Discover more from Resisting the Intellectual Illiteratti
Pfizer Cancer? Double-Jabbed Mouse Unexpectedly 'Dies Suddenly' 2 Days After Dose #2, Autopsy Shows Widespread B-cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma "Obliterated" its Internal Organs
We were told that mouse data is sufficient to establish safety & efficacy for humans, so. . .
While looking for case reports of vaccine injuries yesterday, I came across a case report of a fatal cancer following receipt of Pfizer vaccine. . . . in a mouse:
B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma following intravenous BNT162b2 mRNA booster in a BALB/c mouse: A case report
This case report offers some fascinating insights into one of the scarier complications attributed to the covid vaccines: cancers, especially uncharacteristically aggressive and rapidly spreading cancers.
Since this study is written in very dense academic gobbledygook, we’re going to try and translate it into sensible English.
Firstly worth noting is that this study passed peer review and was published in Frontiers in Oncology, which is a very respected mainstream journal.
The study was conducted by a collaborative team of scientists from three separate universities in Belgium. The senior author (the one listed last), Hein Heidbuchel, is listed as an author on 433 papers on PubMed. The next to last author, Tania Roskams, is listed as an author on 387 papers on PubMed. Clearly, not your garden variety fringe loony-tunes.
With this pedigree, the medical establishment can’t complain that this is junk science published in an outlet of ill-repute (this is not to say that such criticism is valid in the first place, or that it’ll stop them from levelling such attacks).
The original objective of these researchers was to “establish a mouse model of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis”. As we shall see, the cancer finding was an unexpected twist.
(As an aside, I have noticed that much of the legitimate scientific research that is published which cuts against the official narrative are studies where the inconvenient findings were unexpected, were not part of the original study design, and/or had nothing to do with the study’s objectives.)
What did the study do?
The scientists purchased a bunch of specially bred mice known as BALB/c mice for their experiment. These are genetically engineered mice with traits that make them ideal study subjects, which you can purchase relatively cheaply from a variety of companies that specialize in breeding genetically modified animals for research purposes.
For their experiment, they took 28 of the mice and divided them into two groups of 14. The treatment group was injected with 2 doses of Pfizer 14 days apart, and the placebo group received saline injections instead.
The plan was to kill the mice on Day #16 - 2 days after they had received the 2nd dose.
Per the study:
On the predetermined day of study termination, two days following BNT162b2 mRNA booster vaccination (i.e., 16 days after prime), one animal was found dead in its housing cage hours before planned sacrifice. There was no specific lead-up to this spontaneous death since no abnormalities were observed during daily examination for follow-up of animal welfare.
In other words, the scientists came into work only to discover that lo and behold one of the mice had unexpectedly “died suddenly” a few hours before they had planned to euthanize the mice.
Being good scientists, they performed a thorough autopsy of the dead mouse, whereupon they discovered that there were massive amounts of cancerous blood cells that had penetrated into all of the organs they took samples of, including the heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, lungs and skeletal muscles.
The proliferation of the cancer cells was so extensive that they described it as “often completely obliterating the normal parenchyma” (‘parenchyma’ is the functional tissue of an organ; i.e. the “active” part of the organ that carries out the functions of that organ). In other words, the cancer cells had pretty much destroyed the organ tissues.
The scientists observed that “the above histopathological observations suggested extensive, systemic infiltration of the organs by a malignant lymphoid neoplasm, morphologically most suggestive of a Burkitt lymphoma (BL) or B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (B-LBL).”
They ran a separate test on the cancerous cells to confirm their diagnosis of B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (cancerous immune B-Cells).
The scientists summed up their findings in refreshingly direct and forthright language:
Two days following booster vaccination, the animal suffered spontaneous death with diffuse malignant infiltration of multiple extranodal organs at only 14 weeks of age. Although a causal relationship between the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine and B-LBL observed in the present case cannot be unequivocally established and may represent coincidence, the temporal sequence of events suggests its involvement in this rare hematologic malignancy. With the exception of this case, no other animals experienced any adverse events post mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in our study.
