Talk:Holotropic Breathwork

Mediation Announcement

I have opened the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-23 Holotropic Breathwork NPOV disagreement and listed myself as mediator. I invite everyone interested to participate in the discussions on that page and on this one.

TheRingess (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no longer any need for mediation. All interested editors are talking to each other. I am confident that together you will reach consensus soon. I suggest that we close the mediation case, unless someone has a strenuous objection. Later, if everyone feels the need, we can reopen it. I will leave it open for a couple more days in case someone still feels there is a need for mediation. Good work guys.TheRingess (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I would prefer it if the case remained open. Talking to each other (looking at the length of our contributions!) has never been our problem - reaching agreement about the article (which remains largely untouched since mediation began) has. Although we are polite to each other and there is tentative agreement about ways to extend the scope of the article by relocating the controversial aspects into other articles, I believe the core disagreements still remain. Communicator has indicated that he is effectively 'resting his case' at the moment, and I have made clear my own reluctance to restate old arguments, (although I do have more to say, possibly at the weekend). At the moment it feels like stalemate rather than resolution. Jablett 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

However, the purpose of mediation is to keep people talking and everyone is talking. As long as you are civil to each other and focus on content not personalities, then eventually you will reach agreement. Speeding up the process is not the purpose of mediation. Remember there are no emergencies here on Wikipedia. Whether it takes a long time or a short time to reach agreement is irrelevant. What is relevant is that eventually you will. I still see no reason to keep this mediation open. In my opinion, no one is currently violating any content or behavioral policies. As I said, I will leave the case open for a couple more days in order to hear compelling arguments against closing. As I said, you guys are doing great.TheRingess (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Solutions

Mediator Comment I'm creating this section because I feel that the editors involved in the mediaton are ready to start discussing specific solutions. I recommend creating a subsection for every separate point. I also recommend being brief and to the point. Remember also, that if you propose a solution, be bold and be the one willing to implement it. Remain focussed on content. Please don't use this section to reiterate arguments already presented.TheRingess (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

- jablett to make any or all of the changes numbered 1 to 4 above (under 'Mediation Suggestion'), subject to agreement and alterations with other interested parties.Jablett 19:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm treating silence as an absence of disagreement, and cautiously proceeding with implementing my proposals as suggested by The Ringess on the mediation page. I've now implemented 1 to 3 of the proposals listed above (separately, so that they can be reverted individually if anyone violently disagrees). I'll implement no.4 (reordering and amalgamating criticisms thematically) in a few day's time, leaving 'thinning out' (no.5) of paragraphs to be subsequently agreed on and implemented. Jablett 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Comment I think this is a great step. TheRingess (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've implemented the reordering (proposal 4), and begun clarifying and thinning on the first few paragraphs (proposal 5). Still to do in the criticism section are the Castro, Thomas and Shepherd paragraphs. Any takers ? Jablett 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented a thinning out of the Shepherd paragraph. His book was extremely difficult to trace through the local library, and the style and content is quite idiosyncratic. As noted previously, he claims no particular credentials. However, there is an argument for keeping it in. His argument about practices in context is relevant, and central to the arguments that he develops in the book. Elsewhere, although he meticulously documents facts, he mixes them liberally with his own opinions, and I've removed these, as well as the medical stuff (The hyperventilation stuff is mentioned elsewhere in the criticisms, as well as documented on the relevant wikipedia page, and it is not central to Shepherd's area of knowledge.) Castro and Thomas edits to follow in time, unless anyone wants to do so...Jablett 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the Castro book. Essentially it covers exactly the same ground as the Thomas book, and acknowledges that it has used "The Destiny Challenge" as it's primary source. It is also self published. The letter from "The Therapist" source is quoted word for word in Thomas' book, and attributed to 'Stefan'. There's not enough new material or ideas in either of the Castro sources to justify inclusion, so I have removed them. Jablett 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Having have read the various opinions of Holotropic Breathwork, pro, per Grof et al and con, per Baba et al, I would like to suggest there may be something seriously amiss with the ratio of fifty-four lines of criticism of Holotropic Breathwork to forty-one lines of description of Holotropic Breathwork, the latter count also including ‘Professional Practice’ and ‘Reactions and Contraindications’. This imbalance seems particularly egregious as the entire criticism section of Holotropic Breathwork comprises the opinions of just four individuals, Busutti, Shepherd, Castro and Thomas, three of whom are known to each other but only one of whom, to the best of my understanding, has experienced this experiential work, and then only once.

