‘TRUTH’ with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Featuring Jeremy Hammond—Season 3 Episode 6

The following is a transcript of this video.

– Hey, Jeremy.

– Hey.

– Welcome back to the show Jeremy Hammond, my friend who’s an investigative reporter, and I would say a foreign policy expert and now a kind of medical totalitarian expert, from Petoskey, Michigan, an amazing reporter, an amazing writer. And I love all the books that you have behind you. I just wish I could spend a day in that library. I’d be interested in the CIA and intelligence agencies and all of the other things that you’ve been writing about for many years, but today I wanted it to talk to you about Paul Thomas, about Dr. Paul Thomas ’cause you just wrote an article. And Jeremy tell us where your website is so that people can visit you.

– Yeah, jeremyrhammond.com. So we got my middle initial in there, jeremyrhammond.com, and the article is Oregon Medical Board Suspends Dr. Paul Thomas for Practicing Informed Consent. A little bit lengthy title, but it gets the message across, and that’s exactly what’s happened.

– And we’re publishing it and serializing it in small pieces, because it’s a very, very long article on The Defender. Tell us what happened, and I, of course, know Paul Thomas. Paul Thomas, he’s a medical hero in Oregon. People know him far and wide. He runs a clinic and takes patients who vaccinate, he takes patients who don’t vaccinate. He doesn’t make a judgment or have a threshold. And he did with our friend Jack Weiler, James Lyons-Weiler who is a scientist, he did an extensive study recently of his database of patient health, which is an extraordinary study. So tell us about that.

– Yes, that study was published on November 22nd, just not that long ago, several months ago. And what they did is they looked at his patient data. They looked at all patients born into his practice. And so that was, they didn’t want to confound the study by including patients who had come from other practices. You know, they really wanted to look at patients who had only been in a practice that respects informed consent as opposed to practices where they had been expelled for not following the CDC guidelines, or where patients were coming to him who were already injured, and so vaccine injured. And so they took those patients and they then also subdivided them into patients who are completely unvaccinated, never received any vaccines, and then looked at variably vaccinated individuals. So most of the patients in his practice were vaccinated, not according to the CDC schedule, however, just everyone was making individual decisions about which vaccines they should get and the timing of the vaccines, very individualized approach in his practice. And so they compared-

– He actually had his own schedule, his own series of recommendations.

– Right. I knew him as the author of, “The Vaccine Friendly Plan.” So a book he published, I forget which year, 2016, maybe. And so in that book, he does lay out an alternative schedule, and this is one of the things that the board gets wrong where they say that they accuse him of pressuring patients to vaccinate according to this alternative schedule, which completely misses the whole point of his approach, which is not like, “The Vaccine Friendly Plan” doesn’t present an alternative one size fits all schedule. That’s not the whole idea. The whole idea is that it’s just kind of like a guideline of, this is an example of a way you could do it. Essentially the main focus of “The Vaccine Friendly Plan” is to reduce the exposure to aluminum and make sure you’re spacing out aluminum-containing vaccines. And if at all possible, choosing vaccines with lower aluminum content. So that’s just one approach. And so really the concept of the book and the concept of his practice in Integrative Medicine, Integrative Pediatrics there in Portland, is individualized approach to vaccination. So taking each individual child, making informed consent decisions based on which vaccine, which disease, family medical history, things like this. They’re basically accusing him of an alternative one size fits all approach, which isn’t at all what he does. And so they can’t even get the concept of individualized medicine. They’re stuck in this mindset of one size fits all. And so they actually accuse him of something that’s patently false, which is that he doesn’t pressure patients to accept “The Vaccine Friendly Plan.” And you can see this in his data. I mean, it’s very clear that the families in his practice are making very individualized choices and very different choices. And so that’s right in his data. So that study was published on, well to emphasize the finding of the study so they compared health-

– This was a study that the CDC has refused to do for 30 years. People from the Medical Freedom Community have said, “Let’s see, let’s look at health outcomes “in vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children “and see if vaccinated children are actually healthier, “when you look at all the health outcomes, “than unvaccinated children.” Which, of course, is the essential claim.

– [Jeremy] Right.

