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
Extracts:
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: