Research journey
Psilocybin: 332 trials, 758 papers, one canvas
Isolated in 1958, banned in 1970, restarted in 2001. Sixty-eight years, 332 trials and three pivotal programmes later, the field is still waiting for its first approval. Every landmark, deal and collapse on one canvas.
Milestones are curated from the Blossom research database. Registry completion dates are shown as planned; probability-weighted forecasts are part of Blossom Enterprise.
Hover any marker to preview its callout on the canvas, then click to pin it. Pinned is what stays open, fills this panel with the full context and links, and is what an export captures. Landmarks stay labelled on the canvas so the exported image reads on its own.
Download the artifact
Exports rasterise the live SVG, so whatever you have toggled is what you get.
Origins
1958 to 1997Isolated by Hofmann, then buried by the drug war.1958
Sandoz
Hofmann isolates psilocybin
Albert Hofmann isolates and names the active compound in Psilocybe mushrooms at Sandoz, then synthesises it.
Albert Hofmann isolates psilocybin from Psilocybe mexicana at Sandoz in Basel and synthesises it shortly afterwards. Sandoz goes on to distribute it to researchers under the trade name Indocybin. For roughly a decade, psilocybin is simply a pharmaceutical that psychiatrists can order.
That period is easy to forget, and it changes how you should read the rest of this canvas. The compound was not discovered in 2019 by a biotech. It had a legitimate research life, lost it, and has spent the last twenty-five years earning it back under a far heavier evidentiary burden than it ever faced the first time.
1970-10
ended earlyUS Schedule I
The Controlled Substances Act places psilocybin in Schedule I, and human research effectively stops for three decades.
Schedule I is the most restrictive category in US drug law: no accepted medical use, high abuse potential, and a licensing and storage burden that most university departments will not carry. Psilocybin lands there in October 1970.
The effect is visible in the shape of this timeline. Between 1970 and 2001 there is essentially nothing. Not a thin period of research, an absent one. Work such as Walter Pahnke’s 1962 Good Friday Experiment, whose long-term follow-up and methodological critique were only published in 1991, sits on the far side of a thirty-year gap.
It is worth being precise about what scheduling did and did not do. It did not prove psilocybin dangerous. It raised the cost of finding out, and for a generation nobody paid it.
The long return
1998 to 2014Zurich, Tucson and Hopkins reopen the file.1998-12
University of Zurich
A receptor mechanism in humans
Zurich work shows psilocybin acting through the serotonin 5-HT2A receptor, giving the field a testable mechanism.
Franz Vollenweider’s group in Zurich shows that psilocybin’s effects in humans depend on the serotonin 5-HT2A receptor, demonstrated by blocking the receptor and watching the effects disappear. This is the point at which psilocybin stops being a curiosity and becomes a pharmacological tool with a named target.
The framing of that early work is telling. It was pitched as a model of psychosis rather than a treatment for depression, because in 1998 a psychosis model was fundable and an antidepressant claim was not. The compound did not change. The question researchers were allowed to ask about it did.
2001-11
University of Arizona
First modern patient trial
Francisco Moreno opens a nine-patient dose-escalation study in obsessive-compulsive disorder in Arizona.
The first registered psilocybin trial in Blossom’s set, and the study that reopens human research after the Schedule I freeze. Nine patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder, a modified dose-escalation design, and a published result in 2006.
Nine patients is not an evidence base. What matters is that it was permitted at all. Every one of the 331 trials that follow on this canvas depends on someone having got a Schedule I protocol past an institutional review board and the DEA first, and it is worth noticing that the indication was OCD rather than depression. Twenty-five years later, OCD is still one of the least-served indications on this timeline.
2006-07
Johns Hopkins University
Griffiths publishes the mystical-experience study
A rigorously blinded healthy-volunteer study reports experiences participants rated among the most meaningful of their lives.
Roland Griffiths and colleagues at Johns Hopkins run a double-blind comparison in healthy volunteers and report that psilocybin reliably produces experiences that participants rate, fourteen months later, among the most personally meaningful of their lives. The paper has been cited more than 1,600 times.
It is the single most consequential publication on this canvas, and not because of the clinical claim, because there was not one. What it established was that the subjective experience could be measured with a validated instrument and would survive peer review at a serious journal. That made the whole field fundable.
