"The Miracle Has Fine Print" - PSA's Sunday Sound-Off: October 11th, 2026

Your donation directly funds the original, independent reporting you rely on every Sunday.

The Sunday Rundown

1. The Miracle Has Fine Print
2. Later this month: The D.C. Psychedelic Professionals Mixer
3. PSA NewsWire Highlights of the Week: October 11th, 2026

The Miracle Has Fine Print

Texas is stalled, the federal match is unwritten, and FDA's ibogaine docket is open until November 20. Two governments have taken up one drug, and neither has yet said what would let anyone check the safety claims.

By Odette Alina Hauke, M.S.

Texas set down 1,524 words of law to bring ibogaine into clinical trials. The statute fixes the state's share of any future revenue at not less than twenty percent. It itemizes what that share flows from, including "trade secrets, data, and databases." It asks every applicant for a "data integrity plan" and a pledge to recognize "this state's commercial interest in all intellectual property."1

The words publish, publicly, share, peer review and journal do not appear, not once.1

That is the fine print. Nothing about it is hidden, or sinister, or even unusual. It is simply a careful inventory of what Texas decided to buy, and the ability to check a safety claim was not on the list.

The bargain has not been struck. Chapter 491 requires a drug developer, a full match from non-state sources, and a fifth of any commercial revenue.1 No drug company was found to qualify.2 The Health and Human Services Commission nonetheless chose UTHealth Houston and UTMB to lead a consortium called IMPACT,3 and as of October 8 its position is that their plans "do not meet the requirements of Chapter 491."2 Until a match is verified, the statute forbids the disbursement of a single dollar.1

Into that gap stepped the federal government. Executive Order 14401 directs HHS to allocate at least $50 million through the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) to "support and partner with State governments" advancing psychedelics for serious mental illness.4 HHS routed it through a program called EVIDENT; ARPA-H confirmed it is the same $50 million.2,5

The negotiation is under way, and since December it has turned almost entirely on who will own the results. It has not yet turned on the quieter question of who will be allowed to check them.

FDA's notice is the most specific document anyone has produced, and it is specific about everything but this. On October 6 FDA opened docket FDA-2026-N-10429 on early-phase ibogaine trials: a request for information, not a rule, and expressly not its final view. Of the federally funded programs it says one thing. Their data, "which will be made available publicly to investigators and sponsors," may support later-stage development.6 Ten words, and not one of them is a format, a recipient, or a date.

A Safety Claim Is a Fraction

Every safety claim is a fraction, whether or not anyone troubles to write it down. The numerator is what happened. The denominator is everything the numerator is measured against: how many people it could have happened to, how closely anyone was watching, and for how long.

Ibogaine has both numbers, and they were never meant to meet. Alper and colleagues gathered every known death outside West Central Africa associated in time with ibogaine, 1990 through 2008: nineteen people, dead within 1.5 to 76 hours, with prior illness or other drugs explaining or contributing in twelve of the fourteen with usable postmortem data.7 The same author separately estimated that 3,414 people had taken ibogaine as of February 2006.8

Nineteen over 3,414 is 0.56 percent, about one in 180, and the author himself asks the reader not to do the sum. The survey counted only providers who had gone public.8 Alper later put the shortfall at 20 to 30 percent, placed six of the nineteen deaths where the survey could not see, and noted that deaths come to attention more readily than survivals.7 Advocates and critics do the sum anyway, and arrive at opposite answers. The data entitle neither side to one.

