Treating Mercury Toxicity With Emeramide:
A Special Interview With Dr. Boyd Haley
By Dr. Joseph Mercola
JM: Dr. Joseph Mercola
BH: Dr. Boyd Haley
JM: Welcome, everyone. This is Dr. Mercola, helping you take control of your health. Today I’minterviewing Dr. Boyd Haley, who is a pioneer in a variety of areas, but specifically in developing
chemicals to chelate toxic metals from our environment and us personally. I’m at the Academy ofComprehensive Integrative Medicine (ACIM) 2018 Conference in Orlando. It’s an unbelievable
event. I’m just surprised that I haven’t seen Dr. Haley for many years. He’s going to share his story
in a moment, but it’s going to be a real treat. Welcome and thank you for joining us today.
BH: My pleasure.
JM: I’m so glad we can talk. Most people watching this probably haven’t seen or heard of you, so
if you could give a simple description of your training, what you’ve been doing and what you’vebeen up to recently.
BH: I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and biochemistry. I did a lot of research. I was funded by the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) for 25 straight years at the University of Wyoming and at the
University of Kentucky. In my early years, I developed a very elegant biochemical modern
detection system called nucleotide photoaffinity labeling.
JM: Wait, wait. Nucleotide Photo—
BH: – Affinity labelling.
JM: Photoaffinity labeling.
BH: It’s kind of Star Wars biochemistry.
JM: Okay.
BH: What it does –JM: Is it the nucleotides in DNA or –?
BH: Yeah, nucleotides like adenosine triphosphate (ATP). What I did was everybody would
understand ATP, I think. I took ATP and I made it radioactive, which isn’t any big feat. But thenI attached to that a molecule that would explode when it hit a photon of light.
JM: Wow. That’s interesting.

BH: And when it exploded, it made a very reactive intermediate that had a half-life of something
like 10-12 or 10-13 seconds. What it’ll do is if ATP was bound to a protein, such as sodium potassium
ATP, if you would shine a light on it, because a compound would work just like ATP without light,
if you hit it with light, it would form a covalent bond at the binding site of ATP on the enzyme it
was interacting with.
You could go through. The real power of the compound was to, say, something like normal tissue
in cancer, like in breast cancer, it changes. The nucleotide-binding proteins change. Its cellschanges from a normal cell to a cancer cell. You could use these kinds of probes to see thedifference between the ATP, guanosine diphosphate (GDP), cyclic adenosine monophosphate(AMP) and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH), all these binding proteins, to see how theenergetics of the cell was changing. NIH was very –JM: You did that for 18 years? They funded your research?
BH: Twenty-five.
JM: Twenty-five years. I’m sorry.
BH: Straight, with the same title.
JM: Wow.
BH: And then I had a graduate student when I moved to the University of Kentucky, and then I
went to work in the Alzheimer’s Center, a research center for Alzheimer’s disease. She came backand told me they had no idea what caused Alzheimer’s disease.
JM: They still don’t.
BH: Well, yes, they do.
JM: Well, the conventional guys.
BH: They say they still don’t know, but you’ve got to not read the literature to avoid it. And sowhat I did was I set up a collaboration with this ex-graduate student of mine, who is a post-doc in
the Alzheimer’s Research Center. We got under this study. We were funded for five years by NIH,
because we decided to use my technology to see the difference between a normal brain, ATP, GDPand cyclic AMP binding proteins versus Alzheimer’s disease.
There were dramatic differences. I mean in Alzheimer’s disease, there were several enzymes. I
mean like, creatine kinase is a very fundamental enzyme. It’s 98 percent inhibited in Alzheimer’s
disease. We showed that in my laboratory.
JM: Wow.

BH: And then we also found out that the tubulin, the major brain protein that holds an axon in its
extended form and directs the direction that the axons will grow and the dendrites will go, has over
80 percent loss of activity, GDP-binding activity in Alzheimer’s disease, not in Pick’s disease or
any other dementia, only in Alzheimer’s disease. Everybody accepts that. Nobody says that’s
wrong, because that’s good, solid biochemistry.
However, where I got into trouble with NIH, and everybody else it would seem like, was when I
decided – I read a book in the Alzheimer's Association Green-Field Library. It was where theylooked at 200 sets of identical twins from World War II. They talked about which diseases were
genetically inherited, and which ones inherited a tendency to get the disease, versus those who had
no correlation at all. Alzheimer’s disease fit in the second. They’re susceptible to something, but
not all of identical twins got Alzheimer’s disease or at the same rate.
I went back. At that time, people were saying that maybe it was aluminum causing Alzheimer’s.
That was a proposal by a very prominent Alzheimer’s researcher at that time. I just thought I would
just take my technology, which I could do, [inaudible 05:17]. I could take a normal brain and add
stuff to it and say, “Would this make this brain lose all of the biochemical or develop thebiochemical abnormalities that you would find in Alzheimer’s disease?”
I screened all the heavy metals because of the aluminum concept. Not my idea, because I was a
novice in Alzheimer’s disease at that time. What we found was very dramatic – mercury and only
mercury, and at very, very low levels, would cause a normal brain homogenate to have the same
biochemical abnormalities that you found in Alzheimer’s disease. That has been followed up.
Today, right now, there are six major things. One, the abnormal tubulin, polymerization and
Alzheimer’s disease is only caused by mercury, at the levels that you would expect to find in thebrain, as opposed if you took out – What it does is the synaptic clefts disappear. You form
neurofibrillary tangles, which are the major diagnostic hallmark visually that people used to say,“This person died with Alzheimer’s disease.”
And the tau protein. Tau protein, the hyperphosphorylation of tau is a protein that connects tubulin
to the neurofibrils, which form the neurofibrillary tangles. There’s a direct connection between tau
and those things. They have found that mercury causes the abnormal hyperphosphorylation of tau.
JM: How does the tau relate to the beta-amyloid?
BH: Well, it doesn’t.
JM: Okay.
BH: It just does another thing.
JM: Another thing.

BH: That was the last one we had to do, because people would say, “What’s the beta-amyloid?” I
was always kind of shouted down by people. I said, “Beta-amyloid is not the cause of
Alzheimer’s.”
JM: No, no. It’s just a marker.
BH: It was. It’s a result of the disease.
JM: Yeah, yeah.
BH: That’s what has come out. In South Korea, about three years ago, they published a study.
JM: Because if you actually go and try to eliminate the beta-amyloid, you’re not doing much for
the Alzheimer’s.
BH: But beta-amyloid builds up in Alzheimer’s brain. You can cause that to happen by treatingneurological cells, neurons, with mercury. What happens is mercury inhibits the expression of
neprilysin, which is the main protease in the brain that’s used to chew up beta-amyloid. Mercury
doesn’t affect beta-amyloid, but what it does do is it keeps –JM: The clean-up mechanism.
BH: It keeps the protease, the clean-up enzyme, from being expressed. If you give mercury at low
levels, very low levels, to tissues that are going to live for a while, you’ll see a buildup of betaamyloid protein.
JM: Yeah.
BH: The bottom line is 6 out of 6 of the major biochemical abnormalities and pathologicalhallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease can be stimulated by adding mercury. I can tell you that was
something that NIH, or the people who run NIH at the very top, did not want to hear.
JM: Now, I’ve interviewed Dr. Dale Bredesen before. He’s an MD. I think he’s a Ph.D. too. Are
you familiar with his work?
BH: Yes.
JM: I think he’s classified Alzheimer’s into several subtypes, toxic being one, which would fall
into the category of the mercury exposure. I think inflammatory – I forget the others. But if you
looked into his work, do the other categories have the characteristics of the brain markers that you
just described?
BH: Yes. Because that’s how – I mean Alzheimer’s disease is a tautology. I mean if you’redemented, how do they know you have Alzheimer’s disease? They don’t know until they look at
your brain.

JM: Right. Well, definitively.
BH: Yeah. I mean, yeah. But you have to have neurofibrillary tangles and beta-amyloid plaquesand hyperphosphorylation of tau. That’s what they teach medical students. If you die with that,you have Alzheimer’s disease. If you’re demented, this could mean you don’t have those factors,
you died of something else. Pick’s disease could be somewhat similar to that. It does not havethose factors.
The bottom line is – The Alzheimer’s researchers do not – or I should say they, because there area lot of good people in the pile of people. But the NIH does not want, because that was their big
plus. They said beta-amyloid is the cause of Alzheimer’s disease. That made them heroes. They
found the cause, so now they would find the cure, which they couldn’t cure by treating that. But
they don’t want to look at it being something simple. There’s no money to be made if you tellpeople. If you don’t want to get Alzheimer’s disease, don’t expose yourself to mercury.
[-----10:00-----]JM: Yeah.
BH: Mercury is not the only cause. I would never say that, and I never did say that. I said, “Mercury
is the major exacerbating factor because we put dental amalgams in our mouth, and the major
exposure, the source of mercury in our body, comes from them amalgams, according to the World
Health Organization (WHO).” And so you look at this and it all makes sense. The first case of
Alzheimer’s disease – And you’ve seen Alzheimer’s disease pictures of the brain. It’s hard to missfrom a normal brain.
JM: True.
BH: There’s not much like that. And we saw it in 1903. We started putting amalgam fillings inpeople’s mouths in America in about the 1850s.
JM: The Civil War, right? Or before the Civil War?
BH: Yeah.
JM: We’re still doing it. But we’re making progress in getting it out. It’s in the process of being
banned, thankfully. We’re representing Charlie Brown.
BH: [inaudible 10:41] for a long time.
JM: Yeah. So these delineations, characterization of Alzheimer’s through the markers that you
just described. When did you do that research? When was that completed?
BH: That would be about 1988.
JM: ’88, so 30 years ago.

BH: Yeah. I’ve never been invited to an Alzheimer’s conference to talk and present my ideas.
What really frustrates me is that when I published this in a book that was edited in Germany –because they were very curious about this – we proposed that at that time that the Apolipoprotein
E (ApoE), explaining the ApoE. I was the first person to do that. Because when I first heard theApoE2, 3 and 4, the risk factors involved, I meekly went to the protein database and looked up the
structures of those proteins and what was different.
The big difference was that you have two cysteines on the surface of ApoE2. If you inherit two
copies of that, you’ll never get Alzheimer’s disease. You’ll die of something else before you’reever in your 90s. But if you get two copies of E4, both those cysteines have been replaced withtyrosine.
JM: These are all the amino acids?
BH: Yeah. These are amino acids on the structure. But the bottom line is that ApoE2, it leaves thebrain carrying cholesterol, oxidized cholesterol, which is its major functional job. It’s ahousekeeping protein. It’s taking debris out of the brain, into the cerebral spinal fluid, into theblood, to be excreted in the –JM: And the cysteine amino acid on E2 obviously can bind to mercury pretty effectively, whereas
the tyrosine can’t bind at all.
BH: It can’t do it at all.
JM: Yeah.
BH: I proposed that. You would think that since they can’t explain it, that that would besomewhere on the list of the discussion. Is it possible that this ApoE2 is carrying out mercury?
Whereas the ApoE4 can’t do it. What it does is it allows the mercury to buildup in the brain. Thatcauses the problems that we see.
JM: So towards the end of the ‘80s, you had done this characterization and developed some models
on how you could assess Alzheimer’s. Can you describe your progress into the next step, which isactually developing therapeutic interventions that could address this, in either prevention or
actually treatment?
BH: Yes. The real problem that I had as a chemist, Alzheimer’s disease is associated with oxidative
stress. Mercury is not a redox metal. They can’t make hydroxyl free radicals. But what mercury
absolutely does do is it displaces iron and kaempferol for the natural binding proteins that are in
the brain.
JM: Interesting.
BH: When it releases that iron – and it does it slowly over minimal dose. We’re not talking aboutsomething that happens to you right away. Although it can happen if you take it in huge amounts.

JM: Sure.
BH: It would do that a lot better.
JM: Yeah.
BH: But when mercury displaces iron, it stops ATP production in that electron transport system.
JM: Through degeneration of hydroxyl free radicals through the Fenton reaction or?
BH: The electrons going down, the electron transport system are the major ones that makesuperoxide anion that moves the hydrogen peroxide that’s used to make hydroxyl free radicals.
When you block that electron transmitter, that doesn’t keep in antidiuretic hormone (ADH) fromcoming into the end and donating an electron to that system. So you get an overabundance ofelectrons that can’t go out and be converted into ATP and water.
JM: So the mercury is blocking the cytochromes?
BH: Yes. And when it does that –JM: It’s by attaching to them?
BH: It does that by displacing iron from the iron sulfur centers.
JM: Okay. So, iron is important for the cytochromes. I mean they require iron to work.
BH: And mercury will displace iron from about any site, because that much higher energy forsulfur.
JM: They have the same valence, electrical valence.
BH: And the same size.
JM: Yeah.
BH: There are publications now showing that mercury exposure totally screws up the metabolism
of iron in the body. If you look at the data – I’ll talk about it.
JM: Interesting. Would it be – Dr. Haley’s actually speaking at this conference and presenting his
findings tomorrow. It would seem that if a person had high iron levels, that this might even be
worse if they had hemochromatosis, for example. Did you notice that when you compiled yourdata? Because if that’s your proposed mechanism, the displacement of the iron, if you havepreexisting iron levels, it’s going to be bad.
BH: I’m working toward chelating toxic metals. Free iron is a very toxic metal.

JM: Okay.
BH: Everyone knows that. Free copper is too, Wilson’s disease, hemochromatosis and some of
the iron overload diseases. The interesting thing about our compound on the laboratory vantage is
if you have iron or mercury in the test tube in water, in the buffer, and you add NBMI dissolvedin an organic methanol or ethanol, it’ll precipitate all of the iron or the mercury. It takes it all out.
It binds them both very, very tightly. It binds mercury tighter than iron. But it will actually chelateiron.
We’ve done this on animal models called an H67D. We paid to have this done. My company did.
This was done on – I think it’s for hemochromatosis, but it might be for anything else. But this rat
model has the same genetic modification issues seen in people with hemochromatosis. They build
up iron in their body to the point where they become demented, and then they lose the functionalityof their limbs, and then they die. When we give these rats NBMI and take them out and then lookat them – You can take them out and you can measure it.
JM: What’s NBMI?
BH: That’s my drug.
JM: Okay. Emeramide.
BH: That’s the new chelator.
JM: This is really useful information, but I think you just kind of jumped up about a few decades.
I wanted to go back in history and kind of have you explain your process of identifying the chelator
to remove heavy metals, to block and prevent or treat Alzheimer’s. Maybe you can walk us up to
the point where you’re using the NBMI now.
BH: Okay.
JM: Because there’s a long history. In that history, you were vilified and really took a brunt fromthe federal regulatory agencies for developing this absolutely unfairly.
BH: It was the lack of help from them as well. I didn’t mind them coming in and questioning me.
In fact, I would have appreciated some interaction with them. But they didn’t do that. They justcame in my lab nine days and shut me down. They took everything and treated me like I was
making cocaine.
JM: Yeah. But let’s get up to that point where you developed this and how you came to the process.
Because you really have a brilliant innovation. It has great potential to help so many people withneurodegenerative diseases.
BH: With the Alzheimer’s disease finding and publication, I published all that. I mean this was
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

JM: For those who don’t know, that’s like one of the most prestigious research journals.
BH: Yeah. It’s hard to get in there.
JM: Yeah.
BH: But anyway, I got recognition from the International Academy of Oral Medicine andToxicology (IAOMT), mainly because I published it and said, “It mimics. It causes. It would be
an exacerbating factor for Alzheimer’s disease.” I didn’t grandstand and say, “I have found thecause of all Alzheimer’s.” I said, “If you’re going to cross that thin red line and become demented
with Alzheimer’s-type dementia, you should not have amalgam fillings and exposure to mercury,when they eat fish and everything.”
JM: No.
BH: “Because that seems to be the exacerbating factor.”
JM: Yeah. Fish that are loaded with mercury, because not all fish are.
BH: I’m definitely a fish eater.
JM: Yeah.
BH: I didn’t mean that. I came across the wrong way. But anyway, so I started going on. I was
invited to give a talk to the IAOMT. I thought they were a group of toxicologists.
JM: They didn’t realize you were a biological dentist.
BH: They had a biological dentist. They didn’t know a thing about that I said. Except at the very
end, I got the idea that I thought mercury was a bad thing to have in your body.
JM: Yeah, yeah.
BH: Anyway, that got me started.
JM: What year was that?
BH: That would be about 1990.
JM: 1990. Okay.
BH: 1992. But anyway, that got me involved in doing mercury toxicity, because they said, “Themamalgams are toxic,” and I did not believe them.
JM: They were skeptic.

BH: Very much so.
JM: Did you have some yourself?
BH: Oh, yeah. I had three. I had a wife who had a lot more. She had a lot of medical problems too.
I didn’t believe them. They took me to a doctor, Dr. David Kennedy. They took me around with amercury vapor analyzer, which I knew what that was.
JM: Sure.
BH: He was showing me –JM: You knew from the lab work that you were doing.
BH: Pardon?
JM: You knew from the lab work about that.
BH: Sure.
JM: Okay.
BH: Anyway, they tested people and they showed that if they have amalgam fillings and if you
chewed them, your mercury went up. I still didn’t believe them because I thought maybe they had
a trick machine.
JM: Yeah, yeah. Sure.
[-----20:00-----]

BH: I went home to my laboratory. I was chairman of chemistry at that time, at the University of
Kentucky. I got the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to give me theirmercury vapor analyzer. I went around checking students, secretaries and everybody who had
amalgam fillings. It was amazing.
I called them back and said, “You were right. They would shut down my laboratory if they hadthat much mercury as I was finding in the mouths of some people.” I remember one young lady
who had – Her dad must have been a dentist, because she had a mouthful. She must have had every
jowl tooth filled with an amalgam filling. Her friends started calling her “metal mouth.” Shepeaked the meter when she chewed the gum. It was just horrible.
JM: Alright. Folks, this is a little interjection. This is pearl number 1. If you or someone you lovehas mercury fillings, still has those silver fillings in their mouth, get them out. I mean, here wehave an objective measurement showing massive release of mercury from a skeptic who did not
believe this and went out to disprove it.

BH: I did not think, and I told them that. I said, “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) andthe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would not allow you to put something inyour mouth that put out toxic levels of mercury.”
JM: Yeah. That’s what you believed. Yeah.
BH: I believed them totally. I just said, “I grew up most of my life being a university scientist or
professor.”
JM: Sure. A crucial research scientist.
BH: And now I’m a libertarian. I mean our farmers; our medical authorities have all been capturedby –JM: We’ll get there. I want you to continue the story. It’s 1992. You’ve done this [inaudible 21:31]
on mercury vapor. You’re convinced. You’ve converted from being a skeptic to actually being acrusader of that, “This is toxic. We’ve got to get these out of the people’s mouths.”
BH: I did lots of studies. I even had – We did an IAOMT-funded study they had dentists. I madelittle plastic containers where they could look like cavities and send them out to dentists. They
would fill them up. They were all alike, all the same size, same diameter, same depth. We would
have different dentists fill them with different dental materials, different amalgams from different
sources, and then we brought them in. We let them set for a while, because initially they were sohigh in the mercury release that we couldn’t put them on the machine.
JM: They peaked the meter.
BH: They peaked the meter up.
JM: Yeah.
BH: And so we let them set for about two months, and then we went back. We measured theamount of mercury that was coming off when they had levelled off. What we found was thatdifferent dispersal alloy – they all have different brand names – they all released different amountsof mercury, and it made a big difference to what dentists packed them in, because I think thepressure on packing makes the release come out a little faster or a little different because the samebrand given to three different dentists would release different amounts of mercury. But they all
released the same amount. We didn’t just test them out one day. We test them over a long periodof time.
JM: Sure.
BH: What we showed was that there was no doubt that amalgams released quite a bit of mercury.
At that time, I thought, “This will be easy. We’ll just show this to the FDA and they’ll change.”
JM: Or the American Dental Association (ADA).

BH: Not only – The ADA never talks to me.
JM: Yeah.
BH: I mean, you say amalgams are bad, and they just don’t talk to you. “You’re wrong.” They
don’t want to hear what you have to say. They don’t want to look at the science. I think, reallybasically, they’re the major problem of mercury issues that are costing the United States from the
ADA, because they don’t look at anything, honestly, about mercury.
JM: Yeah. But fortunately it’s changing, because the U.S. signed the treaty in the U.S. to ban theuse of mercury in amalgams. Many other countries have adopted this and are beginning to
implement it. It’s a big change. We still are left with the ravages that have really devastated somany people, and even younger people. They still have them. Why don’t you tell us how you came
– So you recognized this as a problem, and you realized that there’s an opportunity here, not an
opportunity, but a need to have something that effectively removes this from the body, I would
assume. Tell us about that story.
BH: That story is kind of a circular thing. First of all, a group of military pilots, they came to me
and said, “Would you come with us to the Pentagon to talk to the general of the Air Force? Because
we’re having all these people die of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)-type symptoms based on
the fact that they served in the Gulf War I.” I went there. I would say their names. I know themreasonably well, but I don’t have their permission. But they took me and I met General Mike Ryan.
I went there one time. I talked to him and I told him this thing about amalgams. He had his Surgeon
General from the Air Force there. He and I got into a mild disagreement.
He kept saying, “The thing is, all this stuff is bull crap.” I kept saying – At that time people weretalking about autism. One of the officers there brought that up. I didn’t know anything about autismat that time. I said, “Where are all the older autistics? If this is not an issue or a real problem, where
are the older ones?” He didn’t have an answer for that.
Later, I went back a second time with the same group. General Ryan had several medical doctors.
They had medical people from the marines and the army. They gave me a good working offer. But
it was not hard. They asked fair questions, and I could tell that they were basically concerned about
the fact. This all goes back to when I was a young soldier.
JM: Which branch of the military did you serve?
BH: I was in the military. I was a medic in the U.S. Army.
JM: U.S. Army. Okay.
BH: I was a private. I mean it wasn’t like something I wanted to go and spend my life. But I also
had a degree in chemistry at that time. But anyway, you walk through the line. They give you, withthe air guns, about nine shots. I don’t know. I’ve got it on my medical records. All I could tell you

is that I got sick as a dog. I was put into a dispensary with a swirl of other people who were equally
sick. Some of us got over it and went back into training cycle, some didn’t.
But I do remember that vaccines can make you sick, because that’s all I’ve read. Up to that point,
I never had a sick day hardly in my life. I remember that. I remembered that and that really stuckin my mind. When I read an article – I think it was published in the Townsend Letter – Saying you
didn’t have to go to the Gulf War to get Gulf War syndrome. All you had to do was get vaccinated.
That’s what this whole thing – I mean I’m getting all of this in totally proper order.
But that’s what came out of that discussion with the general, because there was a person there andhe’s now dead, who went with us. He had ALS and also developed cancer. He was a very healthy
person. They said there were several people who were navy pilots. They never landed in the Gulf,
but they got a lot of shots, because if they got shot down, they had to survive.
JM: And so the connection with the vaccines would be the preservative. Mercury is thimerosal?
BH: That was in my head. If there’s something in there that’s causing it. But I didn’t say that. I
wasn’t the one that found out about the Gulf War I syndrome being related to the vaccines, because
you could get the vaccines, get the Gulf Syndrome and never go into the Gulf at all.
JM: Yeah.
BH: That’s was the thing. But anyway, that got out to some group of people. At that time, I didn’tknow anything about the autism problem. But then I got a phone call from a group called Cure
Autism Now in Louisville, Kentucky.
They asked me to come over and talk to them about what I knew about thimerosal and why I knew
a lot about thimerosal. It was after I graduated from – when I got my Ph.D. and my postdoc finishedat Yale, I went to the University of Wyoming. I’m very much an outdoorsman. I do a lot of hunting
and fishing. I did that and skiing. I wanted to get rid of these glasses, because they get in your way
when you’re hot and cold and breathing. It’s just not a good thing to have.
I went to get contact lenses. When that lady put the contact lens solution in my eyes, it’s like she
added battery acid to my eyes. They just turned bright red. They would do it today. If somebody
pays me enough, I’ll let them do it, and show them how. Because you could be incredibly sensitive.
This is the kind of stuff that everyone else uses.
JM: And thimerosal is in these contact lens solutions as a preservative?
BH: That’s what they told me.
JM: Yeah.
BH: The optometrist, she said, “Oh my, you really have sensitive eyes.” I said, “What’s in there?”She said, “Well, you’ll have to make your own contact lens solution.” And I did that. You put thatlittle salt tablet in the thing and you heated them up, and you didn’t have thimerosal in it, becauseyou couldn’t preserve it. But it’s thimerosal. Being curious, I went back to my lab and opened up
the PDR and looked at thimerosal. I thought, who in the world would put that in anybody? I mean
that’s a toxic-looking compound.
JM: Well, it kills the bugs.
BH: Yeah. It sure does.
JM: It can kill you.
BH: It kills everything,JM: Yeah, yeah.
BH: I had that locked in the back of my mind, just knowing that thimerosal was something. I never
took a flu shot.
JM: We’re talking early ‘90s now still?
BH: No. This would be 1974.
JM: Oh, ’74. So, you went back.
BH: That’s when I wanted to get contact lenses. But then going there, I kept telling them, “Look,
I know the stuff they put in vaccines is in there,” because in 1977, there was a report from Toronto
Hospital, where they treated children with mercury, painting their umbilical region withmerthiolate or mercurochrome, which is a thimerosal preservative, to kill the bacteria on the skin.
[-----30:00-----]

JM: I think it’s not sold anymore. I think it’s banned.
BH: No, no. But the reason they don’t sell them anymore is because of this study done in Toronto.
It wasn’t a study done. It was just the result of the death of 10 children out of 13 who were treatedfor umbilical cord infections in this one hospital. They went back and they pulled out the organs
that they had done from autopsy. They found out that they were extremely mercury-toxic. In otherwords, thimerosal, when you put it on the skin, immediately –JM: Mercury?
BH: Thimerosal releases ethyl mercury.
JM: But in the study, they weren’t putting thimerosal. They were using probably mercurochrome–
BH: No, they were using thimerosal.

JM: They were using thimerosal?
BH: That’s what they say. Yes. It was in the tinctures called merthiolate.
JM: Yeah. Merthiolate. Merthiolate is thimerosal.
BH: As a result of that study that was done in 1977 and 1978, the FDA outlawed the use ofthimerosal.
HM: As merthiolate.
BH: As merthiolate.
JM: Yeah.
BH: And then go up to 1988, that’s when the CDC decided that it was a proper preservative to put
in vaccines to give the children on the day of birth. You understand, what that study showed – notthat study, but that report – showed is that infants cannot get rid of ethyl mercury. I mean organic
mercury is really lethal to the infants. They have no way of getting rid of it.
And I know that for a fact because as an adolescent, I was raised in a farm. Merthiolate was inevery medicine cabinet in every farm. How many times with a bale of hay or doing something did
you get scratched? You go paint it with merthiolate, and it didn’t kill anybody. But I’m talking
about – I started doing it probably when I was 10 to 12 years old. And yet you put it on babies,
infants and it kills most of them. This is something that’s super sensitive to infants.
JM: Yeah.
BH: It’s very disgusting to me that our CDC has yet to fund a study to say, “What is the sensitivityof infants to thimerosal?” “What is the difference between the health status of children who are
not vaccinated versus children who are fully vaccinated?”
JM:You pretty well-established the concern about the danger and the toxicity of mercury
exposure, whether it’s through thimerosal, mercury fillings or fish that are loaded with mercury.
You’ve had this knowledge base. I’m wondering what your process was to develop an antidote tothis.
BH: You know, the problem was I would go to these IAOMT meetings. I was asked to give a lotof talks at the autism conferences. I met a lot of people. Their stories were just so consistent. A lotof their problems were caused by exposure to mercury.
And then at the same time I’m talking to people saying, “How do we treat this?” “Well, you givethem dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) or 2,3-Dimercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid (DMPS).” And
then there will always be somebody in the group [inaudible 32:49] saying, “Oh, I can’t take that.
It just kills my kidneys.” And so when I started reading, I realized DMPS and DMSA were
invented in World War II, not to treat humans, but to get mercury out of water and stuff like thatand for other properties. They were developed by the Germans and the Russians in the World War
II war effort. And then I started looking at it and there was nothing about the chemistry that mademe feel comfortable. In other words, DMPS and DMSA both have thiols on adjacent carbons.
JM: Thiol, for those who aren’t chemists, is sulfur.
BH: Sulfur. Yeah. And sulfurs are big. You look at them and – They always draw pictures of theone mercury atom being bound by DMPS or DMSA. It can’t do it, because, stereo chemically,
there’s not enough room between a carbon-carbon bond. I mean that’s not nearly half the diameterof a mercury atom. It can’t fit. That’s been proven by other researchers, done by some people in
Canada, that DMSA and DMPS are not true chelators. They form a sandwich complex. In otherwords, if you have mercury, you’ll have two DMSAs attached to it, not one.
JM: Interesting.
BH: What that means to a chemist is that one sulfur bond is much more liable for an exchange.
Say, if you’re taking DMSA out through the kidneys, it gets into the kidneys and goes through theblood and the kidneys. It releases that one DMSA and replaces it with a more reactive thiol that’s
on a protein in the kidney. That’s exactly what happens if you take rats and make them moderately
mercury-toxic, and treat them with DMSA, you can kill them because you translocate the mercury
from the blood and other organs and concentrate it in the kidney, and they die of renal failure.
JM: Interesting.
BH: That’s the reason why DMSA should not be used.
JM: Ever, from your perspective.
BH: No, I mean it’s the best thing the doctors have had.
JM: Because it’s being used now quite a bit in natural medicine physicians.
BH: I know. Those people don’t like me that much.
JM: DMSA and DDT have the same fillings for DMPS?
BH: Yes. It’s the same thing. They both have thiols on adjacent carbons. They both form sandwich
complexes. They’re both negatively charged. The mercury that makes you sick isn’t in your blood.
Not most of them. Most of it’s inside your cells. DMPS and DMSA don’t enter the cells. They
only take mercury out of the plasma.
JM: And you came to that conclusion after studying it.
BH: Yeah. Looking at it.
JM: Just as a chemist. I mean it was obvious to you.

BH: As a biochemist.
JM: Yeah.
BH: Somebody who knew the membrane and reading the papers. It wasn’t just all in my mind. I
was reading a lot of papers about it, from people who were chelation experts. Well, they’re missing
the point. This doesn’t even get into where the problem is. I initially developed the idea that I had
to have a hydrophobic chelator that would get into the mitochondria, into the DNA.
JM: Not only into the cell, but then into the outer and the inner mitochondrial membrane?
BH: Yes. Absolutely.
JM: Does it go into the nucleus too? I would assume.
BH: Yeah. I think it does. Because it’s very hydrophobic. That’s the reason mercury’s so toxic.
Mercury is hydrophobic. It’s uncharged. It’s a gas. It goes through the biomembrane. You have tohave a chelator that does the same thing.
JM: Mercury is a gas in the body? It’s not ions floating around?
BH: No, no. It starts out as a gas. It goes in as Hg0 when you breathe mercury vapor.
JM: Okay.
BH: And then it goes wherever it wants.
JM: This is from your amalgams.
BH: Yeah.
JM: But if you’re eating fish, it’s not going to be a gas.
BH: No. Then it will be methyl mercury, but it’s the same thing. Methyl mercury is also
membrane-permeable. It goes right through membranes because it binds. It’s CH3Hg+. But if it’s
the blood, there’s a high level of chloride, and chloride binds that negative charge, so you end up
with some of the Hg methyl mercury in the chloride form that can go right through the membrane
because it’s uncharged.
JM: Okay, yeah.
BH: That’s the reason it gets through the brain so effectively.
JM: It’s interesting. As a chemist, you can understand this. It’s just like second nature to you, butthat really is the core of understanding how you get molecules inside the cell and into the body.

Because if it has a charge, it’s not going in, unless you have some liposome or something to diffuse
it.
BH: You know enough of that. If you’re trying to treat a brain infection what I’m saying is to get
the –JM: Pass the blood-brain barrier.
BH: You’ve got to get past it. Yes. It’s tough to do. But it’s not a two-way street. I mean you get
something in – I mean, like mercury vapor can cross into the brain. But then in the brain or in any
tissue, it gets converted into Hg2+ by an enzyme called catalase, or somewhere with catalase. And
then it becomes very toxic and is charged, and then it won’t go out.
JM: Does it bind to the proteins in the tissue too?
BH: Yeah.
JM: That’s what I would think. So it’s a covalent bond?
BH: The mercury thiol bond is considered a partial covalent bond according to chemists. Verytight.
JM: Okay, okay.
BH: It’s very difficult to get it off. I mean disodium edetate (EDTA) has a very high affinity formercury. But ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) doesn’t have a high enough affinity to pourmercury off of thiol bonds and proteins.
JM: Interesting.
BH: It can’t do it.
JM: But it’s more designed for lead, I would think.
BH: Yeah. It is. That’s because it’s all oxygen. If you don’t get mercury off of a thiol, you haveto have another thiol, and, preferably, diathiol, like I’ve made.
JM: Okay. Alright. You’re jumping into the future. Continue the journey.
BH: Yeah. Well, anyway. The thing that affected me the most was trying to get the government
to help this one to help them get rid of thimerosal in the vaccines, and not expose babies to mercury
at all. That was hard. I mean it was just like talking to a block of salt.
“Our vaccines are totally safe, and don’t tell us that it’s not.” “I mean how do you say that? I justgot a Ph.D. in chemistry. I’ve been funded by NIH for 20 years. I’ve had a lot of experience. I
think I have an aptitude. When I talk to you guys, you don’t know a damn bit of chemistry.” AndI’m talking about the leaders at the CDC. They know no chemistry. I’m sure there’s somebody inthere with a low level. But the people I talked to, if they knew any chemistry, they kept it a secret.
Anyway, I testified in front of The National Academy of Medicine (Institute of Medicine). The
first time I did in 2002, I said, “If indeed, vaccines cause autism, it’s ethyl mercury.” I gave themthat story about the 1977 study saying that infants don’t excrete mercury very well. They build it
up in their bodies. I published several papers since then proving that. But anyway, I wasn’t having
it. And people were treating these babies with DMPS and DMSA and getting horrible results.
[-----40:00-----]

I don’t know. One night I was sitting at home. I have a daughter who has a Ph.D. in molecularbiology and toxicology. She called me up and she was writing her Ph.D. thesis. She said she founda website that mentioned me, and it wasn’t very complimentary, to say the least. She called me up
and she was kind of sad and teary. It made me angry that I just let those people go and say those
things. But then all of a sudden it was just getting out of more than just my thick skin. I remember
sitting there that night very vividly. I sat down with a glass of red wine, turned the lights on justsat there and said, “How do I win? I can’t out-PR these guys. You cannot out-PR the CDC.”
JM: No, no.
BH: The flu vaccine, right now. There’s a big article out today by the World Mercury Project, theRobert Kennedy site. They were very honest saying, “The flu vaccine doesn’t work, and the CDC
lies about how many people get infected.”
JM: Sure. Well, there’s massive industrial industry lobbying support on the federal regulatory
agencies.
BH: Anyway, that was the night I decided, “I’m a chemist. I make things. I’m going to make abetter chelator.” That’s the only way I went.
JM: Okay. So when you came to that conclusion, that was the motivation to take a different pathand provide a solution rather than try to change it at the core and have the federal regulatory
agencies actually ban this thing.
BH: I mean if you’re back in 1920, you didn’t need a chelator for mercury because nobody was
injecting it in their bodies. It’s all in their mouths. But children, they weren’t very –JM: And it was still early in the industrial revolution, and a lot of coal wasn’t being burnt andreleased in the atmosphere. The coal, as I understand, is loaded with mercury too.
BH: Yeah. Mercury sulfide.
JM: Yeah. It actually was the biggest contribution. Now, I think it’s becoming less so with green
power revolution.
BH: Yeah.

JM: And the decreased reliance on oil.
BH: It was that time I decided, “Well, what it is is that none of these chelators they have areworking.” I sat down and I started thinking. I had all these thoughts. It wasn’t like I just sat down
all of a sudden and a big light went off. But I started working on the problem.
JM: What year was this?
BH: This would be about 2002.
JM: Okay.
BH: I started then, and I wrote a grant. I got some funding to try and make the chelators that would
enter the cells. That was the thing I was set on.
JM: Okay.
BH: Then also, in our graduate program, where I was chairman, there was a guy there, David
Atwood, who was working on getting mercury, collecting the mercury that’s coming from coalfired power plants and other sources, environmental. One of his students made this compound. I
sat on on every graduate student thesis. I saw a compound and I thought, “That’s what I need,because it didn’t work.”
JM: It didn’t work in that application?
BH: Yeah. Because it wasn’t water-soluble. It floated on top of the water. It just didn’t do what it
was supposed to do.
JM: But it was perfect for you, your application.
BH: Yeah. I mean it was there. I started working on it biologically. He was not a biologicalchemist, he didn’t want be a biochemist. I started searching for it. We made a lot of mercury analog
binding compounds somewhere to it, and not knowing which ones. And then it’s [inaudible 43:40]
who knows research. First of all, you say, if you’re going to use a chelator, the first thing it has tobe? Not toxic itself.
JM: Yeah.
BH: I had all these rats set up in Walmart-type cages and everything. And I would inject themwith these compounds and see if it killed them. If it killed them, then it was out of it. To make along story short, it didn’t take us very long to find out what type of compound would work. It had
to be hydrophobic. If it would pass the blood-brain barrier and get in the cells, go through the lipid
bilayers, and it had to be non-toxic.

JM: Yeah. With the basis of your discovery was what the graduate student initially proposed? Or
did you revise that one? Did you use that molecule?
BH: Pardon?
JM: Did you revise the molecule that he had proposed?
BH: I revised the synthesis of it, but not necessarily the molecule. Matter of fact, you can makesimilar molecules similar to mine.
JM: Okay.
BH: Anybody who’s a good chemist could do that. The chemistry of this is not really rocket
science. I mean it’s not that hard.
JM: If you just simplify it so the people understand, because this is a really important innovation.
I mean it really is crucial to a very challenging and pervasive problem.
BH: In doing the search of this compound, we started injecting it into rats, under the flab of theirskin.
JM: Subcutaneous.
BH: I started increasing the dose every day. I’d give them 200 micrograms, micromoles per
kilogram body weight, and then go up to 300, and then to 400 and then to 600. And then finally I
went up to 1,500.
JM: Is this milligrams or micrograms?
BH: Micrograms. Micromoles per kilogram body weight was at that time.
JM: Okay.
BH: It’s not micrograms. But anyway, the thing that I noticed was that the rats that were getting
the chelator, we called them show rats, they developed this nice shiny coat, like a show dog. The
ones that weren’t getting it had this kind of a light yellow grungy shade. They weren’t at allaffected by injecting that compound. We knew we had a compound that wasn’t toxic. We had acompound that if you get near the mercury in the right place, it would bind it irreversibly. Because
that’s the other thing that they showed at the University of Kentucky at the Atwood Laboratory.
It’s that these compounds bound mercury very, very tightly. The difference is with DMSA, it
would be like if I was trying to catch a basketball and I could only move my hands this far apart.
I can’t catch that basketball. With mercury, you’d want to have two bonds to it. What was donewith this compound, what I really liked, was that it had two extended arms. They would cause a
big raise in freedom of rotation.

