Vax-Unvax study of mice implicates Hepatitis B vaccine, media silent
by J.B. Handley
jbhandleyblog.com
“This work reveals for the first time that early HBV [Hepatitis B] vaccination induces impairments in behavior and hippocampal neurogenesis. This work provides innovative data supporting the long suspected potential association of HBV with certain neuropsychiatric disorders such as autism and multiple sclerosis.”
GUANDONG, China —Sun Yat-sen University’s (a Top 10 university in China) Dr. Zhibin Yao is not a household name in the American autism community, but perhaps he should be.
Not only is he American-educated (University of Pittsburgh) and the author of 33 peer-reviewed studies, but he’s also the lead author of two of the most important biological studies ever done analyzing how, exactly, a vaccine can cause autism.
Dr. Zhibin Yao
In 2015, Dr. Yao was the lead author of “Neonatal vaccination with bacillus Calmette–Guérin and hepatitis B vaccines modulates hippocampal synaptic plasticity in rats,” the first study that ever looked at the impact ANY vaccine might have on the brains of rats.
I discussed this study in detail in an extensive article I wrote in April titled, “International scientists have found autism’s cause. What will Americans do?.”
Vaccine Papers, a website dedicated to a rigorous, science-based analysis of the risks and benefits of vaccines, explained the paper this way:
This is the first study to test the effects of immune activation by vaccination on brain development. All other studies of immune activation have used essentially pathological conditions that mimic infection and induce a strong fever. A criticism I have heard often from vaccine advocates is that the immune activation experiments are not relevant to vaccines because vaccines cause a milder immune activation than injections of poly-IC or lipopolysaccharide (two types of immune system activators). This new study demonstrates that vaccines can affect brain development via immune activation. Hence, the immune activation experiments are relevant to vaccines…The hep B vaccine increased IL-6 in the hippocampus (the only brain region analyzed for cytokines).
Despite its importance, explaining Dr. Yao’s 2015 paper to the average person wasn’t easy, partly because his study covered a number of other topics, meaning you had to isolate the data that implicated the Hepatitis B vaccine, and then explain it.
With his next paper, however, Dr. Yao and his team made explaining everything much easier, and left very little to interpretation.
So much bigger than Wakefield, and zero media coverage
In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield ended up crucified for a paper that only noted what some parents had reported–namely, that their children regressed into autism after the MMR vaccine.
Dr. Yao’s second paper, on the other hand, conducted a thorough study of the Hepatitis B vaccine’s impact on the brains of mice, and did so versus a control group of mice who received a saline placebo.
This is a “gold standard” animal study that you would typically do BEFORE a drug was introduced to the human population. In a world where vaccines were treated like other prescription drugs, Dr. Yao’s study would have sent up a giant red flag about the neurotoxicity of the Hepatitis B vaccine.
Of course, that didn’t happen, and this is the first time you’ve probably ever heard of this study:
Neonatal hepatitis B vaccination impaired the behavior and neurogenesis of mice transiently in early adulthood
As you can see, this study was actually published in late 2016. I saw it for the first time two weeks ago and almost couldn’t believe what I was reading. Dr. Yao and his colleagues open with a statement that should make every American parent shudder:
The hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) is administered to more than 70% of neonates worldwide. Whether this neonatal vaccination affects brain development is unknown.
Given the “unknown” of whether or not Hepatitis B impacts brain development, Dr. Yao and his colleagues then set about answering the question, and their answers are disturbing on so many levels. Let me try and summarize:
1. The HBV vaccine negatively impacted the behavior of mice.
Specifically, the HBV mice (those that were vaccinated with Hepatitis B vaccine) showed a “significant decrease in locomotion” and “increased anxiety.”
2. The HBV vaccine mice experienced a spike in the cytokine IL-6.
The authors noted that the HBV mice showed “significantly increased” IL-6, which we know is a biomarker for autism.
3. It took time for the neurological impact of HBV vaccine to manifest.
This troubled the study authors. They discussed the “latency,” meaning the extensive time between when the mice were vaccinated and when the neurological disorders presented themselves (note that Hepatitis B vaccine trials in infants typically followed the infants for one week or less to monitor adverse events):
“…the significant difference found in the present study is between the immunized mice and the control mice, rather than between the mice of 8-week-old and the mice of another age. Therefore, this difference does reflect the effects of the neonatal vaccination. The mechanism underlying the latency and transient phenomenon is very complex and needs further studies for well understanding, because such latency involves many aspects of the immune responses in the periphery and CNS as well as neural plasticity.”
4. They concluded with a statement that, in a sane world, would prompt the immediate cessation of Hepatitis B vaccine administration to babies.
What can I say, just read what they wrote for yourself:
“This work reveals for the first time that early HBV vaccination induces impairments in behavior and hippocampal neurogenesis. This work provides innovative data supporting the long suspected potential association of HBV with certain neuropsychiatric disorders such as autism and multiple sclerosis.”
Conclusion
It’s all there, in black and white. A growing, compelling body of work tying vaccinations to autism through biological science.
Dr. Yao’s paper requires little interpretation, and it’s just sitting there, hiding in plain sight (this is the first time anyone in America has ever written about this paper.)
Recently, a group of scientists published an editorial emphasizing how important animal studies are to understanding the neurotoxicity of aluminum adjuvant used in vaccines. They noted that “multiple vaccine administrations and neuro/immunologic adverse effects is difficult to establish by epidemiology.”
Epidemiology, the study of large numbers of people and health outcomes using a spreadsheet, is rife with potential for abuse, manipulation, and missing signals.
That’s why biological science is so important, and that’s why this new study from Dr. Yao and his colleagues provides a devastating blow to anyone who claims a vaccine couldn’t possibly cause brain damage or autism. As Dr. Yao and his colleagues concluded:
“This study used the same vaccine and a similar time schedule to those used for human infant vaccination in China. Therefore, these findings suggest that there may be similar effects of neonatal HBV vaccination on brain development and behavior in humans.”
Read the full article at J.B. Handley’s Blog.
About the author
J.B. Handley is the proud father of a child with Autism. He and his wife co-founded Generation Rescue, a national autism charity, in 2005. He spent his career in the private equity industry and received his undergraduate degree with honors from Stanford University in 1991. His first book, How to End the Autism Epidemic, will be published in September 2018 by Chelsea Green Publishing and is available for pre-order on Amazon.
He is also the author of “A lone FDA scientist could end the autism epidemic.” and International scientists have found autism’s cause. What will Americans do? Learn more here.
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.
5 Comments