All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2021 - RFK Jr. The Defender
47:01
Informed Consent with Jeremy Hammond

Jeremy Hammond and RFK Jr discuss informed consent and how a medical board subverted public health and destroyed a heroic doctor. Hammond is an independent journalist and political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, author of several books including Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and writing coach.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Jeremy.
Hey.
Jeremy Hammond, my friend who's an investigative reporter and a, I would say, a foreign policy expert and a now a kind of Tom Petoskey, Michigan, an amazing reporter, an amazing writer, and I love all the books that you have behind you.
I just wish I could spend a day in that library and I could see your interest in the The CIA and intelligence agencies and all of the other things that you've been writing about for many years.
But today I wanted to talk to you about Paul Thomas, about Dr.
Paul Thomas, because you've just done an article.
And Jeremy, tell us where your website is so that people can visit you.
Yeah, JeremyRHammond.com.
So I've got my middle initial in there, JeremyRHammond.com.
And the article is, Oregon Medical Board Suspends Dr.
Paul Thomas for Practicing Informed Consent.
A little bit lengthy title, but it gets the message across, and that's exactly what's happened.
We're publishing it and serializing it in small pieces.
It's a very, very long article on The Defender.
Tell us what happened, and I, of course, know Paul Thomas.
Paul Thomas is a medical hero in Oregon.
People know him far and wide.
He runs a clinic that takes patients who vaccinate He takes patients who don't vaccinate.
He doesn't make a judgment or have a threshold.
And he did with our friend Jack Wyler, James Lyons-Wyler, who's the scientist.
He did an extensive study recently of his database of patient health, which is an extraordinary study.
So tell us about that.
Yes, that study was published on November 22nd, just not that long ago, several months ago.
And what they did is they looked at his patient data.
They looked at all patients born into his practice.
And so that was, you know, they didn't want to confound the study by including patients who had come from other practices.
You know, they really wanted to look at patients who had only been in a practice that respects informed consent, as opposed to practices where they had been expelled for not following the CDC's guidelines or where patients were coming to him who were already vaccine injured.
And so they took those patients and they then also subdivided them into patients who are completely unvaccinated, never received any vaccines, and then looked at variably vaccinated individuals.
So, you know, most of the patients in this practice were vaccinated, not according to the CDC schedule, however, they're just vaccinated.
Everyone was making individual decisions about which vaccines they should get and the timing of the vaccines.
Very individualized approach in his practice.
And so they compared health outcomes.
He actually had his own schedule.
Right.
I knew him as, you know, the author of the Vaccine Friendly Plan.
So a book he published, I forget which year, 2016, maybe?
And so in that book, he does lay out an alternative schedule.
And this is one of the things that the board gets wrong, where they accuse him of pressuring patients to vaccinate according to this alternative schedule.
Which completely misses the whole point of his approach, which is not like the vaccine friendly plan doesn't present an alternative one size fits all schedule.
That's not the whole idea.
The whole idea is that it's just kind of like a guideline of, you know, this is an example of a way you could do it.
Essentially, the main focus of the vaccine friendly plan is to reduce the exposure to aluminum and make sure you're spacing out aluminum containing vaccines.
And if at all possible, choosing vaccines with lower aluminum content.
But that's just one approach.
And so really the concept of the book and the concept of his practice in integrative medicine, integrative pediatrics there in Portland, is individualized approach to vaccination.
So, you know, taking each individual child, making informed consent decisions based on which vaccine, which disease, family medical history, things like this.
So it's not, they're basically accusing him of an alternative one size fits all approach, which isn't at all what he does.
And so they can't even get the concept of individualized medicine.
You know, they're stuck in this mindset of one size fits all.
And so they actually accuse him of something that's patently false, which is he doesn't pressure patients to accept the vaccine friendly plan.
And you can see this in his data.
I mean, it's very clear that families in his practice are making very individualized choices, very different choices.
And so that, I mean, that's right in his data.
And of course, so that study was published on, well, to emphasize the finding of the study.
So they compared health outcomes.
This is a study that the CDC has refused to do for 30 years ago.
People from the medical freedom community have said, let's look at health outcomes in vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children and see if vaccinated children are actually healthier when you look at all the health outcomes than unvaccinated children, which of course is an essential claim.
And this was a perfect natural experiment because he had in his practice people who were vaccinated.