Consider, then, how little the series could say of its own nineteen. A dose of ibogaine hydrochloride is known for twelve of them. A blood level exists for ten, drawn anywhere from four to fifty-three hours after ingestion. Toxicology for drugs of abuse was run on eleven. Five have no autopsy results at all, and eight have no full toxicology. Three deaths in Mexico were certified as pulmonary embolism on autopsies the authors themselves judge inadequate.7 The most cited harm data in the field lack dose, exposure, product and co-ingestants: precisely the fields FDA is now considering requiring.6

One row deserves to be read slowly. Case 12 is a 38-year-old man, treated for opioid dependence at a facility in Mexico in 2006, found dead within an hour of last being seen alive, twelve hours after 13 milligrams per kilogram of ibogaine hydrochloride. Toxicology found cocaine and morphine metabolites. An autopsy was performed; the authors judge it inadequate. The death certificate says pulmonary thromboembolism. In the column reserved for what actually killed him, the entry reads: insufficient information.7

Figure 1. What the field's definitive harm series could record about its own cases. Counts from Alper, Stajić and Gill (2012); circles represent totals, not identified individuals.

The fraction fails just as quietly in the other direction, and for the same reason. Stanford's MISTIC study followed thirty male special-operations veterans treated at a clinic in Mexico and reported no serious or unexpected adverse events.9 Zero events in thirty is consistent with a true rate as high as 9.5 percent, about one in ten. That is a property of the number thirty, not a verdict on anyone's care.10 Ibutilide, the antiarrhythmic FDA offers as a monitoring analogue, causes torsades de pointes, the dangerous rhythm that a prolonged QT invites, in about 1.7 percent of patients; at that rate a thirty-person study sees nothing sixty percent of the time.6 Clearing ibutilide's rate takes about 175 people without a single event.10

Figure 2. What a clean safety record can and cannot rule out. Exact one-sided 95 percent upper bound on the true serious-event rate given zero observed events, computed as 1 minus 0.05^(1/n).

Fifteen Milliseconds

A claim becomes checkable when someone who was not in the room can reconstruct it from its parts. Begin with the formula everyone treats as a footnote, because the footnote is where the gap lives. The QT interval is the time each heartbeat takes to reset electrically, corrected for heart rate. Ibogaine slows the heart.11 Two correction formulas are in common use, Fridericia's and Bazett's, and they disagree most when the heart is slow. At 50 beats per minute, 500 milliseconds under Fridericia reads 485 under Bazett; at 45 beats, 477.10 FDA's proposed trigger for pausing a trial is a QTc above 500 milliseconds that persists more than two days.6 The notice names Fridericia for who may enroll, a baseline QTcF (the Fridericia-corrected value) under 430 milliseconds, but no formula for the trigger itself. That leaves a fifteen-millisecond gap directly beneath the stopping rule, and it opens widest at precisely the moment ibogaine is exerting its characteristic effect on the heart. Closing it would cost a single word.

The Dutch data show what a measured claim looks like when someone takes the trouble to make one. Fourteen patients with opioid use disorder received a single dose of 10 milligrams per kilogram. Mean maximum QTcF prolongation was 95 milliseconds, with a range of 29 to 146; half the cohort crossed 500, six were still above 450 a day later, and every one of them was ataxic, too unsteady to walk unaided. There was no torsades.11 Two years on, the same cohort yielded plasma levels and genotypes for CYP2D6, the liver enzyme that clears the drug: clearance rose 30.7 liters per hour per point of activity score, from a base of 0.82.12 A dose in milligrams per kilogram is therefore not an exposure, which is why FDA contemplates genotyping and enrolling only fast and intermediate metabolizers.6 Fourteen patients at one university hospital produced all of it.

MISTIC could not have produced any of it, because of what MISTIC was. Stanford did not administer the drug; participants arranged their own treatment at Ambio Life Sciences in Mexico, and no IND, the FDA application that governs a drug trial, was required.9 QTc was followed "visually via continuous 5-lead ECG" for twelve to sixteen hours; the safety statement reports no "clinically meaningful (that is, qualitatively detectable on monitoring)" QT prolongation.9 That parenthetical is admirably honest about its instrument, and so is the rest of the paper: 98 percent purity, a described premedication protocol, preregistration.9 I have searched the article, its Extended Data and the reporting summary. There is no millisecond value anywhere, because the design never asked for one.