– And this is a perfect natural experiment, because he had in his practice, people who are vaccinated, he had hundreds of kids who were unvaccinated, he had hundreds of kids who took kind of a middle course, which was some kind of melange of his recommendations. And you could compare those three groups, and you could look at health outcomes, and that this is something that is very, very dangerous to the health regulators in this country.

– Yeah, it’s a threat. I mean, it’s understandable in a sense that the Oregon Medical Board held an emergency meeting days after that study was published. And the result was that they suspended his license. Now, the interesting thing is the medical board had requested Dr. Paul to produce peer-reviewed evidence supporting his schedule. So, in other words, supporting his approach to vaccination. In other words, supporting his approach of obtaining informed consent, as opposed to pressuring parents into vaccinating according to the CDC schedule. So they had requested this data, he produced it, and then they suspended his license. So that tells us a lot about the position of the Oregon Medical Board and their approach and their rejection of science, the rejection of the data, and their approach is they have a policy goal of wanting to maintain high vaccination rates. And that’s the goal. Whereas, Dr. Paul has a goal of achieving good health outcomes amongst his pediatric patients. And that he has done, I mean, that’s right in the data, because his unvaccinated kids, actually, all the children is his practice, if you compare the data from even the vaccinated patients in his practice with national estimates for ADHD and autism, I mean, he’s got 1/5 of the rate of autism in his practice compared to the CDC’s estimate nationally. Same with the ADHD is much, much lower. Among his unvaccinated patients, there was zero cases of ADHD. And so this is what the study showed. It showed that the unvaccinated children were not sicker, they did not have worse health outcomes. In fact, they had better health outcomes, much lower rate of diagnosis of a broad range of chronic health illnesses, allergies, asthma, other infections, ear infections. And as well-

– What were the parameters? Eye infections, ear infections, otitis, ADHD, there were respiratory infections, there was asthma, and the unvaccinated children of the three cohorts were by far the healthiest children.

– Right, and just looking at the graph here. So asthma, allergic rhinitis, breathing issues, behavioral issues, ADHD, respiratory infection, otitis media, which is ear infections, ear pain, other infections, as in infections not vaccine preventable infections, eye disorders, eczema, dermatitis, hives, and anemia. So those were the outcomes that they have a really stark graph in the paper showing the incidents of office visits. So they actually developed a new measure in this study, a really important aspect of the study. Most safety studies that look for signals in the data, or like observational-type studies, they use a measure of just incidents. So does the child have this diagnosis or not? So it’s like this binary yes/no measure. Whereas, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul created a whole new measure, which is relative incidents of office visits. So they’re not only looking at incidents of diagnosis, but they’re looking at how much care did these children require for a particular diagnosis, which gives you information, not only about whether they had a chronic illness or not, but also what kind of healthcare did they require as a result? So it gives you more information about the severity of the illness. And so that was relative incidents of office visits. RIOV is the measure that they developed specifically for this study. And they show the graph showing relative incidents of office visits comparing unvaccinated versus the variably vaccinated children in his practice. And it is astonishing the differences in how the graph of the unvaccinated have such lower incidents of office visits for a broad range of health issues. And so this clearly, strongly supports the conclusion that the unvaccinated children are far healthier than the vaccinated children.

– Now there’s, I don’t know if you’re aware of this study that was a Mogensen study of African children who took the DTP vaccine? This was a study that was done in 2017, of many WHO and Bill Gates claiming they give the DTP vaccine, which was discontinued in the United States in the 1980s, because it was killing one out of every 300 children or giving them severe brain damage. That’s the vaccine that caused the passage of the Vaccine Act, because so many people were injured, and they were suing the vaccine company. The same DTP, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine was discontinued in Europe, but Bill Gates and the WHO give it essentially to every African child, 161 million kids get that vaccine every year. The Danish government, and what Gates says again and again, he says, “We’ve saved 30 million lives with this vaccine.” And the Danish government tried to verify that. And they said, “We’ve heard this claim, “but we’re not actually seeing any study “that verifies that claim.” And so they went and they said, “We’re gonna do a study that actually looks to see “if whether these children have better health outcomes “who get this vaccine.” And they went to Guinea-Bissau, and they found something like what you found, which was a perfect natural experiment. In Guinea-Bissau, they have a state of the art health clinic there. It is funded mainly by the Danish government. And that clinic for 30 years has been weighing every child at three months and then weighing them again at six months. In the 80’s, it began giving them this vaccine. And if the health workers arrived to vaccinate a child and the child was not exactly three months old, they waited and they gave the vaccination to that child at the six-month visit. And as it turns out, they had 30 years of data where half the children in the country had gotten the vaccine at three months and half of them had not. And so they had this kind of perfect natural experiment, because it was completely randomized of children between two months and five months old, half the kids in the country were vaccinated and half were not, and they were able to then go and look at health outcomes on those children. And what they found was that the children who were vaccinated were not getting diptheria, tetanus and pertussis, as Bill Gates would predict, but the girls who got the vaccine were dying at 10 times the rate of children who were unvaccinated, and they weren’t dying of any disease that anybody ever associated with vaccines. They were dying mainly of respiratory illnesses, pneumonia. They were dying of , anemia, sepsis, malaria, dysentery, and all this kind of big menu of diseases that kids get in Africa, and nobody had ever noticed that it was only the vaccinated kids who were dying. So the vaccine had protected these children against the target disease, but it had ruined their immune systems, and it had made them much more susceptible to these other diseases. The study, which was published in E. Biopharm. in January of 2017, and the lead author is Mogensen, but it has kind of deities, these very, very pro-vaccine scientists who did this study, including Peter Aaby, he’s an icon of African vaccination studies. He has more peer-reviewed publications than anybody. It was financed partially by the Danish government and partially by the Statens Serum Institute, which is one of the biggest vaccine makers. So this was a study that was done by very, very pro-vaccine forces, and yet it completely, utterly discredited this vaccine. And that’s the problem that we’ve been trying to get CDC to do for decades, which is, to not just look at how many kids you’ve vaccinated and using that as your metric of success, but actually looking at public health outcomes and saying, “Are our kids healthier because of these vaccines?” And when you start looking at that, the broader criteria, that we are in the middle of the worst chronic disease epidemic in human history. And it’s the diseases you mentioned, it’s asthma, it’s eczema, it’s peanut allergies. Did you guys look at allergies and rhinitis?

– Yeah, they did allergic rhinitis, not peanut allergy, specifically. It’s just kind of allergies in general. And then, yeah, with the DTP vaccine, I mean that’s one of the lessons. It’s not just that one study. There’s been a number of studies looking at that, that was one particular case where it was kind of this natural experiment, but there’s been a number of studies. And the best science shows that the DTP vaccine is associated with an increased rate of childhood mortality, because it’s just like you said, even though it might protect children from the target diseases, it detrimentally affects their immune system in such a way as to make them more susceptible to other illnesses, and they’re dying from other causes. And so the big lesson from the DTP vaccine is that absent randomized, placebo-controlled trials comparing long-term health outcomes, health outcomes, not just does it protect against the disease or not, the target disease or not, but health outcomes, including all cause mortality, any claim of vaccine safety and effectiveness is completely, scientifically meaningless. And so, yeah, that’s a really important lesson from those studies, and that’s why parents have been calling for the CDC to do a study, just comparing health outcomes between vaccinated children who received the CDC’s schedule of vaccines and children who are completely unvaccinated. And, of course, in the meantime, the CDC, the Institute of Medicine, in fact, had called on the CDC to do such a study using the VSD, the Vaccine Safety Datalink database, which the CDC has a partnership with these healthcare institutions, and so they have this database that they can draw from, which is superior to looking at like VAERS data, because of the under-reporting to VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. But the CDC, they’re still studying how to do the study, ’cause they’re very hesitant to actually move forward with any kind of study-

– What they did study is runs, which was the Verstraeten study.

– Mm-hmm .