He had hundreds of kids who were unvaccinated.
Hundreds of kids who took kind of a middle course, which was some kind of melange of his recommendations.
And you could compare those three groups and you could look at health outcomes.
This is something that is very, very dangerous to the health regulators in this country.
Yeah, it's a threat.
I mean, it's understandable in a sense that the Oregon Medical Board held an emergency meeting days after that study was published.
And the result was that they suspended his license.
Now, the interesting thing is that the Medical Board had requested Dr.
Paul to produce peer-reviewed evidence supporting his schedule.
So, in other words, supporting his approach to vaccination.
In other words, supporting his approach of obtaining informed consent as opposed to pressuring parents Into vaccinating according to the CDC schedule.
So they had requested this data, he produced it, and then they suspended his license.
So that tells us a lot about the position of the Oregon Medical Board and their approach and their rejection of science, their rejection of the data, and their approach is they need to, they have a policy goal of wanting to maintain high vaccination rates.
And that's the goal.
Whereas Dr.
Paul has a goal of achieving good health outcomes amongst his pediatric patients.
And that he's done.
I mean, that's right in the data because his unvaccinated kids, actually all the children in his practice, if you compare the data from even the vaccinated patients in his practice with national estimates for ADHD and autism, he's got a fifth The rate of autism in his practice compared to the CDC's estimate nationally.
Same with the ADHD is much, much lower.
Among his unvaccinated patients, there were zero cases of ADHD. And so this is what the study showed.
It showed that the unvaccinated children were not sicker.
They did not have worse health outcomes.
In fact, they had better health outcomes, much lower rate of diagnoses of a broad range of chronic health What were the parameters?
They were eye infections, ear infections, otitis, ADHD. They were respiratory infections.
It was asthma.
And the unvaccinated children of the three cohorts were by far the healthiest children.
Right.
Just looking at the graph here, so asthma, allergic rhinitis, breathing issues, behavioral issues, ADHD, respiratory infection, botitis media, which is ear infections, ear pain, other infections, as in infections that, you know, not vaccine-preventable infections, eye disorders, eczema, dermatitis, hives, and anemia.
So those were, you know, the outcomes that they showed.
You know, they have a really stark graph in the paper showing that The incidence of office visits.
So they actually developed a new measure In this study, a really important aspect of the study, most safety studies that look for signals in the data, like observational type studies, they use a measure of just incidents.
So does the child have this diagnosis or not?
So it's like this binary yes-no measure.
Whereas Dr.
James Lyons-Weiler and Dr.
Paul created a whole new measure, which is relative incidents of office visits.
So they're not only looking at incidents of diagnosis, but they're looking at, you know, how much care did these children require for a particular diagnosis, which gives you information not only about whether they had, you know, like a chronic illness or not, But also, you know, what kind of health care, you know, did they require as a result?
So it gives you more information about the severity of the illness.
And so there was relative incidence of office visits.
RIOV is the measure that they developed specifically for this study.
And they show, you know, the graph showing relative incidence of office visits comparing unvaccinated versus the variably vaccinated children in his practice.
And it is astonishing.
The differences and how the, you know, the graph of the unvaccinated have such lower incidence of office visits for a broad range of health issues.
And so this clearly strongly supports, you know, the conclusion that the unvaccinated children are far healthier than the vaccinated children.
I don't know if you're aware of the study that was the Morganson study of African children who took the DDP vaccine.
This was a study that was done in 2017.
For many years, the WHO and Bill Gates were claiming, you know, they give this DTP vaccine, which was discontinued in the United States in the 1980s because it was killing one out of every 300 children or giving them severe brain damage.
That's the vaccine that caused the passage of the Vaccine Act because so many people were injured and they were suing the vaccine companies.
The same EDP, their attempt to suppress the vaccine was discontinued in Europe.
But Bill Gates and the WHO give it essentially to every African child.
161 million kids get that vaccine every year.
The Danish government, and what Gates says again and again, he says, we've saved 30 million lives with this vaccine.
And the Danish government tried to verify that.
And they said, we've heard this claim, but we're not actually seeing any study that verifies that claim.
And so they went and they said, we're going to do a study that actually looks to see if whether these children have better health outcomes who get this vaccine.
And they went to Guinea-Bissau and they found something like what you found, which was a perfect natural experiment.
