Sources & References

The data is completely biased. It’s been paid by big pharma… The journal Pediatrics is considered one of the most prestigious academic pediatric journals. It is the “official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics” (AAP) which is funded by big pharma.

Paul Thomas

Every vaccine on the childhood schedule was not tested with a proper placebo. So we don’t have that data of the actual risks. We have some data on the effectiveness, right, because they wanna prove that.

The Book “Turtles all the Way Down” outlines the facts with references (hundreds) showing that not one vaccine on the CDC childhood vaccine schedule was tested using a saline placebo and that none of the safety studies were long enough, looked at the entire schedule nor did any of them look at all health outcomes.

The book, “Vax-Unvax,” also explains this in the forward by Del Bigtree- noting the meeting with Del, Bobby, Francis Collins and Fauci, the letter Siri and Bobby sent to HHS demanding it produce copies of the ‘long-term, placebo-controlled clinical trial relied upon to license each childhood vaccine,” and a copy of the letter from HHS, dated June 27, 2018, stating that no such records existed in HHS. Chapter 1 of Vax-Unvax also explains this issue (pgs. 1-10).

Paul Thomas

I have a product and I want to sell this product as a vaccine, and so I’m going to do studies. Anything I can do that will show my product in a good light because it’s the pharmaceutical industry that pays for the studies, sets them up. So there’s that little possible bias on that side of the equation. But they intentionally set their studies up so they don’t see any downside to the vaccines. There’s no proper placebo, like a saline placebo. The studies are very brief and they’re not looking at all health outcomes. So the whole system is set up. So we don’t have the data that you as a parent need, you’re trying to figure out is this safe or not, which risk is higher?

This is explained in detail in books like “Vax Facts”, Turtles all the way down” and “Vaccines Amen”.

The Mother

“In the eyes of Big Pharma, these vaccines are the most effective thing created… the safety’s not there…”

Paul Thomas

The belief in vaccines goes back over 100 years. The book “Dissolving Illusions” outlines the entire fraud with hundreds of references.

The Mother

They’re (Pharmaceutical Industry) trying to test against what they think is the best science that they have created, and then they’re trying to make that science better. Now if their intentions are actually good, that’s a different question, but just from an unbiased, when you just look at the facts of it, that is what it is.

Paul Thomas

Well, I like that you brought up the fact that there might be corruption or bias because the pharmaceutical industry on the vaccine issue since the 1986 Childhood Immunization Act has no liability.

Paul Thomas

I don’t agree with the fact that they can’t do proper safety testing. They absolutely could take any new vaccine when it was first introduced. So what we’re most familiar with is COVID. It just hit, it came out with a COVID shot. Nobody in the world had taken a COVID shot, so it would not have been unethical to take the first people who are vaccinated age match them, set up this group that you’re going to follow for a while because you can’t vaccinate the whole world at once. And within a short period of time, we would’ve had data and they didn’t do that, and they never do that.

As illustrated in multiple books including “Vax Facts”, “Turtles All The Way Down”, “Vaccines Amen”, “Dissolving Illusions” – none of the vaccines on the schedule were tested properly against a saline placebo. The claim that it would be unethical to use saline placebos or to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated populations is simply false. There are millions in the USA who are unvaccinated. All that would be required would be to look at the data for those unvaccinated and compare all health outcomes to age matched vaccinated counterparts.

Paul Thomas

“For every single vaccine on the childhood schedule, they did not use a saline placebo. And all those vaccines started at some point, where there was nobody in the world who had taken those vaccines. So, you can go back to the date when the polio vaccine came out, the MMR, first it was measles mumps, then rubella separated, then the MMR, you can go back to the Prevnar for pneumococcus, for HIB, for…, all of them… And there was a start date at which they could have done the studies properly.”

The Mother

We’ll take polio for instance. We were already living in a world without a polio vaccine. We were already seeing what it was doing, and so they were then taking the vaccine to just test to even see how effective it would be against stopping polio.

I’m not saying it was correct, but perhaps safety wasn’t their #1 concern. Not that I think that’s right, but maybe, in science, they were just trying to see is there even a way that we could even stop this from happening? So I think that they had the data on what it looked like in a world without having that vaccine. Do you agree with that or no?

Paul Thomas

And then fast forward, now knowing what I know now, there’s not a single vaccine on the childhood schedule that is safer than just getting the disease or put that another way. Your child is more likely to die from the vaccine than they are from the disease that you’re vaccinating them against. And there’s data for that, and it’s very solid, good data that comes from government data and reputable journals, published studies. The analysis has been done.

