285 replies to this topic

[Captain Obvious]

"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"

Just out of curiosity, how did you come with that conclusion "in your experience"? Surely that would take some lab tests to figure out. 

[Aronte]

Wait,  what Kmoody say is that SV c60oo is not met the claims for the concentration of c60, the toxicity it`s not tested, right?

[Turnbuckle]

"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"

Just out of curiosity, how did you come with that conclusion "in your experience"? Surely that would take some lab tests to figure out. 

 

 

Toxicity can be quite obvious to the user. I described it in 2012--

 

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...ndpost&p=550179

 

 

The C60/C70 mix seemed different than the higher purity C60, but I only noticed this problem when I used it twice a day. After I stopped taking it, the neck pain disappeared in a few hours and the calf pain was gone in one day. The amount involved was small--28% of 1/4 mg is only 70 micrograms. You'd get that much from 14 mg of 99.5% purity C60. One tablespoon of .8mg/ml 99.5% C60 oil has just under 12 mg C60 and 59 micrograms C70. Whereas 99.95% purity takes that down to around 6 micrograms. Thus the SV oil is of concern. She's using 99.5% C60 and claiming she's turned it into 99.95% C60 by baking it, which isn't possible..

Edited by Turnbuckle, 02 November 2017 - 11:15 AM.

[caliban]

moderation note: 

As entertaining or at times illuminating as such brawls may be on occasion, please do not mis-use LongeCity for trading personal allegations or legal threats. 

The newspaper article, linked in the first post, is the topic of this discussion. 

 

Edited by caliban, 05 November 2017 - 03:20 PM.
split a deluge of unrelated and unpleasantly acrimonious discussion about a single manufacturer's practices.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Apparently Kelsey Moody will be interviewed. It might be a good time to ask questions.

[hav]

There are still more questions than answers about Kmoody's study that claims to prove that SES pre-mixed c60 causes tumors in mice.  Little things like is he sure the mice didn't already have tumors?  The size of the test group and controls? And what sort of dosage was employed and how was it administered? Not to mention details from SES on how their pre-mix is made... I suspect it's mixed at high heat or with ultrasound. I've followed Kmoody's activities with interest and am glad someone is researching it, but given that all this is aimed, by his own admission, at his launching a pharmaceutical c60 product, it's kind of questionable to muddy the waters with so much partial information and next to nothing in the way of materials and methods.

 

Regarding c60 susceptibility to damage by UV light exposure... that's a pretty well known fact even mentioned in the Baati paper itself. Quantification of the degree of susceptibility would be nice to know, however.  Like, is it good enough to leave c60oo in clear bottle in the fridge?  Or on your window sill?  Not sure exposing it to a massively high-powered UV light source sheds any light (ha, ha) on the issue.  Unless the experiment employs all those as test groups with a control.

 

Also the whole epioxide thing needs be actually researched for both quantified measurement and qualitative effect.  If I understand Kmoody's posts correctly, he hasn't done either yet, but hopes to.   I think he's said he can detect it but cannot measure it... like a litmus test.  But there seems to be contradictory reports on whether epioxides are necessarily all good (some being potent antioxidants) or all bad (others being in the nature of destructive ROS), limiting the usefulness and meaningfulness of bare detection.

 

Hope I'm not being too negative here because I do like the research Kmoody's doing and have supported it by sending him samples of various formulations I've been experimenting with.  And I'm looking forward to the commercial availability of that apparently highly effective rodent poison he's accidentally invented.

 

Howard

[SarahVaughter]

@hav: There only is some (very weak, likely UV-less) light in a fridge when you open the door :-)

[Graviton]

Longer wavelength of light is possibly issue for C60 olive oil. There are some studies that wavelength light range can cause fullerene to generate free radicals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3433279/

Edited by Graviton, 05 November 2017 - 08:08 PM.

