461 Powerful Study Shows Number One Factor in Healthy Vs. Chronically Sick Children, Understanding The Risks and Benefits of Modern Medicine, Informed Consent, Dr. Paul Thomas
Manage episode 295081392 series 2391681
Follow the Learn True Health Podcast on LBRY:
Join the Learn True Health Community on Facebook: LearnTrueHealth.com/group
Study Outlines Key Factor In Chronically Sick vs Healthy Children
- True informed consent
- Are face masks safe and effective in preventing COVID-19 transmission
- What you can do to prevent yourself from getting COVID-19
- Absolute risk reduction vs, relative risk reduction of COVID-19 vaccines
Dr. Paul Thomas is back on the show, and he catches us up on what has happened to him since the last time he was on the show. He shares his research about vaccinated and unvaccinated kids and also some studies about COVID-19. He also touches briefly about masking and its safety and efficacy for children and adults. Dr. Thomas also gives some tips on how to stay healthy.
Hello, true health seeker and welcome to another exciting episode of the Learn True Health podcast. This episode and the next two episodes after this one are going to be a series. I am excited and nervous to publish them.
There is a threat that might eliminate my podcast and that is free speech, so I bring you three doctors, these are medical doctors. One of them is also a PhD, cardiologist, and research scientist. Today’s doctor, Dr. Paul Thomas, is a pediatric general physician of over 30 years, and each of my guests—this and the next two, the three episodes—are all doctors who’ve been practicing for a very long time, 30+ years each I believe, and they are being silenced for speaking the truth, for sharing science, and it’s a science that has been so controversial because it goes against what is being taught in the mainstream.
So, I invite you to open your minds, take in all the information, become critical thinkers if you’re not already, and use this information to empower you. We will not fear monger, we will not coerce, it is all about sharing free information and allowing us to think for ourselves. Please share my podcast with those you care about, share this episode with those who want to keep learning, growing, and continue to educate themselves on the best choices possible that they can make for themselves and their family as it pertains to their health.
I interviewed Dr. Paul Thomas back in episode 224 and he shared the stories in his life as a child growing up in Africa to white missionary parents and the perspective it gave him in order to become a doctor. And then his experiences in his early career watching children go through regular wellness checks as we know them today, and experience side effects from vaccines, and see how the CDC schedule was not optimal for every patient. That led him to create his solution, which was to use one vaccine at a time and watch and see how the child reacts to it.
He then wrote a book called The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, and his whole approach is that he’s not anti-vaccine, he’s also not pro-vaccine. This sort of upsets people on both sides of the spectrum. I hope that you, like me try to stay in the middle, take in all the information, and not vilify either side. But just take in all the information in order to make informed decisions. Instead of being pressured by fear or coercion, make informed decisions. He shares some amazing information, and he did back in 224. So you can go back and listen to that episode as well.
But today, he shares some information that is so empowering, that is so mind-blowing. I hope you go to the links of the studies he has published in journals that show the findings of his studies. And if you’re like me, you will get excited because this information is empowering when we take it all in without emotion and we really look at it, and then we can decide how to navigate our health choices based on all of the research in this information.
So, I’m excited for you to listen to this episode, and I really, really want you to share it with those that you think will help them to also make informed choices in their life to help them. So, thank you for being a listener of the Learn True Health podcast. Thank you for sharing.
If you ever go to your favorite podcast directory like iTunes, Spotify, iHeartRadio, wherever you listen to my show. If you ever go there and you find my show has been all of a sudden not there anymore, then I have been censored. I post my show also on LBRY. I believe it’s called LBRY. I post it everywhere I possibly can. But just so you know, if you don’t find me there, you can also email me, firstname.lastname@example.org. If you ever all of a sudden can’t find my podcast, if I’ve been censored, deleted, and blocked, just know that I’ll still be publishing in places where censorship doesn’t exist or where there’s still parts of the internet where freedom of speech is still protected. So I will continue to publish in those areas.
You can follow me on LBRY and come to the Learn True Health Facebook group as well. As long as Facebook allows us to be there, we will be there. We’ve got a robust and beautiful Facebook community. Just search Learn True Health on Facebook and we have a wonderful community of people who are answering questions, seeking advice and seeking solutions to grow, to learn, to achieve true health.
Enjoy today’s interview and please also listen to the next two interviews that I’ll be publishing because I think that this is a very interesting series to publish and get out there, especially for those who didn’t know this information before. Take care.
[00:06:14] Ashley James: Welcome to the Learn True Health podcast. I’m your host, Ashley James. This is episode 461. I am so excited for today’s guest. I’ve had Dr. Paul Thomas on the show. It was episode 224 back in February of 2018. Can you believe how much time has passed? Can we just get on a time machine and go back to 2018? That’d be so great.
[00:06:48] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yup. Well, thank you, Ashley, for having me on your show again. So much has happened in my life since early 2018, oh my goodness.
Ashley James: Well, when we had you on the show, you shared some amazing stories. I’ve always referred back to our episode together because I like to try to stay neutral on many topics that are controversial and allow the guests through science and through real research help people to better understand their medical choices.
I think that when we polarize a topic, we really become ignorant because making a choice that’s emotional, making a medical choice based on a belief that’s uninformed can end up harming us. Or making a medical choice based on, well, my doctor just told me to and he created a lot of fear. My mother-in-law is really pushing for it. When there’s fear, emotion, and people are pushing us or we feel peer pressure to make a medical decision for ourselves or our children, we’re not fully informed. We end up paying the price, and so many have.
[00:07:57] Dr. Paul Thomas: Absolutely.
[00:07:58] Ashley James: What I love about what you do is you believe in true informed consent. and I really learned that from you on such a deep level. I’ve actually had to say that since you and I talked on the show in 2018, I’ve had to say that to several doctors—I want informed consent. They just stopped in their tracks and they switched gears. They’re like, oh, okay. It was great because I could see that they were like, okay, I can’t just tell this person what to do. I have to show them all of their options and really go through them.
I actually had one doctor get very excited. My son ended up in a children’s hospital with respiratory distress, it was very scary. Before they stuck a needle in him for an IV, what they were actually giving him magnesium, I had no idea what they were doing. I’m like, I need informed consent. She stopped and she got really excited. She’s like, okay, great. Let me tell you, this is what we’re doing, these are the possible side effects, these are the benefits, these are the alternatives, and she really walked me through it.
I’m like, wow, the doctor that wants to give you true informed consent wants to empower you to make good choices, to make the best choices that you can. The doctors that get upset, that’s a doctor I’d be afraid of. So, I learned so much from you and our listeners learned so much from you. I heard the other day from one of my friends who’s in the medical field that you have been up against it, and she heard you in another interview talk about some very interesting things that have been going on. I’ve been watching you, I follow you on Facebook, and I would love for you to share with the listeners what has happened since 2018 since we had you on the show.
[00:09:41] Dr. Paul Thomas: Oh my goodness. A lot, and I’ll walk you through the key points. Thank you for highlighting informed consent. It is the ethical principle upon which all medical procedures should be judged. If you’re going to die right in front of me, if I don’t do something, you would just jump in and do something, right?
[00:10:02] Ashley James: Yes.
[00:10:02] Dr. Paul Thomas: But anything else, if you’re not at risk of dying right now, then if I’m proposing a procedure or a treatment—whether it be medication, surgery, vaccines—you deserve as a patient to be informed of the risks, the benefits, and the alternatives, and one of the alternatives for any medical procedure should always be putting it off, not doing it. Because if I’m just here to coerce you, to convince you, to get you to do my procedure, that’s not true informed consent.
I mean, you could pretend like it is, but you as the consumer, you have to know that it is your option, and you’re not going to be judged, you’re not going to be looked down upon, you’re not going to be made to feel bad if you choose not to follow the advice.
Doctors typically have what they think is best, so generally, we go with whatever our doctors say. But, in the area of vaccines, which has been the world I’m most known for, I mean, I’m a general pediatrician. I also do addiction medicine. I really focus on preventative health and wellness, but the area that I’ve become well known for is this vaccine issue, which like you said, it’s so polarizing.
Part of the reason it’s so polarizing is that the mainstream mantra that is funded by huge pharma dollars is the simple marketing slogan—vaccines are safe and effective. That, folks, is not a medical fact. It is a marketing slogan. But unfortunately, physicians, the public, everybody has just adopted that as if it were a truth, as if that were science. So just to dispel that, vaccines are safe and effective because I’m not anti- or pro-vaccine, just like I’m not anti- or pro-antibiotics, or any other procedure. We have to look at the specifics and individualize for this patient in front of us and go through the pros and the cons—risks, benefits, alternatives.
So, vaccines are safe. Well, that’s obviously false. There is no safe medication. How risky a given vaccine depends on the vaccine, and we’ll probably get to this, but COVID is by far, the COVID vaccine is the most dangerous vaccine that has ever been brought to market. We have over 5000 deaths already from the vaccines reported in VAERS, which we know catches about 1%-2%, no more than 10% for sure of the adverse events. It’s more deaths than all other deaths for the past 30 years from all vaccines combined, think about that.
[00:12:47] Ashley James: Can you say that again?
[00:12:49] Dr. Paul Thomas: There are more deaths from the COVID vaccine than there have been deaths from all other vaccines combined over the entire duration of the VAERS system, which is 30 years. This vaccine is so dangerous it should be pulled from the market, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many physicians and scientists. But those opinions are silenced, you don’t hear it on the news, and there is massive suppression of that sort of information because it just seems like this program has a life of its own. They don’t seem to know how to pull back because they’ve invested I don’t know, hundreds of billions of dollars or something, some massive amount. I mean, they’re trying to vaccinate the planet with an experimental vaccine.
Anyway, I went off on the COVID vaccine a little too soon because this guy’s crazy. You know folks, you got to look at the data, and the data is very convincing. But let me walk you back through my journey since we were last together.
So, in 2016 I wrote a book, The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, and that book is not anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine. In fact, I pissed everybody off with that book because the people who truly hate vaccines call me baby killer because I am recommending vaccines, and the people who are pro-vaccine hate me because I’m not recommending all the vaccines or I’m making it too complicated to follow the CDC schedule. People are not going to get all their vaccines, therefore, I’m harming public health.
