109 replies to this topic

[ambivalent]

Yes or no, ambivalent, do you have a connection with a C60 retailer or manufacturer?

 

 

When receiving what we expereince to be an insulting question, generally we find ourselves communicating our answer through irritation and will often choose not to recognise the authority of that person demanding an answer to an unfounded question. There is resistance too, since through answering we tacitly communicate the legitimacy of the question, that there might exist some relevant context driving it - when there clearly isn't.

 

And so in trying to stir up some idea that I might work for or be affiliated to some c60oo distributor, you are trying through misdirection to infer a hidden purpose to my position, in other words there must be some other reason for this line inquiry, because legitiamte sceintific inquiry has already been ruled out, on the grounds of unreasonableness.

 

Its absurd. It is not me who developed these theorems, who spends every day on them and who has so much investing in preserving their integrity. I post infrequently, and not much on c60. Your bias is utterly overwhelming and unfortunately is not held in check as it would have been done 7 years ago.

 

From recollection, I have merely challenged your assumption that taking c60oo for many years without fusion is dangerous, because to date the evidence hasn't supported it. People quite old have taken c60 daily for a decade and  not aged dramatically. I mentioned the guy Bob Thomason on YT who took it 5 days a wee or so for three years from recollection. And looks fine. So if there is a risk, it is long term and there are plenty of those for the aged anyway. There is no evidence to support the theory that taking c60 every day for years massively depletes stem cell levels because those with reduced supplies to begin with have been doing fine on many years of use without taking your protocol. 

 

It is nuts not to take this evidence and revise your theory, or at least try to accommodate it. Maybe there is some sort of homeostatic response, to protect it? And maybe thats why the effects wore of with you? 

 

The second is that you only consider the benefits of c60oo to result in the blocking of the UCPs to release stem cells. Yet we know that c60oo is an incredibly powerful ROS sponge, hundreds and thousands of times more powerful than typical antioxidants. It is unscientific to not include it the metabolic c60 model.

 

And as for complaint of some motivated bias for this study, its a farce. When such incredibly skewed data presents itself, the question is not what purpose would someone have for paying attention to it, but rather what motive to persaude everyone to ignore it? And that intention is obvious, but very surprising that it surfaces. 

 

And besides as you have said, its not 90% - well why not start from there, rather than choose to suggest I am trying to invent some result? 

 

You are extremely biassed and blinkered to any contradicting evidence, but that does make your theories wrong. You have evidence which supports it, but does not prove - but act as though it is proven. 

 

I have been conscious and concerned for sometime that I don't know what past luminaries here would have contributed to and challenged your work, that is a real shame. You are very dismissive of people, at times blatantly rude, such as to nate, and they have at times backed down, because they don't want you to take the ball away. It's rational, swallow some pride and keep playing but it hasn't at times been pleasant to watch. 

 

Honestly I don't know what it is, because you should be so chilled at the results you have, maybe personally de-aging no longer motivates you. Perhaps, you are dreaming of real recognition, well no one would deny you that - but yeah I will deny you the accusation of intellectual dishonesty for legitimate and reasonable lines of inquiry.

 

And as for the remark about AgeVivo's mice, well if you have a 3 mouse study and one very likely has an advanced tumour at the beginning of the study, to not asterisk it is absurd.

Edited by ambivalent, 09 September 2022 - 02:25 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

You doth protest too much, ambivalent. I'm not going to read any of your extensive rants. Just answer my question, yes or no.

[ambivalent]

The way you do the Z statistic for the 3rd percentile is to compare the proportion of mice in non-C60oo group (202 animals) that live beyond 3rd quartile of lifespan in this population (664.75 days) i.e.51/202 animals, to the proportion of the animals in the C60oo group that live beyond this same point, i.e. 8/16 animals. 

 

Then you feed in these proportions and n=16 into the Z statistic calculation and you get the answer I showed. 

 

This purely judges the likelihood of living into the final 25% by chance (normal distribution) vs. what happened in the C60oo group. For 8 of 16 animals to do that in the C6000 group is only 0.248%. 

 

When I tried to do the same for the 2nd percentile (50%) it did not seem to be statistically significant. Which is what you would expect simply from looking at the graph: only 9 of the 16 C60oo mice lived past half way, but 8 of those made it into the last quarter. 

 

The main problem I have with this analysis is that all the mice seemed short lived. The longest lived mouse (a C60oo one) only lived 838 days, which I think is about average for this strain. 

 

Thanks for clarifying, Quest. That is interesting, on the average lifespan, and is at least suggestive of possible poor husbandry and maybe better treatment for the c60 group - but they started at 300 days too, presumably sourced at that age, so there is that.  

