285 replies to this topic

[smithx]

We don't know enough to say whether it's safe to take C60oo at all.

 

Kmoody's hypothesis now is that there was something wrong with the SES C60oo, but it's not proven that any difference between it and what Baati prepared is responsible for the tumor growth.

 

Baati used SES C60 (the pure C60 powder) in the original study, but prepared it himself, in the dark. It was then stored in the dark.

 

Kmoody's lab purchased SES-prepared C60oo, which may or may not have used Baati's method, may or may not have been prepared in the dark and may or may not have been stored in the dark.

 

Kmoody then prepared their own batch of C60oo using Baati's method and found a difference between that at the SES C60oo.

 

But we still don't know if the difference is significant or if dark preparation and storage makes C60oo safe or not.

 

[Turnbuckle]

 

But we still don't know if the difference is significant or if dark preparation and storage makes C60oo safe or not.

 

Eventually the oil will become rancid, even in the dark. According to the Baati paper, the experimental mix was stored for 4 years at least--

 

The stability of both oily and control solutions stored at ambient temperature and in the dark was checked monthly during 48 months. No change was recorded under our chromatographic conditions.

 

 

The truth of this statement is in doubt, as the initial pictures of the C60 oil AgeVivo posted from Baati don't match the color of the oil he obtained--supposedly the same oil*. That AgeVivo's mice all got cancer is then not surprising, as the oil he obtained from the Baati group was ancient and certainly rancid. Rancidity has mutagenic effects--

Autooxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) of edible oils results in the formation of fatty acid hydroperoxides that can undergo further chemical transformations to yield a variety of re-arranged and chain-cleavage products. Since the oxidation products of PUFAs have been reported to have cytotoxic and mutagenic effects, the consumption of rancid oils and fats represents a possible health hazard for the population. Storage of corn oil at room temperature and in the refrigerator for a forty-eight month period resulted in two different qualities of oil samples, which were characterized by UV, titrimetric (peroxide value, acid value) and GC-MS methods. Earlier it was demonstrated that the increase of expression of certain oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes is a method of choice for the early detection of carcinogen exposure. Treatment of CBA/Calpha inbred mice with the two oil samples showed significantly increased expression of the Ha-ras gene in all the investigated organs (liver, lung, kidney, thymus and spleen) of the rancid corn oil-treated animals. Expression of the c-myc and the p53 genes was also increased after the rancid corn oil-treatment in all the organs but the thymus of the mice. The results suggest that rancid oils, rich in omega-6 unsaturated fatty acids, could be involved not only in tumor promotion but in initiation as well.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12017293

 

 

And I'm betting that the SES oil dates from 2012 and is thus rancid as well. I expect this will prove to be the real problem and not the presence of light-induced epoxides, which are known to make C60 a better antioxidant.

 

*Judging by the dark color of the sample sent to AgeVivo, I wonder if Baati didn't send the unfiltered oil, providing yet another variable. One member of the group said filtering wasn't necessary, but I doubt they actually tested that assertion.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 08 July 2016 - 12:11 AM.

[smithx]

 

And I'm betting that the SES oil dates from 2012 and is thus rancid as well. I expect this will prove to be the real problem and not the presence of light-induced epoxides, which are known to make C60 a better antioxidant.

 

You may or may not be right, but it's a bet.

 

Given the very serious possibility that C60oo can cause tumor growth, it's quite reckless to take it until we have some fairly conclusive information.

[niner]

I think Baati's statement of the oil being stable against their chromatographic methodology is true as far as it goes, but it seems pretty obvious that their methodology was not capturing everything that was going on in the mixture.  It was, after all, just UV detection.  Kelsey saw two peaks with the SES oil, which is pretty good evidence that something is amiss there.  He didn't see it with his own prep, and I'm guessing he didn't see it with carbon60oliveoil.com's stuff, although I don't remember if he explicitly stated that.

 

At this point, Kelsey's prep is the same as many of ours, and didn't show a problem in their model.  Only SES's prep showed the problem.