– And they studied the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is nine HMO’s of 9 million patients, and it has all their vaccine records and all their health insurance claims. So it’s an easy thing, go in there and do a cluster analysis and look at the relationships between the vaccine records and the batch and lot number. And you can look at all of that data, and you can determine whether there’s a relationship between certain vaccinations at certain ages and certain health outcomes. So they did a massive study in 1999, called the Verstraeten study, between 1999 and 2003, and they had a team led by a Belgian researcher called Thomas Verstraeten. And they went in and they looked at it, and actually they looked at one health outcome. They looked at children who got a hepatitis B vaccine within their first 30 days of life, and they compared health outcomes with children that didn’t, and they were looking at about five parameters that were all neurodevelopmental, they didn’t look at allergies or any of that stuff, but they looked at, and what they found was, they looked at ADD, ADHD, speech delays, sleep disorders, and autism. And they found that the kids who were vaccinated had 1135% greater risk of autism diagnosis subsequently in life than the children who were not. And that’s when they shut down. What the CDC did at that point, is it said, “We’re never gonna let anybody “into this database who’s independent, “and we are gonna take the database,” Congress ordered them to start that database so that they could look at vaccine safety. The CDC took that database, and they transferred ownership to a private group called the American Health Insurance Plan in order to make it, put it out of the reach of the Freedom of Information laws. And so nobody can get in there. And in fact, only two independent scientists ever allowed in there were the Geiers, David and Michael Geyer, and Congress had to repeatedly order the CDC who, this is a rogue agency, to open the database and let the Geiers in. And when the Geiers went in, they wouldn’t let them copy anything. They made them do all their research in one room with pencils and to write down data, they heated the room to over 100 degrees to make it uncomfortable for the Geiers to stay in there, and then they destroyed their hard drives, and they stole materials from them, and they just made it impossible. The Geiers still produced about 10 studies over time, and all of them show these horrific, horrific impacts on overall health outcomes in the vaccinated children when you compare them to unvaccinated.

– Yeah. One of the things about Dr. Paul and Dr. Jack’s study in November, the one that was just published, that I want to point out is, because one of the criticisms of this type of study would be observational studies by nature have a high risk of selection biases. And so one of the arguments is that, because this isn’t the first one that’s been done, there was another one that was done based on a survey a few years back and then Brian Hooker had done one, again looking at pediatric practices that practiced informed consent, and in finding higher rates of certain chronic health illnesses amongst the vaccinated children. There has been a few independent scientists have kind of, while the CDC is still spinning its wheels on this, have kind of ventured into this realm of doing vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies. And one of the criticisms is that the argument is made that, “Well, it’s because these parents who don’t vaccinate, “they just have different healthcare behaviors, “and so they’re just not taking their kids “to the doctors as much. “And so it’s really their kids are just as sick, “they’re just not getting diagnosed.” And so Dr. Jack and Dr. Paul did an interesting thing in this study to try to control for that but to control for different healthcare behaviors. So they looked at rates of diagnoses of fever, which is an expected outcome from vaccines, so they would expect to find higher rates, more diagnoses of a fever amongst the vaccinated children. And they also looked at well-child visits, which if it’s that just the unvaccinated kid’s parents just don’t bring their kids in to see him as much, you would see a difference in well-child visits as well. And so they did confirm that the vaccinated children had more fevers, but the incidents of well-child visits, there was no pattern, it was consistent across the axis of vaccination. So this shows that it’s not that these parents are just not bringing their kids in to see Dr. Paul, that doesn’t explain it. They really do appear to be healthier by a long ways. And so that was an important thing that they included in that study, is that those control outcomes that they looked at to try to control for that to essentially preempt that criticism. Another point I want to make is that, studies have shown that there’s one of the selection biases that’s really concerning for vaccine safety studies is one called “Healthy User Bias.” And so in 2015, there was a study, for example, Jane, et.al., had put out a study that of course the media, all the headlines were saying, “Another study shows that the MMR doesn’t cause autism, “even in children who are at genetically “predisposed higher risk of autism,” which is completely false, that is not what their findings actually show. So what they’re findings actually, this is really important, what the findings actually show is that it, so they looked at, as a proxy for genetic predisposition for autism, they looked at siblings. So they took children who had an older sibling with diagnosed autism. And so that was a proxy for genetic predisposition, higher risk for autism. And they actually found that the children who received the MMR vaccine were at lower risk. They had lower odds of being diagnosed with autism. But the reason for that, they showed the reason for that in the study, was that the parents of children who had an older child with autism, the younger siblings, they would not vaccinate with the MMR. They would avoid the MMR vaccine precisely because the older child had autism. And so what happened was, is you have this selection bias, as healthy user bias, where you get the children who are at higher risk of autism are disproportionately pooled into the unvaccinated cohort, the MMR unvaccinated. They only looked at the one vaccine. They didn’t look at any other vaccines. And so this is a really important thing that also needs to be controlled for. And you look at most, none of the CDC studies control for this type of selection bias, where it’s not that children who received the MMR vaccine were less likely to develop autism, it’s that kids who are more likely to develop autism, were less likely to get the MMR vaccine. And so this is . And so actually we would expect to find looking at Dr. Paul’s data, We would expect to find that the children with the fewer vaccines to have higher rates of certain auto-immune type of illnesses and things because of this effect of children the parents are recognizing early symptoms, and so they stopped vaccinating. And so this is an effect that, but despite this bias kind of in favor of finding higher rates of illness among the lesser vaccinated individuals, they find a very strong signal that the more vaccines children get, the sicker they are.