[long68]

The main question is not about purity or red light but :

 

Did Kmondy’s mice under SAME EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS feeded with inhouse prepared and non iradiated C60oo survived cancer free.

 

 

1 If this control exp was not made the conclusions are extrapolations from similar tests or spéculations but not scientifical facts.

 

2 If these mice survived cancer free we have a galenic problem and probably an oncologic problem.

But there is some hope Turnbucle survived his red light experiments.

 

3 If these mice also died the conclusions are just a House of Cards

[Turnbuckle]

Longer wavelength of light is possibly issue for C60 olive oil. There are some studies that wavelength light range can cause fullerene to generate free radicals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3433279/

 

 

See also this thread--C60 and red light

I'm not advocating anything on that thread, and only reference it to show that amber bottles won't do the job. SV is right to go to black bottles. Metal bottles are also good.

[sensei]

 

 

Aren't you concerned that some kinds of c60oo cause tumor growth, while others are suppressive?  Admittedly these results come from an immunocompromised mouse model, but given the choice between the c60oo that caused tumor growth versus the one that suppressed it, which would you want to use?

 

 

It has yet to be proven that C60OO -- actually caused the tumor growth.

 

C60OO could have upregulated or down-regulated the production or expression a gene, enzyme, protein  -- that ONLY occurred BECAUSE the mouse is immunocompromised.

 

Absent definitive proof that the C60OO acted as an oncogene promoter, or definitive proof that C60OO upregulated a tumor growth related gene that is also present in non-immunocompromised mice,

 

we can say nothing conclusive about the role of C60OO with respect to the increased tumor growth.

 

 

Remember -- this is an immunocompromised mouse that was injected with fully functional cancer cells.

 

Cancer cells are killed by oxidation products (hence why IV ascorbate kills cancer -- at high levels ascorbate becomes a pro-oxidant that forms H2O2 -- catalase protects normal cells - cancer cells tend to under-produce catalase and die from oxidative damage)

 

C60OO is an anti-oxidant.

[sensei]

@sensei

 

You said there were "no reported incidence of tumors," and I pointed out there are indeed reports.

It is quite curious that NONE of the Baati Rats had a tumor when they died.

 

It is also quite curious that Age Vivo's mice had single tumors, instead of the expected multiple tumors.

[sthira]

It's interesting that how this stuff that may affect people seems poorly studied. How do we account for silent treatment? It seemed to show promise and excitement five years ago; to retest what was done with rodents in Paris seems logical. Or maybe replication attempts have been pursued, maybe they failed, and then were not written up. Anti aging science, like much of biology, has so many dark corners and hidden bright promises. You'd think -- well, it doesn't cost that much money or time for an undergrad to gather honcho support for a thirty mouse trial. Ten mouses. Five take it; five don't. Even a high school or grammar school investigation -- maybe no one knows enough to even know it's cool to look.

Anyone here have children interested in going through the excitements and drama of learning about the hands-on, citizen science method? A science fair project, an after school greenhouse project on some worms or ants or cockroaches on c60 olive oil brews might win a blue ribbon.

[sensei]

It's interesting that how this stuff that may affect people seems poorly studied. How do we account for silent treatment? It seemed to show promise and excitement five years ago; to retest what was done with rodents in Paris seems logical. Or maybe replication attempts have been pursued, maybe they failed, and then were not written up. Anti aging science, like much of biology, has so many dark corners and hidden bright promises. You'd think -- well, it doesn't cost that much money or time for an undergrad to gather honcho support for a thirty mouse trial. Ten mouses. Five take it; five don't. Even a high school or grammar school investigation -- maybe no one knows enough to even know it's cool to look.

Anyone here have children interested in going through the excitements and drama of learning about the hands-on, citizen science method? A science fair project, an after school greenhouse project on some worms or ants or cockroaches on c60 olive oil brews might win a blue ribbon.

 
Because the pharma/chem industry wants to sell treatments they can patent, and you can't patent C60OO.
 
