A groundbreaking preprint paper by the prestigious Oxford University Clinical Research Group, published Aug. 10 in The Lancet, includes alarming findings devastating to the COVID vaccine rollout.
The study found vaccinated individuals carry 251 times the load of COVID-19 viruses in their nostrils compared to the unvaccinated.
While moderating the symptoms of infection, the jab allows vaccinated individuals to carry unusually high viral loads without becoming ill at first, potentially transforming them into presymptomatic superspreaders.
This phenomenon may be the source of the shocking post-vaccination surges in heavily vaccinated populations globally.
The paper’s authors, Chau et al, demonstrated widespread vaccine failure and transmission under tightly controlled circumstances in a hospital lockdown in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam.
The scientists studied healthcare workers who were unable to leave the hospital for two weeks. The data showed that fully vaccinated workers — about two months after injection with the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (AZD1222) — acquired, carried and presumably transmitted the Delta variant to their vaccinated colleagues.
The 251x number is a comparison to "cases infected with old strains" from 2020, not "vaccinated" vs. organic. You can assume that the cases in 2020 were not "vaccinated", and the paper seems to imply that the new sample (62 healthcare workers in one hospital in Vietnam - a rather limited sample, perhaps!) were all vaccinated (l.76) but it's not a direct comparison because it's also "delta" vs. "old strains".
The paper does conclude that these clot-shots are useless against "delta" (whatever that really is): "There was no correlation between vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody levels and viral loads"; and "physical distancing measures remain critical".
I can appreciate your ability to read scholarly material. Well done handshake.
Thank you - this should be top comment; I came here to say that the abstract doesn't quite line up with the headline or article.
To elaborate, I think, it's very likely that an unvaccinated person could have 251x the viral load from previous versions of the virus also. You are correct that it simply states versus previous strains.
No reason to believe that. Pure speculation.
17x would be more believable😬
the data this report goes over, as said above is as follows unvacced/2020 strains vs vaxxed/2021 delta strain, do you see a control variable here? As there is none its impossible from the study alone to correlate the cause of the 251x viral load. You are equally unsure weather it is caused by the delta varient or by the vaccine. The lack of a control variable is the kicker here, we got to notice this stuff otherwise we'll lose the information war to anyone who reads more then 3 pages of a report.
It is not a controlled, clinical trial. We both agree on that.
This was a situtation where health care workers who had the vaxx were on lockdown in a controlled environment, and they spread some variant of the coof even though they were vaxxed, and they also experienced a certain viral load.
They then compared the viral load to data they had from MAR-APR 2020, back when the coof was just the coof and no vaxx had yet been released.
So the amount of viral load from the 2020 data was "x" and the amount of viral load in the post-lockdown vaxxed group was "251x."
This was never intended to be a clinical trial. It is just observational evidence. But it is stong evidence that (a) the vaxx does not stop the spread of the coof, in whatever "variant" someone wants to dream up, and that (b) people who get the coof post-vaxx have a dramatically higher amount of viral load, whether showing symptoms or not, than those in the previous data group, pre-vaxx. (Hence, the idea of the post-vaxx "asymptomatic superspreader.")
This is evidence, but not proof. We would need a clinical trial for proof, and we both know that will never happen because we both know it will not be a good result for the vaxx.
You said that "it's very likely that an unvaccinated person could have 251x the viral load from previous versions of the virus also." I said that comment is pure speculation because we ALREADY know that "the viral load from previous versions of the virus" in UNvaccinated persons is "x." That is the data they used for comparison! There is no reason to believe it would be 251x when it ACTUALLY WAS x.
We know later strains are more transmissible (assuming this means viral loads are higher). 251x is a lot though, although I'm not sure what, in my unqualified opinion, qualifies as "a lot" or "a little".
251X more viral is ASTROMOMICALLY HIGH. That on the other hand could be good ... hear me out: Virologist mapping out the phylogenics (strain discovery metrics) know that from decades of observation that virus' always mutate to become 1. more virulent, and 2. less deadly.
If this has gone hyper-virultent, maybe its proportionally less deadly. Not that the original was that dangerous to begin with. I don't know that to be the case at all. That's just wishful hopium.
Why would you assume that the viral load would be the same in an unvaxt person? There is zero way of knowing that, unless they examined viral load in unvaxt persons within the same 'group', and according to the STUDY ... they did no such thing. we will never know the answer to that question ... which sux.
I'm not a fan of the 'physical distancing' assessment. How do they know that? That to me sounded more like a platitude. If the author(s) were being genuine with that statement they should have included physical distancing parameters ... like, 6feet - 12 feet, a mile? That could be A LOT of things to A LOT of people. I'm a research scientist, so I take the professional position that any AND ALL conclusion that authors state needs to be parametric and definitive. Period ... otherwise you are exposed to nefarious manipulation of your works.
Yes, they just assume that distancing works, to make their point that the vaccine doesn't. (But now it's in a science paper so it must be true.)
Not. A. Clinical. Trial.
What don't you get about this? They are looking at what happened AFTER a group of people experienced what they did.
It was observations of what ACTUALLY happened AFTER a hospital lockdown. They compared to known data from before anyone was vaxxed.
Yeah ... not sure about your point. You are apparently day drinking. It's cool, I've done that myself. This is a STUDY. I know that because that's what they fucking said. Not sure what you don't get about it being a study. A study, and a clinical trial are not the same thing. It's empirical evidence gathered to present important findings based on an event where you have enough observations (population) to draw some extremely important inferences.
Why are you hung up on the word "study?" Means nothing by itself.
It is an observation of what happened after the fact.
If you are cruising along the freeway and you see a car accident, and you get out to look to figure out what happened after the fact, are you doing a "study?"
Just because they say it is a "study" doesn't mean much. Look at what they are actually doing.
AFTER a 2-week lockdown, they noticed something unusual: (a) people who were vaxxed got the coof, (b) from others who were all living in a controlled environment (no contact with outsiders) but were not symptomatic, and (c) their viral loads were way higher than the data from a year ago when nobody was vaxxed.
They then concluded that it is POSSIBLE that a post-vaxx person MIGHT be an "asymptomatic superspreader." Seems like a reasonable possibility.
This is not a scientfic study in the "double blind clinical trial" sense, though, and was never intended to be. That is my point. It was not set up as a scientific study. It was a post-event observation, with data compared to pre-vaxx data. Some people are bashing it because there was not a "control group." I say, so what? It was not set up to be a scientific study in the first place. It is post-event observation, like the car crash.
It is more like an epidemiological study, which can never show cause and effect, but can be a STARTING POINT for further study. The nature of such a thing cannot prove anything, but it is good evidence for an hypothesis, and then further study of that hypothesis.
The finding that the delta strain moving between the coworkers is different than the strain found in community transmission cases was somewhat concerning despite the small sample size.
Yes, but this was not a clinical trial. So, they did NOT set this up ahead of time for two groups to have two different scenarios.
Instead, they realized after the two weeks that these vaxxed people had massive amounts of viral load compared to what was known back before anybody was vaxxed, and that they spread it to others in a controlled environment.
This info is actually BETTER SCIENCE than anything coming out of Pfizer.