In this episode, I am speaking with pediatrician Paul Thomas, MD about his ground-breaking research in his thousands of clients (why he was forced to withdraw the study, and why he’s been threatened with his license to practice medicine), and his wonderful book, The Vaccine Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity.
Table of Contents
- What V schedule Dr. Thomas advocates for in his pediatric clinic (and why). Is he opposed to them, in favor of them, or in favor of altering the schedule of their use?
- Dr. Thomas’ novel and important research comparing fully V-ed vs. partially V-ed vs. Un-V-ed children in terms of dozens of different health outcomes.
- (And why publishing it caused the medical boards to try to take away his license to practice medicine and pressured him to withdraw the study – and why this should concern everyone.)
- Dr. Thomas’ reasons for concern about the link between aluminum-based inoculations and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Listen or download on iTunes
Listen outside iTunes
Ari: Hey, there. This is Ari. Welcome back to the Energy Blueprint Podcast. I am very excited for today’s guest. He’s someone I’ve wanted to have on for literally a few years now since I read his book which has been very influential on my own thinking. His name is Dr. Paul Thomas. He is a vaccine-friendly doctor, knowledgeable about both the latest scientific research and the community’s disease exposure and respectful of a family’s risk factors, health history, and concerns.
He’s the father of nine, pediatrician for 35 years, and he’s the author of the book, The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, which I highly recommend Dr. Paul’s safe and effective approach to immunity and health from pregnancy through your child’s teen years. Welcome, Dr. Thomas, such a pleasure to finally connect with you and have you on the show.
Dr. Thomas: Thanks, Ari. It’s my pleasure to be on the show with you.
Ari: Great. You’ve been through quite a situation in recent years. I was just listening this morning, re-listening to a podcast that you did with a mutual friend of ours, named Robin Openshaw, and I heard you say in that episode, that prior to publishing your book in 2016 and publishing the subsequent research, which was a data analysis of your about roughly 3,000 patients which we’re going to talk about the details of, you said that you knew that the medical boards would come after you and try to take your license, which they did.
Can you talk to us about that situation and the details of what happened as well as just your own thinking and your own motivations, or what motivated you to put out that information, that book and that study anyway, knowing that all these people would come and attack you for it?
Dr. Thomas: Yes. Take you right back to medical school, 1985 I graduated from Dartmouth Medical School. In Medical School, all we learned about vaccines was these are the horrible diseases for which we have these amazing products, these vaccines that have saved humanity. It’s the best thing you can do to vaccinate people. That’s what keeps the population healthy and away from all the scourge of these massive, horrible diseases.
Then in residency when you’re doing your intensive pediatric training, you actually see cases of meningitis, and so it reinforces the fact that, wow, we need to do something about this. Those are the sickest kids. What you’re not aware of, I wasn’t and my peers most aren’t aware even to this day, is that studies that get published to show vaccine safety and for that matter, vaccine efficacy are very carefully designed to prove what the manufacturers want to prove.
They’re paid for by the people who profit from the vaccines. Those conflicts of interest are not really well-known or disclosed, and it’s basically unfortunately, tobacco science. Ari, if you smoke a pack a day, I’ll smoke two packs a day, and we’ll see which one of us dies in the next week. Oh, neither of us died. Cigarettes are safe. That’s about what they do with vaccine safety research.
Anyway, I digressed a little bit. I’m happily going along as a Pediatrician, thinking I’m doing the best I can for my patients by vaccinating everybody according to the CDC schedule, there was this curious thing that happened every year. If you’re a pediatrician or a family practice doctor, you know this. Every year in the past, it was both the Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC that would get together some closed room somewhere and come up with the schedule. All right.
It would change almost every year and it was usually adding something or squeezing something earlier into the schedule. You could get more vaccines into kids and it was all rolled out as this is the absolute best thing you should do. Now, as a young doctor, who are you, who was I to question the top doctors in the country? My assumption was, these are the best of the best. They work for the CDC, which has this great reputation.
I now know that, to rise up in the ranks at the NIH or the CDC, at least in the world of vaccines, you have to speak the party line or you don’t get a promotion. You don’t get raised to a position where you’re going to make decisions unless you are of that party line, vaccines are safe and effective. It’s the most important thing we can do for public health. That’s true in most public health agencies.
The culture itself has created the phenomenon we have, where the establishment and the news that supports the establishment or is paid for by the same powerful forces that govern all of this, they have an agenda. That’s hidden to even doctors who just we are trained by the system. Until you get a wake up of some kind, so what wakes people up? Usually, it’s a vaccine injury. I regret that it took something that big in my life for me to wake up, but the truth is I was within the system.
What happened for me was, well, actually in 1999, Andrew Wakefield, who’s been smeared as the guy that’s the poster child for medical fraud. Nothing could be more false. The guy is the most brilliant scientist who just happen to publish an article in 1999 that said, after he analyzed about 10 cases of kids with autism and found, “Oh my gosh, they have something unique going on in their GI-tract, because he did biopsies,” and he just published it and said, “People ought know about this. There’s something different here.”
He called it a lymphoid hyperplasia. He was just noticing a finding. He said in the conclusion, “Perhaps there’s a link between the MMR-vaccine and autism, this should be studied further.” This is just the perfect scientific conclusion. Well, they just persecuted him for 10 years, till they took away his license. He just didn’t have the funds to defend himself so that’s the Wakefield story.
When I read that article, it planted a seed in my mind. “Huh? Vaccines might cause health problems?” News flash, that should have been a no brainer. Any pharmaceutical product can cause health problems. Sure, there might be benefits, but there also might be harm. I just was clueless to that. Well then, the real straw that broke the camels back for me was four years in a row, 2004, ’05, ’06 and ’07 in my own practice.
I was a very busy pediatrician at that point, in group with four other pediatricians. I would say I had probably close to 30 newborns a month coming into my own practice. I was just growing like crazy. Well, that’s enough babies given the prevalence of autism for me to actually see a case every year and I did. It just so happen that they were severe cases. 2004, ’05, ’06 and ’07, I had a baby who was smiling, sometimes starting to talk at age one, regress into severe nonverbal autism by age two.