In addition, positioned as a separate paragraph within this criticism of Holotropic Breathwork is an additional eight-line paragraph referencing the opinions of two other individuals, Lilienfield and Sampson, of government approved MDMA research. This positioning is clearly provocative, mendaciously attaching HB as an associative practice to MDMA; promotion of such ‘guilt by association’ is unworthy of Wikipedia.

Holotropic Breathwork has been practiced for over thirty years, offering tens of thousands of adult individuals from all continents, racial groups, age groups and from both genders the opportunity to gain access to states of consciousness which may precipitate catharsis, insights and epiphanies. Research seeking to demonstrate the healing potential this work includes publication in peer-review journals (Holotropic Breathwork: An Experiential Approach to Psychotherapy; Holmes et al; Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, Vol. 33(1), Spring 1996. pp. 114-120. 1996). Other research, conducted within the Holotropic Breathwork community, includes a paper describing the introduction of HB into a residential recovery community in Santa Cruz, California (Holotropic Breathwork as an Adjunct to Substance Abuse Treatment in a Therapeutic Community; Taylor, Macy: 1993), and the following eleven PhD dissertations: "The Psychological and Spiritual Effects of Stanislav Grof's Holotropic Breathwork Technique: An Exploratory Study", Todd Evan Pressman, 1993; "Holotropic Breathwork and Altered States of Consciousness", Donna Maria La Flamme, 1993; "Examining the Effects of Holotropic Breathwork in the Recovery from Alcoholism and Drug Dependence", Byron Metcalf, 1995; “Grof’s Perinatal Matrix Theory: Initial Empirical Verification”, Stephen Binns, 1997; "Healing Through the Remembrance of the Pre- and Perinatal: A Phenomenological Investigation", N. Anne Marquez, 1999; "The Theory and Practice of Transpersonal Addiction Treatment", Brack Jeffreys, 1999; "The Language of Holotropic Light; Unpacking the Experience", Julie Lapham, 2000; "The Healing Potential of Non-Ordinary States of Consciousness", Geneie Everett, 2001; "Deepening Presence: How Experiences of No-Self Shape the Self, an Organic Inquiry", Marianne Murray, 2001; "Predicting the Outcome of Holotropic Breathwork Using the High Risk Model of Threat Perception”, Patrick Hanratty, 2002; "Somatic Memory in Non-Ordinary States of Consciousness", Chris Lyons, 2003. Other dissertations examining the nature of action and utility of Holotropic Breathwork are in the process of being completed at this writing. These dissertations, completed under the supervision of professors at accredited institutions of higher education, rise at a minimum to the level of credibility of any self-published work, and arguably exceed them.

Further empirical evidence demonstrating the healing potential of Holotropic Breathwork is needed to establish its value, safety and utility. Such studies are being planned as has been noted, but it may be useful to consider the context of welcome to such endeavors demonstrated by the dominant culture. As an example, I reference a recent statement made by Harriet Zuckerman, author of "Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States" and senior vice-president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; "We know people have ideas beyond the mainstream, but if they want funds for research they have to go through peer-review, and the system is going to be very skeptical of ideas that are inconsistent with what is already known."

Such skepticism is quite understandable within a dominant culture with a world-view predicated upon the Newtonian-Cartesian notion that the human body is a machine functioning within a machine - the universe. Principally in the introductions to his published books, Grof has consistently expressed his own initial difficulty, as a medical doctor and psychiatrist trained in the western tradition of ‘evidence-based medicine’, to embrace the findings from non-ordinary, or altered, states of consciousness. These findings appear to show, and with an uncanny consistency, that the true depth and breadth of the human psyche is greater by far than we have heretofore imagined, or, significantly, have been capable of imagining. This self-imposed limitation may spring in large part from our insistence upon the primacy of the brain as the determining organ of our successful function, evidenced by our proud self-description as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

However, as challenging as it my be for many individuals to embrace, the preliminary evidence that is emerging from the experiences of tens of thousand if individuals who have been moved to participate in Holotropic Breathwork groups strongly indicates that a more complete understanding of our selves is to be found by including within our experience, in addition to cognitive thought, the intelligent data from our emotional selves and, yes, from the movements of our very souls.

With respect to the dissemination of real information represented by the unprecedented exercise of the establishment and maintenance of Wikipedia as an on-going project, phenomenal care must be taken to ensure that such information that is presented to trusting users is, in fact, factual. Such as the parochial fracas may have been that took place on the east coast of Scotland twelve years ago, it may not be extrapolated to include every human being who themselves choose to exercise their prerogative to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by including Holotropic Breathwork amongst their experiences. The specific does not, under any circumstances whatsoever, automatically become the general; such a doctrine of anecdotalism runs entirely counter to the purview that presently governs our daily existence, and as such has no place in any organ that seeks to present itself as a credible source of knowledge.Kituchristie 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

SOSMD.

I have not been on this site for a while, but I see fundamentally the same discussion going on, so perhaps another 2 cents worth might be appropriate.

As mentioned in my earlier post, I am an MD and a therapist, and I have been practising Holotropic Breath Work (HBW) for over fifteen years.

One of the chief concerns that seem to be legitimately expressed here are concerns regarding the safety of HBW. These safety concerns appear to be based on two main issues. The first is the physical safety of sustained rapid and more effective breathing, and the second centers around the potential for various spiritual disturbances as a consequence of this practice. Might I suggest that in addition to my own attestation that I have conducted HBW sessions in complete physical safety for over fifteen years, and that this mirrors not only Grof's experience for a far longer period, but also the many hundreds of practitioners whom he has trained, that anyone seriously concerned about such sustained hyperventilation should be expressing equal concern at the practices conducted in the myriad of Yoga Studios presently in the world, where Pranayammha techniques are taught to all and sundry, usually without any of the pre selection or screening that is an integral part of a properly conducted HBW session. Despite the theoretical concerns of "Scotland's most respected Pathologist", the sheer number of people all over the world who regularly employ techniques of sustained deeper breathing attest to its fundamental safety. Further, these practices are not new. To the contrary, they are ancient. Whether their survival in the spiritual and psychological practices of the human race is a net plus or a net minus might well be argued, but to suggest they are physically dangerous would be to suggest a powerful counter Darwinian argument. If hyperventilation were as dangerous as Scotland's most respected Pathologist is quoted as suggesting, the chances are high that the practice would have died out, along with its practitioners, some considerable time ago.

With regard to the potential for 'spiritual" side effects, the situation is murkier. Most spiritual disciplines which employ techniques that induce non ordinary states of consciousness (NOSC), - such as yoga's pranayammha, Tibetan Buddhist practices, etc, - recommend that these techniques are not for everyone. Either they screen and exclude certain individuals, and/ or they recommend much so called 'foundation practice' prior to employing them. So does Grof, and the HBW methodolgy. There is a screening process. Certain individuals and diagnostic categories are excluded. Others, such as those with addictive problems, are advised that a period of time - usually a year - of sustained sobriety and drug freedom are required in order to establish a psychological foundation upon which experiences in NOSC might be beneficial.

