My Interview on the Paul Thomas, MD CHD Podcast “Against the Wind”

My Interview on the Paul Thomas, MD CHD Podcast “Against the Wind”

Recently, Paul Thomas contacted me about one of my posts. He wanted to interview me for his show about some of the current vaccine issues and where we should go from here. I think it was a pretty good discussion. (Here is the post which caught his eye: https://rickjaffeesq.com/2022/03/09/some-big-picture-thinking-as-covid-mandates-wind-down-around-the-world/)

As most of you know, Paul Thomas is an outspoken Oregon pediatrician who has had his run-ins with the Oregon Medical Board on the vaccine issue. His biggest crime is that he gave the world a peek into his pediatric practice, in an about as scientific way as can be done in terms of a retrospective study comparing the health of his vaccinated vs unvaccinated patients. He and Jack Weiler published the results of the study. The bottom line was that the unvaccinated patients were much healthier than the fully vaccinated group, a result which should surprise few reading this post.

As is often the case with studies that show results inconsistent with the narrative that vaccines are completely safe and beneficial with little risk, there were complaints about the study and its methodology. This is the standard tactic used against studies not in conformity with the mainstream narrative. As a result of the attacks, the study was forcibly retracted. Here is the study in case you were living under a rock for the past few years. ijerph-17-08674-v5

To me, the data and main thrust of the study is still a valid data point. The results are consistent with the African studies done by Peter Aaby. Aaby’s studies showed that while a specific vaccine (DPT) might reduce the incidence of the vectors of the vaccine, it caused somewhat troubling more generalized health problems; a significant increase in mortality in those receiving the vaccine. Here is one of his studies.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00079/full.

They couldn’t force the retraction of the Aaby studies, but the pro-vaxxer talking heads dismissed Aaby as unqualified, which was the tactic used against Jack Weiler in his and Paul’s study. The other bases for dismissal of Aaby’s work are, “Hey it’s Africa”, and “we don’t use DPT anymore.” I find neither response satisfying.

Ironically, now that Paul has his own podcast with CHD TV’s mega reach, he should have more of an impact on the vaccine debate than he previously had. So good on him and CHD for giving him a platform.

But I digress. Here is the link to the interview. https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/shows/against-the-wind-with-dr-paul-thomas.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

7 thoughts on “My Interview on the Paul Thomas, MD CHD Podcast “Against the Wind”

  1. Mr Jaffe,
    You’re sounding more and more like (I won’t use the negative label)…ht hmn… a well researched, knowledgeable person on the vax topic.
    I love the fact check links thrown in. The classic indicator. Because that’s how we all learn to communicate. Site your source as matter of habit on everything. The other side never does that. They just repeat stuff. Repetition as validity. Super easy to identify which position a person holds because they will do one of the two right out the gate: rely on repetition or site the fact check.
    There’s a handful of people I follow because I see that they are on a journey. And I know they are really smart. And it’s just a matter of time. For those of us that got sucked down the rabbit hole early, there’s a lot of patience and anticipation. You can’t help but keep watch for new arrivals.
    IDK and I’m sure it’s none of my business, but I think something might be happening to you. …I notice you haven’t called us ‘you people’ in awhile. What’s going on there?

    1. I am a health care attorney, mostly in defense of maverick doctors. Sometimes patient rights, but historically for access to experimental treatments, and I’ve done one vaccine mandate case (against the UC for the flu mandate). As a defense attorney I dont’t have to agree with everything the doctors I defend do or believe in. I’ve done a pretty thorough review of the literature for the two ME cases I’ve tried and taken to the courts.
      I get criticized by pro and anti-vaxxers equally.
      I don’t agree with around 50% of what each side says, but for different reasons of course. I don’t identify with either side which is why I use neutral language regardless of which side I say is wrong on a particular point.

      1. Ok well, I’m going to keep reading your blogs because I think you’re figuring more and more stuff out, and I’m rooting for you to keep going. Steps on the path. Take more of them! Warmer….Warmer….Hot…Hotter! Yeah! 😀

  2. How can we assure non bias from any studies which are not peer reviewed randomized double-blind, placebo controlled?

    1. I’m probably the wrong guy to ask about that because I don’t think double-blind placebo-controlled studies are necessary in most instances, if there are good other kinds of studies. The mantra calling for these studies is usually chanted by mainstream authorities knocking studies done by CAM docs who typically don’t have the funding for such academic studies.

  3. Your commentary on the study states “It (DPT vaccine) caused …a significant increase in mortality in those receiving the vaccine.”

    In contrast the study’s own conclusion states DTP is associated with increased mortality.

    Association is not causation.

    Studies must be read in their entirety and best interpreted by scientific scholarly experts.

    Peer reviewed studies are paramount to ensure non bias scientific quality.

  4. Your commentary on the study states “It (DPT vaccine) caused …a significant increase in mortality in those receiving the vaccine.”

    In contrast the study’s own conclusion states DTP is associated with increased mortality.

    Association is not causation.

    Studies must be read in their entirety and best interpreted by scientific scholarly experts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.