The Mother

I think there was actually a data point that came out that said 70% of all studies that are run are all run with a bias.

Paul Thomas

I actually published the study on this. I took every single child in my practice for a given month, and we looked at the vaccines that we were recommending according to the CDC schedule. And because we did informed consent in my practice, they had the ability to tick off, no thank you. I don’t want to do those. So we looked at, all right, you refuse those that you’re supposed to get. How much money did we lose as a practice just on one factor called the administration fee. So there’s a thank you for giving the vaccine.

It’s called the admin fee, and that is about it. Contracts are very variable practice to practice, but on average, I had contracts with like 20 plus insurers. On average, we got $40 for the first antigen and $20 for the next one. So that means if I give a DPT that’s three antigens, it’s basically three shots in one, I would get 40 plus 20 plus 20. Well, at the two month visit and at the six month visit, there’s now 10 different antigens that’s over $200. Thank you for giving the shot. I was getting over 30 babies per month and had actually for about 30 years of my career. So I was in a unique position as a pediatrician. I had a massively growing population, so I was seeing a lot more kids than most pediatricians would see. We’ll get back to that. But back to the money I was making when I looked, I was shocked.

I lost over a million dollars per year on just the admin fee that we were losing when parents chose not to vaccinate. Now, as a pediatrician knowing that, and most pediatricians actually don’t, at least I don’t think they intellectualize it. Maybe subconsciously they know that if they stop vaccinating, there’s going to be trouble financially, but you can’t run a practice. I was billing out 3 million at that time in my practice, and our overhead was running 80%. If you lose a million dollars out of a $3 million billing, so it would’ve been four instead it was three. You can’t stay in practice. I mean, you’re not making any money. And that was the truth at that point in my career, I wasn’t making any money.

Paul Thomas

There are 4 ways we make money on vaccines –
1. Admin Fee
2. Mark-Up
3. Bonuses for having population well-vaccinated
4. If you don’t vaccinate well, you get dropped by insurance companies.

Paul Thomas

Then there’s the other side of babies who are dying from the vaccines. SIDS, most of SIDS happens in that week after vaccines, and there’s way over 2000 a year.

The Mother

I think SIDS is interesting because … Do you not believe the data on, that SIDS has gone down since the 90’s?

Paul Thomas

Yes, I do not believe that data. Here’s what happened. We redefined it again.

Same trick they did with polio that we were talking about. So we now have suffocation and we now have all these other codes. In medicine, we use codes. And so if a baby dies and the coroner, the pathologist is not, doesn’t even have a code for death by, from vaccine, they’ve removed it, it’s not even available anymore. So they have to find a different code. So, systematically we structured the system to eliminate SIDS as a vaccine-related incident.

The Mother

So you don’t think that SIDS going down has anything to do with the correlation of “Back is Best” in the nineties?

Paul Thomas

I became a pediatrician in the eighties and the “Back-to-sleep program” that the American Academy of Pediatrics pushed, I bought it. I thought, okay, I didn’t investigate it, I just believed it.

Paul Thomas

I didn’t know until very recently that they had eliminated the ability to diagnose vaccine injury, even autism. I think a long time ago it was vaccine-induced encephalopathy or vaccine-induced encephalitis. Those codes were removed and now it’s autism. So that way you can make this vague. We can’t make the connection.

So the only way we can make the connection now is, and this is a very interesting thing, association versus causation.

Paul Thomas

“So, oh, the vaccines are just associated, but they didn’t cause it. So how do you figure out if something is causing it? Well, you need a few things. You need the event to follow the vaccine. You need it to happen a lot…

So, I was telling you in the case of autism, I had those 4 cases in my practice…

…When I started allowing parents in my practice not to vaccinate, I had an influx every week. I was getting about four to six new families come and tell me the exact same story. And the other practitioners in my practice all saw the same thing. And for that reason, my practice became the only practice… When you hear a parent sitting across from you and they’re bawling their eyes out, dads, moms, and they brought their autistic kid with them and they’ve got now their new baby, and they wanted not to vaccinate that baby because look what happened.

Paul Thomas

But I heard all those stories and it was hundreds. It was hundreds of stories. So I went and got data and actually the medical board asked me to do that. Thank you. Oregon Medical Board. They said, prove that the vaccine friendly plan, which is my first book, that approach, which was partially slowly vaccinated, they said, prove that that’s as safe as the CDC schedule. So we did.

