Podcast Summary
Dr. Paul Thomas' individualized approach to vaccinations: Despite allegations, Dr. Thomas' clinic respects individualized vaccination decisions and studies show positive health outcomes for patients with non-CDC vaccination schedules
Dr. Paul Thomas, a well-known and respected medical professional in Oregon, had his medical license suspended due to allegations of not following informed consent procedures related to vaccinations. However, the accusations against him are misguided, as Dr. Thomas runs a clinic that respects individualized decisions regarding vaccinations. His approach is not one-size-fits-all but rather tailored to each patient's unique circumstances. In a recent study, Dr. Thomas and his team analyzed data from his patient database, focusing on patients who had only been under his care. They found that most patients in his practice were vaccinated but not according to the CDC schedule, and the health outcomes of these patients were compared to those who were completely unvaccinated or variably vaccinated. The study, published on Jeremy Rhammond's website, jeremyrhammond.com, clearly shows that families in Dr. Thomas' practice make informed and individualized decisions about their children's vaccinations. The accusations against Dr. Thomas for pressuring patients to follow a specific vaccination schedule are unfounded.
Study on Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated Children's Health Outcomes: A study by Dr. Paul Thomas found unvaccinated children had better health outcomes, but the medical board suspended his license for sharing results, sparking concerns over prioritization of policy goals over individual health.
A study conducted by Dr. Paul Thomas, a pediatrician in Oregon, compared health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children in his practice. Contrary to the CDC's long-standing position, the study found that unvaccinated children had better health outcomes, with lower rates of chronic illnesses, allergies, asthma, and ear infections. The study also used a new measure, Relative Incidence of Office Visits (RIOV), which not only looked at the incidence of diagnoses but also the severity of illness and the amount of healthcare required. The differences in the graphs showing RIOV between unvaccinated and vaccinated children were astonishing. However, after publishing the study, the Oregon Medical Board suspended Dr. Thomas' license, despite his production of peer-reviewed evidence supporting his approach to vaccination and informed consent. The board's goal was to maintain high vaccination rates, while Dr. Thomas aimed for good health outcomes among his patients. This incident raises concerns about the rejection of science and data by health regulators and their prioritization of policy goals over individual health.
Study in Guinea Bissau found vaccinated children dying at higher rates: A study conducted by pro-vaccine scientists and financed partially by vaccine manufacturers found vaccinated children in Guinea Bissau were dying at higher rates from various diseases, raising concerns about broader health outcomes of vaccines
The study conducted in Guinea Bissau, which compared health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, found that the vaccinated children were dying at higher rates from various diseases, including respiratory illnesses, pneumonia, heart diseases, anemia, sepsis, and malaria. The study, which was published in eBiopharma in 2017, was conducted by pro-vaccine scientists and was financed partially by vaccine manufacturers. This study, among others, raises concerns about the broader health outcomes of vaccines and the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of public health beyond just vaccination rates. The current chronic disease epidemic, which includes asthma, eczema, and allergies, highlights the importance of examining the overall health impact of vaccines.
Vaccine safety and effectiveness should consider overall health impact: Long-term studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children's health outcomes are necessary to ensure vaccines don't negatively impact children's health and increase all-cause mortality.
The safety and effectiveness of vaccines, such as the DTP vaccine, should not be based solely on their ability to prevent target diseases. Absent long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, there is a risk that vaccines may negatively impact children's health and lead to increased all-cause mortality. For instance, studies have suggested that the DTP vaccine may weaken children's immune systems, making them more susceptible to other illnesses and causing them to die from other causes. Parents and scientists have called for studies comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children using databases like the VSD, but the CDC has been hesitant to conduct such research. One study, the Verstraten study, found a significant increase in autism diagnoses in children who received the hepatitis B vaccine within their first 30 days of life. However, the CDC has made it difficult for independent scientists to access the necessary data to conduct further research. Despite these challenges, numerous studies have shown negative health impacts on vaccinated children when compared to unvaccinated children.
Comparing medical care usage between vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Study found vaccinated children had more fever diagnoses but equal well child visits, debunking the myth that unvaccinated children are healthier due to lack of medical care. Properly controlling for biases is crucial for accurate vaccine safety research.
The study conducted by doctors Jackie Sperling and Paul Thomas aimed to address the criticism that parents of unvaccinated children merely avoid medical care for their kids, making them appear healthier. To control for this, they compared rates of fever diagnoses and well child visits between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The results showed that vaccinated children had more fever diagnoses but equal well child visits, indicating that the healthier appearance of unvaccinated children was not due to lack of medical care. Additionally, it's important to note the issue of healthy user bias in vaccine safety studies. For instance, a 2015 study claimed that the MMR vaccine did not increase the risk of autism in genetically predisposed children, but the media headlines misrepresented the findings. The actual research showed that parents of children with older siblings diagnosed with autism were less likely to vaccinate their younger children with the MMR vaccine, leading to selection bias. This bias skews the results, as it's not the vaccine that protects against autism, but rather, children at higher risk of autism are less likely to receive the vaccine. Properly controlling for such biases is crucial for accurate vaccine safety research.
