Table of Contents
Introduction
A study by renowned pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas and research scientist Dr. James Lyons-Weiler published in a peer-reviewed journal in November 2020 found that, compared to unvaccinated children, the vaccinated children in Thomas’s practice had a higher incidence of diagnoses for a wide range of health conditions as well as a higher incidence of office visits for those conditions.
Days after that study was published, Dr. Thomas’s medical license was suspended by the Oregon Medical Board on the demonstrably false pretext that his approach of respecting parents’ right to informed consent instead of pressuring them to comply strictly with the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule constituted an “emergency” threat to public health.
The study was also subsequently retracted by the journal editors without the editors specifying any flaws in the study that would warrant such a drastic action. Instead, the pretext for retraction was a hypothesized selection bias in the patient data, which is a highly unusual grounds for retracting a study, to say the least.
Now, Dr. Lyons-Weiler in collaboration with Dr. Russell Blaylock has published a second study utilizing Dr. Thomas’s patient data that directly falsifies the key allegation that led to the original study’s retraction, which was that their findings represented a lack of health care usage by parents of unvaccinated children, resulting in a failure to diagnose their equivalent health conditions, rather than a true effect of parents choosing not to vaccinate.
The newly published study tests the hypothesis that the original study’s findings are explainable by differences in healthcare-seeking behavior and demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Thomas’s unvaccinated patients truly have had better overall health outcomes. This poses a direct challenge to the “public health” establishment, which helps to explain why the original study was retracted on such a flimsy pretext, now thoroughly refuted.
Dr. Thomas’s Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study
Dr. Paul Thomas is a pediatrician who started out practicing medicine the way he was taught in medical school, which meant vaccinating pediatric patients according to the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In time, however, he started questioning the “one-size-fits-all” approach of the medical establishment and doing his own research into the medical literature on the safety and effectiveness of the various vaccines on the CDC’s routine childhood schedule.
After witnessing four of his own patients developmentally regress into autism after vaccination, Thomas decided that he could no longer in good conscience continue business as usual. Because the other doctors in his group practice felt that it would be unethical to not continue pushing the CDC’s schedule, Thomas left and in 2008 opened his own clinic in Portland, Oregon, founded on the principle that parents have a right to make their own informed choices about whether to vaccinate their children.
Along with coauthor Dr. Jennifer Margulis, he wrote the book The Vaccine-Friendly Plan to inform parents and help them navigate the difficult decision-making process about childhood vaccinations. Published in 2016, the book advocated this approach of informed choice based on an individualized risk-benefit analysis, which brought Thomas squarely into the crosshairs of the state government’s medical board.
Whereas Thomas aimed for a healthy childhood population, the government aimed for high vaccination rates, and those differing and opposing objectives led to the Oregon Medical Board persecuting Thomas for threating the government’s policy aim by advocating individualized medicine and respecting parents’ right to informed consent.
The board demanded that Thomas produce peer-reviewed evidence to support his alternative approach, which was thickly ironic since the board would be incapable of doing the same for the CDC’s schedule, given the absence of studies comparing long-term health outcomes between children vaccinated strictly according to the CDC’s schedule and children who remained completely unvaccinated.
Evidently, the board assumed that it had presented Thomas with an impossibly high hoop to jump through in demanding peer-reviewed evidence for his approach, but Thomas instead got institutional review board approval to conduct and publish research using the deidentified data from his own clinic, which he did with research scientist and data analyst Dr. James Lyons-Weiler.
Since few patients in his practice were vaccinated strictly according to the schedule and there was such a wide variety of individualized approaches, the study by Thomas and Lyons-Weiler examined health outcomes between unvaccinated versus variably vaccinated children, indicating that the most highly vaccinated had the worst health outcomes.
Titled “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination”, the study was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on November 22, 2020. The Oregon Medical Board responded on December 3 by completely ignoring Thomas’s fulfillment of their demand that he produce peer-reviewed data supporting his approach and issuing an “Order of Emergency Suspension” to strip Dr. Thomas of his medical license on the grounds that his refusal to push the CDC’s schedule on his pediatric patients constituted a threat to public health.
