[Boyd Haley Ph.D.]

Interview of Dr. Boyd E. Haley by Teri Small: Biomarkers supporting mercury toxicity as the major exacerbator of neurological illness, recent evidence via the urinary porphyrin tests  


Now what happens if you take a very small baby and inject mercury?
Well, there are a lot of things that happen, and on top of inhibiting their ability to make hemoglobin, which we just talked about in detail, let’s talk about the affect on the immune system. What we know is that Thimerosal, at one nanomolar or lower concentrations—and when we say nanomolar, let’s put it in perspective—the vaccine contains 125,000 nanomolar level of mercury if it has Thimerosal as a preservative. That’s a huge amount. And one nanomolar levels in the baby will prevent the macrophages from going through phagocytosis. In other words, they will lose their ability to eat viruses and bacteria that are in the blood that shouldn’t be there, and so Thimerosal suppresses the immune system. This is well known and has been well described in the literature for a long time; that mercury is an immune system suppressor and you see that these autistic children have a truckload of immune problems. So you would prevent that from occurring. That is documented research and I don’t know how the government can even ignore it, or the agencies of the government can ignore it.
       Now the other thing, there was a paper that came out from the University of California at Davis just recently showing that very low levels of Thimerosal inhibited dendritic cell development that’s important in brain and the immune system development, and this was at amazingly low concentrations. This again, while you can’t do the experiment on the child, it does show that toxicity of Thimerosal is much, much lower than what the “experts” from Rochester and other places like that suggest that it was by looking at the death of certain cells. They did not look at depletion of the immune system. They did not look at depletion of your ability to excrete other toxins such as indicated by the inhibition of porphyrin profiles. They have only looked at death. Death is not a good endpoint for looking at toxicity because these autistic children aren’t dying; they’re being damaged. You can have damage done at much, much lower concentrations than where death is induced.
     So we need to take this methylmercury/ethylmercury argument that they throw out there in context. They’re talking about significant damage that you can see with a microscope, and the rest of us are talking about damage you only see in the resulting child who has immune problems, “mental” [cognitive] problems, and numerous other problems. So I think that the biological case against Thimerosal is so dramatically overwhelming anymore that only a very foolish or a very dishonest person with the credentials to understand this research would say that Thimerosal wasn’t most likely the cause of autism.
Any child that is lead toxic or has a burden of lead will be much more susceptible to mercury toxicity than one who is totally free of lead. Again, that’s something that’s been known for 30 or more years. And again, the people on the opposing side totally ignore that factor, yet in the paper – the newspaper – day after day we see reports of lead toxicity of children in specifically the eastern cities where the lead paint is still on the old houses and in the ground, and wherever they’re getting it. I mean multiple things… Maybe in the pipes that they’re drinking water from. If you have a lead toxic child who might survive and might be capable of developing a good I.Q., if you take that lead toxic child and give him an exposure to mercury, you could cause him severe problems—quite different than a child who’s not lead toxic. Also, it’s not only those children, but those who are on antibiotics are much more susceptible to all types of mercury toxicity, because antibiotics have been shown in experiments with rats to prevent the excretion of mercury. So, it builds up in the bodies of these children.
     The same thing with diets: milk diets increase the retention of mercury in the bodies of children. This is a well-published fact. So with all of these things, the diet, the antibiotics and what we call synergistic toxicity of the exposure to other heavy metals, which is rampant in this country—it’s all over the place—I mean lead exposures, arsenic exposures, cadmium exposures that we can’t even explain where they come from, or even copper—we have to consider that that toxic profile; we’re taking on top of that and purposely injecting mercury in these children. We’re not giving them much of a chance, and I think we need to get politically active about this and make laws to stop it. Interview of Dr. Boyd E. Haley by Teri Small:

You know, I’m not suggesting that. I am absolutely accusing them of that, because I’ve seen it happen. For example, this was done at the University of Kentucky where I’m located, and they did a study and they published it in the Journal of the American Dental Association: a study that was earlier rejected by the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New Eng-land Journal of Medicine. So they published it in the Journal of the American Dental Association, which isn’t a refereed journal… which isn’t a journal that would normally address neurology or Alzheimer’s disease at all. I mean they’re not competent to review research in this area. Dentists don’t know neuro-chemistry. Then they called a press conference and announced the release. What they actually did report in this JADA study was that they couldn’t find increased mercury level in people who had huge numbers of amalgam fillings. It is the only study that’s ever said that, that you can have a large number of amalgam fillings and they couldn’t find elevated mercury in these subjects, any elevation of mercury even though they were massively exposed to mercury versus those that weren’t being ex-posed at all. So, they found no differences. They didn’t find that amalgams weren’t correlated. They didn’t find amalgams were correlated or not correlated to anything. In my opinion, it was the assumptions made in the dental amalgam indexing that ob-fuscated the final analysis.
         So again, it’s the construction of confusion by these people by publishing papers that are poorly done, poorly designed, and give them the answer they want which is, “We didn’t find any-thing wrong, therefore everything is okay.” It’s that old saying you know, “Absence of proof, isn’t proof of absence,” and they try to modify that and say, “Well, if we don’t find anything, we can still say it’s safe.” That’s exactly what they do. The study that was negative, they couldn’t find anything. The only people in the world who ever did a study to show that there was no correlation between mercury, blood or body burden and amal-gams, and then announced it saying, “Therefore amalgams have nothing to do with Alzheimer’s disease.” Interview of Dr. Boyd E. Haley by Teri Small:

Look, over the 90% of the mercury – and this is on an average person with four or five amalgam fillings – over 90% of the mercury in the bodies of mothers who give birth to autistic children, and in the blood of not only the mother but anybody else that has amalgam fillings, it comes from their dental amalgams. And yet our government will absolutely – and when I say ‘our government’ I mean the dental branch of the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Dental Research – will do everything they can to protect and defend the use of amalgam fillings and to keep this data from being known to the American public.
          For example, there is a children’s amalgam study that was done on four children on the East coast and children in Lisbon, Portugal. It was funded by the National Institutes of Dental and Cranial Facial Research, put in the hands and under the control of dentists who said the objective of the thing is to show that amalgams are safe for children. Not to test whether or not they’re safe or not, but to show it. So they’ve done this study, and they’re going to report on it in the next few months. And they’re going to find out they couldn’t find anything wrong. But the one thing is, all they did was measure urine and hair and blood mercury levels at the most. They didn’t look at fecal levels where 90% or plus of the mercury is excreted, so they’re going to say they didn’t see much mercury in these children, probably. They didn’t do the porphyrin profiles. That’s what was needed to be done to show if a physiological system in the child was being damaged. They’re looking at things where you don’t find anything different.
     Again, it’s symptomatic of that Danish study where you did a Thimerosal causal on a population that doesn’t have an autism epidemic, and you find nothing. So this is, again, it’s part of the government; look where you won’t find anything and when you don’t find anything, then sell it to the American public because if, “Well, if we didn’t find anything therefore it’s safe.” And you’re going to see that come out and that is done by taxpayer dollars and people ought to be extremely mad about it.
Interview of Dr. Boyd E. Haley by Teri Small: