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.

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.