It also planted a problem the field has not resolved. If the therapeutic effect runs through a profound subjective experience, then a placebo-controlled trial is very hard to blind, because participants can tell which arm they are in. That question resurfaces repeatedly further along this timeline.
Trials at scale
2015 to 2024COMP360 and the first modern Phase 3 programmes.2015-01
Imperial College London
Imperial opens the depression question
An open-label feasibility study in treatment-resistant depression at Imperial College London.
Robin Carhart-Harris and colleagues run a small open-label study in patients whose depression had not responded to existing treatment. No control arm, no blinding, twelve patients. The results, published in Lancet Psychiatry in 2016, showed large symptom reductions that persisted at six months in some participants.
Open-label results in depression should always be read carefully, because expectation alone moves depression scores and these participants knew exactly what they had taken. The study was designed to establish feasibility, and it did. What it also did was give every commercial programme further down this canvas a number to point at when raising money.
2016-11
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Two randomised cancer trials publish together
Hopkins and NYU report large, sustained reductions in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer.
Two independent randomised trials, run at Johns Hopkins and NYU, publish in the same issue of the Journal of Psychopharmacology on the same day. Both report substantial reductions in depression and anxiety in patients facing life-threatening cancer, sustained for months after a single session. They are the two most-cited psilocybin papers in Blossom, at roughly 2,100 and 1,700 citations.
Simultaneous publication of two separately conducted trials pointing the same way is about as strong as an early signal gets. It is also where the modern field’s credibility was built: from this point on, psilocybin research is treated as mainstream psychiatry rather than a fringe interest.
The caveat that applies to both is the blinding one. Participants receiving an active dose almost always know it, and in a population confronting mortality the expectation effect is not a small nuisance variable. Neither team hid this. Later programmes have been less consistently candid about it.
2019-01
COMPASS Pathways
COMPASS opens the largest psilocybin trial yet
A 233-participant Phase 2b of COMP360 in treatment-resistant depression, the first industry-scale study of the compound.
COMPASS Pathways runs a randomised, controlled Phase 2b in treatment-resistant depression across ten countries. At the time it is by a wide margin the largest psilocybin trial ever conducted, and it is the moment the field acquires an industrial scale it had never had.
Scale changes what a trial can show. A 233-participant study can detect a modest effect and can surface adverse events too rare for a 12-patient academic pilot to catch. Both of those turned out to matter when the results published in 2022.
2019-11
Usona Institute
FDA Breakthrough Therapy for Usona
The regulator grants Breakthrough Therapy Designation to a non-profit’s psilocybin programme for major depression.
Breakthrough Therapy Designation is the FDA signalling that a treatment may offer a substantial improvement over what exists, and committing to more intensive guidance in return. Usona receives one for major depressive disorder in November 2019, a year after COMPASS received one for treatment-resistant depression.
The detail worth pausing on is that Usona is a non-profit medical research organisation, not a venture-backed biotech. Its results are intended to reach the literature and the regulator without a commercial licensing layer sitting on top. On a canvas where the money lane fills up rapidly after this point, that is a genuinely different model rather than a rhetorical one.
2020-11
Oregon votes for supervised psilocybin services
Measure 109 passes, creating the first regulated adult psilocybin service framework anywhere, entirely outside the FDA route.
Oregon voters approve Measure 109, establishing a state-licensed framework for supervised psilocybin services. Services open in 2023. Colorado follows with Proposition 122 in November 2022. Neither route runs through the FDA, and neither requires a completed clinical trial.
This is the structural fork in the psilocybin story and it has no equivalent on the 5-MeO-DMT canvas. Two access pathways now advance in parallel: a pharmaceutical one that will take until at least 2027 to produce an approval, and a state-regulated one already serving people today. They generate different kinds of evidence, answer to different authorities, and largely ignore each other.
Which raises a question the pipeline lanes below cannot answer on their own. If a state framework can deliver supervised access years before an approval, what exactly is the approval buying, and for whom?
2021-03
The blinding problem gets named
Two 2021 papers set out how badly expectancy confounds psychedelic trials, and one tests it with self-blinded citizen scientists.
A methodological critique of blinding and expectancy confounds in psychedelic randomised trials publishes alongside a citizen-science study in which participants blinded themselves to their own microdoses. The self-blinding study found that people who correctly guessed they were taking a placebo improved about as much as people taking the drug.
