Resolves as YES if there is strong evidence that at least one specific medical treatment regimen, started only after the onset of clinical symptoms in humans with laboratory‑confirmed rabies (or other human‑pathogenic lyssavirus causing clinically indistinguishable rabies), improves survival in a reproducible way before January 1st 2040, according to the criteria below:

What counts as “strong evidence”?

For this market, “strong evidence” is satisfied if any of the following are true by January 1st 2040:

1. Clinical study criterion (data‑driven):

   • A peer‑reviewed clinical trial or prospective cohort study reports ≥10 human patients with laboratory‑confirmed symptomatic rabies (or equivalent lyssavirus disease) who all began this regimen after clinical symptoms started, and

   • At least 20% of these patients (2 or more) are alive ≥6 months after symptom onset, and

   • The authors (and subsequent expert commentary) attribute survival primarily to the treatment regimen rather than to prior vaccination/post‑exposure prophylaxis alone, misdiagnosis, or other obvious confounders.
     

OR

2. Guideline criterion (consensus‑driven):

   • The regimen is explicitly recommended as a treatment (not merely “experimental,” “compassionate use,” or “theoretical”) for symptomatic human rabies in at least one major public‑health or clinical guideline (e.g., WHO, US CDC, ECDC, or a comparable national‑level guideline), and

   • That recommendation is based on clinical data that include multiple survivors of laboratory‑confirmed symptomatic rabies who started the regimen only after symptom onset, as described in the guideline or its cited literature.

Either path can satisfy “strong evidence” and trigger YES, as long as the supporting publications/guidelines appear before the cutoff date.

What doesn’t count?

• Post‑exposure prophylaxis (PEP) alone that is started before symptoms appear, even if it uses newer tools like monoclonal antibodies. This market is specifically about treatment once someone is already symptomatic.

• Single or ultra‑rare anecdotal survivors where:

  • rabies or lyssavirus infection was never firmly laboratory‑confirmed, or

  • survival is plausibly explained by prior vaccination/PEP or spontaneous immunity, and

  • there is no broader clinical evidence that a specific regimen works in a reproducible way.

• Animal‑only or in‑vitro results without corresponding human clinical evidence.

• Treatments started before symptoms (e.g., high‑risk exposure with early antivirals) even if continued after symptom onset; for YES, the defining feature must be that the regimen is intended and evaluated as post‑symptom therapy.
  

Definition notes

• “Symptomatic rabies” here means clinical illness compatible with rabies plus laboratory confirmation of rabies virus or another lyssavirus known to cause human rabies‑like encephalitis.

• Survivors are assessed at ≥6 months after symptom onset for the purposes of this market. Survival with neurological deficits still counts as survival. The regimen does not need to restore patients to full baseline function to be considered “effective” for this question.

• Patients who previously received vaccine or PEP can count toward the evidence, as long as expert consensus and the publications attribute their survival primarily to the post‑symptom regimen.
  

Resolution

• YES: At least one regimen clearly meets the “strong evidence” definition above, with evidence first published or guidelines first released before January 1st 2040.

• NO: No such regimen meets these criteria by the cutoff date.

• N/A: Reserved for truly pathological edge cases (e.g., definition of “rabies” changes in a way that makes the criteria incoherent).

In plain language: this market is asking whether, by 2040, symptomatic human rabies will go from “almost universally fatal” to “sometimes survivable thanks to a clearly defined, widely recognized treatment that starts after symptoms appear.”