And Guinea-Bissau They have a state-of-the-art health clinic there.
It's funded mainly by the Danish government, and that clinic for 30 years has been weighing every child at three months and weighing them again at six months.
In the 80s, it began giving them this vaccine.
But if the health workers arrived to vaccinate that child, And the child was not exactly three months old.
They waited and they gave the vaccination to that child at the six-month visit.
And as it turns out, they had 30 years of data where half the children in the country had gotten the vaccine at three months and half of them had not.
And so they had this kind of perfect natural experiment because it was completely randomized.
Of children between two months and five months old, half the kids in the country were vaccinated and half were not, and they were able to then go and look at health outcomes of those children.
And what they found was that the children who were vaccinated were not getting diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, as Bill Gates would predict.
But the girls who got the vaccine were dying at 10 times the rate of children who were unvaccinated.
And they weren't dying of any disease that anybody ever associated with vaccines.
They were dying mainly of respiratory illnesses, pneumonia.
They were dying of heart disease, anemia, sepsis, malaria, dysentery, and all this kind of this big menu of, you know, diseases that kids had in Africa.
And nobody had ever noticed And it was only the vaccinated kids who were dying.
The vaccine had protected these children against the target disease, but it had ruined their immune systems, and it had made them much more susceptible to these other diseases.
A study, which was published in eBiopharma in January of 2017, and the lead author is Morgensen, but it has The kind of deities, you know, these very, very pro-vaccine scientists who did this study, including Peter A. Abe, who is like an icon of African vaccination studies.
He has more peer-reviewed publications than anybody.
It was financed partially by the Danish government and partially by the Staten Serum Institute, which is one of the biggest vaccine makers.
So this was a study.
It was done by very, very pro-vaccine forces, and yet it completely, utterly discredited this vaccine.
And that's the problem that we've been trying to get CDC to do for decades, which is to not just look at how many kids you are vaccinated and using that as your metric of success, but actually looking at public health outcomes and saying, are our kids healthier?
Because of these vaccines.
And when you start looking at that, the broader criteria are that we are in the middle of the worst chronic disease epidemic in human history.
And it's the diseases you mentioned.
It's asthma.
It's eczema.
It's peanut allergies.
Did you guys look at allergies and rhinitis?
Yeah, they did allergic rhinitis, not peanut allergies specifically, just kind of allergies in general.
And then, yeah, with the DTP vaccine, I mean, that's one of the lessons.
And it's not just that one study.
There's been a number of studies looking at that vaccine.
That was one particular case where there was kind of this natural experiment.
But there's been a number of studies, and the best science shows that the DTP vaccine is associated with an increased rate of childhood mortality because, just like you said, Even though it might protect children from the target diseases, it detrimentally affects their immune system in such a way as to make them more susceptible to other illnesses and they're dying from other causes.
And so one of the big lesson from the DTP vaccine is that absent randomized placebo-controlled trials comparing long-term health outcomes, health outcomes, not just does it protect against the disease or not, the target disease or not, but health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, Any claim of vaccine safety and effectiveness is completely scientifically meaningless.
And so, yeah, that's a really important lesson from those studies.
That's why parents have been calling for the CDC to do a study, just comparing health outcomes between vaccinated children who receive the CDC schedule of vaccines and children who are completely unvaccinated.
And of course, In the meantime, the Institute of Medicine, in fact, had called on the CDC to do such a study using the VSD, the Vaccine Safety Data Link.
Which is, the CDC has a partnership with these healthcare institutions, and so they have this database that they can draw from, which is superior to looking at like VAERS data because of the underreporting to VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
But the CDC is just, they're still studying how to do the study, because they're very hesitant to actually, you know, move forward with any kind of study.
Well, they did a study once, which was the Mert-Sratin study, and And they studied the vaccine safety data link, which is the, it's nine HMOs on 9 million patients, and it has all their vaccine records and all their health insurance claims.
So it's an easy thing to go in there and do a cluster analysis and look at the, you know, the relationships between, they have the vaccine records down to batch and lot number, and you can look at All of that data, and you can determine whether there's a relationship between certain vaccinations at certain ages and certain health outcomes.
So they did a massive study in 1999, between 1999 and 2003, And they had a team led by a Belgian researcher called Thomas Erstrad.
And they went in and they looked at it.
And they actually, they looked at one health outcome.
