Dr. Paul Thomas, a board-certified pediatrician from Oregon, has gained notoriety for promoting an alternative vaccine schedule, disseminating vaccine misinformation, and publishing a study that claimed better health outcomes for unvaccinated children. Despite his positioning as a “vaccine-friendly” physician, Dr. Thomas’s approach diverges significantly from the established immunization schedules recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

In December 2020, the Oregon Medical Board suspended Dr. Thomas’s medical license over allegations of gross negligence. Although he has returned to a restricted form of practice, his case highlights the serious public health risks associated with anti-vaccine advocacy.

---

1. Who Is Dr. Paul Thomas?

Dr. Paul Thomas initially built his practice by marketing himself as a “vaccine-friendly” pediatrician, catering to parents anxious about perceived risks of routine childhood immunizations. He developed and promoted the “Dr. Paul Approved Vaccine Plan,” which substantially delays or excludes several key vaccines. He has suggested that this schedule lowers the risk of autism and other developmental disorders—claims that are not supported by the broader scientific community.

In 2020, the Oregon Medical Board suspended Dr. Thomas’s medical license, citing eight examples of patient harm within his care. One especially concerning incident involved a six-year-old patient, entirely unvaccinated, who contracted acute tetanus from a scalp wound. The child required an extended ICU stay, complete with intubation, a tracheotomy, and the placement of a feeding tube (1,2). Even after this life-threatening illness, Dr. Thomas reportedly failed to properly address the risks and benefits of vaccination at the child’s follow-up appointment. Instead, he referred the family to a homeopath and suggested supplements such as fish oil and phosphatidylserine.

The Board’s investigation additionally pointed to multiple occasions in which Dr. Thomas attributed autism to vaccination, despite a broad consensus in the scientific community that no such link exists. Notably, in one case, he asked a mother, “How bad would you feel if your child got autism when you could have prevented it?”—a statement that is entirely at odds with current medical and scientific evidence (3,4).

---

2. Overview of the Controversial Study

In 2020, Dr. Thomas co-authored a paper with Dr. James Lyons-Weiler titled “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination.” Published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, the study claimed that unvaccinated children within Dr. Thomas’s practice demonstrated better health outcomes compared to their vaccinated counterparts, highlighting conditions such as eczema, allergies, and ADHD as being more prevalent among vaccinated children.

However, an immediate wave of criticism focused on the study’s flawed design and biased interpretation of the data. Ultimately, the journal determined that the paper did not meet acceptable scientific standards, deemed its conclusions misleading, and in 2021 retracted the study for posing a potential public health risk by promoting vaccine hesitancy (5,6).

---

3. Key Methodological Flaws

3.1 Selection Bias

• Non-Representative Cohort: The study exclusively examined patients from Dr. Thomas’s own practice, which is notably composed of vaccine-hesitant families. These families may engage in multiple health-conscious practices—such as avoiding tobacco exposure and focusing on better nutrition—which can independently improve overall health outcomes (7,8).
• Limited Generalizability: Because vaccine uptake is unusually low among this self-selecting group, the findings cannot be generalized to the broader population, where the majority of children follow the CDC’s standard immunization schedule (9).

3.2 Misleading Metrics

• Office Visits as a Surrogate for Disease: Using “office visits for billed diagnoses” as a proxy for health status is inherently flawed. Families who avoid or distrust conventional medical systems may forego regular healthcare visits, leading to artificially lowered diagnosis rates.
• Undiagnosed or Untreated Conditions: Many illnesses go undocumented in populations that forgo medical care. As a result, the study’s reliance on office visits risks overlooking significant rates of undiagnosed conditions, particularly in unvaccinated groups (10,11).

3.3 Omission of Baseline Data

• Lack of Comparative Benchmarks: The study did not include pertinent national or regional disease prevalence rates. Such baseline data are vital to gauging whether differences observed in Dr. Thomas’s cohort are atypical or mirror broader trends (12).

3.4 Cherry-Picking Data

• Focus on Minor Conditions: The authors concentrated on relatively less severe conditions (e.g., eczema) while omitting any discussion of serious vaccine-preventable illnesses such as measles, pertussis (whooping cough), and meningitis (13).
• Overlooking Severe Outcomes: Unvaccinated populations are at elevated risk for severe complications, including higher rates of hospitalizations and fatalities from vaccine-preventable diseases (14).