When that fourth time happened, it was like, “Snap, I can’t do this anymore.” I already had figured out with got a problem, I didn’t know what it was, but something was going on, what we call iatrogenic, meaning we the doctors are causing a problem or if you’re in the hospital, it’s something you’re doing in the hospital that’s causing the problem. It just became crystal clear to me. It had to be something to do with the vaccines. I didn’t have any proof at the time, I just had this gut feeling there was something going on.
Well today, if you do the research, oh my gosh, there’s hundreds of articles showing problems with vaccines. What became more important was, we needed to actually look at real world data. Fast forward, 2007, that final straw, I go to my partners and I say, “I can’t do vaccines as usual. I’m not willing to do the hepatitis B vaccine to newborns. We don’t need it.” That one just always seemed like a no-brainer.
In Oregon, where I practiced around 2000, they made a decision, and it felt to me like it was countrywide, that we were going to move the hepatitis B vaccine from teenagers, which is where we used to do it and start giving it to newborns. Well, you catch hep-B from sex and IV drug use. Babies don’t do that. Why are we giving it to newborns? “Oh,” they said, “Well, the moms might not be honest about their risk factors. Maybe they’re IV drug users or they’re promiscuous, so we want to just protect these babies.”
Okay it’s a long shot, right? Actually, the OBGYNs are so good even back then of checking mothers for hepatitis B. We literally know that this mother who’s delivering this baby, not only do they not have hepatitis B, they don’t have any risk factors for hepatitis B. A lot of times, they’re already immune because they’ve been vaccinated against hepatitis B. We know with absolute certainty that the risk of that baby getting hepatitis B from their mother, which is the whole reason of injecting a baby anyway, is zero.
It’s pure harm, zero benefit. Why would a doctor do that? It defied logic, it defied reason. I go to my partners and I say, “I can’t do this anymore.” Well, first they said, “Okay, whatever.” They had a secret meeting, came back to me and said, “It’s unethical for you not to follow the CDC schedule, so there’s the door,” basically. I’m thinking my world is over. This is I’ve built 13 years of my life building my practice. It is the best thing that ever happened to me. I started integrative pediatrics. We started a clinic where the premise was informed consent. Parents are always in charge. You can do whatever you want, whether it’s the CDC Schedule, which nobody does, once you’re informed or some slower schedule or none at all.
Well, what happened over the years was, I was developing a growing population of unvaxxed, but I also had highly vaxxed and partially vaxxed. I thought, it’s time to look at this data, so 2015 I did, did an IRB Institutional Review Board Approved Study. You just look retrospectively at the data, and I tried to publish it. I was unsuccessful. I wrote up two papers, neither of them I was able to get published. Mostly, that’s on me. It’s just not my wheelhouse. I’m a clinician, I’m in the trenches, just clinical taking care of patients. I’m not a researcher as such.
I gave up on publishing those articles and I wrote the book, Vaccine-Friendly Plan. I thought, “They can’t stop me from writing a book.” I put some of my data in that book, and as you said at the intro, I knew I was putting a target on my back just because it’s, “Hey, the CDC’s the bear,” and I poked bear. I’m saying there might be a better way. There’s certainly a different way, and they want one-size-fits-all medicine. That’s what’s most profitable.
It is not profitable to move the hepatitis B back to teenagers or to not do a vaccine at all. You totally lose all your profits. That’s the backdrop that brought me to the Vaccine-Friendly Plan, and then what’s happened since, we can certainly go into it.
Ari: Got it. You did have your license taken away from you.
Dr. Thomas: Yes.
Ari: Then you have since had it reinstated, is that correct?
Dr. Thomas: Correct. To lead up to them taking my license away on me. One of the slides I wanted to show PowerPoint was I published a study looking at aluminum retention in the body based on what schedule you vaccinate with. There’s the CDC Schedule and there’s the Vaccine-Friendly Plan. There’s two graphs you can pull and show people. The first one on one axis, it shows the total aluminum accumulation in the body over 800 days, in the first two and a half years of a kid’s life, and you see big spikes on vaccine days.
In yellow and black is the CDC Schedule and in green is the Vaccine-Friendly Plan. You’ll notice that we’re exceeding adult levels of aluminum toxicity with the CDC Schedule and with all the schedules you exceed pediatric safe levels. The second graph is a table that shows—
The reason why they put aluminum in vaccines
Ari: Hold on one second, just to Dr. Thomas. It’s worth mentioning for people who may just not have much familiarity with this topic. Why is aluminum of concern, first of all, and then also in most of the conventional attitudes towards that is, “Oh yes, there’s aluminum in vaccines.” It’s of such a tiny dose that it’s just minuscule. It’s not going to have any effects on above.
Dr. Thomas: Excellent point. Aluminum is put into vaccines because the vaccines that have aluminum would not work without it. It’s put in as an adjuvant, which is just a term, meaning it’s going to overstimulate the immune system. It’s basically a toxin intentionally put into the vaccine to create a whole bunch of irritation where the shot is given.
People who give vaccines or if you’ve received vaccines or your children have received vaccines, you often get that redness and soreness where the shot’s given. That’s what the aluminum’s doing, and about half or more than half of the vaccines have aluminum in them at very, very high doses. It creates blood flow to the area, because your body’s going, “What is this toxic substance doing here, we need to get rid of it.” Your white blood cells think of them as little Pac-Mans.
They grab a little piece of metal aluminum, and they’re going to try to get rid of it. How does a cell get rid of metal? It tries to dissolve it, so puts in the lysosome tries to dissolve it, it can’t, it’s metal. The Pac-Man white cell moves through the body while it’s trying to dissolve this aluminum. Eventually, the aluminum kills that cell. The aluminum is now released in the new tissue, wherever that white blood cell landed. That’s how you carry aluminum from the site where it’s injected to the brain, to the kidneys all over the body.