They looked at children who got an hepatitis B vaccine within their first 30 days of life.
And they compared health outcomes with children who didn't.
And they were looking at about five parameters that were all neurodevelopmental.
So they didn't look at allergies and any of that stuff.
But they looked at, and what they found was, they looked at ADD, ADHD, speech delays, sleep disorders, and autism.
And they found that the kids who were vaccinated had an 1135% greater risk of autism diagnosis subsequently in life than the children who were not.
And that's when they shut down.
What the CDC did at that point is it said we're never going to let anybody into this database who's independent and we are going to take the database.
Congress ordered them to start that database so that they could look at vaccine safety.
CDC took that database and they transferred ownership to a private group called the American Health Insurance Plan In order to make it, put it out of the reach of the freedom of information laws.
And so nobody can get in there.
And in fact, you know, only two independent scientists ever allowed in there were the Geyers and David and Michael Geier.
And Congress had to repeatedly order CDC to, you know, this is a rogue agency, to open the database and let the Geyers in.
And when the Geyers went in, They wouldn't let them copy anything.
They made them do all their research in one room with pencils and to write down data.
They heated the room to over 100 degrees to make it uncomfortable for the guys to stay in there.
And then they, you know, they destroyed their hard drives and they stole materials from them and they just made it impossible.
The Geyers still produced about 10 studies over time.
And all of them show these horrific, horrific impacts on overall health outcomes in the vaccinated children when you compare them to unvaccinated.
Yeah, one of the things about Dr.
Paul and Dr.
Jack's study in November, the one that was just published, that I want to point out is, you know, because one of the criticisms of this type of study would be observational studies by nature have, you know, high risk of selection biases.
And so one of the arguments is that, because this isn't the first one that's been done, there was another one that was done based on a survey a few years back, and then Brian Hooker had done one.
Again, looking at pediatric practices that practice informed consent and in finding, you know, higher rates of certain chronic health illnesses amongst the vaccinated children.
So there has been a few, you know, independent journalists or independent scientists have kind of, you know, while the CDC is still spinning its wheels on this, they have kind of ventured into this realm of doing vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies.
And one of the criticisms is that, well, you know, that the argument is made that, well, it's because these parents who don't vaccinate They just have different healthcare behaviors.
And so they're just not taking their kids to the doctors as much.
And so it's really, their kids are just as sick.
They're just not getting diagnosed.
And so Dr.
Jack and Dr.
Paul did an interesting thing in this study to control for that, but to control for different healthcare behaviors.
So they looked at rates of diagnoses of fever, which is an expected outcome from vaccines.
So they would expect to find higher rates, more diagnoses of a fever amongst the vaccinated children.
And they also looked at well-child visits, which, you know, if it's just that the unvaccinated kids, parents just don't bring their kids in to see him as much, you would see a difference in well-child visits as well.
And so they did confirm that the vaccinated children had more fevers.
But the incidence of well-child visits, there was no pattern.
It was consistent.
Across the axis of vaccination.
And so this shows that it's not that these parents are just not bringing their kids in to see Dr.
Paul.
That doesn't explain it.
They really do appear to be healthier by a long ways.
And so that was an important thing that they included in the study is that those control outcomes that they looked at to try to control for that, to essentially preempt that criticism.
Another point I want to make is that studies have shown One of the selection biases that's really concerning for vaccine safety studies is one called healthy user bias.
And so in 2015, there was a study, for example, Jane et al.
had put out a study that, of course, the media, all the headlines were saying, another study shows that MMR doesn't cause autism, even in children who are at genetically predisposed higher risk of autism.
Which is completely false.
That is not what their findings actually show.
This is really important.
What their findings actually show is that as a proxy for genetic predisposition for autism, they looked at siblings.
They took children who had an older sibling with diagnosed autism.
That was a proxy for genetic predisposition, a higher risk for autism.
And they actually found that the children who received the MMR vaccine were at lower risk.
They had lower odds of being diagnosed with autism.
But the reason for that, they showed the reason for that in the study, was that the parents of children who had an older child with autism, the younger siblings, they would not vaccinate with the MMR. They would avoid the MMR vaccine precisely because the older child had autism.
And so what happened was, is you have this selection bias, this healthy user bias, where you get the children who are at higher risk of autism are disproportionately pooled into the unvaccinated cohort, you know, MMR unvaccinated.