[smithx]

At this point, Kelsey's prep is the same as many of ours, and didn't show a problem in their model.  Only SES's prep showed the problem.

 

Actually I don't think we know that. Kmoody's lab as I remember only ran that study so far with SES C60oo and they found increased tumor growth. They haven't yet rerun it with their own prep, or if they have I don't remember him posting about it.

 

So as far as we know, C60oo in general may cause tumor growth. We don't have evidence to the contrary yet.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

And I'm betting that the SES oil dates from 2012 and is thus rancid as well. I expect this will prove to be the real problem and not the presence of light-induced epoxides, which are known to make C60 a better antioxidant.

 

You may or may not be right, but it's a bet.

 

Given the very serious possibility that C60oo can cause tumor growth, it's quite reckless to take it until we have some fairly conclusive information.

 

 

 

Everyone has their own perception of risk, but I've long thought that young people were being foolish in taking C60 unless their mitochondria were already very damaged. For myself, I'm into social security age and I've been taking it for four years anyway, so I'm not going to stop just because my concerns about the SES product have proven correct.

[niner]

 

At this point, Kelsey's prep is the same as many of ours, and didn't show a problem in their model.  Only SES's prep showed the problem.

 

Actually I don't think we know that. Kmoody's lab as I remember only ran that study so far with SES C60oo and they found increased tumor growth. They haven't yet rerun it with their own prep, or if they have I don't remember him posting about it.

 

I thought that the promising early results were with his own prep.

[smithx]

 

 

At this point, Kelsey's prep is the same as many of ours, and didn't show a problem in their model.  Only SES's prep showed the problem.

 

Actually I don't think we know that. Kmoody's lab as I remember only ran that study so far with SES C60oo and they found increased tumor growth. They haven't yet rerun it with their own prep, or if they have I don't remember him posting about it.

 

I thought that the promising early results were with his own prep.

 

 

Yes, but I don't believe that tumors were studied except in the single study with the SES product. So we don't yet know if the other formulation could also have enhanced tumor growth.
 

[Empiricus]

 

 

Just a bit of extremely new information from me. I will let you decide the relevance.

 

My dog began C60 at 10 years of age and was just diagnosed at age 13 with a massive tumor in her head. She was taking 5mg a month of home brew C60EVOO (using SES C60 99.5%), so probably around 2.5mg C60 in my mix. Unfortunately because of the size and location of the tumor, combined with her age, there isn't much I can do for her medically speaking. There are other things I am doing for her, keto+MBZ+apiginen+quercetin+resveratrol, etc. to try to help her though. With that said, she is a an extremely young 13 .....minus the cancer of course.

 

For me personally, this has prompted me to stop the supplementation as well.

 

How fresh was this mix?

 

 

The EVOO was prepared with C60, split into amber bottles equally, and frozen in approximately 3-4 months from harvest date of the olives. I kept the C60EVOO frozen until use.

 

As I have mentioned in other posts, my C60EVOO was bright red when back lit. The EVOO itself started out very green.

 

 

Specifically this oil: https://www.barianio...irgin-olive-oil

 

Here is how it is processed, so you dont have to dig around on the site if interested.

 

Production of extra virgin olive oil starts with the peculiar caretaking of our olive orchards. Nothing is neglected since the start. The olive harvest begins in October, when the olives are still green, up until the end of December when the olives reach their ripeness and are black in color. The olives are hand harvested to avoid bruising and other damage caused by mechanical harvesters. As the olives arrive at the olive mill they are immediately cleaned and washed to remove any debris before being crushed. The resulting olive paste from the crusher is subsequently uniformly mixed and its oil extracted. This extra virgin olive oil remains cold extracted and unfiltered to preserve its raw qualities and stored in temperature controlled stainless steel tanks until bottling

 

 

The c60 consumed by your dog sounds to me like it was prepared with sensible precautions, came from a high quality source, and was stored properly. The very least I think we can take away from your dog's situation is that c60 doesn't appear to offer total protection against new tumors in a tumor-prone animal.  On account of the precautions you took, I think this is a highly credible data point and it's very good that you brought it to our attention.  