We have known since the 70's that IV ascorbate (vitamin C) kills cancer.  A cheap adjunct therapy that is just now coming into use at reputable medical facilities.
 
George Washington University Center for Integrative Medicine

http://www.gwcim.com...dose-vitamin-c/
 
Linus Pauling also showed that Ascorbate killed or was static to TB years ago -- but you can't patent Vitamin C

 

It took until 2013 for mainstream medicine to re-discover it

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3698613/

[sthira]

Yeah, I mean it's just the odd circuitous path of backwater biology, I guess. We've all thought about FDA regulation, and red tape safety, and fraud, the parade of pharma conspiracies, grant fighting, career climbing researchers, the money shortages, the complaints, the bottom dollar.

I gues my question is about citizen science, and the lack of curiosity that such a thing as c60 particles dissolved in olive oil might be used to support a healthy lifestyle. It doesn't seem that hard or mysterious, especially for a ten year old kid with initiative.

[sensei]

Yeah, I mean it's just the odd circuitous path of backwater biology, I guess. We've all thought about FDA regulation, and red tape safety, and fraud, the parade of pharma conspiracies, grant fighting, career climbing researchers, the money shortages, the complaints, the bottom dollar.

I gues my question is about citizen science, and the lack of curiosity that such a thing as c60 particles dissolved in olive oil might be used to support a healthy lifestyle. It doesn't seem that hard or mysterious, especially for a ten year old kid with initiative.

 

[long68]

2 articles cancer related rat experiments with C60

 

C60 fullerene as synergistic agent in tumor-inhibitory Doxorubicin treatment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/25504158

conclusion : combinet treatment C60 / Dox is concidered to be a promising approach for cancer chemetherapie

 

 

Fullerene C60 nanoparticles ameliorated cyclophosphamide-induced acute hepatotoxicity in rats.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/29080458

The current study is of clinical relevance particularly, application of C₆₀ as a monotherapy or in combination to ameliorate the CP side effects in cancer-treated patients.

Edited by long68, 16 November 2017 - 10:04 PM.

[Mind]

Hear more about Ichor's C60 experiments here:http://www.longecity...utics/?p=833514

Edited by Mind, 16 November 2017 - 10:52 PM.

[jeanlzt11]

 

Yeah, I mean it's just the odd circuitous path of backwater biology, I guess. We've all thought about FDA regulation, and red tape safety, and fraud, the parade of pharma conspiracies, grant fighting, career climbing researchers, the money shortages, the complaints, the bottom dollar.

I gues my question is about citizen science, and the lack of curiosity that such a thing as c60 particles dissolved in olive oil might be used to support a healthy lifestyle. It doesn't seem that hard or mysterious, especially for a ten year old kid with initiative.

 

 

Sensei, do you think that sthiras idea with the mice is not good?  Not sure who the video was referencing.  I would be willing to do the mice experiment.  I had them as pets long ago

and can tell you first hand that one died of a tumor.  Cloned mice would be best so they're all genetically alike.

[sensei]

 

 

Yeah, I mean it's just the odd circuitous path of backwater biology, I guess. We've all thought about FDA regulation, and red tape safety, and fraud, the parade of pharma conspiracies, grant fighting, career climbing researchers, the money shortages, the complaints, the bottom dollar.

I gues my question is about citizen science, and the lack of curiosity that such a thing as c60 particles dissolved in olive oil might be used to support a healthy lifestyle. It doesn't seem that hard or mysterious, especially for a ten year old kid with initiative.

 

 

Sensei, do you think that sthiras idea with the mice is not good?  Not sure who the video was referencing.  I would be willing to do the mice experiment.  I had them as pets long ago

and can tell you first hand that one died of a tumor.  Cloned mice would be best so they're all genetically alike.

 

 

I was not referencing sthiras -- I was answering her question "why don't"

 

If you want to replicate a study, you REPLICATE the study.

 

That means you use the same materials and methods.

