A coordinated effort is underway to silence and discredit those putting forth any information that conflicts with the mantra that “vaccines are safe, necessary and effective” (the mantra). Big Pharma and its cronies in the state and media are at the helm of the effort. Of course, the mantra is merely a Big Pharma marketing slogan, and it’s preposterous to believe that it scientifically buttons-up the highly complex topic of vaccines and their associated diseases.
Those paying attention while this plays out are accustomed to stories of doctors and scientists whose livelihoods have been crushed after stating anything deemed to be in conflict with the mantra. Andrew Wakefield’s story is perhaps the most well-known of these but, at this point, there are too many “Wakefields” to count.
This article is about Dr. Paul Thomas and it has the familiar storyline of a doctor suffering professionally after expressing vaccine safety concerns. However, it also has another storyline which is heartening and ironic–about how two rounds volleyed against Dr. Thomas have backfired badly, arguably harming Big Pharma’s beloved mantra far more than Dr. Thomas.
Round 1 – Dr. Thomas’ belief that he was targeted by the Oregon Medical Board (OMB) triggered his landmark study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated children with those of unvaccinated children, which showed significantly better outcomes in the unvaccinated children.
This article provides a broad overview of Dr. Thomas’ story. A more detailed discussions of it, in Dr. Thomas’ own words, can be found in two interviews conducted with him in December of 2020, one by Bretigne Shaffer (Shaffer interview) and one by Del Bigtree of The HighWire (Episode 193 of The HighWire 1:19:25-1:56:13) (HW interview). However, before delving into Dr. Thomas’ story, it’s helpful to review the general backdrop that existed with regard to vaccines while it transpired.
In the US, the manufacturers of many vaccines have been afforded highly unusual liability protections. Claims of harm pertaining to the vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for routine use in children must proceed under a special system called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). Under this system, the vaccine manufacturers are shielded from liability, and taxpayers, rather than vaccine manufacturers, fund any award of damages through payment of an excise tax. The CDC recommends some of these childhood vaccines for use in adults and, for those vaccines, the manufacturers’ shield from liability also extends to adult use. The manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines have also been afforded liability protections, although claims of harm from COVID-19 vaccines will proceed through the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program rather than through the NVICP.
In 1983, the CDC recommended 24 doses of 7 childhood vaccines. That was prior to the aforementioned removal of liability, which began in 1986. The CDC now recommends approximately 70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18. A person receiving all of the doses on the CDC’s current childhood and adult schedules would receive nearly 150 lifetime doses. Further, the number of vaccines on the schedules is expected to continue rising. For example, Bill Gates, who strongly influences vaccine policy, has reportedly stated that a COVID-19 vaccine will likely become part of the newborn vaccine schedule. In recent years, a battle has taken place regarding vaccine mandates and several states have rolled back childhood vaccine exemptions.
Dr. Thomas has been a strong voice for the right to informed consent and vaccine choice. He has an impressive background, including that he received his M.D. from Dartmouth Medical School and that he’s board-certified in pediatrics, addiction medicine, and integrative and holistic medicine. He opened his current practice in Portland, Oregon in 2008 and it’s served over eleven thousand patients.
It was within the context of the rapidly growing CDC schedule and a battle over vaccine mandates that Dr. Thomas co-authored a book, The Vaccine Friendly Plan, published in 2016. The book discusses his recommended plan, which was designed to limit exposure to aluminum-containing vaccines and allows for the delay or cessation of vaccinations if any of the tell-tale signs of vaccine injury appear. The plan affords parents the right to informed consent, providing them with a thorough explanation of the risks and benefits of each vaccine on the CDC schedule and the right to choose which, if any vaccines their children receive. Dr. Thomas describes his approach as individualizing the vaccine plan to the patient, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach (Shaffer interview 24:30-24:47). The parental choice afforded by Dr. Thomas’ plan does not violate Oregon vaccination law.
In Dr. Thomas’ interview with Shaffer, he indicated that he believes the 2016 publication of his book put a target on him with the OMB because his troubles with the board began in 2018, after the book’s publication (Shaffer interview 6:08-11:00). He explained that the OMB repeatedly requested information from his practice, in what he described as a “fishing expedition,” but that it didn’t issue any order against his license until its December 3, 2020 order of emergency suspension, which was issued within a handful of days after the publication of his landmark study, discussed below (Shaffer interview 24:49-27:21). Dr. Thomas also discussed the issuance of the order in his interview with Bigtree (HW interview 1:40:13-1:54:55).
