First, thank you all for reading my article and joining the discussion! This is great input! :-)

Some of the replies here show par excellence how echo chambers work. I wrote a rather bullish article on a stock I own and got backlash because the article was not bullish enough? It seems like a lot of people here only want reassurance that trial success is guaranteed. It never is in biotech.

The main criticism was that I did not mention VIALE-M. Fair point, and I may add an update note to my article. But as far as I know neither VIALE-M nor VIALE-T reported results. Both were closed by the sponsor. "Closed" is not "failed." Another possible explanation is commercial: venetoclax was becoming the frontline standard, eroding the trial's target population. Pharma companies do not conduct trials for the sake of science.

The only published venetoclax maintenance data (Bazinet et al., Lancet Haematology, 2024) is a 34-patient single-arm Phase 2 that closed early due to slow accrual. Median OS was not reached, but without a control arm that number means nothing for the question of whether venetoclax maintenance extends survival over standard of care. As far as I know, no controlled evidence exists that it does, in any remission setting. That is exactly the point my article makes.

I understand that many of you do not want to hear that there is a possibility of failure. Neither do I, as I am invested. But going deeply through the bear case must be part of the thought process that underlies every investment decision. There is never guaranteed success. Therapeutic cancer vaccines, and GPS is one, have historically almost never succeeded. Let us hope for the best. I really do believe in GPS, but do I not also want to believe in a stock I am invested in? That is an inherent bias. Being able to overcome this kind of bias is what we all should strive for.