Now, to address the amount of aluminum, you were right in stating, it seems like a relatively small amount compared to the amount of aluminum that’s in formula, for example, or we inadvertently eat dirt that has aluminum in it at much higher doses. Ha, but aluminum that you drink or eat goes through the intestinal tract, which has a barrier to keep it out of your body.
I think it’s like 0.3% of the aluminum that you drink or eat is actually absorbed into the body. While when you inject it, you bypass all those defense mechanisms. It’s like main lining, shooting up aluminum right into your bloodstream, basically. In fact, it’s probably worse, because it goes into the muscle where that process of the white blood cell phagocytes eating it and then carrying it all over the body. That’s why aluminum is a problem. Lots of studies showing a link between aluminum and developmental issues.
Ari: I just want to point out one nuance there for people who may not have caught it. There are some people who argue that whatever’s injected stays at the site of the injection intramuscularly. The way that you spoke about that is intended to speak to that argument, because we have this research showing that these white blood cells are basically gobbling up that aluminum. Then once it’s inside of them, they can transport it to tissues throughout the body.
Dr. Thomas: We’ve found high levels of aluminum in Alzheimer’s but we’ve also autopsy study on autistic kids who happen to be killed in motor vehicle accidents showed high, high levels of aluminum in autistic brains. We know it’s moving from the site of injection into tissue. There’s no question aluminum is a neurotoxin. It interferes with child development, and it interferes with a lot of normal cellular function.
There’s not a single biochemical pathway in the body that needs aluminum. It is pure toxin. Other side will say, “Well, it’s the third most common element in the Earth’s crust.” In other words, it’s in the dirt. That’s where it’s supposed to stay too, so is arsenic or cyanide. There’s lots of stuff out there that we know is toxic and that’s fine. Keep it out of the body.
The current vaccine culture, and how it affects us
Ari: Got it. There’s a segment of the population, which I know you’re very familiar with, who will be listening to this interview thus far. There are people who, I know you’ve dealt with a lot, who will attack you as anti-vaxxer and as “He’s just some kind of crazy anti-vaxxer doctor. He doesn’t believe in vaccines, he’s dangerous,” that sort of thing. There will be people after this episode who attack me, “I’m so disappointed in you, Ari. How dare you host this guy? Who’s this anti-vaxxer doctor, yada yada yada.”
There seems to be a culture around vaccines, and this almost magical, mystical effect of the word vaccine, where as soon as that word is used, I find that almost no one knows how to think clearly and scientifically anymore. It becomes this binary thing where you either believe, “All vaccines are these terrible, toxic things that are killing everyone and have no benefit,” or you believe that all vaccines are perfectly safe and effective. They’re the savior of humanity and anyone who dares to even broach the topic of harms from vaccines is a quack almost by definition.
You cannot talk about that topic, which is interesting because we all talk about this in every other drug and every other medical intervention. We always talk about the need for long-term safety data. We always talk about the risk benefit analysis for different demographics. Yet, with vaccines, all the vaccines especially now, the situation we’re living through right now in 2021, all of that is being thrown out the window.
It’s basically saying, “The mantra is the vaccines are safe and effective. We have no need for long-term safety data to even talk about such things as quackery and conspiracy theory and anti-vaxxer nonsense,” and all this kinds of stuff. It seems to me that the irony of it is it seems to be unbelievably anti-scientific in the way that the people who believe themselves to be on the side of science are thinking. Do you have any thoughts about this kind of general culture of vaccines and the pro-vaxxers and the anti-vaxxers and all this kind of stuff?
Dr. Thomas: Yes, absolutely. I was a pro-vaccinating pediatrician until I realized, “Houston, we have a problem.” I vaccinated my kids, according to the CDC Schedule. I took the vaccines myself, including annual flu shots for the first half of my career, if not more. That’s hardly an anti-vax doctor. Something happened that woke me up. First of all, I started going to some conferences where we were actually looking at science, not just pharma-driven spoon feeding of junk science. We were looking at amazing science that was like biochemistry and it was exciting again, like medical school.
Medical school, the first two years, it’s all about physiology and biochemistry and microbiology and pathophysiology, and you’re learning anatomy. Then you go to clinical medicine where you’re taught how to diagnose and treat, label and treat. It’s like science gets turned off and learning how to follow a protocol gets turned on, and it was a whole different world.
Now, mind you, I happen to be very good at clinical medicine. I just had the sixth sense about it, but I applied it in the way I was taught, which was diagnose and treat. I got really, really good at labeling and finding the rights pharmaceutical product to take care of your symptoms. We lost the whole root cause of what’s going on, and so we see this in pediatrics, which is my field, a growing tsunami of kids with chronic disease. I was just like, when it started hitting my own kids, plus I’m seeing it in my patients, I’m like going, “What the heck is going on here?” [crosstalk]
Ari: It’s something like 54% of kids are dealing with some kind of chronic illness?
Dr. Thomas: Yes. Some kind of a chronic disease and probably 25%-30% graduate from high school on a pharmaceutical product. I was thinking back to my childhood, I’m 64. I grew up in Africa first in a village and then I went to high school on a mountain in Swaziland, fairly isolated, but nowhere in my entire 18 years of childhood did I see a kid with autism, did I see anybody with any chronic disease, nothing.
One kid had an inhaler for exercise-induced asthma, period. That’s it. We all had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox. It was no fun. We got over it and we were healthy. That was it. I’m looking now at this population in front of me. I’m the pediatrician. When you start seeing something like severe autism, that regression into a nonverbal child who’s in pain, the poor parents who have to deal with 24/7 pain in their child, and they can’t even speak to explain what’s going on, and sometimes they’re older and they’re in diapers in their late teens or twenties and they’re smearing poop on the wall.
This is not something you would wish on anybody. That’s the tip of the iceberg of the damage we’re creating and it’s iatrogenic, as I said. We are causing it, whether it’s the toxins in the environment, whether it’s the lack of nutrients in our food that’s mass produced, or whether it’s in the vaccine that’s the final straw that tips you over, we’re causing a lot of harm. If we go back to the premise of, first, do no harm and let’s build a healthy body, does it take– I mean, think about it folks. Does it take a chemical company to keep you healthy or a pharmaceutical company to keep you healthy?
Or does it take good nutrition and a robust immune system to keep you healthy? Your common sense would tell you somehow we were magically created. Science is trying to understand the body, but provided the nutrients, protect it from harm as far as toxins and we do amazingly well. My childhood was proof of that. People my age and older are proof of that.
We got to take a step– take a look from above and go, “Something went wrong here. What is it?” In pursuing real science, you start asking the right questions, why? Like a little kid, why? Why are we seeing all these kids who are so unhealthy? That’s where I took it. Okay, let’s try to figure this out. It has to be something we’re doing. Our US government put so much money over the last 10-15 years into genetic research.
We were determined. We’re going to find a genetic cause for autism. We’re going to find a genetic cause for everything. For the person who’s not scientifically grounded, when you hear genetic, you think it’s beyond my control. I’m hardwired to have problems so I’m doomed. Let me put it in a context that most people can understand. You have– no, I’ll speak for myself. I have a predisposition genetically to be anxious and to be an alcoholic. I do, I know the genes, I’ve got the MTHFFR gene, I’ve got the COMT gene and those are called epigenetics.
It’s not hard wiring. Think of it as soft wiring. It’s a way in which my biochemistry is not real strong in certain areas, and so if I drink a bunch of alcohol, it’s going to have an effect on me that, first of all, I’m going to love it, which I did. Secondly, I’m going to want more of it because it triggers for me, very quickly, I can get into craving and all of that. I got into problem with alcohol a long time ago. I haven’t drank in 18 years, but had I never drank alcohol, would I be an alcoholic?
Dr. Thomas: No. If I have MTHFR defect and I can’t deal with regular folate, I need methylfolate. If I void folate enriched flour and I take methylfolate supplement, well, I have problems with my problem. No, I’ve circumvented that genetic glitch that I had. Well, every person walking the planet has lots of these genetic glitches, and so we’re predisposed to all sorts of stuff, but we can be healthy if we just get back to living healthy. That’s the exciting part of what I’ve discovered, but we also then have to look at what we’re doing and does it still make sense? Let’s look at the data, so we’ll pull up some charts for your viewers on some of the findings from my research.
The science on how vaccines affect patients’ health
Ari: Yes, please. I was just going to ask you if we could talk specifics and the actual data that you’ve found from analyzing thousands of your patients.
Dr. Thomas: Yes. Here’s the sequence of events. After I publish my book, The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, the medical board starts coming after me for my license, and they’re basically manufacturing complaints. Okay. I have not yet found a single complaint that came from one of my patients, and I’ve had probably over a hundred letters from the medical board in the last three years. I think it’s probably a full-time job for one of their investigators to just see if they can paper me to death and run me out to practice.
I do have PTSD. [chuckles] You get another letter from the board it’s like, “What now?” Of course, that consumes another whole bunch of money and time, but anyway. Back February of 2019, I opened this letter from the medical board and it’s like, “Prove that your Vaccine-Friendly Plan is as safe as is the CDC schedule.” That’s what they charged me to do, and I laughed. I’m thinking the CDC has never proven that one schedule is any better than another.
Ari: Yes, I was going to say, you talked about your stories as a young physician, following the CDC guidance. Are there any studies where they’ve actually looked at one schedule versus another schedule and found that the one that they’re using and that they’re saying, “this is the best one,” have they actually compared it to any other schedule?
Dr. Thomas: No. In fact, every year when they make a new recommendation, there’s no plan to do prospective surveillance to see what happens. They just rely on VAERS, Vaccine Adverse Events System, which is a passive system that we know does not work. It can show you signals and, in fact, it’s showing massive signals for harm from COVID. It works to some extent, but it’s terribly inadequate as far as actually doing a study.
I’m looking at this request and somebody actually suggested to me, I wished I’d thought of it. It was a brilliant idea. They said, “Why don’t you just do a quality assurance project of your data and see what happens, see what you find?” In medicine, a QA is a quality assurance, look at your data to see, is something you’re doing either good or bad? Is there an intervention?
Hospitals do this all the time when they institute a new procedure, whether it’s surgery or whatever, then they’ll later on take, “Let’s look at what we’re doing, see if it’s good or bad.” I hired a guy to come in and I said, “Pull every name of every baby born into my practice from the day I opened to today,” so we did that. We closed the data set, it was February of that year and we had over 3,000 patients with 570 of them being unvaxxed.
The guy came in the first day, he says, “Now, Paul, I got to tell you, I’m just an informatics guy. I don’t care what the data shows. I’m going to report it no matter what it is.” I said, “Fine, I don’t know what it’s going to show either.” I had a hunch, honestly, because I have two waiting rooms in my office. I have a well side and a sick side. My well side is always standing room only. My sick side is almost always empty, so I had a clue that we’re doing something right.
Anyway, I said, “Well, let’s see what we find.” He comes out the first day, he goes, he was like a kid in a candy story. He goes, “Paul, this is unbelievable. The data just jumps out at you.” Now, he wasn’t supposed to be analyzing the data. He’s supposed to just collect it, but he couldn’t avoid seeing that, as he put it, “Your unvaxxed patients just don’t get sick,” okay. That was his initial thought.
We had him de-identify the data. I shift off the deidentified data. Jack Lance Wheeler, he’s a very smart scientist who knows how to analyze data. That article was published on December 23rd, 2020, which is the article we’re going to cover right now and talk about that data. I’ll just say this, five days after it was available online, it was published but not available online until December– sorry November 28th, 2020. Five days later on December 3rd, the Oregon Medical Board had an emergency meeting and suspended my license immediately.
Dr. Thomas: They called my attorney they said, “Tell Dr. Thomas he cannot practice medicine in any way. He cannot contact any patients. He cannot write any prescriptions. He cannot see any patients clinically, he is done.”
Ari: What was the reason that they gave for that? You had no complaints from any of your patients, complaining to the review board, the medical boards. Was it that they were claiming your data was fraudulent or that you did something wrong with how you conducted that research? What was their claim?
