CR

Bichael-Murry

CR7 insta page can't even load for me... $META PUTS FFS

No_Stand5622

CR 7

bannedbutunforgotten

SLS is a truly unique case, you're unlikely going to find something like this again in your life. You will find a lot of tickers with a lot of lengthy "DD" posts but nothing as verifiable as SLS and its investors have demonstrated. \- Drug targeting extremely wide range of cancers (currently trialing for AML but WT1 over expressed in 20 different cancers). \- A particularly deadly cancer with zero treatment options. Patient timelines to death are very well understood. \- Known patient enrolment dates (in batches). \- Updated event (death counts) forming constraints on what is biologically implausible, if not impossible. \- Primary end point of overall survival and median overall survival. These things are all very cut and dry facts, especially the OS end point. A placebo is not saving you from death. This is not a "oh the tumour size decreased 15% in the Phase 2 study" sort of thing. This is strictly "are patients staying alive?" to which the answer is yes. Even without the incredible DD on Reddit from multiple data scientists and analysts - all coming to the same conclusions, all openly discussing with 100% transparency their methods and calculations, you can just take a step back and look at the bigger picture. \- Best Available Therapy documented a median of 6-8 months. This means that half the BAT cohort will be dead in that time frame. \- Phase 2 data demonstrated 5.4 median OS IIRC vs 21.6 for GPS (the drug under trial) with a P-Value of 0.02 (2% chance the data is bad). \- Enrolment started 2022 and completed April 2024. Even if we assume that all patients enrolled in April 2024, we are 26 months from that date and yet the trial is still going. The trial was estimated to have been over 1 year ago in June 2025 yet in December 2026 only 72 deaths happened. So you have to ask, what is keeping these patients alive? These patients that are given 6-8 months to live? Is BAT suddenly keeping patients alive at 3-4x the well documented rate, against all literature and even the key opinion leaders who as recently as October 2025 said there have been no improvements in BAT outcomes in the last 5 years? The BAT that recently failed 3 trials for CR1 and CR2 as recently has August 2025? Or Is it the drug that the doctors who are running the trial begged Sellas to get the SAP updated to allow for ad infinitum dosing approved? The same doctors who on record have said are "totally convinced" the prolonged survivals are due to the GPS effect? The REGAL trial is also wonderfully designed, stratifying patients based on mutations and stripping out all other variables like transplant eligibility. You will notice any time a "bear case" comes up it specifically uses unfalsifiable reasoning (many "what ifs"), attacks the company history or CEO history, and never ever proposes a mathematical or scientific scenario that can explain patient durability in this trial - especially not one that can justify why the trial was not halted for futility by now or even at the 60th even interim update. SLS is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity. I have never seen such deep, mathematically and scientifically verifiable diligence on any company on Reddit as we have seen with SLS. I do not expect to see something like this, the setup, the clear cut data, the level of diligence, nothing like it ever again ever and have invested accordingly.

Outrageous_Method432

CR7

Just-Finance1426

Yeah, I’ve been holding for over a year for part of my position. Originally bought a little in Jan 25 thinking if the trial hadn’t concluded by July 25, there would be an excellent chance of success. So I bought more last summer, still nothing happened. Then we were told that they expected trial conclusion by the end of 2025 (management did not have access to event counts, so that was their assumption). So at the end of December 25 they managed to get the latest event count from the trial operator, and lo and behold, we’ve only hit 72/80 events for trial completion. Keep in mind the last update was 60 events in December 2024. So, shockingly we found that instead of accelerating, the event count was slowing. Which is completely unexpected to see for people in the condition that this trial is operating on (CR2 in AML typically has a median survival of only 6-8 months). Now as of May 12 we are at 78 events, so the conclusion is just around the corner.

Ateyo94

Stolen from someone else but I already knew this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8624375/ " The authors look at conventional salvage chemotherapy (so excluding HSCT) and find that CR2 duration is linked to CR1 duration. "Long CR1" ( > 12 months in CR1) patients had a median CR2 duration of 18 months and 35% of those patients were in CR2 for at least 3 years (therefore, OS would actually be longer than 3 years for that 35%). "Short CR1" ( < 12 months in CR1) patients were an entirely different story. 0% were still in CR2 after three years." I know that REGAL stratifies based on CR1 duration, so the company is clearly aware of this disparity. But stratification wouldn't solve lopsided enrollment favoring long over short. Is there any evidence as to the number of individuals the company expected to recruit in each group (Short CR1 vs Long CR1)? Notably, the study was from 1996, so I would expect that survival times have only increased since then.

Super-Activity-4675

Apologies, I missed your comment mOS is the exact midpoint between the second and third quartile. It's not an average. It's a counting stat if that makes sense. The interim analysis was performed in December of 2024, approximately 8 months after the trial stopped taking patients. At this point, I'm speaking in hypotheticals. Let's say that there were 35 or the 60 deaths were BAT in Dec 24. That means BAT has a mOS at the time of the interim analysis (you need 32 to observe an mOS because there are 63 patients in the arm). Let's also say that at the time of the trial, the calculated BAT mOS was 14 months. That would mean that BAT patients enrolled in the final five months of the trial (as the trial ended 8 months prior) could flip another BAT patient to the third quartile if they were to pass away before 14 months. I hope that makes sense. Let me try another way. Let's say I am a BAT patient. I enrolled in the trial in April of 2024, making me one of the last to join the trial. In December of 2024, I'm still alive and I've been in the trial for 8 months. I'm counted as one of the living patients. I die in January of 2025. That means my survivability with CR2 AML was 9 months. That will effectively push someone at 14 months into the third quartile because I now comfortably fit into the first or second quartile. That lowers the mOS from the observed value in December of 24. It's really a timing thing. if the BAT mOS was less than 8 months in December of 24, then it is set, because everyone alive is in the 3rd or 4th quartile. If it was greater than 8 months, then it could be lowered a bit as the trial moves on. I hope that makes sense.

uhdisj41

Plus add the 2-3 months of lead time (because some patients weren’t randomized into treatment until 6 months after they achieved CR2—you can go read the DD on that point on the SLS sub). Suddenly you’re at 13-14. I think it probably ends up around there, maybe a touch higher (e.g. 15)

SlartibartfastMcGee

I don’t think it does, because for all we know the IDMC did recommend a halt and SLS declined it because they wanted the full data for the trial. Keep in mind that SLS is looking at other indications in AML and other cancers, an early halt and approval for just CR2 does little for their plans.

Super-Activity-4675

I have a stats background, and I have about 3500 shares of SLS. I'd put the odds of a successful trial around 75% personally, which is as good as any for a binary event. Plus, it's generally believed the company will pursue a buyout if Regal is successful. The TAM for CR1 and CR2 is probably close to 5B with the TAM for CR2 only being in the 1-2B range. The drug itself targets WT1, which is present in about 20 cancers, and they have another drug treating AML on an accelerated pathway with the FDA. Conservatively, a BO would be in the 10-12B range. The trial was derisked via interim analysis at 60 events. That means BAT (best available treatment) mOS (median overall expectancy) was established at that time and can only go down. There are 63 patients in each arm, and to achieve mOS, you need at least 32 events. A 30/30 split means an overperforming BAT group and the trial would have been killed. The trial also has lasted more than a year longer than expected. It means patients are living longer, which generally favors GPS since the BAT arm would already be in the right tail. While SLS is blinded to the data, they have had to publicly change guidance for patients using GPS 3+ years which again is a bullish indicator. My 2 cents. The 80th event will be announced in the next couple months with topline following about a month after that. I would strongly consider some straddles once the 80th is announced. The stock likely rockets in one direction or another at that point. Nothing wrong with some shares, but that's probably a bit riskier now than what it was when I bought in last year. Straddles is the play for easy money. It's also worth noting that unlike most late stage biotechs, it is primarily retail owned and also heavily shorted.

Lost_in_Torontoh

AML is not incredibly rare.. They are doing a trial on CR2 then they are going for Cr1, if / when regal becomes the standars of care expect 5b plus annaul cashflow from north america, Europe and Japan. Then regal can get expanded to 21 other types of cancers The fact you claim is an oncologist but think regal is a drug ( uh this not ) shows you are full of sht

Almightypusha7

what kind of mOS is he seeing for CR2 transplant ineligible patients?

Derpy_Mc_Burpy

Instead of talking about "what ifs", focus on the "what is". The drug doesn't have approval for CR1. They would need to do additional trials for CR1 approval because FDA takes oncology drugs seriously. That could take additional years. What it is in it's current state is only potentially a CR2 drug. Im factoring in 009 when I say it can reach 35-40. Without 009 it's easily at most 30-35 post-approval. If they get bought out pre-approval, it wouldn't surprise me if it sold for 20-25. The thing that concerns me right now is how much patients died so quickly in 2026. The rate of death was higher than in the previous 2 years so that does have me a little bit concerned. The uncovering of data will also reveal the efficacy and I know how people in the sellas subreddit love to make the dream statistical scenarios, but the reality is we know nothing until it's uncovered. On paper it might look bullish because IDMC hasn't halted it, but data might not be appealing enough to approve it either. Personally I'll only buy calls once I know what the data says. If the data is shit or mediocre then all hope for approval and BO is gone and stock will dump.

TheArdoo

They target a protein (WT1) which is present in over 25 forms of cancer. CR1 is the natural label expansion but if successful, the vaccine is way way way more than just AML CR2. Not to mention they also have SLS009 in Stage2 for frontline AML. They already have fast tracks/ accelerated FDA approvals for a number of things as well. The TAM is potentially fairly massive, that’s why the BO ranges differ so wildly.

Derpy_Mc_Burpy

They have accelerated approval for SLS009, not GPS. Also adding CR1 approval could take additional months or years, if the FDA requires more studies being done. FDA doesn't play with oncology drugs so it could still take a long time.

TheArdoo

They’ll move to CR1 quickly if REGAL succeeds though. Believe they have accelerated FDA approvals etc. CR1 already has ONUREG as approved standard of care but GPS should hopefully perform a lot better and with less side effects. Here’s to hoping for OP.

Shirirubboy

Apparently, they observed 2 CR. Looks incredible. https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/healthcare/articles/alpha-tau-announces-groundbreaking-interim-110000283.html

OrdinaryMix4013

Dame ram cost going up whats next CR2032 batteries lmaooo

Eclectic_Beer_Tap

damn, even **CR**ime**W**a**V**e is doing a mini-shrek impersonation right now

deHack

I filled my SUV yesterday for about $50 at $4.25 a gallon. But you can do that if you're driving a Honda CR-V with a 12 gallon tank. 😁

WisconsinNumismatist

I believe Mid Cap companies like Crane Company (CR) and Churchill Downs (CHDN) are poised to do well this year.