JM: It binds one, and the other one clamps on its quad, and it doesn’t move. Is it partially covalentbond in that molecule too? Okay.
BH: What it does is if you look at mercury sulfide or cinnabar, it’s all HgS. They write it down as
HgS, like there’s one atom of mercury to one atom of salt. That’s the ratio. If you look at the
cinnabar, or mercury sulfide, it’s a polymer. Add Hg to an S, and add Hg to another S, and so
there’s no such thing in nature probably. It’s just an HgS alone.
JM: Okay.
BH: I mean it doesn’t form. It can’t get around. It’s just the same problem.
JM: So it’s not molecules. It’s mostly polymers.
BH: Yeah. Anyway, this compound, the more I looked at it and the more I read about it and themore we tested it, the more interesting the molecule became. For example, I looked at it and I
thought, “This compound has to be a very good antioxidant.” If you look at it, it looks like it has
two glutathione. Glutathione has an arm with and sulhydryl (SH) on it. That’s why the body uses
it to take mercury out. And so I was very enthralled with the fact that we have this molecule that
had two glutathione-type arms sticking out.
JM: Does glutathione have one SH? Just one?
BH: Just one.
JM: From cysteine?
BH: It forms a sandwich complex like DMPS and DMSA to get mercury out.
JM: But two glutathione molecules to get one mercury molecule.
BH: Yeah.
JM: Okay.
BH: And so I tested it. I had my daughter who had a position at the University of Utah at that time,looking at oxidative stress. She tested it and she said, “Dad, this is a very potent antioxidant.” ThenI thought, “Then nobody’s going to believe my daughter.” So I sent it off to Brunswick
Laboratories and had them check it out for its ORAC score, the oxygen radical absorbancecapacity, which they do for every antioxidant. I found out that something this versatile would be
15,000 per 100 grams. Our compound was something like 200,000 to 300,000 per 100 grams.
Nothing.
JM: What would you think is giving it its antioxidant capacity? Because it doesn’t seem like itwould be an antioxidant. Why is that? I don’t know. I’m missing it.

BH: It has two –JM: Because of the SH?
BH: The two SH.
JM: Just like the glutathione.
BH: Yeah.
JM: Okay.
BH: And glutathione, what it does is it scavenges hydroxyl free radicals.
JM: So it’s scavenging the oxidant molecules.
BH: Yes. It does that.
JM: Okay.
BH: It chelates heavy metals.
JM: I was thinking more of the metals rather than the free radicals.
BH: We’ve tested that, and we’ve showed that it exhibits its antioxidant activity by one moleculeof NBMI. It scavenges three hydroxyl free radicals.
JM: Okay. There’s a slight little tangent. But the thought not too long ago and some people still
hold, which I think is incorrect, is that just giving antioxidants is a good thing, because free radical
damage, you really want to eliminate it. But what’s ignored in that philosophy is that some free
radicals are important biological signaling molecules. If you indiscriminately suppress that signal,
you can cause biological damage.
That’s one of the reasons why I’m so enthralled with using hormetic antioxidants that essentially
activate molecular pathways like Forkhead box O3 (FOXO3a), NRF2, that cause your body tomake these antioxidants when you need them, like superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase andglutathione.
[-----50:00-----]

BH: Myeloperoxidase.
JM: Myeloperoxidase. Right.
BH: That’s one that you’ve got to have.

JM: Yeah. Does this molecule you developed with this strong antioxidant capacity, does it
indiscriminately suppress these free radicals or does it have some type of wisdom to appropriately
seek out the bad guys?
BH: I don’t know what it does.
JM: Okay.
BH: All you do is you test.
JM: Yeah.
BH: And the problem with most antioxidants is they work in the test tube, like resveratrol.
JM: Resveratrol. Yeah.
BH: Why doesn’t it work in the body that well? People say, “Well, it does. It depends on who’s
selling it and how they are made.”
JM: Yeah.
BH: The bottom line is it gets cleared by the kidneys from the blood and it doesn’t get inside thecells very effectively. It’s always been a conundrum of certain people who say, “Why is somethingwith a high ORAC score not always a good antioxidant in the body?”
JM: I don’t know if that’s such a good example, because resveratrol’s primary purpose is used toactivate Sirtuin 1. Sirtuin 1 requires nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) as a cofactor. If
you’re NAD-depleted, which could happen – NAD+ specifically – from a variety of factors, thenit’s not going to work, no matter how much resveratrol. It’s like trying to put a gas pedal on
something when you’re missing an engine or something.
BH: But the only point I’d want to make is that if you look at all the foods that have ORAC scores,
there’s no correlation between the ORAC score and how well they work in the body to elevateyour glutathione levels, because they don’t get inside. It’s just the same thing with chelators.
JM: Yeah. It’s [inaudible 51:37] proves with resveratrol too. It’s not actually really well-absorbed.
There are resveratrol alternatives like pterostilbene that has metal groups that allow it to penetrate
a lot better.
BH: Anyway, when I was writing it, I hired an ex-head of the FDA legal branch. He retired, andhe was working at a law firm in Boston, to help me get NBMI – at that time, we called it NBMI.
It was a chemical abbreviation of the drug, the chemical name of it. Anyway, he told me – He andI were writing this thing to send in to the FDA to try and get off from drug or something like that.
He told me, he said, “Dr. Haley, don’t you realize?” Because I told him about the oxidative stress.
“The FDA doesn’t care about what your compound does. They care about what you claim it does.”JM: Absolutely.
BH: He said, “You can start selling this tomorrow.” I was ready to get it down for the parents ofautistic children, and the autistic children themselves, of course. I just said, “You mean if I justsay this is just an antioxidant –” He said, “Yeah. You can sell it as a food additive, as anantioxidant. Just don’t mention the mercury.”
JM: Yeah. The moment you mention a claim, they’re going to take you to prison.
BH: So I didn’t. Because they were saying there was no mercury in their bodies to start with. I
was going off of what they were saying. And so we sold it for two years as a dietary antioxidant.
JM: And the name of that product at that time?
BH: It was called Oxidative Stress Relief, OSR.
JM: OSR? Okay.
BH: And it worked great.
JM: What years were those?
BH: That would be 2008 to 2010.
JM: Okay.
BH: Because we made it in 2006 and had all the studies backed. It was not toxic, and that it
prevented mercury. I knew all of that at that time. But I just didn’t talk about it, because that means
I was making a medical claim. We even changed the name of our company from Chelator
Technologies, Inc. to just CTI Science, because we didn’t want to make a claim that it was achelator.
JM: Sure, sure.
BH: Because then we would be violating the FDA rule. But anyway, in two years, we never had
one single – We had an adverse effect report, the same one that’s used by Procter & Gamble inCincinnati. They never have one single adverse effect that was significant reported to that system.
People would say, “It made my son go to the bathroom. Pee too much.” That’s what they would
say, or, that they would be missing some capsules in the packaging, but nobody comes and says,“I had to go to the doctor and had to do that.” That was for quite some time. And so I was shut
down by the FDA, but there wasn’t any –JM: In 2010.
BH: Yeah. In 2010.

JM: Alright. I’m curious as to why they did that, because you were aware of the restrictions on
making claims. You supposedly had not made any claims.
BH: I did not make any claims.
JM: So then, why did they shut you down?
BH: Somebody complained. I have strong opinions about who it was, but I know the one groupthat was involved would be the Neurodiversity Group. They thought that autism was a gift from
God and just the different type of person. They just didn’t see the autistic children I saw.
JM: Okay.
BH: But I think more than likely, it was the pediatric element. They were making lots of money
giving vaccines. They didn’t want to see the well-baby visits go down.
JM: Well, making a lot of money would be a subjective evaluation. From my experience as aphysician, you know, pediatricians are one of the least paid. I’m pretty confident that they did not
go into medicine to make money. They don’t make much money at all.
BH: I agree.
JM: But they firmly believe what they’re doing is right. They’re, in my view, brainwashed.
They’re passionate about it because they really think they’re doing good. I mean it’s at their core.
I mean they give their own kids. It’s not like that they know that what they’re doing is bad.
BH: The only thing I can tell you is that the people who have attacked me –JM: I mean they could be pediatricians. There’s no doubt about it, because they’re so vehemently
passionate about protecting what they perceive is a valuable resource to prevent disease.
BH: Yeah. And they could also say because then you have to have well-baby visits.
JM: Well –BH: I know you don’t want to believe that.
JM: I mean it’s possible, and I would think it’s probably true for some, but I would think it’scertainly not the majority.
BH: I don’t know who did it. But somebody complained at the FDA and I went to a very prominent
lawyer who helps people with nutrition. You probably know him. I don’t have permission to say
his name, so I won’t.
JM: Sure.

BH: But he’s been in front of the Supreme Court several times about –JM: Illinois? Is it an Illinois attorney? Oh, I know who it was. Okay. Yeah.
BH: Yeah. He told me, he said, “Dr. Haley,” – when they shut me down – “This is silly. The
compound has in-structure, dicarboxyl benzoate, which is found in cranberries, and cystamine,
which is on the terminal end of coenzyme A. It’s just cysteine without the carboxylic acid group.
It’s a natural product. Two natural products, just like slow-release niacin and n-acetyl cysteine.
You have to make a chemical that doesn’t exist naturally, but it’s made of two natural products.”
I read the site and I had the lawyer, who was an FDA expert, read it. He said, “It can be a natural
product and a supplement if it contains any one of a natural product or any combination of two.”That’s what it said. And then they changed that. We call it the Boyd Haley rule now. They said,“Not if you put it together chemically.” It wouldn’t exist. Slow-release niacin should not be.
JM: They targeted you, essentially, and changed the rules to make their targeting effective.
BH: Yeah. The lawyer, who’s very prominent, he said, “Dr. Haley, I’ll take your case, and I’ll win
it. You’re right.” He said, “We can make them look very foolish in court. You will win it. It will
cost you a million dollars. It will take a year. In that year, they’re going to do everything they canto disrupt your laboratory.”
JM: Sure.
BH: “When you win, they’re going to charge you with something else.”
JM: Yeah.
BH: “Do you want to go through this? But I’ll tell you, my advice would be to take it through thedrug route.”
JM: Yeah.
BH: “Make more money and everything else.”
JM: The sad reality.
BH: Sad reality. Right. That’s what we’ve done, and we’ve done it. You know, I really think weneed a good –JM: Alright, for clarification here, essentially the FDA’s action was to shut you down, but they
didn’t formally do it. You chose to exit the route without any penalties or legal actions with the
FDA, because of the threats and because of the pragmatic business realities.
BH: I don’t have that kind of money.

