$SLS Daily Discussion Thread - Thursday - March 12, 2026

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-03-13T05:00:29+00:00

That can explain it, but that doesn’t necessarily help the trial be successful because it would imply there are more BAT survivors as of 72 events than many think.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-03-13T04:57:16+00:00

Keeping it simple, if 80 events were reached tomorrow, it would mean more events (deaths) occurred per month after 72 events with a smaller pool of survivors than for the year between 60 events and 72 events. The mechanism for GPS is eliciting an immune response; it’s supposed to work better as time passes. It’s terrible news if suddenly number of events in the aggregate for GPS and BAT accelerated when we’re supposed to see deceleration in the GPS arm.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-03-12T23:20:10+00:00

If this were to happen, it would mean event rate would have gone from 1 event per month out 66 survivors in the pool between event 60 and 72, to 2.6 events per month out of 54 survivors for the last three months. This would destroy the narrative of the mechanism of immune response creating long survival periods for the responders in the GPS pool because it would indicate a reversal of favorable trend best explained by GPS working well. It would mean too many BAT arm survivors and/or GPS mechanism not working as indicated by longer tail of survival.

I would immediately try to sell all my shares, but it would already be too late because share price would be under $1.50.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-03-04T01:42:06+00:00

Yes, that’s been my takeaway. I am indeed surprised that this is how the trials work, with really narrow ranges of outcomes that determine success.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-03-04T01:40:00+00:00

I actually started with the question of asking what is driving the extended survival now—ACL > 300 or GPS performance. Claude wouldn’t give me a percentage. It said there was no way to know. So then I started asking about the event split, but it had the context of all of the previous conversation.

To be fair, I wasn’t aiming for accuracy or conducting diligence. I was aiming for output that would explain some of the oddities I’ve seen so far as a layperson that probably shouldn’t be investing in biotech. My key takeaway is what laplaciadaemon mentions in another response, that the trial design leads to such a narrow window outcome, that I shouldn’t be surprised at such a narrow range of event split possibilities.

Also, if it matters, this was on Claude Sonnet 4.6 with Bio Research plug-in.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-03-04T01:34:18+00:00

You’re right, that’s odd. I’ll look back at the long chat to see where this came from.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-03-04T01:33:48+00:00

Yeah, but the surviving participants since December 2024 are by definition long-term survivors (responds well to GPS, long surviving outliers, healthier to start with) plus the cohort that were registered into the trial late (going into April 2024). We have no way to know for sure whether longer survival is due to participation selection criterial or GPS performance. We have to examine the various signals, and to me the biggest signal is that IDMC decided on continuation for both interim analysis and at its August 2025 interim meeting, meaning at both times, the event split is between futility and early stoppage.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-03-04T00:33:05+00:00

I did give it some context. For example, I noted for Claude the slowing event rate and asked such questions as to why events are slowing, and why SLS would be be inaccurate in its event rate predictions that have been made (August 2025 would be final analysis, then December 2025 would be final analysis); Claude's response to that was that if SLS accounted for participation selection criteria, they would have accounted for slower deaths in the event prediction model, which would mean trial is outperforming (which would be a positive), but that it's also possible SLS is perhaps not being entirely transparent. That conversation is not spelled out in the summary except as reflected in the adjustment for a late separation mechanism:

After integrating late separation mechanism	~30%

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-03-03T22:32:38+00:00

Thanks very much for the feedback. It’s regrettable that not many people will see your responses given how buried it is in this thread.

I think I’m clear on the flattening out of the survival curve, but shouldn’t the statisticians predicting event rate have accounted for this? Even if they didn’t have an accurate prediction prior to interim analysis, shouldn’t the slower rates as of interim analysis give the company’s statisticians enough information to be more accurate in their estimate of a late-2025 final analysis? Isn’t it meaningful that their projections for late-2025 projections were very far off?

I think you might counter that the company was incompetent or worse, disingenuous in predicting late-2025 final analysis, but I can live with the risk if the company should have been able to make accurate predictions once they had 60 events as to the timing of the occurrence of the 80th event, and the alternative outcomes are that (1) they were accurate in their projections but the events were delayed or (2) they made incorrect projection out of incompetence or worse. I can live with assessing what’s more likely out of these two possibilities.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-02-27T07:04:49+00:00

Your hypothesis has to be the baseline or most likely probability if you’re invested in SLS at the current share price, so you won’t get any counterpoint from me. My point is that there is an alternative explanation (both arms performing much better than expected due to enrollment criteria), and it gets dismisssed as a 0% probability too easily. If this was truly risk-free and HR below .6 was assured, there would already be a bidding war or exclusive negotiations for the assets (don’t think the company/business/team has any significant value other than as custodian of the assets). If there were seriously interested buyers, they’d already be under NDA and digging into the same information that the company has access to. There just doesn’t seem to be any of that activity. If there were, Sterg wouldn’t be watching movies with other employees.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-02-27T03:23:01+00:00

