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

This article first appeared on

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

More from James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: