Studies Prove That Doctors Are Poisoning Our Children with Vaccines That Cause Lifelong Ailments
Rhoda Wilson reveals in the April 11, 2022, edition of The Expose a groundbreaking study comparing the health of a group of 1,482 unvaccinated adults and children to the national statistics on the health of vaccinated adults. The study conducted by an organization called The Control Group reveals that unvaccinated adults are significantly healthier than vaccinated adults.
The Control Group filed a complaint in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the federal government alleging its vaccine laws, regulations, and policies are unscientific and violate the constitutional rights of the people. But their complaint was dismissed and “on October 3, 2022, the US Supreme Court denied The Control Group’s petition for writ of certiorari. So this health freedom case is now closed.”
Despite the failure of the Control Group in court, the facts that they established in their study will have a long-term benefit to all who seek justice in the future. The study is robust and unimpeachable. Dr. Stephen Malthouse states:
Every so often a study comes along that shakes the bedrock of medicine. The Control Group compared unvaccinated adults to vaccinated adults in the US and what they discovered is incredible. Perhaps one of the most surprising findings is that vit K shots, containing aluminum in most cases (although not always disclosed on the list of ingredients), played a significant role in adult (and childhood) chronic disease. If you get rid of vit K shots and all vaccinations, the incidence of heart disease, asthma, autism, and other severe disorders goes practically to zero.
Below is a sample of some of the charts that were filed as exhibits in the litigation by the Control Group.
The Paul Thomas Pediatric Vaccine Study
The Control Group study does not stand alone. In another study funded by The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) and published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health it was determined that unvaccinated children are significantly healthier than vaccinated children.
We can conclude that the unvaccinated children in this practice are not, overall, less healthy than the vaccinated and that indeed the vaccinated children appear to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated.
The study made a notable finding. “Remarkably, zero of the 561 unvaccinated patients in the study had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to 0.063% of the (partially and fully) vaccinated.” Id.
The study compared pediatric office visits involving specific medical diagnoses of 2,763 vaccinated children with the office visits of 561 unvaccinated children. Below are charts that graphically illustrate the difference in the number of office visits for various diagnosed ailments between vaccinated children (orange line) and unvaccinated (blue line) children. The stark difference illustrates the significantly better health of unvaccinated children.
The study reported: “The visual impact of the cumulative office visit plots is striking; more so than other plots, the time element (day of life) provides an index by which to compare the accumulation of human pain and suffering from potential vaccine side effects (Figure 5) [below]. These results are worth studying closely and noticing the variation among the cumulative office visits per condition and the stark differences between the rates of billed office visits in the most and unvaccinated patients born into the practice.”
“Figure 5. Analysis 5. Cumulative office visits in the vaccinated (orange) vs. unvaccinated (blue) patients born into the practice: the clarity of the age-specific differences in the health fates of individuals who are vaccinated (2763) compared to the 561 unvaccinated in patients born into the practice over ten years is most strikingly clear in this comparison of the cumulative numbers of diagnoses in the two patient groups. The number of office visits for the unvaccinated is adjusted by a sample size multiplier factor (4.9) to the expected value as if the number of unvaccinated in the study was the same as the number of vaccinated.”
Please notice the chart relating to ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder). ADHD begins to manifest as soon as the vaccinated children begin going to school and their ADHD behavior becomes noticeable relative to their classmates. What the study chart does not break out from ADHD are the children who are also suffering from autism. Autism falls within a spectrum and is often referred to as Autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) is an organization that provides support, education and encouragement to parents, educators and professionals regarding ADHD issues on a grassroots level. CHADD explains the relationship between ADHD and ASD:
More than half of all individuals who have been diagnosed with ASD also have signs of ADHD. In fact, ADHD is the most common coexisting condition in children with ASD. On the flip side, up to a quarter of children with ADHD have low-level signs of ASD, which might include having difficulty with social skills or being very sensitive to clothing textures, for example.
Both ADHD and ASD are neurodevelopmental disorders (brain development has been affected in some way). That means both conditions/disorders affect the central nervous system, which is responsible for movement, language, memory, and social and focusing skills. A number of scientific studies have shown that the two conditions often coexist, but researchers have not yet figured out why they do.
Objective research has established a direct link between vaccination and ASD. The chart below tells a clear story that vaccines cause ADHD. CHADD says that researchers have not yet figured out why ASD and ADHD often coincide with one another. That is not true. All one need to do is look at the chart below and realize that ADHD and ASD are both neurodevelopmental disorders to understand that they are both caused by vaccine poisoning.