This is the most uncomfortable body of work on the canvas and it deserves its place. Every efficacy claim above and below this point rests on trials in which most participants could tell which arm they were in. That does not make the results wrong. It means the effect sizes are measuring drug plus expectation, and no trial design in the field has yet cleanly separated the two.
Regulators know this. It is one reason the pivotal programmes on the right of this canvas use low-dose active comparators rather than inert placebo, and one reason a positive Phase 3 will be argued over rather than settled.
2021-04
New England Journal of Medicine
Psilocybin fails to beat escitalopram on the primary endpoint
The first head-to-head against a standard antidepressant publishes in the New England Journal of Medicine. The primary endpoint is not met.
Imperial College London runs psilocybin directly against escitalopram, a widely prescribed SSRI, in moderate-to-severe depression. On the primary endpoint, the difference between the two is not statistically significant. Several secondary measures favoured psilocybin, and the trial was not powered for the comparison it is most often quoted for.
This trial is routinely reported as a psilocybin win and routinely reported as a psilocybin failure, depending on who is doing the reporting. Both readings are selective. The honest summary is that a 59-participant study could not distinguish the two treatments on its pre-specified measure, which is a real result and a genuinely underpowered one.
A six-month observational follow-up published in 2024 found the groups had converged further. Head-to-head comparisons against active treatment are the hardest test a new psychiatric drug can face, and this remains the only one psilocybin has attempted.
2022-10
JAMA Psychiatry
Alcohol use disorder result in JAMA Psychiatry
A randomised trial reports a large reduction in heavy drinking days, opening a second serious indication.
Michael Bogenschutz and colleagues at NYU report that psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy substantially reduced the percentage of heavy drinking days compared with an active placebo. It is the strongest randomised evidence for psilocybin outside depression.
Alcohol use disorder matters here for a reason beyond the numbers. It is enormous, poorly served by existing medication, and it gives the field a second commercial story to tell if depression proves crowded. Several programmes on this canvas, including Clairvoyant’s 154-patient Phase 2b and a planned Ceruvia Phase 2b, exist because of this result.
A phase 2 relapse-prevention trial published in 2025 was more equivocal. One strong randomised result is a starting point, not a conclusion.
2022-11
New England Journal of Medicine
COMP360 Phase 2b publishes in the NEJM
A 25 mg dose beat a 1 mg comparator at three weeks. The separation had largely faded by twelve weeks, and adverse events clustered in the high-dose arm.
The largest psilocybin trial to that date reports in the New England Journal of Medicine. A single 25 mg dose produced a significantly greater drop in depression scores than a 1 mg comparator at three weeks. By week twelve the gap between arms had narrowed considerably.
The safety findings drew as much attention as the efficacy ones. Suicidal ideation and self-injurious behaviour were reported more often in the 25 mg group than in the 1 mg group. In a treatment-resistant population with a high baseline risk this is difficult to interpret, and the trial was not designed to settle it.
This is the paper that turned psilocybin from a promising story into a regulatory proposition, and it is also the paper that set the bar sceptics have been pointing at ever since. A durable single-dose effect was the commercial premise. Three weeks of clear separation is not obviously that.
2022-11
COMPASS Pathways
The first psilocybin Phase 3
COMP005 opens, the first pivotal trial of psilocybin anywhere, followed by the repeat-dose COMP006 three months later.
COMPASS opens COMP005, a single-dose pivotal study in treatment-resistant depression, and follows it in February 2023 with COMP006, which tests two administrations. Together they are the registration package.
Fifty-two years after Schedule I and twenty-one years after Moreno restarted human research, psilocybin finally enters pivotal trials. It is the longest run-up of any compound on Blossom.
COMP005 completed in October 2024 and topline results were reported in mid-2025. The reported difference against the 1 mg comparator was statistically significant but modest in absolute terms, and the share price reaction suggested investors had expected more. COMP006, the repeat-dose study, is where the durability question is actually being tested.
2023-07
Australia reschedules psilocybin
Authorised psychiatrists can prescribe psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression, before any regulator anywhere has approved a product.
From 1 July 2023 the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration permits specifically authorised psychiatrists to prescribe psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression. Australia becomes the first country to allow prescription without an approved product behind it.