Well, that is the narrative that has been used by the Oregon Medical Board to come after me. And actually, since around the time you and I talked, actually it was that month I believe. Maybe it was after we talked, around that time I got a notice from the Oregon Medical Board that said prove. They’d already been hitting me with a few complaints. I know there’s an effort to attempt to get rid of me, let’s just say it that way.
I am seen by some as dangerous for the public. If I’m causing patients not to follow the CDC schedule and all I do is give informed consent. I tell people the risks, the benefits, the alternatives, and when you really get the truth about risks and benefits, some vaccines just plain don’t make sense. The easy one is Hepatitis B for newborns.
So in America, every newborn in the hospital is given an injection of 250 micrograms of aluminum for a disease Hepatitis B that you catch from sex and IV drug use. The babies in my practice frankly are not having sex and not sharing dirty needles, so unless their birth mother has Hepatitis B, their risk for that disease is absolutely zero.
The risk of injecting that much aluminum is known, it is fairly significant, although it’s not recognized so that’s the issue. Those of us who are aware of aluminum toxicity, it creates problems with your immune system, allergies, and autoimmunity. We know that it affects neurodevelopment. Since 1990 and before, there were studies about aluminum toxicity and how it harms neurodevelopment, so why would you cause something that’s going to affect your baby’s development and brain for a disease they have zero risks for?
So that’s the kind of informed consent. When you as a parent are actually told those facts. I think I’ve had 1 patient out of the last 3000 in my practice still want to get the Hepatitis B vaccine. That one’s so clear. Now, a lot of them are not so clear because they have risks, but they also have benefits, and that’s where it gets muddied. That’s where in my book, The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, I tried to navigate that whole issue.
Let me go back to the fact that the board asked me to prove that the vaccine-friendly plan that I talked about in my book was as safe as the CDC schedule. So, I got this letter from the medical board, and you have to produce, by the way, when the medical board comes after you. If you refuse to cooperate, they just yank your license. So, I hired a doctor to come into my office. He was a former pediatrician neonatologist who had then morphed his career into medical record informatics systems. He had designed, I think, almost 50 informatics systems around the world. I mean, this guy’s a nerd genius data guy.
[00:17:33] Ashley James: Just to explain what that means, he’s able to take all the records and he’s able to quantify certain information? Can you just explain what it is he ends up producing?
[00:17:45] Dr. Paul Thomas: What he does. So I asked him to answer the following question. He came and spent a week in my office. Extracting data about vaccines is pretty complicated when you have different health care systems. I had transferred patients from an old practice, and our systems had changed from one to another. It took him a lot more work because of that, but I basically asked him, identify every patient born into my practice. So this practice, Integrative Pediatrics, was opened in June of 2008. At that time we had 10 ½ years of data.
I said, find every patient born into the practice. We want patients who were seen from birth because I get a lot of patients come into my practice because they’ve had other vaccine injuries and they know that I will listen to them, whereas other practices will just kick them out if they don’t follow the CDC schedule. So I attract a lot of higher-risk families, and I wanted a pure sample of just kids born into the practice. So that ended up being over 3,000 kids. And then I said let’s look at every vaccine they got, every single diagnosis they were given, and let’s just plot out the data.
Actually, he wasn’t even going to plot out the data. His job was merely to find the data. He then had it de-identified by an honest broker so that when I sent that data set to my co-author, James Lyons Weiler, he had no clue who was who. He was purely working from raw data.
Now, the guy that came in, when he came in he was not really a believer that vaccines can cause harm. He was more of the old-school vaccines are safe and effective. I said, well, we’ll see. I mean, I honestly didn’t know what we would find.
After the first day, he came out excited like a kid in a candy store. He’s going, oh my God. The data just jumps out at you. I said, what do you mean? He says, well, I’m not looking for the results, but you cannot not see it. The unvaccinated kids just don’t get sick. They don’t get anything. I knew there was some signal he was seeing, but then when we analyzed this data and we published it, we took it through peer review. The article for your listeners is called Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination. It’s published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, published November 18, 2020.
Now, that’s a mouthful for a title but I just wanted you to have it if you’re looking it up. But basically, if you just look for International Journal Environmental Research Public Health 2020 I think you’ll find it, Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses. Sorry about that. Maybe on your show, you can give a link or something. I think I sent it.
[00:20:39] Ashley James: Yes. We actually transcribe all of the interviews and put it on our website, learntruehealth.com. So we’ll make sure the link is there.
[00:20:48] Dr. Paul Thomas: Perfect. For those of you who go and get this article, which I highly recommend, see if you can print it out in color because we have a page of graphs all on one page. It’s Figure 5 Analysis 5, and what it shows is for all the major conditions that were looked at, in orange, you have over that whole 10 years the increase in the diagnosis of the various conditions. So we’ve got asthma, allergic rhinitis, breathing issues, behavior problems, ADD, ADHD, ear infections, other infections, eye infections, eczema, dermatitis, and urticaria. So skin problems and anemia.
For every single one of the conditions, the orange line, which is your vaccinated kid—and by the way, these are children in my practice following the vaccine-friendly plan, so they’re getting about half the vaccines that a CDC schedule kid would get. But even then, when you compare them to over 500 kids who were unvaccinated and it was age-matched, so we’re comparing kids of the same age, the unvaxxed kids just don’t get these conditions. It’s almost a flat line in blue and this rising level of problems for the vaccinated kids.
[00:22:03] Ashley James: I’m looking at the graph right now, I just googled it. I’m looking at Figure 5 and it’s unbelievable. There’s no question when you see this data.
[00:22:12] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah, it just jumps out at you, and that’s what he was I think seeing when he was just looking at raw data. I didn’t expect it to be this dramatic. Here’s the problem, for listeners to understand, doctors don’t realize that these things have anything to do with vaccines. I mean, who would think that asthma, ear infections, ear pain, dry skin, itchy skin, or even anemia—who would ever have thought that they had anything to do with vaccines? It seems that they do, and we now have other studies. There’s something called the control group that’s just incredibly powerful.
You can go to thecontrolgroup.org and they did a survey. What they found was one-quarter of 1% of Americans are totally unvaccinated. One-quarter of 1%. 99.9.74% have had at least one vaccine, and that was mind-boggling. They surveyed 48 of the 50 states, they had a sample size of I think over 3,000 surveys done. And when they looked at things like heart disease, cancer, or diabetes, the unvaxxed adults had zero—no heart disease, no cancer, no diabetes, zero. And of course, the incidence we know of heart disease in adults is somewhere around 50%, I believe, diabetes 10%.
People don’t know that the chronic things for which you need medication could be related to vaccines because this has never been done. That’s the tragedy of our health system. It has never, because of the sales marketing pitch of vaccines are safe and effective, they’ve never bothered to look. Some of us are waking up to the fact that whoa, we got a problem and we should be looking. That vaxxed-unvaxxed study was published on November 18, 2020. It was first available online at the end of November, and five days after it was available online, the Oregon Medical Board had an emergency meeting and they immediately suspended my license to practice medicine.
[00:24:43] Ashley James: So they asked you for the proof, you gave them the proof, and they suspended your license because you gave them the proof that they asked for.
[00:24:54] Dr. Paul Thomas: There you go. I mean, obviously, I can’t prove that they emergently suspended my license because I published this data. But it’s pretty close to guaranteed proof because of the following. A week before that or maybe it was two weeks before that, they had just sent a new complaint that was absolutely ridiculous. They’ve been sending me new complaints that are anonymous by the way so we don’t know where they’re coming from, who’s initiating these complaints.
[00:25:23] Ashley James: The pharmaceutical company could be.
[00:25:24] Dr. Paul Thomas: I don’t know who, I’ll tell you, but they’ve been endless. I would say the last two, three years, I get complaints every other month and I have to address them. I dig for the data that they’re asking for and give it to them, never hear back. So they’ve never filed any charges, just they’re fishing. So they complain after complaint.
So we were already in the process of trying to respond to another complaint, yet another complaint when this emergency happened. Well, what was the emergency? Nothing had changed. My patients are the healthiest patients in town, and I’ve got data to prove it now that’s been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so where’s the emergency? There can only be one explanation, in my opinion.
So we have other good news to report. Just a couple of weeks ago, I got my attorney to take their situation of yanking my license without making any charges, which is basically illegal, and he took it to a judge. The judge ruled in our favor, and the board actually just two weeks ago gave me back my license.
[00:26:36] Ashley James: Congratulations.
[00:26:38] Dr. Paul Thomas: Thank you. The loss of my license caused me to lose all health insurance contracts. I don’t have health insurance, I don’t have insurance contracts. I lost my board certification from both the Board of Addiction Medicine, the Academy of Pediatrics, and I haven’t worked for the last six months. It’s taken a huge toll on our practice. We’re still open. Thankfully I have four actually, but three mostly working in the trenches nurse practitioners who are doing an incredible job of taking care of the patients. But it’s not been easy.
[00:27:16] Ashley James: Wow. When we spoke, I thought you also had a few doctors and a Naturopath that worked with you.
[00:27:23] Dr. Paul Thomas: I did. You and I talked, at that point, there were 10 of us in the office. So we had a Naturopath who was just amazing. I think we were three doctors, five nurse practitioners, and a Naturopath, 10 in total. If you count me, we’re down to four with one nurse practitioner doing a tiny bit of fill-in here and there.
[00:27:47] Ashley James: I know with Washington state there’s some weird law where you have to be a doctor to employ doctors or something. I don’t quite understand it. Were they not allowed to be employed by the clinic because you lost your license? Why did they leave?
[00:28:04] Dr. Paul Thomas: Most of them left in fear.
[00:28:08] Ashley James: Oh my gosh.
[00:28:10] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah, they were targeting me and it looked like they were starting to target the practice. So, one of my nurse practitioners, just a lovely, lovely lady, oh my gosh, but she was young. She had gotten her PhD or whatever the doctorate level for nurse practitioners was. She had ambitions to teach. She just had to move on because it was just too risky for her career. I had another doctor who just left, it was just too risky for her career. She still had young children.
