https://www.luminaprobiotic.com/
Prompted by @Aella‘s tweet of the company and procedure.
Resolved YES if any major news outlet reports on the scam, or a decent dossie or exposed text appears online. Also resolved if @Aella changes her mind. Also resolved if the company shuts down or mysteriously disappears.
Resolved NO if the company publishes research demonstrating its efficacy in humans, or if it gets through any board of certification (like the FDA), or even if it demonstrates that it started clinical trials under any serious institutional oversight.
This market is specific for Lumina probiotics and will not resolve “no” if a similar or same procedure is approved through another company
1,000People are also trading
@mods Just preregistering that this market seems likely to be misresolved. Author seems to have an axe to grind and is looking for any possible reason to distrust them.
Seems like decent criteria we can hold to. I make plenty of markets I have a preconceived notion on, sometimes that's the point! I also don't see any investment by the creator.
@drcat Oof. Does not bode well, though it's not too infrequent for dentists to scam people, claiming cavities exist when there are none.
I think the finding that 1 in 7 people with cavities aren't even colonized with step mutans really blows the whole theory apart.
@JamesBaker3 You misunderstand. The finding that 1 in 7 people with cavities aren't even colonized with strep mutans doesn't mean that strep mutans is the cause in the remaining 6 in 7 people. It just means that saying strep mutans is the cause of all cavities is definitely wrong.
From the article:
"We went from calling caries an infectious disease that was specifically caused by S. mutans—much like how the influenza virus causes the flu—to gaining a more ecological perspective on the disease. S. mutans is not the only acid-producing oral bacterium that can cause caries: in fact, it forms less than 2% of all the bacteria that cause caries, and a little over one in seven people with caries do not have S. mutans in their mouth."
And
"The reason why S. mutans became the Big Bad of the 1970s dentistry world is because researchers were stuck studying the mouth bacteria they could grow in the laboratory, and S. mutansgrows well in the conditions scientists were selecting back then. But now, with DNA technology, scientists have been able to detect 800 different species of bacteria in the human mouth."
https://open.substack.com/pub/trevorklee/p/please-dont-take-luminas-anticavity?r=2ubzi0&utm_medium=ios I will resolve YES based on this if no one objects in 10 days
@drcat I don't have a stake in this but imo this blog post does not conform to your criteria for "yes". In fact the blog post itself doesn't even claim lumina is a scam, just that it's not well researched and likely dangerous. This blog post is just... One guy's opinion after doing some research. Not even a biologist. Makes no sense to resolve based on this.
See more in depth discussion here: https://manifold.markets/Joshua/lantern-bioworks-lumina-probiotic-d#jiv4n6j4hde
@drcat The only reason I'm not betting a lot more to bring this back down farther is that you seem to have a strong personal bias towards YES. I hope you can stick to the definition of the market with enough objectivity.
@JamesBaker3 “Resolved YES if any major news outlet reports on the scam, or a decent dossie or exposed text appears online” for me the substack is a “decent dossie or exposed text”. You’re right that I have bias on YES that’s why I created the market on the first place (if I believe in the company from the beginning I would even ask that). I am in no rush to close the market, I would like to keep seeing evidence on all the ends and I am open to be convince otherwise. But the evidence doesn’t look good tbh. Aella even deleted the market that she was keeping track whether she had cavities after doing the procedure.
@drcat Please don't rush it. It is barely started to reach the buyers. There would be troves of real world data rather sooner than later.
@Aboczjr Are they the same company? Aella said to use Lumina on her original tweet but Lantern seems more legit and seems to be leading the task of putting this idea/project forward.
@Aboczjr I think it is and aella changed the words to her manifold question to say lantern instead of lumina. Seems kinda sketchy.. maybe lantern created lumina to be able to do the procedure overseas without drawing attention to them. I’ll investigate more soon.
@t3ss That’s a good question. I think if the company publishes research demonstrating its efficacy in humans I would resolve it to NO. Also if it gets through any board of certification (like the FDA) or even if it demonstrates that it started clinical trials under any serious institutional oversight I would consider resolving it to NO.
@CertaintyOfVictory She also has a prediction market on whether she gets cavities or not in the next years so she can change her mind about the efficacy of the procedure