BATETH
Basic Attention Token / Ethereum
crypto Composite

Sure, the REGAL result remains binary. The bull case or specifically the probability that GPS will be better than BAT is significantly more robust vs. the bear case. As for fraud, this is one of the bear motifs, but just does not compute. Members of the board have extensive pharma experience and sensitive to the consequences of fraud whether it be data or making forward looking statements out of hand. The IDMC, the steering committee, the Scientific Advisory Board consist of the highest quality names in Leukemia Research. Random shit meanwhile is controlled by the fact that REGAL is duh, randomized. Sorry this post sounds like an attempt to shake out weak hands.

Same old bear wall from .57 to where we are now. Maybe BAT is a magic potion, Sterg is this or that…drug works

If gps is actually is in fact prolonging life this is going to so fuking big.
According to the doctors running the trial on R&D day said BAT 8 months or less and last patient was enrolled 27 months ago now. Give or take that’s about 8/27 =0.296
If hr is that, Jesus bless us all, for u know parents and investors deserve this..
There’s a lot of fud since the stock reached $7 and now way way more fud. In my opinion, it’s worthy of a hold if u was buying in the 1s 2s 3s and loaded in options, hold to the end. U all deserve it

Hi, thank you for your kind words.
People are being rude because there is a cult like following around this stock, and everyone sees it as their ticket to financial independence. To be clear, I am not a biostatistician or a seasoned biotech expert. I just pointed out some major red flags surrounding this company moving away from the biology, especially since I used to be a hyper bull myself until the cracks became too big to ignore.
As far as your study is concerned, it might share the most similar population to the control arm in REGAL, but I do not believe the control arm will mirror that study's performance. The study is more than a decade old, and Best Available Therapy (BAT) has definitely improved since then. Furthermore, my biggest red flag regarding why this stock will fail has almost nothing to do with the biology itself. If you are interested in hearing more about it, feel free to DM me.

AI but still valid: While QUAZAR AML-001 was a CR1 maintenance trial, it provides the definitive biological proof of concept that shatters your 'you must have a transplant to survive 3 years' narrative.
In QUAZAR, older, strictly transplant-ineligible patients on oral azacitidine maintenance hit a median overall survival of **24.7 months**, and a massive **37.4% of those non-transplanted patients cruised straight past the 3-year mark**.
When you move to the REGAL CR2 setting—where patients have already proven themselves to be elite biological responders by forcing a relapse back into a clean remission—and you give investigators the freedom to use even more potent modern maintenance combinations like Venetoclax + HMAs on the BAT arm, expecting an upper-quartile survival tail to approach 2–3 years isn't a statistical fantasy. It's exactly what modern outpatient oncology achieves, and it is precisely why the trial is hitting an event bottleneck at 78 out of 80 deaths.

The GPS arm would have some deaths clusters at the start too, the non responsive participants and ones that didn’t generate an immune response yet. If all of BAT were dead we would hit 80 from the initial non-responders.

Ven/aza could be as high as 12. but again, you could have 63 BAT deaths and still not be at 80 - BAT mOS being a few months higher is not enough to explain the delay.

yea there really is no possible way for the HR to be above .636 without an 80th event by july 2026. You'd need a crazy BAT mOS combined with something insane for the 3 year OS. Id put the chances at less than 1%, my monte carlo simulations have the probability at even less than that

Looking at this I was weighing them too heavily at the end… my estimates are wrong…yeah mOS is going to be longer, that does put it out of reach even with a strong performance in the BAT. Bullish for the Hazard ratio.

New data from ASCO just ONE MONTH AGO completely dunks on the super BAT case. 25% 3 year OS in CR1, you need a 30% 3 year OS in regal to push HR in the danger zone. 3 year OS won't be above 15% in all likelihood in REGAL BAT

but carry on with your super BAT.

pooled mOS is over 25 months, if it were 17 months we'd have seen 60 deaths in mid 2024 and 80 deaths in 2025. BAT at 12 months means the HR is below .35, need it to be above 16 months just to get HR above .5

Thank you for your detailed responses and conversations. I don't know why people are being so rude to you.
The way I see it, there are basically two reasons they could fail. One is Ven, let's [assume](https://chaotropy.substack.com/p/sellas-why-the-bear-case-might-not?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%2Bviewer&triedRedirect=true) that won't have a material impact on the trial. The other is, as you pointed out, depends on how much the six month cutoff impacts the results.
What do you think of the argument that the most comparable group in the published research is intermediate full second remission in the 2010 Kurosawa study, or (as I understand it) the black line in Chart C in Figure 4 of the following? That would indicate a roughly 20% OS at year 3 for BAT, which would seem to tilt the odds towards GPS success if the trial continues much longer.
[Prognostic factors and outcomes of adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia after first relapse | Haematologica](https://haematologica.org/article/view/5781)

Yes for sure. BAT is suddenly vastly outperforming the historical data, because they excluded the patients that were already on the verge of dying. Which equally benefits the GPS arm btw due to higher immune response. Makes sense.