JM: You don’t have that cash flow to do that. Even if you did, they’d still kick you with somethingelse. The attorney thought he may have won, but there’s no guarantee on that. You could havespent a million dollars and lost.
BH: Yeah. Then I would be in bad shape. Because at one time, I borrowed – I was in debt 900,000
dollars to get that company started. I borrowed it on my ranch and on my farm.
JM: What was the motivation for that? Was it your strong belief that there was a desperate needfor a solution to the –BH: Absolutely.
JM: Was it mostly the autistic community or was it the dental community? Both? People withneurodegenerative diseases?
BH: Mainly it was the mothers of autistic children, especially those who would come up and would
be so grateful. You can just see this happiness in their face and everything, when their child was
no longer autistic.
JM: And you saw that? Why don’t you sidestep here and share some of the stories that provided
the motivation to do what you just described.
BH: For example, one lady, we’re very good friends – but again, I don’t mention people’s names
if I don’t have permission.
JM: Sure, sure.
[-----1:00:00-----]

BH: She had a son. His nickname was Adam Bomb. He was about a 12-year-old autistic. She
called me up and I said, “What’s all that noise?” It sounded like she was in a bar fight. She said,“That’s my son, Adam. He’s having a meltdown.” She said, “I heard you had this compound.” I
said, “Sure.” I talked to her a little bit, then I sent it to her. But he was a 12-year-old and his father
and his family, his entire family, even his mother, were probably was 6 to 8 inches taller than me.
He had a football player’s [physique]. But Adam was the only one who got vaccinated and turned
into a very severe autistic. I sent her OSR. She said once she started giving it to him, she said it
was very common for him to knock her down in the store if he didn’t get what he wanted and toblow up. He broke a little girl’s arm and he threw a chair through the window. They told her, “You
can’t bring him back to school anymore. He’s too dangerous.”
JM: Which is appropriate.
BH: You know, basically, I think the problem with autistic children, one problem – and I’m not a
medical doctor. I don’t even play one on TV. The main problem they have is they have intense
intestinal pain, which somehow causes them to go into meltdowns. It would bother me. And they
don’t become potty-trained very well.

She would tell me he would lay over a couch with his stomach on the end of the couch to get thepressure off of it, and he couldn’t control his bowel movements. She told me – I can give you her
name. You can call her and talk to her if you want. She said, “After taking the third or fourth dose,
he never ever had a meltdown again.” Maybe later he did, but at that time, she said it all ended. He
went back to school. He graduated from high school. He got a job working at a pet shop, sweeping
up and stuff like that. He could find his way to work and come back. I’ve met him several times.
He calls me up. It’s not that it cured everything in his autism. He still talks a little bit like Forrest
Gump.
JM: Sure.
BH: But he can call me on the phone and he can say, “Hi, Dr. Haley. How are you? Guess what I
did today.” We could have conversations. But he’s not violent anymore.
JM: Pretty radical improvement.
BH: You can talk to him enough. He’s very good at – what do you call them – the electronic
games.
JM: Sure.
BH: He’s got capability. The thing that NBMI does is it stops the toxicity and the immediate panicthat can be associated with it. But it does not repair.
JM: NBMI is the name of your new product. It’s now a drug being sold through a foreign country.
BH: It’s sold. We were trying to get it approved in the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
Because at that time people told me the FDA – I kind of thought the FDA had me marked, I mean
the way they treated me.
JM: Yeah, yeah. Sure.
BH: You would not have much doubt about it if you had been in my shoes and the way they talked
to us, although they were very professional. I mean nobody called me a dirty name or anything
like that.
JM: Sure.
BH: But the threat was there. They went through everything. I mean every computer, every file.
It bothered them when they went through our adverse effects reporting system, that there wasnothing in there. But they did not want to look. The only pile of papers they didn’t go through was
the pile of papers that I had collected all through emails that I printed out to show that thecompound was working. Not for them. I was just doing this for my own benefit.

I mean there was a lot of people saying how much it had helped them. I mean it stopped tremor.
Even in our study with the Ecuadorian gold miners. I think it was 7 out of 8 that had workplace
tremors. They lost the workplace tremors when they take an NBMI, even though they were stillworking in a high-mercury environment. I have noticed that with a lot of people.
JM: This was OSR or NBMI?
BH: No. This was NBMI.
JM: Yeah.
BH: We’ve done a Phase II study.
JM: Okay. When did all that start? Would you just relate it with the 2008 to 2010 experience –and the FDA came in at 2010, 2011, and then you transitioned to developing the drug. The new
drug is in a different name than OSR?
BH: Yeah.
JM: Same chemical, but –BH: It’s called emeramide.
JM: Emeramide.
BH: E-M-E-R-A-M-I-D-E. That’s the API, the active pharmaceutical ingredient, and the capsules,
which they’ve called Irminix. That’s the drug. I may have to do that for drug reasons. But anyway,
after I applied for orphan drug to use that compound as a chelator for mercury. Because the EMA
nor the FDA have a treatment for mercury toxicity.
JM: Interesting. I mean it’s crazy not to, because it’s an occupational health exposure hazard.
BH: What they’ll tell you – We got it, by the way. We’re both orphan drug-designated in both theUnited States and the European Union (EU).
JM: So it’s legally available in the United States? It’s not.
BH: You get things done cheaper. You can get help. They help small companies that are trying todevelop a drug that needs to be developed according to the innovative taskforce of the EMA. They
have problems with mercury toxicity. One end of the government doesn’t agree with the other one.
JM: With the help, is it less cost, less aggressive requirements on the Phase I, II and III clinical
trials?
BH: Yeah.

JM: And less costly.
BH: And they don’t charge as much money to review your papers and things like that.
JM: Okay.
BH: It’s a good deal. It’s very helpful. So, we did that. We got it started and we took it through all
animal trials that they requested that we do. The compound – You have to get incredibly highlevels to have an effect on an animal. I mean 100 times more than you would ever give a humanbeing.
We put 4 to 5 milligrams per kilogram body weight to treat a person for mercury toxicity. We’regiving these animals a minimum of 290 milligrams per kilogram body weight to make them sick.
Some animals don’t get sick at all. Humans don’t. I mean it’s different. But there’s nothing in there
that’s not reversible. It’s something that you stop and it goes away. It’s totally safe. It’s safer thanaspirin.
We did all that, and then we got permission to do a Phase I study in Sweden. That’s when we gave
the drug in single doses for a period of time and go up higher and higher, and then you give multiple
doses where you give it for a week. And then each time, they’re very careful. We got up to 600
milligrams a day for two weeks in a Phase I study in humans with no adverse effects at all. I mean
nothing happened. Six hundred milligrams is way more than you and I may ever need to take.
Three hundred would be a good amount.
JM: Okay.
BH: Because you can calculate how much gets into the blood. With what they call a safety and apharmacokinetic stuff, the Phase I, you take it orally. It peaks in your blood within two hours.
About 60 to 80 percent – depending upon these persons, it’s a little different – is absorbed.
On the test animals, we showed that it did the same thing and that it concentrates and it peaks inall tissues of the body at the same time. It gets in the brain. You get more of it in the kidney andthe liver than you will get in the brain, but it does get into the brain. And it crosses the blood-brain
barrier, and it’s effective in eliminating the iron out of the brain. It works very well in animals.
JM: And also, it would be a good treatment also for hemochromatosis. You finished Phase I trials
in Sweden. Have you started Phase II and III?
BH: We’ve done Phase II. We’ve done Phase II on Ecuadorian gold miners. I’ll show you the data
tomorrow. It definitely decreased the mercury level in 10 of 11. They were very high in miners.
Their urinary mercury levels dropped dramatically. Their blood levels went down also. But the
problem was that in the placebo group, they come in and take our drug and the placebo, and thenthey go out and they burn gold. The placebo group is up and down, like this. Whereas all of theones who took the 300 milligrams just dropped dramatically.

JM: Yeah. For those who don’t know, mercury is used in the mining of gold to refine and purify
it. That’s why you did the trials down there, because they have such massive mercury exposures.
BH: It was the people at the EMA advisory group who told us to go to South America or Africa
or some place where mining gold is thrusted on those people. The interesting thing was the adverse
effects, the non-significant adverse effects – as they call stomachaches, headaches and diarrhea –were dramatically improved in those who took the drug. Mercury does all of this and some othertoxic side effects. The problem with mercury is there’s no endpoint that you can point at that the
FDA will say they’ll accept as a proof that you’ve done it.
JM: Sure.
BH: Because 22 of 25 or something like that of the toxic effects, the endpoints of mercury toxicity,
are the same as Lyme’s disease. When we talked, “Can we do this in like a tremor?”
JM: Sure. Yeah.
BH: You eliminate tremor in people working in a mine? That’s probably caused by mercury notby a tick in North America. But they won’t listen. “That won’t work because that could be causedby something else.” I mean things cause you to have a tremor.
JM: Yeah. How is the mercury excreted once you’ve taken this chemical? It binds with iteffectively. You were really clear about that. Is it excreted through the urine? Is it sweated out?
Stool?
BH: Stool.
JM: Okay.
[-----1:10:00-----]

BH: We’ve tested this. We’ve looked at the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes or the P450 systemand the mercury NBMI complex, which when it binds to it, it never lets go. It’s very interactive.
JM: Yeah. I agree.
BH: It doesn’t do anything. The toxicity is eliminated very quickly when you take NBMI.
JM: Okay.
BH: But to get rid of the mercury, you oxidize the Benzene ring. You put a hydroxyl group justlike you would Benzene.
JM: That’s done typically in the liver.
BH: Glutathione has transferase, which I know you know what that is.

