In a study funded by The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) and published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health it was determined that unvaccinated children are significantly healthier than vaccinated children.
We can conclude that the unvaccinated children in this practice are not, overall, less healthy than the vaccinated and that indeed the vaccinated children appear to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated.
“Figure 5. Analysis 5. Cumulative office visits in the vaccinated (orange) vs. unvaccinated (blue) patients born into the practice: the clarity of the age-specific differences in the health fates of individuals who are vaccinated (2763) compared to the 561 unvaccinated in patients born into the practice over ten years is most strikingly clear in this comparison of the cumulative numbers of diagnoses in the two patient groups. The number of office visits for the unvaccinated is adjusted by a sample size multiplier factor (4.9) to the expected value as if the number of unvaccinated in the study was the same as the number of vaccinated.”
The two researchers, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas are not anti-vaccination doctors. But as a direct result of this study, the state medical board has suspended his medical license of one of the researchers, Dr. Paul Thomas, within a week of the publication of the article. The suspension was in retaliation for having published the study showing the harmful effects of childhood vaccinations. The suspension was an unprecedented action because it was done summarily prior to any adversarial hearing. He is being punished as an object lesson for anyone who would have the temerity to publish the truth about vaccinations being harmful to the health of patients.
The following report was posted on the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) website:
Independent journalist Jeremy Hammond has authored a definitive and thorough report that reveals that the Oregon Medical Board is guilty of wrong-doing because they tried to coerce Dr. Thomas into changing his lawful pediatric practice into an unlawful medical practice under Oregon’s state law. The 210-page report reads, in part “The real story here isn’t one of a rogue doctor dismissing science and recklessly endangering his pediatric patients by bullying their parents into accepting ‘alternative’ care. The real story is one of a rogue medical board dismissing science and recklessly endangering public health by encouraging pediatricians to bully their parents into strict compliance with the CDC’s schedule and selecting Paul Thomas, MD, to set an example to other physicians of what their punishment will be if they instead choose to respect parents’ right to informed consent.”
Under Oregon state law, phyisicians, including pediatricians, must provide for fully informed consent and respect vaccine refusal. The board had tried to sanction Dr. Thomas for allowing patients to use antibody titre-testing as evidence of immunity. It [the Hammond report] found that the board’s actions were “ludicrous given the fact that Oregon law only requires one dose of mumps vaccine, and it specifically allows for the use of antibody testing as evidence of immunity in lieu of evidence of vaccination.”
The report also completely rebuts all eight of the allegations of medical misconduct alleged by the Oregon Medical Board. Under current Oregon law, The Board answers to the Governor of the State of Oregon.
The full report is available at Mr. Hammond’s independent journalism site. (http://bit.ly/hammondreport)
The medical board had suspended Dr. Thomas’ license after an emergency meeting was called following our publication of the analysis of data from over 3,300 patients in response to a request from the medical board for such data. See that peer-reviewed study here. Phase II of the IPAK Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed study is underway. Donations are needed now.
On December 3, 2020, the Oregon Medical Board issued an emergency suspension order to prevent renowned pediatrician Paul Thomas, MD, from seeing his patients by stripping him of his license.
The ostensible reason given by the board for this action against Thomas, who is affectionately known as “Dr. Paul” by his patients and peers, is that his “continued practice constitutes an immediate danger to public health”.
Thomas is perhaps most well known as coauthor, along with Dr. Jennifer Margulis, of the book The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, which provides guidance to parents who want to protect their children from infectious diseases but have concerns about vaccines. The book is a bestseller currently showing a five-star rating from over 1,800 customer reviews at Amazon.com.
Since 2008, Thomas has practiced pediatrics out of his clinic, Integrative Pediatrics, which is in Beaverton, Oregon, within the metropolitan area of Portland.
The main accusation leveled at Thomas by the state medical board is that he has “breached the standard of care” in his practice by having many patients who are not vaccinated strictly according to the routine childhood schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The story the medical board tells is one of a reckless and “bullying” doctor who coerces his pediatric patients’ parents not to follow the CDC’s recommendations and whose gross negligence in this regard has caused harm to children and negatively impacted the health of the community.
But that’s not the true story.
The true story is that parents have flocked to Integrative Pediatrics precisely because they’ve been bullied, with the state’s approval, by pediatricians in other practices who choose to dutifully serve the bureaucrats in government by compelling parents to strictly comply with the CDC’s schedule.
Parents who did comply and then witnessed their children suffer harm as a result are mocked and derisively labeled “anti-vaxxers” for learning hard lessons from their firstborn children that they then apply to younger siblings by making different parenting choices. (Often, such parents respond to the derogatory label by insisting on being described as “ex-vaxxers”, but government officials and the major media institutions refuse to hear them.)
Parents who do vaccinate their children, but not strictly according to the CDC’s schedule, are also lumped into the group monolithically labeled “the anti-vaccine movement” by apologists for the one-size-fits-all approach of public vaccine policy.
These parents have all been told a million times that vaccines are “safe and effective”. They are well aware of the arguments in favor of vaccinations that we all hear incessantly from government officials, medical professionals, and the mainstream media.
They are also perfectly familiar with the tale of how, in 1998, public enemy number one, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, published a fraudulent study in The Lancet, later retracted, claiming to have found an association between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. These parents know that numerous studies have since been published that failed to find an association.
