麻豆传媒

Portland pediatrician Paul Thomas, MD, whose license was suspended in December 2020, agreed to return to work under a strict set of restrictions as the Oregon Medical Board continues its investigation into his practice.

According to the "" issued in June, Thomas's practice is limited to patients who require acute care and he is not permitted to engage in any discussions with patients or families about vaccine protocols nor conduct research involving patient care. That Thomas agreed to these stipulations "is not an admission of any wrongdoing," the document states.

Thomas was accused of failing to properly vaccinate his patients and spreading misinformation about the benefits of his recommended immunization schedule. The board's original against the self-proclaimed "vaccine-friendly" doctor cited at least eight different cases of alleged patient harm and gross negligence -- all stemming from their lack of immunizations.

In a case from 2019, an unvaccinated 6-year-old patient of Thomas's developed acute tetanus after sustaining a deep wound on his scalp. He spent almost two months in the ICU at Oregon Health & Science University's Doernbecher Children's Hospital. During his stay, the patient required intubation, a tracheotomy, and a feeding tube, according to the suspension order.

by The Oregonian found that, at the time, this was Oregon's first reported case of tetanus in approximately 30 years. Thomas's notes from a follow-up appointment with this patient included "a referral to a homeopath, recommendation of fish oil supplements, and [phosphatidylserine]." There was no documentation in these notes, allegedly, of Thomas providing "an informed consent discussion about the risk/benefit of immunization for a child who had just sustained" a life-threatening disease, the board wrote.

In a complaint and notice document from April 2021 obtained by 麻豆传媒, Thomas is accused of pushing patients into "The Dr. Paul Approved Vaccine Plan," which veers significantly away from the CDC's recommendations. According to the complaint, Thomas asserted that this irregular vaccine schedule would "prevent or decrease the incidences of autism and other developmental disorders."

Another case in the complaint described by the board alleges that Thomas asked a mother of a newborn patient who wanted her child to get the polio and rotavirus vaccines if she wanted the vaccines because she was planning a trip to Africa. During the same visit, he "repeatedly verbally connected vaccines with autism" and asked the patient's mother how bad she would feel if her child got autism when she "could have prevented it."

The complaint also cites a case in which a set of twins were both infected with the vaccine-preventable rotavirus gastroenteritis at 10 months old, even though their mother said that she believed her children had received the rotavirus vaccine. Thomas's clinic chart, however, "contains documentation of parental refusal of vaccines." The complaint goes on to describe numerous other cases in which parents who asked Thomas for standard CDC-recommended vaccines were told that his clinic didn't keep them in stock.

It remains unclear how the limitations put forth in the "interim stipulated order" will be enforced; at the time of press, Thomas has not responded to request for comment and the board declined to comment about the case. But while Thomas may be barred from talking to patients about his vaccine schedule, which delays some shots and excludes others altogether, he continues to promote it on his YouTube channel, which currently has 1.45 million subscribers. Additionally, his 2016 book about his "vaccine-friendly plan" is listed as a "#1 Best Seller" in pediatric emergencies on Amazon, with thousands of 5-star ratings.

As of his July 6 video, Thomas said that he still hasn't returned to his practice despite getting his license back, due to loss of malpractice insurance and other insurance contracts. He mentions a future 8-day hearing set to happen in January 2022 that will determine the fate of his medical license. (This could not be independently verified by 麻豆传媒).

Comment