The problem is not rigor but commensurability. A trace watched for twelve to sixteen hours and a Fridericia-corrected interval logged at a known time cannot be pooled. Nor are the Dutch numbers complete: their ECGs ran every half hour for the first twelve hours and hourly after that, and the authors concede that a brief run of torsades between readings could have been missed.11 One study watched and did not measure; the other measured and did not watch. No one outside either team can put them on the same axis, and that is the whole of the problem. A study that did not measure milliseconds is not a study in which something went wrong. It is a study in which no one will ever be able to tell.

Source

People

How the heart was watched

Window

Reading interval

Smallest QTc value published

Forensic case series7

19 deaths

Not watched; postmortem only

Death 1.5 to 76 h after dose

None

None. Blood sampled 4 to 53 h after ingestion; dose known in 12 of 19

MISTIC9

30

Continuous 5-lead, read visually

12 to 16 h

Continuous, values not recorded

None published

Knuijver11

14

12-lead ECG

0 to 24 h and beyond

Every 30 min for 12 h, then hourly

Mean maximum QTcF +95 ms (29 to 146); half the cohort above 500 ms

FDA draft design6

Proposed

Continuous telemetry plus 12-lead

To 36 h; 12-lead at 48 h

Continuous

Entry below 430 ms QTcF; stop above 500 ms persisting beyond two days

Table 1. Ascertainment, not parameters. What each body of evidence was physically able to detect, and the smallest cardiac number it put on the record.

Five Kinds of Missing

MISTIC offers anonymized data to scientists whose plans satisfy Stanford's guidelines, after review by its IRB, the institutional ethics board, on request.9 It is a real commitment and a perfectly ordinary one, but it is access by permission: no repository, no deadline, no record of who asked or what they were told. FDA offers the ten words above.6 The executive order promises "data sharing as appropriate and consistent with applicable law."4 Texas offers the word data three times, once as an asset class, between trade secrets and databases.1 Four promises of openness, and not one names a format, a repository, a date, or an office one might telephone.

Five kinds of missing look identical from the outside, and they are not. Unreported data were collected and never published. Unmeasured data were never collected at all, which is MISTIC's case, and a design choice rather than a failing. Inaccessible data sit behind a permission. Incompatible data were released in definitions that refuse to combine. Withheld data were asked for and refused. Nothing in the public record establishes that fifth kind, and anyone who insinuates it has gone beyond the record. The other four account for nearly everything, and every one of the four can be put right in a contract.

What the Match Should Buy

EVIDENT is, by HHS's own description, a measurement program: FDA-ready endpoints, longitudinal data from trials and real-world care.5 A funder already engaged in that work is well placed to require what no one currently does.

Half of this program arguably already has the rule. FDA says HHS funds ibogaine research through two channels, ARPA-H and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.6 NIDA is part of NIH, and NIH makes a data management and sharing plan a term and condition of every award that generates scientific data: release no later than publication or the end of the award, with non-compliance weighing on future funding.13 Whether anything comparable attaches to the ARPA-H money is not publicly documented: ARPA-H's EVIDENT page sets out what data it seeks but states no deposit term, and its award terms and conditions are not posted.5 That is the single most useful question anyone can put to ARPA-H before the funds are released.

What the term should say is not exotic; it is what any pharmacologist would want on the bench before trusting a number. A stated denominator and a prespecified observation window on every rate. Every ECG recorded as an interval in milliseconds, with the formula named and the time from dose written down. Plasma ibogaine and its metabolite noribogaine time-matched to those ECGs, alongside a CYP2D6 activity score. A certificate of analysis, which the gray market has managed for years.7 Concomitant medications and baseline electrolytes. And deposit rather than availability: de-identified participant-level records in CDISC SDTM, the format FDA already requires for marketing applications,14 on a fixed schedule, released whether the trial succeeds, halts, or is never published.

The objection is real, and it deserves to be said aloud rather than waved away. Cardiac traces, genotypes and medication lists from twenty-person trials in veterans and people with opioid use disorder are re-identifiable, and releasing them carelessly would be a harm of its own. The answer is not to weaken the requirement but to name the mechanism: controlled access, the model NIH already runs for genomic and mental-health data, in which an investigator applies, a committee decides, and a record exists of who holds what.15 Deposit is not publication. Confusing the two is how a commitment quietly becomes a clause.