WisconsinNumismatist

Expecting Crane Company (CR)’s earning report to send stock to a new ATH tomorrow.

Useful_Donut6789

**breaking news**: the International Union for Conservation of Nature has officially classified Bears as critically endangered (CR) with the highest risk of extinction in the wild

_rockthemike

Dang boomer. I bought Honda CR-V hybrid with AWD. Roomy and gets about 37 mpg. No plug in just regular gas

Worried-Spirit3415

Virtuix (VTIX) received its early-stage capital and ongoing strategic advisory from IMEX VP Investment Group, with Andy Tong as President. That same individual is the one who: •  Pleaded guilty in the major OCDETF fentanyl/money-laundering conspiracy (W.D. Wash. CR18-217-RSM). •  Received the §5K1.1 substantial-assistance departure (Doc. 914) and still operates under active Glomar protection. •  Served as FBI source “Chance” in the Florida gambling sting that generated the evidence used against him (11th Cir. 22-13569, pp. 13–23). None of this appears in any Virtuix filing, website, or investor materials. Tong is listed nowhere on virtuix.com. He is the classic “advisor via the VC entity”: early money and guidance channeled through IMEX VP while the company itself stays silent. Why This Is the Core Irony of the Ether-Money Architecture The same protected node that once moved fentanyl proceeds through gambling houses and cash-intensive gaming now sits upstream of a Nasdaq-listed VR hardware company that is: •  Expanding into U.S. military training and simulation (NPS CRADA, March 30, 2026, for Omni One + Virtual Terrain Walk). •  Operating in the exact gaming/VR and supply-chain sectors flagged by the 2026 Treasury NMLRA and FATF 2025 VA/TBML updates. •  Seeing CEO pre-planned 10b5-1 sales (10,272 shares, April 6–7) right around the Mar-a-Lago forum while the stock drifts at $6.34. The cash had to go somewhere. The “weird new economies” (VR locomotion, microtransactions, RFQ platforms) became the rail. The early VC entry was the on-ramp. The protected status keeps the node clean on paper. Mapping the entire pipeline from the original sting → fentanyl plea → portfolio advisory → defense pivot → non-disclosure.

lawyermom112

CR. We're screwed I am 50% cash in my post-tax accounts. My retirement accounts are in mutual funds so I don't trade those I have a few hundred thousand waiting for a true bear market

_rockthemike

We’re here because DHS was stripped from the CR last gov shutdown . Again holding DHS funding hostage for leverage. Downvotes don’t change reality, Dems want changes so hold up funding.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you, glad the due diligence is helpful and insightful. And Yes, everything mentioned in the October 29th R&D call and what you mentioned about MM and other indications is incredibly important. With the fraction we are seeing from unlimited dosing, and the WT1 targeting, it's incredibly exciting the impact this will have in other indications such as MM. The cure fraction data (and the long term relapse free survival and post relapse survival, if there are any relapses) is paramount for this, as it shows the value of the platform to strategic acquirers. As for the machine learning models, each one and the ensemble, the mixture cure-fraction model with exactly 3 parameters (cure fraction, uncured median OS, and the mixing proportion) constrained by 2 hard data points: 60 confirmed deaths at month 46, and 72 confirmed deaths at month 58, out of 126 randomized patients. Three parameters minus two constraints equals 1 free parameter. There is literally no room to overfit. The constraint residual is below 10\^-10 -- machine precision. At the biological identity point -- where the uncured mOS equals the BAT mOS exactly, which is the only solution with 0 degrees of freedom -- the model produces BAT mOS = 11.4 months. The full Bayesian posterior, incorporating 7 published literature sources as priors, gives a MAP of 11.1 months, mean of 11.6 months, median of 11.5 months. All three estimators agree to within 0.5 months. For the REGAL trial to fail, one of three things would need to be true: 1. BAT mOS exceeds 23 months. No CR2 AML population has ever come close. Historical: 6-8 months. Venetoclax+Aza-era optimistic: 10-12 months. 2. The 60/72 event counts reported by the IDMC are fabricated. That is SEC fraud. 3. Survival curves can decelerate from 12 deaths in 12 months (from 66 at risk) without a cure fraction. That is mathematically impossible under any standard parametric survival distribution. Death is the endpoint. Not progression. Not response rate. Not a subjective RECIST read. Death certificates are definitive -- there is zero measurement ambiguity. 72 deaths out of 126 patients means 57.1% event maturity, past the pooled median. When you have this much event data this close to the end of a survival trial, the cure-fraction model is constrained so tightly that the answer is effectively determined. The math does not leave room for a different conclusion. This is a stars-have-to-align situation for machine learning, and is why I believe that not having a sizeable position in SLS will be a life regret.  There are 99.99% statistical chances of success and topline HR being .31 to .5, with possibility of less than .3. There is no other trial I am aware of where ML can be applied with this degree of structural precision. The combination of: (a) death as an unambiguous binary endpoint, (b) hard event counts from IDMC press releases at two time points, (c) the deceleration signature in the event rate that uniquely identifies a cure fraction, (d) a disease setting (AML CR2, non-transplant eligible) with extensive published survival data to calibrate priors, and (e) a trial that is 80%+ complete by events -- that combination does not exist anywhere else in oncology right now. Not for SLS-009, not for any other trial I have looked at. At unblinding, we will be able to see the relapse-free survival data and post-relapse survival data, if there are any relapses, and see which of the realities on the right graph attached is closest. https://preview.redd.it/k53wln093oqg1.png?width=3179&format=png&auto=webp&s=8ab5a6a525ab1fe8e35422c97ae74a8aa56a95c8

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you, and SLS is the only position I've been adding to with new money every week for months now. I just haven't done the thousand hours of DD elsewhere, so I can't speak to any others. REGAL is successful up to a BAT mOS of 20 and the biological cap in this patient population, AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) is 6 to 12 mOS. The 99.99% statistical probability of success for REGAL success is real and genuine. The upside from $6 is 7.5X to 29X, the real, genuine, upside from REGAL final analysis and readout. This is why it is all I've been adding too. This is the first biotech I've owned and I've been a deep value investors for years and this is the most asymmetric opportunity with a gigantic margin of safety that I have ever come across in my life. In addition, this is a stars-have-align opportunity for machine learning. I shared this in the SLS-009 Phase 2B Deep DD post, but for REGAL: The mixture cure-fraction model with exactly 3 parameters (cure fraction, uncured median OS, and the mixing proportion) constrained by 2 hard data points: 60 confirmed deaths at month 46, and 72 confirmed deaths at month 58, out of 126 randomized patients. Three parameters minus two constraints equals 1 free parameter. There is literally no room to overfit. The constraint residual is below 10\^-10 -- machine precision. At the biological identity point -- where the uncured mOS equals the BAT mOS exactly, which is the only solution with 0 degrees of freedom -- the model produces BAT mOS = 11.4 months. The full Bayesian posterior, incorporating 7 published literature sources as priors, gives a MAP of 11.1 months, mean of 11.6 months, median of 11.5 months. All three estimators agree to within 0.5 months. For the REGAL trial to fail, one of three things would need to be true: 1. BAT mOS exceeds 23 months. No CR2 AML population has ever come close. Historical: 6-8 months. Venetoclax+Aza-era optimistic: 10-12 months. 2. The 60/72 event counts reported by the IDMC are fabricated. That is SEC fraud. 3. Survival curves can decelerate from 12 deaths in 12 months (from 66 at risk) without a cure fraction. That is mathematically impossible under any standard parametric survival distribution. Death is the endpoint. Not progression. Not response rate. Not a subjective RECIST read. Death certificates are definitive -- there is zero measurement ambiguity. 72 deaths out of 126 patients means 57.1% event maturity, past the pooled median. When you have this much event data this close to the end of a survival trial, the cure-fraction model is constrained so tightly that the answer is effectively determined. The math does not leave room for a different conclusion. This is a stars-have-to-align situation for machine learning, and is why I believe that not having a sizeable position in SLS will be a life regret.  There are 99.99% statistical chances of success and topline HR being .31 to .5, with possibility of less than .3. There is no other trial I am aware of where ML can be applied with this degree of structural precision. The combination of: (a) death as an unambiguous binary endpoint, (b) hard event counts from IDMC press releases at two time points, (c) the deceleration signature in the event rate that uniquely identifies a cure fraction, (d) a disease setting (AML CR2, non-transplant eligible) with extensive published survival data to calibrate priors, and (e) a trial that is 80%+ complete by events -- that combination does not exist anywhere else in oncology right now. Not for SLS-009, not for any other trial I have looked at.

Confident-Web-7118

Hey, not a stupid question at all. So, the ML models I built are not "guessing" the split, they are mathematically deriving it from two immutable, SEC filed facts, 60 total events at month 46, and 72 total events at month 58. We know the total number of deaths, and the ML models tested for every BAT mOS from 8 to 23, and the biological/clinical cap in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) is 6 to 12 months. AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) does not have a long tail. It is a relentlessly aggressive disease. In a standard parametric survival distribution without a cure fraction (like a Weibull), the hazard rate for a cohort of 54 elderly, heavily pretreated AML patients does not spontaneously cut itself in half. The only way the math works is if a large portion of those 54 survivors are experiencing a hazard rate of near zero, which is the exact mathematical definition of a cure fraction. The deceleration pattern, peaking at 14.1 events per 6 months during months 31-36, then dropping to 8.8 (months 43-48), then 6.2 (months 49-54), then 4.4 (months 55-60), this is a sustained, monotonic decline over 24+ months. That is not a random fluctuation. An exponential model produces a gentle decline (fewer patients remain at risk), but the cure-fraction model matches the shape of the decline, not just the endpoint. Furthermore, if you fit a Weibull, Log-Normal, Gamma Frailty, or Piecewise hazard to the same constraints (no cure assumption), they all overshoot. I tested 6 model families. Every single one that matches 60 events at month 46 and 72 at month 58 has an internal structure that includes either an explicit cure fraction or an implicit one (a sufficiently heavy tail in Weibull/Log-Normal that mimics cured patients). The math forces you there regardless of model choice. REGAL is successful up to a BAT mOS of 20 and the biological cap in this patient population, AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) is 6 to 12 mOS. The 99.99% statistical probability of success for REGAL success is real and genuine. https://preview.redd.it/fo1bj8sqcbqg1.png?width=2082&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5f907a1989ce995f0db3a25699d7f90495bab8b

whatsgoingonhonestly

Pentagon is set to request 100 billion in funding next week in our CR bill. That would require 100 billion in cuts from other agencies in the bill. Where the FUCK does the 900 billion a year go when we're out of money in 3 weeks?