 

I'm sorry to hear about your dog. 

Edited by Empiricus, 08 July 2016 - 09:59 AM.

[Captain Obvious]

I would be interested to know how the suspected SES C60-EVOO or other commercially available C60 olive oil products taste. That might help to asses their quality.

Good high-polyphenol olive oil has a strong peppery taste, almost burning at the back of the palate sometimes accompanied by flavors of grass or citrus, whereas olive oil gone bad has a flat, uninteresting, even unpleasant taste.
 

The C60 EVOO I prepared from a very high quality olive oil was exposed to light while stirred for about a week, but retains all of the flavors of the original oil. It would take considerably longer for it to start going bad. I now store it in the freezer and only take what I need (about 20-30 mg of C60 every two weeks). Tastes great for example on bread with some nice balsamic, on pasta or in a salad. I still wonder if I'm doing myself a disservice, though.

Can anyone who has tasted these commercial products, care to share what they tasted like? 

Edited by Captain Obvious, 09 July 2016 - 09:08 AM.

[sensei]

 

Can anyone who has tasted these commercial products, care to share what they tasted like? 

 

 

VW was very peppery and burned the back of my throat.

 

My own with EVOO was not quite as biting -- but had a dark merlot brown color like VW

 

My own with light OO had no bite at all -- but had the most pretty purple/magenta color 

[Captain Obvious]

Thanks, Sensei.

 

My reasoning was that since the polyphenol content and lack of rancidity or short shelf-life are supposed to be important for the C60's positive effects and on the other hand for the lack tumor-causing side-effects, and human sense of taste or smell being quite accurate (having evolved to detect poisonous foods) in detecting variations in the chemical content of olive oil, this might be useful information.

Since someone marked my question as "ill-informed", I would like to know what is "ill informed" in that. At least all the Italian olive oil (as well as wine) professionals I've talked to always tell people to evaluate the smell and taste of oils to find out their quality. I might be wrong, so please educate me. After all, I'm here to learn.

 

[smithx]

Thanks, Sensei.

 

My reasoning was that since the polyphenol content and lack of rancidity or short shelf-life are supposed to be important for the C60's positive effects and on the other hand for the lack tumor-causing side-effects, and human sense of taste or smell being quite accurate (having evolved to detect poisonous foods) in detecting variations in the chemical content of olive oil, this might be useful information.

Since someone marked my question as "ill-informed", I would like to know what is "ill informed" in that. At least all the Italian olive oil (as well as wine) professionals I've talked to always tell people to evaluate the smell and taste of oils to find out their quality. I might be wrong, so please educate me. After all, I'm here to learn.

 

 

I am not the person who marked your message "ill informed" but if you are saying that you can tell if C60oo is carcinogenic by tasting it, then I agree with the assessment.

 

We have no idea if "good" c60oo may increase tumor growth. We lack the data. It's an unconfirmed assumption that there is "good" and "bad" C60oo. And if there is, we currently don't know what would make any particular batch good or bad.

 

One hypothesis (not yet a theory) is that photo-oxidation could produce some harmful compounds. If this is the case, which is not proven, we don't know what such compounds would taste like if indeed they do have a flavor.

 

If the photo-oxidation hypothesis is true, then it's likely (but again not even a theory yet) that even the best, freshest, most polyphenol-rich olive oil could become carcinogenic quickly if mixed with C60oo and exposed to light. There might be no way to distinguish carcinogenic vs beneficial C60oo (if in fact there is any which is non-carcinogenic) except by sophisticated analytic methods.

 

This has no bearing on the above, but by the way, Italian olive oil is likely to be adulterated.:

http://www.nytimes.c...in-suicide.html

[sensei]

 

 

We have no idea if "good" c60oo may increase tumor growth. We lack the data. It's an unconfirmed assumption that there is "good" and "bad" C60oo. And if there is, we currently don't know what would make any particular batch good or bad.

 

 

 

Well we do have the Baati Study, where none of the C60 rats had developed tumors.