Yeah, it’s a lot of pressure that doctors who speak up for informed consent are—I mean, what’s happening in California, it’s just any doctor who’s written exemptions for vaccines is having to fight for their license. I mean, it’s like a witch hunt.
[00:28:59] Ashley James: Wow. So I have a friend, actually, he’s a listener and we became friends. They contacted your office, but it wouldn’t make sense to have a medical exemption written in Oregon if he’s in California. But his son has had major problems, surgeries, and based on his history, of his past, and the kid is I think six now because he’s about the same age as my son. Just based on all of the health conditions he’s gone through and is currently going through, he’s a candidate for exemptions right now because his immune system is compromised, there are all these other things.
Because they’re in California, he can’t find anyone. If he were to go to any other state, a pediatrician would say, absolutely, this is not a candidate right now for a vaccine because he’s compromised. You’re saying there are effects. I don’t even like the term side effects. There are effects of certain medications, and when a person is compromised, those effects are more dramatic.
[00:30:13] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah. The problem is, somehow, pharma has captured the CDC. So the CDC makes recommendations, they also make money on vaccines, and they also are kind of a marketing arm in a real sense for vaccines based on what data they choose to collect and then what data they choose to publish. But the CDC has never done any of the research that’s necessary to answer the question as I did, for example, comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.
Your friend that was hoping for an exemption, I would actually guess that 90% something, close to 100% of pediatricians would not write an exemption even though it sounds like there’s pretty strong evidence that that would be a mistake to vaccinate that child with all that’s going on, either because they truly believe vaccines are safe and effective. They, in a way, drank the Kool-Aid. I mean, they’re just not doing their own research, or in this day and age, it’s career suicide. I mean, if you write medical exemptions, you’re waving a big old flag to the medical board, come get me. Unless you’re close to retirement, that’s just not an option for a young doctor who’s trying to build a career and maybe feed their family.
[00:31:39] Ashley James: Wow. That’s actually something I wanted to bring up was talking about safety testing. But first, I wanted to point out, I loved that near the end of our interview back in 2018 episode 224, you shared a story.
At that time in February, it’s the tail end of “flu season.” And at the time, I’m up in Washington state. So in the pacific northwest, we had a really bad flu outbreak. My family didn’t get it, but in all of the clinics, all of the hospitals, it was like a four or five-hour wait. They were just full. And down in Oregon as well, you guys had four to five-hour waits in the emergency rooms and clinics were just full.
We got hit really badly with some form of influenza and you said to me, last Friday, our clinic closed early because we didn’t get one phone call. I think you said 10,000 patients, not one phone call from 10,000 patients saying my son Johnny has a fever and sniffles, I need to come in or what should I do? You didn’t get one phone call from all your patients.
About 50% of your practice I think you said was unvaccinated and the other percentage would follow not the CDC schedule but would follow what’s laid out in your book, which is one at a time, wait and see, how does the kid react. And then I said, well, what do you guys do for the unvaccinated children for those that choose to not do it? What do parents do to help keep a child healthy?
And you say, well, all my patients take vitamin D. They all get outside into the sunlight, get fresh air, and exercise. They all eat very clean, very healthy fruits and vegetables. I think you went down a list of everything that regardless of vaccine status, you make sure they all follow these guidelines.
[00:33:48] Dr. Paul Thomas: Well, they’re recommended. I’m not sure how well—
[00:33:52] Ashley James: They’re followed?
[00:33:54] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah. Lifestyle is tough, right?
[00:33:55] Ashley James: It is.
[00:33:57] Dr. Paul Thomas: For adults, you’re supposed to exercise, not drink, eat healthy, and you get your sleep, and how many of us are perfect on that? But no, you’re absolutely right. To this day, I have two waiting rooms—a well and a sick side—because at my old practice, before I started this one, there was this one giant waiting room and it was always like three quarters filled with sick kids, and you have these little well babies and well kids sitting amongst coughing, sneezing, a snotty nose, feverish kids, something. This is not good. You’re exposing healthy kids to so much stuff. I mean, it’s like, stay away from the pediatric office.
So I set this up with two separate completely separate waiting rooms. Our sick waiting room almost never has anybody in it. It was true back then, and of course, it’s really been true with quarantine. Quarantine, for sure for most practices, reduced the volume of visits just in general. How much of that was just people wouldn’t come in for fear of being exposed to somebody with COVID, or that they truly weren’t sick? I think it’s a little bit of both. I mean, the fact that people were not in school, we know as a pediatrician, once school opens, just give it a few weeks and we get busy. The states that had no direct student contact schooling, so if it was completely at homeschooling, it definitely reduced illness.
But the other thing that happened with COVID is we had what I’m going to call diagnostic substitution. So, traditionally, in the United States, the CDC has reported there’s, oh, I would say from 30,000 to 60,000 cases of influenza in the US per year. As a practicing busy pediatrician, I can tell you that probably at most 10% of those cases were actually influenza. It’s usually less than 5%, but definitely no more than 10%. How can I say that?
Well, it’s reported by the CDC that’s the case. But when we get a really sick kid in the winter and they’ve got a cough, fever, maybe a little sore throat, body aches, a flu-like illness, today you would call it COVID, probably not even see them. You don’t want to bring that patient into the office, you just assume it’s COVID. But back then, before COVID, you would bring these sickest kids in to figure out what’s going on because they could have bacterial pneumonia and there are antibiotics for that. So you want to know who needs to be treated or are they so sick they need to be in the hospital. Maybe they have a requirement for oxygen.
So, those sickest kids, the last few years we were doing something called a recipe path where you would actually swab the nose and send that off to test for maybe 20 different most common things that would cause an infection in the kid. And it would include influenza a, influenza b, rhinovirus, and the various cold viruses, even coronaviruses on that panel before COVID came around, the bacterial causes, et cetera. And that’s why I know at the height of flu season back then, 5% to 10% max.
So now, I’ll bet you it’s similar to COVID even though it can be a very devastating illness for those who are high risk, it’s no big deal for kids. So if a kid comes in with flu-like symptoms, if we could test them for COVID and use a proper test, not the PCR test that’s high cycles of amplification, we can talk about that. That’s giving so many false positives. But if we had a real test, those with a flu-like, COVID-like illness, I’ll bet you it’s less than 5% who are actually COVID. We just changed.
So, now all the people that used to be labeled as flu because that supported the flu shot campaign, now we’re labeling them as COVID because that supports the COVID shot campaign. The truth of the matter is do that panel of 20 tests and you’ve got some mycoplasma in there, you got some pneumococcus, you got some rhinovirus, some adenovirus, some different coronavirus. You’ve got RSV, parainfluenza, pertussis, influenza a, influenza b. There’s a long list of things that are causing that person’s symptoms, but we don’t bother to figure it out anymore. Right now you just said, stay home until you get better. If you get really bad, go to the hospital. That’s not good medicine, folks.
[00:38:31] Ashley James: That kind of blows my mind because we’re told “flu season,” it’s just a bunch of influenza and that’s it. But really, it’s only ever been 5% to 10% percent and the other infections are different bacteria or viruses. That marketing, that’s right, we’re marketed to.
I remember when the flu shot came out, I was a teenager. I grew up in Canada and the marketing was big. It was all happy people dancing in a field and downhill skiing. Get the flu shot, prevent the flu. And I even got the shot, I think I was 19. I got it at my chiropractor’s office of all things. She was so excited. Free flu shots or maybe it was $25, I don’t remember. She was so excited, it was so innovative. It was so new. And my mom and I never got sick. I don’t know why we were excited about the flu shot. I guess we totally bought the marketing, but my mom and I never ever got the flu ever. I don’t even remember having the flu my entire life.
And then after that shot, my mom and I were so sick. We turned to each other about a week later and said never again are we going to get this shot. This is ridiculous. What were we thinking? I started to go, that’s interesting. It made me question a little bit. And then when my mom was dying in the hospital of a medication the week before she died—she was in the hospital for the last two weeks of her life and I was there with her. I had the radio on and they announced on the news that the medication she had been on that her doctor feared her into taking. It was a synthetic estrogen.
Her doctor said, if you don’t take this, your bones are going to be brittle and you’re just going to break a hip and die, basically. I remember my mom who was the strongest woman I knew came home in tears crying, leaning to get on this medication because her doctor told her she was going to have brittle bones and die if she didn’t take it. And then a few years later, she’s dying in the hospital of cancer, and it was this drug that was taken off the market for causing an insane amount of cancer in women. The doctor that prescribed it got cancer too because she was on it because. She believed the marketing.
[00:40:56] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah, doctors believe it themselves.
[00:40:59] Ashley James: Right, they do. I mean, they have conviction around it as well. Something in my brain switched and I’m like, I was raised to blindly trust the marketing, blindly trust it to get excited about drugs. Like, oh, this is going to make me better, this is going to help me.
If I have an infection, I can’t fight it naturally, and it’s getting bad, then yes, I want allopathic medicine at my side. But when we go to a doctor with symptoms that are symptoms of nutrient deficiency, symptoms of lifestyle issues, and we’re put on medication after medication after medication, this is a system that’s failing us, especially when we look at statistically the number one and two and three causes of death in the United States. These things aren’t getting better, and we’re medicating them more and more and more and they’re not getting better.
I have interviewed so many holistic-minded doctors who have amazing results, like you do with your patients, who have outstanding results, and have published these results with reversing chronic illness and preventing disease with natural medicine. So, in my mind, it’s like, if I could help the listeners to think critically and not buy the marketing. I don’t want to say never get X drug. The whole black and white thing, that doesn’t work either, it’s dogmatic.
But they’re being dogmatic and saying always blindly trust this and take it, and I’m saying use critical thinking. Definitely read Dr. Paul Thomas’s book, use critical thinking, and look at his studies and see that we need to question everything we put into our body. People will question a supplement. You recommend a supplement, they’ll be like, well, who manufactured it? What are the safety studies? But then they’ll just go and blindly trust a doctor with a medication. We have to use critical thinking with everything. Where our food comes from too nowadays.
