1)       At best remove less than a handful of Gurus from their positions (those allegedly involved as accessories to the crime, with the chief suspect Tamal Krishna Goswami having already died), leaving the vast majority to carry on their unauthorized practices.
 
2)       Be proven at the risk of disturbing Srila Prabhupada’s Samadhi (sacred burial place) to carry out an autopsy.  An act most of his disciples would find completely unacceptable.

There are devotees involved in the investigation into this alleged crime who are sympathetic to the IRM’s position, though as we shall now learn this sense of tolerance is certainly not universal.
Recently, the BIF (Bhaktivedanta Investigation Force), composed of members Mandapa Das, Jitarati Das, Kamsahanta Das, Syamasundara Das and Sakshi Gopal Das, wrote a response to an analysis produced by Krishnakant (KK), the editor of Back To Prabhupada magazine (BTP).  This analysis by KK dealt with two aspects of the poison theory (arsenic levels in a hair sample and whispers on a tape) and made the following 3 basic points:

1)         That arsenic contamination of hair below 3ppm (parts per million) is considered safe by experts in the field of toxicology.
 
2)        That the book, Judge For Yourself (JFY), written by BIF on the poisoning allegation, did not present a single reference from an expert in the field of toxicology stating that an arsenic level of 2.6ppm in hair is fatally toxic.  (2.6ppm is the level of arsenic which was found in a strand of hair purportedly belonging to Srila Prabhupada).
 
3)       The allegedly incriminating “whispers” caught on tape regarding poisoning can only be brought into play as supporting evidence once the central allegation of death by way of arsenic poisoning has first been established.

There is a well-known debating technique, used by desperate people who are cornered and unable to reply to a line of argument, called ‘argumentum ad hominem’.  This is where instead of tackling the arguments themselves, one instead attacks the person presenting them.  Of course, even if such personal attacks were justified, they do not necessarily have any bearing on the validity of the arguments presented – for even if a drunk, debauched, low-life, mass-murdering criminal states that Krishna is God, it would still be the truth regardless of the fact that the person presenting this truth is of a very low character.  In fact, engaging in such character assassination is itself an admission of defeat since it is a classic logical fallacy betraying intellectual bankruptcy regarding the issue at hand.  If one is correct, why not just rebut the arguments themselves, rather than engage in the diversionary and wholly irrelevant act of character assassination on the person presenting the argument?
 
I will now demonstrate that BIF is guilty of precisely the above logical fallacy.  Below I reproduce a large percentage of BIF’s reply to KK.  We will see that most of it is spent not in addressing the 3 points made above, but in attacking KK as a person.  These attacks include the absurd allegation that KK is a paid employee of the GBC.  It attacks the IRM (ISKCON Revival Movement) along with KK’s role in it; it lashes out at Back To Prabhupada magazine, and if all that were not enough, for good measure throws in an attack on Adridharana Das too (another member of the IRM)!  
What is ironic is that this analysis by KK that got BIF so hot under the collar was only originally sent privately to one individual in response to some questions he asked.  BIF have somehow managed to get their hands on this private exchange and used it as an excuse to declare a very public campaign against the IRM, whose sole aim, let us be reminded, is to restore Srila Prabhupada to his rightful position as ISKCON’s initiating Guru.  One therefore wonders what BIF’s real agenda is?  
I shall certainly not be bothering to respond to every single one of the scurrilous slanders in BIF’s official release, since to do so would simply play into the very diversionary trap they have so clumsily tried to set.  And in any case, BIF provide no evidence to substantiate their wildly frivolous and incorrect allegations, and hence there is no case to answer.  I shall give a few examples proving that BIF’s accusations are either outright lies, or wholly irrelevant, and more often both.  As mentioned, in logic even if all the allegations were true, it would still not change the fact that the 3 points made in KK’s analysis would remain undefeated.  
All quotes from the BIF reply shall be identified in blue text, and all other words shall be my comments on BIF’s allegations.

Of course the fact that KK lives nowhere near a temple is not mentioned by BIF in their desperation to smear him, and this being the case it would be rather difficult to even make such observations.  

The person whom BIF entrusted to circulate this nasty response, PADA or Puranjana Das, has also done nothing practical by way of initiating pathological tests etc.  Yet he is not criticized for this, but rather used by BIF to circulate their lies and smears.  

Conversely we are expected to believe that BIF launching an endless campaign that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned by certain members of the GBC has not created any schisms, division or chaos in ISKCON, but only unity, peace and harmony!  It’s amazing how when one is so desperate to find fault, one will literally say anything, without even thinking!