They only looked at the one vaccine.
They didn't look at any other vaccines.
So this is a really important thing that also needs to be controlled for.
And you look at most of the, I mean, none of the CDC studies control for this type of selection bias, where it's not that children who received the MMR vaccine were less likely to develop autism, it's that kids who are more likely to develop autism were less likely to get the MMR vaccine.
Actually, we would expect to find, looking at Dr.
Paul's data, we would expect to find the children with fewer vaccines to have higher rates of certain autoimmune-type illnesses and things because of this effect of children.
The parents are recognizing early symptoms, and so they stop vaccinating.
Despite this bias in favor of finding higher rates of illness among the lesser vaccinated, You know, they find a very strong signal that the more vaccines children get, the sicker they are.
Well, you know, I've said to people for many years, to say, why are you doing this work on, you know, vaccines?
Why don't you go back to protecting rivers where you are, you know, useful and people like you and stuff.
And I said, if I said today somebody shows me a study, That shows that vaccinated children are healthier than unvaccinated children.
I will close up the shop and go back to protecting rivers full-time.
But, you know, we need that study, and that's the study that CDC wants to do.
Tell us about the medical board and what happened to Paul.
Yeah, so within days of that study being published, on December 3rd, The Oregon Medical Board had an emergency meeting and issued an emergency suspension order to suspend his license.
How many people does he have in his practice?
He had at 1.15,000.
I think at this time, he decreased some from that peak.
Many, many patients.
He's a very large practice.
He employed quite a lot of staff.
It included in his study, I forget the specific numbers, but several thousand children.
In the study, mostly variably vaccinated, several hundred that were unvaccinated completely.
But just immediately after that, they published that study.
And again, this is a study that the board had requested.
They had requested Dr.
Paul to produce peer-reviewed evidence supporting his approach.
And so he did.
And I think that they thought that that would be a hoop that he would be unable to jump through.
And then he did it.
And they couldn't deal with the outcome because it was contrary to their belief system and their policies and their goal, the myopic goal of achieving high vaccination rates, which is different from the goal and incompatible with the goal of achieving good health outcomes.
Which is what Dr.
Paul was focused on.
So they suspended his license, and in that document, they cited a number of cases.
None of them appear to actually come from any of his patients, his complaints.
They all appear to be from other parties.
In fact, some of the parents, one example, the parents had been at the Children Developed Rotavirus, and they were at the hospital, and they overheard one of the doctors there saying, I'm going to report that doctor to the medical board.
And they told Dr.
Paul this.
They were warning him of what the doctors were conspiring to do.
So most of these complaints do not appear to be coming from any of his patients.
Actually, they appear to be coming from other parties making these complaints.
That's the one point to make.
It's all anonymous, right?
Right, yeah.
And he can't know.
He doesn't know who the complaints are coming from.
The board doesn't release that information, not even to Dr.
Paul.
So he has no ability to face his accusers, essentially.
So the main accusation that they leveled against him is that he is a threat to public health because he pressures parents into accepting his alternative vaccine schedule.
This is demonstrably false.
So the first accusation is they actually accuse him of bullying patients into accepting alternative schedule.
And we know that the Oregon Medical Board has no problem with bullying because Physicians across the state bully their parents all the time into vaccinating according to the CDC schedule.
In fact, many pediatricians, if parents choose not to vaccinate strictly according to the schedule, they will be kicked out of the practice.
Now that is bullying.
That is contrary to the legal requirement in the state of Oregon.
For physicians to obtain informed consent.
But they have no problem with that.
As far as I know, the Oregon Medical Board has never suspended anyone's license for this kind of bullying.
So it's clearly not an issue where the Medical Board has a problem with bullying.
In fact, the very loud and clear message from their suspension order is that physicians must bully their parents into vaccinating their children according to the schedule, the CDC schedule.
Otherwise, they risk having their license suspended.
That message is loud and clear.
So we can dismiss that as a false pretext.
It's obviously untrue that they have a problem with bullying.
With that said, whether the bullying is in favor of the CDC's schedule or against it, we can agree that bullying is wrong and nobody should be pressured into doing anything one way or the other.
So then we look at the question, is this what Dr. Paul does in his practice?
And again, this just shows that the medical board has no understanding, no comprehension of how he actually approaches this issue.