They know that, by choosing to dissent from or criticize public vaccine policy, they are placing a target on their back. They know they will be met with disapproval by other members of their own family, accused of being irresponsible parents, scolded, and scorned. They know that they will be viciously attacked by government officials and policy advocates masquerading as journalists, as well as by doctors and other members of their community.
And yet, despite the bullying and intimidation, they remain unmoved. There is one simple reason for this: they see it as their duty as responsible parents to act in their children’s best interest no matter what societal pressures are placed on them to conform with expected behavior. Consequently, they do their own research, think for themselves, draw their own conclusions, and take a stand to protect their children.
In many cases in Portland, parents who face the scornful intimidation of a routine well-child visit at their pediatrician’s office and still insist on exercising their right to make an informed choice not to vaccinate are told that they must either comply with the CDC’s recommendations or find another pediatrician.
And, so, they go to Dr. Paul.
With respect to the medical board’s suspension order, Paul Thomas says that he knew the moment The Vaccine-Friendly Plan was published that this day was coming. He knew at the time that, because he was challenging the CDC’s schedule and therefore the “standard of care” of the medical establishment, he would be placing a target on his back and risking his career.
But he did it anyway.
The Oregon Medical Board wants us to believe it’s because he’s a villain who demonstrates reckless disregard and poses a danger to public health. The media have run with that story.
However, what neither the board’s order nor the media have disclosed is that the board’s suspension order was issued just eleven days after Thomas published a study in a peer-reviewed medical journal showing that, among the children born into his practice, those who remained completely unvaccinated were diagnosed at significantly lower rates than vaccinated children for a broad range of chronic health conditions and developmental disorders.
The difference in health outcomes was even more dramatic when Thomas and his coauthor, research scientist Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, looked at cumulative incidence of office visits for given diagnoses rather than incidence of diagnoses alone. This result strongly suggests that his vaccinated patients not only suffer from a higher rate of chronic health conditions, but also that their conditions are more severe, therefore requiring more frequent visits to his clinic.
The study is titled “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination”. It was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on November 22, 2020.
As Thomas and Lyons-Weiler emphasize in the study, they do not show that vaccinations are the cause of the evidently worse health outcomes among vaccinated children. But what the results of the study do demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty is that his unvaccinated patients are healthier than vaccinated children and place less of a burden on the health care system.
Importantly, this was data that the medical board had asked Thomas to produce to support his practice of vaccinating patients according to the principles of his “Vaccine-Friendly Plan”.
Yet, when Thomas surmounted this challenge by obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and publishing the deidentified data comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the board’s emergent response was to suspend his license until further notice “while this case remains under investigation”—and on grounds that are completely belied by the publicly available evidence.
The real story here isn’t one of a rogue doctor dismissing science and recklessly endangering his pediatric patients by bullying their parents into accepting “alternative” care. The real story is one of a rogue medical board dismissing science and recklessly endangering public health by encouraging pediatricians to bully their parents into strict compliance with the CDC’s schedule and selecting Paul Thomas, MD, to set an example to other physicians of what their punishment will be if they instead choose to respect parents’ right to informed consent.
But that story doesn’t begin in December of 2020. To tell the true story and fully appreciate its significance, we need to go back and review the sequence of events that led Paul Thomas to this pivotal moment in his life’s journey.
On 16 July 2021, the MDPI retracted the article with the following cryptic notice. “The journal retracts the article ‘Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination’ cited above. Following publication, concerns were brought to the attention of the editorial office regarding the validity of the conclusions of the published research. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that raised several methodological issues and confirmed that the conclusions were not supported by strong scientific data. The article is therefore retracted. This retraction is approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors did not agree to this retraction.” https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7754/htm. The MDPI did not indicate what were the “methodological issues” or specify how the conclusions “were not supported by strong scientific data.” That lack of specificity for such an extraordinary action suggests the retraction of the article by the MDPI was not due to methodological issues or that it was not supported by strong scientific data but was rather due to financial and political pressure put on MDPI.
16 thoughts on “Study Shows That Vaccinated Children Are Significantly Less Healthy Than Unvaccinated Children”
Thank you for alerting the general public of the harm of vaccinating children which as a group are the healthiest demographic. Without a doubt, based on an EU study, there is a strong correlation of those who have received the flu shot among the elderly and corresponding cases of coronavirus deaths. Likewise, vaccinating children is revealing a growing trend of harm, while lining the pockets of pharmaceuticals.
The article you referenced at the beginning of this article has since been retracted. Should you make an updated note about that.
Thank you for contacting me. Please read the entire article. I explain the retraction and put it in context.
Good article. You may want to go through it with an editor’s eye. A few issues with typos and repoeat paragraphs and lack of clarity, etc. Here’s just one: “The board had tried to sanction Dr. Thomas for allowing patients to use antibody titre-testing as evidence of immunity. It found that the board’s actions were “ludicrous… “. The board found that its own actions were ludicrous? Who does the “It” refer to?
Thank you for pointing that out. I was quoting from an IPAK article about the Hammond report. That was a direct quote where the writer intended “it” to refer to the Hammond report and not to the Oregon Medical Board. I clarified that with block parenthesis I added to ensure the reader knows that “it” is a reference to the Hammond report.