 

Anyhow, there is something interesting going on in the c60oo group, quite clearly, and that was the point of all of this, to find an explanation, as of course this site should be all about. 

 

Again, thanks for the statistical analysis. 

 

 

Edited by ambivalent, 09 September 2022 - 02:26 PM.

[ambivalent]

As I said, I do not recognise there to be a basis to ask the question. This is just a distraction to move away from being wrong. I'd think it bizarre, but I wouldn't have any problem with answering the question ordinarily, but I do when to do so is to submit to your illegitamite insistence and validate your sense of entitlement: I won't endorse that. What basis do you have to demand an answer? None. And that is the point. Provide a valid reason and I will do so.

  

[ambivalent]

I have been extremely reluctant to indulge this clear misdirection, but if there is some doubt in the minds of others as a result, then I will answer: no. There is a part of me that would like to answer yes in parallel, to see what distortion of the truth my "business bias" is trying to faciliate. There would have been nothing wrong with the position taken even if I had a vested interest, and that's why I didn't answer. You just needed a reason to dismiss my positon, because logic wouldn't serve (which would have been your default route)

 

But no I don't have any connection, in any form, to any c60oo company - except, obviously, when I purchase. So now let's move on from this pointlessness.

 

 

Edited by ambivalent, 09 September 2022 - 03:55 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

If you were truly interested in the subject of life extension, you would be asking why group 9 did best of all, though the improvements in both groups 1 and 9 were not significant, given the small differences and that there were only 7 controls. A 90% improvement was expected for group 1. Instead it was 5% better. That in my book is failure no. 3 in the attempts to replicate Baati.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 09 September 2022 - 04:03 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

You doth protest too much, ambivalent. I'm not going to read any of your extensive rants. Just answer my question, yes or no.

 
Let's have a definition, shall we.
 
Ad hominem

 

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for 'argument to the person'), refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious.

Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

 

How about we stick to engaging with someone's arguments and not questioning their motives.  Sound good?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 09 September 2022 - 03:49 PM.

[ambivalent]

Is that a response to my response, or did you just not see it? 

 

And that you think I wouldn't reply out of guilt, belies a megolamanical attitude. I told you precisely why I didn't respond, we don't simply refuse to answer questions because there is something to hide but rather to reject the legitimacy and authority of the person to impose that submissiveness and obligation upon us at will. That is why I demanded a basis for your question when there clearly wasn't one. Why is this not clear to you, do you honestly have no experience of this?  

 

 

[Empiricus]

Yes. Anyone with statistical skills would disagree. It reminds me of an early ad hoc C60 experiment by a member here. The results seemed terrible even though there were no controls, so several members wanted to use the first to die as a control. They convinced themselves by arcane reasoning that it was legit.

 

Turnbuckle's right.  I've run a lot of statistics and worked with a number of statisticians.  

 

Statistics is a way of thinking. Not knowing much about someone's background, I would tend to attribute their lack of exposure to this way of thinking, as opposed to any ulterior motive, as the most likely explanation for "arcane reasoning" with respect to a data set.

 

Few people, even in professions where knowledge of statistics is important, are good statistical thinkers.   

Edited by Empiricus, 11 September 2022 - 11:58 AM.

[QuestforLife]

Turnbuckle's right. I've run a lot of statistics and worked with a number of statisticians.

Statistics is a way of thinking. Not knowing much about someone's background, I would tend to attribute their lack of exposure to this way of thinking, as opposed to any ulterior motive, as the most likely explanation for "arcane reasoning" with respect to a data set.

Few people, even in professions where knowledge of statistics is important, are good statistical thinkers.

I was trying to be as clear as possible about what I did; when you understand that, there is nothing arcane. It is either an appropriate hypothesis to test (that the C60oo mice are more likely than the rest of the population - treated with anything else, including nothing - to live into the last quartile) or it isn't.

As I stated at the time, the biggest problem with treating all the non-C60oo mice as the 'population', is that their lifespan might not accurately represent that strain (as seemed to be the case for many groups, including C60oo), so people could get confused about what any proven effect is. But within the context of the given environment - at Buckylabs, treated with lots of substances, possibly with substandard animal husbandry - C60oo did increase the chance of living into the last quartile. That is a fact. You just have to decide if that is what you care about (we'd all prefer a huge mice study across multiple sites, with only control vs.C60oo).

[ambivalent]

Turnbuckle's right.  I've run a lot of statistics and worked with a number of statisticians.  

 

Statistics is a way of thinking. Not knowing much about someone's background, I would tend to attribute their lack of exposure to this way of thinking, as opposed to any ulterior motive, as the most likely explanation for "arcane reasoning" with respect to a data set.

