OPEN LETTER TO THE CDC ON REINFECTION RATES IN VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED

Cures 6 comments

From: James Lyons-Weiler <
Date: Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:39 PM
Subject: Cycle threshold distributions
To: <qds1@cdc.gov>
Cc: <>, <poland.gregory@mayo.edu>

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

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

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.

Sincerely,

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

6 comments

  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.

    Reply

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

    Reply

  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: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-manipulated-data-create-pandemic-unvaxxed-narrative/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=7dfd8c21-8381-44cb-9882-794d1ff13f51).

    Reply

    2. Here’s one example: “CDC prefers… ”
      https://www.aphl.org/programs/preparedness/Crisis-Management/COVID-19-Response/Pages/Sequence-Based-Surveillance-Submission.aspx
      “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." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

      https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cdc-only-tracks-a-fraction-of-breakthrough-covid-19-infections-even-as-cases-surge

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

      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

      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: https://web.archive.org/web/20210509013531/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

      It appears to have been removed on May 15th, the day after the new reporting policy took effect. Wayback Machine Link to May 15th: https://web.archive.org/web/20210515000706/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

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

      This may be useful as well:
      https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/25/cdc-pandemic-limited-data-breakthroughs-506823

      Reply

    3. The most damning evidence is this –
      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf

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

      https://web.archive.org/web/20210420110252/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.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.

      Reply

Leave a Reply