Ya Got A Milligram?
The old-boys club on the Goof Team object to not having been given a fair opportunity to present their case:
“The false theories and objections about Srila Prabhupada’s proven poisoning are attempts to discredit the evidence without looking at it sincerely” -KGBG p.747
Despite all the caveats mentioned in the above section, it’s quite evident that some feel the cadmium readings allegedly found in Srila Prabhupada’s hair is their biggest star witness to a crime they are absolutely certain occurred. So in this section, we will give a close look at what they feel hasn’t been adequately considered.
There are several ways to analyze the molecular content of hair follicles for biological forensic studies.
“The article claims that ICP-AES (inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometer is out of date with poor detection limits but is still used by most commercial laboratories. The article claims that ICP-MS (inductively coupled mass spectrometry) is the method of choice. However, when test samples were sent to five different commercial laboratories, they reported wide differences for the presence of certain metals. –HAPDp.106
Okay, so let us look at the evidence carefully now. The testing done on Srila Prabhupada’s hair was performed by Dr. Steve Morris, using the Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) method, which has a wide variety of applications within the fields of archaeology, soil science, geology, forensics, and the semiconductor industry. All of this sounds extremely impressive, but the use of the NAA technique is predominantly used by industries capable of absorbing the costs of this elaborate detailed laboratory process. They use it only when the stakes are on the line, where critical analysis is required and the client has a lot of funds to cover the costs. Most people just use the ICP-MS method as indicated above.
Neutron Activation Analysis Forensics
The NAA method is used in forensics to test hair and nail samples, but not the way we are led to believe by those who are claiming that it indisputably proves that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned by cadmium. While it has the ability to identify trace elements in biological samples, the NAA technique is predominantly used by the National Defense Agency for both safety and defense purposes. The radioactive element Uranium-235 is a fissile isotope, meaning the atom has the ability to split, yielding a large amount of energy, which can then be used to detonate nuclear weapons or power nuclear reactors.
When Dr. Morris and his colleagues at the MU Research Reactor Center (MURRC) use their equipment for forensic purposes, it was most often for the purpose of identifying how much a person has been exposed to this deadly element. U-235 can be found as quickly as within 48 hours of being exposed and testing can still be effective up to a year after being contaminated. For this reason, it is also used to catch anyone who is suspected of smuggling U-235. Associate professor of research at MURRC John Brockman said:
“We are working to develop a tool that law enforcement agencies in nuclear proliferation or smuggling investigations can use to identify individuals who have handled special nuclear material. The goal of our research was to determine if hair, fingernail clippings, and toenail clippings could be used to better detect uranium exposure.”
Another less often used NAA reason for studying hair forensics is to confirm the identity of a crime suspect by comparing samples of his hair to a strand of hair found at a crime scene. The way it was used in analyzing Srila Prabhupada’s hair is so rare this lab may have never used it for this type of purpose before and therefore the results are only nominally useful.
Prudent individuals will naturally be very careful to remember that whenever anything is used in an unconventional way, it doesn’t carry the same weight of more standardized and acceptable methodologies. Therefore using the NAA technique to dissect the contents of Srila Prabhupada’s hair must be approached with a whole lot of skepticism.
This point becomes even more imperative when we notice how laboratories that normally measure 26 elements per hair sample require between 0.3 and 1 gram for the ICP-AES methods, and 0.25-1 gram for ICP-MS. (HAPD p.137) Dr. Morris testifies that the samples he had to work with weighed 0.00012 grams.(KGBG p. 209)That is a difference of 2083 – 8333 times smaller than normally used! Most NAA instruments are not capable of working with such small samples, but Dr. Morris tells us that at the University of Missouri, the MURR lab can do an analysis:
“Assuming the mass of the sample to be 1 milligram (0.001), our sensitivity translates to a detection limit of approximately 0.01 to 0.1 ppm.” -KGBG p. 326
Well, do the math – based on the number provided by Dr. Morris himself: 0.00012 grams is less than 1/8 of the mass required to get an accurate reading. Golly, what might be going on here? Ya think maybe the Goof Team isn’t telling us something Dr. Morris cautioned them about?