As I mentioned in my earlier contribution to this topic, in my early days of practicing HBW a woman whom we accepted into one of our groups had an unexpected Kundalini opening. I feel now, with the accumulated wisdom of years of practice, that I would not today offer this individual HBW without more foundation psychotherapy, and perhaps not at all. But this individual as the only one among hundreds, some of whom were severely damaged on entering therapy, and the sheer number of people world wide who are increasingly practicing and submitting themselves to HBW attests to both its physical and psychological safety, despite the objections, which have always been theoretical rather than factual. People say, "that sounds dangerous", and ignore the patently obvious, and daily demostrated fact, that it is not.

I would also suggest that were HBW a dangerous activity in any measurable or observable sense, in the way for instance that alcohol is, that this fact would be widely known. There would be no need to speculate about it here or anywhaere else. I would also suggest - WP now being such a widely read resource, - that many of those injured by it would be present in this discussion.

Far more difficult to discuss than the above is the so called 'spiritual dimension' of the HBW experience. For one thing, what is it? Indeed, what is a spiritual experience at all? What is the spiritual dimension? When does an ecstatic psychological experience, - or a hellish one - cease to be such, and becomes spiritual? Is it like walking from Glascow to London? Until one reaches the Tyne it's all psychological, after that it's spiritual? This issue is complicated by the fact that many observers of psychological phenomena espouse a fully materialistic viewpoint, and for them the discussion is mute because the dimension does not exist. To them indeed mention of spiritual phenomena is itself suspicious at the least, and worthy of a DSM labeling, ambulant psychosis at worst. All human nature and behaviour can, and some day soon will be, explained by genetics, neuroanatomy and neurochemistry. Shakespere, Beethoven, Hitler, Stalin, love, hate, indifference, the urge to climb Everest and the hunger to drive to the stars, are all ultimately a matter of Serotonin and Dopamine, and all can be ultimately influenced and controlled by clever little molecules such as Prozac and Risperidal. But for those to whom the spiritual dimension of life has meaning, some discussion of its place in the realm of healing is germaine to this page.

For practical purposes, spiritual experiences in the HBW model are experiences which take an individual beyond the boundary of himself or herself. They are experiences which challenge the view of oneself as a "Skin Encapsulated Ego". The simplest of these is the identification with another human being. In this context it is important to note that the word identification is here being used in its psychoanalytical sense. In this context, identification is not an imitation or a mere likening, it is a becoming. So in this sense, an individual in a NOSC may be having an experience of an interaction with a parent or a sibling, and begins to experience the interaction from the perspective of the other individual. It is as if the boundaries between their consciousness has dissolved, and they become one. Similarly, individuals can have experiences of identification with whole groups of beings, such as tribal structures, or with powerful spiritual figures, such as Christ or Buddha, or Mohammed. Participants report similar episodes of identification with animals.

Of course, these experiences could seem entirely bizarre to someone with no direct experience of them, but what is intriguing about them from an ontological perspective, is that they are rarely new. They mirror experiences described in the world's spiritual literatures. What is further intriguing about them, is that they occur to individuals who do not necessarily have any prior experience with the particular spiritual tradition from which the experience is usually associated. Balts, for instance, in NOSC, can have seemingly authentic encounters with animal entities that could have been lifted directly out of the folklore of a North American Indian tribe. An accountant from the Bronx might have an experience that mirrors that of a Kalahari Bushman. Of course we live in a global village, and of course these individuals could have seen something sometime on TV which primed them for this experience, but that was hardly the case when Grof was discovering this same phenomenon during LSD sessions held at Charles University in Prague, then a communist country with a totally materialistic structure of education and entertainment, where individuals undergoing their therapeutic sessions had experiences straight out of the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita. Another aspect of these experiences which make them intriguing is the fact that individuals who have them, seem to return from them with new and entirely authentic information about the cultures and attitudes of peoples with whom they were, prior to, entirely unfamiliar.

But the most interesting aspect of all concerning these experiences, is that they appear to dovetail neatly with the particular psychological issues and traumatic experiences with which the person is dealing. So much so that is a tennent of HBW theory, that for optimum healing to occur, it needs to occur on the physical, psychological and spiritual levels.