 

Few people, even in professions where knowledge of statistics is important, are good statistical thinkers.   

 

Sure, but it naturally requires some evidence to demonstrate which side of the argument doesn't get it rather than assigning victory by default, it would seem, to the one observing that most misunderstand statistics - which perhaps may not have been what you were communicating. In essence the point that both I, albeit crudely, and quest, more sophisticatedly, have reasonably well shown is that there is something more going on, which deeper statistical analysis should interrogate.    

 

You cannot roll out an average, or quote a control group comparison and say "move on". The individual group samples were quite small, ridicuolously so with the control, which is why the aggregate of the other groups makes for a more meaningful comparison, I would say. Within any of these control groups it would be very unlikely the data has not been skewed for some groups - they will either contain some disproportionate out or underperforming mice, distorting the data. We obviously all know this. But of course we could have an exceptional group which is performing as expected or not, and that is something to pursue. 

 

With the c60oo mice, the data is very weird. The group is split: one half is very average, the other off the scale - the 7th longest lived mouse lives 36% longer than the 9th.

 

The inevitable question becomes therefore is whether the first half a better representative of the group and not the second, vice versa or they are both. Only when the latter is the case would comparing with a control group be meaningful, but not one with less than half of a pretty small sample. And if it is representative, then something strange is occurring - there is a subclass within the group that c60 aids, and one that it doesn't. In which case we need not to move on but investigate further.   

 

If in fact there  is one half - whichever half - of the data is some outliier within the group, then once again we don't take the average, compare with controls and move on. Something will obviosuly be missed. 

 

Now looking at the c60 group without context we wouldn't be too certain, comparing with the control may provide some clue, but as stated it is small.

 

However, if when adding to this c60oo and control samples 200 more mice from other groups and find that only one mouse of the those skewed super-8, is displaced, leaving seven of the c60oo group above all of the rest, and by some distance, then we obviously have something to pay attention to.

 

Biology being what it is, it is quite obviously far easier a long life expectancy to be chance-shortened, than a short life expectancy to be chance-lengthened. And if when looking at the c60oo group we are viewing not two subclasses of mice within the group, but just variance on a standard population, then we must consider it to be the group shorter lived group which is "wrong" when the differences are so considerable. 

 

Whatever was going on there was clearly something exceptional going on with the c60oo group, which isn't captured with a 5% beat over the control, when at a guess 100 mice remaining they were 8 and wound up with the top 7 spots.  

Edited by ambivalent, 11 September 2022 - 04:22 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

There is rather more data available than just from Buckylabs. I’ve attached a grouping of plots from all 4 available experiments so they can be compared.

1. Baati et al., PMID: 22498298
2. Shytikov et al., PMID: 33849306
3. ICHOR, PMID: 22498298
4. Data replotted from Bukylabs (before I got the spreadsheet)

 

In 1, both olive oil and C60/EVOO did far better than controls. C60/EVOO averages 90% better than the controls, while olive oil does 15% better.

In 2, one C60/EVOO mouse is first to die, while a control mouse is last. No significant difference overall.

In 3, one male C60/EVOO mouse and one female C60/EVOO mouse are the last to die, out of relatively large groups. No significant difference overall.

In 4, three C60/EVOO die before all the controls, while seven C60/EVOO mice die after all the controls. This is the random result of the small number of controls. The overall difference was 5%, which was not significant.

 

Experiments 2-4 fail to replicate the astonishing results of Experiment 1, thus suggesting that there is an uncontrolled variable — ie, mito morphology.

 

 

Attached Files

•  All data for C60 longevity.png   670.79KB   0 downloads

[ambivalent]

Yes, but there's a pretty big uncontrolled variable in your study sample: rats. 

 

I mentioned finding a spinal cord injury study demonstrating recovery in fasted rats but none at all fasted mice. In that study the mice didn't go in to ketosis. I found another study where fasted mice did. If no ketosis then do we have fusion and so stem cell release? Might that explain why the mice failed?

 

We also have c60oo stability as a huge factor - when kmoody used SES oil the c60oo mice were dying off quicker than the controls. c60oo is it would seem, very unstable, so unless we know the quality and the preparation of the oil, what can we say? 

 

I am not disputing at all that fasting might be a contributing factor and might explain why the Baati rats did so well, but we have a lot of other variables.

 

And my point all along with this study is that there is quite clearly something going on with c60oo - that was it, regardless of other studies and lets figure it out, An acceptance of that, moving along to understand what it is and to try to make some sense of the other studies in conjunction with it. I wasn't expecting a roadblock there. Maybe its just the olive oil, or maybe even some hormetic effect where the toxicity of c60oo is just right to create a favourable stress life extending response, since why did the MCT oil do so badly?

