this-study-shows-the-cumulative-rates-of-disease-in-people-with-and-without-normal-vaccine-schedule

This Study Shows the Cumulative Rates of Disease in People with and without Normal Vaccine Schedule


A study published, and then retracted, in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health shows robust, compelling evidence supporting the idea that any iteration of America’s regular vaccine scheduleinvolving anywhere from one to 40 vaccines—is harming children via ailments like dermatitis and anemia.


In the video immediately below Dr. Paul Thomas, an MD, Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, member of the American Board of Integrative Holistic Medicine, and member of the American Board of Addiction Medicine describes a landmark study he and co-author James Lyons-Weiler had published—and then retracted—in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The study, which was published on November 22 of 2020—and then retracted on July 22 of 2021—compares the incidence of doctor’s office visits and cumulative rates of billed diagnoses between children given some variation of the normal vaccine schedule and those left completely unvaccinated.

Incredibly, the data from the study show that infections and ailments—including everything from dermatitis to ADHD to anemia—all occurred at a far higher rate in the vaccinated children versus the unvaccinated children.

For their study—which Thomas summarizes (at breakneck speed) in the video immediately above—the authors compared a control group consisting of 561 children (279 male and 282 female) with a vaccinated group consisting of 2,763 children (1,432 male and 1,331 female). Note, however, that those in the vaccine arm of the study were “variably vaccinated,” meaning each individual received somewhere between one and 40 vaccinations during the study period.

“We performed a retrospective analysis spanning ten years of pediatric practice focused on patients with variable vaccination born into a practice, presenting a unique opportunity to study the effects of variable vaccination on outcomes,” the authors write in their abstract. The average total incidence of billed office visits per outcome—that is, the Relative Incidence of Office Visit (or RIOV)—were compared between the two cohorts.

The authors note that “many outcomes had high RIOV odds ratios after matching for days-of-care… e.g. anemia (6.334), asthma (3.496), allergic rhinitis (6.479), and sinusitis (3.529)” for those in the vaccinated group; meaning children who received vaccinations were more likely to develop these ailments—and seek treatment—than those who did not. To the tune of 3.5 times more likely in the case of asthma, 6.3 times in the case of anemia, 6.4 times in the case of allergic rhinitis, etc.

Developmental disorders “were determined to be difficult to study due to extremely low prevalence in the practice, potentially attributable to high rates of vaccine cessation upon adverse events and family history of autoimmunity,” although the authors do note that “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.”

“The data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated,” Thomas and Lyons-Weiler write in their study. The former author puts a finer point on the findings in the video when he says that “vaccines shift the immune system to allergy and autoimmunity [so] you have more and more infections of other kinds.” He further notes that, for children, “too many vaccinations too soon causes immune problems.”

In the video at top Thomas also references a—not peer-reviewed preprint—study conducted by Joy Garner, Founder of The Control Group (thecontrolgroup.org). Garner’s study, which is linked here, used published CDC data—including a relatively minuscule unvaccinated population of 832,521 Americans during the survey period of 2019-2020—to conclude, in part, that “The 99.74% vaccine-exposed “herd” [of people in America] is now very sick, heavily drugged, and degrading at an exponential rate, both intellectually and physically.”

Image: Joy Garner

Garner adds in her study that “Most of the conditions commonly found in the 99.74% vaccinated population [of America] are considered ‘co-morbidities.’ [Meaning that once] you’re afflicted, it is understood you’re at higher risk of a health-related death than those who are free of these conditions.”

“When the risks are expressed numerically, rather than with outrageously false slogans, it alters one’s perception of [Big Pharma’s] ‘worth it’ slogan,” Garner writes. “When facing a 60% chance of chronic health problems, including a 48% risk of heart disease and a host of other disabling and deadly conditions after the age of 18, as one’s personal ‘sacrifice’ for the purported ‘common-good’ of vaccination, one would likely prefer the modern risks of measles and many other common temporary infections,” the author adds. “[But fraudulent] slogans are the only effective method of obtaining voluntary compliance with the dictates of Pharma.”

In the interview with Spiro Skouras immediately above (posted December 19, 2020) Thomas describes what drove him to do the study in the first place—noting that when he flouted CDC vaccination guidelines, he was consequently accused of practicing unsafe medicine by his state medical board. In response, Thomas commissioned the now-retracted “quality assurance project“—i.e. the study from Environmental Research and Public Health—in order to look at the quality of his CDC-guided vaccination practices.

“[The medical board] literally had an emergency meeting to deal with me on a Thursday evening and immediately imposed a suspension,” Thomas tells Skouras. “I think they just don’t want this information to come out,” the doctor adds, saying that “the data in my study… is so powerful and so significant that if they can’t get it retracted from the world literature—which they will try, I’m sure; they always do—they can at least discredit the author.”


Feature image: James Lyons-Weiler, et al. / International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health


Accessibility Toolbar