Supplement
C60 (Carbon-60 / Buckminsterfullerene)
No human trial of oral C60 has been run; the only human randomized trials of fullerene are topical.
Grade D, not yet tested: no human randomized trial has been run. This D records missing trials, not a finding that it does not work. How to read a grade →
C60 is a ball-shaped carbon molecule, often sold dissolved in olive oil. It is marketed for long life. No study has ever tested it by mouth in people. The claim comes from studies in rats and mice, and those studies disagree with each other. The only studies in people put it on the skin. So there is no evidence in people for the way it is sold.
A letter describes the human evidence, not the product, the manufacturer, or the ingredient's worth.
See the full evidence record →Who responds: this record's trial reading reports no subgroup that identifies who responds.
No human randomized trial has tested this at the dose and form graded, so there is nothing for a higher letter to rest on. A Route 1 Grade D records the absence of trials. It is not a finding against the compound, and it is not a finding that the compound is safe, because neither has been established. It may turn out to work once someone tests it. The grade moves when a qualifying human trial reports.
No human trial of oral C60 has been run; the rodent lifespan studies disagree with each other.
The trial that would change this grade.
A positive trial of this shape would move this entry to C.
Why the current trials fall short
No human trial of oral C60 has been identified. The rodent lifespan result has not held up: one later mouse study found no extension, and another found an apparent benefit that reflected harm from the olive oil the C60 was dissolved in.
Why people believe itOne human source; no published case reports of benefit; no reports of harm.
The case for C60, a ball-shaped carbon molecule, rests on a 2012 study in which rats given C60 dissolved in olive oil lived almost twice as long. It is sold on that basis. The rat study has not been reproduced, and no one has tested C60 taken by mouth in people.
What supporters point to, and what each source actually shows. None of it is enough to move this letter higher; the trial described above under Evidence wanted is what would.
- Human trial, a different useIn 132 people having radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, a fullerene skin cream cut serious radiation skin damage to 35 percent of patients, against 83 percent with a standard cream. A cream on the skin, a different use from swallowing C60 in oil. PMID 41861269
A case report describes what happened to one or a few patients. It cannot show the treatment caused the change, and reports of success are published more often than reports of failure.
A PubMed search in October 2026 found no published case report of benefit for this use.
Searched PubMed, October 2026: 4 case report record(s) returned. None of the four records describes a person taking C60; the search terms matched unrelated uses.
Animal and laboratory workThree studies in animals or cells. Not counted toward the letter.
None of this is human evidence and none of it counts toward the letter. It is listed so the reader can see what the idea rests on. Most findings in animals do not hold up when tested in people.
- RatC60 dissolved in olive oil and given by mouth almost doubled lifespan in a small rat study. PMID 22498298 Not reproduced since.
- MouseMice given C60 in olive oil outlived mice given olive oil alone but not mice given water, pointing to harm from the oil rather than benefit from C60. PMID 33849306
- MouseC60 in olive oil gave no lifespan or healthspan benefit; under ordinary room light it formed toxic products; samples bought online varied widely in content and purity. PMID 33123847
How this letter has changed · latest: October 2026 · Corrected
The record said the animal data 'disagree with itself'; now the animal studies disagree with each other, and the third one is cited: Shytikov 2021 (PMID PubMed ID: the permanent number the US National Library of Medicine gives a published paper. Each one links to that paper's record on PubMed. 33849306), in which C60-in-oil mice outlived oil-fed but not water-fed controls, pointing at the olive oil. Baati 2012 (PMID 22498298) is labeled small and not reproduced. Letter unchanged.PMID 33849306 PMID 22498298
Every change to a letter on this site is dated and published. The full evidence log →
Commercial disclosure
EBL earns no commission on any supplement it grades. Grades are assigned by published rubric before any commercial relationship exists and are never influenced by one. Full disclosure.
No established human dose. Typically sold in olive oil solution.
C60 supplement quality can vary substantially, and there is no standardized pharmaceutical-quality consumer product. If a product is considered at all, independent identity, purity and concentration testing is important; ordinary label claims alone do not establish product quality.
The cited studies were done in rats and mice (PMID 22498298, PMID 33123847). There is no human trial timing on this record.
Checked against the published summaries; the full papers could not be read. What the cited trials did, not a schedule. Every supplement, by trial timing →
How to buy this: quality criteria, not a brand
No established human dose (sold in olive-oil solution).