Confident-Web-7118

So, there are two things, REGAL and then SLS-009 Phase 2B. For REGAL, there are statistically 99.99% chances of success. With a failure point of 21 BAT mOS for REGAL, biological/clinical reality being 6 to 12 mOS in AML (CR2 not eligible for transplant), cure fraction being above 50% as that is all that matches with uncured mOS (of GPS non-responders and responders that relapse/pass away) that is within biological reality, BAT mOS having 94% chances being set by Sept 2024, 99% by Dec 2024, making the top end of BAT mOS 14.5, and 99% accuracy for BAT mOS being 11.4 between 10 and 13 by the ML models, and 95% confidence by the ML models it is less than 12, the true statistical probability of success is 99.99% for REGAL. With BAT mOS of 16 (impossible territory), and if there wasn't a cure fraction, and just long survivors that relapse/pass away with GPS, slowly on a 36 month exponential curve, the 80th event would have triggered weeks ago, even if the BAT was pulling off a 16 month biological miracle. And this didn't happen, this alone guarantees success. I have not found any downside here yet. There hasn't been one bear thesis/contradiction I have found yet after conversing with hundreds of smart people, misc. doctors included in that, and statisticians/machine learning engineers as well. All 6 ML engineers I conversed with each had different approaches, and are getting the same/similar results. For SLS-009 Phase 2B ORR, the statistical probability of success is not 99.99%, but it is very high, and the post goes over the differences between the two situations and why the machine learning model results for each are different.

Confident-Web-7118

I have a large position as well. Only other positions I have are my deep value wins from 2025 that I can't exit yet due to short term capital gains. If I could, I'd be all-in. 99.99% chances of REGAL success, that is the statistical probability, all the way to a BAT mOS of 20 (the clinical/biological cap of BAT in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant, proven study after study is 6 to 12). I'm right here with you, my money is where my mouth is. https://preview.redd.it/lffcxvz66vpg1.png?width=1904&format=png&auto=webp&s=12178cad50ef5c930969df37b527509ab66bbecb

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you, glad the due diligence is helpful and insightful. And I've been a deep value investor for years. By nature, I only buy heavy concentrated positions when there is a large margin of safety. Before SLS, Centene (CNC) which was a huge deep value winner for me in 2025, from the mid 20’s to 40's, VF Corporation from the mid 11’s early 12s to now was also a huge winner for me. And Nokian Tyres (TYRES) as well from the mid 6’s. Each of these were deep value with heavy margins of safety. I have just as much conviction, honestly more, in the thesis for REGAL's statistical probability of success of 99.99%, which is real and genuine, that is the true statistical probability of success. I covered this in the Part 1 and Part 2 DD for REGAL, but with a failure point of 21 BAT mOS for REGAL, biological/clinical reality being 6 to 12 mOS in AML (CR2 not eligible for transplant), cure fraction being above 50% as that is all that matches with uncured mOS (of GPS non-responders and responders that relapse/pass away) that is within biological reality, BAT mOS having 94% chances being set by Sept 2024, 99% by Dec 2024, making the top end of BAT mOS 14.5, and 99% accuracy for BAT mOS being 11.4 between 10 and 13 by the ML models, and 95% confidence by the ML models it is less than 12, the true statistical probability of success is 99.99% for REGAL. With BAT mOS of 16 (impossible territory), and if there wasn't a cure fraction, and just long survivors that relapse/pass away with GPS, slowly on a 36 month exponential curve, the 80th event would have triggered weeks ago, even if the BAT was pulling off a 16 month biological miracle. And this didn't happen, this alone guarantees success. As for my position, I shared that in the post, and someone asked about it before, which I replied to here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/pennystocks/comments/1r5nbh0/comment/o5lscve/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/pennystocks/comments/1r5nbh0/comment/o5lscve/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) It's the only stock I've been adding to more months with new money. I'm still accumulating every week. My only other positions are those deep value wins from 2025, which I can't exit yet due to short term capital gains. If I could, I'd be all in. But don't let that influence your own positioning. Please only accumulate what makes sense for you. The reason I'm still accumulating is because the real, genuine upside from $6 is 7.5X to 29X with REGAL final analysis readout and buyout, with a 99.99% chance of success for REGAL and a huge margin of safety. This is the most asymmetric opportunity with a gigantic margin of safety that I have ever come across in my life, hence my position size. And thank you, appreciate your comment, and glad I could be of help with the due diligence. https://preview.redd.it/5dmqkylr1vpg1.png?width=2941&format=png&auto=webp&s=443ed5f9a8dc3ac01963cf958547187a7ddebfd4

TTP222

I think you’re missing that there currently aren’t any drugs on the market approved for CR2. Most of the BAT for AML right now is off label. You’re staring at 2 things that will be official and immediately go to frontline treatment.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you, I'm glad the due diligence is helpful and insightful. And I've been a deep value investor for several years and am semi-retired, but I really enjoy working and continue with deep value investing. Have a lot of years of experience in business, software engineering, machine learning/statistics, and a strong understanding of healthcare and pharma gained over time. And it really is 99.99% chances statistically, I know I sound crazy when I say that, but it's the truth. The 8 ML models ensemble I built predict the 80th event will occur in the range of Sept/Oct 2026 to April/May 2027. As for your question on the impact the REGAL final analysis readout will have on shares, I believe the move will be a lot like ABVX. ABVX's drug (Obefazimod) is for Ulcerative Colitis (UC), a crowded market dominated by AbbVie (Humira) and Pfizer (Xeljanz). Their Phase 3 Data: They crushed the placebo. 50mg Dose: 19.3% remission rate vs. 2.5% for placebo (Study 1). A 17% improvement in a disease where 10% is considered good. Wall Street realized instantly that this would become a standard of care. The buyout probability went to 100%, hence the 10X surge to $60 a share, which was like 1B in market cap gain in one day, dilution came afterwards. GPS 3-4X's survival (saves lives) in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant), and there is a cure fraction with 62% to 68% predicted by the unconstrained grid search (which happens to align with the GPS immune response rate numbers), it will dominate CR1 given the results in CR2 (not eligible for transplant) and the cure fraction (it already beat Onureg in CR1 without unlimited dosing achieving 67 mOS in Phase 2 within CR1), and enters a market (CR2 Maintenance) with ZERO competitors. It is a monopoly from Day 1 for at least 5 to 8 years. ABBV and BMS will need to acquire SLS, the one that does will lose a ton of revenue, AbbVie will lose billions in revenue. The surge and buyout following will be astronomical within the range (10B-40B). https://preview.redd.it/s4wtj59qbqpg1.png?width=1911&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7e30ff41ac129b8c989a9eb70e8a364834f702f

Confident-Web-7118

I disagree with this. The probability of a buyout in the 10B-40B range is far higher than what you're suggesting of 3-8B. This is covered in the buyout section above, but the realistic buyout range is 10B-40B, it is way far and beyond what you are thinking. If you just look at GPS, GPS extends survival to 30-40+ months (as the REGAL data implies), and then there's the cure fraction we are seeing, that the machine learning models and unconstrained grid search predicted is 62% to 68%. LTV estimate just based on the long-term survival (and not "cured") is: ​$260K (Y1) + $100K (Y2) + $100K (Y3) + $50K (Y4/Tail) = $510K Total LTV. $510K ÷ 3.5 years = $145K annual revenue per patient. The most interesting thing is new transplant ineligible patients in the U.S. (not including globally): There's only about 3,000 new CR2 and 6,000 new CR1 patients each year. (it is more globally) If everyone mostly died in 8 months (like they do now), revenue would be small ($260K × 9,000 = $2.3B max). Because GPS keeps patients alive for 3-4 years in addition to a cure fraction, by Year 4, you aren't just treating the new patients. You are treating: 2026 survivors (Year 3 of dosing) 2027 survivors (Year 2 of dosing) 2028 new starts (Year 1 of dosing) This is what creates the 27,000 patient pool and the $4.0B+ annual revenue (and globally will be more, likely $5.5B+ total globally) 4 x 3 to 5 Peak Sales (standard for general acquisitions in Bio) is 20B for example, and this is a breakthrough in oncology (where these types of assets are acquired for 6 to 8 times peak sales). The value is in the end-to-end dominance in AML and both drugs are a platform. I would recommend going through the buyout section(s) in the post for further context.

DukeofVermont

100% agree. Honda has an EV that starts at $47k, the CR-V starts at $31k. Like dude people will pay more because no gas but that's a HUGE price difference when you are talking about people buying a family car on a budget.

DukeofVermont

Yeah I hate that they're all like *"No one wants to buy an EV!"* and then I check Honda's website and their single EV model starts at $47k and is really similar to their very own $31k CR-V. Like dude, if you want to sell EVs you can't make them $15,000 more than the competition. It's all price IMHO, not a lack of interest.