Dr. Thomas: No. Initially, no complaint, and then later comes this long multi-page document with multiple completely fabricated complaints. One example, this was the sort of stuff and this was just throughout. I still haven’t had my day in court, by the way, that’s going to be next January. In this report, here’s a classic one. There was a child who got tetanus. Now tetanus is rare and there’s vaccines for tetanus. Woo, woo.
This child who got tetanus lives over an hour away from my office. I’ve never heard of the family. I don’t know the child or the family. He gets tetanus by having a deep wound in his skull from a horse barn where he jammed up against a metal beam that was rusted. I think the family closed the wound, which for tetanus is probably the worst thing you can do. He ends up with a bad case of tetanus, almost dies, spends three months in the hospital at OHSU, which is the big university hospital down the street from me.
My office gets a call three months after this begging, “Please, have Dr. Thomas see us. They won’t let us out of the hospital unless we have a doctor to do follow-up.” All right. I said, “Sure, I’m here to help people, I’m not going to turn people away.” The reason nobody else would take that family was they’ve never vaccinated. They don’t believe in it.
He spent three months in the hospital under the care of the best experts in infectious disease in Oregon. They weren’t able to convince that family to do a single vaccine. He comes and spends one visit with me. Of course, I’m not able to get them to do any vaccines. They couldn’t get them to do any vaccines in three months. I’m there to just hear their story and document and plan for follow-up. I get accused [crosstalk]–
Ari: Did you advise them to do it?
Dr. Thomas: Yes. I get accused of causing his tetanus the way it was written up in my board complaint, because I didn’t get him his tetanus vaccine. Well, I didn’t even know the family before he got tetanus. You see what I mean?
Dr. Thomas: They worded it very carefully so then the media runs with that, Oregon doctor doesn’t prevent tetanus or I forget how they worded it. It’s just total, total nonsense. Anyhow, I will have my day in court in January. The interesting thing about medical boards is that, actually, they’re accountable, not even to the judge. When I have my day in court, if I win, which I think is highly likely, they can still ignore whatever the judge says and they can still yank my license.
Now, whether they’ll do that or not, I’m not sure. I thought for sure that they would just yank it no matter what because they’re gunning for me, but I got my license reinstated June 3rd, and it was on I think on a technicality. My attorney went to them and pointed out that they had taken my license without filing charges and that that’s illegal in the United States. I think they got a little nervous about maybe some liability they might harbor.
I don’t really know why they decided to give it back to me, but they did with some restrictions. Anyway, back to the data that caused them to what I would say overreact, because I was still dealing with multiple things. They’re on phishing expeditions trying to find something to get me with, and so far they haven’t been able to find anything. Back to the data, when you look at these curves, folks, the orange line is the one that you’re seeing a lot of that condition.
That line just goes up, up, up and the blue line is fairly flat. Orange is vaccinated, blue is unvaccinated. It doesn’t matter what we looked at, whether it was ADD, ear infections, eczema, allergies, allergic rhinitis, so many, eye infections, lung infections, behavioral disorders, whatever we looked at, if you were vaccinated, you had much more of those conditions, if you were not vaccinated, you had a lot fewer.
That’s some of the data that I’ve been bringing to the world when I’m going around talking at conferences for people to understand this is real-world data, this is no longer theory. What we did was we age-matched for every one of those 570 some unvaccinated kids, we got a kid from my practice who was vaccinated but the same age, so that we didn’t have an age disparity causing the difference in the findings.
Ari: You took 570 or so of your own patients, unvaccinated patients, and compare them to roughly 2,500 or so of your patients who were vaxxed?
Dr. Thomas: Yes. Variably vaccinated. What we did for the graphs is we only took a matching number of 570 some vaccinated who were closest matched in age. If I had a two-week-old who was unvaccinated, I’m going to match them to a two-week-old who’s vaccinated. If I had a 10-year-old who’s unvaxxed, I’m going to match them to a 10-year-old who’s vaccinated. The randomization was we just took the patient who was vaccinated who is closest in age to the unvaxxed. It was the best way we could make it apples to apples or oranges to oranges.
Ari: Got it. You found, among the vaccinated people, much higher rates. Are we talking 10% higher, 40% higher?
Dr. Thomas: No.
Ari: What is the image in that [unintelligible 00:36:32]
Dr. Thomas: We’re talking generally in the 200% to 400% higher.
Ari: Wow. As far as allergy incidents, skin conditions, and what else?
Dr. Thomas: Infections. Ear infections, lung infections, eye infections, gastroenteritis which is vomiting and diarrhea. That’s the interesting thing about infections. You would think, if you’re vaccinated you would have fewer infections. Now, it is true. We looked at my data carefully for all the diseases for which there are vaccines as well, because we want to make sure, maybe you have fewer eye infections but you’re dying of whooping cough. That would not be good.
We looked, there were no deaths from whooping cough. Actually, there were no deaths, period, from any of the vaccine-preventable diseases over the entire 10.5 years of this study. I haven’t lost a patient still to a vaccine-preventable disease. I’ve had a patient or two die of cancer which that’s a whole another thing. There’s no cancer in the unvaccinated in another study called the control group. That’s a different thing.
We showed that there was slightly more whooping cough in the unvaxxed. That would make sense. That vaccine is not perfect for pertussis. It’s got a lot of problems, but it’s not worthless. It does have some benefit and this is the whole point. When you have a vaccine debate if you’re pro-vaccine, or if you’re anti-vaccine, let’s just be scientific about it. There’s risks and there’s benefits.
Dr. Thomas: I’m not saying there’s no benefits to vaccines, but you shouldn’t say there’s no risks either. Let’s just simply look at the benefits and the risks. When it comes to infections, this is the fascinating thing that I’ve come to realize and it plays out in any good study. When you vaccinate for a specific thing, you probably will reduce that specific thing but you’re actually increasing the risk of other infections. We only vaccinate against 14 things.