The analysis by KK was actually done on 10/10/2004.  Legal action was not initiated and announced until almost 2 months later on November 25^th.  Hence the analysis could not have been generated in response to BIF initiating legal action as claimed.  

This peculiarly disorientated fixation on KK, (who has never had or ever supported any bogus ISKCON Gurus, nor lived in an ISKCON temple under the bogus Guru regime, but has instead helped initiate a court case against the GBC and write 150 papers defeating them along with numerous newsletters and issues of BTP magazine exposing them), as being a big supporter of the GBC is comprehensible only when the history of BIF is known.  The fact is that the above mentioned members of BIF, until not too long ago, were all merrily supporting and following the bogus Guru regime.  Their illusion was ironically only broken by reading KK’s The Final Order (TFO).  Jitarati and Kamsahanta in particular have a long history of financing and supporting Tamal Krishna Goswami.  One member of BIF, Sakshi Gopal Das, confessed the following in a letter he wrote to the IRM addressed to Adridharana Das:  

In the last section we saw BIF concocting out of their imagination the absurd allegation that KK is actually the greatest supporter of the GBC!  Above however, we see clear evidence of BIF actually defending the GBC.  For instance, BIF finds it unfair that we accused the GBC of promoting incest in one of the IRM newsletters:  

Yet in this newsletter we were simply repeating Srila Prabhupada stating that a Guru having sex with his disciple is akin to an act of incest: 

Here BIF mockingly refers to their hope that “Adri” will be jailed as a “vacation”.  The “big-house in Allipore” is the Calcutta Central Jail.  Not nice at all.
So from all this we know that BIF alleges that KK is a:  

Phew!  According to BIF we are obviously dealing with a contender for the most vile and sickest individual of the millennium!
However, none of this addresses the 3 points regarding the poison issue originally made by KK. Rather, such a vicious, long-winded attack merely confirms that BIF have no response to the 3 points.
 
The above constitutes the majority of BIF’s reply, the remainder of which also failed to deal directly with the 3 points, but was at least free from personal attacks.  We will deal now with these remaining points made by BIF.

This is a startling confession made by BIF.  BIF here confirms there are NO audio recordings of Srila Prabhupada stating he was poisoned, just as the IRM has been saying all along, and therefore, claims BIF, we must instead rely solely on the statements of “perceptive witnesses” – which is basically people like Bhakti Caru Swami and Tamala Krishna.  Hence, according to BIF the case for Srila Prabhupada stating he was poisoned is not based on any evidence coming from Srila Prabhupada, but rather on the words of the alleged murderers themselves, who are now opportunistically upgraded by BIF to being “perceptive witnesses”.  

BIF then proceeds to give a list of the names and “documented statements” of these “1^ST hand witnesses” who “were there”.  Nestled in this list of 10 which includes the Ayur-vedic doctor who treated Srila Prabhupada, Tamal Krishna and Bhakti Caru, are the names KK and Adridharana listed as witnesses nos 8 and 9!  So now KK, as well as supposedly being all those horrible nasty things I quoted earlier – “madman”, “lunatic” etc. – is also supposedly a “1^ST hand witness” who “was there”!  So in 1977, at the age of 10, little KK is supposed to have left London for Vrindavana, heard Srila Prabhupada saying he was poisoned, and then hopped back to London again without anyone seeing him!  Or maybe he took help from those pixies at the bottom of the garden he is supposed to talk to regularly!  Indeed, KK is quoted as saying:  

However, BIF deliberately conceals that the above statement by KK is made specifically in response to the following quote from Bhakti Caru Swami:

“Bhakti-caru: Pressure is good. When Dr. Ghosh came, that other Dr. Ghosh came... (Hindi) .pressure, 180 and 80. (Hindi) He’s saying that in this condition, Prabhupada can’t take makara-dhvaja. That any medicine that contains mercury and arsenic is poison to him.”
(Room Conversation, 28/10/77)

So KK commenting on Bhakti Caru commenting on Dr Ghosh's medical opinion, suddenly becomes elevated to KK being “there” in the room with Srila Prabhupada commenting on what he heard Srila Prabhupada say to him as a “1^st hand witness”!  Such an egregious example of deceit is just amazing!
 
Also Adridharana is quoted as saying:

So here Adridharana is referring to what the Kaviraja told him – that’s the “HE” in the sentence above.  So once again, Adridharana reporting what the Kaviraja told him is elevated to Adridharana stating that he heard, first hand, Srila Prabhupada tell him he was being poisoned.
 
