🏅 Top traders

Any news on this? Seems like it should resolve to NO.

Would another cancer-virus link suffice?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus

cytomegalovirus reduces life expectancy by 10%, probably correlates with some specific diagnosable things.

EB-MS had been whispered about for a while, is there anything else that's that far in the pipeline?

I'd like longer term versions of these

There probably are other diseases with viral causes, but 50% seems way too high for a new such link being discovered in the next 3 months(and is inconsistent with the price history - if it was 50% in January it definitely shouldn't still be 50% in September, lol)

https://twitter.com/PGeldsetzer1/status/1661776663074738176?s=19

More evidence (again not proof)

@LachlanMunro Indeed! Very interesting evidence. Not strong enough for proof yet though.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/could-viral-illness-increase-chances-developing-alzheimers-or-other-neurodegenerative-disease

More evidence but not yet proof

What would be the standard for resolution? Will a correlation strong enough to be published in a peer reviewed journal be enough? I.e. just enough to raise our priors significantly, but not enough to be a slam dunk.

To rephrase: Do we want (a) strongly raising our priors but not super conclusive (like our evidence for herpesviridae and Alzheimer's) OR something that is very conclusive (like our evidence for cervical cancer, kaposis sarcoma)

1) EFFECT SIZE: how strong should the effect size correlation coefficient be?

2) STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE:how confident should the p value be

3 METHODOLOGICAL CONFIDENCE: Would you consider some of these too weak?

Self reported history of viral infection vs Disease correlation

IgG vs Disease correlation

IgM:IgG Disease correlation

Viral RNA expression in tissue for viruses that get embedded long term (e.g. herpesviridae/ paplioma viruses?)

@SachitDaniel Anything as strong as the evidence for Epstein Bar & MS