These are proposals, not requirements, and it is worth being plain about what they would and would not do. Standardization is not a safety finding. It makes claims checkable; it does not make a drug safe.

The reason to settle it now, rather than after the first results, is arithmetic. These trials are small by design: sequential cohorts, one participant at a time, escalation contingent on review.6 None will approach 175. If Texas, ARPA-H and NIDA each produce a few dozen people in formats that will not combine, the public will own several reassuring small numbers and no estimate of anything. If the records combine, the threshold is within reach, and ibogaine's cardiac risk acquires, for the first time, a denominator.

Two governments have now written the same silence into their instruments. Texas named data among the assets the state would own and never once as something to publish;1 ARPA-H is funding a measurement program whose deposit term, if it has one, is not posted.5 Neither silence has hardened yet, and the levers that could break it are all within reach this month. Texas law lets the commission pay out "incrementally based on the completion of clearly defined objectives as negotiated in the contract,"1 and no money can move until a match is verified, which the commission says the consortium's plans do not yet achieve.2 Data deposit is a clearly defined objective. ARPA-H is writing terms for funds it has not yet released: its ibogaine solicitation, ASCENT-IBO, has selected no one and asks for Solution Summaries by October 15, the gate to a full proposal.16 Texas's lieutenant governor and House speaker are reported to have written to UTHealth Houston and UTMB undertaking to reimburse what the two institutions spend to begin Phase 1, and to legislate further if the commission needs it.17 Until November 20, anyone can put the requirement on the record in docket FDA-2026-N-10429.6

This essay is falsifiable, and it ought to be. If the signed interagency contract turns out to carry a deposit or public-access clause, or if ARPA-H's award terms match the NIH requirement after all, then the direction of travel described here is wrong and the argument fails with it. Either document would settle the question in a paragraph. Neither is public today, which is rather the point.

The request is a modest one, and it is not a plea for openness, a word with which everyone already agrees. It is a request for units: a format, a repository, a date, a denominator, and the intervals in milliseconds, including the unremarkable ones. Let us see the ECGs.

What to file, and by when.

Comments on docket FDA-2026-N-10429 close on November 20, 2026, and anyone may file one: a clinician, a veteran, a statistician, a parent.6 The comments that carry weight name a specific design element and say what should change about it, which in this case means the data terms rather than the dose.

A Texas Public Information Act request to the Health and Human Services Commission for the draft interagency contract and the consortium's application under §491.053 runs on a statutory clock and would answer the question this article could not.1 A model comment and a model request are published with this article. Both are meant to be edited rather than copied, because identical filings are counted once.

How this was reported.

Every quotation from the Texas statute, the two Federal Register notices and the five clinical and forensic papers was checked against primary source text rather than secondary reporting. The word count and word frequencies for Chapter 491 were computed over the chapter as codified, and the source note records the alternative bases and what each yields.1

The zero-event bounds are exact one-sided 95 percent binomial limits, the standard reading of a clean record, and the Bazett and Fridericia figures are computed from the published corrections at the stated heart rates.10

Four claims here are reported rather than primary and are flagged in the source list. The claim-by-claim verification record, the calculations and the tables behind both figures are published alongside this article, because an argument about checkable numbers should be checkable.