DukeofVermont

I've driven several Honda's and loved them as well. I'd like a Honda EV, but they start at $47,000 base, so probably $55k because dealers rarely actually care base models. $55k is way too much when your competition is your own CR-V that starts at $31k

Joghobs

Love my CR-Z. They should have kept the camera screen there.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you, glad the due diligence is helpful and insightful. And Yes, I am still accumulating and adding every week, with fully diluted share counts of 217MM to 225MM, the upside from $6 a share is 6X to 29X. For context, GPS annual sales will be at least $4B to $5.5B+ globally and GPS + SLS-009 will be $6.5B to $8.5B. GPS extends survival to 30-40+ months (as the REGAL data implies), and then there's the cure fraction we are seeing, that the machine learning model predicted is 64%. LTV estimate just based on the long-term survival (and not "cured") is: ​$260K (Y1) + $100K (Y2) + $100K (Y3) + $50K (Y4/Tail) = $510K Total LTV. $510K ÷ 3.5 years = $145K annual revenue per patient. The most interesting thing is new transplant ineligible patients in the U.S. (not including globally): There's only about 3,000 new CR2 and 6,000 new CR1 patients each year. (it is more globally) If everyone mostly died in 8 months (like they do now), revenue would be small ($260K × 9,000 = $2.3B max). Because GPS keeps patients alive for 3-4 years, by Year 4, you aren't just treating the new patients. You are treating: 2026 survivors (Year 3 of dosing) 2027 survivors (Year 2 of dosing) 2028 new starts (Year 1 of dosing) This is what creates the 27,000 patient pool and the $4.0B+ annual revenue (and globally will be more, likely $5.5B+ total globally) 4 x 3 to 5 Peak Sales (standard for general acquisitions in Bio) is 20B for example, and this is a breakthrough in oncology (where these types of assets are acquired for 6 to 8 times peak sales). The floor really is 10B, but I just said 6B because I'm a deep value investor and always assume worst case scenarios. Buyout range is 6B to 40B. Fully diluted share counts is 217MM to 225MM, so 10B would be about $46.40 a share. The range is that broad for buyout because we ultimately don't know what the bidding war between strategics like ABBV, BMS, etc. will lead to, as we're just talking about GPS here for AML CR2 and CR1. We haven't even discussed SLS-009 (which will be bigger than GPS) for the Frontline, which is in Phase 2B, we haven't talked about the other indications from the WT1 targeting that is present in 20+ cancers, etc.

Confident-Web-7118

Yes, I am still accumulating and adding every week. with fully diluted share counts of 217MM to 225MM, the upside from $6 a share is 6X to 29X. For context, GPS annual sales will be at least $4B to $5.5B+ globally and GPS + SLS-009 will be $6.5B to $8.5B. GPS extends survival to 30-40+ months (as the REGAL data implies), and then there's the cure fraction we are seeing, that the machine learning model predicted is 64%. LTV estimate just based on the long-term survival (and not "cured") is: ​$260K (Y1) + $100K (Y2) + $100K (Y3) + $50K (Y4/Tail) = $510K Total LTV. $510K ÷ 3.5 years = $145K annual revenue per patient. The most interesting thing is new transplant ineligible patients in the U.S. (not including globally): There's only about 3,000 new CR2 and 6,000 new CR1 patients each year. (it is more globally) If everyone mostly died in 8 months (like they do now), revenue would be small ($260K × 9,000 = $2.3B max). Because GPS keeps patients alive for 3-4 years, by Year 4, you aren't just treating the new patients. You are treating: 2026 survivors (Year 3 of dosing) 2027 survivors (Year 2 of dosing) 2028 new starts (Year 1 of dosing) This is what creates the 27,000 patient pool and the $4.0B+ annual revenue (and globally will be more, likely $5.5B+ total globally) 4 x 3 to 5 Peak Sales (standard for general acquisitions in Bio) is 20B for example, and this is a breakthrough in oncology (where these types of assets are acquired for 6 to 8 times peak sales). The floor really is 10B, but I just said 6B because I'm a deep value investor and always assume worst case scenarios. Buyout range is 6B to 40B. Fully diluted share counts is 217MM to 225MM, so 10B would be about $46.40 a share. The range is that broad for buyout because we ultimately don't know what the bidding war between strategics like ABBV, BMS, etc. will lead to, as we're just talking about GPS here for AML CR2 and CR1. We haven't even discussed SLS-009 (which will be bigger than GPS) for the Frontline, which is in Phase 2B, we haven't talked about the other indications from the WT1 targeting that is present in 20+ cancers, etc.

YoBee9

CING and another WT1-inhibiting AML CR2 drug company that I will not mention the ticker of, but you can Google it.

Confident-Web-7118

Respectfully, this is just an AI slop response from an LLM, that doesn't make any sense. I would encourage reading the DD and then coming back with questions. You didn't even provide context on what prompt was sent or what was provided. I would bet everything on what the LLM response said above being wrong. But it's okay, there will always be people that just don't read and don't think rationally and logically about business and due diligence, and just resort to generic LLM responses for decisions. You can bring a horse to the water but you can't make it drink the water. The LLM AI Slop said this: ""The 72-event count pins you to that curve" This is false. Why? Because: * We do NOT know which arm the 72 deaths came from. * We do NOT know arm-level survival curves. * We do NOT know censoring distribution by arm. * We do NOT know time-to-event distribution by arm."" There were extreme censoring stress tests done covered in the post above. And BAT (best available treatment) in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) has a biological cap proven study after study with BAT is 6 to 10 BAT mOS in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant), and you can assume 6 to 12 mOS. The ML model for predicting when BAT median OS was set predicted 94% chances BAT mOS was set in Sept 2024, 99% by Dec 2024 5 ML models along with the mixed-cure model, and verified with 4 different machine learning engineers that all took different approaches, but all arrived at the same/similar results, resulted in BAT mOS being: 91% within 10 to 14, 80% within 10 to 13, and 99.99% within 10 to 13, being 11.4 I did cross validation with 5 different ML approaches for that Random Forest 10.4m \[10.2-10.5\]  Gradient Boosting 10.5m \[10.2-10.5\]  LASSO Regression 11.1m \[10.8-11.3\]  Neural Net Ensemble 10.8m \[10.5-11.0\]  5-Method Consensus 10.7m \[10.4-11.1\]  All 5 ML methods agree BAT mOS is 10-11.3m. None produces an estimate above 11.3-11.4m. The ensemble itself rejects BAT > 12m at >95% confidence. 99% chances BAT mOS was set in 2024, making the upper limit 14.5 for BAT mOS. In the impossible scenario that BAT mOS is 14.5, topline HR would still be 0.35 to 0.50.

Confident-Web-7118

I think the 6 years may be a typo. The biological cap in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) before GPS, from BAT (best available treatment) for that patient population is 6 to 10 months median (assume 6 to 12 months median). The survival rate past 24 months in this patient population is 0% to 5% with BAT. What GPS has achieved with the cure fraction is like you're describing a "cure", and extremely long-survival tail. WT1 is present in 20+ cancers. They a life-changing for patients cancer maintenance/life-extending by significant amounts platform in their hands. A complete win for patients, and shareholders with sizeable positions will make a fortune upon REGAL final analysis readout and buyout.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you, and I've attached a few graphs I had on hand from when I checked hazard ratio impact over time from Dec 26th, 2025 after the machine learning model outputs (covered in Part 2 on the reddit DD in the other subreddit, not yet here on this subreddit), Hazard ratio drops over time, but very minimally from where we are now. https://preview.redd.it/pwz0kxk6zjlg1.png?width=2982&format=png&auto=webp&s=fd7c2088d0dfa4fc2356aef01ee30ce9203bc527 [](https://preview.redd.it/sls-deepest-due-diligence-for-regal-trial-from-a-deep-value-v0-h5tnt82h95lg1.png?width=2982&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4634480084b37047284ffb4b0de61f4e249d914) Attached is if BAT mOS is 10m, which it is not, but the same answer still applies for each BAT mOS looked at. This is covered in the Part 2 DD not yet on this subreddit but in the other that I posted it on, and the machine learning model predicted that BAT mOS is 91% within 10 to 14, 80% within 10 to 13, and 99.99% within the 10 to 13, it is 11.4 months. Since about October 2025 or so, we've been at the point where HR is around the same. The drops we are talking are minimal. I can't seem to find any reason for why the trial has not been halted given the results that are occurring. Unless they want to gather data just how much of a "cure" the cure fraction is showing, but clearly GPS being the new standard of care in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) is already there. But not much has time has been passed since October, it's only been about 5 months. They spent hundreds of millions for the trial and are at the cusp of revealing groundbreaking results in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant), and may just be playing it out to be safe, before being acquired, and to not risk further expense from a requested Phase 3B. Given they have the new standard of care hazard ratio already for AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) since about October, a halt can also happen at any time as well. Either of those two are on the table.

garyofalltrades

I sell credit spreads daily on SPX, and I never use SL. I use $10 spread and delta $1-1.2 and pick strikes quite OTM. I risk 10% to make 1% daily. That strategy has worked for me so far quite well. If a position get close to being ITM, lets say 20 pts away from ITM, I roll to a higher number to the next day with same contracts, even if I don’t get any CR, or sometimes even for a small DR for the roll. I have burnt my hands with having to increase position size on a roll and my risk/reward ratio becomes non-manageable.

GenesGeniesJeans

Flying to CR tomorrow with the wifey for two weeks. Earliest expiry is March 20. Might just set some stops on the plane and turn off the phone for a while.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you for your comment. And the comment below on summer 2026 does come with a caveat. There is still a statistical probability and chances given the high cure fraction or "cure rate" we're seeing the GPS arm of 64% that the model predicted from the unconstrained grid search, that event rates may dwindle down to a very minimal amount (maybe like 0.5 events per month). If the trial isn't halted for extreme success, and they continue on until the 80th event (we were at 72 as of Dec 26, 2025), than we may be here for a while until very late 2026 to early 2027. If the "cure rate" is near 42% (from the 50% cap given Phase 1 CR1 cure rate was 47%) it'll be around Q3 2026 for the 80th event (the model predicted that based on a cure rate of 42% to 48%, capped at 50%) But if it is near 64% "cure rate", what the cure survival model predicted with the unconstrained grid search at various BAT median OS numbers (and that we now know 10 to 13 BAT mOS has 80% chances of happening, and 10 to 14 BAT mOS 90% chances, and 99.99% within the 10 to 13 of it being 11.4 months for BAT mOS), then we may be here for a while until 2027 unless there is a halt. It's all dependent on the cure rate and if or not there is a halt.