Which is not an alternative one-size-fits-all approach.
It's an individualized approach.
It's totally up to the parents.
What he does is he sits them down and he says, here's the CDC schedule.
He talks about what the CDC recommends.
And he talks about information that's in the package inserts.
And he gives them information so that they can make, you know, what are the risks?
What are the benefits?
So that they can make an individual choice for that specific child to Based on family history and all kinds of things that, you know, bureaucrats in Washington or state capitals have no knowledge.
They have none of the knowledge necessary to be able to do this type of risk benefit analysis and he provides them with that type of information.
To be able to make their own informed choice.
This is the fundamental concept of the vaccine-friendly plan.
So this accusation that he's...
In fact, some of the accusations they make, they say, well, like, for example, this boy got tetanus.
And they imply that this is because he was a patient of Dr.
Paul's, that he wasn't vaccinated for tetanus.
But in fact, Dr.
Paul never even saw the boy.
He was very deceptive.
He never even saw that boy until after he was discharged from the hospital.
And the reason he became Dr.
Paul's patient, it was because no other pediatricians would accept him as their patient.
Because the parents were told that they couldn't take their son home from the hospital until they had a pediatrician for him, until they had a family doctor.
And they called her on and they couldn't find anyone who would accept them because of their adamant decision not to vaccinate this child.
And so Dr.
Paul took them in.
And so that happened.
So they made it sound like this boy got tetanus as a result of being Dr.
Paul's patient.
But another point to make is that...
Dr.
Pol's vaccine friendly plan, actually, this is one of the vaccines that's on his alternative schedule, is the DTAP vaccine, the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine.
It's not as though he recommends against this vaccine.
He does recommend it in his vaccine friendly plan.
So, you know, the idea that this is a consequence of him bullying these parents into making these alternative choices, it's falsifiable.
These claims, the accusations that the board makes are demonstrably false.
It's very clear when you set aside the false pretext that the true reason that he was suspended is because he practices informed consent.
This is really important because there is a war on against our right to informed consent.
And this is not an issue that's just relevant for people living in Portland, Oregon.
It's not just for people living in the state of Oregon.
This is relevant for, especially now with these COVID-19 vaccines and talks of immunity, passports, and all this.
I mean, this is an issue that affects every single person living on this planet.
You know, again, the lesson from the DTP vaccine, which is the most widely used vaccine in the world still to this day, is really critical that we learn the lessons from that and that we need to have Long-term data, you know, comparing long-term health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, because otherwise, there's no way to be able to make any kind of meaningful risk-benefit analysis for any individual.
We need to have that data, and the medical establishment and the CDC refuse to do those types of studies.
What's the punchline, Paul?
His clinic is closed, and All of his patients are now kind of medical refugees.
The clinic, Integrative Pediatrics lives on as far as I know.
There's other practitioners still working there.
He's not allowed to see any patients or have anything to do with the practice.
And, you know, another point I want to make was when the board suspended his license emergently, Dr.
Paul is also, he's not just a pediatrician, he's also a specialist in addiction medicine.
And so he helps, you know, people who are addicted to like opiate medications and things to, you know, he helps them deal with their addiction and get off of these drugs.
And so to suspend him, they immediately blocked him from being able to help these addicts, these people who have this addiction problem.
Sometimes through the fault of their own physicians who were prescribing these opiate drugs and things.
I mean, the medical establishment helped create this opiate problem in the United States.
And so, you know, immediately causing, you know, without any kind of process to allow for him to be able to transfer these, you know, highly needy patients to another physician, it's just like suddenly he couldn't help them.
So that created a very potentially deadly disease.
For a lot of his patients, you know, in the grounds of a supposed emergency created evidently by the release of his data showing that his unvaccinated kids were healthier, the medical board actually created an emergency and a crisis situation for a lot of his patients because he just he could no longer help them.
Again, it just shows the recklessness of the medical board.
They're saying they're doing something in the name of the public good, in the name of public health, but without thought of the consequences of their own actions.
It just shows that public health is the last thing on their mind when they're doing this, in this action.
It's a false pretext.
And then he has, I know that, you know, historically around the country, the courts have been very, very reluctant to overrule medical boards.
They have essentially totalitarian power to pull these licenses with or without any cause.
What was his, he did sue them, correct?
Well, it's not over yet.
There's an ongoing investigation.
