What Goes Around?

In this post I take a look at a study, published in the Lancet, which looked at the rate at which vaccinated and unvaccinated people spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. This study was funded by the NIH. What do you think they found?

For any sane person who takes a moment of thought about vaccine mandates, it should not take longer than a few seconds to hone in on the key question that decides the ethics, or perhaps even rationality, of these cruel measures: do unvaccinated people spread the the SARS-Cov-2 virus around more than vaccinated people?

There are of course many, many more questions that need to be asked but that are not asked, starting with: “if the vaccines are effective, then why should unvaccinated people be removed from society ‘to protect the community'”, as the New Zealand government and their academic mouthpieces are fond of suggesting.

But we are so far removed from rational debate that the best we can do to defend our position is to ask the questions most directly in front of us. And when it comes to mandates, they can only make any sense at all if those who have not taken the patented experimental mRNA treatments spread the virus around significantly more than those who have taken the treatment but do not yet feel safe enough.

The dumb-speak [my trademarked word] around this issue is all around. For example, according to a recent article from the government sponsored New Zealand mainstream media, the Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Wood defended mandated vaccinations for the police by saying: “..we want to ensure that those who serve and protect our communities on a daily basis can do so without unintentionally spreading the virus.”

So the implied assumption is that, once vaccinated, you no longer spread the virus around “unintentionally”. What is so frustrating about this is that – unless they are monumentally ignorant – they (the political elites) have to know by now that such statements are, from a scientific viewpoint, not accurate. Yet they keep on making these statements without any questioning which makes thoughtful people more distrustful at each encounter.

But often I question myself: perhaps they are not simply ignorant or devious. Maybe I am the one that is being ignorant about the relative spread rates among injected and un-injected people?

So in this post, I am going to look into this issue, using the results from a study published in the Lancet at the end of October 2021, and funded by the National Institute of Health Research (more about the funding and authors later).

The study is not complex to understand: the authors collected data around a number of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals who tested positive for Covid. These were called the “index cases”. The study then found household contacts of those index cases (some were vaccinated and some not) and used the PCR test to determine if they were a Covid “case” or not. This allowed them to determine the rate at which vaccinated and unvaccinated people infect close contacts, i.e. the “Secondary Attack Rate”, or SAR.

Let’s take a look at some of the findings from this study. You can download the full paper here to verify that I am quoting directly. I start with some direct quotes from the study, then I will make some comments at the end:

SAR was not significantly higher in unvaccinated (38%, 95% CI 24–53) than fully vaccinated (25%, 18–33) household contacts.

Starting bottom of Page 5 [my emphasis]

It is interesting that this statement did not make its way into the Summary Findings printed at the start of the paper (the part that mainstream journalists are most likely to read). Instead, the Summary Findings only states:

The SAR in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals.

Middle of Page 1

Thus the summary findings fail to point out that the 25% vs 38% difference is not statistically significant after taking into account sample size and key confounding variables such as age. As someone who has published a few peer reviewed papers in scientific journals myself, I find it surprising that the peer reviewers did not call the authors up on this. It borders on a false conclusion.

The Lancet paper continues:

We identified similar SAR (25%) in household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases as in those exposed to unvaccinated index cases (23%). This finding indicates that breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people can efficiently transmit infection in the household setting

Bottom of Page 10 [my emphasis]


We found no evidence of variation in peak viral load by variant or vaccination status, but we report some evidence of modest but significant (pp=0·95) increases in peak viral load with age.

Starting middle of page 11 [my emphasis]

and then this admission:

Our study has limitations…index cases were defined as the first household member to have a PCR-positive swab, but we cannot exclude the possibility that another household member might already have been infected and transmitted to the index case.

Bottom of page 11

I found this admission stunning. If they do not know with 100% accuracy whether the index cases were the first to be infected, how are any of the conclusions valid? And yet, these are the “scientific facts” that drive mandates that destroy people’s health and wealth all over the globe.

Finally: for this study I counted 22 authors, including Neil M Ferguson. The authors’ Declaration of Interests published at the end of the article, states (my emphasis):

NMF reports grants from UK Medical Research Council, UK National Institute of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Community Jameel, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; consulting fees from the World Bank; payment or honoraria from the Wellcome Trust; travel expenses from WHO; advisory board participation for Takeda; and is a senior editor of the eLife journal. All other authors declare no competing interests.

So despite the fact that one senior author is heavily invested in Big Pharma and the vaccine industry, the study could not prove a statistically significant difference in the rate at which vaccinated and unvaccinated people spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus. I believe that, if there was any evidence whatsoever in the data for this study, they would have squeezed it out and ensured it made its way to the newspaper headlines. Yet they could find none.

If you are interested in more data and studies related to the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus amongst vaccinated and un-vaccinated individuals, then these are two good articles that summarize several studies (including the one above):

  • This excellent article by psychologist Paris Williams. It shows how the mainstream media in NZ spread misinformation on this topic and sets the record straight with a summary of several studies; [BTW, the author also wrote this brilliant article on the Brownstone Institute explaining the psychological aspects of the division of people in NZ around the vaccine issue].
  • In this article on the Brownstone Institute, you will find a summary of 29 studies on vaccine efficacy that raise doubts about the vaccine mandates.

Please share my blog as widely as you feel comfortable to do. I do not want to sound alarmist, as is the habit of the mainstream media, but I really do believe we are in a battle in which technocrats and political ideologues are attempting to force a centralized, dehumanized and atheist-scientific-materialist way of life on us.

Also have a look at my Resources Page for useful videos to make you understand what is going on, and to find support groups to make you feel less alone and crazy.

Subscribe to my blog to get email notifications whenever I post something.

Thanks for visiting!