Author disclosure. Odette Alina Hauke, M.S., is an epidemiologist and regulatory scientist in independent practice, advising sponsors developing oncology, rare disease and psychedelic drugs, including LSD, MDMA, DMT and ibogaine. She was previously Associate Director of Regulatory Affairs at AtaiBeckley and has served as a regulatory consultant to its ibogaine, R-MDMA and DMT programs. She is the regulatory lead for a team preparing a Solution Summary under ARPA-H Special Notice ARPA-H-SN-26-158 (ASCENT-IBO), the solicitation discussed in this article, for the October 15 deadline. With more than thirteen years of experience before FDA, DEA, EMA, MHRA and Health Canada, she has authored hundreds of IND applications in oncology and rare disease. She has no financial interest in, and no advisory relationship with, UTHealth Houston, UTMB, the IMPACT consortium, Stanford, Ambio Life Sciences, or any Texas state agency. She presented at FDA's September 14, 2026, public hearing on the potential future therapeutic use of psychedelic drugs, filed a comment in the associated docket, FDA-2026-N-7542, and intends to file a comment in FDA-2026-N-10429, the docket this article urges readers to address.

Sources

1. Texas S.B. 2308, 89th Legislature (enrolled), codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 491. Cited provisions: §491.001(1) (Commission = HHSC); §491.051(b) (consortium must include a drug developer, an institution of higher education, and a hospital); §491.053(b)(3)(F), (b)(5), (b)(10) (data integrity plan; state's commercial interest in all intellectual property; financial disclosures verifying capacity to match); §491.055(d) (no disbursement until matching funds verified); §491.058(b) (incremental disbursement on clearly defined objectives as negotiated in the contract); §491.059 (quarterly consortium reports; annual report to the Legislature); §491.060(a)(1), (b)(4) (not less than 20 percent of IP revenue to the state; "trade secrets, data, and databases" listed among commercial rights). Word count and word-frequency claims computed over Chapter 491 as codified, meaning the text the bill inserts into the Health and Safety Code, from "CHAPTER 491" to the bill's Section 2: 1,524 words. For audit, the enrolled bill from "AN ACT" runs 1,912 words and the retrieved file including its page header line runs 1,924. The frequency findings are identical on all three bases. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB02308F.htm
2. Rowland, B. "Texas can't spend $50M for ibogaine trials. Feds may fill the gap." The Center Square, October 8, 2026. Source for the absence of a qualifying drug-company proposal, ARPA-H's confirmation that the EVIDENT match is the same $50 million directed by Executive Order 14401, and HHSC's statement that consortium plans "do not meet the requirements of Chapter 491." https://thecentersquare.com/national/article_37afc3c5-b85a-4982-b064-1758740fe359.html
3. UTHealth Houston. "UTHealth Houston, in collaboration with UTMB Health, awarded $50 million by the state of Texas to lead ibogaine clinical trials." Source for the IMPACT consortium (Ibogaine Medicine for PTSD, Addiction, and Cognitive Trauma) and its member institutions. https://www.uth.edu/news/story/uthealth-houston-in-collaboration-with-utmb-health-awarded-50-million-by-the-state-of-texas-to-lead-ibogaine-clinical-trials
4. Executive Order 14401 of April 18, 2026, "Accelerating Medical Treatments for Serious Mental Illness," 91 FR 21709 (April 22, 2026), Sec. 3. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/22/2026-07907/accelerating-medical-treatments-for-serious-mental-illness
5. ARPA-H / HHS. "ARPA-H announces first research teams for $139 million initiative to transform behavioral health." Source for EVIDENT's scope and the commitment to allocate at least $50 million to match state psychedelic research investments. https://arpa-h.gov/explore-funding/initiatives-and-sprints/evidenthttps://www.hhs.gov/press-room/arpa-h-announces-research-teams-initiative-transform-behavioral-health.html
6. Food and Drug Administration. "Design and Safety Considerations for Clinical Trials Involving Ibogaine Drug Products; Request for Information." Docket No. FDA-2026-N-10429, 91 FR 63563 (October 6, 2026). Comments close November 20, 2026. Source for the public-availability clause, the ibutilide comparison, the stopping rule (QTc above 500 ms persisting more than two days) and the QTcF enrollment threshold, NIDA's parallel funding, CYP2D6 genotyping, the dose-ascending design, and the statement that the notice sets no enforceable requirements. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/10/06/2026-20427/design-and-safety-considerations-for-clinical-trials-involving-ibogaine-drug-products-request-for
7. Alper, K.R., Stajić, M., and Gill, J.R. "Fatalities temporally associated with the ingestion of ibogaine." Journal of Forensic Sciences 57(2):398-412 (2012). Full text reviewed, including Table 1 case data. Source for the nineteen deaths and their ascertainment; the counts of reported dose (12 of 19), blood concentration (10 of 19, sampled 4 to 53 h post-ingestion), and toxicology for abused substances (11 of 19); unavailable autopsy results in five decedents and full toxicology in eight; the three Mexican pulmonary-embolism certifications on autopsy reports the authors judge inadequate; the Table 1 entries for case 12 (reason: opioid detoxification; other toxicology: cocaine and morphine metabolites; official cause: pulmonary thromboembolism, death certificate; proximate cause: "insufficient information"); the 20 to 30 percent treatment undercount in ref. 8 and the six deaths from settings it could not see; and the observation that ibogaine HCl certificates of analysis "have generally been available and corroborated when verified by independent laboratories." https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02008.x