Paul Thomas

We took every single baby born into my practice, we looked at all health outcomes, which is what every study should look at, and we published it in an international journal of public health. It was up for six months before it was retracted on one bogus complaint, but it was downloaded almost a quarter million times.

The Mother

What made the complaint bogus?

Paul Thomas

Medical Board inquiries are supposed to be due to patient complaints. There were zero patient complaints. The OMB (Oregon Medical Board) was on a mission to destroy my career based on the relentless letters demanding various patient charts with no complaint that prompted such a request. This went on for years until the emergently took my licence for being “a threat to public health”

Paul Thomas

Because what they alleged was false. So the allegation was that the population was skewed and we were comparing apples to oranges. And the thing, oh, they said, everybody knows that unvaxxed families don’t go to the doctor. There is some truth to that statement. However, in our study we actually looked at that and the funny thing was it was our unvaxxed patients that made a higher percentage of their well-child visits than the vaccinated. Surprising, right?

And we looked at other ways, we analyzed the data other ways. So in that particular study, here’s the thing, the autism signal wasn’t huge. It was like eh. And that’s a complex reason for why that was.

But what we found was, and this was what was astounding, there was way more developmental delays, language problems, neurodevelopmental issues. So that side of things, way more allergies, asthma, eczema, and way more infections… And the infections part was the like, “Wow”.

Paul Thomas

“No, they alleged that everybody knows that the unvaxxed families don’t seek medical care.”

“And we had already proven, we have since published another follow-up article that shows that that complaint was bogus.”

Paul Thomas

“This is just something that happens. If you write an article that challenges the vaccine narrative, first of all, you usually can’t get it published, which happened to me. I tried to publish in 2015 an article with the data comparing Vaxxed to Vaxxed and I couldn’t get it accepted.”

“So that’s when I wrote the vaccine friendly plan. This other one, with the help of some really good scientists, I was able to get it published in this International Journal of Public Health. It ended up getting retracted.”

Paul Thomas

But you are correct. In the greater world, there are two reasons that the unvaxxed go to the office less often. One is they’re less sick. Alright, that’s a real thing. My data showed that.

“That’s why my data was so important because my patients were seeking healthcare, “Well childcare” even, more than the vaccinators. So they were coming to the doctor. But what we found in that data was there was far less ADD, ADHD, far less severe asthma, eczema, all these conditions and infections.

If you have fewer infections, you’re not going to go to the doctor as much. Or let’s put it this way, if you’re a chronic disease, because we know chronic disease is a big thing now in this world today. Back a hundred years ago it was infectious diseases. Now we’ve traded infectious diseases for chronic diseases. If you have fewer chronic diseases or if your asthma, let’s say is less severe, you’re going to have fewer visits. We tracked in my data, office visits, it was sort of a different modality. Instead of a “yes, no, you have asthma or you don’t have asthma”, it was how many times did you see the doctor for your asthma?”

Paul Thomas

“We had 2,700 and some vaccinated and 561 or 563 unvaccinated. It’s big enough. I mean it’s bigger than a lot of vaccine trials, frankly, or certainly bigger than a lot of studies that get published, but it’s not huge. It would be lovely to have a whole population.”

The Mother

Are they healthier because they’re not vaxxed, or are they healthier, also, because they probably live a more holistic lifestyle?

Paul Thomas

All my patients got the same advice on nutrition and lifestyle – the variable that was different was how they were vaccinating or not vaccinating at all.

So that was brought up as one of the complaints of my paper is that, well, you don’t know, they might have a healthier lifestyle. Maybe they’re taking vitamin D. Actually, all my patients were taking vitamin D vaccine or unvaccinated. I feel strongly that that was an important thing. All my patients got advice to breastfeed as long as possible. Not all were successful, but a lot of ’em were. There were a lot of things that were happening that were good. So, truly in my data set and what I saw, was apples to apples. I had unvaccinated, I had vaccinated. The difference on those other variables, it wasn’t that great.

Paul Thomas

Mine was not the only study. There are others, and there are books on this topic, and I know you’re a researcher, so you’re going to read some of those books, but don’t ignore the vaccine issue.