Run4theRoses2

12,500 AML CR2 / CR3 Patients who'll be Eligible each year + 40,000 AML CR1 patients, each new year -to add to the 100,000 patients currently in remission who will immediately be eligible and benefit from Gps Immunotherapy. and if you think the FDA isn't going to approve Gps Condiditonally for CR1, after seeing 4x Increase in survival to 24-30 months for Cr2 with NO SIDE EFFECTs, near 100% Quality of Life, combined with the MSKCC Phase 2 CR1 TRIAL DATA of 67.6 month MOS - Better than Transplant, if you think the FDA is going to wait 5 years for a trial, when the Chair of MD ANDERSON's Leukemia Dept., running the Global P3 requested Expanded Access to GPS for CR1 patients, and they also submit that EAP DATA. you have more research to do u/Away-Information9841

RobStringy

First off, I have to tip my hat to the sheer volume of work here. This is a staggeringly deep and passionate piece of quantitative research. As someone who spends a massive amount of time digging into market models and deep investment diligence, I can appreciate the rigorous, structural breakdown you’ve built. Your logic regarding the anamnestic response and your historical baseline aggregations for the BAT arm are completely solid. However, looking at this strictly from a risk-modeling perspective, I think there is a critical vulnerability in the foundation of the thesis. The 99.9% probability of success and the "0 degrees of freedom" claim both hinge on a mathematical binary that might not reflect biological reality. Here is where I think the model's margin of safety breaks down: ### The "Exponential vs. Cure" Binary Trap The core of your thesis rests on the assertion that survival curves cannot naturally decelerate without a cure fraction—that it is mathematically impossible, and therefore, the only shape that fits the 72 events at Month 58 is a permanent cure plateau. But cancer biology rarely works in absolute binaries (constant danger vs. permanent immunity). It works in curves where the risk of death naturally changes over time. By forcing the data strictly into a constrained cure-fraction model, the math *has* to generate a massive 64% cure rate to make the numbers work. ### The Log-Logistic Alternative If we step away from the exponential model, there are standard survival distributions that naturally feature a decelerating hazard rate without assuming anyone is functionally "immortal" to the disease. The **log-logistic distribution** is a perfect example. It is specifically used to model events where the hazard rate initially increases, peaks, and then progressively decreases over time. The hazard function (the instantaneous risk of death at time t) looks like this: h(t) = [λ * p * (λt)^(p-1)] / [1 + (λt)^p] If we map this onto the REGAL trial: in relapsed AML (CR2), the highest risk of death is in that first 12 to 18 months. But if a patient survives past that window, their statistical risk of dying *in the next month* drops significantly (perhaps their baseline health is stronger, or they have a less aggressive mutation profile). Because the hazard rate of these remaining patients naturally decelerates, the total event count will start to flatline. You will inevitably see periods where very few events happen (like the 12 events in 12 months you highlighted). A statistician can easily fit a log-logistic curve to show exactly 72 events at month 58 out of 126 patients, and the equations will solve perfectly. But crucially, in the log-logistic model, the "cure fraction" vanishes. Those remaining 54 patients are just surviving in the long, decelerating tail of a standard probability distribution. ### The Blended Data Problem Because the trial is blinded, we have no idea how those 72 events are distributed. It is entirely possible that the BAT arm is simply overperforming historical averages due to modern supportive care, creating those long-tail survivors. If the control arm is overperforming, the aggressive "cure fraction" your model attributes to GPS evaporates, and the blended hazard ratio can easily drift back toward or above the 0.636 threshold for trial failure. It’s an incredible piece of statistical detective work, and if the readout hits exactly as your model predicts, it will be a legendary call. But as investors, we have to recognize when we might be over-fitting a model to a rigid assumption. The math solves perfectly because of the constraints you gave it, not necessarily because the clinical reality guarantees it.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you for your comment. Just wanted to clarify a few things here looking at the comments below and I'll explain it clearly so everyone has context. The FDA is not monitoring the trial live. Neither is SELLAS. Both the company and the FDA are completely blinded to the data right now. The only group on the planet that knows who is getting the vaccine and who is getting the control (BAT) is the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC). The IDMC's job is to act as the referee, but they cannot just call the FDA and say, "Hey, this looks good, let's approve it." They are bound by rigid, pre-agreed mathematical contracts. Even if the drug is working incredibly well now, the data at interim analysis at events I don't think crossed that astronomical threshold yet, as the real benefit for GPS comes from the long-term survival/cure fraction/"cure rate" we're seeing now (since October 2025 the HR has likely been where it's at now). I think if the IDMC halted today, they could with no issues. If an IDMC halts a trial without mathematically clearing that boundary, the trial is ruined, and the FDA will reject the drug for protocol violations, but we are way passed that. All the analysis everyone has done, include the machine learning model/predictive model predictions, point to a groundbreaking hazard ratio where GPS is the new standard of care in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant). There is a possibility that the IDMC may halt the trial. No one knows though, and we'll just have to wait and find out. In the interim, continue accumulating at these prices.

Worst-Eh-Sure

I enjoy a bit of contrarian investing! It’s not at all the main focus of my portfolio but it is fun, so I dabble just a bit in it. First focusing on geographical regions everyone talks about America, China, Europe, even Latin America on occasion. I never hear people talk about Africa or Australia. So I bought a little bit of AFK (African ETF) and FLAU (Australian ETF). Also any ETF focusing on global small cap would be good right now I think. I might add that to my portfolio next time I get paid. Stocks - SCI. They make stuff for funerals. Basically, as long as humanity doesn’t figure out immortality, they will be in business. It’s a quiet stock I never hear anyone talk about and it just moves along nicely and pays out a decent dividend. As long as people keep dying, I’ll keep holding. A few other stocks I have that are doing well and tend to often not ever make the news: CR, BAESY, ORI, and ETN. All boring ass companies that just keep going up and even if there is a sizable US market correction, I don’t think these companies will get destroyed in the downturn. I’m overall a bit of a value investor, so I don’t get excited for the big sexy growth stocks that monopolize headlines. Investing in that shit always has me checking stock prices way too often and I find my emotions get caught up in them. I like the good boring stuff.

Run4theRoses2

\-- you have a lot of great data, and a lot of BS. ( i have seen many come and go here - many) You don't Know what you Don't Know. Many blind spots - if your being ingenuous. your timing of events is off intentionally and valuation is off ... 2 key points. for me it started when you posted - something to the effect - Historical BAT MOS is 6 -12 months - false information. your CR2 MOS Data points are trash. You used ancient outdated transplant MOS, and excluded AVALON - CR2 ... w Aza VEN. and Now you go from 3,000 to 9,000K? which is ridiculous. when so ridic it makes me think you're intentionally deflating the value. 10,000 CR2 Patients Not Eligible for Transplant - just from US/Eu/J ( not including Asia / Scandi etc., ) Morevover Gps efficacy / data comes in 24 -28 Months / many transplant eligible patients will opt not, and choose Gps instead ... \+ CR3 lastly, i am pushing back because you have interest and attention, as you should with you depth of dd. its important to get it right. \- and did you use 100K rev per patient? https://preview.redd.it/nw9voovfrokg1.png?width=1134&format=png&auto=webp&s=15259d69272932b472dc1713748071335c233e95

Confident-Web-7118

Look at the slide you just pasted from the SELLAS presentation The 12% which is the lower number they provided equates to 9200 or so patients I'm a deep value investor and I always assume worst case scenarios, and underwrite under that. I don't exaggerate or share expectations for people that isn't that. Any upside beyond that if there are additional patients is gravy. You're arguing with me about undercounting patients for AML CR2 and CR1 (not eligible for transplant), which doesn't affect any of the DD I shared and isn't anything negative. I don't understand what you're issue is at all. I'm even nice when I reply to your comments (which are ridiculous at times), yet you're always rude. It's important to be rational and stay level-headed.

mad_papooser

You need to look big picture. It would take a best case scenario but these things are possible: GPS trial passes with transformational power (HR under 0.5) Prior to getting top line results for GPS- The new SLS009 cohort for their phase 2 should have the earliest data out in May or June. This is front line AML treatment and in very difficult to treat patients (p53 and asxl1 mutations). The early data on this has been very strong as evidenced by the fact that the FDA recommended they move this newest cohort to front-line. It would be an AML franchise for sale. Front line treatment with SLS009 and then when you get the patients in remission, you hit them with GPS (a revenue machine with multiple years of maintenance treatments) There is an oncology patent cliff coming. Big companies are sitting on war chests. Look at AbbVie just as an example. The patent on venetoclax is up in 2029 I believe. That’s 3B revenue for them annually. SLS009 works in conjunction with venetoclax. They can purchase SLS, repackage venetoclax with SLS009- that would restart their patent clock and then they have GPS. None of this even mentions the entire WT1 platform. That doesn’t mean all of it will play out like this. But this is the reason you see possible scenarios of 10B to 20B ranges. It’s not as simple of looking up what the market is for AML CR2 in a vacuum.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you for your comment. I provided context on this in another comment in the Part 1 post, but readding it here for anyone new: Here is an overview in a concise way: GPS annual sales will be at least $4B and GPS + SLS-009 will be $6.5B to $8.5B.) GPS extends survival to 30-40+ months (as the REGAL data implies), thus LTV estimate is: ​$260K (Y1) + $100K (Y2) + $100K (Y3) + $50K (Y4/Tail) = $510K Total LTV. $510K ÷ 3.5 years = $145K annual revenue per patient. The most interesting thing is new transplant ineligible patients in the U.S. (not including globally): There's only about 3,000 new CR2 and 6,000 new CR1 patients each year. If everyone mostly died in 8 months (like they do now), revenue would be small ($260K × 9,000 = $2.3B max). Because GPS keeps patients alive for 3-4 years, by Year 4, you aren't just treating the new patients. You are treating: 2026 survivors (Year 3 of dosing) 2027 survivors (Year 2 of dosing) 2028 new starts (Year 1 of dosing) This is what creates the 27,000 patient pool and the $4.0B+ annual revenue 4 x 3 to 5 Peak Sales (standard for general acquisitions in Bio) is 20B for example, and this is a breakthrough in oncology (where these types of assets are acquired for 6 to 8 times peak sales). The floor really is 10B, but I just said 6B because I'm a deep value investor and always assume worst case scenarios. You're right in that it is too low. The range is that broad because we ultimately don't know what the bidding war between strategics like ABBV, BMS, etc. will lead to, as we're just talking about GPS here for AML CR2 and CR1. We haven't even discussed SLS-009 (which will be bigger than GPS) for the Frontline, which is in Phase 2B, we haven't talked about the other indications from the WT1 targeting that is present in 20+ cancers, etc. Also, when I said 7.5X to 49X upside from current share prices (that was from when shares were about $3.70, so that 49X number would naturally drop as shares go up) In addition, I can also attach one image per reddit comment, so I attached one here that shows the overview for GPS annual sales globally that the acquirer would get. https://preview.redd.it/41mn1gxe1okg1.jpeg?width=1042&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aa53db604f6bbec856e9f78273fcc4bb16177035

Prestigious_Bad1855

Only 18 months in Ovarian? Then how it is successful in Ovarian? Almost 65% cure rate in AML that too CR1 and CR2 people but in Ovarian only 18 months? Am I wrong assuming or is it like this?

