Agreed -- it's stunningly wrong. (I should mention that the BOL trial was funded by ClusterBusters.)
Many of us here (or several of us, at least) have observed or participated in many experiences of trying to make BOL available over the past ten-plus years. A company, Entheogen, was founded in part for that purpose. But Entheogen couldn't raise enough money to do the necessary clinical trials toward FDA approval. Clinical trials are very expensive, and among other things potential investors didn't see the potential market as big enough to justify the investment -- not to mention that at least at that time, there was a real concern that an LSD-based substance could not get approved no matter what the trials said. (The trial funded by CB didn't meet any of the criteria for rigorous clinical testing.) There were patents to be dealt with, not just the patent for BOL itself but also a patent that was taken out for using BOL to treat CH. That patent created a pretty ugly rift between two doctors who were very big supporters of CB and pioneers and the use of psychedelics to treat CH. (Money changes everything, as they say.) As the article notes, a big deal now is the ability to make BOL without starting with LSD. So, prayerfully, things are better now in many ways. One of those ways, which is a double-edged sword, is the potential for BOL to serve a much bigger market than the CH community. If it has potential as a treatment for depression, for example, there will be much more interest in making the investment--but the clinical trials will probably focus on that, and possibly mean that BOL would be available, but its use for CH would be "off-label" in the sense that it wasn't demonstrated by clinical trials.
If you're a drug manufacturer, you have an additional issue related to CH. If doctors don't diagnose CH correctly, they won't know that their patient will benefit from BOL. And even if they do diagnose CH correctly, we have seen that way too many doctors don't even prescribe oxygen, or don't correctly prescribe practically anything. In part, they don't prescribe O2 because they have no familiarity with high-flow O2 with their patients, so they are reluctant/afraid to prescribe it. It might be tough to get them to prescribe something LSD-based. (And I remember reading somewhere that most doctors believe that they are very effective at prescribing for CH. Probably because their patients don't come back, or don't know any better.) So you have a massive education campaign to do to (1) get CH diagnosed properly, and then (2) get BOL prescribed. The cost of that is part of the cost-benefit analysis that goes into pharma companies' analysis of getting into a clinical trial.
I guess I'm saying all this because there are many reasons now to be more optimistic than ever, but, as Jeebs said up above, we've been through a "maddening (and then some) history of false starts," so I am trying to temper my optimism.