No regulatory oversight; C60 purity/content is rarely independently verified.
Independent lab verification of actual C60 content, seldom available.
Any human-benefit claim (evidence is animal-only); unverified purity; DIY preparations.
The grade and these criteria are set only from human trials. Any purchase link is convenience and does not affect the grade.
Human safety is not established at any dose. The landmark 2012 rat study used carbon-60 dissolved in olive oil at a specific concentration, and products sold on the strength of it vary in solvent, concentration and purity with no standard. Pregnancy. Photosensitivity has been reported.
Unknown, and unknown here means nobody has looked rather than nobody found anything. C60 is a potent free-radical scavenger, so the general antioxidant-during-chemotherapy question applies as an oncology decision.
A fullerene has now been trialed in cancer patients, as a skin cream, which is a different product by a different route. The record says nobody has looked, and for oral C60 that remains true. It is worth recording that a fullerene preparation has since reached a randomized phase II trial in head and neck cancer patients, applied as a topical cream to prevent radiation dermatitis. That is a different formulation, a different route and a different question, and under dose and form locking it says nothing about swallowing C60 dissolved in olive oil. It does mean the sentence 'nobody has looked' should be read as being about the oral product specifically. The class-level human evidence is real but it is not about this compound. Neither study tested it, and neither result is statistically significant Unlikely to be explained by chance alone at the threshold the study set. It says nothing about whether the difference is large enough to matter. on its own: the breast cancer analysis was observational Research that watches what people already do rather than assigning a treatment. It can show that two things travel together, not that one causes the other. within a randomized trial and its antioxidant signal did not reach significance, and the head and neck trial's recurrence signal was a trend. Two independent trends in the same direction, on hard endpoints An outcome that matters directly to a person and is counted without judgment, such as death, heart attack, stroke or fracture., in a setting where the mechanism predicts exactly that direction, is why the caution exists. It is not a measured effect for any supplement here. Liu et al. (Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2026;44(13):1206-1215; PMID 41861269): double-blind randomized phase II trial of topical fullerene cream versus trolamine for acute radiation dermatitis in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Ambrosone et al. (Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2020;38(8):804-814; PMID 31855498): prospective study of 1,134 patients ancillary to the randomized SWOG S0221 breast cancer trial; any antioxidant use both before and during chemotherapy carried an adjusted hazard ratio How often an event happened in the treated group compared with the control group over the same period. A ratio of 0.80 means 20 percent fewer events. for recurrence of 1.41 (95% CI 0.98 to 2.04, P = .06). Bairati et al. (Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005;23(24):5805-13; PMID 16027437): randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 540 head and neck cancer patients given alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene during radiotherapy; acute adverse effects fell, and local recurrence tended to rise (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.02).
N/A. Human efficacy, dose and safety are not established; no human trial of oral C60 was identified.
Primary evidenceFour papers, each linked to its PubMed record.
Baati et al. (Biomaterials, 2012; PMID 22498298): C60 in olive oil extended lifespan in RATS, a small study not reproduced since. Shytikov et al. (Rejuvenation Res, 2021; PMID 33849306): mice given C60 in olive oil for 7 months lived longer than mice given olive oil alone but no longer than mice given water, which suggests the comparison reflects the vehicle rather than C60. Grohn et al. (GeroScience, 2021; PMID 33123847): a mouse experiment reporting light-dependent toxicity and no lifespan extension. No human trial of oral C60 was identified. Liu et al. (J Clin Oncol, 2026; PMID 41861269): randomized trial of topical fullerene for radiation dermatitis; a different route and use.
Educational use only · Not medical advice · Starting, stopping or changing any supplement or medication is a decision for your physician
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. The grade on this page describes the strength of published human trial evidence in the populations studied. It is not a recommendation for any individual and is not medical advice. Starting, stopping or changing any supplement or medication is a decision for your physician.
This page carries a letter. EBL takes no commission, referral fee or payment of any kind on anything it grades. No letter has been bought and none is for sale.
How this is enforced
That is not a promise, it is a build condition. Two checks run on every deploy: one refuses to publish if a commission is claimed on anything graded, the other refuses if a page names a commercial relationship that is not declared in the register. If either fails, this page does not go live. You can read how the checks work, and what they do not cover, on the evidence integrity page.
Grades move when new trials publish. A free monthly email lists every grade EBL moved, with the reason and the trial behind it: the sign-up is on the Evidence Log →