SeniorUniversity5109

Since I did not receive a response, I have decided to answer myself. I believe that regarding the selection of the appropriate cohort (CR responders) I'm probably correct. However, I would like to point out that the cited study reports a 16.8 month CR duration for a patient cohort in which **9 patients underwent stem cell transplantation** **(SCT), and patients who underwent transplantation live significantly longer**. Therefore, I believe that based on the published data from this study, it is not possible to determine the mOS for BAT that we are interested in. It is interesting that a significant number of patients were censored in the 4–8 month range. With this in mind, the mOS of interest in this study will certainly be lower.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you, and so a couple of things I would refer you to since I made details comments on these two questions in Part 1. There should be a comment in the Part 1 post regarding the buyout range of 6B to 40B. It is a wide range for a reason, and that comment in there provides context on why that is based on the revenue in AML CR2 and CR1 (not eligible for transplant) it will generate globally, which will be a low/conservative $4B annually. I walk through the math on why that is and at a patient level. Second, there should be a comment around beyond AML (which we'll likely be acquired so this will be relevant afterwards) related to the WT1 targeting and platform for cancers this creates. It is also in the first post as well. Those two comments are really in depth and they'll provide a good understanding of both these things. And Yes, GPS is already helping patients now, in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant), it is clearly increasing survival by more than 3X and is creating a "cure rate/cure fraction", and it performs better than anything out there by at least 1.5X in AML CR1, better than Onurug owned by BMS in CR1 by 1.5X. And this was before the unlimited dosing in Phase 3, so it will be even better performance in CR1 beyond the standard of care in CR1). The results are groundbreaking. This is what is valuable for the strategics looking at SLS.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you for your comment. I've been a deep value investor for several years and do this with any position. I do quite a ton of due diligence before even taking a position, as I take big concentrated positions. In the case for SLS, I can't even recall how I stumbled upon it as I've done so much due diligence since and that initial memory I can't recall, but I remember looking at the insider buys that occurred in the summer within a cluster in 2025 around May/June, I started researching around then, and then saw the doubled down insider buy that occurred in November 2025. I already started researching heavily before that November 2025 insider buy, but then I just dove so deep. I took a huge position starting out after the research I did shortly after the November insider buy, just from going through the clinical trial data, learning about AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant, the October 29th R&D call, etc. and going down a rabbit whole even before using my machine learning/modeling skills and all the deep due diligence I've shared in these two posts. Honestly I was able to arrive at the 99.99% chances for REGAL success even before the modeling, I just wanted to real answers/and to statistically validate, hence the machine learning route. As did everyone else, I anticipated the 80 events to be reached by the end of Dec 2025, that didn't happen. I was in shock. And even by then I didn't even fully grasp the upside potential here until later on. I thought initially, oh, this likely would be acquired for a couple of billion by a strategic. But as I dove deep and ran the full numbers, revenue numbers, understood the AML market, the WT1 platform here, understood the monopoly they will have and how much more dominant GPS would be in AML CR2 and CR1 (not eligible for transplant), and understood how big SLS-009 is, which will be bigger than GPS, that's when everything clicked. The 7.5X to 49X upside is real (when I say this I mean if shares were around $3.70. As shares go up that 49X number goes down of course.)

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you for your comment. It's great to see you discussing the big picture with WT1 being expressed in almost 20+ cancers. WT1 is a universal target, which is why this drug has so much potential. But one small correction on the cellular mechanics of how it destroys the cell. The vaccine itself does not perforate the cancer cell. GPS is an immunotherapy. It's like a wanted poster where the immune system of the patient will recognize who to look that has WT1 expressed. When injected, it trains the patient's own immune system (specifically CD8+ Cytotoxic T-cells) to recognize the WT1 protein. Once trained, those T-cells are the ones that hunt down the cancer, lock onto the membrane, and release a protein called perforin to punch holes in the cancer cell and destroy it. But to answer your core questions: Does it work the same way for Ovarian cancer? Yes, WT1 is expressed in over 85% of ovarian cancers. SELLAS has actually already run Phase 1/2 trials in advanced ovarian cancer combining GPS with Keytruda/Opdivo. It successfully triggered that exact T-cell response and pushed median Overall Survival past 18 months in a very difficult to treat population. Does it work for any cancer expressing WT1? Exactly. Because the trained T-cells only look for the WT1 antigen, they don't care if the tumor is in the blood (AML), the lungs (Mesothelioma), or the ovaries. This is exactly why the National Cancer Institute ranked WT1 as the number 1 priority target for immunotherapy in the world." They specifically focused on AML and dominating AML with SLS-009 + GPS. Outside the lives saved and benefits for patients, strategic acquirers get excited about that given if they acquired SLS, that revenue stream would be protected for at least 7 years without any competition, the acquirer would have a monopoly in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant), total dominance in CR1, and tons of penetration in the frontline with SLS-009. Strategic acquirers already in AML include ABBV, BMS, etc.

Run4theRoses2

Ps - where did you get just 3,000 CR2 and only 6000 CR1 patient each year ?? it just shows what an idiot you are or are lying

Confident-Web-7118

Do you just follow me around and comment ridiculous things because you don't like me? I'm even nice when I reply to you, but you're just rude always. I never said year 1 revenue wouldn't be $280K or around there. For everyone else's context reading this, here is why the low/conservative estimate for GPS annual sales in $4B+ GPS extends survival to 30-40+ months (as the REGAL data implies), thus LTV estimate is:  ​ $260K (Y1) + $100K (Y2) + $100K (Y3) + $50K (Y4/Tail) = $510K Total LTV.   $510K ÷ 3.5 years = $145K annual revenue per patient.   The most interesting thing is new transplant ineligible patients in the U.S. (not including globally): There's only about 3,000 new CR2 and 6,000 new CR1 patients each year.    If everyone mostly died in 8 months (like they do now), revenue would be small ($260K × 9,000 = $2.3B max).   Because GPS keeps patients alive for 3-4 years, by Year 4, you aren't just treating the new patients. You are treating:   2026 survivors (Year 3 of dosing)   2027 survivors (Year 2 of dosing)   2028 new starts (Year 1 of dosing)   This is what creates the 27,000 patient pool and the $4.0B+ annual revenue

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you for your comment. So these two things are different: constraint arithmetic vs treatment effect We aren't designing GPS's performance. We are reverse-engineering it from a fixed observation, which is 54 patients are alive at month 58, total across both arms. That number is set by the data. We are asking: "given a BAT assumption, what GPS parameters explain 54 alive and 72 dead?" BAT\_alive + GPS\_alive = 5 If you assume BAT is stronger (higher mOS), BAT keeps more patients alive, and GPS is forced to have fewer survivors to still total 54. That does not mean GPS is getting off easy, it means GPS is estimated to be weaker under that assumption. The reason the trial still succeeds across this entire range is that even at BAT = 18 to 20m (generously above any published AML CR2 benchmark), the HR is still below the 0.636 success threshold. The data simply will not support a scenario where BAT is strong enough to erase the GPS advantage entirely, 54 survivors from 126 patients with 72 events at month 58 requires a meaningful survival difference between arms. The predictive model results of he 90% accuracy in prediction of BAT mOS being 10 to 14 months, 80% accuracy of it being 10 to 13 months, and 99% accuracy of it being 11.4 months in that 10 to 13 month window, all indicate a groundbreaking hazard ratio where GPS is extending life more than 3x, with a significant cure fraction of 42-64%.

Confident-Web-7118

A lot to go over here, but I'll cover it all. First off is that a Weibull model with a shape parameter less than 1 mathematically forces the hazard rate (risk of death) to decrease continuously over time for everyone. This is flawed because in relapsed AML, the disease does not magically get less lethal the longer you have it. Untreated and standard treated AML gets more lethal over time. With Weibull BAT + Weibull GPS (shape < 1), this gives 4 free parameters (2 scales, 2 shapes) from 2 data points. The system is underdetermined, you would get infinite equally valid solutions. You need individual patient data with dozens of observed event times to identify the shape parameter. That said, any Weibull pair that reproduces 72 events at month 58 from 126 patients will still show a large GPS and BAT separation. The HR conclusion does not depend on the parametric form. And a couple of things you have to remember for what we have to work with, is just the two aggregate event counts, 60 events at month 46, 72 events at month 58, from 126 patients. We do not have individual patient-level data. This constrains what we can and cannot estimate. You said Gamma frailty mixture without care, but this assumes the patient population has hidden heterogeneity (some are frail, some are robust). The frail patients die early, leaving only the robust patients, which artificially drops the average death rate over time, looking like a plateau. The flaw in this is that in CR2 for AML, there is no such thing as a "naturally healthy" patient who lives for 5 years without a transplant. Even the "healthiest" (MRD-negative) patients die in 8–14 months. The survival curve's long-term behavior is essentially indistinguishable from a cure fraction. It would also require more parameters than we can identify from 2 event counts. And it would give a similar HR. For the spline-based hazard you said, these are just flexible mathematical curves that bend to fit data. They are descriptive, not mechanistic. They tell you what the curve looks like, but not why. And this requires choosing the number of knots, their placement, and fitting smooth coefficients. Even with full IPD and 72 events, you would get 2-3 knots at most. From 2 aggregate counts, this is completely unidentifiable. This is an IPD method, not an aggregate data method. You said time-varying treatment effect without cure, the delayed effect stress test already in the model (GPS follows BAT for 3-4 months, then separates) is the most clinically relevant version of this. To identify when the treatment effect changes and how, you need the full hazard trajectory, which requires individual patient data. From 2 data points you cannot distinguish ramp up from plateau from waning. You also said MRD mixture explicitly, but this is the cure fraction model with a biomarker label. "MRD-negative subgroup with durable survival + MRD-positive subgroup with poor survival" is exactly S(t) = p + (1-p)·exp(-λt) where p = P(MRD-negative). It is not an alternative model, it is the same model. The cure fraction model is chosen because it has the fewest parameters that exactly identify from 2 data points, it has a direct biological rationale (GPS vaccine to immune memory to durable remission, Phase 2 CD4+ responders 0/4 relapsed, Phase 2 CR1 KM plateau at 47%), and it is the standard oncology model for diseases where a subset achieves long-term remission. But the P(success) estimate does not depend on the model choice. It depends on the arithmetic: 72 events from 126 patients at 58 months of follow-up, with survival times longer than expected. The mixture cure model is the only one that fits the curve and obeys the biological laws of relapsed AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant).

