Are psychedelics the next big thing?

Psychedelics include the drugs LSD, magic mushrooms, peyote, and often ketamine and MDMA too, among others. And some of these drugs have a history of spiritual practice spanning millennia. Then many of these drugs became synonymous with hippies and 60s and 70s counterculture.  But now, psychedelics have new cheerleaders: tech bros and CEOs. So why the rebrand?

To get into it all, Brittany is joined by Maxim Tvorun-Dunn, PhD candidate at the University of Tokyo, and Emma Goldberg, business reporter at the New York Times, to discuss what it means that these drugs are getting championed – and sometimes financially backed – by the tech elite, and how might that affect our culture’s relationship with psychedelics.

Psychiatry is at an inflection point. And the stakes are high. Mental illness costs the U.S. economy more than $280 billion annually, drives veteran suicide rates, and places mounting strain on everything from emergency rooms to the workforce. Yet many of today’s medicines have not advanced in decades despite the rising prevalence and unmet need. For the one in five Americans living with a mental health disorder and veterans who face disproportionally high suicide rates and do not respond to conventional treatments, the gap between what medicine promises and what it delivers has never been more consequential. But change is underway. A new wave of rigorous clinical science is unlocking the therapeutic potential of psychedelic medicines and opening new routes for brain health that could redefine what treatment success looks like. Psychedelic medicines are advancing through late-stage clinical trials, with several investigational candidates earning FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation for disorders including anxiety and depression. Join The Hill, in partnership with Definium Therapeutics, for a timely mental health policy forum convening lawmakers, clinical researchers, and advocates to explore what science tells us, what the regulatory landscape requires, and what actions Congress can take to ensure that patients are not left behind.

https://ir.definiumtx.com/sec-filings/all-sec-filings/content/0001193125-26-229657/dftx-ex99\_1.htm

Form 8 k

I have not had a chance to go over it yet.

Definium May 2026 vs. May 2026b Corporate Presentation Comparison

I compared the May 2026 corporate presentation against the newer May 2026b version page by page.

Bottom Line

The May 2026b version is not a broad rewrite. It appears to be mostly the same deck with a few targeted updates:

1. One new slide was inserted
2. The Phase 3 program slide was materially updated
3. The shared Phase 3 study design slide was updated with more specific wording
4. One milestone changed from “Study Initiation” to “Study Initiated”
5. Minor formatting / footnote changes on one slide

The original May 2026 PDF has 41 pages.
The May 2026b PDF has 42 pages because of the added slide.

Page-by-Page Changes

Original May 2026 Page	May 2026b Page	Change
1-10	1-10	No substantive change found
11	11	Minor footnote formatting change only
12-18	12-18	No substantive change found
19	19	Substantive Phase 3 program update
20	20	Substantive Phase 3 design language update
21	21	No substantive change found
N/A	22	New slide added
22-39	23-40	Same content, shifted forward by one page
40	41	Ascend milestone wording changed
41	42	Blank / end page shifted forward

Major Changes

Page 19: Phase 3 Program Slide Updated

Slide title remains:

“Robust Phase 3 DT120 ODT Development Program Aiming for Broad Label”

This is one of the biggest updates in the new deck.

Key changes:

Item	May 2026	May 2026b
One GAD study	Target n=200, 2:1:2 randomization	n=245, 2:1:2 randomization, Enrollment Complete
One study block	n=214, 1:1 randomization	n=214, 1:1 randomization, Enrollment Complete
One study block	n=149, 1:1 randomization	n=149, 1:1 randomization, Enrollment Complete
One planned 2:1:2 study	Target n=175	Target n=165
One planned 1:1 study	Target n=200	Target n=200
Footnote language	Long explanation of adaptive design and SSRE	Shorter language saying clinical study designs are subject to regulatory discussion/review

My read:

This looks like a clinical progress update. Several studies that previously had target/sample-size language now appear to be marked as Enrollment Complete.

Also, one planned study target appears to move from n=175 to n=165.

Page 20: Shared Development Strategy Slide Updated

Slide title remains:

“Multiple Programs with Shared Development Strategy”

This slide also had meaningful wording changes.