 

Baati used Male Wistar Rats -- not mice.

 

Furthermore, if you are trying to identify the longevity based effects you certainly would not want to use the majority of mice strains, as they have been inbred and have a tendency to develop cancer.

 

If one was to use mice, one would be best served to 

 

a. use wild type mice -- and see how C60 perturbed the normal lifespan of wild mice

 

b. use a strain of mice that is not prone to cancer and other diseases , and has a very well known and characterized lifespan.

 

 

Hence, why Baati chose Wistar Rats.

Edited by sensei, 17 November 2017 - 02:45 AM.

[ambivalent]

If you want to replicate a study, you REPLICATE the study.

 

I have to say that while ideal it has never been apparent to me that replication of Baati study was the best allocation of time and money (I'm not sure that has ever been Ichor's ambition). It is a great shame that Baati didn't start a fresh study way before its conclusion and perplexing that the scientific community, in particular those with resources and interest in longevity (including SENS) weren't all over c60 immediately: given the effects, confidence didn't need to be high to warrant significant investment.

 

Also, confidence doesn't need to reinforced just through replication. I looked in on c60 about a year after Baati published and reading the at times bizarre and oft reported effects from seasoned campaigners of the effects of c60oo, it seemed less and less likely Baati was some fluke or resulted from fraud. C60oo was doing something amazing for Baati's Wistar rats and members of this community (notably you!).  

 

Although through deviation and not replication we end up with more questions than answers, this is certainly not always a bad thing. For example, it was deviation within Kelsey's replication of the successful AML study that has alerted us to c60oo toxicity - if Ichor used Baati-prepared oil than off-the-shelf SES, we might still be in the dark over those risks.

 

Personally, I would have preferred some low budget partial scattergun approach to research on a drug which we strongly believe to be highly potent but still aren't aware of how it generates its reputed effects: then target resources accordingly. If ever there was a drug to create surprising, unforeseeable benefits and possibly risks, c60oo would seem to be it.    
 

[sensei]

 

 

SENSEI:

Good point. By first glance what you said may be so. Then the "but" comes in. The rats were genetically determined to develop tumors. 

 

 

NO. Completely incorrect.

 

1. They were not Rats -- they were mice

 

2. They were immunocompromised mice

 

3. The mice were INJECTED with 10 Million viable cancer cells into their tail vein.

[Daniel Cooper]

NO. Completely incorrect.

 

1. They were not Rats -- they were mice

 

2. They were immunocompromised mice

 

3. The mice were INJECTED with 10 Million viable cancer cells into their tail vein.

 

 

Did they inject a control group as well?

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 December 2017 - 12:42 AM.

[sensei]

 

 For example, it was deviation within Kelsey's replication of the successful AML study that has alerted us to c60oo toxicity 

 

 

There is no evidence of TOXICITY. 

 

Possible evidence of tumor promoting activity -- which is not toxicity.

[hav]

Baati used Male Wistar Rats -- not mice.

Furthermore, if you are trying to identify the longevity based effects you certainly would not want to use the majority of mice strains, as they have been inbred and have a tendency to develop cancer.

 

If one was to use mice, one would be best served to 

 

a. use wild type mice -- and see how C60 perturbed the normal lifespan of wild mice

 

b. use a strain of mice that is not prone to cancer and other diseases , and has a very well known and characterized lifespan.

 

 

Hence, why Baati chose Wistar Rats.

 

 

Wistar rats are generally known to die with tumors if they die naturally.  Not necessarily cancerous tumors. I understand that Baati found no tumors in the 6 Wistar rats treated from age 10 months and did find tumors in all 12 controls. Which I don't believe had anything to do with why they chose Wistar rats... according to Dr Moussa in his video interview they were chosen because they were more familiar with them and their tolerance for the carrier, olive oil, and their focus was on the 82 rats sacrificed in the main parts of their study devoted to toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and biodistribution.