The above allegations regarding KK and Adridharana were made *3* times in BIF’s reply.  BIF obviously thought it was onto a winner with the “KK was in the room with Srila Prabhupada” allegation.  Deceit such as this can only make the discerning reader seriously question if anything BIF says can be taken seriously.

But WHAT is it the whispers are corroborating?  There has to be SOMETHING to corroborate.  So you would FIRST need EVIDENCE that death by poisoning actually took place, which the “whispers” could then support/back-up/corroborate/supplement.  If the poisoning itself did not take place, the whispers supposedly saying it did, become irrelevant.  This is an obvious point.  (And as we have seen, and will see, BIF has yet to produce evidence for “death by poisoning”).  Hence BIF here essentially agrees with our point that the whispers in and of themselves do not prove anything.  

This is just another fictitious allegation.  As we saw from the point above, KK had merely stated that the whispers on their own do not prove anything, something which BIF essentially agrees with.  This simple statement which BIF agrees with has now been elevated to claiming that KK implied that Srila Prabhupada imagined the whispers, and that audio forensic analysts are idiots. Nothing even remotely resembling this was ever said.  More blatant deceit from BIF.

Yet BIF do not mention that this Writ which they have managed to get two high court judges to accept without dismissal contains the following blasphemous attack on Srila Prabhupada:

“Unfortunately Srila Prabhupada did not devise any procedure to protect the long-term interest of ISKCON from any predatory take over, prompted by selfish motives.”
(From High Court Writ Filed By BIF)

This basically states that Srila Prabhupada was so amiss in his stewardship of ISKCON that “unfortunately” he did not devise ANY procedure to protect his beloved ISKCON.  Is this a statement that BIF should be boasting they managed to get two high court judges to accept without dismissal – that they have put it on LEGAL RECORD the implication that Srila Prabhupada did not know what he was doing and did not know how to run ISKCON?  Which is the same argument sometimes used by the GBC to try and explain away some of Srila Prabhupada’s signed documents like the July 9^th 1977 directive and his Last Will and Testament.  

a) An Neutron Activiation Analyst (NAA) is someone who measures the level of arsenic in hair. Whether or not that level is TOXIC to the human body is determined not by an NAA whose expertise lies rightly in the mechanics of MEASUREMENT, but by pathologists, medical practitioners and toxicologists.
 
b) The trigger point level of 3ppm (3 parts per million) which KK refers to and which BIF is challenging, was supplied to KK by none other than BIF member Sakshi Gopal!  The following is a quotation supplied by BIF: 

a) KK’s analysis actually gave 4 quotes, including the one from 1965 referred to here, and they all say the same thing – which is that anything up to 3ppm of arsenic in hair is NOT toxic i.e. SAFE. 2 of these quotes were supplied to KK by BIF themselves, and it is interesting that BIF ONLY mentions one of the 4 quotes, but not the 2 quotes they supplied him which KK also quotes, and BIF also conveniently forget to mention that all 4 quotes say the SAME thing.  Thus the fact that one of KK’s is from 1965 is irrelevant.  The four quotes offered by KK are given below, with the first two being the one’s supplied to KK by BIF themselves:  

If Srila Prabhupada’s arsenic hair level of 2.6ppm was 20 times higher than normal it means that a normal level is only 2.6/20 ppm or 0.13ppm, which means anything above this is abnormal.  And BIF claims here that anything which is abnormal or above 0.13ppm is toxic.  But as we have seen from the expert quotes provided above, two of which are from BIF themselves, only something above 3ppm is toxic.  That is, BIF now claims that toxic levels are actually almost 30 times below what their own expert quotes say.

The following statement made Dr Callery, who is a medical examiner, was repeatedly used by BIF as some sort of evidence that the arsenic in Srila Prabhupada’s hair was fatally toxic:

“In my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that this individual, (Srila Prabhupada) with the history of multiple myocardial infarcts and non insulin dependent diabetes mellitus and considering his age would be an individual in frail health in which a chronic administration or exposure of arsenic leading to toxic levels would be expected to be a significant contributing condition to his death..."

Here Dr Callery simply states that a chronic administration of arsenic leading to toxic levels would be expected to contribute to Srila Prabhupada’s death.  He does NOT state:

a)    That 2.6ppm IS such a toxic level

b)  The level found in Srila Prabhupada’s hair was a toxic level which DID lead to his death.

Indeed, he states nothing at all about what constitutes a toxic level, only that “toxic levels would be expected to be a significant contributing condition to his death”.  Surely this is a common sense point.  If someone is ill, then giving him toxic levels of arsenic would contribute further to his death.  But what is that level, and was it found in the hair?  This lack of precision as to exactly what level of arsenic would cause certain death, and whether that level was present, is the crux of the issue regarding the hair sample.  Yet BIF ineptly miss the point entirely.
 