 

75% of Male Wistar Rats  and 86% of female Wistar rats will develop tumors (approximately 30-40% malignant) by 30 months.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1477518

 

None of the C60OO Rats had tumors AFAIK.  While not definitive, the odds that not 1 of the 6 rats had a tumor at 30 months is  approximately  1 in 5000

 

The only thing we can say for sure:

 

In an immunocompromised mouse model of injected Acute Myelogenous Leukemia; C60OO administration appears to increase tumor growth.

 

 

Edited by sensei, 24 July 2016 - 03:39 AM.

[Wilberforce]

I'm surprised that none of the commercial manufacturers have commented. Agreed that joining the debate is a double edged sword but frankly if you've got proof then bring it as many of us won't be placing orders until this is clear. I'm heading back to MitoQ myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[niner]

The only thing we can say for sure:

 

In an immunocompromised mouse model of injected Acute Myelogenous Leukemia; C60OO administration appears to increase tumor growth.

 

The only thing we can say for sure is that One Particular Brand of Commercial C60oo appeared to increase tumor growth in a model consisting of human leukemia cells in an immunocompromised mouse.  C60oo that was prepared according to Baati's method resulted in reduced tumor growth.

 

The thing that's potentially scary is that this suggests that it's possible to screw up the preparation.  The mouse model may or may not be relevant to humans, but the whole situation raises some worrying questions.

[long68]

 

Another 'major change' between the pilot study who showed a very compelling, dose-dependent decrease in all-cause mortality and the xenograft study who showed an increase, was the administration modus.

 

Pilot study ip (clean C60oo intra peritoneal ) Baati gavage

 

Xenograft study and other tests C60oo administred by spiking the diet.

 

Kmondy wrote :

« We are administering approximately 4mg/kg in pre-aged C57BL/6 mice by spiking the diet. Mouse weights and food consumption are being monitored so the dosing won't be perfect but we can take into account during final data analysis. We discussed the pros and cons with gavage feeding with the sponsor but it was determined that for cost and practicality using a diet-based administration made the most sense. Note that we are not using a few rats like Baati. There are 45 mice per group so the study is well powered. Mice were all age and gender matched. »

 

Mice are feeded with test normalized pellets formulated with the hundreds of ingrediens needed for the diet.

If I understand you have mixed (homogeneized) C60oo with these pellets.

In my hypothesis that mixture is a perfect bio reacto incubator who could change the C60oo adducts in bad adducts.

 

Kmondy could you give us some precisions about your spiking modus operanti and how long (hours ? Days ? Weeks ?) C60oo was in contact with the nutriments and of course with the ambient O2, light ….

 

If that 'major change' could be a reason for the bad results would it be safer to take C60oo on empty stomach ?

 

Thanks

[smithx]

It's a good thing to test, but relying on the idea that having C60oo on an empty stomach could be safe is another gamble.

 

It's possible but there's no evidence for it.

 

 

If that 'major change' could be a reason for the bad results would it be safer to take C60oo on empty stomach ?
 

[sensei]

 

 

If that 'major change' could be a reason for the bad results would it be safer to take C60oo on empty stomach ?

 

Thanks

 

I mainly took mine on an empty stomach, then again I was guzzling 50ml at a time.

 

If you take the large doses scaled up for a human, it's almost impossible to not take it on an empty stomach.

 

I've taken between 150-200 ml in one go, and it is difficult to just get that down (and keep it down).

 

However, I don't think that the time in contact with partially digested food in the stomach would be an issue, after all, gastric juices have a pH of 1.5 and plenty of chlorine and hydrogen atoms floating around.

 

I can report that white in my beard, chest and head hair has returned to the pre-C60OO levels of 2014. I have not been consuming  C60OO for almost a year (maybe once or twice last summer).

 

So, for me, the visible anti-ageing effect lasted about 2 years from the peak of consumption.

Edited by sensei, 01 August 2016 - 06:54 PM.

[JohnD60]

I believe there are scores, possibly hundreds, of humans taking C60-OO, and I do not know of any humans reporting getting tumors. So keep that in mind.

 

But I have always advised against younger people considering taking C60-OO. I am in my 50s, so my risk reward analysis is different than a 25 year old.