The two researchers, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas are not anti-vaccination doctors. But as a direct result of this study, the state medical board has suspended his medical license of one of the researchers, Dr. Paul Thomas, within a week of the publication of the article. The suspension was in retaliation for having published the study showing the harmful effects of childhood vaccinations. The suspension was an unprecedented action because it was done summarily prior to any adversarial hearing. He is being punished as an object lesson for anyone who would have the temerity to publish the truth about vaccinations being harmful to the health of patients.
The following report was posted on the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) website:
Independent journalist Jeremy Hammond has authored a definitive and thorough report that reveals that the Oregon Medical Board is guilty of wrong-doing because they tried to coerce Dr. Thomas into changing his lawful pediatric practice into an unlawful medical practice under Oregon’s state law. The 210-page report reads, in part “The real story here isn’t one of a rogue doctor dismissing science and recklessly endangering his pediatric patients by bullying their parents into accepting ‘alternative’ care. The real story is one of a rogue medical board dismissing science and recklessly endangering public health by encouraging pediatricians to bully their parents into strict compliance with the CDC’s schedule and selecting Paul Thomas, MD, to set an example to other physicians of what their punishment will be if they instead choose to respect parents’ right to informed consent.”
Under Oregon state law, phyisicians, including pediatricians, must provide for fully informed consent and respect vaccine refusal. The board had tried to sanction Dr. Thomas for allowing patients to use antibody titre-testing as evidence of immunity. It [the Hammond report] found that the board’s actions were “ludicrous given the fact that Oregon law only requires one dose of mumps vaccine, and it specifically allows for the use of antibody testing as evidence of immunity in lieu of evidence of vaccination.”
The report also completely rebuts all eight of the allegations of medical misconduct alleged by the Oregon Medical Board. Under current Oregon law, The Board answers to the Governor of the State of Oregon.
The full report is available at Mr. Hammond’s independent journalism site. (http://bit.ly/hammondreport)
The medical board had suspended Dr. Thomas’ license after an emergency meeting was called following our publication of the analysis of data from over 3,300 patients in response to a request from the medical board for such data. See that peer-reviewed study here. Phase II of the IPAK Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed study is underway. Donations are needed now.
On December 3, 2020, the Oregon Medical Board issued an emergency suspension order to prevent renowned pediatrician Paul Thomas, MD, from seeing his patients by stripping him of his license.
The ostensible reason given by the board for this action against Thomas, who is affectionately known as “Dr. Paul” by his patients and peers, is that his “continued practice constitutes an immediate danger to public health”.
Thomas is perhaps most well known as coauthor, along with Dr. Jennifer Margulis, of the book The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, which provides guidance to parents who want to protect their children from infectious diseases but have concerns about vaccines. The book is a bestseller currently showing a five-star rating from over 1,800 customer reviews at Amazon.com.
Since 2008, Thomas has practiced pediatrics out of his clinic, Integrative Pediatrics, which is in Beaverton, Oregon, within the metropolitan area of Portland.
The main accusation leveled at Thomas by the state medical board is that he has “breached the standard of care” in his practice by having many patients who are not vaccinated strictly according to the routine childhood schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The true story is that parents have flocked to Integrative Pediatrics precisely because they’ve been bullied, with the state’s approval, by pediatricians in other practices who choose to dutifully serve the bureaucrats in government by compelling parents to strictly comply with the CDC’s schedule.
The story the medical board tells is one of a reckless and “bullying” doctor who coerces his pediatric patients’ parents not to follow the CDC’s recommendations and whose gross negligence in this regard has caused harm to children and negatively impacted the health of the community.[1]
But that’s not the true story.
The true story is that parents have flocked to Integrative Pediatrics precisely because they’ve been bullied, with the state’s approval, by pediatricians in other practices who choose to dutifully serve the bureaucrats in government by compelling parents to strictly comply with the CDC’s schedule.
Parents who did comply and then witnessed their children suffer harm as a result are mocked and derisively labeled “anti-vaxxers” for learning hard lessons from their firstborn children that they then apply to younger siblings by making different parenting choices. (Often, such parents respond to the derogatory label by insisting on being described as “ex-vaxxers”, but government officials and the major media institutions refuse to hear them.)
Parents who do vaccinate their children, but not strictly according to the CDC’s schedule, are also lumped into the group monolithically labeled “the anti-vaccine movement” by apologists for the one-size-fits-all approach of public vaccine policy.
These parents have all been told a million times that vaccines are “safe and effective”. They are well aware of the arguments in favor of vaccinations that we all hear incessantly from government officials, medical professionals, and the mainstream media.