 

If you want to test a different proposition... that c60 might prevent or cure cancer, it makes sense to test with an animal prone to cancer rather than not.  Actually injecting the cancer was probably done to speed things up even more... both approaches being likely give quicker and more measurable results.  I personally think that cancer injection muddies the water since that's not the usual way its acquired by animals or humans. And raises timing issues with respect to c60 treatment, cancer injection, and sacrifice. In any event, you really need to use controls to see if the incidence is higher, lower, or the same with c60 treatment. And start with animals young enough to not already have cancer before treatment. Otherwise it's a meaningless observation with regard to prevention.  Of course it would have been earth-shattering news if there was even a hint that c60 might cure cancer, even if acquired by injection. But I doubt anyone really expected that.

Howard

 

Edited by hav, 04 December 2017 - 07:43 PM.

[sensei]

You wouldn't replicate a human drug trial with orangutans.

Why then, would you replicate a rat study with inbred mice?

Furthermore,

The Baati rats were dosed via gavage intermittently, not daily in their food like the ichor BL5 mice.

Repeatability in equivalent experiments is the foundation of science.

To provide corroboration or FALSIFICATION of Baati, one MUST use Wistar rats, as close to possible the C60OO, and the same dosing means and frequency.

Edited by sensei, 04 December 2017 - 08:02 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I wonder if C60oo is tamping down the immune/inflammatory response?

 

This can be a very useful thing as you age, however not so useful if someone injects you with a good dose of viable cancer cells.

 

I'm not sure what if anything the Ichor test is telling us, particularly since they haven't published anything.

 

 

 

[sensei]

I wonder if C60oo is tamping down the immune/inflammatory response?

 

This can be a very useful thing as you age, however not so useful if someone injects you with a good dose of viable cancer cells.

 

I'm not sure what if anything the Ichor test is telling us, particularly since they haven't published anything.

 

There wouldn't be an immune/inflammatory response in immunocompromised mice -- hence why they use them for transfected xeno-grafted models of human cancer cells.

 

Remember this was a xeno-graft (human cells transfected through tail vein injection) into an immunocompromised mouse model.

 

I want to actually see a histogram, normalized distribution, probability density function, or other data illustrating the growth rate and mass of the tumors of the control group vs the 'scary group', then perform an earth mover's comparison, a Mahalinobis metric, or other probabilistic test to determine how consistent or inconsistent the actual sample distribution between the two sets of tumor growth (control and C60OO) are.

 

Furthermore -- inclusion of data from as many previous studies involving the same AML transfection with BL5 mice would show a better picture overall of tumor growth in a mouse model of AML

 

There may not actually be a statistically significant difference in the rate and mass of tumors in the C60OO mice when compared to the entire body of evidence for an immunocompromised Mouse model of xeno-grafted transfected AML.

 

Show us the data.

Edited by sensei, 06 December 2017 - 07:52 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I agree ... show us the data.  @kmoody has been invited several times (I've asked him at least once recently via personal message) to drop into this thread and give us an update on where they are wrt publishing their data on tumor promotion. So far nothing but silence.  

 

 

On that strain of immunocompromised mice - does that really mean they have no immune/inflammatory response or only reduced response?

 

 

Did they even inject a control group with human cancer cells?

 

 

[sensei]

I agree ... show us the data.  @kmoody has been invited several times (I've asked him at least once recently via personal message) to drop into this thread and give us an update on where they are wrt publishing their data on tumor promotion. So far nothing but silence.  

 

 

On that strain of immunocompromised mice - does that really mean they have no immune/inflammatory response or only reduced response?

 

 

Did they even inject a control group with human cancer cells?

 

I don't know the degree of immunocompromisation, however -- they are used to isolate the effect of anti-cancer drug to the drug itself.

 

If they didn't inject a control group with AML cells -- they have no data to compare C6000 to and as such -- claims of increased tumor growth would be fallacious.