Their courage and honesty is much appreciated.
**There are a few caveats we must stipulate regarding extrapolating from this study to humans if we’re to be intellectually honest.**
First off, the study itself raises a couple of salient points regarding its own limitations:
It should be noted that various factors in our experimental study might limit the clinical translatability. First, the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was administered intravenously and not via the designed intramuscular route of delivery. Intramuscular vaccination has been described to initiate an adaptive immune response in the lymph nodes draining the injection site, whereas little is known about the effects of direct entrance and consequent distribution of lipid nanoparticle (LNP)-encapsulated mRNA in the systemic circulation (30, 38). Nonetheless, occasional blood aspiration following inadvertent intravenous injection of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been reported earlier (38, 39).
Second, with each immunization, the animal received a disproportionately larger dose of BNT162b2 per gram of body weight than would be the case in human use (i.e., a normal dose contains 30 µg BNT162b2 mRNA). Correspondingly, a much greater SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine-specific immune response may have been elicited by each of the two BNT162b2 mRNA vaccinations.
There are two additional caveats that I think are important to highlight.
The first is that the BALB/c Mice might be especially predisposed to cancer. The following is from the product description of Charles River Laboratories (emphasis mine):
The BALB/c mouse is among the most widely used inbred models used in biomedical research, and is particularly utilized in immunology and infectious disease research. Their ability to produce plasma cell tumors within soft tissue is important in the production of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).
With BALB/c mice, Th2 cells are easily triggered by immunization, meaning this mouse strain is an exceptional responder to immunization. The BALB/c model can be used to identify genes that determine susceptibility to infectious and neoplastic diseases.
BALB/c mice is also known for being relatively resistant to diet-induced atherosclerosis, making them ideal for cardiovascular research. BALB/c 3T3 cell lines are highly disposed to transformation in tissue culture by the oncogenic DNA virus SV40 and murine sarcoma virus, making them a model of choice for carcinogenesis research.
In other words, these mice - or their tissues at least - can be overly susceptible to developing cancers. Moreover, the type of cancer specified in this product description - “plasma cell tumors” - is the type of cancer that afflicted this mouse (plasma cells derive from B-Cells). So we can’t summarily exclude the possibility that the cancer in this mouse may not have occurred but for it being uniquely vulnerable to this sort of cancer, even if it was helped along by the vaccine.
The second caveat, and perhaps the most important one to point out, is that there is evidence from within the study that this mouse may have become sick *before* getting injected with Dose #1. One of the clinical characteristics the scientists kept track of was the weight of the animals (these were kiddy mice, and were expected to be gaining weight), depicted in figures 4A & 4B in the study (red dots/lines is the cancer mouse):
If we look at Figure 4A, we see that the cancer mouse had a drop off in the % increase of its body weight in the week preceding vaccination, while every other mouse experienced an increase in the % increase of body weight over that same week (circled in green):
In other words, there is a good chance that the mouse had already developed the cancer before getting vaccinated.
However, even if this is the case, it seems probable that the vaccine at least helped “turbocharge” the cancer. Although I couldn’t find an estimate for the life expectancy for murine cancers, it seems unlikely that *3 weeks* is within the normal range of the time between the initial manifestation of the cancer and death. (If I’m wrong about the murine oncology, I apologize.)
Ultimately, this case report study of a cancer-stricken mouse is part of a larger miasma of data, case reports and anecdotal evidence indicating that there has been a marked uptick in the incidence and aggressiveness of a variety of cancers since the deployment of the covid vaccines that is likely at least partially attributable to the covid vaccines.
As these brave Belgian scientists bluntly caution,
“Given the paucity of data on the long-term safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, it is vital that clinicians and scientists report any adverse event to establish potential correlations.”