In fact, the suspension order refers to the ongoing investigation.
And he, on early March, he had a hearing before the board.
That was the last event I know of as far as developments.
I do know it's just an ongoing situation.
He's still fighting that legal battle.
I don't know too many of the details of that other than it still is ongoing and he's fighting for his license.
You know, he tells me he's at peace about it.
You know, if he's not able, if his license is permanently removed, taken away from him, he's at peace with that.
I mean, he says that, you know, when he wrote the Vaccine Friendly Plan and he published that book, he knew he was putting his career on the line.
He knew that eventually this day was coming.
So he had prepared for that.
And I think he was mentally prepared for that.
It just shows the courage of this man, that he was willing to essentially issue this challenge, very public challenge in the publication of that book, to the medical establishment, knowing that he was risking his career by doing so.
Another thing I want to point out about Dr.
Paul is, you know, he began, he wasn't always where he is today.
I mean, he started out, he went through medical school, he learned that vaccines are safe and effective, he believed it, you know, he trusted that, you know, people at the CDC and the AAP are, you know, they must be the best of the best to get to where they are, and Obviously, they know better than me, and I'm just going to listen to their guidance, and I'm going to treat my patients the way they tell me to, and I'm going to vaccinate according to the CDC schedule.
That's what he was doing in a private group practice until he says that he was awakened by the Wakefield paper in 1998.
It just triggered in his mind the possibility that maybe it's not just about these acute adverse events.
There could be long-term harms that we're just totally unaware of.
He just began doing his own research and attending conferences and And just digging deeply into the science for himself.
And he, you know, he went through this journey of awakening.
What he says really woke him up is that he witnessed four of his own patients regress into autism after vaccination.
And so, you know, he started out from a point where he had...
People have confirmation bias.
They want to accept information that supports their predetermined conclusions and beliefs and reject information that contradicts their existing belief system.
It's really important to point out that Dr.
Paul's confirmation bias was in favor of vaccines.
Because he had to come to a place where he had to admit to himself, recognize the possibility and admit the possibility to himself that there's something that I'm doing to my patients with good intentions, but he had to ask himself, am I causing harm?
Am I causing harm to these patients?
I think that's something that most doctors are not able to do.
So he had to go through that process and that kind of self-criticism.
To be able to get to where he is and to where he got when he published the Vaccine Friendly Plan.
So he left the private practice.
He opened Integrative Pediatrics, founded on the principle of informed consent, published the book, knowing full well that what he was doing and the journey, the path he was heading down, could very well lead to the suspension of his license, which ultimately did happen.
I just respect and admire the man so much.
I've gotten to know him a little bit.
I've been blessed to get to know him personally a little bit, interviewing him and communicating with him in the publication of the The article that I have written about this whole story.
So yeah, I just have a lot of immense gratitude and respect for him for what he's done and standing up for all of us parents and our right to informed consent.
How old is he?
Gosh, I'm not certain exactly.
60-something.
And what's been the, you know, what is the aftermath in terms of Support from his patients and an outcry from the community.
Yeah, I know there's activists on the ground and they're fighting for him.
I'm aware of that.
I'm not involved in that, so I'm not really connected with that.
But I am aware that people are fighting for him just as he's fought for us.
And so I think, in my judgment, I think the medical board has made a huge mistake.
stake, I think this is going to backfire on them because I think it's so obvious that they have suspended his license on false pretexts and that the real reason is that he respects informed consent.
I think people are going to awaken to this threat from state governments, you know, like we saw in California, where in fact, there's a bill in Oregon proposed legislation to essentially do what they did in California, which, you know, Richard Pan believes that the issuance of exemptions to vaccinations is not the practice of medicine, in Richard Pan believes that the issuance of exemptions to vaccinations is not the practice of medicine, in his words, not the practice of medical medicine, but it admitted the fulfillment of an That's Richard Pan's belief about what doctor's role is.
And this is totally perverse, where there's no doctor-patient relationship.
Informed consent is not a choice for the parents.
And the doctors must push the CDC schedule on patients.
And that's their function.
That's their role.
And this is perverse.
And so that's what was done in California.
They're trying to do that now in Oregon.
And so hopefully this will really affect an awakening.
And a mass public outcry that is going to prevent that bill from passing into law.