There is much meat in the foregoing discussions on this topic, some worthy and some less so, and far more that I have time to address. I would however like to offer a final point about the psychedelic origins of HBW. It is clear form the may quotes offered above on Grof's LSD work, that the people being quoted have not read or taken that that work seriously. For instance,

"Wallace Sampson, Clinical Professor Emeritus of Medicine at Stanford University, criticize the approval of research by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) into the use of the drug MDMA (Ecstasy) as a treatment for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Sampson states that the study "appears to be the exclusive project of believers in psychedelic mysticism, and based on work of Dr. Stanislav Grof, an early LSD self-experimenter and psychedelic psychotherapist. After LSD and Ecstasy use was declared illegal, Grof developed Holotropic Breathwork, a potentially dangerous form of severe hyperventilation, as a legal method of invoking hallucinations."

I have no useful knowledge of Dr. Wallace's pedigree, but I do have some of Dr. Grof's. I can attest that he has no interest whatsoever in inducing hallucinations. Hallucinations are not real, by definition. They would interest Grof not at all. Grof was one of the early researchers selected by Sandoz to work with what became one of the most interesting compounds in the history of psychiatry. LSD has become inevitably linked in the public consciousness with Hippies, Charles Manson, and the froth and excesses, as well as the brilliance, of the 1960's. Hence, it is an easy 'guilt by association' smear to mention HBW in the same disparaging sentence as LSD, tarring both with the same yellow brush. Yet this ignores the fact that they are not the same thing at all, and also ignores the excellent and well documented research work that was done by conscientious psychiatrists all over the world with LSD prior to the Tate killings and its subsequent illegality. This attitude serves also to disguise the appallingly miserable state of psychiatry today, wherein the two most common compounds prescribed in the world are antidepressants and tranquillizers, where a visit to a psychiatrist lasts ten minutes, and is focussed usually on adjustments to the number and dosages of these medications, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature, the meaning, the extent, or the possible eradication, of the client's suffering. All discussion of HBW, with its inherent attempt to discover meaning in clients' pain, and point to a way beyond it, should take place in this context.

Kind regards,

sosmd

[edit]

Hi Kituchristie, sosmd - Thank you for your interest in this article. I would encourage you to stay around and make some edits to it. The criticism section has been the subject of a lot of debate, and a recent mediation process - it's probably the most controversial part of the whole article. I've been making a series of edits to it following the end of the mediation, to slim it down and (hopefully) improve objectivity. It's taken me a while to track down and read the items originally referenced, and the Castro quotes are still outstanding. Like you, I feel that lillienfeld and sampson's criticism of HB is unfair, but the quote is accurate (ie, it's what they said). HB is cited in the research protocol for the MDMA study. I don't know enough about the psychedelic research context to comment further - perhaps someone can make an edit with relevant information to sort it out? 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Castro material now removed. See comments above under 'Solutions'Jablett 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The criticism section is generated for the most part, if not in its emtirety, by Communicator who has declared his antipathy to any practice that employs a technique that can facilitate 'spiritual' experiences that is not in accord with the principles of Meher Baba. His interest here may be to promote the philosophy of Meher Baba for whom he entertains much sympathy, despite his claim in his profile that he has no interests in that regard.

The points made in the criticism section are cherry picked, narrowly specified, and appear contextless in that their author makes no attempt to consider their relative importance in the whole of medical and public perception. This gives readers the false idea that HB is controversial. There had been an attempt at placing the criticisms in context but this appears to have been removed. It is tiring to have to continually track the efforts of a determined hostile contributor, and I make no polite pretence to view the matter otherwise. I don't know, but I hope that by now people will see just how scholastically compromised this project is in danger of becoming, due to the efforts of one man (or woman).

