On August 15, a lawsuit was filed against the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for recommending approximately 72 doses of vaccines to children without any studies ever having been done to examine the health effects of its vaccination schedule.
The crowdfunded lawsuit Thomas v. Monarez was filed on August 15 on behalf of Dr. Paul Thomas, Dr. Kenneth Stoller, and the organization Stand for Health Freedom against CDC Director Dr. Susan Monarez.
Both Dr. Thomas and Dr. Stoller have lost their medical licenses for taking an individualized approach and respecting parents’ right to informed consent, as opposed to pushing the CDC’s schedule on patients. In effect, they were penalized for committing heresy against the vaccine religion.
Dr. Thomas lost his medical license after publishing a study showing that his completely unvaccinated patients were the healthiest children in his pediatric practice, as I detailed in my book The War on Informed Consent.
Dr. Stoller had his license revoked for taking genetic risk factors into account when writing medical exemptions to vaccination.
According to attorney Richard Jaffe, who filed the suit against the CDC on behalf of the plaintiffs,
This case puts the CDC’s entire childhood program on trial. For decades, the agency has demanded proof of harm while refusing to do the studies that could provide it, and physicians who attempt to fill that research gap or challenge the schedule or ACIP’s narrow contraindications and precautions framework are ridiculed and delicensed. Meanwhile, American children have become the sickest in the developed world under the most aggressive vaccine schedule on earth.
While the CDC officially makes “recommendations” for vaccines, its policies serve as the basis for state mandates requiring compliance with the CDC’s schedule for children to attend public school.
“America’s children are being used in the largest untested medical experiment in history,” said Stand for Health Freedom in a statement about the lawsuit. “The CDC has mandated more than 72 vaccine doses for every child, yet it has never once studied the safety of this schedule.”
The group said that its lawsuit is “about whether parents have the right to informed consent, whether doctors can practice real medicine without fear, and whether America will continue forcing children into a one-size-fits-all model that ignores evidence of harm.”
Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for the organization Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which is not involved in the lawsuit, similarly said, “The schedule is essentially an experiment on our children, and one that becomes increasingly concerning as more shots are added and combination vaccines introduced.”
CHD recently sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for having violated federal law for decades by failing to comply with a Congressional requirement to ensure vaccine safety under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which granted broad legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers and established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. helped found and was board chairman at CHD until he stepped down to join the Trump administration. CHD is now led by Chief Executive Officer Mary Holland. The decision to sue Kennedy in his official capacity as head of HHS is a testament to the organization’s integrity and ongoing commitment to the mission of protecting children’s health.
Under the 1986 law, HHS was tasked with establishing a vaccine safety task force and submitting biennial reports to Congress. A lawsuit previously filed against HHS by Kennedy and attorney Aaron Siri revealed that no health secretary had ever reported to Congress on steps to make vaccines safer as required by law.
On July 28, Secretary Kennedy requested a two-week extension to file a response to CHD’s lawsuit, pushing the deadline from August 1 to August 15. The same day the extension was requested, Kennedy posted a statement on X about his intention to reform the VICP, which he said “no longer functions to achieve its Congressional intent.”
“The VICP is broken,” Kennedy stated, “and I intend to fix it.”
Kennedy’s premise that this system once served public health and just isn’t working as intended to “quickly and fairly” compensate vaccine injuries, however, reveals the constraints he is working under in the Trump administration.
The problem isn’t that the VICP isn’t working as intended but that it is.
It was precisely to shift the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical industry and onto the taxpaying consumers that the VICP was established under the 1986 law, funded by an excise tax on each vaccine dose administered.
The problem, therefore, isn’t that the VICP is just too inefficient in compensating vaccine injuries but that it exists in the first place. To ensure safer vaccines, the legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers must be ended.
Kennedy’s own statement about how the system is “broken” ironically revealed how the VICP is functioning as intended. As he explained,
The structure itself hobbles claimants. The defendant is HHS, not the vaccine makers; and claimants are therefore facing the monumental power and bottomless pockets of the U.S. government represented by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, most of the Special Masters come from government, legal, or political posts, and typically display an extreme bias that favors the government side. There is no discovery, and the rules of evidence do not apply.