This is a third access model, distinct from both the FDA pathway and the Oregon service framework. It puts the decision with individual authorised prescribers rather than with a marketing authorisation, which means Australia is now generating real-world use data on a compound whose pivotal trials have not read out.
It also had a practical consequence visible elsewhere on this canvas. Australia’s comparatively accessible trial environment is why several programmes here, including Psyence’s Phase 2b and Entropy’s first-in-human intravenous psilocin study, run their clinical work there rather than in the United States.
2023-09
Otsuka Pharmaceutical
Otsuka acquires Mindset Pharma
The first large-pharma acquisition of a psilocybin-class developer, at roughly CAD $80m.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical, a Japanese company with deep central-nervous-system experience, buys Mindset Pharma for about CAD $80m at a premium of roughly 50%. The deal completes in January 2024 and Mindset ceases to exist as an independent entity. The lead asset, MSP-1014, moves into an adaptive Phase 2a/2b in the UK under MHRA approval.
Eighty million Canadian dollars is a small number by pharmaceutical standards, and that is the point. In 2023 an entire psilocybin platform company changed hands for less than the cost of running a single Phase 3. Two years later AbbVie paid up to $1.2bn for one adjacent asset. The market repriced the field fast, and the underlying clinical evidence did not move nearly as much in between.
2023-09
JAMA
Usona Phase 2 publishes in JAMA
A single 25 mg dose beat an active placebo over six weeks in 104 participants with major depression.
Usona’s PSIL201 study reports a rapid and sustained antidepressant effect against a niacin active placebo, in the general major-depression population rather than the treatment-resistant one. It is the strongest evidence supporting the Phase 3 that follows six months later.
The trial has an awkward companion record. Its long-term follow-up study was terminated in October 2022, which means the durability question the original trial raised was not answered by the study designed to answer it. Terminations rarely come with an explanation, and this one does not.
2024-02
Core One Labs
ended earlyCore One Labs goes to zero
A regulatory default blocks its financing, the board resigns en masse, and the shares are delisted nineteen months later.
Core One Labs was building a yeast-fermentation platform for pharmaceutical-grade psilocybin. In February 2024 the British Columbia Securities Commission placed it in default, which blocked the equity financing it needed to operate. Trading was suspended that August. In May 2025 the entire board and executive team resigned. The shares were delisted in September 2025.
It never reached a clinical trial. The company held seven provisional patents through two subsidiaries, and their status after delisting is unknown.
It is not alone. Mycrodose Therapeutics held DEA Schedule I licences and demonstrated transdermal psilocin delivery in vitro, then went silent in mid-2022 and its website later redirected to a mould-removal service. Xpira cleared an FDA IND for anorexia nervosa in 2022 and has published nothing since. Albert Labs raised a Series A and signed a contract research organisation for a first-in-human study that was never registered. Restart Life Sciences renamed itself and pivoted to breakfast cereal.
Timelines assembled from press releases show none of this, because failure does not issue a release. Five companies with real regulatory permissions produced no clinical data between them, and that is a fair description of what most of this sector did.
2024-03
Cybin
Breakthrough designation for an analogue
The FDA grants Breakthrough Therapy Designation to CYB003, the first for an adjunctive psychedelic therapy in major depression.
CYB003 is a deuterated psilocin analogue rather than psilocybin itself: chemically modified to shorten the session and make the dose more consistent between patients. The designation covers its use alongside an existing antidepressant rather than in place of one.
Adjunctive positioning is a quiet but important strategic choice. It sidesteps the head-to-head comparison that produced an ambiguous answer for Imperial in 2021, and it fits how depression is actually treated, since most patients are already on something. It also means a positive result would show psilocybin-class treatment adding to standard care, which is a narrower claim than the one the field usually makes for it.
2024-11
Helus Pharma
PARADIGM Phase 3 begins
Two pivotal studies, APPROACH and EMBRACE, open across the US, Europe, the UK and Australia.
Cybin launches its pivotal programme: APPROACH, which opened in November 2024, and EMBRACE, which followed in July 2025, plus a long-term extension study called EXTEND running to September 2027. The company rebranded to Helus Pharma in January 2026 and trades on Nasdaq as HELP.
This is the second pivotal programme on the canvas and the first for a modified molecule rather than psilocybin itself. If it succeeds it will complicate the story considerably, because an approval for an analogue does not make psilocybin an approved medicine. It makes a patented derivative one.