Doctor's Study on Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated Children Leads to License Suspension: A doctor's study contradicting the CDC schedule led to license suspension, while bullying accusations were unfounded and hypocritical
Dr. Paul, a doctor with a large practice in Oregon, published a study suggesting that vaccinated children may be sicker than unvaccinated children, despite bias in favor of finding higher rates of illness among the lesser vaccinated. After the study's publication, the Oregon Medical Board suspended his license, citing accusations of bullying patients into accepting alternative vaccine schedules. However, it's important to note that the bullying accusation is demonstrably false, as many pediatricians in the state bully parents into vaccinating strictly according to the CDC schedule. Despite requesting peer-reviewed evidence supporting his approach, the board suspended his license when the study results contradicted their belief system and policies. The board's complaints against him were anonymous, and Dr. Paul couldn't face his accusers or obtain information about their identities. The main accusation of bullying is hypocritical, as the medical board tolerates bullying from physicians who pressure parents to adhere to the CDC schedule.
Misunderstanding of Dr. Paul's Suspension: Dr. Paul's medical license suspension was due to informed consent practices, not bullying parents against vaccines. Informed consent is a critical issue globally, especially with COVID-19 vaccines and potential immunity passports.
The suspension of Dr. Paul's medical license was not due to bullying parents against vaccines, as falsely accused, but rather for practicing informed consent. This is a critical issue as there is a growing concern over informed consent rights, not just in Portland, Oregon, but globally, especially with the COVID-19 vaccines and potential immunity passports. Dr. Paul's individualized approach to vaccines, providing parents with information for informed choices, is essential. The accusations against him, such as a patient getting tetanus after being his patient, are demonstrably false. The GTAP vaccine, which is on his alternative schedule, is not one he recommends against. The long-term health outcomes data comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations is necessary for meaningful risk-benefit analysis, but the medical establishment and CDC refuse to conduct such studies. Dr. Paul's clinic remains operational, and his patients continue to receive care.
Emergency Suspension of a Pediatrician's Medical License Creates Dangerous Consequences for Addiction Patients: Rigid adherence to medical guidelines without considering individual circumstances or consequences can lead to dangerous situations, as seen in the emergency suspension of a pediatrician's medical license and the impact on his addiction patients.
The emergency suspension of a pediatrician and addiction specialist's medical license, who is known for advocating for vaccine alternatives, created a potentially dangerous situation for his highly needy addiction patients by immediately blocking him from helping them. This action, supposedly taken in the name of public health, lacked consideration for the consequences and shows the recklessness of the medical board. The doctor, who had prepared for the possibility of losing his license, continues to fight for it while maintaining peace with the outcome. His transformation from a vaccine believer to an advocate for vaccine alternatives was triggered by his personal experiences and a wake-up call from the Wakefield paper in 1998. This story highlights the importance of individual research and the potential consequences of rigid adherence to established medical guidelines.
Doctor's courage to question vaccine safety: Confirmation bias can hinder recognizing potential harm from actions, even with good intentions. Doctors should prioritize patient health over societal interests and informed consent should be a choice for parents.
Confirmation bias, the tendency to accept information that supports our beliefs and reject information that contradicts them, can be a significant barrier to recognizing potential harm caused by our actions, even with good intentions. Dr. Paul Thomas, a pediatrician, went against the norm by questioning the safety of vaccines and advocating for informed consent, despite facing professional consequences. His courageous stand against the medical establishment, which prioritizes adherence to the CDC schedule over patient autonomy, has sparked public outrage and activism. This incident highlights the importance of maintaining the traditional doctor-patient relationship, where the doctor's role is to prioritize the patient's health over societal interests, and the need for informed consent to be a choice for parents, not an administrative function for the state.
Historical consequences of surrendering doctor-patient relationship to state policy: Doctors must prioritize individual health and well-being over state objectives, protect informed consent, and stay informed, educated, and advocate for individual autonomy in healthcare decisions.
Surrendering the doctor-patient relationship to state policy can have dire consequences, as seen in historical events like the sterilization of people with disabilities in Germany and China. This is particularly concerning during times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, when policies like mass vaccination and immunity passports may infringe upon fundamental human rights, including informed consent. It's crucial to remember that doctors are not rulers or protectors of constitutional rights and have a duty to prioritize individual health and well-being over state objectives. The Nuremberg Code and international treaties recognize the right to informed consent, and it's essential to protect this right by staying informed, educating others, and advocating for individual autonomy in healthcare decisions.
