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.