2024-12
JAMA Psychiatry
Adverse events, pooled
A systematic review in JAMA Psychiatry pools adverse events across classic psychedelic trials, alongside a re-examination of psychosis risk.
Individual psychedelic trials are too small to detect rare harms. Pooling them is the only way to see signals that no single study could catch, and a JAMA Psychiatry systematic review does exactly that across the classic psychedelics. A separate 2024 overview re-examined the long-standing claim that psychedelics trigger psychosis, and found the evidence weaker than the received wisdom suggests.
Safety evidence is evidence, and it belongs on the same canvas as the deals. Two things are true at once here: the acute risk profile in supervised trial settings looks better than the compound’s reputation implies, and trial populations are heavily screened, so what happens in a state-licensed service or an authorised prescriber’s clinic is a different question that these reviews cannot answer.
The verdict years
2025 onwardsPivotal readouts, with a first approval decision in sight.2025-04
ended earlyTwenty-two trials that never delivered
Of 332 registered psilocybin trials, 22 are terminated or withdrawn, including three at Johns Hopkins alone.
Withdrawn means a study was registered and then closed without enrolling anyone. Terminated means it started and stopped early. Across the 332 psilocybin trials in Blossom, 22 carry one of those statuses, and they are spread across exactly the institutions you would expect to succeed: Johns Hopkins withdrew a PTSD safety study and two opioid use disorder studies, Massachusetts General withdrew a treatment-resistant depression study, Washington University withdrew a synaptogenesis imaging study, and Cybin withdrew a trial of how SSRIs affect the psilocybin response.
That last one is worth naming, because the SSRI interaction question is clinically urgent. Most people with depression are already taking an SSRI, and the trial designed to establish how that changes the response was closed before it began.
Registered intent and delivered research are different quantities. A pipeline chart counts the first and implies the second.
2025-08
Reunion Neuroscience
RE104 hits its endpoint in postpartum depression
A 23.0-point depression score reduction at day seven against 17.2 for the control arm, with an effect visible from day one.
Reunion Neuroscience reports positive topline results from RECONNECT, a Phase 2 of luvesilocin (RE104, a psilocin prodrug) in postpartum depression across 38 US sites. The 30 mg arm reached a 23.0-point reduction on the depression scale at day seven against 17.2 for the 1.5 mg control, with no serious adverse events reported.
Postpartum depression is a well-chosen indication. It affects roughly one in seven women after birth, it has an existing rapid-acting comparator in the approved neurosteroids, and the regulatory path is sympathetic. The FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation in February 2026 and, after an end-of-phase-2 meeting, indicated that a single additional pivotal trial could support a filing.
The control arm is worth noticing. A 17.2-point improvement in the low-dose group is a large response to something intended as a comparator, which is the blinding problem showing up again in the numbers rather than in the discussion section.
2025-10
AbbVie
AbbVie acquires the bretisilocin programme
Up to $1.2bn for Gilgamesh’s GM-2505, the largest psychedelic drug deal on record.
AbbVie completes its acquisition of Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals’ bretisilocin programme, announced in August 2025, in a deal worth up to $1.2bn. Bretisilocin is a short-acting serotonin 5-HT2A agonist designed to compress the dosing session, which is where most of the delivery cost in psychedelic therapy sits.
The evidence behind the deal is one Phase 2a: a 21.6-point improvement on the depression scale against 12.1 for a 1 mg comparator, no serious adverse events. That is a strong signal from a small study against an active comparator rather than a placebo.
Read this next to Otsuka paying CAD $80m for a whole company two years earlier and the pattern is clear. Big pharma is not buying psilocybin. It is buying short-acting engineered analogues with defensible patents and shorter clinic time, and it is paying roughly fifteen times more for them. The compound that generated all the evidence on the left of this canvas is not itself the asset.
2026-01
Oregon publishes its first-year service data
Safety, motivation and utilisation figures from the first year of regulated psilocybin services reach the literature.
The first peer-reviewed account of Oregon’s regulated service framework publishes in January 2026, covering who used it, why, and what went wrong. A separate 2025 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine documented a sharp rise in psilocybin use across the United States over the same period.