8. Alper, K.R., Lotsof, H.S., and Kaplan, C.D. "The ibogaine medical subculture." Journal of Ethnopharmacology 115(1):9-24 (2008). PMID 18029124. Source for the estimate of 3,414 individuals as of February 2006, and for the study's stated exclusion of providers "who had not publicly disclosed their activity," which the authors note "would tend to lead toward underestimation of the total numbers of individuals who have taken ibogaine." The copy reviewed covers the introduction, methods and Table 1; the hidden-population estimate promised in section 3.2 was not among the retrieved pages, so the 20 to 30 percent shortfall is cited to Alper 2012's restatement of it rather than to its derivation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2007.08.034
9. Cherian, K.N., Keynan, J.N., Anker, L., et al. "Magnesium-ibogaine therapy in veterans with traumatic brain injuries." Nature Medicine 30(2):373-381 (2024). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04313712. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02705-w
10. Author's calculations. Zero-event upper bounds are exact one-sided 95 percent binomial limits, 1 − 0.05^(1/n): 9.50 percent at n = 30, 1.70 percent at n = 175; P(no event | n = 30, true rate 1.7 percent) = 0.983^30 ≈ 0.60. Method: Hanley, J.A. and Lippman-Hand, A., "If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators," JAMA 249(13):1743-1745 (1983), https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1983.03330370053031. QTc comparison computed as QTcB = QT/RR^(1/2) and QTcF = QT/RR^(1/3): at 50 bpm a beat reading 500 ms by Fridericia reads 485.0 ms by Bazett; at 45 bpm, 476.6 ms. Workings published alongside this article.
11. Knuijver, T., Schellekens, A., Belgers, M., et al. "Safety of ibogaine administration in detoxification of opioid-dependent individuals: a descriptive open-label observational study." Addiction 117(1):118-128 (2022). Setting: department of psychiatry in a university medical center. The discussion states that ECG monitoring "was not continuous and short episodes may even have been missed"; the authors' reply to Luz and Mash (Addiction 117:837-838, 2022) specifies ECGs every 30 minutes in the supine position. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15448
12. Knuijver, T., ter Heine, R., Schellekens, A.F.A., et al. "The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ibogaine in opioid use disorder patients." Journal of Psychopharmacology 38(5):481-488 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811241237873
13. National Institutes of Health, Data Management and Sharing Policy (NOT-OD-21-013), effective January 25, 2023. Applies to NIH-funded research generating scientific data; an approved plan becomes a term and condition of award; data are to be shared no later than publication or the end of the award, whichever comes first. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/sharing-policies/dms/policy-overview
14. Food and Drug Administration, Study Data Standards Resources, Data Standards Catalog, and Study Data Technical Conformance Guide. Under section 745A(a) of the FD&C Act and the December 2014 guidance "Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format: Standardized Study Data," study data in NDAs, BLAs and ANDAs must conform to the FDA Data Standards Catalog (CDISC SDTM for clinical tabulation data) for studies started after December 17, 2016. https://www.fda.gov/industry/fda-resources-data-standards/study-data-standards-resources
15. NIH Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), controlled-access model: investigators request authorized access and a data access committee adjudicates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap/
16. ARPA-H. Special Notice ARPA-H-SN-26-158, "Accelerating Safe Clinical Evaluation of Novel Treatments: Ibogaine for Better Outcomes in OUD (ASCENT-IBO)," under Proactive Health Office ISO ARPA-H-SOL-24-106; posted August 5, 2026; Solution Summaries requested by October 15, 2026, 9:00 p.m. ET; Proposers' Day September 15, 2026 (registration closed September 7, 2026, 5:00 p.m. ET). The posting date and the quoted passage below are from the SAM.gov notice and were not independently retrieved. The notice asks that "existing state-level partnerships or support for ibogaine or neuroplastogen clinical development" be described. ARPA-H told The Center Square (ref. 2) that ASCENT-IBO is open for proposals and has not selected any awardees. https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/844c5c24112a40299cf403ea8fc083c2/viewhttps://arpa-h.gov/explore-funding/initiatives-and-sprints/ascent-ibo
17. Letter of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Speaker Dustin Burrows to UTHealth Houston, UTMB and HHSC, week of July 6, 2026, as reported by KCBD (Lubbock), July 15, 2026, and The Texan, July 7, 2026. Quoted passage: the institutions "will spend their own funds to begin Phase 1 of the clinical trials," and the state is "committed to reimbursing UTHealth Houston and UTMB for whatever monies they have spent pursuing this through the supplemental budget"; the letter also states that if HHSC determines additional legislation is needed to give effect to a federal partnership, the leaders stand ready to enact it. Primary copy of the letter not retrieved; see also the Patrick–Burrows joint statement of March 31, 2026, on HHSC's March 30 finding that no drug-company proposal met the law's requirements. https://www.fox34.com/2026/07/15/texas-leaders-push-ibogaine-research-veterans-share-stories-recovery/https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/2026/03/31/lt-gov-dan-patrick-and-speaker-dustin-burrows-joint-statement-on-ibogaine-program-progress/