[00:43:12] Dr. Paul Thomas: Oh my goodness, absolutely.
[00:43:13] Ashley James: There’s GMO potato. I had a whole episode with Jeffrey Smith who’s an advocate for non-GMO, and he talked about apples and potatoes are now GMO. It’s not just corn and soy. These things are having major health problems. It’s destroying the bacteria of the gut, the microbiome of the gut. The microbiome of the gut produces our serotonin. It actually helps convert some of our thyroid, I think it’s T4 into T3.
If we don’t have a healthy microbiome, we begin to just lose health on all fronts, and GMOs are causing that. Not to go off on a tangent, but just to say that we really need to question everything and educate ourselves on everything we put in our body—clean water, clean food. Even when it comes to medication and supplements, we have to do our own footwork basically.
What always, I guess, confused me, we were told that vaccines are safe because they’re tested. There must be safety studies, right? I mean, drugs are tested for years. My mom died of this, so every drug that was approved to be given to patients in Canada, in the states, any country—I’m going to use the FDA as an example for America—but every drug that’s been taken off the market for doing harm was also first approved. So, these drugs that have then been rescinded, the drug that was rescinded off the market for killing my mother and killing other women was approved at one point. We have to remember that.
Just that alone, we should start to just question things more instead of blindly follow them. But in my mind, I always thought that vaccines were tested. Aren’t they safety tested for years like drugs are safety tested, and don’t they do double-blind studies because that’s their thing, right? Double-blind studies. And then I heard somewhere that vaccines are not safety tested with double-blind placebo studies. They don’t do a placebo that’s inert. Can you explain that?
What I mean is, you think they’re injecting water or saline solution into someone’s arm and they’re the placebo trial, and then they’re injecting the actual vaccine to the other person. But that’s not the case. If they were to take people and just inject saline versus a vaccine, then they actually might show the negative effects like you said with VAERS, the negative effects far outweigh the inert placebo. How do they “do safety tests”? How do they study safety before they release it to the public?
[00:46:21] Dr. Paul Thomas: Awesome question. The problem with vaccine science and research when it comes to safety testing is they have very cleverly gotten completely away from using a true placebo, which would be an injection of just saltwater, saline which is at the same concentration as your blood or plasma. On one group you would have the vaccine, and on the other group you would have saline.
The trick they use is in the case of aluminum, which we know is extremely problematic, they’ll just give aluminum instead of saline, and then the vaccine will be the vaccine antigen plus the aluminum. Their side effects are, look, oh they’re the same, therefore the vaccine’s safe. I call that tobacco science.
So for example. Ashley. why don’t you smoke one pack a day, I’m going to smoke two packs a day, and we’ll have a third group smoke none. We’ll see who died in a week. Nobody died, so it’s safe. That highlights the second problem with vaccine research, which is the duration of the study. How long do they follow these people is very short, much too short to pick anything up other than a little redness at the injection site. That’s why they say, oh, it’s one in a million to have bad side effects except of course you’re going to get a little redness where you got your shot and it’ll be a little sore. They completely intentionally don’t look for long-term side effects.
Autoimmunity and allergies take years sometimes to develop. They’re never going to pick that up. They don’t use a proper placebo, they’re not double-blind controlled studies, and they’re not long enough. That whole phenomenon creates a situation where really, oh, a couple of other huge things because the belief almost like religion is that vaccines are safe and effective, they don’t look at all health outcomes. They only look for a few things that they know are known side effects from vaccines.
So, in my research, for example, they would never be looking for asthma, behavioral issues, ADD, ADHD, allergies, breathing problems, ear infections, ear pain, or eczema. They don’t recognize these things as related to vaccines. If you don’t look, you don’t find it. The trials are set up specifically to look at a certain set of things, and then they shut off the trials before there’s a chance for there to be any difference in the two groups. They can say look, the two groups are similar so the vaccines are safe.
There’s another problem. If you are funding a study. So I’m a pharmaceutical company let’s say and I’m going to study product X. Let’s say I set it all up, I want to show that product X is going to help you live healthier. We get going with this study and it’s not going well. It’s not looking like this study is going to help. Generally, we’re just going to abandon that research. This research isn’t working, we must have designed it wrong. We’re not going to do this research. Sometimes they’ll even get to the point of publication and why would they publish it? It’s going to harm their product.
The people funding the research obviously have a desire for a certain outcome. When they get the outcome they like, they publish it, if they don’t, they often don’t publish it. Worse than that, pharma money has infiltrated the academic institutions, universities, all the PhDs who are doing research in their labs have to apply for grants so they can fund their research. Most of these grants are coming from somehow pharmaceutical money. You don’t get a grant unless you’re researching something that they’re interested in. They have never ever, ever yet funded a true vaxxed-unvaxxed study. This is why my published study is so important because there was no funding. We just did this.
The next set of problems comes. If you ever get something published, which we did with a very rigorous peer review process, they try to get it retracted. And in fact, we are right now under review. Somebody complained and said, well, our methodology is new, it’s not valid. Well, the reason they were complaining is we did it the old way, which is do you have the disease or not right? So if we looked at asthma, ADHD, autism, or whatever, it was just a yes, no. That’s how most research is done.
Well, what we did in this research is we looked at every single diagnosis even how many times it happened. So, if you’re in the study and you’re seen once in your lifetime for an asthma attack, compare that to a child who’s had 20 visits for an asthma attack. That shows an increased severity. The way we designed this study, we did it the old way, we analyzed it that way, and it was significant in a few things. But when you look at severity, it’s highly significant. So we also published this as sort of a shot across the bow for future researchers saying look at all health outcomes and look at all visits so you can pick up severity.
It’s a really clever design, but it’s new. People who want to try to discredit research, they don’t want anything new if it’s going to show what they’re trying to protect in a bad light.
[00:51:53] Ashley James: That’s amazing. I like your way much better because it shows the severity. That makes so much sense. Instead of this black or white, they have it or they don’t have it, well, how many times did they have that incident occur over a period of time shows the severity. That makes so much more sense.
[00:52:14] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah, exactly.
[00:52:16] Ashley James: You really spent the extra time to go into it. I love that that guy came in believing one thing and then the numbers don’t lie. The numbers don’t lie.
[00:52:29] Dr. Paul Thomas: It’s data, and when people take offense to data that’s been peer-reviewed and well researched—what’s so ironic is that as we pointed out at the beginning of this interview, this was the data they asked for. They sure didn’t like what they found.
We also published another study that I’ll just mention, it’s a short little paper. Well, it’s actually not that short, but it’s called Vaccine Practice Payment Schedules Create Perverse Incentives for Unnecessary Medical Procedures – at What Cost to Patients? So this was published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.
Basically, what we did was I took a month’s worth of data from my practice back in August, September a year ago, and we looked at every single superbill. In other words, everybody that walked through the door for that month, and on the back of my super bills, I have a vaccine refusal form. Because we’re so meticulous about documenting informed consent that anytime vaccines are discussed, we flip the superbill over, it’s just a piece of paper that we click off what we’re doing that day so the billing people can double-check they bill appropriately for what was done. That’s all our superbill is.
So on the one side, say they got a CBC to check for anemia, or they got a breathing treatment for asthma, we just check off what we’ve done. And then on the flip side though is this checklist of all the vaccines that we could possibly give. We go through and say, well, looking at your vaccine status, you’re behind on this vaccine. Here’s what other pediatricians would tell you to do so that you’re following the CDC schedule, and the patients either agree to do them or they refuse them.
So we had the ability to actually tabulate which vaccines were given for an entire month by which company because some insurance companies pay better than others. I mean, this was real-world data. The vaccines that were accepted and done, and the vaccines that should have been done if you were following the CDC schedule but were refused. And then we extrapolated that for 12 months and learned that our practice of about 10,000 patients where we bill out about $3 million—well, before all this happened to me it was about $3 million. It’s dropped to about $2 million now. But our gross billings was about $3 million. We have 30 some employees. At that point, we had close to 10 providers.
For a practice billing out $3 million, we were losing over $1 million dollars in just administration fees. You can’t survive as a practice if you’re losing a quarter to a third of your overhead because pediatric practices run about 70%, 80% overhead. So, no wonder I haven’t been able to give my employees a raise. I think they got one raise in the last 10 years.
It is a service of love by everybody that’s working in my practice because we believe in what we’re doing, we’re helping kids. Money’s tight when you’re not getting vaccine money. If I’m leaving $1 million on the table for the last 13 years, that’s $13 million. My employees could have had nice raises and bonuses, and I’d probably be doing just fine, right? I’m the sole owner of this practice. I haven’t taken a paycheck in six months.
The vaccine compensation is set up in such a way that it is so enticing, and pediatricians deny this. I used to deny it. I used to say, oh, no, no. We don’t make any money on vaccines. That’s because the markup that most practices do on vaccines is very, very low. If I buy a vaccine for $100, I might charge you $103 or $105 for it. I’m not making a massive amount of profit on selling vaccines. But the insurance companies give you this payment, it’s called administration fee, and it’s over $1,000 in the first year of a baby’s life. One baby, I’m getting over $1,000 in just the administration fees by the time they’re age one.
[00:56:32] Ashley James: For keeping them on the CDC schedule?
[00:56:36] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yup, if you follow the CDC schedule.
[00:56:38] Ashley James: How many babies does a pediatrician typically have in their practice?
[00:56:42] Dr. Paul Thomas: Well, a busy pediatrician like I am, I would get about 30 babies a month. I’d say $5,000 to $10,000 maybe?
[00:56:51] Ashley James: So, it’s $5,000 to $10,000 a month, upwards of $30,000 a month if a pediatrician were to vaccinate 100% of their infants each month?
[00:57:03] Dr. Paul Thomas: That’s just the admin fee. You still get paid to see the patients.
[00:57:07] Ashley James: Oh yeah. But let’s say a pediatrician gives zero vaccines versus 100% of the CDC schedule. So pediatricians are incentivized, if they see only five to ten babies a month, it’s $5,000 to $10,000 a month in their pocket.