This is a category of evidence the pharmaceutical lanes cannot generate. Trial populations are screened for psychiatric and cardiac risk, medication interactions and previous psychosis. A state-licensed service is not, which makes its data less clean and considerably more representative of what actual use looks like.
Two evidence bases are now growing in parallel, and they mostly do not cite each other. Whichever way the pivotal trials go, that split is likely to define the next decade of this field more than any single readout will.
2026-03
JAMA Network Open
Smoking cessation, retested against the patch
The 2014 result that reported 80% abstinence is finally tested against nicotine replacement in a randomised pilot.
Johns Hopkins’ 2014 open-label pilot in tobacco addiction reported abstinence rates far above anything nicotine replacement achieves, and that single number has been quoted in almost every popular account of psychedelic medicine since. A randomised pilot comparing psilocybin against a nicotine patch publishes in JAMA Network Open in March 2026.
This is what replication looks like, and it took twelve years. Pilot randomised trials are designed to establish feasibility rather than to settle efficacy, so the honest reading is that the comparison has finally started, not that it has finished.
The pattern generalises across this canvas. The striking early numbers came from small, unblinded, single-site studies. Every time one has been tested against an active comparator, the gap has narrowed.
2026-04
Usona Institute
uAspire reaches its registry completion date
The non-profit Phase 3 hits its listed completion date. No topline has been published.
Usona’s uAspire study, roughly 240 adults across multiple sites including Veterans Affairs facilities, carries a registry completion date of 30 April 2026 and a status of active but no longer recruiting. As of today no topline result has been reported.
Registry completion dates slip constantly and a passed date is not bad news on its own. It is included because a timeline that only marks announcements systematically overstates how fast a field moves. This is the second pivotal psilocybin programme, run by the one sponsor with no commercial incentive to time its disclosure, and the public record currently says nothing.
2026-09
COMPASS Pathways
plannedCOMPASS opens Redefine in PTSD
A Phase 2/3 in post-traumatic stress disorder, registry-listed to run to September 2029.
COMPASS takes COMP360 into a second indication with a combined Phase 2/3 in PTSD, following a Phase 2 safety and tolerability study that completed in 2023. The registry lists completion in September 2029.
Indication expansion this early is a hedge. Treatment-resistant depression is now crowded with Usona, Helus and the AbbVie-backed programme all pointed at broadly the same patients, and PTSD is both large and, since the MDMA rejection in 2024, conspicuously unserved.
2026-09
Reunion Neuroscience
plannedRE104 single pivotal trial planned
Guided for the third quarter of 2026, on an FDA-agreed path of one additional Phase 3 before filing.
After a positive end-of-phase-2 meeting in December 2025, the FDA indicated that one further pivotal trial would be sufficient to support a filing in postpartum depression. Reunion guides to starting it in the third quarter of 2026.
A single pivotal trial is a genuinely cheaper path, and it also concentrates all the risk into one readout. If it succeeds, this becomes the first psychedelic-class medicine approved for postpartum depression, ahead of every depression programme on this canvas.
2026-10
Helus Pharma
plannedAPPROACH topline expected
Company guidance puts the first pivotal readout for HLP003 in the fourth quarter of 2026.
The nearest thing to a verdict on this canvas. APPROACH is the first of the two PARADIGM pivotal studies, and Helus guides to topline data in the fourth quarter of 2026. This is company guidance rather than a registry-confirmed date, so treat it as the optimistic case.
What a positive result would and would not establish is worth being clear about now, before the headlines arrive. It would show a deuterated psilocin analogue, given alongside an existing antidepressant, outperforming a low-dose comparator in major depression. It would not show that psilocybin is an approved medicine, and it would not resolve the blinding question that has shadowed every trial above it.
A negative result would be more consequential. Two decades of accumulated signal, and the field’s first properly powered pivotal test, would have failed to converge.
2027-06
plannedenterpriseProbability-weighted approval scenarios
Filing timing, approval probability and comparator readouts across the psilocybin field.
Everything else on this canvas is public record: registry entries, published papers, filed announcements, securities commission bulletins.
Blossom Enterprise models filing timing and approval probability across the competing pivotal programmes, including the question this timeline keeps circling, which is whether an analogue approval or a state-service framework reaches patients first. It is the one marker here you cannot verify from a registry, and it is deliberately the only thing behind a paywall.
Psilocybin
The long return: a research journey