– Well, I’ve said to people for many years, “Listen, hey, why are you doing this work on vaccines? “Why don’t you go back to protecting rivers “or people like you and stuff.” And I said, “The day somebody shows me a study “that shows that vaccinated children are healthier “than unvaccinated children, “I will close up shop “and go back to protecting rivers full-time.” You know, we need that study, and that’s the study the CDC won’t do.

– Yeah.

– Unless we brought the Medical Board in and what happened to Paul.

– Yeah. So within days of that study being published on December 3rd, the Oregon Medical Board had an emergency meeting and issued an emergency suspension order to suspend his license. And so there was one key-

– How many people does he have in his practice?

– He had at one point 15,000. I think at this time, he decreased some from kind of that peak, but many, many patients, he’s a very large practice, employed quite a lot of staff, and included in this study. I forget the specific numbers, but several thousand children in the study, mostly variably vaccinated, several hundred that were unvaccinated completely. But just immediately after they published that study, and again, this is a study that the board had requested. They had requested Dr. Paul to produce peer-reviewed evidence supporting his approach. And so he did. I think that they thought that that would be a hoop that he would be unable to jump through, and then he did it and they couldn’t deal with the outcome, because it was contrary to their belief system and their policies and their goal, the myopic goal of achieving high vaccination rates, which is different from the goal, and incompatible with the goal, of achieving good health outcomes, which is what Dr. Paul was focused on. So they suspended his license. And in that document they cite a number of cases. None of them appear to actually come from any of his patients, these complaints, they all appear to be from other parties. In fact, some of the parents, one example, the children developed rotavirus, and they were at the hospital, and they overheard one of the doctors there saying, “I’m gonna report that doctor to the Medical Board.” And they told Dr. Paul this, they we’re warning him of what the doctors were conspiring to do. So most of these complaints do not appear to be coming from any of his patients actually, they appear to be coming from other parties, making these complaints. That’s the one point to make. The key accusation-

– It’s all anonymous, right?