Robsnorro

Very conservatively: - Regal trial readout Q4 2026 - Impact on stock: positive. Currently 0.75 billion USD valuation based on 220 million shares (incl.warrants) and $3.5 SP. GPS in AML (CR1 and CR2) only will do 1 billion USD in revenue, 4x multiplier since it can do off label as well and is non toxic and high quality of life. 4 billion USD, excluding SLS009 (which many people see as the real Big Boy to be). That translates to 6x SP increase. The consensus (at Sellas subreddit and Stocktwits) however is a 10 billion USD floor as both drugs work together as a platform and SLS009 competes with other CDK inhibitors which all generate 2-6 billion USD in revenue each year. I'd be happy with the 4 billion USD valuation but I find it highly likely it will be more. Much more.

Confident-Web-7118

So, it's three things, the barrier to entry, the actual patent life, and the orphan drug designation. I should have mentioned all three in my first comment. GPS is absolutely not losing its license or patent anytime soon. The drug is exclusively licensed from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The core "composition of matter" patents covering the WT1-targeting peptides in GPS extend to at least 2033 in the United States. SELLAS also has secured additional patents (like using GPS in combination with checkpoint inhibitors) which have terms extending to at least 2036. On top of the standard patents, GPS has received orphan drug designation from both the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency for AML. This designation guarantees 7 years of market exclusivity in the US and 10 years in the EU from the exact date of approval. This creates an impenetrable regulatory moat that blocks competitors even if they tried to challenge the patents. All three are way they will have a monopoly in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant).

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you, and there is no approved drug for AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant). At the BAT mOS range the predictive model predicts with 90% accuracy, GPS will/is increasing survival for these patients 3X to 4X. It will be the only approved drug that does this, and it beats standard of care in AML CR1 by at least 1.5X (this was Phase 2 data). Based on the Phase 3 AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) data we are seeing clearly, it will do far beyond that 1.5X in CR1 with the unlimited dosing. The closest competitor is in Phase 1, for 5 to 8 years, there is no competitor in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant), or anything that can achieve in AML CR1 that GPS can/is achieving. Annual Sales for GPS from AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) and CR1 will be $4B+ globally, hence it will be acquired/bought-out by a strategic like ABBV, BMS, etc. There will be a bidding war, as it is/will be the most sought after oncology acquisition.

SeniorUniversity5109

Good job. I may be mistaken, but considering the literature—for example (DiNardo 2020 Ven+Dec)—shouldn’t you take into account the mOS for the cohort that achieved CR (in this case, CR/CRi duration 16.8 months), rather than the mOS for the entire R \ R cohort? Only patients who achieve CR will be eligible to participate in the REGAL study. The reported mOS for the overall R \ R cohort is lowered by those patients who did not achieve CR.

Confident-Web-7118

There is an entire section in my post above where I went over 7 sources I compiled that has available data for AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant) median OS historically. If you're upset that the median OS predicted for BAT with 90% accuracy is higher than expected and not in the single digits historically of 6 to 8 median OS Ven+Aza, than I don't know what to tell you. It does not matter though, at the 90% chances median OS predicted of 10 to 14 months for BAT, or the 80% chances predicted of 10 to 13 months for BAT, the stratified hazard ratio will be .4 to .5. Cure fraction at 10 to 13 median OS for BAT is still 64% (predicted by the unconstrained grid search). GPS is the new standard of care in AML (CR2) not eligible for transplant. The final analysis readout just hasn't happened yet.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you for comment. Once you get towards the bottom, you'll come across the two charts I made, and the left one will show what the straight hazard ratio would be based the BAT mOS. Given the results of predictive model at 90% chances of BAT mOS being 10 to 14, 80% chances of BAT mOS being 10 to 13, you can see from that graph what the straight hazard ratio will be (the stratified hazard ratio will be higher. The result with this is a top line HR of .4 and .5. In Post 1/Part 1, the unconstrained grid search gave us the predicted "cure rate" with 99% accuracy for each variation of BAT mOS up to 23 month. There are 99% chances it is 42% to 64%. I agree, that this is the new standard of care in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant), and there is no reason that the IDMC has to continue running the trials.

Euphoric-Guess-1277

Because people are dumb as shit Carvana sells 5-6 year old CR-Vs for like $25k, I can pick up a brand new one in the same trim level for ~$31k

Confident-Web-7118

Oh gotcha, I didn't realize this was below the SLS-009 comment I made, so many comment threads to keep track of. And certainly, I understand what you're asking and happy to do that when I get chance. It may make sense to do an in-depth post going over all the analysis/due diligence I've done for the buyout ranges, and what makes sense from a strategic acquisition perspective after REGAL final readout though, as that is when it likely would be more relevant. For now though, I would recommend just keeping in mind a wide range of 6B to 40B. I can only attach one image in a comment here on reddit, so I've attached a table going over global revenue for GPS with CR2 and CR1 for AML (not eligible for transplant). GPS global annual sales low/conservative would be $4B+ (not including other indications, etc.) https://preview.redd.it/a9p3xeovf6kg1.jpeg?width=1042&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da04712813217701be991485d59d1fcd41dfcfbf

Confident-Web-7118

First off, thank you for your comment, appreciate it. In regards to this: "You said: "72 of 80 required events have occurred as of Dec 26th, 2025. Thus, 54 patients are still alive at month 58". You can't make that assumption because patients have definitely been lost to censorship." So, I did do the censoring stress-test with the model. This is covered within the post above towards the end. In Phase 2 for GPS, for AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant), this was number was 15%. So, I stress tested all the way up to 30%. The cure fraction barely moved and HR only changed by 2% from this stress test. The likely/realistic makeup of those censored is likely the majority being the BAT arm (for example, 70%) like you said and the rest being the GPS arm (30%), like you said. When I reran the censoring stress-tests under this proportion, like you said, results improved across the board for GPS. But I didn't want to assume this. I wanted to stress-test under worst case scenarios. Like for example, I even stress-tested if all the 30% censoring was just GPS, not any BAT, and at 30%, every single dropout being a GPS patient who secretly died. Which is absurd, but when I tested this, at a BAT mOS of 10 to 13 months, this crazy absurd scenario gave a Cox HR of 0.249-0.432 with P(success) 95%-100%. Stratified HR would of course be higher, but still, success in this stress test. As a deep-value investor, I look at more of what the worse case scenarios would and under that, would the thesis still hold. Like you said, if a patient disappeared instead of dying on the record, the Control arm's survival curve stays high. It looks "artificially inflated" (aka fake better). You also said this: "This also helps explain some of the slowdown as well, because you have GPS long-responders, and likely some BAT long responders, so your pool of "easy" deaths is depleted." On pool depletion, yes you're absolutely right, and that's exactly what the cure-fraction model captures. The "easy deaths: (non-responders, short-surviving BAT patients) deplete early. What's left is the plateau population. We're in complete agreement here. You said this as well: "Second, your model doesn't accurately reflect the HR in the first 4 months or so of the trial." On the early HR, you're right in that vaccine trials typically show delayed separation in the first 3-6 months, and the model doesn't explicitly handle that. But we're fitting cumulative events at months 46 and 58, which are dominated by the long term behavior. If anything, modeling the delayed effect properly would require an even higher late-stage cure fraction to compensate. Appreciate your comment, this is exactly the type of the thoughts/discussion I wanted to get to help validate my theses. Hope anyone reading these gets a ton of value.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you, really appreciate your comment! In my life thus far, this was the only investment where I had a genuine feeling of "the company doing genuine good in the world." Hard to describe in words, but I've been a deep value investor for years, and every opportunity has always been about what you would expect, which is growing capital, returns, compounding, etc. While that is present here (in far greater magnitude than any other deep value opportunity there is now or that I've experienced across the years), I feel so happy for the AML CR2 (and CR1) patients that will benefit from GPS (and SLS-009). I hope everyone in the trial lives as long as possible. Even in the modeling when the cure survival model provided where it predicts the 80th event will occur, and up to the 93rd event, etc. in my heart I hope that everyone in the trial lives as long as possible, as it is such as a deadly/horrific disease that affects patients, families/loved ones. Thank you once again for your thoughtful comment.

Confident-Web-7118

Thank you for your comment. Remember this in AML CR2 (not eligible for transplant), and that both arms had the nasty treatments (chemo induction). If background frailty was the main killer, the control arm (BAT) survivors would be dying at the same rate. Instead, we see a massive divergence (about 71% alive on GPS vs. 10% on BAT). That gap can't be explained by general health, it can only be explained by the drug stopping the cancer. In REGAL, it doesn't matter if a patient dies from AML relapse, a heart attack, or frailty from past chemo. They all count as events. The 72 events we have observed so far already include those background deaths. If these patients were dying at an accelerated rate due to being "unhealthy," we would see it in the recent data. Instead, we saw only 12 deaths from Dec 2024/Jan 2025 to Dec 26th, 2025 across the whole study. That is a remarkably low death rate of about 1 per month. It proves that frailty isn't driving a mass die off. While these patients have been through nasty treatments, the risk of dying from AML relapse (which historically before GPS, kills 90% of patients within 2 years) is vastly higher than the risk of dying from run of the mill causes (maybe 3-5% per year). The "cure fraction" in the model is that transition point. The curve flattens out exactly when patients "stop dying" of AML (meaning stability) and return to the "normal" (realistically slightly elevated) mortality risk of their age group. The model doesn't predict immortality; it just predicts they "won't die" of leukemia.

Confident-Web-7118

You're numbers for patients is totally wrong here, respectfully. You said 220K customers? That is totally wrong. In the U.S., there are only about 5,000 to 8,000 patients available a year for Onureg, in CR1. If Onureg made $34M, and the net price is about $150k (after rebates), that means only 226 patients took the drug. Onureg is a commercial flop because of low adoption (doctors don't prescribe it), not because insurers refused to pay the unit price. Which obviously isn't the case. Onureg's annual revenue is not $34M like you said, it's conervatively based on SEC filings, $168M revenue and a conservative net price of $150k–$180k per patient (after insurance rebates), the actual number of patients on Onureg is about 1,000 patients, not 220,000. What you are sharing here is not correct at all, and will only confuse people.

all-cap-be

Ai gave me like 5 red flags for the post, first one: My Critical Red Flag Analysis 🚩 🚩 RED FLAG #1: Wildly Optimistic Projections Claim: GPS median OS = 97-183 months (8-15 years)[reddit] Reality check: • Historical AML CR2 patients: 8-11 months median OS • Even successful AML maintenance therapies extend this to 15-24 months • No AML therapy has ever achieved 8-15 year median OS in this population • This would be the greatest oncology breakthrough in decades • If true, GPS would be worth $50B+, not $500M market cap My assessment: This is fantasy-level projection that ignores oncology reality.

