufacturing process was done correctly, every time?

 

Now, have you done any testing to simulate shipping, shelf storage, and light exposure and re-run the above test?  No?

 

And all of that disregards the fact that we as of yet don't have a single human trial for safety or effectiveness. Hell, we don't yet have anyone that's duplicated Baati's tests and published the results as far as I know.  And you are aware of course that there are compounds which have proven to be non-toxic in rats but toxic in humans, right?

 

Still can't think of any manner in which your product might be harmful?  

 

I frankly would never consider consuming something from someone that can't even conceive that what they're making might be harmful.  That sort of complacency tends to yield bad outcomes.

 

BTW, I am not down on C60oo.  I have in the past taken it.  I hope everything that many think this compound can do turns out to be true. But to say that we aren't on the bleeding edge of knowledge in this area is simply foolish.

 

 

[SarahVaughter]

You're changing the subject again. The issue at hand is that a competing company claims that we sell a very dangerous product, without offering the slightest evidence for such, in spite of promising to do so a year ago. You can keep trying to attack me, sowing all kinds of FUD, but the issue here is criminal libel. You trying to asperse FUD onto my products will not help Ichor's case. Only hard proof that their very damaging claims are true will save them from a judgment in our favor. I understand that you choose to throw your mud anonymously, hoping some will stick and distract from the criminal libel (unless proven true) by a fellow C60 competitor, because it is clear that you're intellectually dishonest. Since we don't know who you are and you completely ignore the issue at hand but instead cast doubt upon my product as well, it is clear you are biased.

Edited by SarahVaughter, 01 November 2017 - 08:45 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

If you look back in this thread you'll see that I have questioned Inchor's testing method in some detail.  They say that they are in the process of publishing their results in a peer reviewed journal.  If that is what they are doing, that is exactly what they should be doing.  Publishing those results in a peer reviewed journal will do far more than you and your company have done to advance the knowledge of C60oo.  On the other hand, if they don't end up publishing those results then they should be properly castigated.  

 

But you seem to be unwilling to answer the above questions.  Why is that?  You should be able to provide those answers off the top of your head.

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 01 November 2017 - 08:50 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

BTW, let me take this opportunity to invite @kmoody to drop into this thread and update us on their efforts to publish their results.

 

 

 

 

[ambivalent]

Pulling rank is not a valid argument. He who makes the claim must provide evidence. He who makes a libelous claim has only proven truth as a valid legal defense, and like I said, it will come to that unless he proves his claims. You're basically saying you believe him on his word because he has a diploma, whereas I use words you dislike. Good for you, but things don't work like that in science and courts.

 

No I am saying it casts legitimate doubt - I don't have 'beliefs' about c60oo or the studies, I have confidence levels: we all do. When a credible source casts doubt on the stability of c60oo, that alters my confidence level in the product: it should to you too. Since you are selling this product to the public you should have a higher not lower threshold than those on this forum, many of whom are more cautious of c60oo whether made home or away.

Edited by ambivalent, 01 November 2017 - 09:22 PM.

[ambivalent]

I'm surprised you'd want to draw legal attention to a product which is scarcely researched, unregulated, not FDA approved and which it is claimed can be acutely toxic to mice under heavy light exposure. Who knows you might win the case and then get shut down by the FDA.  

[katzenjammer]

@ambivalent - whether he's a "credible source" or not is purely subjective.  A researcher isn't credible merely by virtue of his being a researcher.  There are good ones, bad ones, impeccable ones, brilliant ones, stupid ones, corrupt ones, etc.   The only thing that should have any weight for anyone is the quality of the research.  It either stands or falls on its own.  

 

Just a heads up for anyone interested who doesn't already know - law courts are notoriously bad at discerning scientific, technical or medical truth.  Anyone who steps into that arena - as a defendant or plaintiff - regardless of how "rock solid" you think the evidence on your side is - you can spend a great deal of money and emerge with your faith in the legal system shaken to its core.  Beware of lawyers telling you that your case is "air tight", or something like that.  LOL.  Unfortunately, I can claim some experience here.  

 

One other thing:  we should stop typing and step away from our computers when our emotions are getting the best of us.  haha.       

[ambivalent]

@ambivalent - whether he's a "credible source" or not is purely subjective.  A researcher isn't credible merely by virtue of his being a researcher.     

 

Sure that's true of any field; however, I'm not indifferent to the knowledge of experts or research from researchers. After all, we're all here, including SV, predominantly on the back of one paper.

 

Equally, though I don't leave it that, I still just about weigh in on the side of taking c60oo, but I am more cautious and careful with storage. I have to say though, I wouldn't start out on the c60 journey now.

 

Agevivo's home experiment offers some reassurance, since the oil he used would have been pretty poor and those mice did ok. Still, I'd not recommend c60oo to anyone else unless they were after a last resort.

 

It is a shame since 5 years on we really should have some pretty amazing drug for use in a range of pilot studies.

Edited by ambivalent, 01 November 2017 - 09:58 PM.

[sthira]

What do you mean by "All vendor vessels were insufficient to stop by-product formation". It is not clear what is insufficient to stop by-product formation. Do you mean by "C60 amount" by HPLC?
Which below number(s) describe the above statement?
1. All vendor C60 olive oil has not sufficient amount of C60 as their label state? Wasn't there analysis of quality control of experimental C60 amount comparing to the amount stated in different vendors' labels in the previous thread?
2. Did you test all vendors' C60 epoxide levels?
3. Did any vendor's C60 olive oil cause the growth of tumor or toxicity other than SES olive oil?

We took empty vessels from each of the vendors and tested their ability to prevent light mediated degradation of C60oo. None of them were effective at blocking out the light at appreciable levels.

I would have to review my notes for the exact details, but I believe we put in fresh C60oo in each vessel then exposed to light. In one grouping it was UV exposed, in another grouping it was left out for some period of time in ambient light.

1. This is correct. No vendor has consistently met their label claims.
2. We cannot directly measure epoxide formation yet. We have almost finished developing an assay in house that will allow us to quantify the presence of epoxides. That work is ongoing and should be done soon.
3. We have not tested other vendor C60oo in vivo. It did not make sense to me to poison animals for no scientific reason.

Broadly, our interest is not characterizing the products sold by online vendors. We know the QC is of poor quality or does not exist at all, and we know that light exposure causes the formation of what we believe are toxic epoxides. What we are more interested in is finding ways to prevent epoxide formation, or to develop a formulation that preserves the efficacy of dark C60oo but is resistant to degradation from light. For this reason, we have done some, but not extensive, characterization of the various products of 3rd party vendors.

Note that these are laborious and expensive projects to conduct, particularly when we get animals involved. I also have reservations about poisoning my mice to prove vendors are selling toxic products. We have shown they do not meet the basic claims listed on the label. It is their burden to prove out their product.

Any updates?