– Yeah, and he can’t know, he doesn’t know who the complaints are coming from, the Board doesn’t release that information, not even to Dr. Paul, who has no ability to face his accusers essentially. And so the main accusation that they leveled against him is that he is a threat to public health, because he pressures parents into accepting his alternative vaccine schedule. This is demonstrably false. So the first accusation is, they actually accuse him of bullying patients into accepting alternative schedule. And we know that the Oregon Medical Board has no problem with bullying, because physicians across the state bully the parents all the time into vaccinating according to the CDC schedule. In fact, many pediatricians, if parents choose not to vaccinate strictly according to the schedule, they will be kicked out of the practice. Now that is bullying. That is contrary to the legal requirement in the state of Oregon for physicians to obtain informed consent. But they have no problem with that. As far as I know, the Oregon Medical Board has never suspended anyone’s license for this kind of bullying. So it’s clearly not an issue where the Medical Board has a problem with bullying. In fact, the very loud and clear message from their suspension order is that physicians must bully their parents into vaccinating their children according to the schedule, the CDC schedule, otherwise they risk having their license suspended. That message is loud and clear. So we can dismiss that as a false pretext. It’s obviously untrue that they have a problem with bullying. That said, whether the bullying is in favor of the CDC’s schedule or against it, we can agree that bullying is wrong and that nobody should be pressured into doing anything one way or the other. So then we look at the question is, “Is this what Dr. Paul does in his practice?” And again, this just shows that the Medical Board has no understanding, no comprehension of how he actually approaches this issue, which is not an alternative one size fits all approach. It’s an individualized approach. It’s totally up to the parents. What he does is he sits them down and he says, “Here’s the CDC schedule.” He talks about what the CDC recommends, and he talks about information that’s in the package insert, and he gives them the information so that they can make, what are the risks, what are the benefits, so that they can make an individual choice for that specific child based on family history and all kinds of things that bureaucrats in Washington or state capitals have no knowledge. They have none of the knowledge necessary to be able to do this type of risk benefit analysis. And he provides them with that type of information to be able to make their own informed choice. And this is the fundamental concept of “The Vaccine Friendly Plan.” So this accusation that he’s, in fact, numerous of the accusations they make, they say, “Well, like, for example, this boy got tetanus,” and they imply that this is because he was a patient of Dr. Paul’s that he wasn’t vaccinated for tetanus. But in fact, Dr. Paul never even saw the boy. It was very deceptive. He never even saw that boy until after he was discharged from the hospital. And the reason he became Dr. Paul’s patient was because no other pediatricians would accept him as their patient, because the parents were told that they couldn’t take their son home from the hospital until they had a pediatrician for him, until they had a family doctor, and they called around and they couldn’t find anyone who would accept them because of their adamant decision not to vaccinate this child. And so Dr. Paul took them in. And so that happened. So they made it sound like this boy got tetanus as a result of being Dr. Paul’s patient. But another point to make is that Dr. Paul’s Vaccine Friendly Plan, actually this is one of the vaccines that’s on his alternative schedule is the DTaP vaccine, the diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccine. It’s not as though he recommends against this vaccine, he does recommend it in his Vaccine Friendly Plan. So the idea that this is a consequence of him bullying these parents into making this alternative choice is falsifiable, these claims, the accusations that the board makes are demonstrably false. And so it’s very clear when you set aside the false pretext that the true reason that he was suspended is because he practices informed consent. And this is really important, because there is a war on against our right to informed consent. And this is not an issue that’s just relevant for people living in Portland, Oregon. It’s not just for people living in the state of Oregon, this is relevant for, especially now with these COVID-19 vaccines and talks of immunity passports, and all this, this is an issue that affects every single person living on this planet. You know, again, the lesson from the DTP vaccine, which is the most widely used vaccine in the world still to this day, is really critical that we learn the lessons from that, and that we need to have long-term data comparing long-term health outcomes, including all cause mortality, otherwise, there’s no way to be able to make any kind of meaningful risk benefit analysis for any individual. We need to have that data and the medical establishment and the CDC refuse to do those types of studies.

– What’s the punchline with Paul, his clinic is closed and all of his patients are now kind of medical refugees?

– The clinic Integrative Pediatrics lives on, as far as I know, there’s other practitioners still working there. He’s just not allowed to see any patients or having anything to do with the practice. And another point I want to make, was when the board suspended his license emergently, Dr. Paul’s, he’s not just a pediatrician, he’s also a specialist in Addiction Medicine. And so he helps people who are addicted to like opiate medications and things. He helps them deal with their addiction and get off of these drugs. And so to suspend him, they immediately blocked him from being able to help these addicts, these people who have this addiction problem. Sometimes through the fault of their own physicians who are prescribing these opiate drugs and things, I mean the medical establishment has helped create this opiate problem in the United States. And so immediately causing, without any kind of process to allow for him to be able to transfer these highly needy patients to another physician, it’s just like suddenly he couldn’t help them. So that created a very potentially deadly situation for a lot of his patients in the grounds of a supposed emergency, created evidently by the release of his data showing that his unvaccinated kids were healthier. The Medical Board actually created an emergency and a crisis situation for a lot of his patients, because he could no longer help them. So again, it just shows the recklessness of the Medical Board and they’re saying they’re doing something in the name of the public good, in the name of public health, but like without thought of the consequences of their own actions, it just shows that public health is the last thing on their mind when they’re doing this in this action. It’s a false pretext.

– I know that historically the courts have been very, very reluctant to overrule medical boards, they have essentially totalitarian power to withhold these licenses with or without any cause. What was his, he did sue them, correct?