This article does not attempt to address all of the allegations contained in the order and Dr. Thomas didn’t attempt to do so in his interviews with Shaffer or Bigtree. He noted that he intends to oppose the suspension through legal means. However, the information he provided in response to questions about one of the cases cited in the order is quite eyebrow-raising. Section 3.3.3 of the order refers to an unvaccinated boy who developed a very serious case of tetanus following a scalp laceration, which required a lengthy hospitalization. Dr. Thomas explained that he didn’t meet the child or his parents (who had committed to not vaccinating long before Dr. Thomas met them) until after the incident and after the boy’s release from the hospital, when Dr. Thomas agreed to take him on as a patient for follow up. According to the order, that follow up visit occurred in November of 2017 (several years prior to the December 3, 2020 “emergency” suspension of Dr. Thomas’ license) and the allegations set forth in the order include that Dr. Thomas didn’t document an informed consent discussion he gave during the visit. Dr. Thomas explained to Shaffer that, although he did provide the discussion in the visit, he didn’t document it because the visit was not a “well-child visit,” and that he subsequently gave the discussion again to the boy and his parents during a well-child visit and documented it then, in accordance with his office’s procedure (Shaffer interview 27:21-32:18). Dr. Thomas noted that, during the boy’s lengthy hospital stay, his parents were not persuaded by any provider at the hospital to vaccinate him.
If the allegations concerning the tetanus case are any indication of the overall strength of the OMB’s case against Dr. Thomas, it’s reasonable to wonder whether his suspension will be legally upheld, or perhaps more importantly, whether it will be upheld in the court of public opinion.
Dr. Thomas explained to Bigtree that in January of 2019, due to the OMB’s focus on his practice, he decided to have a study conducted comparing (based upon vaccination level) the health of the children born into his practice (HW interview 1:29-1:31, 1:34:40-1:39:30). Vaccine safety advocates have long requested that the CDC conduct a “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” health outcome study, and also a safety study of the entire CDC schedule. Such testing has not been conducted by the CDC or any federal agency.
Dr. Thomas and Bigtree discussed this lack of safety testing during the Bigtree interview. They noted that it’s illogical to conclude that not vaccinating at all, or only partially vaccinating, is less safe than vaccinating in accordance with the full CDC schedule, in light of that fact that the safety of the schedule itself has not been proven and it has not been proven that vaccinated children are healthier than unvaccinated ones (HW interview 1:24:23-1:25:50).
Fortunately, Dr. Thomas, along with James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, did conduct a study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The results of their study are astounding and very problematic for Big Pharma. They’re set forth in a peer-reviewed paper published in late 2020. (A correction of errors in two figures, which had not affected the study’s scientific conclusions, was published in January of 2021.) The study was a retrospective analysis of the health records of the approximately 3,300 children born into Dr. Thomas’ practice, covering a period of approximately ten years, comparing the health outcomes of the children (vaccinated to varying extents v. unvaccinated).
The study concluded that the vaccinated children in the practice appeared to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated ones. It found that the vaccinated children saw a doctor markedly more often than their unvaccinated counterparts for a broad range of conditions. For example, compared to their unvaccinated counterparts, the vaccinated children were three to six times more likely to seek treatment related to anemia, asthma, allergies and sinusitis. Charts reflecting the study results are striking, such as one labelled Figure 5 which Dr. Thomas discussed with both Shaffer and Bigtree (Shaffer interview 32:15-33:52,36:13-39:15, HW interview 1:34:40-1:39:30).
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of Dr. Thomas’ story is that, rather than pressure from the OMB causing him to toe the line and begin administering only the full CDC vaccine schedule, it instead caused him to have a study conducted which has yielded findings which are highly damaging to that schedule–a study that may never have been conducted in the absence of the OMB pressure. Any thought that Dr. Thomas would capitulate to the pressure was clearly misguided.
Round 2 – The suspension of Dr. Thomas’ license has propelled him to launch a show which will provide exposure to the very medical and scientific professionals, and scientific information, that Big Pharma wants suppressed.
If the suspension of Dr. Thomas’ license was in any way intended to derail his efforts to promote vaccine safety and choice, it was also misguided. Not working as a doctor has freed up his time and he’s clearly not using that newfound time to rest. Rather, he’s launched a new bi-weekly show called Against the Wind: Doctors and Science Under Fire which, according to the show’s website, will stand for medical freedom and informed consent by interviewing patients who have experienced vaccine injury and professionals who are “under fire” (doctors, scientists and authors). It will also focus on scientific studies ignored by the press and provide information about legal actions related to medical freedom.
Dr. Thomas likely has the connections necessary to land interviews of many of the highly credentialled doctors and scientists currently questioning vaccine safety–the very voices that Big Pharma most wants suppressed. He was recently back on the widely-watched The HighWire where he discussed the launch of his show (Episode 201 of The HighWire 58:10-1:21:05). He also has the support of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., which the latter recently declared in an article posted on his popular website, Children’s Health Defense.
Perhaps Dr. Thomas’ story will enlighten those attempting to suppress voices questioning vaccine safety to the fact that professional hits and pressure tactics may only spur those voices on, drawing even more attention to the scientific evidence that conflicts with Big Pharma’s “safe, necessary and effective” mantra.
