Who makes the psilocybin in a clinical trial?

Across the 328 psilocybin trials in our corpus, 26 carry a compound supplied by someone other than the trial’s sponsor. Seven branded product codes turn up in those records. Six resolve to an owner; the seventh is held because the sponsor names on its trials point to more than one legal entity.

“Supplies” means the registry record for that trial carries the organization’s compound and nothing further, which is no evidence of a contract, a payment or a manufacturing arrangement. It is a name in a field.

In one of those eleven trials, the ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in new tab) names the drug like this:

Our published trials extract carries 47 fields per row, six of which describe the sponsor and none the product, so you can ask who funded a psilocybin trial six ways and cannot ask what was in the capsule at all. ClinicalTrials.gov, the European Union’s CTIS and the UK’s ISRCTN each record the intervention as free text, and in one ISRCTN record (opens in new tab) that field runs to 8,119 characters.

On 29 April 2026 Red Light Holland Corp. completed its acquisition (opens in new tab) of Filament Health Corp. by statutory plan of arrangement under British Columbia’s Business Corporations Act (opens in new tab). The supplier of sixteen trials changed hands while the sponsor strings on those trials stayed as they were. Two British Columbia companies carry the name Filament Health Corp., one active and one inactive on the register, and our record has not established which signed the April arrangement.

Our merged corpus put Filament at eleven, and it was wrong. Five of the sixteen name PEX010 only in their European record (opens in new tab), and our merge kept the American one (opens in new tab), which names psilocybin generically, so the product name died inside our pipeline. Re-deriving from the raw files on 1 September 2026 recovered all five, and on 5 September 2026 we changed the merge to keep every record’s intervention names and added a check that fails the corpus build if one goes missing again. All sixteen survive.

A registry record names what a trial intends to give and never says whether material moved. Of the 328, 292 produce no candidate supply edge at all, and 271 of those name psilocybin with no product name attached, so part of what is measured here is which organizations brand their material. No primary-source verification pass sits behind a single edge. Concentration may be entirely ordinary, since pharmaceutical-grade psilocybin is difficult to make and tightly scheduled, and a few producers serving many academic trials is what an early, heavily regulated supply chain looks like.

None of this speaks to any product’s quality, safety or effect, and nothing changes who is eligible for a trial or how anyone joins one. No organization named here is accused of anything, and every string behind the finding was typed into a public registry by the trial’s own sponsor. A nonprofit supplying eleven trials is a fact about research infrastructure, two organizations is a thin layer, and 8% is a floor. The question “who made this” has an answer in the record and no sponsor-indexed view that returns it.