The MDMA article in the criticism section smacks of the sort of evidence we might present for a Conspiracy Theory. It is extremely narrowly specified--apparantly the revelation of the Grof "connection" appears as a one-liner in an MDMA project. The same or similar contribution appeared in the Wiki article on Stanislav Grof. This is hopelessly unscholastic. Doubtless, by tracing other one-line references we may find Queen Elizabeth having connections to the MDMA project and count that as a criticism of Royalty.

I await comments on a proposed removal of the MDMA article. Also I suggest a complete reworking of the criticism section so that it does not appear like an anecdotal, cherry-picked personal gripe. Finally, why is the cover of Grof's book on the start of this article? Are we advertising his latest book now? --IvorJ 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, IvorJ,

Thanks for your comments. I'm happy to take responsibility for the majority of the wording in the criticism section, having edited it down significantly from the content provided by the Communicator, through a mediation process. (see also some of the history of the section above). For the record, I am a supporter of HB.

The MDMA section has been a bone of contention for some while, although Sampson and Wallace are entitled to their view, of course. I think The HB link actually comes from the author of the MDMA study rather than the dodgy conspiracy theory, and I've added a sentence to make that clearer, at the same time as removing the less relevant part of the quote and making it clear that Sampson's comments about Grof are his own. I think that HB and Grof will always be attacked by those seeking to link it negatively to psychedelics, and it's best to tackle that head on by leaving it in. I've appealed before for someone better qualified than me to address the context of the criticisms, which needs to be from a vantage point of referenced information.

The book cover is actually from the book by Kylea Taylor, referenced in the text, but I don't think that affects your point. I'm not sure what the wikipedia rules on relevance of images is ? Best wishes - Jablett 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the rest of the quote from Sampson in the Criticism section, which is explicit in its condemnation of HB. I can see no reason (other than partisan ones) for its removal. Are HB partisans afraid of the criticism expressed by a Clinical Professor Emeritus of Medicine at Stanford University? If not, why do they continually remove it? The Communicator (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Communicator, let’s talk about this. I can’t find the Prometheus books press release online, but it appears to have been picked up word for word in this Skeptical Inquirer article:

[1] To begin, I suggest that we use this version for our discussion and replace it as the reference in the article. Agreed? Jablett (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No response? Ok, I've put the reference in. I think this paragraph could still do with a succinct summary that more fairly reflects what is an extremely complex debate Jablett (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Holotropic Breathwork Bookcover.jpg

Image:Holotropic Breathwork Bookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

MDMA research paragraph

I've referred this paragraph, and a similar one on the Paul Grof page to the editors of the MDMA page for their comments, with a request to check out the claims so that they can either be properly referenced or removed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Methylenedioxymethamphetamine#Approval_of_MDMA_research_question

Jablett (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removal of MDMA paragraph

OK, I've had a response to my request for help from the MDMA page editors regarding this paragraph (see above) which I'm summarising as follows (please read the original post at [[2]] for more detail):

1) The link between the study and holotropic breathwork is probably tenuous

2) the claim about Grof personally introducing Doblin to MDMA is circumstantially possible, but doesn't appear to have any corroborating evidence.

3) The claim about the study being the "exclusive project of believers in psychedelic mysticism" is misleading.

This leaves The Communicator's argument that the paragraph "is explicit in its condemnation of HB" and to remove it is partisan. The explicit criticism is that HB is "a potentially dangerous form of severe hyperventilation". I feel this topic is covered in the Findhorn investigation paragraph, and there is no evidence that Sampson or Lilienfeld have done any additional research into HB, so I suggest this adds nothing new to the reader's understanding.

I'm therefore proposing that this paragaph be removed. Any comments from other interested parties ? Jablett (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The criticism may be covered elsewhere, but it is a different source. By removing it, you are depriving others of the opportunity of following it up. This might include academic researchers into the subject. The Communicator (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We can copy the text and its reference to this talk page where future researchers can read it in context with the earlier debate about its removal and follow up the link to the related discussion on the MDMA page.Jablett (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)