If Dr Callery actually meant to say that 2.6ppm of arsenic in hair was a fatally toxic level, as BIF claim, then why can”t BIF simply get him to explicitly state that 2.6pmm is fatally toxic, or that the level of arsenic found in Srila Prabhupada WAS toxic, rather than present a general common sense statement such as he does?  Also, why cut Dr. Callery’s statement in half in mid-sentence? Why can’t we see the whole context of his statement?  Why does he not state what BIF are actually claiming?  This was what KK recommended to BIF 3 years ago when he was asked by BIF to review their JFY book – that BIF get a statement from Dr. Callery stating what they are actually claiming if the book is to have any credibility.  Especially since Dr. Callery is the only person quoted in the whole book who is even qualified to speak about toxic levels in human hair. Yet 3 years on we are still waiting for such a statement from Dr. Callery or any expert in the field. BIF would do well to procure such an expert opinion, otherwise their claims, like their attacks on KK, will remain hollow and unsubstantiated.  

a)  The FULL exchange with Dr Chakraborti, taken from BIF’s book JFY, actually goes as follows:

Here Dr Chakribarti does not refer to the level of arsenic in HUMAN HAIR, but the level or arsenic in WATER – two completely different propositions.  This is proven by the fact that he states that they measure accepted levels of arsenic in microgram SOLUTIONS, which means parts per million of arsenic in water.  So the 2.6ppm which the good Doctor refers to is not the arsenic found in Srila Prabhupada’s hair, but the level found in WATER which would “finish” someone who was exposed to that water.  Thus, the toxic level of arsenic in water is elevated to being relevant to the level found in a strand of human hair.  Again, more blatant deceit.
 
b)  And I have already noted that the “authority” who supplied KK his “trigger level” was none other than BIF themselves.  Hence I give BIF full permission, therefore, to interview themselves!  

Here BIF refers to and acknowledges the fact, as pointed out by KK, that NONE of the quotes regarding arsenic found in their JFY book give an expert opinion stating what constitutes toxic levels of arsenic in HUMAN HAIR.  Why instead of giving us measurements of arsenic in “water, air or arsenic levels in general”, can’t BIF simply give us what is actually relevant to the matter in hand – an expert opinion on toxic levels of arsenic in human hair?  

There would be no need to contact sources for “further explanation/confirmation”, if the sources simply stated that 2.6ppm was a fatally toxic level of arsenic in human hair to begin with.  But they don’t, hence the validity of point 2) made in KK’s analysis, which was stated at the beginning of this paper:
 
“2) That the book, Judge For Yourself (JFY), written by BIF on the poisoning allegation, did not present a single reference from an expert in the field of toxicology stating that an arsenic level of 2.6ppm in hair is fatally toxic.”  

KK’s analysis made 3 basic points:
 
1) That arsenic contamination of hair below 3ppm (parts per million) is considered safe by the field of toxicology.
 
2) That the book, Judge For Yourself (JFY), written by BIF on the poisoning allegation, did not present a single reference from an expert in the field of toxicology stating that an arsenic level of 2.6ppm in hair is fatally toxic.
 
3) That “whispers” caught on tape regarding poisoning can only be brought into play as supporting evidence once the central allegation of death by way of arsenic poisoning has first been established.
 
We have seen that there is nothing in BIF’s response that even attempts to challenge these points.  Rather, BIF’s reply consists entirely of the following:
 
a) The vast majority is nothing but a vicious and wild rambling attack on KK, Adridharana, the IRM and BTP.  None of which is either true or relevant to challenging the 3 points KK made.
 
b) Many statements simply confirming KK’s 3 points.
 
c) Many other statements which are proven to be outright lies and deceits.
 
Virtually every sentence of BIF’s reply falls into one of the above 3 categories.
 
No doubt you will come across more ranting and raving from BIF in the future, trying to convince you how KK is nothing but a cross between Hitler and Mussolini, and the IRM is the modern incarnation of the Third Reich!  I advise that when plowing through their next outpouring, which on past evidence will be nothing more than hot air, one should check to see if the 3 original points regarding the poison issue which KK made, and which BIF have been demonstrably unable to respond to, are in any way addressed.  Clearly you can ‘Judge For Yourself’ – as BIF would say! - whether or not BIF’s reply here has answered the 3 points made by KK, or simply engaged in a vicious character assassination based on lies to avoid answering the points made.  I predict more of the same from BIF.