They are also perfectly familiar with the tale of how, in 1998, public enemy number one, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, published a fraudulent study in The Lancet, later retracted, claiming to have found an association between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.[2] These parents know that numerous studies have since been published that failed to find an association.
They know that, by choosing to dissent from or criticize public vaccine policy, they are placing a target on their back. They know they will be met with disapproval by other members of their own family, accused of being irresponsible parents, scolded, and scorned. They know that they will be viciously attacked by government officials and policy advocates masquerading as journalists, as well as by doctors and other members of their community.[3]
And yet, despite the bullying and intimidation, they remain unmoved. There is one simple reason for this: they see it as their duty as responsible parents to act in their children’s best interest no matter what societal pressures are placed on them to conform with expected behavior. Consequently, they do their own research, think for themselves, draw their own conclusions, and take a stand to protect their children.
In many cases in Portland, parents who face the scornful intimidation of a routine well-child visit at their pediatrician’s office and still insist on exercising their right to make an informed choice not to vaccinate are told that they must either comply with the CDC’s recommendations or find another pediatrician.[4]
And, so, they go to Dr. Paul.
With respect to the medical board’s suspension order, Paul Thomas says that he knew the moment The Vaccine-Friendly Plan was published that this day was coming. He knew at the time that, because he was challenging the CDC’s schedule and therefore the “standard of care” of the medical establishment, he would be placing a target on his back and risking his career.
But he did it anyway.
Why?
The Oregon Medical Board wants us to believe it’s because he’s a villain who demonstrates reckless disregard and poses a danger to public health. The media have run with that story.
But what the results of the study do demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty is that his unvaccinated patients are healthier than vaccinated children and place less of a burden on the health care system.
However, what neither the board’s order nor the media have disclosed is that the board’s suspension order was issued just eleven days after Thomas published a study in a peer-reviewed medical journal showing that, among the children born into his practice, those who remained completely unvaccinated were diagnosed at significantly lower rates than vaccinated children for a broad range of chronic health conditions and developmental disorders.
The difference in health outcomes was even more dramatic when Thomas and his coauthor, research scientist Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, looked at cumulative incidence of office visits for given diagnoses rather than incidence of diagnoses alone. This result strongly suggests that his vaccinated patients not only suffer from a higher rate of chronic health conditions, but also that their conditions are more severe, therefore requiring more frequent visits to his clinic.
The study is titled “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination”. It was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on November 22, 2020.
As Thomas and Lyons-Weiler emphasize in the study, they do not show that vaccinations are the cause of the evidently worse health outcomes among vaccinated children. But what the results of the study do demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty is that his unvaccinated patients are healthier than vaccinated children and place less of a burden on the health care system.[5]
Importantly, this was data that the medical board had asked Thomas to produce to support his practice of vaccinating patients according to the principles of his “Vaccine-Friendly Plan”.
Yet, when Thomas surmounted this challenge by obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and publishing the deidentified data comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the board’s emergent response was to suspend his license until further notice “while this case remains under investigation”—and on grounds that are completely belied by the publicly available evidence.[6]
The real story here isn’t one of a rogue doctor dismissing science and recklessly endangering his pediatric patients by bullying their parents into accepting “alternative” care. The real story is one of a rogue medical board dismissing science and recklessly endangering public health by encouraging pediatricians to bully their parents into strict compliance with the CDC’s schedule and selecting Paul Thomas, MD, to set an example to other physicians of what their punishment will be if they instead choose to respect parents’ right to informed consent.
But that story doesn’t begin in December of 2020. To tell the true story and fully appreciate its significance, we need to go back and review the sequence of events that led Paul Thomas to this pivotal moment in his life’s journey.
On 16 July 2021, the MDPI retracted the article with the following cryptic notice. “The journal retracts the article ‘Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination’ cited above. Following publication, concerns were brought to the attention of the editorial office regarding the validity of the conclusions of the published research. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that raised several methodological issues and confirmed that the conclusions were not supported by strong scientific data. The article is therefore retracted. This retraction is approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors did not agree to this retraction.” https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7754/htm. The MDPI did not indicate what were the “methodological issues” or specify how the conclusions “were not supported by strong scientific data.” That lack of specificity for such an extraordinary action suggests the retraction of the article by the MDPI was not due to methodological issues or that it was not supported by strong scientific data but was rather due to financial and political pressure put on MDPI.
The Mawson Study
A 2017 survey comparing the health of vaccinated children to the health of unvaccinated children arrived at the conclusion that the vaccinated children were much less healthy than the unvaccinated children.
