One of the first skeptical responses to a finding of high levels of heavy metals in a hair test is: “Maybe it is due to external contamination.” At first, the GBC organized their own hair test analyses to disprove there was a poisoning. Then, when the 1998 and 2002-05 hair test results from MURR-Dr. J Stephen Morris verified a lethal poisoning, they and various of their apologists made much propaganda to deny these results. Cherry-picking selected studies and misrepresenting their meaning, the GBC has denounced the science of hair analysis as invalid and inaccurate, and they have twisted the meaning of a few studies to favor a devious agenda.
Also, the GBC has raised ingenuous speculations meant to cause doubts by questioning:
- Whether the cadmium in Srila Prabhupada’s hair had come from the internal blood deposition process, called endogenous deposition, or
- Whether it originated from external sources, called exogenous contamination.
This question revolves around whether the poison was bound into the hair from the blood at the growing hair root, or the hair adsorbing external poison through its overall exposed surface area. To establish a poisoning where the poison was internally ingested, the poison in the hair being tested should reliably be found to have endogenous or internal sources. Of course, the GBC has completely failed to suggest any logical, viable manner (other than homicidal poisoning) by which external contamination or inadvertent internal ingestion could produce Srila Prabhupada’s lethal levels. They only say, maybe this, maybe that, just to cast doubts.
The standard approach to reasonably exclude possible external contamination is to avoid chemical “washing” of hair samples, to examine them under high-powered microscopes, and to know the history of the person, whether they used chemical, shampoos, creams, dyes, etc- and Srila Prabhupada did not use any of these items. Further, if a consumer product has ever produced lethal cadmium levels in anyone, say, from mustard seeds, ceramic dishware, swimming in the Yamuna, use of Ayurvedic medicines, then there would be many victims, not just Srila Prabhupada. But this obvious logic is lost on the crooked-minded deniers of the facts.
Sample washing can have very serious effects in the compromising of results and was of limited value anyway, as explained by Dr. Morris at MURR, so he decided not to wash Samples A and D before testing them in 2002. By powerful microscopic examination of these hair samples which revealed lethal levels of cadmium, he did not find any significant, visible external debris or contamination. The samples had no external evidence of oils, chemicals, or other material. Also, he quoted scientific hair analysis studies that hair very close to the scalp, as these samples were (the first half inch), was least likely to be externally contaminated. Another study on the validity of hair mineral testing found that much of the result variances was due to the washing used by many labs (in their faulty attempts to address external contamination issues).
Sometimes a scientific reference may appear to say that hair analysis does not actually show if there is poisoning in the body, or that there is a poor correlation from hair values to body burden. E.g., from the CDC (US Center for Disease Control) website, about cadmium in hair:
“Studies of exposed workers have not found a quantitative relationship between hair cadmium levels and body burden. Because of the potential for sample contamination, hair levels are not reliable either as predictors of toxicity or as indicators of occupational exposure.”
In reply, we refer to a graph showing the sky-high cadmium levels in Srila Prabhupada’s hair, illustrating the vast difference between the average exposed industrial worker with about 0.387 ppm cadmium and Srila Prabhupada’s average 15.73 ppm, which is 40 times greater!
CADMIUM LEVELS: Comparison showing Cadmium from 0 to 16 ppm.
- Srila Prabhupada: 15.75 ppm (250 X normal)
- Worst USA waste dump: 4 ppm (60 X normal)
- Highest ever value at Analytical Research Labs: 2 ppm (30 X normal)
- Dr. Hudson: “hefty load”: 1 ppm (15 X normal)
- Average Exposed Industrial Worker: 0.387 ppm (6 X normal)
- Average Normal Unexposed Person: 0.065 ppm (same as Srila Prabhupada’s pre-poisoning hair sample values)
The CDC’s concern is over potential external hair contamination that will give a false positive. But Dr. Morris at MURR knew well about the pitfalls of doing hair tests in the wrong ways that would give misleading results. He microscopically examined the GBC’s hair samples that he tested and found no signs of external contamination. Dr. Morris and thousands of other scientists worldwide DO use hair analysis as a reliable and standard procedure to derive accurate and useful results. This means that hair DOES indicate the body burden of various elements and compounds, except perhaps at very low levels, but this was not the case in Srila Prabhupada’s ultra-high test results.
Dr. Morris did not run a commercial outfit that fed hundreds of cookie-cutter tests daily through an automated process, as is done by many online hair testing companies. He took time to properly prepare EACH test uniquely, with its own set of fine-tuned parameters and settings of MURR’s nuclear testing equipment. Although one must be cautious about misleading results due to external contamination, as may be obtained by private, commercial, and high-production labs, this in no way invalidates the science of hair analysis as a whole. Otherwise, why are scientists and researchers all over the world relying on and using hair mineral tests?
Why would Dr. Morris’ MURR facility be funded with tens of millions of dollars over four decades if their hair tests were meaningless? The fact is that hair analysis, especially by neutron activation analysis (NAA), is a very accurate and valid scientific method to determine the body burden of poisons such as the heavy metals. Whatever is in the blood will be deposited into the growing hair at the same concentration level. The fact is that “buyer beware” applies to those who will test hair- they must find a reputable party who knows how to deal with the external contamination issue. Dr. Morris at MURR knew about this very well.
Also, the above CDC quote refers to comparison between unexposed normal persons (average 0.065 ppm hair cadmium) and environment-occupationally exposed persons (average 0.387 ppm)- which is a multiple of only SIX times. However, Srila Prabhupada had a multiple of 250 times above normal, which is so dramatic and sky-high that it totally trumps any question of inaccuracy from exogenous contamination- the possibility of which Dr. Morris had already eliminated by microscopic examination anyway. Samples A and D are definitely and accurately indicative of the massive lethal and homicidal cadmium poisoning which Srila Prabhupada endured at least throughout 1977, if not also in 1976.
