From: James Lyons-Weiler <
Date: Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:39 PM
Subject: Cycle threshold distributions
To: <>
Cc: <>, <>

Dear Dr. Campbell,

I am cc’ing Dr. Poland as he recently uncritically interpreted your report as showing that the risk of re-infection is higher in the unvaccinated than in the vaccinated in a YouTube presentation.

I read w/interest your report

As you are corresponding author, I am directing my questions to you.

1. Among those partly vaccinated, vaccinated and unvaccinated, what were the qPCR Ct threshold distributions for each group? 

2. If your team used the CDC’s guidelines for reporting case with (Ct<28 cycles + hospitalized or dead for vaccinated, but Ct value up to 40 or even higher for the unvaccinated), how can we compare rates of cases, hospitalizations and deaths in so-called vaccinated “cases” and so-called unvaccinated “cases”?

3. Are the groups studied confounded in any way? 

4. Were the NAAT test rates vs. antigen test rates the same in both groups? 

5. Per your report, the “vaccinated” were considered vaccinated on 14 or after, per CDC guidelines.  This seems unusual; if the vaccine harms the immune system for a period of time and makes people more susceptible to infection, it would appear within the first two weeks, given what we have seen in animal studies. 

6. If people are not vaccinated until 14 days after receipt of the vaccine, shouldn’t people have to wait 14 days to receive their vaccine card if herd immunity is the goal?

7. Your particular group criterion definition would skew the data badly in favor of finding an increased rate of re-infection in the previously infected or unvaccinated, making causal attribution to the vaccine and your recommendation that all persons should be vaccinated impossible to support with your data.

8. Also, there is ambiguity in the description of the time periods for the two groups.  For the controls, were the data time-matched?  Trends in prevalence of  SARS-CoV-2 , public health measures, and seasonality of respiratory viruses change over time.  Using a different (albeit overlapping) time period could bias the results in terms of group rates of infection.

9. Were “vaccinated” considered vaccinated past 90 days, or were they switched to “unvaccinated” after 90 days per CDC guidelines?

10. Was this report peer-reviewed by scientists who do not work with or for the CDC?

11. Given the above, do you and your co-authors stand by your conclusions?

The professional favor of a reply is requested.


James Lyons-Weiler, PhD–

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
President, Director & CEO
Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge Editor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy and the Law
Pittsburgh, PA (412) 728-8743


  1. Bless you James for having the courage and wisdom to hold these medical “masters” feet to the fire. We are under attack, and without full disclosure/informed consent are marching forward like lemmings towards disaster.

  2. And bless you too Bob Brown for standing up for human diversity, biodiversity and truthfulness.

  3. Dr. Lyons-Weiler, can you please explain your item #9 and give a URL for the CDC guideline you refer to? I’m wondering if this guideline explains why so many U.S. hospitals are claiming that almost all their current COVID-19 patients are “unvaccinated” — while recent (Delta variant) statistics from Israel and Scotland how that almost all *their* current COVID-19 hospitalized patients, or patients who’ve recently died of COVID-19, have been fully vaccinated (source:

    1. Here’s one example: “CDC prefers… ”
      “CDC requests that state public health laboratories provide, on a weekly basis, confirmed, deidenf​ied (sic), diagnostic specimens to CDC to support the NS3 program. CDC prefers specimens with Ct values < 28 that have not already been sequenced". Another example: "State health departments voluntarily report vaccine breakthrough cases to CDC. As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from publicly reporting the passive surveillance of all vaccine breakthrough cases on the website to focus on hospitalized or fatal vaccine breakthrough cases due to any cause. This shift helped maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. Some health departments continue to report all vaccine breakthrough cases to the national database and continue to submit specimens to CDC for sequencing. Previous data on all vaccine breakthrough cases reported to CDC from January–April 2021 are available."

      CDC replaced the pdf of the original guidance with a pdf leading to a generic dead-end.
      Original Link Here:

      Here is that the Wayback Machine reported on May 8th:

      As previously announced, CDC is transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. That change in reporting will begin on May 14, 2021. In preparation for that transition, the number of reported breakthrough cases will not be updated on May 7, 2021.”

      Here is the Wayback Machine Link used for the data listed above:

      It appears to have been removed on May 15th, the day after the new reporting policy took effect. Wayback Machine Link to May 15th:

      That’s obfuscation at best, a cover-up of their biasing the rates in the vaccinated at worst.

      This may be useful as well:

    2. The most damning evidence is this –

      The dead-end unrelated link it leads to, compared to the original pdf

      “Clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28.”

      That’s where you really see the plan to bias all future reports.

      I believe this is fraud.

      1. Thank you for your response. I certainly agree that the CDC’s asymmetrical testing/reporting is fraud.

        However, what I want to read is the CDC guidelines that have to do with switching “vaccinated” to “unvaccinated” after 90 days as stated in your item 9, which reads:

        9. Were “vaccinated” considered vaccinated past 90 days, or were they switched to “unvaccinated” after 90 days per CDC guidelines?

        Thank you!

    3. That is a good question. How dare they consider even vaccinated people unvaccinated just to skew their numbers and cause sensationalist headlines, if that is what is going on.

  4. Hi and thank you for sharing these links and explanations. I understand what Kayla is asking and agree it would still be helpful to see the source linked for the CDC guidelines that vaccinated are recommended to be switched to unvaccinated after 90 days. I don’t currently see this linked, but if you have already answered this somehow, could you please explain it more so that we both can understand better? Thank you.

    1. This might have help. CDC updated their guidelines re: quarantine and hedged on transmission from the vaccinated – so they tried to clarify and said there were not saying 90 day limit to “vaccinated”, but that’s the effect of their update at the time.

      We now know, sadly, that 90 days was optimistic:

      From CDC :Fully vaccinated people with no COVID-like symptoms following an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 Fully vaccinated people who have come into close contact with someone with COVID-19 should be tested 3-5 days following the date of their exposure and wear a mask in public indoor settings for 14 days or until they receive a negative test result. They should isolate if they test positive. Fully vaccinated people who live in a household with someone who is immunosuppressed, at increased risk of severe disease, or unvaccinated (including children <12 years of age) could also consider masking at home for 14 days following a known exposure or until they receive a negative test result. Most fully vaccinated people with no COVID-like symptoms do not need to quarantine or be restricted from work following an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, if they follow the testing and masking recommendation above. Fully vaccinated people should monitor for symptoms of COVID-19 for 14 days following an exposure.

      1. Thank you for these references. The CNN article actually does a pretty good job of clarifying the CDC’s mud, while simultaneously making plain that it really is mud.

        The quotes from Peter Hotez are treasures. “I think that’s probably true.” “Certainly vaccines will last more than three months.” “In some ways, it’s a welcome recommendation because at some point, we’ve got to start working towards normalcy and opening up the country.” Obviously the man has a choke-chain around his neck and someone frightening is holding the leash.

        The CDC reminds me over and over of the line from Sir Walter Scott’s “Marmion”: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” There are too many spiders trying to weave this web (CDC, FDA, Fauci, WHO, Gates…) and they keep inadvertently tangling each other, and themselves, in the sticky mess.

  5. Dr. Lyons-Weiler, I heard your June 2021 interview and realized your back ground would be particularly skilled at refuting the Kentucky study. I came to your blog and was pleased to see this letter. The Kentucky report is the premier report to “prove” that unvaccinated COVID recovered people should get vaccinated. I respectfully request that you post a counter argument to critique the Kentucky study. Particularly, it would be good to know what the expected number of false positives would be in a study for a population like this and how does that compare to the observed re-infection numbers.

    This is a big request but I believe the Kentucky article needs a thoughtful rebuttal that can be understood by discerning readings that aren’t necessarily in the medical field.

    Thank you for your work.

Leave a Reply