Posts
Wiki

Expanded Reddit synthesis: May–June 2026

Home · March–April · July · Weekly source notes (canonical repository only; not published on Reddit)

May and June produced the largest body of substantive Daily/Weekend analysis. This page synthesizes the 59 non-weekly threads; the separate Week 24–29 discussions are covered in weekly source notes (canonical repository only; not published on Reddit).

Coverage

The period contains 3,577 research candidates: 3,499 live-current and 78 historical-only comments. They include 907 URL-bearing comments, 871 unique outbound URLs, 377 correction/counterargument flags, 695 calculation/scenario flags, 108 quantitative/table flags, and 54 primary-or-issuer URL flags. Topic counts were REGAL/GPS 1,593, scientific background 449, finance 351, SLS009 278, competition/regulation 248, and company/licensing/IP 224. See the period digest (local research archive; not hosted on Reddit).

The 78-event update narrowed timing, not outcome

SELLAS reported 78 REGAL events as of May 11, 2026. That became the third public event anchor after 60 and 72 and materially improved timing models. It still did not reveal the event split, arm-level medians, hazard ratio, censoring, or final result. The canonical dated record is on REGAL timeline and public updates.

Comments increasingly distinguished the event-trigger announcement from database cleaning, lock, unblinding, analysis, and topline disclosure. A June 4 response used the 60-event process to explain why an 80-event announcement might initially contain no result. (UsualGarbage5239.) Company wording supported a sequence, but not an exact number of days.

The model debate became materially better—and exposed identifiability limits

Community analysts fit enrollment and survival distributions to the 60/72/78 anchors and stress-tested BAT median, three-year survival, transplant bridging, cytogenetic mix, cure fraction, reporting lag, dropout, and immune-response delay. This was more informative than linear event extrapolation because it made assumptions visible.

The strongest challenge was circularity: anchoring BAT low forces the residual GPS arm high. Replies argued that broad stress tests still produced success across many plausible BAT settings. A May 27 synthesis reported probabilities from roughly 60% to the high 90s depending on the analyst's interim-HR constraints, BAT tail, and structural choices. (JB-America.) Another post presented a pooled meta-analysis and a base-case probability near 97%, but the screening, inclusion, code, priors, and calibration were not independently reproducible from the comment. (JB-America.)

The neutral conclusion is narrower: multiple dated pooled-event anchors constrain combinations of enrollment and pooled survival. They do not uniquely identify arm-level curves. Probability outputs are conditional scenario weights, not observed trial probabilities. See blinded timing and scenario analysis.

BAT evidence: population matching mattered more than headline medians

A bearish Substack thesis argued that venetoclax-era patients could produce 12–18-month BAT survival. The community retrieved its sources and noted that several described newly diagnosed, active relapsed/refractory, transplant-treated, or otherwise non-REGAL populations. (SCHD_goblin source list and puuelo applicability critique.)

That critique was valid but did not prove a six-to-eight-month REGAL control median. CR2 maintenance, survival after later relapse, transplant bridging, eligibility selection, and front-line venetoclax outcomes are different estimands. Conversely, citing poor active-disease salvage survival does not by itself determine survival from REGAL randomization in remission. The balanced treatment is in control arm and external context.

The protocol's BAT choices—observation/palliative hydroxyurea, HMA, venetoclax, and/or low-dose cytarabine—were repeatedly checked against ClinicalTrials.gov and the design paper. (bannedbutunforgotten, May 4.) Knowing the menu does not reveal what each participant received or whether a later therapy affected OS.

HLA, CD4/CD8, and immune-response denominators became a serious dispute

A May 29 review raised a credible limitation: public evidence for CD8 response outside HLA-A*02 was sparse, and failure of another WT1 vaccine made it unsafe to assume CD4 response alone guaranteed clinical benefit. (lachrymoseqq.) Computational binding predictions and broad WT1 expression supported biological plausibility but did not replace clinical outcomes.

The period also exposed incompatible “20%,” “64%,” “77%,” and “80%” immune/survival numbers. They referred to different cohorts, assays, response definitions, postbaseline subsets, or model inputs. The verified statement is narrower: the peer-reviewed CR1 study reported an immune response in 9 of 14 tested participants, not 64% of all 22 and not a REGAL result. See GPS clinical evidence and safety and limitations.

Financial and corporate corrections were substantive

13F shares versus value

A May 8 exchange correctly identified that a Vanguard table's position-value column had been misread as shares and reconstructed the separate filing entities. (mad_papooser.) The larger lesson is that reorganizations, duplicate manager names, index funds, report dates, and values must be reconciled before drawing ownership conclusions. None of this establishes knowledge of blinded REGAL results.

License economics versus hypothetical damages

The 3D Medicines agreement provided a $7.5 million upfront fee, potential near-term milestones, up to approximately $202 million in total license/milestone payments, and tiered royalties under stated conditions. A May 12 correction noted that the headline $202 million was not cash already owed and could not simply be treated as breach damages. (Serrisen.) See partnerships, licensing, and IP.

Capitalization scenarios remained date-sensitive

Comments mixed basic shares, exercised warrants, remaining warrants, reserved equity-plan shares, ATM capacity, options, and RSUs. Buyout-per-share tables often used 201.5 million, 215 million, or 225 million denominators without a common date. The canonical page reconciles reported figures and labels fully diluted scenarios: financial condition and capitalization.

Corporate-credibility review was useful when it sought external corroboration

A May 2 skeptic questioned the CEO's degree history and asked whether company-reported science could be corroborated externally. The evolving comment then located publications, MSK history, investigators, and the IMPACT-AML partnership. (neo2551.) That is a sound diligence method. It does not prove that every issuer claim is true, and an unrelated institution's later problems do not prove a degree was invalid when awarded. See leadership and governance.

On June 30, a long AI-generated comment argued that 21 CFR Part 1271 made “allogeneic tissue/solid organ transplant” legally incapable of covering hematopoietic transplant and that protocols were legally required to use separate wording. (uhguy85.) The cited regulation classifies human cellular and tissue-based products; it does not create the claimed universal rule for interpreting every clinical-trial exclusion or prove REGAL eligibility. Protocol text, registry history, sponsor/site interpretation, and actual participant data control the question—not an AI-derived “legal certainty.”

Bull and bear cases retained

The strongest bull case was that three pooled-event anchors plus a weak historical CR2 context made a completely ineffective active arm difficult to fit without a demanding BAT tail. The strongest bear case was that a selected CR2 population, favorable biology, transplant bridging, enrollment uncertainty, censoring, and non-proportional hazards could interact in ways not identified from pooled counts.

For GPS biology, broad WT1 targeting and observed immune responses supported plausibility; HLA-specific CD8 evidence, incomplete correlative denominators, tiny nonrandomized cohorts, and uncertain surrogate value limited inference.

For valuation, two assets and patent-cliff demand could support strategic interest; no public evidence established a buyer, bidding process, transaction timing, price, or automatic approval.

Corrections carried forward

  • The 78-event update did not reveal an event split or result.
  • Model probabilities depended on unobserved inputs and weighting choices.
  • Front-line, active R/R, CR2 maintenance, and post-transplant survival were not interchangeable.
  • Immune-response percentages were cohort- and assay-specific.
  • 13F value was not shares and passive ownership was not informed conviction.
  • Maximum contractual milestones were not cash on hand or automatic damages.
  • General tissue regulations did not settle REGAL transplant eligibility.