Study: Fully Vaccinated Healthcare Workers Carry 251 Times Viral Load, Pose Threat to Unvaccinated Patients, Co-Workers

The Defender ^ | 8-23-21 | Peter McCullaugh, M.D.

[Leaning Right]

FRiend, the author’s lie is right there in the second line of the excerpt:

“The study found vaccinated individuals carry 251 times the load of COVID-19 viruses in their nostrils compared to the unvaccinated.“

The author is talking about an Oxford study. It’s mentioned in the very first line of the excerpt. I read the linked study carefully twice, just to be sure. The study doesn’t mention unvaccinated people at all. Maybe some other study does. But that one doesn’t.

I cannot see this as anything other than a deliberate misrepresentation. That doesn’t mean vaxxers or right, or that they’re wrong. It just means that this author cannot be trusted.

[grey_whiskers]

Good shot, red 2!

[grey_whiskers]

The Diamond Princess didn’t have those, and it didn’t lead to all the passengers (mostly elderly) on it dying, did it?

And that was the original variant, not the (less lethal) Delta.

[microgeek42]

I’ve lost 30lbs and counting knowing this would provide protection to me if I did happen to contract Covid.

[Leaning Right]

Sorry, I forgot to mention something important in my post #188. As I noted there, this article’s author is relying on a linked Oxford study. And as I said, that study does not mention unvaccinated people.

But there’s more. The Oxford researchers clearly state that they are studying vaccinated people ONLY. In the ‘Interpretation’ part of that study: “... explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people.”

Yet this article’s author - Dr. McCullaugh - decided to talk about nonexistent unvaccinated people: “The study found vaccinated individuals carry 251 times the load of COVID-19 viruses in their nostrils compared to the unvaccinated.”

I don’t think that’s nit-picking. It’s pointing out a big whopper of a lie.

Pretty much as big as the whoppers the other side is telling us. Yes, Dr. Fauci. I’m talking about you.

[Leaning Right]

Ugh. In my post #185 I was talking about my post #181.

[bagster]

This isn't McColough. This is the vaunted World Health Organization, the gold standard of Vaxtard Nation.

I repeat:

On Feb. 11, the World Health Organization indicated the AZD1222 vaccine efficacy of 63.09% against the development of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. The conclusions of the Chau paper support the warnings by leading medical experts that the partial, non-sterilizing immunity from the three notoriously “leaky” COVID-19 vaccines allow carriage of 251 times the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 as compared to samples from the pre-vaccination era in 2020.

This anti-McColough phobia is contagious. Don't catch it.

[bagster]

Free Republic really needs age verification. Child.

I'm old enough that I just might be your daddy.

Don't be sad that your bogus debunkery just got debunked. You should be used to that by now.

No debunk debunkery? Yea, I didn't think so.

#PhoneyMan

[bagster]

The article implies and was interpreted by many in this thread to mean that breakthrough infections produce 251X the viral load versus infected, non-vaccinated patients. Glad you unlike so many others understand the paper.

This post didn't age well.

Ahahahahahahaha.

[phoneman08]

Oh, so you’re senile. That explains everything.

[bagster]

Still no comeback, old man? At least that other guy tried.

#StumpedAndBaffled

[phoneman08]

Comeback on what?

[Leaning Right]

Now that you’ve brought it up, I find something very curious here. The WHO is relying on that Oxford study. No doubt about it. But as I noted earlier, those researchers explicitly mentioned that they are studying vaccinated people only.

Yet the WHO talks about “the pre-vaccination era”, which is nowhere mentioned in the Oxford study. Did the WHO just tack on their own opinions? Or are they also misrepresenting the study? If so, why?

Are you old enough to remember that old game show, ‘Liar’s Club’? In that show a panel of celebrities made statements to contestants. Most of the celebrities were deliberately lying. The contestants had to spot the one celebrity who was telling the truth.

We are all now living that game show, and in more ways than one.

[bagster]

Now that you’ve brought it up, I find something very curious here. The WHO is relying on that Oxford study. No doubt about it. But as I noted earlier, those researchers explicitly mentioned that they are studying vaccinated people only.

Okay, check out the bolded part.

On Feb. 11, the World Health Organization indicated the AZD1222 vaccine efficacy of 63.09% against the development of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. The conclusions of the Chau paper support the warnings by leading medical experts that the partial, non-sterilizing immunity from the three notoriously “leaky” COVID-19 vaccines allow carriage of 251 times the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 as compared to samples from the pre-vaccination era in 2020.

Where's the lie?

[bagster]

Comeback on what?

Now whose senile, Pops?

Try reading the thread and what I pinged you to.

#Doh

[bagster]

We are all now living that game show, and in more ways than one.

Can't argue with you there. But I'll take the opinions of independent researchers and experts over bought and paid for Government socialized medicine every day.

If I had'a pick.

[bagster]

I’ve lost 30lbs and counting knowing this would provide protection to me if I did happen to contract Covid.

Now you can change your screen name to 'macrogeek42'.

p.s. Good Job!!!

[Leaning Right]

The Chau paper is the Oxford study. And the Oxford study doesn’t talk about unvaccinated people, or “the pre-vaccination era”, or anything like that. It just doesn’t.

I might be wrong, but I’d bet serious money that this Dr. McCullaugh guy is deliberately spreading misinformation. It’s the WHO I can’t figure out. They are citing the Chau paper when talking about a comparison that Chau never made.

Anyway, I think you and I have hit an impasse. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Be safe!
LR

[grey_whiskers]

Please give me citations against vaccinating in a pandemic. I will look at any citations (not opinion pieces). Virology text books, statements from recognized virology bodies, or studies all accepted. I will be out for a good part of today, but will get back to you.

I was quoting indirectly from a couple of sources; among them McCullough (IIRC) and Luc Montaigner.

In the meantime, it appears that there is not as much of a consensus (which is political, and not science, by definition) as some of the pro-jab trolls would loudly shout.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/blog/with-an-rna-virus-the-past-doesn-t-predict-the-future

And don't try the tired old "gotcha" with the standard disclaimer at the top.

...given the way a couple of the MD sources were talking, it sounded like it was common knowledge in the virology community: the number of "deBOOOOOOONKers" frantically throwing every personal attack and supposed discrediting of every assertion, sentence by sentence, makes me think that Pfizer & Stooges & BoughtCongressmen & Co., *really* don't want any thought of variants or ADE to be noised about in the general population.

[bagster]

Anyway, I think you and I have hit an impasse. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Before you go, consider this....

The conclusions of the Chau paper support the warnings by leading medical experts that the partial, non-sterilizing immunity from the three notoriously “leaky” COVID-19 vaccines allow carriage of 251 times the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 as compared to samples from the pre-vaccination era in 2020.

The 'pre-vaccination era' numbers are a known quantity.

The current 'leaky vax' numbers are a known quantity.

It is not necessary for the Chau (Oxford) paper to make the comparison. You or I could make the comparison if we saw the numbers with our own eyes. And we're just two guys sittin' in a chair.

Defense rests.

#GoodTalk