---

4. Retraction of the Study

The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health formally retracted Dr. Thomas’s study in 2021. In its retraction notice, the editorial board cited the work’s non-compliance with scientific standards, its misleading conclusions, and its potential to undermine public health efforts by fostering vaccine hesitancy (6).

Retractions serve as a key quality-control mechanism in scientific publishing. They underscore the importance of rigorous methodology, accurate data interpretation, and transparent ethical practices—components the journal deemed lacking in Dr. Thomas’s article.

---

5. Ethical Concerns and License Suspension

The Oregon Medical Board’s investigation concluded that Dr. Thomas had repeatedly engaged in conduct harmful to his patients:

1. Promotion of an Unsubstantiated “Alternative” Schedule
   Dr. Thomas actively discouraged parents from following the CDC-endorsed vaccine schedule. He framed his own schedule as a “safer” alternative without providing credible scientific evidence to support that claim.
2. Inadequate Patient Counseling and Follow-up
   Even when confronted with life-threatening outcomes—such as the case of the child with tetanus—Dr. Thomas reportedly failed to adequately communicate vaccine risks and benefits. Instead, he suggested alternative therapies lacking proven efficacy (1,2).
3. Linking Vaccines to Autism
   Despite overwhelming evidence disproving any causal relationship between vaccines and autism, Dr. Thomas continued to imply such a link in consultations, further fueling parental fears (4,15).

As a result, the Oregon Medical Board issued an emergency suspension in December 2020, effectively halting Dr. Thomas’s ability to practice medicine. Although he was later allowed to resume a limited practice under close supervision, the imposed conditions prohibit him from advising on vaccine protocols or conducting independent research involving patients (1,2).

---

Conclusion

Dr. Paul Thomas’s activities as a pediatrician and researcher—encompassing his promotion of an alternative vaccine schedule, publication of flawed studies, and propagation of unverified claims—have elicited significant concern within the medical community. His conduct underscores the profound dangers posed by misinformation in healthcare settings, particularly when it discourages critical protective measures like vaccination.

The retraction of Dr. Thomas’s study and the suspension of his medical license are stark reminders of the crucial role evidence-based medicine plays in safeguarding public health. Upholding rigorous scientific standards and holding healthcare providers accountable are essential steps in combating vaccine hesitancy and ensuring that children receive the lifesaving protection vaccines offer.

---

References

1. Oregon Medical Board. Interim Stipulated Order – Paul Norman Thomas, MD. Oregon Medical Board; 2020.
2. Oregon Medical Board. Order of Emergency Suspension – Dr Paul Thomas, MD. Oregon Medical Board; 2020.
3. Offit PA. Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All. Basic Books; 2011.
4. Poland GA, Jacobson RM. The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(2):97–9.
5. Retraction Notice. Relative incidence of office visits and cumulative rates of billed diagnoses along the axis of vaccination. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(1):2.
6. Health Feedback. Study on vaccinated and unvaccinated children used a dubious metric for comparing disease incidence. Published online: December 2020.
7. Jacobson RM, St Sauver JL, Finney Rutten LJ. Vaccine hesitancy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90(12):1562-8.
8. Salmon DA, Dudley MZ, Glanz JM, et al. Vaccine hesitancy. Epidemiol Rev. 2015;37(1):144-51.
9. NHS. Why vaccination is safe and important. NHS; 2021.
10. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351(9103):637-41. Retracted.
11. Leask J, Kinnersley P, Jackson C, et al. Communicating with parents about vaccination: A framework for health professionals. BMC Pediatr. 2012;12:154.
12. Office for National Statistics. Vaccine uptake statistics in the UK. ONS; 2021.
13. World Health Organisation (WHO). Vaccine hesitancy: Ten threats to global health. WHO; 2019.
14. Plotkin SA, Orenstein WA, Offit PA, Edwards KM. Vaccines. 7th ed. Elsevier; 2018.
15. Gust DA, Darling N, Kennedy A, Schwartz B. Parents with doubts about vaccines: Which vaccines and reasons why. Pediatrics. 2008;122(4):718-25.