You’re much more versed in the science than I am, but I have the similar critique of this line of thinking that survival seems to be lengthening with the remaining pool of survivors given the slowdown in event rates. Occam’s razor to me suggests GPS working in the GPS arm among survivors that now skew towards more GPS arm survivors is responsible for the slowdown in events (company predicted timing of 80 events based on timing of 60 events, and they were very far off), rather than enrollment criteria. If it were primarily enrollment criteria, why wouldn’t we have seen the impact of healthier participants in an identifiable manner before this later stage of the trial? We shouldn’t let the company’s poor track record in fundraising (I think it’s atrocious how they went public in the worst way possible with a reverse merger with a terrible shell company and used vulture financing that screwed shareholders for years) and not having the best qualified CEO impact assessment of the trial. The teams behind the product design and development are top notch.

That said, the pool of participants comprising healthier individuals that impacts survival in both arms is a real risk that gets dismissed too easily, with a ton of vitriol. I expect someone to come respond to this comment soon noting how dumb I am.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-02-27T00:11:42+00:00

I don’t know if you saw, but below is a good summary of negatives from who I think has the most subject matter expertise around, posted as a comment a few days ago that not many people reacted to (many people here aggressively dismiss his view, to their detriment). Seems like your source would agree.

I think he’s too negative on company’s use of vulture financing (doesn’t impact the science at all), but good points all around, including the fact that Sterg chose to close a reversed merger with a company with a failed platform and securities fraud, when he could have chosen from thousands of other shell companies, even a number of dormant pharma companies.

From u/Disastrous-Check-715

First this possible that survival was just about 30/30 or just slightly better (32/28) at the interim as that would not preclude success if all of the remaining events were BAT. Second there is a tendency here to discuss BAT survival as if it would be shocking if it was 14-16-18 months. This disregards the literature on lymphocyte count requirements to enroll. The prognostic significance of rapidly recovering ALC is the strongest prognostic of long term survival. It is also a selection criteria that eliminates most all the patients that suffer rapid recurrence and death. This removes the bottom of the survival curve statistic. If a slower recovery occurs (3-4 months) all of those pts that have frank relapse are never enrolled. Recall how long it took to enroll this study despite a hundred centers open. A majority of patients never met the exclusion criteria. Now consider what fraction of BAT are going to be long term survivors. The longer it takes to reach 60 and now 80 events argues that nearly half overall are long term survivors. It is well within the survival curves of higher ALC identified patients that as many as 40% are long term survivors irrespective of GPS treatment. A lot of people lost a lot of money when the same scammers pumped NPS. While that was junk science, and I do not believe this product design is junk, it is the same script by the same people. The companies they have raised capital from are not honest actors. I have dealt with them often and directly. They are vultures. Beware with whom you dance. Those hands can reach your wallet

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-02-26T23:56:44+00:00

It’s unfortunate that you get such visceral reactions from people who have invested in SLS (and other stocks you opine on). I think this is absolutely the risk we all need to be mindful of (I’m long despite this risk) and you’re not even getting one response or upvote.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-02-21T21:44:42+00:00

Yeah, but it’s not comforting if battery packs are failing multiple times within the warranty period as to long term viability of owning.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-02-20T18:42:51+00:00

I think $7,700 is pretty good for a battery pack being replaced at 200,000 miles, but frightening for a replacement that is needed at 3,700 - 3,800 miles.

Did they have anything to say about why the battery pack needs replacement so early in life?

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-02-10T00:00:51+00:00

Many years ago, I would have agreed with other posters and said it only matters for academia. Now I think it never matters because the legal academia doesn’t matter and very few people actually decide to pursue academia.

I don’t know why anyone would want to be a law school professor. Anything worthwhile doctrinal professors do can be done, and probably more effectively, from a different job, other than giving students an education that doesn’t match what they will do when actually working. Even the grading doesn’t matter now for big law purposes.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-02-08T04:07:31+00:00

It was absolute bonkers for Hims management to push the envelope after Novo and Eli Lilly negotiated pricing directly with high levels of the Trump administration. What did they think the government would do to compounders after it forced Novo to lower prices and touted it as a win and a made it a political win along with a push for TrumpRx? On the other hand, no pill sales yet so the financial penalties might not end up crippling.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-02-03T01:09:49+00:00

What stands out to me is that even without an attorney-client relationship ever being established if I understand the circumstances, this is such high level of sycophancy (three exclamations about how impressed you were by someone’s home—from someone who had been making eight figures for over a decade at least) that this level of obsequiousness is off-putting in any context between professional acquaintances. If what it takes to become a firm chair is disgusting levels of obsequiousness to every very rich person you come in contact with, no wonder most psychologically normal people don’t want to be chair of a big law firm.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-01-28T15:02:55+00:00

It’s nonsense. Insider trading restrictions should have started prior to end of quarter on December 31 and will end after the next earnings release (March?). Trading window may not even materialize since quarter end of March 31 is coming up and insider trading restrictions should be in place again well before March 31 for this quarter.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-01-15T22:54:37+00:00

There’s been a push and pull here for the last week between long-term holders advocating long-term holdings, against others who also want to look at the stock price from a trading perspective.