“As previously stated, the large uncertainty is the result of the small sample mass.(0.00012 grams)” – Dr. Steve Morris. Letter to Nico Kuyt July 25, 2005 -KGBG p. 210
Let me clarify what the reader may not have already realized. Dr. Morris had a very, very tiny hair sample that we are told was taken from behind the cutting blades of a hair clipper that sat untouched for over 20 years. How can anyone be really sure when that hair dust got there or who’s head it came from!It was so tiny it wasn’t actually large enough to be properly tested. Think of it like ordering a whole pizza sliced into eight pieces and when you opened the box there was just one piece! Yet base on all the other underhanded behavior we have already exposed it is reasonable to consider that the “We-Don’t-Take-No-For-An-Answer” ever persistent hook-or-by-crook Goof Team cajoled, bribed, or enticed Dr. Morris to proceed with testing this microscopic piece of hair dust because dammit… they want to say they got it examined on the best equipment available to date! (Who cares what the results are… we can fudge them later if we need to!)
Dr. Morris was apparently savvy enough to realize he was dealing with the most intoxicated members of the Goof Team so before he took their money he issued some type of professional disclosure due to the inadequate size of the hair dust. There is so much twaddle to wander thru we are left to guessing what the uncertainty is that Dr. Morris is warning about in regards to how the results of his study is interpreted. Gee… ya think it may be referring to the readings he got for the composition of what might have been in the hair samples? “… the large uncertainty is the result of the small sample mass.”
With all due respect to Dr. Steve Morris and his Hyperpure Dermanium Generator Detector at the University of Missouri, he simply isn’t an expert in the field of toxicology. Assuming all his work is NOT being misrepresented, which at this point is quite frankly a very big assumption, all he has done is look for the delayed gamma-ray signature for various elements that were supposedly in Srila Prabhupada’s hair at the molecular level. How the signals for those elements may have shown up on his screen is the work of specialists in the field of biology, toxicology, environmental hazards and professional criminologists – not some wrangling devotees.
We are given the impression that death by cadmium exposure is the unanimous conclusion by experts in this field, such as Dr. Dipankar Chakraborti, who we are told is “imminently qualified in heavy metals poisoning and hair analysis.” His highlighted opinion is provided to convince us that with so much cadmium in Srila Prabhupada’s hair…
“He will be finished. He can’t survive more than three, four days.” -KGBG 217
Perhaps he is an expert, but then how did Srila Prabhupada last for another several month” Huh? The people who are providing this testimony also tell us that Dr. Dipankar Chakraborti was interviewed in 2002. Much of what we have been told has been so flagrantly deceptive in regards to so many other things, we have to wonder just how expert Dr. Chakraborti really is and what might really be going on here. When we look at his provided credentials every one of the references listed are dated a minimum of six years (2008) after he apparently made this comment. What is even more curious is they are all indicating he was trained in several computer technical fields, with his last reference listed in 2016 as a visiting faculty for “Big Data Analytics Program.” If he was such an expert in toxicology, how would he explain it was possible for Srila Prabhupada to survive such massive exposure to cadmium and why does it appear he completely changed his professional career after being such an expert in Toxicology? (Ya think it may be another example of the type of stellar witnesses the Goof Team likes to prop up front to promote their case?)
Not So hAir Tight!
Suffice it to say, there is a lot of research going on by expert toxicologists at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, particularly in relation to cadmium because it is deadly to the body, yet shows up in the air, soil, and food sources!Summary statements from numerous tests and studies they have done suggest it is very irresponsible, even intentionally malicious, for anyone to jump to the conclusion that: ”Srila Prabhupada was definitely maliciously poisoned..” based on the hair samples alone:
“For most substances, insufficient data currently exist that would allow the prediction of a health effect from the concentration of the substance in hair. The presence of a substance in hair may indicate exposure (both internal and external), but does not necessarily indicate the source of exposure.”-HAPDp.8
“This example helps illustrate the difficulties in using hair concentrations alone to draw inferences regarding the magnitude of the internally absorbed dose of a metal (MK).” –HAPDp.38
“Therefore, hair analysis is not the best biological medium to serve as an indicator of very recent exposure or past exposures (greater than 1 year) (RB)”. –HAPDp.40
“(There is a…) Lack of significantly positive correlations between elemental concentrations in hair and in organs” –HAPDp.71, 85, 103,178
“Finding trace minerals in hair is neither surprising nor a consistent finding.” –HAPDp.98
“The most unstable elements were Cadmium, which was affected by more than a factor of 2 by five of the six factors tested.” –HAPDp.108
“(There are) Anatomically-related variations in trace-metal concentrations in hair.” –HAPDp.164
“Cadmium (Cd) – Animal studies show conflicting results with respect to any correlation between cadmium in hair and the target organ, the kidney.” 42,52… A nationwide German environmental survey found little correlation with cadmium in hair and active cigarette smoking, although it was the major predictor for blood and urine cadmium concentrations. In contrast, outdoor activities, seasonality, and cadmium in tap water were more important predictors in hair cadmium concentrations, emphasizing the role of exogenous deposition of cadmium into hair.67 –HAPDp.145
“Studies reported by the National Library of Medicine indicate that when cadmium is ingested it increases linearly in the liver and kidney, but the hair was not affected by dietary levels of Cadmium.” LINK: Influence of dietary zinc or cadmium on hair and tissue mineral concentrations in rats and goats.