[00:57:25] Dr. Paul Thomas: Per year. No, that is per year.
[00:57:27] Ashley James: Per month, they see five to 10 new babies per month?
[00:57:33] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yes.
[00:57:33] Ashley James: So, if they see five to ten new babies per month, then it’s $5,000 to $10,000 a month.
[00:57:37] Dr. Paul Thomas: Oh, I see what you’re saying. Yeah. I see how you’re doing the math.
[00:57:42] Ashley James: If it’s 30,000 babies a month for you because you’re busy, then that’s $30,000 a month for keeping them on the CDC schedule versus a pediatrician who does informed consent and only attracts parents who wish not to vaccinate 100%. That is significant.
[00:57:42] Dr. Paul Thomas: It’s huge, and pediatricians deny that they’re incentivized by money. I think honestly, they don’t know. I just got this published this past year in October of 2020. Or wait a minute, when was this published? This was March of ‘21. That’s right, I knew it was more recent. We just got this published two, three months ago.
I don’t think pediatricians are aware that—here’s the reality in my town. Almost any other pediatrician will not see you unless you follow the CDC schedule. So, that is now a process that the Academy of Pediatrics is okay with ethically. In other words, you can kick people out of your practice if they won’t follow the CDC schedule. However, there is a little caveat. They have to have alternative care available.
So here’s the funny thing. They’re trying to take my license away because I’m honoring informed consent, but I’m the only place these people can go. So if they shut me down, they’re not going to be able to kick these people out. It’s kind of weird. Financially, they’re getting to benefit from getting rid of the patients that kind of costs you money. If you see patients and they’re not vaccinating, it’s actually costing you money because the overhead is so high.
So, let’s get these patients who aren’t getting us in the profits, let’s send them over to Dr. Paul at Integrative Pediatrics. We’ll keep the ones that are lucrative. They’re not thinking that way, but that is the reality.
[00:59:47] Ashley James: You got to imagine, some of them have figured it out.
[00:59:50] Dr. Paul Thomas: Maybe. I’ll tell you what, the office managers know. I remember back in my old office, back in the early 2000s when we figured out we were injecting too much mercury because a lot of the vaccines had mercury in there to prevent fungal infections in those vials. There was data accumulating that that was causing health problems and probably linked to certain cases of autism.
[01:00:15] Ashley James: Wait a second. Mercury is not healthy for you?
[01:00:19] Dr. Paul Thomas: It’s not. I think that was called mad hatter disease or something. Chimney sweeps would get too much mercury. No, mercury is not healthy for you. You’re absolutely right, Ashley. Good memory there. I mean, think about it, the old thermometers, you’re not old enough to remember.
[01:00:35] Ashley James: No, no, no. I went to Mexico with my family when I was a kid back in the ‘80s, ‘90s. They used to sell—I don’t know if they still do—this glass jewelry that had mercury in it and I had broken one and played with it. Because it was like the Terminator. Remember the guy would turn into mercury, and I was touching it and rolling it around playing with it. Oh yeah. mercury is not healthy.
[01:01:02] Dr. Paul Thomas: Mercury is a liquid metal but it is not good for you. Anyway, where was I going with that?
[01:01:12] Ashley James: You figured out on the mercury.
[01:01:14] Dr. Paul Thomas: I know what it was. I went to my office manager and I said, I heard they were going to get the mercury out of the vaccines. So I went to my office manager at the time and I said, as soon as we get options to get the vaccines that don’t have mercury, please, please let’s get those instead of the mercury ones. And she said to me, Well, they just became available, but are you willing to pay the $6,000 extra it’s going to cost to buy the newer, more expensive ones because your partners aren’t willing?
At that time, I was a younger pediatrician with a huge family to feed, and no, I couldn’t do that. They wanted me to pay for the difference for everybody. So we kept on using the inferior vaccine until they were no longer available. And that was an economic decision. And unfortunately, pediatrics and medicine, in general, is a business, just as pharmaceutical companies are a business. Sometimes, you’re making decisions that are more important for your business bottom line than are really in the absolute best interest of your patients.
And so, folks, if you’re listening, parents, if we’re talking about making vaccine decisions for your children, you’re the last hope that your child has that you will save them, that you will protect them. They don’t have a choice. You take them to a pediatrician, the pediatrician says this is what you should do. And if you’re not protecting them, if you’re not doing your research, then unfortunately, they are at the mercy of the system.
You are so right, Ashley, earlier to point out this is a sick care system. It’s not a wellness system. Our bodies are naturally capable of being very healthy if we stay away from toxins. You mentioned it near the beginning: drink filtered water, don’t eat pesticides and herbicides, make sure you’ve got non-GMO, if possible organic food, and avoid injected toxins, which are your vaccines.
I’m not telling anybody what to do with vaccines. This is just an educational and informational conversation we’re having here. But folks, look into it. When you really look at the research, vaccines are not safe. They’re borderline effective, depending on which vaccine. And exercise, take vitamin D. You cannot get enough unless you’re living at the equator with your clothes off.
[01:03:40] Ashley James: I’d love to do that. Let’s go to the equator and eat mangoes naked.
[01:03:44] Dr. Paul Thomas: Wouldn’t that be nice? Yeah, that sounds good to me. Count me in. I never could bring myself to go to those nude beaches. But yeah, it sounds like a good thing anyway. So, there are things we can do to be healthy. And mostly it’s just letting nature the way it was beautifully designed to keep you healthy.
If you want to pivot a little bit more to COVID, I do want to talk about it a little bit.
[01:04:09] Ashley James: Yeah. All right. So, we were doing a catch-up on everything that happened since our last interview. I love everything you’ve discussed so far. I did see a few times on Facebook you talking about masking children. And, that’s been something that is so cringy to me. I’d love for you to touch on that at some point.
[01:04:35] Dr. Paul Thomas: Sure. So the mask issue I can touch on quite simply. Masks, the medical ones that we use in hospitals, were not designed to prevent viral particles from going back and forth. They were designed to make sure the surgeon doesn’t sneeze on the operating field, drool, or whatever. To try to keep the operating field where you clean the belly. Let’s say you’re doing an abdominal surgery, you clean it really well, scrub, scrub, Betadine, drape it with sterile drapes, and then you’re cutting the abdomen open. You don’t want a surgeon leaning over and sneezing or dripping into the surgical site. I mean, that’s the purpose of those masks.
They are very ineffective at preventing viruses of the size of COVID, the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. That virus can get through those masks so easily it’s kind of a joke to think that’s going to protect you.
[01:05:37] Ashley James: It’s like a bumblebee flying through a chain-link fence.
[01:05:40] Dr. Paul Thomas: Exactly. And certainly, if you’re talking about the cloth masks, it definitely is like a fly or a bumblebee going through a chain-link fence. It’s just completely almost worthless. In fact, it’s probably worse than worthless because what you’re doing is you’re creating moisture that’s trapping things. And so you may actually be creating more risk for yourself than benefit. So, that being said, if I was a very high risk person and I was truly scared of coronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 virus, I would probably wear N95 and the face shield when I was going to be in close proximity to other people.
So, if you are yourself afraid, there’s something you can do and do it. I mean, if that’s going to help you be able to go shopping, put on an N95, make sure it fits nice and tight, and put a face shield over that and I think you’ll be fine. Except be careful to wash your hands before you touch anything that’s going back home with you because I think the virus does have capability of going from your hands, then you touch your face or whatever, and you get it onto yourself. So, that’s masks.
Children don’t need them for a couple of reasons. One, they don’t work. Well, lots of reasons. Two, they’re more risky than they’re beneficial. Most studies are showing that. So, there’s plenty of garbage studies that show benefits, folks. Remember, that’s pharma trick. Whoever’s got an agenda, we want people to mask up, can fund a study that will show benefit. It’s so easy to do studies like that. But good studies show that they’re not only mostly worthless, but they’re actually probably causing more harm than good.
One of the harms that has not been well studied, I think I’ve read one or two articles about this is when you mask up children and now they’re not being exposed to facial expressions, to smiles—I mean, we’re social creatures. We’re supposed to be interacting in a loving, supportive way with one another. You become a little robot almost. And then you add the fact that we’ve kept kids at home in front of screens.
Before COVID hit, my number one problem in teenagers was anxiety and depression, it was triggered by screens. I mean, that was crystal clear to me. Now we add COVID, isolation, and so much more screen time, and we wonder why we’re having increases in ADD, anxiety, suicides. It’s a disaster. Now, when we know that children—unless they happen to have severe underlying medical conditions—most children, their risk of dying from COVID is less than 1 in 100,000. I mean, they just don’t get seriously ill. Of course, the news is going to report those rare cases and get everybody afraid. So fear is what they’re selling.
The strategy was, we’re going to mask everybody up, we’re going to isolate everybody, and get them so tired of it that when we come through with a vaccine as the savior, they’re going to line up, and it’s worked. I mean, we’re getting so many people vaccinated. And it’s truly tragic, especially now that they’re starting to target children. Parents, the science is in, it’s crystal clear. You’re not hearing it on the news, however, because the news has already been bought and paid for.
You can go to The Highwire, Del Bigtree, his show. You can go to my show, Against the Wind: Doctors & Science Under Fire. You can go to the Children’s Health Defense and look at their daily news called The Defender and get all the science and all the information you need to understand that oh my Lord, the science has been done. This is a very dangerous vaccine. It probably is time. Dr. McCullough was on my show twice already. He’s a mainstream doctor, that’s probably the most published physician in the United States who’s also treating COVID. He’s now calling for the program to be abandoned. That this is no longer safe for humans.
So, we’re at a turning point, and it’s not too late to save the children. If you’ve already gotten this vaccine, I don’t want you to be afraid because fear does not help your immune system. So, if you’ve already gotten the vaccine and you start to have any new symptom, don’t discount it as being unrelated to the vaccine. Just see a physician or healthcare provider who understands natural healing processes. You’ll see we give at the end of my show, every two weeks, I’ve got the show. Just go to doctorsandscience.com. At the very end of each show, we give you resources. And you can use those same resources that are to treat a COVID-19 infection to treat the side effects.