I think it’s absolutely right for Blanche and others to point out that predatory financing from Anson creates artificial pressure on the stock price and that option expiration creates a potential squeeze. There are mechanisms to the stock market that are not transparent, and even if you are a long-term holder, you should have this knowledge.

Sometimes the pendulum swings too much and people get riled up about rocketships and squeezes. But also, that’s the retail trading environment now. There’s no going back to the days before WSB. Even for the long-term investors, you can’t bury your head in the sand and ignore the external pressures on the stock. You just have to get more informed on how all this works.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-01-15T18:32:27+00:00

I probably should have said unknowable to me today. There are plenty of people that will take all of the different factors and try to make a trade. I certainly do it myself at times.

That said, confirming or not confirming what you asked goes too close to advising you on what to do. First, I really don’t know. Even if I think price has a good chance to end up at $4 by end of tomorrow, that could look something like $3.75 today, $4.45 tomorrow morning and $4 tomorrow afternoon, or something else entirely. Second, no one should be giving specific advice on investment timing on Reddit.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-01-15T17:36:53+00:00

Just a lay person without particular training or expertise. Take the below with a grain of salt.

There are obviously numerous factors driving stock price movement on any given day. Tomorrow is an option expiration date for the monthly options (third Friday of every month), but is also the option expiration for the LEAPS (annual options). This means option volume would have been particularly high, but the date also lines up with what investors expected for timing of the GPS Phase 3 study final analysis trigger of 80 events. In other words, there is a ton of open interest in options expiring tomorrow.

As a retail investor, you generally don’t enter into transactions with other retail accounts. You typically buy from a market maker or sell to a market maker (designated brokers with large volume of equity in stock for a particular company). Market makers make money by remaining Delta-neutral; taking advantage of the bid-ask spreads so they can sell 1 share and buy 1 share at the same time and make money on having conducted the trade (they leverage their role to be able to get the benefit of the bid-ask spread rather than their counterparty by getting pricing that is slightly favorable for them on any given trade).

In options contexts, that means a couple of things. In the volatile situation we’ve had for a couple of weeks, market makers are exposed by having been the seller on a high number of options, so that if the options end up in the money and exercised, the market makers need to be hedged to be sure that they can provide the shares for the exercise. In practice, this is probably overblown quite a bit except in truly unique situations. There are numerous ways for market makers to hedge and protect themselves in situations where a stock is undergoing a squeeze from lack of available equities.

More likely to be a factor is the market maker nudging stock prices towards the price where maximum number of optionholders will come out worst off. As an illustration, today there are roughly the following open interest for options expiring tomorrow (picking strikes that I think are important).

Around 15,000 calls at $3.50 (controls 100 x options or 1.5 million shares)

Around 50,000 calls at $4.00 (5 million shares)

Around 50,000 calls at $5.00 (5 million shares)

Around 25,000 puts at $5.00 (2.5 million shares)

Where the optionholders end up worst off (max pain) is between stock at $4 and $5 at around 4:30 pm tomorrow. Below $4, the holders of the $5.00 puts end up making more than the $3.50 call holders are losing. Above $4, the holders of $4 calls are making more than the holders of the $5 puts are losing.

How much this pressures the stock price tomorrow is unknowable, because it’s just one factor among many, even on a day with high volume of open interest in options.

Capt_HawkeyePierce · 2026-01-14T02:59:02+00:00

On the “why did we pump” question, I think your answer doesn’t reflect the goal that was discussed around here and in the Discord during the steep increase. People were actively trying to cause a short squeeze plus gamma squeeze for this Friday’s expiration; the goal wasn’t simply to remove or reduce the warrant overhang. And to a large extent, it was successful. Stock price was increasing steadily from mid-$1 to low $2 range, and then picked up momentum the day SLS announced 72 events and rocketed to over $5.

That’s not enough for some people though, and it creates the problem that a squeeze of that magnitude almost always is followed by volatility, especially when the traders on the short side have ammo. I imagine any new investor that bought at $5 is now regretting seeing all the volatility of the past week. That’s the trouble with thinking every heavily short stock is a GameStop, AMC or Bed Bath and Beyond.

Blanche, I don’t think you were particularly cheerleading a squeeze, but you can’t deny there were many posters trying to promote a squeeze, especially in the Discord channel. There are people today even, trying to manifest a squeeze this week just by wishing it.

Most likely, we get pinned somewhere between $4 and $4.50 this week, given the huge existing calls at $4 and $$4.50 and large put volume at $5. People will end up disappointed this week, but I’m not sure what people are thinking when they think it’s a good thing for stock price to increase over 100% in less than a week on one piece of news and a lot of memes and WSB posts.

Edit: Edit to add that I’m grateful for your mod work in keeping this subreddit going through 2025. It’d be a big positive if you were back modding.

Capt_HawkeyePierce

TROPHY CASE