Later this month: The D.C. Psychedelic Professionals Mixer

Coming back on Saturday, October 24th, 2026

The D.C. Psychedelic Professionals Mixer, Part 2: October 24th, 2026

SAVE THE DATE, because we’re running it back!!

The D.C. Psychedelic Professionals Mixer is a connection building-focused community gathering focused on the future of plant medicine, psychedelic reform, education, and responsible community building.

This is a 21+ 420 friendly event at a licensed dispensary. All attedees will be requried to show valid ID and medical card. Higher Ground accepts med cards from any state if you already have one.

If you do NOT have a med card, register for a DC card. They're free for DC residents, and $10 for non-residents. Select "Self Certify".

DC Resident: https://myabca.dc.gov/s/login/SelfRegister?language=en_US

Non-DC Resident: https://myabca.dc.gov/s/unauthenticated-non-dc-form?language=en_US

❓D.C. Psychedel*c Professionals Mixer pt.✌🏼
📆 Saturday, October 24th
⏰1:00 - 5:00 PM
📍Higher Ground D.C.

PSA NewsWire Highlights of the Week

Weekly dispatches from across the psychedelic landscape.

📜 Law & Policy

Over at the Idaho Capital Sun

Idaho Senator Defends Proposal To Prevent Voters From Being Able To Legalize Marijuana

By Clark Corbin

💰 Business

From our friends at DoubleBlind Magazine

The First Psilocybin Drug Is Set to Launch Through Ketamine Clinics

By Mary Carreon

🎨 Culture

From our friends at Psychedelics Today

Psychedelic Churches Need Psychedelic Seminaries

By Paul Ryder

💊 Science & Research

From our friends at Marijuana Moment

GOP Congressman Says Marijuana Rescheduling Should Expand To ‘Across-The-Board’ Review Of Psychedelics And Other Drugs

By Tom Angell