 

 

Edited by ambivalent, 11 September 2022 - 09:39 PM.

[Rocket]

I've been taking 2 tablespoons of c60oo for a few months now. My trigger finger that i get shots for feels relatively great and I haven't needed to schedule more shots. My dry cracked feet have softened back to normal. All in all c60 is pretty good at this dose.

[Turnbuckle]

I've been taking 2 tablespoons of c60oo for a few months now. My trigger finger that i get shots for feels relatively great and I haven't needed to schedule more shots. My dry cracked feet have softened back to normal. All in all c60 is pretty good at this dose.

 

The original rat study paper convinced everyone that C60 worked via its super anti-oxidant properties, but that wasn't it at all. It's a stem cell stimulant. Stimulating stem cells is great, but taking C60 without mito fusion (their uncontrolled variable) is robbing a future Peter to pay the present Paul. You are using up stem cells without replacing them -- differentiation without proliferation. Eventually you will see your results decline, and then regress. Maybe it's already happened? Are you now using a higher dose than you started with?

Edited by Turnbuckle, 06 October 2022 - 02:51 AM.

[ambivalent]

It's not an either or Turnbuckle, there may well be powerful anti-oxidant benefits. And some of the many anecdotes reported could be atributable to c60oo acting as an poweful SOD mimic, none of that theory has been disproved. And your theory hasn't been proved either, but obviously your persnal experiences have provided powerful supporting evidence. There is no evidence the c60oo isn't a super anti-oxidant and doesn't provide signifcant benefits through improved mitochindrial function.

 

In fact that ties in with one of your first reports - if I recall, you mentioned, due to statin damage, being unable to run more than a couple of hundred yards without being out of breath, then perhaps 20 minutes after taking your first couple of mil of c60oo you managed to run two km quite easily. That's is pretty fast acting. And we sure know nano particles can be impressively quick:

 

https://news2.rice.e...-flow-in-brain/

 

But evidence does need to be taken, understood, interpretted and theories revaluated. The prior toing and froing was rather boring because it was arguing over the obvious, that c60oo was doing something pretty impressive in the study which needed understanding. But c60 in coconut oil did nothing to longevity. So what was going on there? More about the olive oil than c60, no fusion, so maybe no longevity. Sure, or maybe it was the rats. An open mind should be retained, that's science, and sure it biology. 

 

But it is important to acknowledge that this fear of stem cell depletion of taking c60oo daily appears unfounded, and that needs to be understood. And it probably is the case for the reasons you originally cited, which was that the effects wore off - but they didn't wear off because you ran out of stem cells, obviously.

 

If your theory is right then some regulation of stem cells must kick in, which would be a relief obviously, and those carrying on taking it maybe left with c60oo's powerful antioxidant capacity, which hopefully remains a benefit. But it is pretty safe to say that the concern that if we take it daily, without your protocol, we'll soon drop off a Dorian Grey cliff appears unfounded because the human evidence contradicts it - in fact your own personal evidence does, because the effects wore off before you ran out of stem cells and obviously while you could still benefit from the rejuvenation*. And good job it did, otherwise you and the rest of us likely would have carried on until you ran out beholden to your previous understanding, but you found a solution. But they didn't, and you developed another theory and the application of which has yielded considerable benefits.

 

  

 

 

 

* and too many of us have taken litres, without any proportional effect, or thus far down the road impact, and as I recall you have mentioned that "less is more", which may possibly be true.

 

[Rocket]

The original rat study paper convinced everyone that C60 worked via its super anti-oxidant properties, but that wasn't it at all. It's a stem cell stimulant. Stimulating stem cells is great, but taking C60 without mito fusion (their uncontrolled variable) is robbing a future Peter to pay the present Paul. You are using up stem cells without replacing them -- differentiation without proliferation. Eventually you will see your results decline, and then regress. Maybe it's already happened? Are you now using a higher dose than you started with?

After a hiatus, I just decided to get back on c60 at more than double my pervious dosing to see if I could force some positive effects in my health and I have to thus far so good.

After rereading this thread I have started including leucine back into the equation.

The one thing c60 no longer does for is its effects on dreams. That has worn off completely.

[Turnbuckle]

It's not an either or Turnbuckle, there may well be powerful anti-oxidant benefits. And some of the many anecdotes reported could be atributable to c60oo acting as an poweful SOD mimic, none of that theory has been disproved. And your theory hasn't been proved either, but obviously your persnal experiences have provided powerful supporting evidence. There is no evidence the c60oo isn't a super anti-oxidant and doesn't provide signifcant benefits through improved mitochindrial function.