There are hundreds of potential infections that actually are more likely in the highly vaccinated individual. Why is that? When you vaccinate, you are targeting a specific thing and it shifts the immune system more towards allergy and autoimmunity. Yes, you’re making more antibodies against that specific thing, but at the same time, you’re now less able to make antibodies against other things, and you’re going to have more problems with allergies and autoimmunity. That bears out in all the vaxxed and unvaxxed studies. You see higher infections in the highly vaccinated, you see more allergies and you see more autoimmunity.
Ari: Got it. Let me ask you this just as a thought experiment to illustrate a principle. If vaccines were pure water and let’s say an attenuated version of the virus for a very small version of the virus or particles, non-live virus or something like that, and you administer them nasally. Again, just no adjuvants. No mercury, no aluminum, nothing of toxic concern, just virus or virus particles plus water.
You squirt it in your nose as a vaccine. There are, by the way for people listening, some vaccines that are nasally administered along those lines. Let’s say in that case, would you have any opposition to any vaccines?
Dr. Thomas: No, not at all. I’m not opposed to vaccines. I think the concept is brilliant. The marketing of them wasn’t always has been as a business to make money. Now when you get the public to believe that what you’re doing is saving humanity, it feels like a really good thing and so that’s an easy thing to market and they’ve done a really good job of that. If we could get an attenuated, just take measles mumps rubella, that vaccine’s fairly effective, it has some problems with side effects for sure.
If they could have taken a killed measles virus or it’s so attenuated that it’s not going to make you that sick and with some saline just put it up your nose and you could develop an immune response to it. That really didn’t have much of a downside. It probably would’ve had a downside, that’s probably why they didn’t do that, but I don’t know. Maybe they just didn’t think of it yet. Like you said, we’ve had flu shots that go up the nose. They didn’t do very well in terms of their efficacy, but it’s a theory of a way to vaccinate more safely.
I know, I’ve read that there were other adjuvants that thing put in with the vaccine to make it work better, irritate the tissue that would’ve been way safer than aluminum and so yes, let’s have safe, effective vaccines that have such a low downside that it’d be a no brainer. Here’s the crazy thing, you wouldn’t have to deceive the population or do any marketing, people will line up for a good vaccine that’s covering a dangerous thing. We would all line up. Why are we not all wanting to line up for the COVID vaccine? It’s got big problems.
Ari: I want to get there but I want to comment on your data a bit more from your patients. Within the mainstream narratives and mainstream thinking, there’s this mantra of vaccines are safe and effective, any questioning of that is quackery, is nonsense, is conspiracy theory. There’s no link between these vaccines and any harm, any significant side effects, they just work. I find it interesting how much difficulty most people have with being able to grapple with something that has one benefit and also has risks or harms or potential harms.
I don’t know why I think of this, but I think of like a malnourished tribe in Africa who’s subsisting on only a cassava diet and they’re deficient in all these different nutrients, deficient in protein, suffering big consequences of that. Let’s imagine you gave them a bunch of chicken every day, but that chicken you were supplying them with was really high in arsenic which some poultry is. You would immediately cure their protein deficiency and would experience massive benefits from that.
Simultaneously, they would be accruing arsenic toxicity along the way and would eventually in many cases, experience harms from that. I find it baffling how many people have difficulty grasping the concept that something can have benefits and harms simultaneously.
Dr. Thomas: It’s a great example. No, you gave a really good example. What our society has morphed into in so many ways is short attention span. We want quick results and we don’t think long-term. It’s too difficult, let’s just get immediate results. Almost all the vaccine research is very immediate and also in terms of looking for side effects, the hepatitis B vaccine side effect profile, I think lasted a week and they got it approved.
Whatever happens, so you’re injecting aluminum, injecting aluminum, injecting aluminum and it’s accumulating in your body with a half-life of seven years or longer once it’s in the cells. The story of it alone is fascinating, they inject it with the vaccine and most of it’s gone within a week or two. It was assumed at first that see the body just gets rid of it. When they did careful analysis, it wasn’t in the urine. Where was it going? A lot of it was getting uptake in the brain and kidneys and bone marrow and all sorts of places.
Where once it’s there it’s half-life with seven years or longer that’s that chronic, that’s that arsenic story in the chicken. We know chickens are toxic. I happened to love sushi, I recently got my mercury level tested. Oh dear, I’m in the 99.9 percentile for how much mercury’s in my body. It’s surprising, I’m even here talking to you. I’ve got to do something about it. That happened over 20, 30 years of loving sushi. If those were my injections and I’m not aware that it’s accumulating there’s harm there.
Ari: Simultaneously benefit because you’ve got omega3, which have their own set of benefits. This risk benefits [unintelligible 00:45:35]
Dr. Thomas: My fish consumption?
Ari: Yes. I think obviously in this case, I think that level of mercury is going to heavily outweigh the omega3 consumption.
Dr. Thomas: I’m starting some detox right now. I’ll probably tell the world about it, once I’m sure I’m having success. You bring up a really good point. We need to look at risk and benefit and we need to look at we’re sadly missing the long-term toxicity and the cumulative toxicity of multiple different things.
Ari: That’s your study. There’s a whole bunch of people, as we’ve said, who are saying vaccines are safe and effective, who are attacking you and saying you’re misrepresenting things. These things are perfectly safe, they don’t cause all these harms. Are there any studies that they look at that they’re citing to compare vaxed versus unvaxed kids that contradict the findings of your research? Are there any other studies like this?
Dr. Thomas: There’s lots of junk science studies and epidemiological studies that are cleverly manipulated to show no difference. You’d have to take each one and have a careful scientist show where the problem lies. There’s always been a problem. There’s not a single one that’s properly done that shows that vaccines are safe. No, I do not find any credible science that shows they’re safe, but their science is just that it’s by design looking at variables that don’t matter or looking at timeframes that are too short. You’re not going to pick up any adverse in such a short period of time.
Now studies about comparing vaxed to unvaxed, mine is not the only one. I have in my presentation, the [unintelligible 00:47:28] study which was a survey that showed 30 times the risk of allergic rhinitis in the vaccinated compared to the unvaxed, four to five times the risk of ADHD, autism, and neurodevelopmental issues. That was one study. There have been two recent studies done by Brian Hooker and Neil Miller that were published in peer-review journals. I’m just talking about peer-review journals now, that showed the same thing. Massive increase in risk in the vaccinated from multiple health issues.