– Well, it’s not over yet. There’s an ongoing investigation. In fact, the suspension order refers to the ongoing investigation, and in early March he had a hearing before the Board. That was the last event I know of as far as developments. I do know it’s just an ongoing situation. He’s still fighting that legal battle. I don’t know too many of the details of that, other than it is still is ongoing, and he’s fighting for his license. He tells me he’s at peace about it. You know, if his license is permanently removed, taken away from him, he’s at peace with that. I mean, he says that when he wrote “The Vaccine Friendly Plan” and he published that book, he knew he was putting his career on the line. He knew that eventually this day was coming. So he had prepared for that, and I think he was mentally prepared for that. And it just shows the courage of this man that he was willing to essentially issue this challenge, very public challenge, in the publication of that book to the medical establishment, knowing that he was risking his career by doing so. Another thing I want to point out about Dr. Paul is, when he began, he wasn’t always where he is today. I mean, he started out, he went through medical school, he learned that vaccines are safe and effective. He believed it. He trusted that people at the CDC and the AAP, they must be the best of the best to get to where they are, and obviously they know better than me, and I’m just gonna listen to their guidance, and I’m gonna treat my patients the way they tell me to, and I’m gonna vaccinate according to the CDC’s schedule. That’s what he was doing in a private group practice, until he says that he was kind of awakened by the Wakefield Paper in 1998. It just kind of triggered in his mind, the possibility that maybe it’s not just about like these acute adverse events, there could be long-term harms that we’re just totally unaware of. And so he just began doing his own research and attending conferences and just digging deeply into the science for himself. And he went through this journey of awakening. And then he says what really woke him up is that he witnessed four of his own patients regress into autism after vaccination. And so he started out from a point where he had people have confirmation bias, they want to accept information that kind of supports their predetermined conclusions and beliefs and reject information that contradicts their existing belief system. And so it’s really important to point out that Dr. Paul’s confirmation bias was in favor of vaccines, because he had to come to a place where he had to admit to himself, like recognize the possibility and admit the possibility to himself, that there’s something that I’m doing to my patients with good intentions, and he had asked himself, “Am I causing harm? “Am I causing harm to these patients?” And I think that’s something that most doctors are not able to do yet and so he had to go through that process and that kind of self criticism to be able to get to where he is and to where he got when he published “The Vaccine Friendly Plan.” So he left the private practice. He opened Integrative Pediatrics founded on the principle of informed consent, published the book, knowing full well that what he was doing and the path he was he was heading down, could very well lead to the suspension of his license, which ultimately did happen. So I just respect and admire the man so much. I’ve gotten to know him a little bit, I’ve been blessed to get to know him personally a little bit, interviewing him and communicating with him in the publication of the article that I have written about this whole story. So, yeah, I just have a lot of immense gratitude and respect for him for what he’s done and standing up for all of us parents and our right to informed consent.

– How old is he?

– Gosh, I’m not certain exactly, 60 something.

– What is the aftermath in terms of support from his patients and outcry from the community, et cetera?

– Yeah, I know there’s activists on the ground, and they’re fighting for him. I am aware of that. I’m not involved in that. So I’m not really connected with that, but I am aware that people are fighting for him just as he’s fought for us. And so I think, in my judgment, I think the Medical Board has made a huge mistake. I think this is gonna backfire on them, because I think it’s so obvious that they have suspended his license on false pretext, and that the real reason is that he respects informed consent. I think people are gonna awaken to this threat from state governments. You know, like we saw in California, where in fact there’s a bill in Oregon, proposed legislation, to essentially do what they did in California, which Richard Pan believes that the issuance of exemptions to vaccinations is not the practice of medicine, in his words, “Not the practice of medicine, “but the fulfillment of an administrative function “in service to the state.” That’s Richard Pan’s belief about what doctors’ role is, and this is totally perverse where there’s no doctor patient relationship, informed consent is not a choice for the parents, and the doctors must push the CDC schedule on patients, and that’s their function, that’s their role. And this is perverse. And so that’s what was done in California. They’re trying to do that now in Oregon. And so hopefully this will really affect an awakening and a mass public outcry that is going to prevent that bill from passing into law.