JM: Yeah.
BH: It puts glutathione on there, and then it gets carried out in the fecal way.
JM: Okay.
BH: That’s where it goes out. It goes out in animals when you give them NBMI. It shifts it from–
JM: It’s not reabsorbed in the colon? Because sometimes when you’re doing a detox program,
you need to use a binder, like activated charcoal or chitosan.
BH: You don’t have to do that with this.
JM: Because it’s not reabsorbed?
BH: It could be, but not most of it.
JM: Okay.
BH: Because it goes out. We’ve watched it in the brain, liver, kidney, and it takes a long time, likea month, and it’s all out. About a month, most of it’s out.
JM: This is after taking regular daily doses? Or just one dose?
BH: Just one dose.
JM: Wow.
BH: But also, I have made the mercury NBMI complex in a test tube, in a reaction glass. I sentthat to Southern research institutes, which does all the toxicity studies on drugs. They gave 2,000
milligrams per kilogram body weight. With that, half the weight, so 1,000 milligrams of that would
be mercury. That would kill a lot of rats. But when we did that, there was no toxicity, even thoughsome of it was absorbed. It’s totally without toxicity if you make it ahead of time and you ingest
it into the body. That’s the reason we think it should be used in –JM: So if it was reabsorbed, it would be a non-issue, because it’s not toxic.
BH: It’s non-toxic.
JM: Yeah.
BH: See, it’s reabsorbed in the glutathione. It goes out with the glutathione.
JM: Yeah, yeah.

BH: Because those are amino acids. You clip it off and you metabolize to try and salvage someglutathione. This compound is not susceptible to that.
JM: Let’s talk about some of the other exciting applications. You’ve already discussed two, which
is one is in autistic children, one is those who have been exposed through mercury from their metal
amalgams and filling. But then we also have other neurodegenerative diseases. We’ve got
Alzheimer’s that you mentioned earlier, but also ALS, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s, andprobably a few others that I’m missing. But can you talk about those?
BH: Yes. Because it’s now being used extensively in foreign countries, not the United States. The
United States makes it very difficult to do that. But they’ve used it on people who have two ofthem. I can tell you they were ALS and atypical Parkinson’s. Now, before we ever changed it backin 2009 or 2010, we used it as a dietary antioxidant.
A doctor in the Lexington, Kentucky area treated a person who was in a wheelchair and couldn’t
walk and couldn’t talk and her head was flipping black and forth. Within one month, she cameback to him and she said, “I want to take more of that drug, because it’s helping me a lot.” I know
that’s what it was because it’s so [inaudible 1:13:16]. She was diagnosed with atypical Parkinson’s
at the Mayo Clinic. We doubled the amount. We took her from 100 milligrams a day to 200
milligrams a day. The next time, she came into the doctor’s office. She got out of the chair andjumped up and down in front of him to show him how much better her balance had gotten.
JM: Wow.
BH: You don’t get better from that. The same thing has happened recently with an ALS patient
who’s come to visit me. He happens to be a medical doctor, diagnosed at a major medical centerin the East Coast. He was told to go home and get his life straight, because he’s not going to makeit.
JM: Yeah. Because there’s essentially no conventional treatment for ALS, just palliative.
BH: But the treatment that got him out was I had a medical doctor who bought a lot of OSR in thecapsules.
JM: This was 8 years old or 10 years old.
BH: At least 8 to 10 years old.
JM: Yeah.
BH: He had a package of that left and gave it to him.
JM: Just one package.
BH: One package, 30 capsules. That’s all he had left.

JM: Yeah.
BH: And then this doctor who had the ALS drove up to Kentucky to talk to me. He said, “I could
tell at the end of day 4 or 5, All of a sudden there was feeling coming back to my right hand,” hesaid. “So I knew that this was doing something, so I kept taking it.” And then he went back to this
doctor. I would like to mention names because they deserve their credit.
JM: Yeah, yeah. Sure.
BH: Anyway, to make a long story short, this guy is just about devoid of any ALS symptoms now.
JM: That’s quite remarkable.
BH: Yeah. I can’t say it would work very long. But I think what it does say is that what we haveto do is you have to get it out of Boyd Haley’s hands.
JM: Yeah.
BH: Get it to the hands of medical doctors who treat sick people.
JM: Well, it seems like it’s something most people could benefit from even if you’re not sufferingfrom symptoms, because you’ve essentially established that there’s no toxicity and that we have apervasive –BH: I’ve been taking it since about 2006 about every day.
JM: Wow. What’s your dose?
BH: I pour it on my hand.
JM: Yeah?
BH: Because you can’t overdose on it.
JM: Yeah, yeah.
BH: I’d say about 200 to 300 milligrams a day.
JM: Just once a day?
BH: Yeah.
JM: Yeah. Do you take it with food?
BH: I’m 78 years old. I don’t have much of a tremor at all. In fact, none, aside now as I’m sat heretalking to you.

JM: Yeah.
BH: I notice a lot of good things about the compound. I took it when I was chairman of chemistry.
You have these – They’re not really panic attacks, but when you write that letter for so and so andyou have to stop and think, you’re going to start doing that. I lost all that.
JM: Yeah.
BH: I mean I could just sit down.
JM: You know what impresses me, one of the reasons I wanted to interview you was I heard you
speak many years ago. Probably 10 years ago or so. I knew you were getting up there. I didn’t
realize your exact age. But at 78, your cognitive ability for a 78-year-old is really remarkable. I
mean it is truly, in my view, shocking.
BH: I mean I believe in science and looking at anecdotal stories as hints.
JM: Yeah.
BH: That’s what I talk about with these people.
JM: Sure, sure.
BH: Atypical Parkinson’s and ALS, they’re hints. I mean that’s the best thing to say. They’re casestudies. You take those and you say, “Is it really real?” I know about n-values and statistics, I think
you should do that. I think it should be done.
JM: Yeah.
BH: But the problem is we have such a regulatory system that takes forever.
JM: Yeah, yeah.
BH: For example, I’ve given this to two friends. Well, three. One, kind of my sister, and two other
older people who I don’t know very well at all. They had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD) but they were ambulatory. They totally wiped out their – They were doing the bloodoxygen thing.
JM: Pulse oximetry?
BH: Yeah. They go up from 85 or 88 up to 98 when taking this compound. And you know, I thinkemphysema or COPD cause a lot of toxic metals from smoking, which makes it –JM: Yeah. We were talking about earlier when we were outside, about the cadmium that they
intentionally put in there to make the cigarettes burn slower.

BH: The paper. Yeah.
JM: Yeah.
BH: Anyway, they came out, so we’ve done the study. Of course, in their thing. They said we had
to do – We did a Phase II study on COPD patients, given them a very large amount over two weakpeople. The main reason was that these were people who already had major lung dysfunction. I
mean they were GOLD up to four almost. It doesn’t repair lungs. It stops the toxicity. But they
made us do it on these really sick patients to make sure our compound wasn’t toxic to COPD
people.
JM: Yeah. I’m wondering – I didn’t realize that you’ve been taking this every day for the last 12
years essentially. What is your rationale? Why are you doing it? What’s your motivation?
BH: Well, basically, I’m going to my medical doctor. I’m going for a physical, like anyone else.
I had medical problems of aging, like everyone else. The one thing I did when I went into thedoctor and he was pointing out that I was getting up there and there were some problems – Hethought I was having too much internal fat, and I was. My diet was terrible.
JM: Typical.
BH: My diet was beer, steak and stuff like that.
JM: Yeah. Standard American diet.
BH: Yeah. I’ve changed. It really has helped. Your diet makes a big difference.
JM: Yeah.
BH: You can tell when you wise up about your diet.
JM: Yeah.
BH: But anyway, I told him I wanted to do a glutathione level, a blood glutathione.
JM: Oh, okay.
BH: He says, “We don’t do that.” I said, “Well, you are with me.” I say, “Why don’t you do this?”
He says, “Because we can’t do anything about it.” I said, “I’ll tell you where to send it. Just pull
the blood and send it.”JM: Yeah, yeah.
BH: I have the blood glutathione levels of a teenager. Very high.

JM: Oh, since you’ve been taking it.
BH: Oh, yeah.
JM: Is that because that you have glutathione mimetic or is it because it actually increases yourinternal glutathione levels?
BH: It keeps you from using your glutathione. [inaudible 1:19:41] and taking up the hydroxyl free
radicals and not worrying about that.
JM: Okay.
BH: That comes back to the point you bring up a while ago. You don’t want to get rid of yourhydroxyl free radicals.
JM: No. You need some. They’re really important.
BH: They really are.
JM: If you squash and squelch them all, it’s going to be a problem.
BH: Yeah. But I can tell you since I’ve been taking it, I haven’t had one case of a bad cold.
JM: Gosh.
BH: Or anything like that. My wife, who was a nurse, had to take the flu vaccine every year, but
she’d get the flu shortly after getting the flu vaccine every year. She started taking this. She hasn’t
had the flu in years.
[-----1:20:00-----]

JM: That’s an incredible story.
BH: It is, unless you look at the science.
JM: No, I understand. But it’s just a powerful testimony of the effectiveness of the strategy.
BH: Because the best way to get rid of the most potent antiviral agent in a [inaudible 1:20:23]
where you’re growing cells that can be infected with the influenza virus. You know the best thing
you can add to it that’s totally safe and totally prevents the viral infection?
JM: Vitamin C? Ascorbic acid? No?
BH: Glutathione.
JM: Glutathione. Okay.

