Not everyone who applies is accepted. Inlibrium runs a six-month, medically supervised, psychedelic-assisted program for a limited number of clients each year. Two things decide it, and they weigh the same: whether the work is medically safe for you, and whether you are in a position to do it.
This page sets out both, so you can rule yourself out in four minutes instead of four conversations. That is a good outcome, not a failed one.
Is there a medical reason I might be excluded?
Yes. A personal or family history of schizophrenia-spectrum or psychotic disorders, or bipolar I or II, rules someone out. So do uncontrolled hypertension, recent myocardial infarction or stroke, cardiac arrhythmia, severe coronary artery disease, moderate to severe renal or hepatic impairment, and current lithium treatment. These are the same exclusions used across FDA-regulated psilocybin trials, and every one of them is checked directly in the eligibility assessment rather than left to a form.
Can I be declined even if I am medically eligible?
Yes, and it happens. Medical eligibility is the floor, not the bar. The rest is about what you are actually looking for.
Is this a “no” forever?
Not necessarily. Some exclusions are permanent. Others — an unstable period, a medication that needs a clinician’s review, a life stage where six months of attention is not available — are about timing.
These are decided during the two-part eligibility assessment, by our professional team of experts.
Classic psychedelics can precipitate or worsen psychosis
Risk of triggering a manic or mixed episode
The cardiovascular response is real; a compromised system has no margin
Psilocybin raises blood pressure by roughly 19 mmHg systolic during a session
Seizure risk in co-administration reports
Serious interaction risk with serotonergic compounds
What is assessed rather than excluded. Family psychiatric history is covered in the intake questionnaire and reviewed directly by the screening neurologist and the nurse practitioner. It informs the assessment; it is not an automatic exclusion.
We are not a clinical trial or a hospital, and we do not apply trial eligibility criteria as if we were. Addiction, for example, is something we work with rather than screen out.
This is the longer list, and it is where most declines happen.
You want a breakthrough, not a process.
The residential week is seven days. The program is six months. If the seven days are what you want and the other five and a half months feel like overhead, this is the wrong product. The experience opens a door; the months around it are what change anything.
You want to be fixed by something.
Psychedelic-assisted therapy is not a procedure performed on a passive patient. If your model is “I take the substance and it does the work”, the honest answer is that this rarely holds. Our own position is blunt about it: the substance is a catalyst, not the therapy.
You cannot give it the time.
Six months of psychotherapy sessions, health consultations, coaching, diagnostics and three seven-day residentials. Roughly 50 to 60 one-to-one sessions online plus 21 days on site. If your calendar cannot absorb that, the program will underperform and you will conclude — reasonably — that it did not work.
You are looking for an escape.
Some people arrive at the end of something and want to leave rather than look. That is a legitimate need. It is not this.
You want anonymity from your own team, not from the public.
We hold strict confidentiality externally. Internally, the work involves being honest with three experts for six months. If the idea of that is intolerable, the timing is wrong.
You want us to promise an outcome.
We will not. We can describe the structure, the screening, the evidence base and what previous clients have said. Anyone promising you a specific result from a psychedelic session is telling you something they cannot know.
Someone else wants you to do this.
A spouse, a board, a co-founder. If the motivation is not yours, six months is a long time to discover that.
For completeness, the inverse.
Founders, CEOs and senior leaders who have won the external game and are quietly asking whether this is it. People who are medically eligible, who can give six months real attention, who want to understand rather than escape, and who are willing to be honest with three experts for half a year.
That is a small group. It is meant to be.
Hardi Põder, co-founder
The eligibility assessment exists precisely because self-assessment is unreliable in both directions — people rule themselves out who would benefit, and rule themselves in who would not. It begins with an unhurried conversation with the founders. No pitch. If either side concludes it is not right, that is a good outcome, not a failed one.