The GBC appointed Balavanta das in 1997 to investigate the “poison issue,” and he arranged for MURR and Dr. J S Morris to test a sample of Srila Prabhupada’s hair. When it became publicized that the result showed a 20 times normal level of arsenic, the poison suspects organized a book of denials called Not That I Am Poisoned, including claims that hair analysis was quack science and unreliable. Strangely, they still arranged for two more of Srila Prabhupada’s hair samples to be sent to MURR and Dr. Morris for testing.
When those test results showed that Srila Prabhupada had lethal levels of cadmium for at least 10 months in 1977, then the GBC criticized MURR’s methodology and the science of hair analysis further. This reveals the GBC to be dishonest, corrupt, and untruthful, even denying recognized science in their desperate avoidance of the issue that will end their deviant regime. Below are a few references to confirm the validity and accuracy of hair analysis in ascertaining poisoning with heavy metals.
(1). The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) published an authoritative study in 1979 in which more than 400 reports on hair testing were reviewed. The authors concluded that hair is a “meaningful and representative tissue for biological monitoring of most of the toxic metals.”
(2). The Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratories states: “There are numerous papers on the accuracy and efficacy of hair testing, particularly for toxic metals such as mercury. For more than 30 years, the significance of measuring element concentrations in scalp hair, blood, and urine has been studied.”
(3). A 1986 study by V Bencko, T Geist, et al called “Biological monitoring of environmental pollution and human exposure to some trace elements” states: “In addition to analyses of plant and animal specimens, the element content of human hair as an indicator of exposures to arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, antimony, manganese, nickel and cobalt has been repeatedly confirmed as reliable, provided the analyses were carried out and evaluated on group diagnostic basis and were done in groups of individuals occupationally not exposed to these metals.”
(4). From Nutri-Test Analytical in Edmonton, we read: “Blood, urine and hair are the most accessible tissues in which to measure elements in our body, and they are sometimes referred to as indicator tissues. Blood and urine concentrations usually reflect recent exposure and correlate best with acute effects. Hair is useful in assessing variations in exposure to metals over the long term. It is a useful tool for… diagnosis of heavy metal exposure…”
(5). A 1980 study by JS Lee and KL White called “A review of the health effects of cadmium” found that “hair values correlate well with exposure” to cadmium, whereas blood values did not.
(6). A 1979 study published by the EPA by DW Jenkins called “Toxic metals in mammalian hair and nails” found that “hair analysis, when properly performed, is a reliable measure of tissue levels of cadmium.”
(7). A 1973 study by RW Thatcher et al called “Effects of low levels of cadmium and lead, etc” found that “hair analysis is superior to blood in reflecting long term cadmium exposure.”
(8). WIKIPEDIA: (2015) “Tests on hair and fingernails can measure exposure to high levels of arsenic over the past 6–12 months. These tests can determine if one has been exposed to above-average levels of arsenic… Hair is a potential bio indicator for arsenic exposure due to its ability to store trace elements from blood. Incorporated elements maintain their position during growth of hair.”