Key changes:

Section	May 2026	May 2026b
Part B label	40 Week Extension with Opportunity for Open-Label Treatment	40 Week Extension with Opportunity for Open-Label Treatment (OLT)
Open-label dosing	Up to four open-label doses of DT120 ODT 100 µg	Up to four OLT of DT120 ODT 100 µg
Treatment eligibility	Eligible for open-label treatment when ClinRO > moderate	Eligible for OLT when severity is moderate or worse: HAM-A ≥ 16 or MADRS ≥ 20
Follow-up observation	ePRO biweekly; Central ClinRO monthly or when ePRO exceeds threshold	PHQ-9 or GAD-7 biweekly and Central HAM-A or MADRS monthly or when PHQ/GAD exceeds threshold
Footnotes	Source: Definium internal study documents	Adds note that parameters for open-label treatment in Haven are still being determined

My read:

This makes the Phase 3 follow-up and retreatment logic more specific. Instead of generic ClinRO/ePRO language, the updated slide names the actual scales and thresholds:

• HAM-A
• MADRS
• PHQ-9
• GAD-7

That seems like a clarification of trial mechanics rather than a change to the overall story.

New Slide Added: Page 22 in May 2026b

The new version inserts a slide titled:

“Eligibility Process in Phase 3 Supports Trial and Population Integrity”

This new slide lays out five review layers:

1. Site
   • Diagnosis
   • Comorbidities
   • Severity
   • Eligibility
2. Central Rater
   • Severity
3. MGH SAFER Interview
   • Diagnosis
   • Comorbidities
   • Severity
4. CRO Medical Team
   • Diagnosis
   • Comorbidities
   • Severity
   • Eligibility
5. Sponsor Medical Team
   • Diagnosis
   • Comorbidities
   • Severity
   • Eligibility

Interesting detail:

This slide has an “Investor & Analyst Day | April 2026” footer instead of the normal Corporate Presentation footer. That suggests it may have been pulled from a prior investor day deck.

My read:

This addition seems designed to reinforce trial quality and population integrity. In plain English, they are emphasizing that patients are being screened through multiple layers before being included in the Phase 3 studies.

Milestone Slide Change

On the financial summary / anticipated milestones slide:

May 2026	May 2026b
Ascend (MDD): **Study Initiation	2Q 2026**

My read:

This is a meaningful wording change.

“Study Initiation” sounds forward-looking or planned.
“Study Initiated” suggests that milestone has now occurred.

So, Ascend appears to have moved from pending initiation to initiated status.

Minor Change

Page 11: Depression Comparison Slide

The slide content and chart appear unchanged, but the footnotes were reformatted.

The change appears to be from:

• 1.
• 2.

to:

• 1)
• 2)

No substantive change in the data was found on that slide.

Investor Takeaway

The May 2026b deck looks like a clinical progress/status refresh, not a major strategic rewrite.

The most important changes are:

• More studies are now labeled Enrollment Complete
• One planned study target appears to move from n=175 to n=165
• A new slide was added emphasizing eligibility review and trial-population integrity
• The Phase 3 open-label/follow-up framework was made more specific
• Ascend is now described as Study Initiated rather than Study Initiation

Overall, the “b” version seems to tighten and update the Phase 3 story, especially around enrollment status, trial integrity, and the practical mechanics of follow-up / open-label treatment.Here you go in Reddit-friendly Markdown:Definium May 2026 vs. May 2026b Corporate Presentation ComparisonI compared the May 2026 corporate presentation against the newer May 2026b version page by page.Bottom LineThe May 2026b version is not a broad rewrite. It appears to be mostly the same deck with a few targeted updates:One new slide was inserted

The Phase 3 program slide was materially updated

The shared Phase 3 study design slide was updated with more specific wording

One milestone changed from “Study Initiation” to “Study Initiated”

