On November 22, 2020, a study comparing health outcomes for vaccinated versus unvaccinated children was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Using data from his pediatric practice of Dr. Paul Thomas in Portland, Oregon, Dr. Thomas and research scientist Dr. James Lyons-Weiler showed that the completely unvaccinated children had significantly less incidence of diagnoses for a broad range of health conditions.
They also developed a new methodological approach by comparing relative incidence of office visits, which showed that the unvaccinated children were significantly less likely to require frequent visits.
To control for possible differences in healthcare-seeking behavior between parents who vaccinate their children and those who don’t, they looked at visits for fever and well-child visits. As expected, since fever is a known side effect of vaccines, the vaccinated children saw the doctor much more for fevers. However, there was not a significant difference for well-child visits, indicating that the appearance of unvaccinated children being healthier was not because the children really were just as unhealthy but never diagnosed due to parental choices not to see a doctor; rather, it appeared to be a real effect.
In sum, the study’s findings provided evidence that Dr. Thomas’s unvaccinated patients were the healthiest children in his practice.
Just days after that study’s publication, on December 4, 2020, the Oregon Medical Board issued an emergency suspension order to suspend Dr. Thomas’s license.
The pretext for the suspension was that Dr. Thomas posed a threat to public health by “bullying” parents into not vaccinating, thereby threatening children’s health and lives.
On March 26, 2021, I published a major exposé showing how the true reason Dr. Thomas’s license was suspended was because he respects the right of parents to decide for themselves whether to vaccinate their children.
For that article, I had interviewed Dr. Thomas. After its publication, he interviewed me for his show Against the Wind. We discussed the importance of respecting the right to informed consent, and I summarized how we can know with absolute certainty that the medical board’s pretext is false and that the real reason for their action is that Dr. Thomas practices informed consent.
Watch our discussion above, starting at about the 1:35:00 mark, or go to this episode’s page on Dr. Thomas’s website DoctorsAndScience.com, scroll down, and play the video of just our interview (there were multiple guests in this episode).
My full original article, “Oregon Medical Board Suspends Dr. Paul Thomas for Practicing Informed Consent”, is available to read for free here. At the time, I also made it purchasable as a PDF download.
As we mention in the interview, that work is now to be published as a print book titled The War on Informed Consent: The Persecution of Dr. Paul Thomas by the Oregon Medical Board. It is substantially the same as my original work but has benefited from more thorough editing and a few updates — including the update that the medical board has since conditionally withdrawn its suspension order.
The book also features a Foreword by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The hardcover and e-book editions of the book will be published on August 24, but you can pre-order it now:
Pre-order The War on Informed Consent today!
Another development to this story occurred just last week, on July 22. Dr. Thomas and Dr. Lyons-Weiler’s study was retracted by the journal editors due to an anonymously written letter criticizing the study as flawed.
I intend to say much more about this later, but for now what I can tell you is that this was not unexpected. I have seen the criticisms made by the anonymous critic, whose letter contains clues as to his identity, and view them as sloppy, weak, and invalid. In my view, the study and its findings stand.
It is instructive that the journal editors refused Dr. Lyons-Weiler’s proposal to resolve the matter by publishing the critic’s letter along with a response by Lyons-Weiler and Thomas. Instead, the editors retracted the study without providing any substantive reason for doing so. They said that a complaint had been made and that their own investigation concluded that the study’s conclusions “were not supported by strong scientific data”. They provided no explanation as to which conclusions they were referring to and how they were not supported by the data.
That suggests that the true reason for the retraction had nothing to do with science and everything to do with public vaccine policy being upheld as unassailable. This is what happens to any honest scientists or doctors who dare to commit heresy against the vaccine religion by criticizing the unscientific one-size-fits-all approach of the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule. The house of cards is falling apart, and this is just another feeble attempt to conceal the truth from the public. That is all.
(Oh, and we can have a discussion about methodologically flawed studies whose authors’ conclusions do not follow from their findings. Pick a study whose authors conclude that vaccines are awesome and everyone should get all of them, and I’ll show you fatal methodological flaws. But those studies don’t get retracted.)