The spike protein in this vaccine is what’s causing the mischief. You can get exposed to the spike protein from the infection, but you also get exposed from the vaccine. My best guess is we’re going to have an interesting fall and winter. I have a feeling based on what I’m reading in the research is it appears that those who have gotten the vaccine are actually going to be at greater risk of problems than those who did not. Just like my data showed, natural immunity appears to be superior.
So, whether it’s a new strain that comes through, they’re having trouble in India, England, and across different parts of the world with new variants they’re calling them. I think the unvaccinated will do much better against new variants than the vaccinated, although time will tell, right? But the good news is there are treatments that work whether you’re vaccinated or unvaccinated, so don’t despair. But please, if you’re a parent, they are pushing hard on the teenagers. I’m hearing stories already of peer pressure, big peer pressure, to get the vaccine.
[01:11:44] Ashley James: The universities are saying that they have to vaccinate if they want to attend class.
[01:11:51] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah. The pressure is immense. They’re now talking about rolling out passports. Vaccine passports, to me, are like apartheid South Africa. I grew up in Southern Africa as a kid, and if you are white, you could move about freely, you had total access to the country. If you were not white, you had to carry papers just like a passport. If you didn’t have your papers, you couldn’t enter certain parts of cities. That’s where we’re headed with the vaccine. Don’t call it a vaccine passport, call it a slavery passport. I mean, it is ridiculous.
The least risky people are those who aren’t vaccinated, okay. This is clear from my research on all illnesses, but it’s becoming clear with COVID as well. So, it’s the unvaccinated who should be given free rein, you’re at no risk from them, or let’s not say no risk. That was an exaggeration. There’s risk everywhere, but less risk because the unvaccinated are not as likely to get sick. Their immune systems are going to keep them healthier.
And you know what? COVID-19 illness is real and it can be fatal, it can be serious, so I’m not trying to tell people to be reckless. But it’s not a big deal for kids. They can go to school with no masks, no shields, just go to school. I mean, if it appears that natural infection will give you long-lasting immunity, that will be much more robust than the immunity you get from vaccines.
[01:13:25] Ashley James: Well, that’s right. There are three studies that I know of, and I’m sure more will come up. But there are three studies recently that show that if you’ve had the coronavirus, the COVID-19, that you have lifelong immunity. They even did a study where they took samples of bone marrow and found that months and months and months later, the antibodies were there. The media has told us that you only have three months of protection. If you’ve naturally had wild COVID-19, that in three months, you could get it again, and then another three months you could get it again.
[01:14:10] Dr. Paul Thomas: No.
[01:14:11] Ashley James: But this is what people have been told.
[01:14:13] Dr. Paul Thomas: That’s not true, and the other truth is that those who have had natural infection are actually at greater risk of vaccine side effects.
[01:14:23] Ashley James: Really? Why is that? Do you know why?
[01:14:24] Dr. Paul Thomas: I had a guest on my show who went through that fairly well a while back. He’s a strong proponent for test before you vaccinate. I mean, we have enough testing capability now. So, anybody who’s going to get a vaccine should be tested to make sure they don’t already have antibodies because we’re just simply seeing more reactions. And I think what it is, they call it pathogenic priming. And somehow, having been exposed to that virus before, you already have some immune capability to respond, actually, a very robust capability to respond. And then if you get the vaccine, which is such a massive dose of spike protein and you’re already primed to respond to it, you can have this massive inflammatory response. It’s an unnatural trigger, right?
If you get a natural infection, you just get a few little antigens coming in through your nose, your immune system, boom, knocks it out before it becomes a big deal. If you get a vaccine with a massive exposure to spike protein and you’ve got the capability to respond to that, you need a massive response, so I think it’s related to that.
I did want to cover two things. I want to talk about PCR testing, and I also want to talk about absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction. So, let’s cover those two things because they are critical to understanding what’s going on.
[01:15:47] Ashley James: I want to cover those. Before we cover those, just wrap up the last topic. You talked about spike protein and people can have reactions to it, regardless of if it’s of through a vaccine, or through natural immunity, or naturally having COVID-19. If someone’s had COVID and they’ve had the spike protein in them, how long until it’s out of them? You mentioned that you have some resources for supporting the body around that. Is this something that we should be watching for problems with spike protein like six months after an infection, or is this only days or weeks after the infection?
[01:16:30] Dr. Paul Thomas: I’m not going to claim to be an expert to answer that question with every authoritative piece of science. I’ve done my best to keep up, but boy, it’s coming fast. I have read that two weeks after a vaccine, you can find spike protein in the blood. I’ve read that for longer than that, after a natural infection, you can find SARS-CoV-2 in the stool. So, some people, I think it’s around 10% of people who get diarrhea, and that virus is present in the stool longer. So, that’s speaking to natural infection. The other study was speaking to the presence of this in the blood in a vaccinated person.
There are these reports—I think we’ll hear more in the very near future—of vaccinated people somehow being able to transmit the spike protein to unvaccinated people. And, so I get a lot of questions about that. I don’t know quite what to tell people because it’s just starting to come out. It’s something that’s just starting to be discovered and researched, but it appears that that can happen. I’m not exactly sure of the mechanism. But it’s one of those things where if you’ve been vaccinated, maybe for a couple of weeks you don’t go around your unvaccinated loved ones. Just a thought. I mean, I don’t have enough hard science to say that’s a firm recommendation. It’s just a thought.
[01:18:08] Ashley James: I’ve heard that. There’s a lot of anecdotal stories out there. So it’ll be interesting to see the studies as the science comes out. I hate that term, the science is settled.
[01:18:23] Dr. Paul Thomas: Oh, it’s never settled.
[01:18:24] Ashley James: You know what, dogma, religion is settled.
[01:18:28] Dr. Paul Thomas: Even that.
[01:18:30] Ashley James: But the idea that science is something that’s constantly moving, the target’s constantly changing. We’re constantly learning new things. We’re constantly disproving hypotheses and disproving old studies. The science is settled is a marketing term, is a brainwashing term.
[01:18:50] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah, it’s a brainwashing term. I was just reading a report. Dr. Kelly Sutton is an MD who wrote some exemptions in California and she’s on trial right now. It started yesterday. And the report was the other side, the people that are trying to take away her license, their attorney was able to silence several complaints by saying, well, that science has been settled. And so, it’s that same thing, we’re not going to go there, it’s been settled.
What’s so ridiculous about that is just think about it folks. Kids born today are so different from their grandparents in terms of the world they’re growing up in. Their grandparents got zero or one or two vaccines. They’ve had 72 vaccines by the time they graduate from high school. They’ve had 40 by the time they’re in school. They live in a world that’s got all this glyphosate, pesticides, and herbicides, and it’s just a different toxic world. You cannot compare the science that was done generations ago to what’s going to happen to a kid today.
Just like with vaccines, most research is done on people who’ve already had so many of them. And so when they’re adding one more and going, see, it hasn’t made anything worse. But you don’t know because you’re not comparing them to an unvaccinated person.
[01:20:15] Ashley James: Okay. The spike protein causes inflammation in the body. Is that also what’s causing the increase of blood clots, especially in healthy people that never had an issue of blood clotting before?
[01:20:29] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah, it seems to be definitely the trigger of that. Again, I’m not the scientist that should describe the exact biochemistry or biology of how that happens, but yes, they are definitely related.
[01:20:43] Ashley James: And I definitely urge listeners to go back and watch the previous episodes of your show where this has been discussed. What was the name of the doctor again that talked about it on your show?
[01:20:54] Dr. Paul Thomas: Dr. McCullough.
[01:20:56] Ashley James: Dr. McCullough. Okay, so we can go check out that episode for more information as well, and follow Dr. McCullough’s work as well to get more information if listeners are interested. Okay, you want to talk about PCR tests, right?
[01:21:09] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yes, please. So, when this epidemic started rolling out, none of us knew what was going on. And the main form of testing—especially in the United States, but in a lot of places around the world—was using PCR, polymerase chain reaction testing. This testing has this methodology where they call it amplification. So you throw your sample through a number of cycles of testing, each time you’re analyzing a more dilute sample to try to detect the most minute amount of material. I’ve read two published studies out of Europe that are both showing the same finding that’s just absolutely conclusive and important to understand.
So at somewhere around 13 to 17, or 18 cycles of amplification, if you get a positive test, they can actually grow the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, in other words, that PCR represents a real virus being there. Think about it on a graph and up to 13,14, 15, 16 cycles, you’re getting a positive culture 100% of the time. Now, as you get into 30 cycles, you’re down to like, I don’t know, 20% of the time you could actually grow a virus.
By the time you get to 34, 35 cycles of PCR amplification, you never grow a virus, it is just noise. And this is why you’ve been able to get positive tests on healthy people who there’s absolutely nothing going on. They don’t have the virus, it’s just genetic noise. They never are able to grow the virus. So, guess what the cycles that are being used in the United States until very recently, how many cycles of amplification are they using?
[01:23:04] Ashley James: How many?
[01:23:05] Dr. Paul Thomas: Thirty-five to 40, sometimes more than 40. And at 35 to 40, you have a 97% chance that it’s a false positive. In other words, that positive test, it’s not COVID.
[01:23:17] Ashley James: Wait, 97% of the time it was a false positive?
[01:23:22] Dr. Paul Thomas: A false positive.
[01:23:23] Ashley James: Are these the cases that they reported to us every day in the news for the last year and a half to fear us?
[01:23:29] Dr. Paul Thomas: You got it. So, it’s a case epidemic, not a COVID epidemic. And then the death numbers are equally amplified because anybody that dies, if they’re in any way connected to a health system which is where most people die, you get sick—
[01:23:47] Ashley James: Heart attack, stroke.
[01:23:48] Dr. Paul Thomas: Well, it doesn’t matter what. Motor vehicle accident—oh, nursing homes. If you die of old age and you test and it’s positive—and remember, 97% of the positives in many instances is false, it isn’t COVID—it gets labeled as death with COVID. It wasn’t from COVID, but it’s with COVID and it gets counted. There are ample reports of this going on.