Yeah, I mean, that's an interesting point because that's what happened, you know, since Hippocrates, which I think over 2,000 years ago, I think about 2,500 years ago, there's been a special sanctified relationship between doctors and patients where When you go to your doctor, you know that that doctor is not focused on the good of society.
He's focused on your good.
And it allows you to be honest with him, and it allows him to...
You have total confidence that his job is to protect you, not share your information, to protect your privacy, to protect your health, not public health, your health.
And during World War II, in the years before World War II, Hitler changed after the German doctors, and the German doctors during that period were required.
He changed the relationship so that they were functionaries of the state.
They were agents of state policy.
They were told there were memorandums sent out to every doctor in Germany to inform the state, to send out these yellow cards to people who had intellectual firms.
Patients of theirs who had intellectual disabilities, so if they were treating a family and one of the children had Down syndrome or some other intellectual disability, they were required to file a report on that child and those children were removed.
I mentioned they were sent to death camps.
They were sterilized.
People with intellectual disabilities or physical disabilities were essentially eliminated from society and doctors played that role.
They were the functionaries, the agents of the state, and purifying the German race.
So their relationship is no longer with the patient, their central obligation is to enforce state policy.
That's what they did in China.
They told doctors, if a woman gets pregnant, you know, do everything you can to make them abort the child, the second child.
And it's a very, very dangerous thing when you make doctors agents of state policy.
You know, people just need to consider the consequences.
If they surrender this type of authority to government, to state officials, to be able to dictate the practice of medicine this way, where there's not even a doctor-patient requirement.
It's just so dangerous, and we've seen this in history, and we need to learn the lessons of history and apply them, and we need to understand that there are certain fundamental rights that are inviolable, and we should never surrender, and the right to informed consent is one of them.
In fact, the Nuremberg Code was established after World War II because of the experimentation of the Nazis.
just as you described with doctors and scientists performing experimentation on humans without informed consent.
And while the Nuremberg Code itself is not international law, there are international treaties that codify recognition of the right to informed consent and guarantee protection, protecting this right.
And in Oregon law, it's written into the law that doctors must obtain informed consent.
And so it is a recognized human right and a fundamental human right that if we do not stand up and fight to protect it, it will be systematically violated.
And I think with the COVID-19 pandemic and the mass vaccination endgame of the lockdown regimes, I think the risk is heightened all the more.
I mean, we were already fighting this battle before the pandemic, and now when they're talking about, you know, immunity passports and mass vaccination, if they really want to vaccinate children next, despite the low risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection to children, you know, that we really need to, there needs to be a, there has been an awakening over the years, and I think I think, you know, we're not there yet.
We need to continue this awakening process, educating people about the realities of what the science says versus what the government and media tell people the science says.
And just, you know, awakening more people until we reach that critical mass.
We just need to achieve a critical mass of awakened people so that the policies will no longer be politically feasible to continue and we'll regain our rights.
I mean, like you say, we're already...
In the middle of that ethic where doctors are being told to tell patients, take this vaccine because it's good for your community.
Your duty is to take this vaccine regardless of whether that vaccine is the right choice for you.
How can you give a vaccine to a little child?
Who has zero risk from the disease and a very high risk from that vaccine, according to their own clinical trials.
So it's really flipped around now.
And one thing that we've learned from history is that doctors do not make good rulers.
They're not good protectors of constitutional rights.
And, you know, as you point out, after World War II, we had the Nuremberg trials.
The doctors were so badly behaved during the Nazi regime.
That they had to have independent medical trials just to try all the doctors who had committed these crimes.
And with all the medical experimentation, with all the medical totalitarianism that took place during Nazi Germany, not a single doctor is on record of speaking out.
Not a single medical association.
And this is a country that had some of the best doctors and the best medical traditions on earth.
And nobody objected.
Now we're living in a time where literally one doctor is closing down the global economy and imposing all these kind of haphazard and non-science-based requirements on all of us.
And without any thought about what it's doing to our constitutional rights, to our economy, you know, to human health, it's all about, you know, achieving certain milestones that are in his head of mass vaccination.
It doesn't matter if people are healthier, we need to get them vaccinated.
Anyway, Jeremy, I wanted to talk to you about Wuhan, but we'll leave that the next time.
Thank you so much for your work and your commitment and your brilliant writing.
Thank you.
Well, thank you.
▲
Export Selection