7:00 he is a very good analysist, but I don’t think he has got a medical background to interpret what he has found in biological samples like hair. I think the proper thing, even if you wanted to do NAA for a heavy metal analysis… the interpretation of the report should not have been done by the analysis unless he were a medical person himself.. at least some medical background. Even if not a toxicologist background, some medical background so that .. you know how it is.. the interpretation you make with regard to a non-biological sample with regard to heavy metals may be completely different to any human being where you are examining his bodily fluids or tissue like hair and then interpreting it as if this has some significance or not. That kind of approach can be undertaken only by medical persons. So I would say with due apologies,
8:00 that when somebody says I have done this kind of analysis I think you should not say anything further than that. And say that the interpretation of what I have found is left to the medical toxicologist. And I am not very sure that medical toxicologists have looked at this case. I have not come across any opinions. There are several medical toxicologists of repute over the years, and this one humble medical toxicologist from India, (referring to himself) with my background I can say is that looks very dicey… what has been done and what has been reported.
8:30 No 1, I told you I would not opt for Neutron Activation Analysis for especially a sensitive case like this. Gold standard is NOT NAA today the Gold standard is Inductively Coupled Plasma Mark Spectro Metric or ICPMS …There is also an variation called ICPAES is Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy also the classical method AAS Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy or Spectrometric.
Audio: DrPillay_9781 – Length 9.29 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyjZ6wKWt0o