Minor formatting / footnote changes on one slideThe original May 2026 PDF has 41 pages.
The May 2026b PDF has 42 pages because of the added slide.Page-by-Page ChangesOriginal May 2026 Page May 2026b Page Change
1-10 1-10 No substantive change found
11 11 Minor footnote formatting change only
12-18 12-18 No substantive change found
19 19 Substantive Phase 3 program update
20 20 Substantive Phase 3 design language update
21 21 No substantive change found
N/A 22 New slide added
22-39 23-40 Same content, shifted forward by one page
40 41 Ascend milestone wording changed
41 42 Blank / end page shifted forwardMajor ChangesPage 19: Phase 3 Program Slide UpdatedSlide title remains:“Robust Phase 3 DT120 ODT Development Program Aiming for Broad Label”This is one of the biggest updates in the new deck.Key changes:Item May 2026 May 2026b
One GAD study Target n=200, 2:1:2 randomization n=245, 2:1:2 randomization, Enrollment Complete
One study block n=214, 1:1 randomization n=214, 1:1 randomization, Enrollment Complete
One study block n=149, 1:1 randomization n=149, 1:1 randomization, Enrollment Complete
One planned 2:1:2 study Target n=175 Target n=165
One planned 1:1 study Target n=200 Target n=200
Footnote language Long explanation of adaptive design and SSRE Shorter language saying clinical study designs are subject to regulatory discussion/reviewMy read:This looks like a clinical progress update. Several studies that previously had target/sample-size language now appear to be marked as Enrollment Complete.Also, one planned study target appears to move from n=175 to n=165.Page 20: Shared Development Strategy Slide UpdatedSlide title remains:“Multiple Programs with Shared Development Strategy”This slide also had meaningful wording changes.Key changes:Section May 2026 May 2026b
Part B label 40 Week Extension with Opportunity for Open-Label Treatment 40 Week Extension with Opportunity for Open-Label Treatment (OLT)
Open-label dosing Up to four open-label doses of DT120 ODT 100 µg Up to four OLT of DT120 ODT 100 µg
Treatment eligibility Eligible for open-label treatment when ClinRO > moderate Eligible for OLT when severity is moderate or worse: HAM-A ≥ 16 or MADRS ≥ 20
Follow-up observation ePRO biweekly; Central ClinRO monthly or when ePRO exceeds threshold PHQ-9 or GAD-7 biweekly and Central HAM-A or MADRS monthly or when PHQ/GAD exceeds threshold
Footnotes Source: Definium internal study documents Adds note that parameters for open-label treatment in Haven are still being determinedMy read:This makes the Phase 3 follow-up and retreatment logic more specific. Instead of generic ClinRO/ePRO language, the updated slide names the actual scales and thresholds:HAM-A

MADRS

PHQ-9

GAD-7That seems like a clarification of trial mechanics rather than a change to the overall story.New Slide Added: Page 22 in May 2026bThe new version inserts a slide titled:“Eligibility Process in Phase 3 Supports Trial and Population Integrity”This new slide lays out five review layers:Site

Diagnosis

Comorbidities

Severity

Eligibility

Central Rater

Severity

MGH SAFER Interview

Diagnosis

Comorbidities

Severity

CRO Medical Team

Diagnosis

Comorbidities

Severity

Eligibility

Sponsor Medical Team

Diagnosis

Comorbidities

Severity

EligibilityInteresting detail:This slide has an “Investor & Analyst Day | April 2026” footer instead of the normal Corporate Presentation footer. That suggests it may have been pulled from a prior investor day deck.My read:This addition seems designed to reinforce trial quality and population integrity. In plain English, they are emphasizing that patients are being screened through multiple layers before being included in the Phase 3 studies.Milestone Slide ChangeOn the financial summary / anticipated milestones slide:May 2026 May 2026b
Ascend (MDD): Study Initiation | 2Q 2026 Ascend (MDD): Study Initiated | 2Q 2026My read:This is a meaningful wording change.“Study Initiation” sounds forward-looking or planned.
“Study Initiated” suggests that milestone has now occurred.So, Ascend appears to have moved from pending initiation to initiated status.Minor ChangePage 11: Depression Comparison SlideThe slide content and chart appear unchanged, but the footnotes were reformatted.The change appears to be from:1.

2.to:1)

2)No substantive change in the data was found on that slide.Investor TakeawayThe May 2026b deck looks like a clinical progress/status refresh, not a major strategic rewrite.The most important changes are:More studies are now labeled Enrollment Complete

One planned study target appears to move from n=175 to n=165

A new slide was added emphasizing eligibility review and trial-population integrity

The Phase 3 open-label/follow-up framework was made more specific

Ascend is now described as Study Initiated rather than Study InitiationOverall, the “b” version seems to tighten and update the Phase 3 story, especially around enrollment status, trial integrity, and the practical mechanics of follow-up / open-label treatment.

Im at a crossroad with this position. I have been holding since 2020, it started off as a very small position in my portfolio but has now past all of my other stock picks, to the point that it is the majority of my portfolio (40%). On one hand nothing about my thesis has changed, I still believe in the company, if anything more than ever, and I don't necessarily need the money right now, it would probably be reinvested into another sector. On the other hand I'm not sure how to feel about it being this big of a portion of my portfolio, I usually try to stay a bit more diversified but can't help but feel I'd be missing out on possible gains if I sold any time soon with the amount of attention this one has been getting. Just curious how you guys are all feeling about the stock at this current price?