BH: When I went back and I read the thesis papers – You’d never find them in medical journals
or research journals. The glutathione inserts that sulfur into a disulfide linkage in the code proteinin the virus. So when the virus gets secreted, it’s cleared into the fecal, into the biliary transportsystem in the body.
JM: Wow.
BH: Glutathione blocks the further infection down the line. That’s the reason probably why oldpeople are much more susceptible to flu and other viral infections versus, say, young children.
Because as you get older, your glutathione levels drop off. I do it just because I want to have goodquality of life.
JM: Wow.
BH: I like to hunt fish. I still go duck hunting. You can talk to people I hunt with. I’m a very goodshot. I’m not as good as I was when I was 45, but I’m good.
JM: Yeah. Well, great. You use a shotgun?
BH: Yeah. And I trained home dogs. I have a very good Labrador retriever. I enjoy doing stuff
like that. But you know, the thing is my key right now is to get it out so doctors can use it. People
like yourself to know more about it and send in and see sick patients. Because I don’t know how I
can detox people. But NBMI does not cause anything in your body to repair. It’s not like cysteinethat can make more glutathione. This compound doesn’t make glutathione. It prevents it frombeing used up.
JM: Yeah.
BH: It prevents it from – You don’t need glutathione to transport out.
JM: You listened to my lecture and my presentation. One of my passions was NAD. One of thestrategies of increasing NAD is to prevent its consumption. For those of you who weren’t at mypresentation, obviously, it’s like avoiding electromagnetic fields (EMFs), because it just causes
your body to radically devastate it by using this enzyme called PARP, poly ADP ribose
polymerase. It’s the same strategy. It’s a similar process. If you just preserve what you have andnot use it needlessly – not needlessly, I mean the body’s pretty wise – it’s the toxic exposure we’ve
never had historically.
BH: [inaudible 1:22:37] vitamin C. If your glutathione levels go down, the Meister cycle is how
you regenerate vitamin C or glutathione from vitamin C. We have shown with NBMI that if you
put it in the system using vitamin C as an electron donor to measure oxidative stress, they do thisfor COPD.
JM: Sure.

BH: When they put in our compound, what happens? You know you’re watching the vitamin C
levels drop down like that, and then you put in our compound. And then all of a sudden, you start
making more vitamin C.
JM: Well, I’m not sure that you’re making more. What you’re doing is you’re reducing it.
BH: Yeah. You’re reducing it.
JM: In the reduced form. Part of the reason for that is because it has to do with the glutathione.
It’s the same issue. The oxidative stress is gone. Your nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide
phosphate (NADPH) levels are high, and NADPH is what actually reduces vitamin C.
BH: Yeah. That was a surprise for the people.
JM: It makes perfect sense. Yeah.
BH: At the King’s College in London, some people were working on COPD. We showed thatNBMI is the best antioxidant to prevent the oxidative stress in bronchoalveolar lavage samples.
That’s the reason we patented it.
JM: Okay. Now, the name of the website is EmeraMed. E-M-E-R-A-M-E-D dot com.
BH: Yeah.
JM: That’s a website in Ireland, I believe.
BH: It’s in the United States.
JM: But the company itself is in Ireland.
BH: Based in Ireland.
JM: To avoid the legal issues with the FDA.
BH: If you go to Info@EmeraMed.com.
JM: That’s an email address.
BH: That’s an email. They can go there and they’ll get everything about the company.
JM: What’s the cost of, say, a months’ worth of treatment?
BH: Well, we can’t charge for it. We give it away.
JM: Okay.

BH: The charge for the people who package it is about 600 dollars for two weeks treatment.
JM: Okay.
BH: That’s way higher than it should be, but we’re paying for insurance and mailing.
JM: Yeah.
BH: The charge from the Irish Medical Board and things like that. It’s not going into the company
at all.
JM: Yeah, yeah. It’s definitely a better strategy than what’s currently available. Are there anyplans to lower that cost in the future some way?
BH: Sure, sure.
JM: What’s on the horizon?
BH: Yeah. We sold it as a dietary antioxidant.
JM: Yeah.
BH: We sold it to doctors for 30 dollars for a month.
JM: Wow. That’s almost free.
BH: When you make it as a drug, it’s a lot more expensive.
JM: Yeah.
BH: I mean it’s definitely not going to be anything like that. What we have to do, the real slow
down here is that if you’re going to get it drug-approved, you have to show it’s non-toxic. You
have to do the Phase I study. And then you have to do the Phase II study and the Phase III study.
Those are efficacy to show your drug works. How do you show that your drug is binding mercury
in a group of Americans in which none of them – according to the FDA or to science or the NIH– are mercury-toxic? Because you have to be this high in your urine level to be mercury-toxic.
JM: Yes.
BH: That is scientifically incorrect because the people who don’t excrete mercury have very low
urinary and blood levels. They build it up in their cells, and that’s what goes down.
JM: Yeah. That’s sort of a confusing artifact of the way that we test for toxins. It’s that you could
look perfectly normal in diagnostic tests, but you could be loaded with it.
BH: Yeah.

JM: Or it could be high and it’s actually a good thing because you’re excreting it.
BH: Well, it’s that whole thing with thimerosal. This one guy doing research gave vaccinations
and said that the mercury from thimerosal in children disappeared from the blood too fast to be
toxic. If you look at the animal studies, when you gave it in the blood, it went down dramaticallyin the blood very quickly. It was building up in the brain, kidneys and the liver, because it’shydrophobic and that’s where it goes. But they were saying that since it’s not in the blood, it can’t
be toxic. That was like saying alcohol in your blood makes you drunk. It’s alcohol in your brainthat makes you drunk.
I sometimes worry about who I’m talking to. But right now, that was the major problem in Europe.
We tested dentists who worked in Eastern Europe, in Slovenia, in places like that, Yugoslavia,
because they worked in operatories that were not ventilated. They’re very sick. But when we hadthem to test to identify a population that we could test in Europe, that would be mercury-toxic, we
could find very few that would ever meet the definition by the EMA of what’s a mercury-toxic
person.
JM: Yeah, yeah. It’s a regulatory nightmare. No question.
BH: Yeah. We now have found a group in Colombia, South America. A young boy found a jar ofliquid mercury. He took it to his school, shared it with his friends. The process of all that made,about 125 people very mercury-toxic, and they’re not gold miners, so they’re not being exposed.
We initiated a study in Colombia on those people, because they tried to treat them with DMPS andDMSA and I don’t know how well it’s working. I mean I can tell you they don’t think it’s worked
very well. We’re going to go there and we have that set up, because they do have very high levels.
JM: Alright.
BH: That’ll be able to show.
JM: That’s very exciting. I think we’ve probably exceeded our time limit here for a bit.
BH: Yeah. I enjoy talking to you.
JM: Well, not half as much as I did to learn all these great information. I mean it’s such amagnificent contribution to health and disease prevention and treatment. To have this type ofresource that could make such a dramatic dent on this. It’s a real tragedy that it’s really been off
the market for the last eight years or so because of the regulatory issues. But I wasn’t quite sure ofwhat had happened with you, and I didn’t realize what the FDA issue was. It was just this perceived
threat that had caused you to back off. I’m glad you didn’t wind up in jail or anything.
BH: They tried to.
JM: Yeah.

BH: I mean they weren’t there being nice to me.
JM: Yeah.
BH: They were looking for something I did. Because when the lady, who was with the FDA, left,
she said, “Dr. Haley, we didn’t treat you right. I thought I was working with a drug dealer when I
came here looking.” She said, “Everything I’ve seen is not that.”
JM: I mean it’s just – Hundreds of years into the future and they’ll look back at this, just like welook back hundreds of years backwards now. I mean it’s just so insanely ridiculously primitive
take on things when you have such a powerful solution to diseases that are devastating us. I mean
neurodegenerative disease is an epidemic.
BH: So is kidney failure.
JM: Yeah.
BH: And we have shown with this – We made rats suffer from kidney failure, give them NBMI
and their kidneys –[-----1:30:00-----]JM: Yeah. I forgot we had talked about that earlier, because you didn’t have the data to support
this. As we’re doing this, I’m not certain of it, but you estimated that it’s up to 15 to 70 percent of
the budget of healthcare in the United States and the budget is over 3 trillion dollars, is devoted to
end-stage renal disease.
BH: You know what the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Study is.
JM: Yeah, yeah.
BH: Well, if you look at that, they show that us Americans, the age as they go past 18, they stopbuilding up very, very high levels of mercury in their bodies. This is from, I think, an EPA director
initially. They make the statement that the mercury level in 10 percent of American women is said
to cause the children to be born with neurodevelopmental disorders.
JM: Yeah.
BH: That’s not me. That’s one end of the government. The other end of the government is like,“This is great. There’s nothing going on here. Don’t look. There’s nothing to see here.” So, how
do you rationalize that? It’s the interest on making money that’s controlling our regulatory
agencies.
JM: Well, it’s not that the regulatory agencies are trying to make money. It’s just that they’rebeing controlled by industry who is seeking the profit as their bottom line, which controls thevarious regulatory agencies.

BH: That’s a more correct way of saying it. Thank you.
JM: We’ve got to understand that it’s a real issue. Anyway, I want to thank you again.
BH: You’re welcome. Thank you.
JM: You’re a real inspiration. Thank you for all you’ve done. It’s really quite a benefit tohumanity.
BH: Yeah. We’re making progress.
JM: Yeah.
BH: We’re hoping. We helped put in two drug-manufacturing files with the FDA. We’re getting
ready to setup an investigational new drug (IND) with the FDA. That end of the FDA works well,by the way. They have a lot of regulations. I mean, we’ve had three compassionate uses approvedin the United States, but all three of the doctors refused to do them because of the paperwork.
JM: Yeah.
BH: After they get the approval to do it, because there’s just too much paperwork.
JM: Yeah.
BH: First of all, they have to have an institutional review board (IRB) for a single patient. I meanthat just makes them say, “That’s too expensive for one patient.”
JM: Yeah. Alright.
BH: I’ve still got a lot of work to do.
JM: You sure do. Thank you. I look forward to what’s going to happen in the future.
BH: Yeah. So do I.
[END]