The other phenomenon that’s jacked up the numbers is that you can get tested multiple times, the same person. So if I’m positive and I go back for another test, I go back for another test because I’m trying to get back to work or whatever reason, I need a negative. Each time I’m positive, that’s a case. In most states, the system doesn’t differentiate, oh, that’s the same person. They’re just reporting positive tests. We have this scare tactic, fear tactics on all the channels of the news, the mainstream media of look at all these deaths, look at all these cases, and then we’ve got a vaccine for you that will solve the problem.
So let me move over to absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction. Folks, if you get this, you will no longer live in fear. You can set yourself free, walk outside without a mask, which by the way, there are states—I have one of my nurse practitioners who just came to help out from Ohio and nobody’s wearing a mask indoors or outdoors. Florida is the same way. There are several states where masks are a thing of the past.
I’m in Oregon, and I was just at the Oregon Zoo with my grandson, and it felt like 95% of people outside were walking around with masks. So, why is it so different? Is the virus just so much more dangerous in Oregon? No. Oregon has one of the lowest rates in the country. We have fear. Our government, our governor, and our health department have done a masterful job of making sure that everybody is scared out of their wits. It’s a fear campaign.
But here’s the trickery. It’s unconscionable that that reporter can report what they do and not be aware of this fact. So the studies that Pfizer and Madonna did that showed their vaccine was 96% effective, 90% effective, you hear that on the news, right? Get this vaccine, it’s 90% effective or it’s 96% effective. What they’re talking about is a relative risk reduction. So I’m just going to average out numbers. I’m not giving you the exact numbers because I don’t have them in front of me right now. But take for example with Pfizer, and that initial study had 40,000 participants. So 20,000 people were given the vaccine, 20,000 were given saline, a placebo.
[01:26:31] Ashley James: Were they given an inert placebo, or were they given something with other antigens in it?
[01:26:38] Dr. Paul Thomas: I think in that one it was an inert placebo. But I know in some of the trials, they were actually given a different vaccine, which is just weird to me. They picked a really yucky vaccine for side effects and we’re going to give that instead. That will be the placebo, you get this vaccine. It’s like, oh my God, my point is this.
When they were about three months into it, I believe, when they stopped the study, as far as their numbers, there were about 200 cases of positive COVIDs. So out of 40,000 people, there were only 200 positives, and that’s when they stopped the analysis. They found that, wow, 96% of the positives were in the unvaccinated group. So of those 20,000 people who were unvaccinated, what was your risk of having a positive? It was about 1%.
Now the real risk reduction, so the absolute risk reduction, not the relative one. So the 96% was relative to the vaccinated, but the absolute risk was 1%. And what was that risk for? It was at risk for mild COVID symptoms—runny nose, cough, maybe fever. They didn’t look at hospitalizations, they didn’t look at deaths. So folks, would you like to take a vaccine that has about a 50-50 chance you’re going to have side effects, and maybe a 1 in 10 chance you’re going to have serious side effects, and maybe a 1 in 10,000—I don’t remember what the exact number is of death—when your chance of it helping you avoid mild symptoms is 1%. It makes absolutely no sense at all, but it’s never presented that way.
There was an actual mainstream journal, I’m trying to remember it. It was one of the biggies. Was it The Lancet, or The New England Journal, or JAMA—one of those big threes. They had an article titled The Elephant in the Room, and they talked about this very fact. They went through I think three or four of the major coronavirus companies—Moderna, Pfizer, and a couple of the other ones—and they pointed out the percentage of real risk reduction, actual risk reduction (ARD) was around 1% or less. And they’re going, what’s going on. It’s the elephant in the room, nobody’s speaking the actual truth of what’s actually going on.
So, that’s why I get a little frustrated when the narrative is so off. It is just fear-mongering. Especially when it comes to kids, folks. They are just not at risk from this disease, and the risk of the vaccine is just pretty horrendous. I mean, now we’re getting all these heart inflammation reports that are real.
A good friend of mine is writing an article about that, actually, it’s my co-author for my book, The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, Jennifer Margulis. She’s a really good investigative reporter. She says, can you tell me, Dr. Paul, you’ve been doing pediatrics for a long time. How common are pericarditis and myocarditis? So this is the inflammation around the heart or of the heart. I have seen zero cases in my career.
[01:29:57] Ashley James: And how many patients have you seen in your career would you guess?
[01:30:01] Dr. Paul Thomas: Oh my God, 100,000, I don’t know? I mean, we have 10,000 patients, I don’t see them all because I have a team. I mean, if you take everybody over 30 years, 10,000 patients times 30 years, that’s a lot of patients who some of them are the same patients year to year, but it’s a lot. I mean, it’s a massive number of patients, and zero.
[01:30:26] Ashley James: Had you known anyone or have heard a colleague talk about, I treated this condition today.
[01:30:35] Dr. Paul Thomas: No, my co-author’s husband got pericarditis before COVID came around. And it’s so rare that he had to be seen up at OHSU, the Oregon Health Science University for Oregon. Rare complicated things, you end up there. I mean, they had the top of the top people in the country consulting to figure out what the heck is going on here. Some rare, I’m guessing autoimmune, they just give it a label that’s just a descriptor. You have inflammation around the heart, but nobody knows why.
We are aware that autoimmunity is a growing cause of a lot of chronic problems, and vaccines are definitely on the list of possible triggers for autoimmunity.
[01:31:20] Ashley James: One thing that you brought up in episode 224 when I first had you on the show—okay. When I was a kid, we didn’t get vaccines as an infant, as a newborn. They didn’t roll that out until—in Canada, they were giving the Hep B. I remember I was in high school, so it’s the late ‘90s. I would be first in line. I was like, oh, their marketing was so good. I rolled up my sleeve, I ran up because I’m not afraid of needles.
I’m so happy that I’m not into drugs and alcohol because I mean, I’m not afraid of needles. I might have been a heroin addict. If I was into drugs, I might have gone there because I’m like, I’m not afraid of needles and I wanted to prove how macho I am. I’m kind of a tomboy. I’m like, yeah, look at me, because all these kids are afraid and I’m like, I’m going to run up and I’m going to get this new Hepatitis.
[01:32:10] Dr. Paul Thomas: How old were you?
[01:32:10] Ashley James: I was in high school, it was in the late ‘90s. I just remember, they were like, oh, this is really great. And I’m like, okay. I mean, in Canada, it’s socialized medicine so their marketing is more about let’s keep costs down by keeping everyone healthy and preventing illness. But in the States, was it 2005 that they started to say, we’re going to give a vaccine that we’ve only previously ever given sex workers, drug addicts, nurses, and those that basically get exposed to this. We’ve never given it out to the public as a common vaccine, and all of a sudden now 100% of the population, the moment they come out of their mother, we’re going to give it to them. Was it around 2005? Was that it?
[01:33:02] Dr. Paul Thomas: A little bit earlier. Your recollection is correct, though. My kids are around your age as well, my oldest ones. I was following the CDC schedule for my kids. They got the vaccine as teenagers, and that was in the ‘90s.
[01:33:23] Ashley James: When did they start giving it to newborns, though?
[01:33:25]Dr. Paul Thomas: So the newborn shift in Oregon, and it felt like it was a national push here in the US, was around 2000, 2003, right around then. Because the interesting thing was I specifically remember it because it was right when they got the mercury out of the vaccines. And I thought to myself, is this a coincidence or is this a planned event? Because I was so excited about getting the mercury out of the vaccine.
I remember going to my youngest son’s kindergarten teacher or first grade teacher, and I said, you see a lot of autism now and a lot of ADD and ADHD. She said, oh, yes. I said, well, don’t worry, in five years, it’s going to be gone. I mean, I was so convinced that that was the leading cause of that brain issue. And it never went away. In fact, it got slightly worse, but we replaced one bad thing—the mercury—with something that’s probably equally bad, maybe worse—huge doses of aluminum.
By shifting that Hep B vaccine to newborn, two months, six months, that’s three big doses of a really bad aluminum product. The data is out there that that birth dose of aluminum is just horrendous or just the Hepatitis B series itself, it’s not a good thing.
[01:34:46] Ashley James: My point that I was getting at is as a child, me growing up in the ‘80s—I was born in 1980 and I never attended school with a child that was autistic, I never saw it. I think I knew one person with asthma. Never did I know a child in any of the schools I attended that had childhood cancer or any autoimmune conditions. Actually, I remember one kid that was allergic to grass, and so she’d get a weird rash if she sat on the grass. But everyone is growing up, super healthy, no problems.
So sometime in the late ‘90s, early 2000s, 100% of all newborns are on a different schedule than when I was growing up. I had very few vaccines growing up comparative to today. I went to a pediatrician who was actually quite famous in Toronto for being a fantastic doctor and he was well known to this day. I followed the schedule that Canada had laid out in the ‘80s and the ‘90s.
Nowadays, the children who are 10 years old, 15 years old, that kind of thing, the levels of childhood cancer, the levels of autoimmune condition comparative to 30 years ago, let’s say like, look at the before and after. What you brought up in our last interview you said, when we take a child and we overexcite the immune system with multiple doses of vaccine—because a vaccine, its intention is fantastic. Its intention is to train the immune system to mount a healthy response, so if you ever come in contact with it, you can have a healthy response and have better outcomes. That’s the intention. That’s a great intention, I want that for everyone. What happens in actuality is it overexcites and makes the immune system become hyperactive.
[01:37:06] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah, immune activation it’s called. Think of it almost like carpet bombing. The attempt was, we’re just going to get antibodies against X, Y, or Z. But when it goes wrong, the immune system is now attacking yourself, that’s autoimmunity. So, if you’re attacking the islet cells of the pancreas, you’ve got type one diabetes. If you’re attacking the myelin sheath of your brain, you’ve got MS. If you’re attacking your cartilage in your joints, you’ve got arthritis, and so on and so on.