 

I speculated in 2012 that oxidation from mechanical mixing would be a problem, http://www.longecity...iltering/page-3 and I can not help but think that the vendors are utilizing mechanical mixing methods to produce production batches, and that the mechanical (or otherwise altered) mixing is causing oxidation, and hence altering the character of the mixture.

Edited by JohnD60, 04 August 2016 - 05:22 AM.

[Vany]

Hello all,
This answer from VW may interest you :


"
Vany
a day ago
Hello,


A recent study shows 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"
http://www.weyburnreview.com/n...
How do you handle this degradation due to light ?
thanks
Reply
−
Avatar
Sarah Vaughter Vany
a day ago
Firstly, this "research" by Ichor Therapeutics, a competitor of ours in the C60 anticancer/antiaging sphere, is highly questionable, especially because they did not publish it for peer review. It is possible that some of the more amateuristic vendors of C60 used impure, cheaper C60 and/or mixed the product under the influence of light, but still, the only risk of light exposure is rancidity, when pure C60 is used (without organic solvents). I would like to read their secret "study". As you know, most "research" done nowadays is not reproducable. To me it seems as if that company spreads FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) to guide potential customers towards their own products instead.

It is highly unlikely that this company has done mutagenicity studies on various commercially available C60-EVOO formulations for a variety of reasons, this is why I question the thruthfullness of their so far wholly unsubstantiated claims. It seems as if the real purpose of their claim is an aim to establish themselves as the sole vendor of a FDA regulated product.

The reason that this company comes with the allegation that competing products with their own planned c60 product "massively cause cancer" is because this NYC startup apparently aims to monopolize the market with their own, much more expensive, FDA-regulated anti-tumor product they're developing, of which manufacturing method, origin, composition and preparation are so far unpatented trade secrets. You just have to take them on their word that all C60-EVOO products made exactly as in the rat study (that prevented all cancer!) "massively cause cancer" but that their so-far-vaporware product "doesn't". Without giving any evidence whatsoever for neither claims.

Secondly, of course we protect our product against light, since it is an olive oil product and it would be foolish in the extreme to allow this very expensive product to be exposed to light, since rancidity would be the inevitable result, since the mixing takes such a long time. Since we can't sell rancid oil, this would mean that we'd have to discard the C60 inside the product as well, and C60 costs about the same as 24 carat gold powder of the same weight. A lot of useless batches would be the result. As we explain on our site, the product is mixed in a dark room in Swedish Lapland, in dark vessels and packaged in brown bottles and then stored in a dark, cold room in Swedish Lapland. On a "just in time" basis, the product is then shipped to the Czech Republic, where it is stored for no longer than two to four weeks in a dark unheated cellar in a house with massive stone walls, keeping cool even in summer. The bottles are packed with two in cardboard tubes and those tubes again are in large boxes.

Also, the C60 we purchase is "baked" by us in a vacuum oven to be absolutely certain that there really are no remaining solvents.

What we need to know is: What C60 did they buy and where, what product did they prepare with it and how, to what intensity and wavelength light did they expose the product and for how long, and how did they come up with a cancer-cuasing property of the resulting product. Because if you use impure C60, that by itself is carcinogenic, of course, due to the solvents used. The C60-EVOO used in the rat trial was highly anti-mutagenic and our product is prepared with even more care and stored cool (the rat study kept it out of the fridge for 6 years).

Ichor Therapeutics is trying to monopolize C60's anti-cancer properties as a licensed drug and part of their efforts is to get existing, unlicensed products off the market. It is hard to do this via FDA action, so instead they're spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. It would be pointless to get hundreds of millions in funding for a product that's available online for a few dollars.
"

[Turnbuckle]

Also, the C60 we purchase is "baked" by us in a vacuum oven to be absolutely certain that there really are no remaining solvents.

 

 

 

As previously discussed, this vendor is not buying the highest purity C60 (as Baati used) and apparently believes they can increase the purity by baking it. This is simply wrong.

 

Edited by Turnbuckle, 04 August 2016 - 04:45 PM.