Generally, the things had to do with allergies and developmental delays. You see those problems in those studies. Then there’s this other study called the control group now. This one was done by some attorneys and this one’s fascinating. Your viewers can go to thecontrolgroup.org and you can get the whole 500-page document. They surveyed 48 states in the country and then they compared what they’re calling the control group is adults and children who’ve never had a single vaccine. They found it was like a quarter of a percent of the US population has never had a single vaccine. That’s all that’s left of the control group.
See if you can get everybody to be vaccinated, you’ll never know, if everybody smokes cigarettes we would never know that cigarettes cause a problem because it’s everybody does it. That control group is vital and that’s why the study like mine, where you have an actual control group of unvaccinated people. We need those people, folks, so that we can compare apples to apples and see what’s actually going on.
One of the biggest issues with the initial COVID vaccine studies
Ari: Two comments and they’re kind of taking us in different directions. One is, what are the findings from that study? The second one is, it’s worth noting that in the COVID vaccine studies that they started doing that were the basis for them to be approved after or to get the emergency use authorization, I should say. After that EUA authorization, they then vaccinated all of the control groups of those studies. They eliminated control groups of that research. Just worth mentioning in line with what you just said there.
Dr. Thomas: The last thing you mentioned is just tragic. You eliminated the control group, so you basically nullified the ability of that study to ever show a difference. Again, it keeps it short term, when they publish their 97% effectiveness, that was when only less than 1% of the population had been affected. At the very most, you could say it was an absolute risk reduction. It was less than 1%, but they played the relative risk reduction game with less than 200 cases. They vaccinate 40,000 people. They wait until there’s less than 200 cases and they say, look, 97% effective. It’s just a statistical aberration and a manipulation of the data.
We can never know. We’ll just go ahead and vaccinate all those unvaccinated people anyway because it’d be too risky to let them live a normal life, with a normal immune system. I don’t know how they survived up to this point. The crazy thing is okay, I’ve got a practice of 10,000 kids. Not a single one has ended up in the hospital. Not a single one has died. Oh no, I take that back. I’ve had one hospitalized kid now. Guess what? They were hospitalized for myocarditis an inflamed heart after a COVID vaccine.
Now I’m not giving the COVID vaccine. Very few of my patients have gotten the vaccine and they’re all doing great by the way, except for a kid who got hospitalized after getting the vaccine. I should tell you something. I think we should vaccinate all 10,000 because they’re at risk being unvaccinated. You see the lack of logic there.
Ari: Yes. What if that–
Dr. Thomas: Back to the control group though your other question?
Ari: The control group. Yes.
Dr. Thomas: This data completely blew my mind. They did the same thing. They had bar graphs of orange for vaccinated and green for unvaxed. There was no, make it clear zero-heart disease in the unvaxed. There was zero-cancer in the unvaxed and there was almost no developmental issues, autism, ADD, infections. It was just like, you’ve got to be kidding me.
Ari: This is up to what age? This is adults.
Dr. Thomas: This is all ages.
Ari: Wow. Okay. I was going to ask you, doesn’t the CDC have data that they could do a retrospective analysis on potentially millions of people-
Dr. Thomas: They have the data, they won’t do it.
Ari: -and look at long-term health outcomes. Look at lifespan, look at cardiovascular disease, cancer, autoimmune disease, all the diseases-
Dr. Thomas: Yes.
Ari: -and all-cause mortality and compare people after the full schedule of vaccination versus not being vaccinated. Don’t they have the data to do that study and has that study ever been done by anyone?
Dr. Thomas: They have the data. It’s never been done and they refuse to do it.
Ari: People have called for them to do it.
Dr. Thomas: Oh my gosh. They won’t even allow independent researchers to have access to that data. It is squirreled away and prevent– There’s people who’ve tried, who are much better researchers than I am and they cannot get to that data. Of course, it exists. If that data were to come out, it would be the end of the vaccine program. That’s why they can’t release it because they believe, comes back to belief, that vaccines are the most important thing we can do. Even in the face of data that they claim they don’t have or they claim they can’t look at it or they got excuses.
Dr. Thomas: Just look at the data. That’s what we should be doing.
Ari: Yes. Dr. Thomas, I want to be respectful of your time. I know you have a hard cut-off here. I would honestly love to chat with you for another full hour, but I know you have an interview in a few minutes. Do you have any final words you want to share with people? I would’ve loved to have the opportunity to talk to you more about the COVID vaccine in particular, especially as like in California, they’re trying to roll this out and make it mandatory for all kids ages five and up.
Dr. Thomas: Yes. They’re trying to do that. [crosstalk]
Ari: To stay on that, but do you have any thoughts about this COVID vaccine or anything else to wrap up this topic, anything you want to leave people with?
Dr. Thomas: Yes, absolutely. Go to doctorsandscience.com. Watch my show. I’m on there every week. Mostly I’m bringing you world experts who are dealing primarily with COVID. That’s the big issue at hand, folks. This is a vaccine that should never be given to children, period. It should not be given to young adults. It probably should not be given to anybody.
When you get into the very old, the risk analysis gets a little murky or maybe you’re willing to take a risk on your heart or whatever because if you’re 85 and older or maybe 65 with a lot of underlying health conditions, maybe you take a chance with it.
Kids, I’ve got this practice of 10,000. Nobody’s having problems unless they get the vaccine. The data is solid. I present it on my show every week. Children’s health defense, daily Defender magazine, it’s the second-largest magazine online, worldwide, read it. They’ve got amazing science presented for you
We’ve had over 15,000 deaths documented on VAERS which misses most cases. It’s the tip of the iceberg. We stopped vaccine programs in the past for 50 or less deaths. Some of them get stopped for four or five deaths and we’re at 15,000 and counting and we have– It’s as if it doesn’t even happen.
Ari: I think the swine flu vaccine got stopped after like 26 deaths or something like that. Right?
