Anthony Scavo Posted 12 months ago The debate about Graham Hancock's talk To simplify this debate and remove some of the clutter getting in the way of a resolution It is important to identify with both sides. It is clear that TED has a lot to lose (40 some Million dollar organization - correct me if I'm wrong) the hallucinogenic tryptamine DMT IS an illegal schedule 1 substance and lies at the heart of this controversial talk. For TED to take a stance showcasing Graham's talk it "could" reverberate negatively on its business model. Certainly that was the underlying reason behind the talk being removed even though it was touted as Pseudoscience (this is obviously just my personal opinion) the offer was made to debate this topic between Graham & TED's anonymous scientific advisors which by doing so would invite the same negative reverberation, something that arguably could hurt the entire movement. Now lets look at Graham's side - why would an altered state of consciousness damage a science movement? One could argue that some of the greatest minds got their inspiration in an altered state of consciousness - Einstein's miracle year, he supposedly said the ideas just came to him & he can only take credit for writing them down (obviously a humble man, or was he?) Tesla would go into deep hypnotic trances & would visualize his inventions in working detail. Rammunajan Came up with incredibly advanced mathematics despite almost no formal training - unheard of & only now Being better understood. Davinci was known to use altered states of consciousness through breathing & Meditation/focusing the mind. So we can see that an altered state of consciousness is perhaps the catalyst for profound change or breakthroughs. Haven't we also learned from Einstein who said "the definition of insanity Is doing the same thing over & over & expecting a different result"? Perhaps it's time to do something different, something that requires each of us to face our fears & depart from The safety of a lab? What do you say TED, is it time?