Dr. Lawrence Wilson
Dr. Lawrence Wilson has built his whole career on studying nutritional balance and how the body is affected by a variety of conditions. He is the author of hundreds of research papers and is knowledgeable about how the body absorbs toxins and what hair analysis can tell us. I contacted him to ask if hair analysis could be used to prove cadmium poisoning. This was his response:
“From the home page of the website, you can read my bio. It might be possible to guess the cause of death from a hair sample of a deceased person, but often not. Best wishes, Dr. Wilson”
We can guess how many books we might have distributed on sankirtan, but the only sure and honest way of knowing what to report for the sankirtan score is to actually count how many empty boxes we have at the end of the day.
The exhaustive efforts made to convince us that no environmental elements could possibly have contaminated Srila Prabhupada’s hair reflect a delirium that can never be proven. It is similar to the Neti Neti process impersonalists use in their futile attempt to disprove the existence of God. Well, He isn’t here, and He isn’t there, and He isn’t this, and He isn’t that…etc. They spend their lives telling us what God isn’t, but they can’t say anything definitive about who He is. In the same way, the Goof Team tries to tell us all the ways Srila Prabhupada could NOT have been exposed to cadmium environmentally, but that is a preposterous task. Those who pursue that line of reasoning look just as envious and dumb as the mayavadis who can only tell us what God isn’t, yet claim to be experts on the divine! The Goof Team is so goofy they continue to perjurer their own testimony with another astonishingly ignorant prevarication:
“However, cadmium, antimony, and arsenic have been found to be not easily absorbed from external sources into the hair.” -KGBG p.329
There is no reasonable evidence to support this statement. We are just expected to accept it because the Goof Team wrote it. This type of pompous posturing runs all thru the 1359+ pages of editorial commentary. It’s just opinions from very bigoted individuals with nasty agendas they are wasting their whole life trying to prove. Experts highly trained in sorting out false positives and misleading indicators in the hair tell us just the opposite:
“(There is) A lack of understanding of how and to what extent environmental contaminants are incorporated into the hair. Little scientific information is available on the uptake or incorporation of environmental contaminants into hair. Neither kinetic models nor metabolite data are known or fully understood for metals or environmentally relevant organic compounds.” –HAPDp.10
“He notes that attempts to distinguish external versus internal uptake of metals have usually been unsuccessful” –HAPDp.105
Segmental analysis may help ATSDR scientists identify past elevated exposures (e.g., acute high exposures from a spill event). Segmental analysis may also rule out exposures. Houtman et al. (1978), for example, studied hair in a population exposed to an accidental release of arsenic dust. Segmental hair analysis revealed that concentrations on the distal parts of hairs were elevated. However, it was determined that the higher levels were detected on portions of hair that would have been fully formed before the accident, thus establishing that the arsenic in hair was the result of external contamination.-HAPDp.40
By now everyone should be seeing the pattern of myth maniacs. If you are still not convinced we are being served a bunch of malarkey based on disreputable collaborators, consider the quote that comes right after the one cited above:
“Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratories states: ‘Experience has shown that hair is not very sensitive to exogenous contamination from environmental exposure to antimony.’” -KGBG p.329
Well, gee..aren’t they also experts in this field? It all sounds pretty convincing coming from such an impressive organization like the Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratories right? Well, that’s only until you find out that this organization went out of business and reorganized as Genova Diagnostics at the exact same address: 63 Zillcoa Street, Asheville N.C. Now, why would they take on a huge expense of having to completely reorganize, change their signage, all there stationary, and name recognition on the web? The reader can draw their own conclusions for themselves based on the following links which report on all the details:
Genova Diagnostics or Great Smokies Diagnostic Labs, deceit, scams, and should be immediately taken to court scam, deceptive, waste of money, liars, take advantage of those trying to get well, smoke and mirrors Asheville, North Carolina