FACT CHECK (Overstates the Case): Oxford University study finds fully vaccinated Healthcare workers carry 251 times viral load compared to the unvaccinated proving the Covid-19 jabs make you worse
The Oxford study did not prove the vaccinated carry 251 times viral load versus the unvaccinated under the same conditions
Here is an article I was forwarded recently: https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/08/24/oxford-university-study-finds-fully-vaccinated-healthcare-workers-carry-251-times-viral-load-compared-to-the-unvaccinated/
I cannot say the exact words were a lie in this; however, most people are not making the right conclusion from the title. Let me frame it this way. If I do a test of vaccinated people in the real world exposed to the virus and I compare them in a study of unvaccinated people kept in a bubble free of COVID-19 for 6 months, I could probably write a study at the end of the month saying “the vaccinated in the study catch COVID-19 at a greater rate than the unvaccinated” and then people take it exactly as people are doing with the above quote.
But obviously you can see the problem. You are leaving out a big piece of the story when you say the vaccinated do worse than the unvaccinated because the different conditions provided by the isolation bubble actually matter.
What the Oxford study did was compare 62 breakthrough cases in Vietnam today with results recorded between March and April of 2020. Of the 23 complete viral genomes sequenced, all were the Delta varient. So essentially what they were doing was comparing Delta virus cases in vaccinated individuals today versus the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 in existence then.
There are at least two independent variables here. One is vaccination status, and the other is the type of virus infecting the patients. There is also a third that is relates to the different circumstances in patient care, such as the fact you would expect people would be more paranoid about using personal protective equipment (PPE) a year ago when everyone thought this COVID-19 was the second coming of Ebola. The upshot of this pre-print is that “Viral loads were 251 times higher than those in cases infected with old SARS-CoV-2 strains detected in Vietnam btetween March and April 2020”
The higher viral load could be because (1) the Delta variant is much more infective than the old strain, (2) that vaccinated carry more viral loads than the unvaccinated as Dr. McCullough seems to be implying, or (3) the conditions at the hospitals possibly including less use of PPE today could contribute to the difference. It could also be a combination of all three.
There is no way of proving which is the right conclusion. Indeed, the author seems to be leaning towards the Delta variant being more infective and the need for social distancing, ignoring the vaccine independent variable entirely as a causitive agent for the increase:
In fact, in this paper one of the studies that was mentioned was one where unvaccinated and vaccinated cases of COVID-19 with the Alpha variant had similar rates of viral loads, which presumably would have biased his conclusion of the author to exclude vaccination status from consideration for the reason for the difference in the study. I did not see a citation for the particular study the author was referencing. But if pathogenic priming was in effect, it would be possible for there to be no difference in the viral loads for the Alpha variant and there being a big difference with the Delta variant because of some sort of particular difference in the Delta variant sparking something like antibody dependent enhancement. This study does not answer that question though.
So it is a little disingenous to use this study as “evidence” the vaccinated transmit the virus more than unvaccinated. That statement just is not supported by this study, and honestly, you really cannot tell much from it other than the fact people who get vaccinated can have high levels viral loads despite the vaccinations. And the breakout infections all over the globe now already have told us that.
A better study to at least isolate the infectivity of the Delta virus would be to compare unvaccinated hospital workers, if they have not been fired already, in a hospital that deliberately uses the same PPE and social distancing procedures as last year. That study would be better able to make conclusions about the Delta variant itself.
To compare vaccinated and unvaccinated viral loads, you should compare unvaccinated hospital workers today verus unvaccinated hospital workers, preferably with the same institutions to control for environment. That would give many readers the result for which they really want data on.
Dr. Peter McCullough states in his article, “Thus, we have a key piece to the puzzle explaining why the Delta outbreak is so formidable — fully vaccinated are participating as COVID-19 patients and acting as powerful Typhoid Mary-style super-spreaders of the infection.”
This is certainly the case, but if they tested the unvaccinated in the same institutions, they might have also been carrying on the order of 251 times as much viral load. No direct comparison was made in the study, so you cannot say the vaccinated particularly stand out as “Typhoid Marys” compared to all the unvaccinated people who can also spread the virus. We do not know from the data in this study because we are talking two different strains compared.
It very may well be the case the vaccinated spread the virus more than the unvaccinated. But this particular study does not really tell us that. It is one of at least three different interpretations of the same data.