The Brian Hooker Study
Yet another study in 2020 came up with the same results. The study found that vaccinated children were much sicker than unvaccinated children. The researchers concluded:
In this study, based on a convenience sample of children born into one of three distinct pediatric medical practices, higher ORs [odds ratios] were observed within the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group for developmental delays, asthma and ear infections.
All Vaccines are Unvavodably Unsafe
All vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and cause injuries. The U.S. Congress has granted the pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability because the pharmaceutical companies argued that their vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and thus they will inevitably injure people. They said they would stop manufacturing vaccines if they are held liable for such unpreventable injuries. They demanded and got immunity from liability for the inexorable injuries caused by their vaccines.
How can a pharmaceutical company ever claim (as they repeatedly do) that their vaccines are safe and effective when they have been granted immunity from liability based on their admission that all vaccines are unavoidably unsafe?
Congress passed the National Vaccine Injury Act (NVIA) of 1986, which granted immunity to pharmaceutical companies for injuries caused by the vaccines they manufactured. As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), the reason for that protection is that Congress deemed vaccines to be unavoidably unsafe; thus no manufacturer would make a vaccine if they had to suffer the liability for injuries they would unavoidably cause.
The CDC, NIH, and FDA know that the pharmaceutical companies have no interest in making vaccines safe for children! Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, and the vaccine makers like it that way. Pharmaceutical companies get rich when people are made sick. It is a racket where they cause injury via their vaccines and then make the patent medicines to address the symptoms of the injuries they have caused. There was a fly in their ointment, and that was civil liability for the injuries they caused. The immunity granted by the NVIA solved that problem. Since the NVIA, the pharmaceutical companies have been off to the races creating one ineffective and unsafe vaccine after another.
The CDC, when asked, was unable to provide any evidence that any childhood vaccine has ever been tested for safety using a placebo control. Indeed, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. points out that “not one of the 72 vaccines on the schedule mandated for our children, have been tested with a placebo.” There is a reason. No vaccine could ever survive being tested for safety and effectiveness against a placebo. The pharmaceutical companies know that their vaccines are not only ineffective, they are injurious. Research has shown that childhood vaccines cause injuries. And that is by design. A design for which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the drug companies have immunity from civil liability.
The pharmaceutical companies, CDC, NIH, and FDA all know that vaccines will unavoidably cause injuries. They have no interest in mitigating the damage caused by vaccines because those injuries make the pharmaceutical companies rich through the patent medicines they sell to address the injuries caused by the vaccines.
For example, Pfizer is acquiring a company that makes drugs that treat the very immuno-inflammatory injuries caused by Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Arena has drugs in the pipeline to treat cardio inflammatory diseases like myocarditis; the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has become notorious for causing myocarditis. Also notable is Arena’s development of a drug (Termanogrel) to address microvascular obstructions, which several doctors have identified as the root cause of many illnesses resulting from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
For example, Dr. Charles Hoffe, MD — who practices in British Columbia, Canada — explained in very simple terms how the mRNA COVID vaccines create the spike proteins which cause widespread microscopic blood clotting that will eventually kill many people within three years of taking the shots. Pfizer now wants to get in on the action of offering overpriced patent medicines to give to desperate patients suffering from the deadly side effects of their vaccine. How much more Machiavelian can you get?
Please be mindful that the COIVD-19 vaccine manufacturers are also protected from civil liability. The COVID-19 vaccines will be subjected to the even more exacting standards and limited compensation of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to injured parties. A notable limitation under the CICP is that an injured party will be subjected to the statute of limitations that forecloses all legal actions not filed within one year of vaccination. That is compared with the statute of limitations for an approved vaccine under the National Vaccine Injury Act (NVIA) of 3 years from the occurrence of the first symptom of injury from the vaccine.
Experts specializing in vaccine injury cases say that the bar for obtaining compensation is very high under the PREP Act. Over the last ten years, 94% of injured patients who filed claims under the PREP Act received no compensation. In reference to the virtually insurmountable hurdles erected under the CICP, Renée Gentry, director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at the George Washington University Law School, said COVID-19 vaccine claimants have two rights: “You have the right to file,” she said. “And you have the right to lose.” Altom Maglio, whose 22 lawyer law firm, Maglio Christopher & Toale, specializes in vaccine injury cases, says that you’re out of luck if you’ve suffered an injury related to any of the COVID-19 vaccines in receiving any compensation for your injury. That all is not intended to suggest that the NVIA is fair. The NVIA has its own problems. Two out of three claims filed under the NVIA are denied.
