Is the "100% effective against solid tumors" cancer pill AOH1996 paper legit? [see description]
461
2.9k
5.7k
2028
24%
chance

Twitter threads

https://twitter.com/izzyz/status/1686491104139673602

https://twitter.com/vansianism/status/1686498249807626241

https://twitter.com/gigaj0ule/status/1686814611658715136

First tweet of last thread: "Small molecule oral cancer drug kills 100% of solid tumors across 70 evaluated cancer types in vitro and in animal models with a therapeutic index of 6 and no discernible side effects".

Name of the paper "Small molecule targeting of transcription replication conflict for selective chemotherapy". Link to paper in the Twitter threads. Twitter search: https://twitter.com/search?q=AOH1996

Resolves YES if Phase II human clinical trials are conclusive. "Conclusive" according to the scientific consensus at the time of publication of the Phase II human clinical trials results. As I'm no doctor, I will have to rely on this. If there's no consensus, I may put an arbitrary threshold such as 70% efficacy against 50 types of cancers, as I don't expect 100% efficacy on all cancer types in human trials, and as that would validate the drug's mechanism of effect anyway.

Resolves NO if Phase II human clinical trials are inconclusive, or earlier if research fraud or errors such as huge in vitro results misinterpretations are revealed.

Resolution set arbitrarily at the end of 2028 because Phase I human clinical trials started in October 2022 and last two years. No indication yet of the duration of Phase II trials. End of 2028 is already a somewhat optimistic date for the end of Phase II trials. But such trials can be shortened when drugs show exceptional efficacy in life-threatening conditions, such as with Imatinib, sold as Gleevec/Glivec. I may delay the resolution of the market if acceptable reasons for delays in the clinical trials are given. If other researchers/doctors accept the reasons given for delay, then it's acceptable. If they don't, if they suspect something fishy, eg unfavorable results, then market resolves NO. If there's no consensus, market is extended.

I won't trade in this market for objectivity.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

@RobertCousineau That post is dated October 2022.

bought Ṁ10 of NO

As a first principle in pharmacology, if a drug is strongly effective/active for its purpose, it usually has strong side effects. There are no magic bullets, yet.

predicts NO

@FA I'm also voting no on this market, but this is a blatantly false statement. It's completely untrue and I hope you're not in a medical profession if you believe that!

predicts NO

@BenjaminShindel Name one oncology drug that doesn't have strong side effects.

bought Ṁ10 YES at 22%
predicts NO

@FA You didn't say oncology, you said pharmacology.

Here are a few great examples of drugs that are known for their efficacy and general lack of strong side effects:

Omeprazole

Sildenafil

Ibuprofen

Amoxicillin

predicts NO

@BenjaminShindel The question is on an oncology drug that claims to have a therapeutic index of 6!

Anyhow, sildenafil-> priapism; ibuprofen->stomach irritation/bleeding, acute kidney failure; amoxicillin-> high risk of allergic reactions to people that haven’t used penicillin, Steven-Johnson Syndrome

predicts NO

@FA You stated that "AS A FIRST PRINCIPLE IN PHARMACOLOGY", if a drug is strongly effective, it has strong side effects. That is false.

predicts NO

@BenjaminShindel All cells need PCNA to divide. Like most cytotoxics, this will likely be more harmful to the bone marrow than the cancer. But there are some oncology drugs with very few side effects, mostly tyrosine kinase inhibitors, imatinib is one.

Have you read the paper? It doesn't claim what you seem to be thinking it claims. Either the title or resolution criteria need to be changed.

Pretty sure the claim is 100% of solid cancer types, not 100% effective. Those are two different things.

I'd change the title of this to something referencing the actual outcome you're going to be resolving on, I think "is the paper legit" mostly evokes "will the paper's findings reproduce as they were reported", not "will this work in humans in a clinical trial"

predicts NO

A copy of @jack‘s “when will we know” superconductor market, but for this drug: /DanMan314/when-will-we-confidently-know-wheth

End set at the end of 2024 because human clinical trials started in October 2022 and last two years.

I think you're referring to the ongoing Phase I trial. That won't be the main trial that will assess efficacy. It's simply a dose-finding trial with no control group.

You probably want to re-write the criteria to refer specifically to Phase II clinical trial outcomes, and set the closing date for the market around the time when the Phase II trial (which hasn't began yet) ends.

@Natalia well, I certainly was too optimistic on the timeframe. Thank you.

@RatUziCat set 2029 arbitrarily as the resolution date.

Could you please clarify what reasons you would accept for extending the end date?

Two years is an impossibly short time for a clinical trial. Typical oncology clinical trials last 5 or more years. See also this Quora question about the fastest clinical trials where the shortest answer given was three years.

@Tossup thanks for your comment. As I'm not a professional, I have to look at the consensus every time. If other researchers accept the reasons given for delay, then it's acceptable. If they don't, if they suspect something fishy, eg unfavorable results, then market resolves NO. If there's no consensus, market is extended.

The paper says two years for the trials. Your link says three. The paper is expected to be too optimistic while your link should be more down-to-earth. I don't have time to read it now but you can expect the resolution date to be pushed by one year soon.

bought Ṁ6 of NO

@RatUziCat Thank you!

@Tossup as this market focuses on efficacy, I've set the resolution time at end of 2028, arbitrarily. May change over time if trials are delayed without stalling.

More related questions