IRM: IRM members are not to propagate any literature or messages to the effect that Srila Prabhupada was deliberately poisoned. Rather they are instructed to at least wait until the outcome of the official investigation on this subject. Our position is that there is not enough evidence present currently on which to form any conclusions, and therefore we shall reserve judgement until concrete evidence comes to light. However members are encouraged to participate in any neutral investigation of this issue, that will help uncover the full truth of the matter.

PSS: No IRM member can propagate any literature or messages to the effect that Srila Prabhupada was deliberately poisoned but the IRM leader and member, rather than waiting for the outcome of the "official investigation on this subject" (as he instructs the IRM members to do) in his next newsletter (no. 9) propagates the Web page chakra, who's view is certainly not neutral. Chakra's view is that Srila Prabhupada wasn't poisoned.

IRM :  1. Srila Prabhupada refers to others stating that he has been given poison. Srila Prabhupada does not himself confirm this, only adding that 'It's possible'.

PSS: Then they contradict themselves by stating in the Final Conclusion:

IRM : Final Conclusion Therefore there is no evidence from the infallible source of the acarya that he was being deliberately poisoned. Thus the answer to the title of this paper has to be 'no'.

PSS: Or in other words their view is:

 No Srila Prabhupada Doesn't Support Poisoning Theory ! 

But earlier they acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada says it is possible. Now they say Srila Prabhupada says no. Earlier they say:

IRM:  We must stress that this paper does not prove, nor even attempt to prove, that Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned.

PSS: Another contradictory statement. They have tried very hard to prove that Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned by trying to eliminate the main evidence, Srila Prabhupada's own words, and the conclusion of their paper is No Srila Prabhupada Doesn't Support Poisoning Theory !

IRM: Our position is that there is not enough evidence present currently on which to form any conclusions, and therefore we shall reserve judgement until concrete evidence comes to light

PSS In their final conclusion or judgement they say of the main evidence, Srila Prabhupada's words:

IRM FINAL CONCLUSION: Therefore there is no evidence from the infallible source of the acarya that he was being deliberately poisoned. Thus the answer to the title of this paper has to be 'no'.

PSS: A very reserved and contradictory judgement. 

IRM: The purpose of this paper is to study the actual words of Srila Prabhupada only on the subject of his poisoning. Naturally, we can only rely on the actual words Srila Prabhupada spoke on this issue to determine whether he himself believed that he was deliberately poisoned. Thus the views and opinions of others who were in the room with Srila Prabhupada are of no relevance to us.

PSS: The IRM leader says "we can only rely on the actual words Srila Prabhupada spoke.... the views and opinions of others who were in the room with Srila Prabhupada are of no relevance to us" Later in his paper with his own words he presents a testimony from the Kaviraja, a person who was in the room with Srila Prabhupada, as evidence.

IRM: Further Evidence One final nail in the coffin of the idea that Srila Prabhupada is himself revealing that he is being poisoned is found in the following. After the last exchange Adri Dharan das, who was present at the discussion, asked the Kaviraja, whom Srila Prabhupada was supposedly revealing all this to, what Srila Prabhupada had been referring to when he spoke of poison. Even though in the previous conversation the Kaviraja immediately jumps to the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada was speaking of some malicious poisoning, he later reveals to Adri Dharan that Srila Prabhupada was actually only referring to the effects of poison having been administered via bad medicine. This testimony would be consistent with a conversation that was held just 12 days before the above exchanges. 

PSS: So he contradicts himself by presenting his and others views, views which he earlier said were of no relevance to him. Now the Kaviraja's testimony which we hear second hand from the IRM leader is presented as evidence but the the following views and opinions of the people in the room are of no relevance to the IRM leader. These views presented in the conversation below clearly reveal that they understood that Srila Prabhupada was now clearly stating what had been previously dicussed as a "possibilty", that is, that someone had poisoned him.

IRM:  Final Words We do not hold the author of the book 'someone has poisoned me' responsible for deliberately perpetrating falsehood, even though the mis-translation reported makes a significant difference to the strength of the case for deliberate poisoning,. The author appears to have genuinely relied on the translation work of others, even though it was made clear to him that the translation provided to him was not to be taken as accurate. All we would say is that the title of his book should have been 'It's Possible', for these are the only words Srila Prabhupada himself offers on the subject of his poisoning.

PSS We would like to humbly suggest that the IRM should have also, at least concluded the title of their paper It is possible Srila Prabhupada supports the poison theory. Instead they say "Thus the answer to the title of this paper has to be 'no'.