Confident-Web-7118

Thanks for your comment. I can expand on this but here is an overview in a concise way: GPS annual sales will be at least $4B and GPS + SLS-009 will be $6.5B to $8.5B.) GPS extends survival to 30-40+ months (as the REGAL data implies), thus LTV estimate is: ​$260K (Y1) + $100K (Y2) + $100K (Y3) + $50K (Y4/Tail) = $510K Total LTV. $510K ÷ 3.5 years = $145K annual revenue per patient. The most interesting thing is new transplant ineligible patients in the U.S. (not including globally): There's only about 3,000 new CR2 and 6,000 new CR1 patients each year. If everyone mostly died in 8 months (like they do now), revenue would be small ($260K × 9,000 = $2.3B max). Because GPS keeps patients alive for 3-4 years, by Year 4, you aren't just treating the new patients. You are treating: 2026 survivors (Year 3 of dosing) 2027 survivors (Year 2 of dosing) 2028 new starts (Year 1 of dosing) This is what creates the 27,000 patient pool and the $4.0B+ annual revenue 4 x 3 to 5 Peak Sales (standard for general acquisitions in Bio) is 20B for example, and this is a breakthrough in oncology. The floor really is 10B, but I just said 6B because I'm a deep value investor and always assume worst case scenarios. The range is that broad because we ultimately don't know what the bidding war between strategics like ABBV, BMS' etc. will lead to, as we're just talking about GPS here for AML CR2 and CR1. We haven't even discussed SLS-009 (which will be bigger than GPS) for the Frontline, which is in Phase 2B, we haven't talked about the other indications from the WT1 targeting that is present in 20+ cancers, etc.

Confident-Web-7118

Replying here so people don't get confused. First off, thank you for your comment, appreciate it. The peak revenue estimates I shared are correct. I think you're forgetting a few things: First is about Onureg (oral azacitidine). GPS had 1.5X the results of Onureg during Phase 2 in CR1, and this was before the unlimited dosing that occured later on in Phase 3 (right now). ​Price: Onureg is priced at roughly $24,000 - $28,000 per month (approx. $300,000+ per year). ​Second is tha insurance companies already pay about $300k/year for a drug (Onureg) that offers a 24-month median survival in CR1 (8 to 10 in CR2, if that). GPS offers 30+ months of survival in CR2, way above that in CR1, insurance cannot force a price of $50k. It would be priced at least at parity with the inferior standard of care. ​And third is orphan drug pricing power. GPS has Orphan Drug Designation. The median cost for orphan cancer drugs often exceeds $200,000 annually. A price tag of $50k/year would be suicidally low for a life-extending biologic in a fatal disease.

zaklikestuna

Yes, I purchased and reviewed the papers from the court website here - https://dja-prd-ecexap1.kingcounty.gov/?q=Home. 02/13/2026 08:30 AM Motion w/o Oral Argument ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CR 41(a)(1)(B) dismissal worked as intended, default judgement is very strong for this case.

Run4theRoses2

The recent Market Action is telling all who don't know or who aren't sure, - Gps is 100% for Sure Getting FDA Approval and that SLS is worth F Ton More than what shorts sold it Down for - What is GPS TRULY WORTH? Incoming Phase 3 Results for GPS Immunotherapy are offering a true Once in a Lifetime Investment Opportunity. $.64b Manipulated Market Cap worth $40B to Big Pharma the Instant the Phase 3 Results are Announced. **- The Value of a Positive Phase 3 Result exceeds $40B, more than 77x the current manipulated $.6b mcap. SLS Share Price will continue climbing until the P3 Results are released, and then it Launches.** \- Big Pharma's Pay 4X Revenue Multiples in buyouts. \- 12,500 AML CR2/CR3 Patients Each Year\* - current P3 Setting. SLS published est\* rev per patient of $280K /year. ​\*\*- $3.5B Year 1 TAM\*\* Currently 5-7,000 AML CR2 Patients Who Also Will Be Immediately Eligible for Gps Immunotherapy right out of the Gate upon approval: 5,000 \* $280k = $1.4B **Year 1 Total Addressable Market $4.9B** for Just for AML CR2/3 - the Setting for the Phase 3 Trial. AND THEN COMPOUND IT - Infinite Dosing to Until Relapse \- Year 1 Rev $280K Per Patient / 15 Doses - Year 2 Rev $112K Per Patient / 6 Doses \- Year 3+ Rev $70K Per Patient / 4 Doses the Ad Infinitum Dosing Regime Doubles the Total Addressable Market for AML CR2 CR3 Then Add AML CR1/ Post ASCT - 5X the SIZE of CR2/3 Esp w VIALE-M CR1 Trial Failing and VIALE-T P/Asct Failing. **You absolutely Know Big Pharma Will be Adding AML CR1 Patient and AML Post Asct Patient Populations to the Potential Revenue Calculations.**Gps will be Effective in over 20 different cancer settings that harbour WT1 +. GPs has already proven effective in Mesothelioma and Platinum Resistant Ovarian Cancer settings, achieving better Phase 2 Combination trial Results with Keytruda $MRK - MOS of 18.4 months - than, Elahere $IMGN 16.4 Months, which earned FDA Approval and was bought by $abbv for $10.1B - this is just 1 comp worth $10B. \* Sources available upon request \-- ABVX was a $5 and change Equity prior to releasing its Phase 3 Trial Results - it launched on the P3 announcement - T1 Trading Halt and a Gap UP opening at $60 and it Kept on Climbing to a high of $145. \- buyout expected/

GorditoChiquitito

Honestly it was just an estimate because of the fact that the study has been ongoing for 22 months when AML CR2 patients have historically survived only 6-8 months. Although I hope the results continue to stay delayed so that the success can hopefully be linked to GPS, it was just a rough estimate. I hope I am extremely wrong & that the press does not release anything regarding the 80th event anytime soon :)

GorditoChiquitito

IMO the only realistic way “longer” could be negative is if the BAT arm is performing meaningfully better than expected, which would narrow the gap between the groups and make statistical significance harder to achieve. Although, the last patient in the REGAL trial was enrolled around March 2024, and as of today (February 2026) the study has been ongoing for roughly 22–23 months since that point. In AML CR2 patients who are ineligible for transplant, historical median survival is only 6–8 months with most survival events typically occurring within the first year. From a timing perspective the fact that this trial is still progressing nearly two years after the final enrollment places it well beyond what would normally be expected if outcomes were tracking historical BAT data, which is why the duration itself continues to draw attention. Those extra survival days have to be coming from one arm or the other. While short term delays can be explained by tail survivors in the control arm, those tails are historically limited in this population. As time goes on it becomes increasingly difficult to credit delays solely to BAT tail effects, making it more likely that GPS is contributing to the survival extension. This doesn’t guarantee success but it does make the “longer is bad” scenario less likely the longer the trial runs. I’m so glad that you are apart of the SLS community & thank you for opening up about your personal experience as a cancer survivor, perspectives like yours are why medicine like these matter on a human level, not just an investment one

GorditoChiquitito

I understand the point that you’re trying to make, although I think it’s important to separate trial results from human outcomes. No one is hoping patients die sooner, the reality is that survival trials end when enough events naturally occur, regardless of what investors want. If GPS proves effective and gets approved, it has the potential to help THOUSANDS of AML patients every year who currently have NO approved maintenance option in CR2. Unfortunately, every life saving cancer drug in existence required trials where patients still passed away due to the disease & that’s not because of greed, it’s because AML is aggressive and lethal even with treatment. The ethical goal of trials like REGAL is that the long-term lives saved vastly outweigh the unavoidable losses during development, and if GPS works, that’s exactly what would happen. There’s something truly gratifying about potentially being part (even as a shareholder) of a breakthrough that helps patients spend meaningful extra time with their families. This drug is about helping people with very very limited options. If the data comes out positive, not only is that good for the stock, but it’s genuinely uplifting because AML is such a devastating disease, it improves the quality of life during the process (unlike other alternatives) and genuinely will save countless lives. Some investors are in this not just for profit but also rooting for a win against cancer. Fuck cancer and let’s hope for the best results !!

Late-Tadpole-2318

Someone on my feed is saying this was the catalyst for yesterday’s sell off https://www.challengergray.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/CR126007123.pdf

hershculez

3.25% at my CR. No brick and mortar is doing 5% in a HYSA currently.

OsoOak

Well, CR7 is pretty like able

vegeful

Naah ain't no way CR7 is pedo.

Focux

CR7??

reaper527

> Should you buy RDDT? nope. over the next year digg is going to eat its lunch. their admins are just so responsive and friendly unlike spez+co. like, when they get a suggestion the answer is "we can do that, it will be rolled out tomorrow" https://digg.com/digg/oPmM9CR/comment/gzAyxVp between reddit getting actual competition for the first time ever, and the reality of the situation that ai search tools have lots of the major companies downgrading their rating of reddit (such as wells fargo recently), it seems pretty clear reddit's future is murky at best.

Reasonable_Roger

Because multiple members of the GOP caucus look for opportunities to piss on Trump's leg any chance they get these days? I don't know.. It's not the vote on the actual minibus+CR.. it's a vote on the rules for multiple bills for the week. Some GOP want to torpedo the bill with the SAVE act being attached, some don't want cave at all and want to pass the full 6-pack minibus, some just hate trump and want to cause trouble or bargain for some pork.. it's hard to say.

BoringAward2832

Yo what are some puts for tmr???? CR, GLD, GOOG lmk boys

BoringAward2832

CR lmk everyone

GrandGlacier1

CR. Retail also wins some, and loses some. As long as your overall returns are higher than the average market returns, that's the goal.

StormWhich5629

Good. I paid 60k in taxes this year, for what? Shut this shit the fuck down and primary every motherfucker who votes for any CR.

GrandGlacier1

CR If you look at the VIX index, aside from 2008 recession, VIX has been highest during Trump's terms

GrandGlacier1

CR plus market is so unstable. Trump tweets and healthcare tanks. It’s like we have to monitor the market daily if we’re not 100% in VT only.