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.
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.
Unfortunately, there are several variables that you can't take for granted... One is whether Delta just accumulates more in general (does 251x also appear in an unvaxxed person - which is what is being actively discussed)
The OTHER, and maybe more important variable is the cumulative buildup of Delta amongst healthcare workers. I recall early on in this debacle reading about how the cytokine storm can be dependent on viral load based on exposure timeframe. Thus - are these healthcare workers replicating and continually amping each other's viral loads up?
In other words, if they came in contact with an unvaxxed person without a previous infection, and the virus took hold - what would their viral load be after a set time of incubation?
I'd like to see that.
And for the record, I'm on your side, it's still a good and interesting study, but like @Grease said - we need to win the information war with solid data.
We generally agree. One other thing to remember: there is no real proof that "Delta" is any different from anything else. It is all computer modeling.
There is no test for Delta. It could be all the same thing, and they are simply giving the post-vaxx phenomenon a different label because it is convenient for them to do so.
I could be wrong about that, but there isn't any real proof that I am.
Seems like a more reasonable approach would be to simply look at pre-vaxx and post-vaxx and forget the labels. Here, we are dealing with an article that is using these labels, but the labels are potentially misleading to say the least.
What were the viral loads pre-vaxx vs. post-vaxx?
Answer: 1x vs. 251x.
I think you're right, or at least that's what the paper suggests:
What's also interesting from this statement (if my dumb brain is interpreting correctly), is that they isolated the 23 genome sequences as all belonging to the same strain... which almost implies that they can detect even the most subtle differences INSIDE of the Delta variant family... I presume it's like figuring out that hunter is genetically in the same family as his gf... I mean niece.