In a randomized study published by the highly respected Dr. Peter Aaby found that the Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis (DTP) vaccine caused children to die at a higher rate than unvaccinated children. By the way, Dr. Aaby is not against vaccinations. Indeed, he promotes vaccinations. Yet he concluded that the DTP vaccine is killing children.
The conclusion of Dr Aaby’s study was that “[a]lthough having better nutritional status and being protected against three infections, 6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.”
Other studies have shown that the mortality rate for DTP vaccinated children is two (2) times greater than the mortality rate for unvaccinated children. Dr. Aaby explains that “[a]ll studies that documented vaccination status and followed children prospectively indicate that DTP has negative effects; a meta-analysis of the eight studies found 2-fold higher mortality for DTP-vaccinated compared with DTP-unvaccinated.”
Doubling the mortality rate is bad enough, but that is not the whole story. The studies referenced by Dr. Aaby were biased in favor of the vaccinated group because the vaccinated groups were the healthier babies. Dr. Aaby explains that the “the ‘unvaccinated’ control children in previous studies having been a frail subgroup, too frail to get vaccinated.” Thus the unvaccinated babies did not receive the DTP vaccine because the doctors determined that they were too frail and unhealthy to tolerate a vaccination. But when the study measured babies of similar health, the detrimental effect of the DTP vaccine is revealed in all its horror. Dr. Aaby reveals that “DTP [vaccination] was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated.”
That is bad enough, but it gets worse. You see, the unvaccinated group cited by Dr. Aaby in his conclusion simply means unvaccinated with DTP. The “unvaccinated” babies in that group had in fact been vaccinated with the oral polio vaccine (OPV). When the children that received the OPV are excluded from the unvaccinated group. The mortality rate for children receiving a DTP vaccine skyrockets to ten (10) times the mortality rate for children that received no vaccination at all. That suggests that there is also an increase in mortality due to the OPV.
When isolating only the DTP vaccinated children and comparing them to the truly unvaccinated children, the simple conclusion is that vaccinating a child with the DTP vaccination increases his chances of dying in the first 6 months of his life by ten (10) fold.
Dr. Aaby concluded that “[a]ll currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”
What informed parent would agree to vaccinate their child with the DTP vaccine? Indeed, why would any informed parent allow their child to be inoculated with any vaccine?
Infant Deaths Went Down During COVID Lockdown Because Children Were NOT Being Vaccinated
Mark Blaxill and Amy Becker studied mortality rates during the COVID-19 lock-downs. They discovered a startling fact. Infant mortality actually went down during the lockdown. There was a significant decrease in the number of infant deaths. Blaxill and Becker attributed that drop to the inability of parents to do well-baby doctor checkups with the obligatory vaccinations. Fewer vaccines = fewer infant deaths. Blaxill and Becker stated:
Starting in early March, expected deaths [for children under 18 years old] began a sharp decline, from an expected level of around 700 deaths per week to well under 500 by mid-April and throughout May. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics Mortality Surveillance System.
As untimely deaths spiked among the elderly in Manhattan nursing homes and in similar settings all over the country, something mysterious was saving the lives of children. As springtime in America came along with massive disruptions in family life amid near-universal lockdowns, roughly 30% fewer children died.
…
Was this a protective effect of school closures? Were teenagers getting themselves into risky situations at a lower rate? No. There was very little effect among school age children or adolescents.
Incidentally, since the publication of Blaxill and Becker’s article, the CDC has removed the page that memorialized the fact that almost all of the reduction in childhood deaths came from infants. Blaxill and Becker explain that the CDC statistics showed:
Virtually the entire change came from infants. Somehow, the changing pattern of American life during the lockdowns has been saving the lives of hundreds of infants, over 200 per week.
…
What has changed during this period that might have such an effect?
…
One very clear change that has received publicity is that public health officials are bemoaning the sharp decline in infant vaccinations as parents are not taking their infants into pediatric offices for their regular well-baby checks. In the May 15 [2020] issue of the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), a group of authors from the CDC and Kaiser Permanente reported a sharp decline in provider orders for vaccines as well as a decline in pediatric vaccine doses administered. Santoli, Jeanne M et al. Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Routine Pediatric Vaccine Ordering and Administration — United States, 2020. cdc.gov. [Online] May 15, 2020. These declines began in early March, around the time infant deaths began declining.
Chart Created by Blaxill and Becker
Watch the video: Three Independent Studies Answer This Question: Do Vaccines Make Us Healthier?