The resolution criteria still isn’t clear, so I’m removing my bet.

A LETTER FROM LAURA DEMING

THIS IS THE DECADE IN WHICH WE GET DRUGS DIRECTLY FOR LONGEVITY INTO THE CLINIC

Sept 2023

@LeoSpitz Sounds a bit bullshitty to me. We already have drugs that happen to consistently provide small lifespan extensions for basically everybody (e.g. statins). So yeah, we might get some more, nice, but not a fundamental change. I also don't see how you run a trial demonstrating longevity benefits that are not directly from treating a condition in <10 years. You literally have to wait for people to die of old age so unless your target population is already very old and ill this is going to take a loooong time.

@MartinModrak Yes, it is impossible to test a cure for aging in 7 years. I don’t understand how this market is still so out of touch with reality.

@capybara It’s not impossible. You can easily see age reversal very quickly via epigenetic reprogramming.

@Odamaron Age reversal isn’t the same as a cure for aging. If the “cure” results in cancer development, then it’s not a cure. Another example: if the “cure” only works for 10 years, then it’s not a cure for aging. But you can’t know unless you wait and see.

@capybara it kind of is though

@jeremiahsamroo So if I stop someone’s pain by killing them, that counts as a cure for their pain? If someone’s aging is cured temporarily and then kills them, that is a cure for aging?

@capybara You can decouple the rejuvenating aspect of reprogramming from cell identity changes, which would prevent cancer development. The science has advanced.

@capybara Not even remotely comparable

@Odamaron you cannot be sure that side effects don’t have long term pernicious effects on aging without an extended trial. I agree that in theory, a treatment for aging could be promising by 2030, but we couldn’t be confident by 2030.

@DanielKilian would you mind updating the description with clear and complete resolution criteria? Thanks!

The AOH1996 drug FDA approval question has similar odds, highlighting how I think this question is too high at 25%. Surely curing cancer is a sub-goal of curing aging? Will cancer drugs be pointless after 2030?

https://manifold.markets/Tossup/will-aoh1996-be-fda-approved-before?r=Y2FweWJhcmE

Will AOH1996 be FDA approved before 2040?

28% chance. This market concerns AOH1996, a cancer therapeutic reported in this paper. See also this Wikipedia page. As of 2023-08-02, AOH1996 is in Phase I clinical trials for the treatment of solid tumors. This market resolves YES if AOH1996 gets FDA approval for use in humans at any time before 2040. This includes fast track, breakthrough therapy, accelerated approval, and priority review, as well as the normal approval pathway. It also includes any new approval pathways the FDA may develop prior to 2040. AOH1996 may be approved as a mono- or combination therapy. I will not bet in this market. At the time of writing, I am aware only of this other AOH1996 market. I created this market to additionally capture the long tail of less glamorous outcomes, including slow approval, approval for only small disease area, and approval as a combination therapy.

@capybara Aging is the most potent carcinogen. The risk of cancer increases 4000% from age 25 to 65.

Can’t see how this could possibly resolve yes. Even if a purported cure is released, then we would have to wait to see if it actually worked and didn’t kill the patient by some unexpected side effect after say 20 years.

@capybara Why would that matter? The question is only about curing aging. If it does that but has some other side effect, it still did it.

@LightLawliet Side effect of death? I can cure your aging but you die tomorrow…that counts as yes?

@capybara It should.

it's called Indolepropionamide

@slawbunnies If there was any cure to aging, billionaires would not die. Since they die all the time, there is no cure.

@slawbunnies Very interesting, hadn't heard of this before! Has there been any further work from the initial 2010 paper?

https://manifold.markets/ArunJohnson/will-300-lifespan-extension-in-roti?r=QXJ1bkpvaG5zb24

Will 300% lifespan extension in rotifers replicate?

50% chance. A 2010 paper published in PLoS One found the lifespan of rotifers could be extended >300% by exposing them to a synthetic antioxidant (indole-3-propionamide -- IPAM). Mean lifespan of the control group was 24.6 days, versus 90.5 days for the group living in media with 30 mM IPAM. As far as I can tell, this result has not been replicated, despite it's alleged extraordinary success as a longevity intervention. I am considering synthesizing IPAM and attempting to replicate significant lifespan extension in rotifers. Conditional on me carrying out a replication attempt, will I find the experimental group (treated with 30 mM IPAM) has at least 200% the lifespan of the control group? The closing date may be extended. I will answer questions in the comments & update the description with notable clarifications.

There is already a cure to all the biological mechanisms of aging taken individually. Also this market depends a lot on the propensity of people to not indulge to much in things that gives DNA damage, diabetes or strokes.

@SamuelNIHOUL Also brain damage... #Drugs #Chemicals

@SamuelNIHOUL I don't think it's true that we have a cure for any root mechanism of aging, let alone all of them

Not sure that even a superintelligence could make our biological bodies immortal. Nanites going in and destroying individual mutant cells and repairing DNA might be possible. But even then your brain is dependent on very old cells that can't be easily replaced because of all the connections.

@JonathanRay It's unclear if the market maker intends for "cures" to stick to biological solutions or not. I'm sure superintelligence could figure out a way to functionally replace parts or something, though the new parts might not resemble old-fashioned cells very much.

@ScroogeMcDuck Does ship-of-Theseus replacement with robot parts count as a cute for aging?

@JonathanRay I mean it functionally does, but I can imagine some people not including that if the parts are "too robotic". Alas, the (absent) market maker needs to define the taxonomy for their market.

@ScroogeMcDuck I'd include it.