As I have shown in my book The War on Informed Consent, the medical board’s specific accusations against Thomas all revolve around his having committed the sin of heresy against the vaccine religion by respecting parents’ right to informed consent. The suspension order delivered the message to all physicians in the state that they had better coerce parents into strictly adhering to the CDC’s schedule, including by expelling patients whose parents declined to comply if necessary to maintain a sufficiently high vaccination rate in the practice, or else they would risk losing their license to practice medicine.
Thomas has legally fought back against the suspension of his license without due process, and on June 3, 2021, the board conditionally withdrew its suspension order. Dr. Thomas has since been able to practice medicine but remains prohibited from discussing vaccines with his patients’ parents and from participating in further research using his clinic’s patient data.
The Baseless Retraction of the Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study
In late February 2021, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Lyons-Weiler were informed by the editors of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health that an anonymous reader had written a letter to them to express concerns about the study. Thomas and Lyons-Weiler proposed that the editors bring the criticisms to light by publishing the anonymously written letter and allowing them an opportunity to publicly address those criticisms in a letter of their own.
The journal editors refused, however, and instead retracted the study on July 22, 2021. In doing so, the editors also refused to specify any problems with the study that would warrant this drastic measure.
Wow, wonderful work, Jeremy, as usual, thank you! I am consistently impressed by your output that is clear, thorough, and objective but with thoughtful, honest emotion. I enjoyed your work on the Yes/No Virus issue and now this on Dr Paul Thomas’ work exposing the Medical Mafia’s fearful obfuscation and mendacity. Well done, keep up your good work, and let us get you more viewers. Stay strong, safe and free.
Thank you for the kind words of encouragement, Jack.
Thank you Jeremy for writing this article.
I had actually been meaning to write about the original study’s retraction for a long time, but just never got to it due to other priorities. This new study by Dr. Jack and Dr. Blaylock provided me with a strong impetus to finally make the time for it.
Whooo hah! Thank you to Dr. Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Blaylock for authenticating and furthering the seminal work of Dr. Thomas! Hopefully this will help give traction to the reproduction and scaling up of comparative studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated. But mostly what I am feeling here, after reading this, is such appreciation for Jeremy. His writing is always, without exception, so constructive, so impeccably clear, concise and always incontrovertible. I wish he could be my go to for 100’s of other issues. How does he know so much about all this science? And explain it more deeply and clearly than the experts themselves? And how scary is it when he out-thinks the experts in their own game? I am a forever thankful student – for your insights and critical thinking and writing.
Thank you for the positive feedback!
Very important and necessary work, Jeremy. Thank you! And thank-you’s to the good doctors who took the time and energy and resources to write the initial study and the defense of that study. Warriors for truth and health, all! So, Jeremy, have you and the doctors involved had any (?further) discussions on what could/might be the next step(s) to undo the damage done by the original publisher and get both the original study and its defense into the mainstream? Keep on keeping on. We all need you.
I’m not aware of what efforts might be underway to hold the journal editors accountable for their lack of intellectual integrity. Perhaps a flood of readers should write in demanding that they reinstate the study, providing them with my article exposing their malfeasance.
The same reason was used by McKeever et al. to reject the strong association between vaccination and asthma in their 2004 study, “Vaccination and Allergic Disease: A Birth Cohort Study.”
The authors used a British database with the health records of nearly 30,000 children and found that asthma was 14 times more common in children who had been vaccinated for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio and eczema than children who had not, and eczema was 9.4 times more common in children who had not. They then irrationally dismissed this extremely high correlation because the “83% of children not recorded as vaccinated were in the lowest quartile of consulting frequency for the first 6 months.”
The “first quartile” they are referring to is 0–3 doctor visits in the first six months of life. That means that because 83% of the unvaccinated did not see a doctor MORE than 3 times in the first six months of life, the authors assumed that asthma (struggling to BREATHE) and eczema (nasty oozing rash) were happening just as often in that population BUT THEIR PARENTS WEREN’T TAKING THEM TO THE DOCTOR.
Such an assumption MAY be valid in a place where healthcare is quite expensive or where parents assume they will not be heard and get the help they need. In a place with socialized healthcare, however, like the children in the McKeever study, or where a doctor is quite friendly to parents who choose not to vaccinate, the assumption is nonsensical.
Notably, the study authors did not posit a reason why children should see a doctor more than three times in the first six months of life if they are not being vaccinated.
Seriously! That says it all, I think. Thank you for the info.