[Empiricus]

 

Also, the C60 we purchase is "baked" by us in a vacuum oven to be absolutely certain that there really are no remaining solvents.

 

As previously discussed, this vendor is not buying the highest purity C60 (as Baati used) and apparently believes they can increase the purity by baking it. This is simply wrong.

 

For reference, here is where I see it was discussed.   

[smithx]

So they are claiming that Kmoody is just lying in order to establish their forthcoming product as the only safe one?

 

I really doubt that and find it incredibly self-serving and offensive.

 

To me it seems as if that company spreads FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) to guide potential customers towards their own products instead.

It is highly unlikely that this company has done mutagenicity studies on various commercially available C60-EVOO formulations for a variety of reasons, this is why I question the thruthfullness of their so far wholly unsubstantiated claims. It seems as if the real purpose of their claim is an aim to establish themselves as the sole vendor of a FDA regulated product.

The reason that this company comes with the allegation that competing products with their own planned c60 product "massively cause cancer" is because this NYC startup apparently aims to monopolize the market with their own, much more expensive, FDA-regulated anti-tumor product they're developing, of which manufacturing method, origin, composition and preparation are so far unpatented trade secrets. You just have to take them on their word that all C60-EVOO products made exactly as in the rat study (that prevented all cancer!) "massively cause cancer" but that their so-far-vaporware product "doesn't". Without giving any evidence whatsoever for neither claims.

[tunt01]

So they are claiming that Kmoody is just lying in order to establish their forthcoming product as the only safe one?

I really doubt that and find it incredibly self-serving ....

It's FUD. That's the point.

[Empiricus]

Hello all,
This answer from VW may interest you :

"
Vany
a day ago
Hello,

A recent study shows 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"
http://www.weyburnreview.com/n...
How do you handle this degradation due to light ?
thanks
Reply
−
Avatar
Sarah Vaughter Vany
a day ago
 
Secondly, of course we protect our product against light, since it is an olive oil product and it would be foolish in the extreme to allow this very expensive product to be exposed to light, since rancidity would be the inevitable result, since the mixing takes such a long time. Since we can't sell rancid oil, this would mean that we'd have to discard the C60 inside the product as well, and C60 costs about the same as 24 carat gold powder of the same weight. A lot of useless batches would be the result. As we explain on our site, the product is mixed in a dark room in Swedish Lapland, in dark vessels and packaged in brown bottles and then stored in a dark, cold room in Swedish Lapland. On a "just in time" basis, the product is then shipped to the Czech Republic, where it is stored for no longer than two to four weeks in a dark unheated cellar in a house with massive stone walls, keeping cool even in summer. The bottles are packed with two in cardboard tubes and those tubes again are in large boxes. 

 

"...then stored in a dark, cold room in Swedish Lapland."  Stored for how long in Swedish Lapland?  We're only told how long it's stored in Czech.  

 

"On a "just in time" basis..."   I don't understand the relevance of using the phrase "just in time" to the transfer of oil between one storage location and another unless the Czech storage room is not as cool as the one in Swedish Lapland.  What are the temperatures of the storage rooms?

 

We're not told what happens to the oil between the olive processing factory and the "dark room in Swedish Lapland." How long does the oil remain in the olive processing factory? In what conditions? How long does the oil sit in a distributor's warehouse in Greece?  And it what conditions?  

Edited by Empiricus, 05 August 2016 - 04:40 AM.

[sensei]

 

Also, the C60 we purchase is "baked" by us in a vacuum oven to be absolutely certain that there really are no remaining solvents.

 

 

 

As previously discussed, this vendor is not buying the highest purity C60 (as Baati used) and apparently believes they can increase the purity by baking it. This is simply wrong.

 

 

 

I have consumed about 2 grams C60OO from VW (based on VW 45 mg/50 ml claim) back in 2014/2015.  I don't recall the information re: solaris 99.5% being on the VW website at the time, but it could have been.  I feel a bit miffed about being duped regarding purity.