Paul Thomas

What they have done with vaccine science is the same thing. It’s the same playbook that tobacco did. I call it tobacco science. Here’s what that looks like. You’re going to smoke a pack a day of Marlboro and I’m going to smoke a pack a day of camel, and we’re going to see who gets lung cancer in the next month. Well, obviously neither of us get lung cancer. We could smoke for a year, probably maybe even 10 years. We don’t go long enough to see the ultimate lung cancer and there’s no real placebo. You should have smoked or I should have smoked and the other person should have not smoked. And then let’s look at not just lung cancer, but all outcomes. And you say, oh wow, the smokers are dying more often of heart disease, of whatever. So that’s why it’s so important to have both a placebo, a long enough study and look at all health outcomes. And they haven’t done that for any of ’em.

Paul Thomas

Newborns whose mothers don’t have hepatitis B, the disease hepatitis B, will not get Hepatitis B period. We screen moms, they’re not having sex, they’re not shooting up with needles. There is zero risk. I can sleep like a baby and never worry that there will ever be a problem with any of my patients who choose not to take a hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Thankfully, the CDC finally re-looked at the data just recently and said, oh yeah, we need to take this off of the recommended schedule.

Paul Thomas

We don’t have any good studies. We don’t have good data. So we’re left with looking at my study and some other studies that are out there that are vaxxed vaxxed, and then you have to look at world prevalence or US prevalence of various diseases and you go, wow, they’re all going up. Well, that’s just a correlation. You’re right. It’s just a correlation. But correlation might be causation.

Paul Thomas

Let’s go back to the tobacco analogy. When they first came out with cigarettes and in World War, they were putting ’em in the soldiers rations, and then they did massive campaigns. Even doctors were like, smoke camel or smoke this massive marketing. That’s money. That was just a money driven thing. At first, there was very little cigarettes in the world. Well, at one point there were none except what you rolled yourself. The same thing happened with vaccines. At first. There were no vaccines, and then they just created the smallpox. And we can go through that whole timeline. So how interesting, worldwide that market share expanded, and that’s what they’ve done with tobacco. That’s what they do with everything. If you have a product, you want to make more money, you get it out first to your local community and then you grow.

Paul Thomas

I think 1986 was a big problem because when you take away liability, you take away the necessity to improve your product. And so I could go through vaccine after vaccine that could have been made better and possibly made it worthwhile while we saw a certain disease go away. And some of ’em, it was the vaccine that helped.

The Mother

What happened in the eighties, it happened because of all the Lawsuits, right?

Paul Thomas

Because they had a very dangerous product on the market and they needed to pull that product. And thankfully they did. They replaced it with a safer product, but it was inferior in its ability in pertussis, for example. So we have pertussis outbreaks now because the acellular pertussis vaccine wasn’t as effective. It’s not safe, but it was definitely safer than the DPT, the old wholesale one. So why can’t you, like most industries, keep making progress, right? This is science, keep making progress towards better safety, better effectiveness. I mean, most of the HIB has been the same product since it was introduced back in 1988. And type B hemophilus influenza type B is almost gone. It’s other types of hemophilus. That vaccine is targeting the wrong strain. Why don’t they fix that? There’s no incentive to.

Paul Thomas

Yes, they would need to do proper studies. I think they can do it in parallel. Honestly, I’m not anti-vaccine. I think I’d love to see them try to do a proper study, pick any of ’em. Let’s take Prevnar because it is an interesting one. They’ve at least made some attempts. So they started out with Prevnar seven. That’s against pneumococcus. There’s about a hundred strains of pneumococcal disease that can cause meningitis. Sepsis potentially could kill you.

A few kids or 20 or 40 a year do die now from pneumococcus. So it’s probably the most deadly bacterial infection that’s out there. It is largely treatable, but not, you can still lose your kid. So Prevnar seven comes out in 95. By 10 years later, 2005 math, they changed it to Prevnar 13 to add some strains. And I thought that’s good. And I think it helped for a few years, reduced infections. It still had some of the dangerous components in the vaccine, so the safety issue wasn’t addressed, but at least the efficacy was. And then just last year, 2024, they had Prevnar 20. So they’re adding more strains because the organisms shift under the pressure of the vaccine. That speaks to the fact that some of these vaccines do have some benefit or the organisms wouldn’t be shifting, but it doesn’t last. So they’re making progress on the one side, the efficacy side, they can do the same thing on the safety side. They just do it in parallel. And I think it can be done. I think there just hasn’t been any incentive for them to do so because of the 1986 act.