[01:37:41] Ashley James: So, these children end up with a hyperactive immune system that then becomes autoimmune which is what you just described. And then these children with autoimmune conditions, who are still children, are then put on immune suppressants and years later developed cancer because the immune system is not functioning correctly and can’t clear out the unhealthy cancerous cells. We’re creating wonderful customers for the pharmaceutical and medical industry. We’re creating wonderful customers. Customers for life until they die.
[01:38:13] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah, you just outlined what I like to point out is vaccines are probably the number three moneymaker for pharma. They trigger autoimmunity. When you’re autoimmune, you have to give immunosuppressants as you stated. That’s the number one moneymaker for pharma. And when you suppress the immune system, you get cancers, the number two moneymaker for pharma. So numbers one, two, and three are all intertwined, turning you into an ATM cash machine for pharmaceutical companies. Trust me, folks, their interests are not in keeping you healthy, their interests are financial.
[01:38:48] Ashley James: It is such a dilemma to go upstream. Even me publishing this episode, I’m putting my career at risk. I’m putting my podcast at risk. And you have put your career at risk. I’m so grateful to your bravery and courage for continuing to speak out for the health, wellbeing, and safety of all children and adults.
[01:39:14] Dr. Paul Thomas: Well, thank you as well. You’re absolutely right. You are taking a risk, and you obviously are doing that because you care. That’s the only reason I do this. I mean, that financial incentive paper that I wrote just shows, for example, that there’s no financial reason for me to do what I’m doing. I mean, I walk in and I talk to the patient. I can’t right now, because one of the conditions of getting my license back was I can’t talk about vaccines to patients. I figure I’m covered by free speech on a show.
[01:39:47] Ashley James: Hopefully.
[01:39:49] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah, hopefully. And folks, everything we’re discussing here is just informational. Run this by your trusted health care providers, hopefully somebody who’s really aware of what’s going on because too many doctors are not. It’s a real risk because of censorship that’s going on at a very pervasive high level. If you speak out with facts, real data, and science, or even if it was your opinion. I mean, we could say you and I have opinions. We should be allowed in this free country. If it truly is a free country, we should be allowed to share opinions, disagree, and still be civil to one another. And I am trying to do that better these days. I think because you and I might be a lot on the same page, it sounds like we don’t like vaccines, but I’m with you.
At the beginning of the show when you stated, everybody’s got to make their own decisions and we need to love one another and support one another’s opinions because this way of keeping people divided is really not a good strategy for us to have long term good health. It just gives more power to the big businesses that are trying to take more control. They can keep us fighting over you name the issue, whether it’s political, whether you’re this party or that party, or whether it’s over a hot topic of the day.
If we can keep people divided whether it’s on race or some other issue, parties, it doesn’t matter, religion, anything that keeps people divided keeps them distracted from what’s really going on, which is that you are slowly giving up your freedoms, you’re slowly giving up your rights. And right now, they are attacking your body. We’re turning humans into GMO humans. It’s never been done before, it never should have been done, and it’s being done on a massive worldwide stage with an experimental vaccine. This vaccine is not FDA-approved, by the way, folks, it is still experimental. And that’s the one thing I think maybe could put this to an end is these companies that are requiring vaccines.
So if I have to go get a vaccine because this company made me do it and I’m injured, I can sue that company. They aren’t protected, the vaccine manufacturers are protected because of the way the laws have been written, so they’re just going like crazy. Everybody should get it, cha-ching, cha-ching. But companies that insist that you get it in these schools, these universities that are insisting, they are liable. There’s going to be some lawsuits, and when that finally starts hitting in a big way, I think businesses will have to think twice about whether or not they want to become liable for the damage these vaccines are causing because these damages are just going to start accumulating to the point where it’s not going to be possible to keep them hidden.
[01:42:37] Ashley James: You just mentioned, I hope we’re protected on our amendment rights to be able to have freedom of speech. The next episode I’m publishing actually after this one is an interview I did recently with a doctor who has practiced for many years, and he’s an MD who studied holistic medicine. He chose to treat all of his COVID patients with the same formula, the same protocol that he has treated all upper respiratory illnesses for the last 20,30 years using natural medicine. He had such a huge success rate.
He published it on his blog. He’s been running a blog since the ‘90s. And it was something like certain vitamins, certain things, you inhale—all-natural substances. And he also would do an injection in the buttocks of ozone. Most of the stuff you could do at home and take it home, that kind of thing.
At that time, he had treated just about 100 patients and all of them survived. This was early on last year. The FCC wrote him a letter—FCC, not FDA—saying, you’re in violation, you have to take this down. You have to take your blog down. He said, what are you talking about? They said, you cannot make claims that you’re treating COVID-19, you can’t do that. Because there are no published studies. He said, well, I’m practicing medicine. I’m a doctor. Aren’t I allowed to practice medicine the way I see fit? They said, no, you are not allowed to do that.
If he said, I treat arthritis with these vitamins and minerals. I cure arthritis with this, this, this. If he said that, they didn’t have a problem, which he did on his blog for many years. They had a problem with the fact that he was treating and publishing that he was treating COVID-19. So he said, okay, I’ll do what you say. I’m going to go publish a study.
Then he got all of his information together. He’s now out of 400 patients at this point with COVID, and all of them lived and very few hospitalized. I don’t remember the exact numbers. It was like five or something, It was a very small amount. But he had great, great, great success. They recovered really well. And so then he found a journal, and he published it. He came back to the FCC and said, here, a published study proving that I can claim that this is a treatment. They said no, it needs to be a placebo double-blind study. So they keep changing the target. But he said that’s unethical. When I know what works for my patients to then do a placebo and let them die or let them be harmed, that is unethical.
I hope we still have our first amendment rights, he’s married to a lawyer. He tried to fight it. He then took his blog down and then he wrote a book. He found out that a blog on the internet is not protected, for some reason. When he’s laying out the treatment plan for COVID-19. And then he said, but apparently, a book is still considered a protected free speech and so he wrote a book and published it with all of his findings basically. That definitely scares me.
[01:46:30] Dr. Paul Thomas: So I wrote a book early on in this COVID outbreak because I had a dear friend almost die. He was hospitalized before I even knew he was sick. They wanted to intubate him so badly and he just said no way. He’d already been hearing the reports that once you’re intubated, it was an 80% chance of dying. He went with almost very low oxygen for three nights, and couldn’t sleep. You know if he fell asleep he’d be dead. I was able to help him a little bit by just texting him once he could get access to his phone.
But yeah, my book was accepted on Amazon and then last minute was taken down because I did not adhere to the World Health Organization criteria. I didn’t meet World Health Organization standards on the management of COVID.
[01:47:15] Ashley James: What are the World Health Organization standards on the management of COVID? Is it to wear a mask and wait until the vaccine comes out?
[01:47:22] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yeah, you’ve got it. At that point, it was do nothing and wait until you’re bad enough to be intubated. I mean, it was insanity. It was pretty clear that having really robust vitamin D levels is probably the most important thing you can do. Everybody should be doing that now and forevermore, just because that’s the one vitamin we’re almost universally deficient in because you have to be in sunlight to make enough active vitamin D, and we wear clothes when we’re outside. If we’re in the Northern Hemisphere, far away from the equator, the sun doesn’t do its job very well, anyway.
[01:47:56] Ashley James: And you also have to have a healthy liver, healthy kidneys, and enough healthy fats.
[01:47:59] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yup. Anyway, censorship is alive and well, and it’s getting worse and worse. It’s a real problem for our democracy.
[01:48:07] Ashley James: There’s a concerted effort to make the population do what they say, and that is not in our best interests when we look at the data, and that scares me. There are so many listeners who are like, I trust these people, I trust these organizations. These organizations have good people in them. Yes, every organization has good people in them. We don’t know what’s going on at the top, right? Why is it that these different organizations, why is Amazon is so eager to comply with the World Health Organization instead of the Constitution?
Why are these independent companies so eager to follow this one direction when this one direction is showing it’s doing harm? And why is showing alternatives that are proven safe and effective becoming illegal?
[01:49:09] Dr. Paul Thomas: Yup. There’s a huge financial incentive. It’s all about control and money. Power, control, and money have always been underlying in any major shift. This is modern-day book burning. I mean, we really have a problem on our hands. Listeners, if you’re still with us—this show has been going on a while—take your power back. You the individual have the power to live free, but only if you insist on it because they’re coming for you.
[01:49:44] Ashley James: Yeah. Well, thank you so much, Dr. Paul Thomas. I value your work. My listeners are used to long interviews because they love really, really learning the nitty-gritty from our guests, and you’ve definitely laid out some very interesting points. We’re going to make sure that all the links to everything that Dr. Paul Thomas said are in the show notes of today’s podcast at learntruehealth.com.
Is there anything that you’d like to say to wrap up today’s interview or anything that you really want to make sure came across in today’s interview?
[01:50:12] Dr. Paul Thomas: Listeners, please, just be kind to yourself. Do whatever you can to get away from fear because fear is bad for your immune system. So number one thing for that is just turn off the TV. Get outdoors as much as you can. If you get out into nature, you’re walking in a forest, you’re swimming in the ocean, or in the garden, in any way you can get out in nature, you will notice that the rest of the animal kingdom is absolutely fine. Isn’t that interesting? None of them are lining up for a vaccine. They are absolutely fine even in the toxic world that we have. So, remember that.
You are uniquely gifted by your birth with a very good immune system and a way to heal yourself, but you do need to get the right nutrients, you need to avoid toxins. Just be careful about what you might put into your body, consider it your temple, and take vitamin D if nothing else. And then prepare yourself in the event that you do get sick with this COVID. It’s pretty rare, but if it happens, don’t just sit around waiting to get sicker. Go to the frontline doctors.
Check out my show, doctorsandscience.com. The show is called Against the Wind: Doctors & Science Under Fire. I’m trying to bring to you what you need to know to remain healthy despite this crazy world we’re living in. I’m sending you love and wishing you the very best. Thank you Ashley so much for having me on your show.
[01:51:50] Ashley James: Thank you so much.
Get Connected With Dr. Paul Thomas!The Vaccine-Friendly Plan Book Recommended Book by Dr. Paul Thomas
An Epidemic of Absence by Moises Velasquez-Manoff