 

Based on my research, the primary contaminant in C60 (aside from solvent) is C70. (there are other trace fullerenes but the amounts are miniscule)

 

If Solaris is to be trusted, that would = a maximum of 10 mg of C70 in the entire course of my VW consumption.  Based on my regular dose of 45 mg, that would = 225 micrograms of C70 - at most per dose. -- approximately 2 orders of magnitude below the 2.5 micro-molar concentration level of activity described in the cited study below.

 

I'm not particularly worried -- C70 carboxyfullerenes are more protective of cells against oxidative stress (by more than an order of magnitude based on micro-molar concentration) than C60 carboxyfullerenes -- I expect that would extend to fatty acid adducts as well.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/24150592

 

As far as my own mix, I use 99.95% pure from SES research.

Edited by sensei, 06 August 2016 - 04:26 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

 

If Solaris is to be trusted, that would = a maximum of 10 mg of C70 in the entire course of my VW consumption.  Based on my regular dose of 45 mg, that would = 225 micrograms of C70 - at most per dose. -- approximately 2 orders of magnitude below the 2.5 micro-molar concentration level of activity described in the cited study below.

 

 

 

 

 

I ran into a problem once before with a very small dose of C70. As I reported in 2012--

 

To clarify, I noticed a pain in both calves that lasted several days and a pulsing pain in the back of my neck that lasted several hours.This was after a few days of taking a dose of .25 mg twice a day. And it wasn't C60, it was a mixture of C60 & C70--about 28% C70 and 2% higher. Previously I'd used C60 @ 99.5% purity, but now I've switched to 99.95% purity, as it seems that even a small amount of higher fullerenes may prove to be a problem.

 

http://www.longecity...joint-pain-and/

 

 

So this was only 70 micrograms C70 twice a day. I'd taken a much lager dose of C70 before without any problem, but the problem here seems to have come from taking it twice a day. C70 has been reported to go into the endoplasmic reticulum, where it could conceivably interfere with protein folding. Do that on a continuous basis and cells could run low on important proteins.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 06 August 2016 - 05:48 PM.

[sensei]

 

 

So this was only 70 micrograms C70 twice a day. I'd taken a much lager dose of C70 before without any problem, but the problem here seems to have come from taking it twice a day. C70 has been reported to go into the endoplasmic reticulum, where it could conceivably interfere with protein folding. Do that on a continuous basis and cells could run low on important proteins.

 

 

Could -- yes --

 

if that was an effect of C70 -- one would expect lower purity C60 (99.5%) to inhibit cell proliferation (cancer) 

 

 

If we apply Occam's Razor in an adapted manner:

 

Over the course of several years and likely thousands of human users of many different C60OO preparations, some of which, have, without a doubt:

 

been rancid

been exposed to oxygen and light

used lower purity C60

were not prepared per Baati (many of us just shake and decant no .22 micron filter)

 

 

 

and there is no reported incidence of tumors.

 

And that previous C60OO did not enhance AML,

 

One may reasonably conclude that the difference may more likely be attributed to something other than C60OO - regardless of manufacture -- such as laboratory specimen feed.

 

Furthermore,

 

I have not seen any evidence presented regarding the mean and SD of AML progression in an immunocompromised xenograft model in the strain of mice used.

 

It is entirely possible that the "enhanced tumorogenesis" is actually within the 3 sigma bound of proliferation, and that the current protocol simply did not have a preventative effect, regardless of progression in the non-C60 AML cohort.

Edited by sensei, 06 August 2016 - 09:12 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

 

and there is no reported incidence of tumors.

 

 

 

AgeVivo gave his three mice C60 (apparently the same oil Baati used, years old by that point), and they all got cancer. Mikeinnaples gave his dog C60 for three years (preparing the C60 solution himself), and his dog developed a "massive tumor." And of course the Kmoody rats got cancer while being dosed with the SES oil. So there are reports, at least with animals. As for humans, I haven't seen any reports, but that's not to say people taking C60 haven't gotten cancer and attributed it to something else, or just back luck. There isn't anyone polling them, after all. Nor would such reports be all that meaningful unless we had an age matched control group.