 

I didn't say it wasn't an excellent anti-oxidant, only that the longevity benefits do not derive from that property.

 

In fact that ties in with one of your first reports - if I recall, you mentioned, due to statin damage, being unable to run more than a couple of hundred yards without being out of breath, then perhaps 20 minutes after taking your first couple of mil of c60oo you managed to run two km quite easily. That's is pretty fast acting. And we sure know nano particles can be impressively quick:

 

A boost of ATP is entirely expected from C60 if it blocks UCP2 pores. All mitochondria have such pores, except they are much more plentiful in SCs.

 

But it is important to acknowledge that this fear of stem cell depletion of taking c60oo daily appears unfounded, and that needs to be understood. And it probably is the case for the reasons you originally cited, which was that the effects wore off - but they didn't wear off because you ran out of stem cells, obviously.

 

Not true. I regrew hair with C60 initially, without using fusion. After a year all of that regrowth vanished, and now won't come back. The clear implication is that all SCs in these restored follicles were used up. If I had proliferated them to begin with, I would be far better off.

 

If your theory is right then some regulation of stem cells must kick in, which would be a relief obviously, and those carrying on taking it maybe left with c60oo's powerful antioxidant capacity, which hopefully remains a benefit. But it is pretty safe to say that the concern that if we take it daily, without your protocol, we'll soon drop off a Dorian Grey cliff appears unfounded because the human evidence contradicts it - in fact your own personal evidence does, because the effects wore off before you ran out of stem cells and obviously while you could still benefit from the rejuvenation.

 

A long as you have some SCs left, you can propagate them. When they are all gone from a micro niche like a hair follicle, that's it. My entire hypothesis of aging is that it is the result of the depletion of SCs.

 

 

Edited by Turnbuckle, 06 October 2022 - 02:21 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

After a hiatus, I just decided to get back on c60 at more than double my pervious dosing to see if I could force some positive effects in my health and I have to thus far so good.

After rereading this thread I have started including leucine back into the equation.

The one thing c60 no longer does for is its effects on dreams. That has worn off completely.

 

 

Far more important is that you add DHM (Dihydromyricetin, at about 3 grams), then you can use a teaspoon of C60.

[ambivalent]

Not a response that invites a response Turnbuckle - you're complain if content isn't coated with respect. 

 

I am quite sure that many of the effects which did wear off, didn't do so because you were out of stem cells. It might be a stronger implication if there weren't otherr effects and since, as said, other benefits weren't retained when clearly not through running out of stem cells. So whatever c60 was doing it stopped doing so and not because of stem cell depletion, not absolutely anyway. And the important point is we have no evidence of people with accelerated aging having taken c60oo for some time without your protocol - sure they haven't experienced your benefits. And it wasn't a lack of stem cells causing the loss of hair in the first place, unless your are suggesting that loss of stem cells was the original singular cause and the follicule surerendered while holding off a year's supply.

 

On hair, as I have had a somewhat unusual experience. I have never expierienced any notieceable regrowth on my head since taking c60 except temple hair and that was likely due to senolytics. 

 

Now, my legs though it is a different matter. 15 years ago I had bald shins, which I now believe was due to zinc depletion due to candida, but it is a theory.  When I took c60 the hair returned and too at the top of my legs, but then disappeared, probably came back with NAD precursor maybe twice, and another with another with c60. Now it is good again. The point it would come and go, and whatever was going on the loss wasn't due to a lack stem cells because it recovered. For a while too 

 

And as far as I know, you were the only person recording significant head hair regrowth and there were quite a few people taking c60oo who could have done with it, myself included. So there was something different with you and I doubt it had anything to do with available stem cells. So now you are like the rest of us, at least, taking c60 and not getting hair regrowth, only the rest of us didn't enjoy a glorious encore. 

 

But too you had increased shoe size and height gain - the only one reporting it. So what what going on? If your current theory covers this, then some others too would have experienced it. But it stands to reason there was something different about you biologically or that you were doing or had done at the time to trigger the effects.

 

I am not aware that anyone has reported your level of success with this protocol, but that is understandable due to your level of effort, but I would like to ask, what about people within your life? Surely, there would have been enquiries from people close and far at what I am guessing is a decade or two visual rejuvenation, have you not personally supervised anyone on your protocol, or has no one taken c60 that you personally know of? You still remain a considerable outlier, as you were nearly a decade ago, afaik.

 

Edited by ambivalent, 06 October 2022 - 04:21 PM.