Dr. Thomas: Yes. This is unprecedented. It’s like we’ve thrown science right out and it’s just marketing.
Ari: Let me ask you one follow-up question because you made a very strong statement there. You said you don’t necessarily think it should be given to anyone. What about the data that is showing–? There are people who are in a different reality to the one you’re in, who are saying COVID is this deadly thing. It’s killing hundreds of thousands, millions of people all over the world. It’s going to kill me, but we have this vaccine, it’s a miracle. It’s going to reduce my chance of hospitalization and dying by 95%. Why would you tell me not to get that?
Dr. Thomas: Okay. The 95%, I already explained, it reduced less than 1%. Forget the 95% effectiveness. That’s just a manipulation using relative risk instead of absolute risk reduction. It’s not that effective. Secondly, there aren’t that many COVID cases. They have used a technology, PCR for diagnosing a positive that they call a COVID case. That is so problematic in the cycles of amplification. I discussed this on several of my shows.
Now we have different standards for the vaccinated. Vaccinated can’t be called COVID relapse if it’s more than 28 cycles of amplification on the PCR, but all the commercial tests for PCR are 35 to 45 cycles, which those high cycle rates pick up false positives at 90%, 95%, 97%, especially if you’re asymptomatic. The whole thing is just blown out of proportion. We got to look at all-cause mortality to see whether this massive pandemic that we’re calling COVID is truly the cause of all the problems or are we just relabeling?
Last year we had no flu. Whereas past years we would have 20, 40, 60,000 deaths from influenza. Where did they all go? Well, they were all called COVID. In fact, today in any medical clinic or hospital, if you come in with fever, body aches, cold, cough, it’s COVID until proven otherwise. Well, we knew from the flu. Anybody who came in with the flu is a 5%, 10% chance at the height of the flu season that you actually had influenza A or B. The same is true for COVID.
At the height of a COVID outbreak in a community at the most it’s 5%, 10%, everything gets called COVID, and then the hospitals are incentivized, hugely financially to diagnose COVID because they make more money. Well, why wouldn’t they? Everybody that comes in with a motor vehicle accident, doesn’t matter a broken arm, they do a COVID test. If it’s positive, cha-ching, they just made a huge amount of money.
Ari: Yes. There was [crosstalk]
Dr. Thomas: They hospitalize, they get a whole lot more money, and then if they intubate, they really get a bunch of money. All the incentive is to do the wrong thing.
Ari: Yes. Just to comment for listeners, this is not just “conspiracy theory”. There was actually two studies done recently and an article in The Atlantic that talked about this. I recommend reading it where they found 40% to 50% of what were being called COVID hospitalizations, those patients were being called that were actually either mild or asymptomatic cases or even more often they were people hospitalized, as you said, for other reasons entirely, they were in there for a broken arm or for a heart disease or whatever it was who were getting tested.
If they tested PCR positive, they would call them a COVID hospitalization. This is not conspiracy theory. This has actually been proven by peer-review data at this point that there is a mass manipulation of the data around COVID hospitalizations.
Dr. Thomas: Yes. Now what’s going on that’s got everybody scared is they’re telling you that the hospitals are full of COVID patients and they’re all unvaxed. Here’s how they do that one, folks. This is the fact. You cannot call a person COVID vaccinated if it’s been less than two weeks after their final dose. For the Pfizer vaccine, you get one dose. You wait about four weeks, you get a second dose. You wait about two weeks now you’re considered vaxed. All the people who got that first dose, wait four weeks, got a second dose. If you get hospitalized at that point, it’s called an unvaxed. All the harm that the vaccines are causing are being labeled as unvaxed people getting COVID. We actually vaccinate you, potentially kill you. We call that an unvaxed death.
Ari: I also saw someone who– I forget her title, but she works inside of a hospital system and hospital director of some kind. She said that no one is actually asking patients about their vaccination status. They just look in their internal system to see if those patients were vaccinated on their medical records in that system. If they went to CBS or Walgreens or anywhere else, some pharmacy and got a vaccine there, it wouldn’t be in their system. When she actually went and asked a lot of those hospitalized patients, she found that a whole bunch of them who were being labeled as unvaccinated based on that system were actually vaxed.
Dr. Thomas: That doesn’t surprise me. I’ve got a dear friend who’s actually in the hospital today getting a major surgery. He got a full series of the Pfizer vaccine in New Zealand. He lives half in New Zealand, half here in Oregon, and they’re calling him unvaxed. They won’t take– And he’s got lot numbers and everything.
Ari: Well, Dr. Thomas any final words you want to leave anyone with?
Dr. Thomas: Folks, if you’re stuck with us this long and you’re saying, oh my gosh, well, the world is falling, listen, don’t lose your own sense of who you are that hope that wellness and healing capability that your natural immune system has. This storm that’s upon us if you have not yet succumbed, or even if you have, and you’ve taken the vaccine, just know that we’re going to get through this. People have gotten through The Great Depression, World War I and II, all sorts of hardships around the world. Right now we’re just entering probably the worst phase of this whole thing. Don’t lose hope.
Self-care is critical. I’m going to leave it at that. Get your sleep, get your exercise, get real nutrients. Don’t, if you can possibly avoid it, get the COVID vaccine because this one is problems, folks. I’m not anti-vaccine. I have vaccinated myself and my children, but this one’s a whole new ballgame. and the likes of what we’re going to see down the road with autoimmunity and issues when you get re-exposed to coronaviruses it’s not something I would wish on anyone. Be strong. Be well. Take good care. Turn off the news.
Ari: Thank you so much, Dr. Thomas. Really appreciate your time and have a wonderful rest of your day. Thank you also for giving us eight extra minutes beyond our agreed-upon cut-off time. I know you got to run to the next one.
Dr. Thomas: You’re welcome, Ari. Have your viewers go to doctorsandscience.com. They can become members. I have weekly live Q&As so they can ask me questions directly as a member and we’ll see you next time.
Ari: Wonderful. Thank you so much. Take care.
Dr. Thomas: You too.