– Yeah, I mean, that’s an interesting point, ’cause that’s what happened since Hippocrates, which I think was over 2,000 years ago, or maybe 2,500 years ago, there’s been a special sanctified relationship between doctors and patients, where when you go to your doctor you know that that doctor is not focused on the good of society, he’s focused on your good, and it allows you to be honest with him, and it allows him to, you have total confidence that his job is to protect you, not share your information to protect privacy, protect the public or health, not public health, your health. And during World War II and the years before World War II Hitler changed the German doctors, and the German doctors during that period were required, he changed their relationship so that they were functionaries of the state, they were agents of state policy. So they were told, there were memorandums to every doctor in Germany to inform the state to send out these yellow cards to people who had intellectual infirmities, patients of theirs who had intellectual disabilities. So if they were treating a family, and one of the children had Down’s syndrome or some other intellectual disability, they were required to file a report on that child, and those children were moved, eventually they were sent to death camps. They were sterilized, people with intellectual disabilities or physical disabilities were essentially eliminated from society, and doctors were playing that role, they where the functionary agents to the state in purifying the German race. So their relationship was no longer with the patient, their central obligation was for state policy. You can go anywhere with that. That’s what they did in China. They told doctors, if a woman gets pregnant, do everything you can to make ’em abort the child, the second child. And it’s a very, very dangerous thing when you make doctors agents of state policy, and that’s where we’re at in our country.

– Yeah. We’re already very much down that path. And it’s just gonna continue even further into that realm. People just need to consider the consequences. If they surrender this type of authority to government, to state officials, to be able to dictate how the practice of medicine this way, where there’s not even a doctor patient relationship, it’s just so dangerous. And we’ve seen this in history, and we need to learn the lessons of history and apply them in. And we need to understand that there are certain fundamental rights that are inviolable and we should never surrender. And the right to informed consent is one of those. The Nuremberg code was established after World War II because of the experimentation with the Nazis, just as you described, with doctors and scientists performing experimentation on humans without informed consent. And while the Nuremberg Code itself is not international law, there are international treaties that codify recognition of the right to informed consent and guarantee protection, protecting this right. And in Oregon law, it’s written into the law that doctors must obtain informed consent. And so it is a recognized human right and a fundamental human right that if we do not stand up and fight to protect it, it will be systematically violated. And I think with the COVID-19 pandemic and the mass vaccination end game of the lockdown regimes, I think the risk is heightened all the more. I mean, we were already fighting this battle before the pandemic. And now they’re talking about immunity passports and mass vaccination, and they want to vaccinate children next despite the low risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection to children. There has been an awakening over the years, and I think we’re not there yet. We need to continue this awakening process, educating people about the realities, of what the science says versus what your government and media tell people the science says. And just awakening more people until we reach that critical mass. We just need to achieve a critical mass of awakened people so that the policies will no longer be politically feasible to continue, and we’ll regain our rights.

– I mean, like you say, we’re already in the middle of that ethic where doctors are being told to tell patients, “Take this vaccine because it’s good for your community, “your duty is to take this vaccine,” regardless of whether that vaccine is the right choice for you. How can you give a vaccine to a little child who has zero risk for the disease and a very high risk from that vaccine, according to their own clinical trials? So it’s really flipped around now. And one thing that we’ve learned from history is the doctors do not make good rulers, they’re not good protectors of constitutional rights. And as you pointed out after World War II, we had the Nuremberg trials. The doctors were so badly behaved during the Nazi regimes, that they had to have independent medical trials just to try all the doctors who had committed these crimes. And with all the medical experimentation, with all the medical totalitarianism that took place during Nazi Germany, not a single doctor is on record of speaking out, not a single medical association, and this is a country that had some of the best doctors and the best medical traditions on earth, and nobody objected. And now we’re living in a time where literally doctors are closing down, one doctor is closing down the global economy, and imposing all these kind of haphazard and non-science-based requirements on all of us and without any thought about what it’s doing to our constitutional rights, to our economy, and to human health. It’s all about achieving certain milestones that are in his head of mass vaccination. It doesn’t matter if people are healthy, we need to get ’em vaccinated. Anyway, Jeremy, I wanted to talk to you about Wuhan, but we’ll leave that to the next time.

– Okay.

– Thank you so much for your work and your commitment and your brilliant writing. Thank you.