FDA or an FDA-affiliated author will publicly cite functional-unblinding/monitor-variability concerns (per today's narrative review) in guidance commentary or an advisory context before end of Q3.

The FDA (the US drug regulator) or scientists closely connected to it will publicly point out serious problems with how psychedelic studies are run — specifically that patients can easily tell whether they got the real drug or a placebo, which skews results. They'll also flag inconsistent oversight by trial monitors. This matters because it could force companies to redesign expensive studies.

The narrative review formalizes methodological objections I share. Once peer-reviewed, these become the citation regulators lean on to demand additional controlled data.