On August 14, in response to the lawsuit against him, Secretary Kennedy announced the reinstatement of the Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines, which reportedly will work with the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the body of ostensibly “independent” experts who vote on the agency’s official vaccine recommendations.
Reporting on the recently filed lawsuit against the CDC, CHD noted how the CDC has for decades ignored the urgings of the Institute of Medicine (IOM)—now the National Academy of Medicine—to study the cumulative effects of the pediatric vaccine schedule.
The plaintiffs in the case are demanding that the CDC acknowledge that the safety of the whole schedule has never been tested, to conduct studies comparing fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and to reclassify all vaccine recommendations under the framework of “shared clinical decision-making”.
Currently, most of the CDC’s vaccine recommendations fall under “Category A”, applying them universally as a one-size-fits-all solution. This framework is utterly unscientific and inherently antithetical to the right to informed consent since an individualized risk-benefit analysis is always required for every child and every vaccine.
The lawsuit insists that all vaccines should consequently fall under “Category B”, which is the CDC’s “shared clinical decision-making” framework, which recognizes the need for individualized decisions to be made by parents in consultation with their child’s pediatrician.
Currently, according to CHD, the only vaccines included under Category B are COVID‑19 vaccines and Meningitis B vaccines for adolescents.
On May 27, Secretary Kennedy announced that the CDC had removed its recommendation for “healthy” children to receive COVID‑19 vaccines, but what instead happened was that the CDC recategorized these products as a “shared clinical decision-making recommendation”, which the agency explained is for “when individuals may benefit from vaccination, but broad vaccination of people in that group is unlikely to have population-level impacts.”
As I remarked in a June 3 article correcting misinformation that the COVID‑19 vaccines had been removed from the CDC’s childhood schedule,
Of course, all vaccinations should be based on an informed decision process between the health care provider and the patient or parent, and the fact that the CDC rejects this for other vaccinations just illustrates how perverse the system is.
As I further explained in a July 10 article,
With its COVID‑19 vaccine update, the CDC offered no guidance to exclude healthy children from its recommendation. In effect, this translates into a policy of recommending that parents talk to their child’s pediatrician about getting the vaccine, and we can anticipate that most pediatricians will just repeat the belief they’ve been indoctrinated into that it is safe and effective, and everyone should get it.
Indeed, the AAP has maintained as “standard of care” its recommendation for “routine vaccination against COVID‑19”—business as usual.
For children aged six months through eleven years, COVID‑19 vaccines were still being administered under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), a regulatory status for products still considered experimental or investigational, while the shots were FDA approved for everyone aged twelve years and older.
In late May, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Moderna’s mRNA COVID‑19 vaccine mNEXSPIKE for use in all adults aged 65 and older and individuals aged twelve years and up who have underlying medical conditions that the CDC considers risk factors for severe COVID‑19.
As I noted in a July 7 article,
As HHS Secretary, Kennedy has authority under 42 U.S. Code § 247d to terminate the “emergency” declaration under which the shots were granted EUA status. Were he to do that, it would trigger the process of revoking the EUA status for COVID‑19 vaccines. This would at least protect this vulnerable population from continued mass experimentation with no logical possibility for properly informed consent.
So why hasn’t he?
Nobody in their right mind would argue that COVID‑19 poses an “emergency” threat to children warranting this insanity.
Instead, what happened next was that the FDA—which like the CDC is a subagency of HHS—granted full approval of its Moderna’s mRNA COVID‑19 vaccine “Spikevax” for children aged six months through eleven years considered at higher risk for COVID‑19.
As I further explained in a July 13 article, COVID‑19 vaccine manufacturers currently have legal immunity not under the 1986 law and VICP but instead under the separate Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) established by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005.
The same legal immunity that applies to COVID‑19 vaccine manufacturers under EUA status also applies under full licensure, or FDA approval.
In sum, instead of these products being removed from the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule, as Kennedy proclaimed in May, they continue to be recommended under the “shared clinical decision making” framework, while the AAP, an industry-funded trade organization granted the special privilege through the regime of medical licensing of establishing “standard of care” in pediatric practices throughout the US, continues recommending universal COVID‑19 vaccination of children as young as six months.
This is all part of what FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary has called the “modernization” of the agency’s approach to vaccine licensure. As I explained in a July 17 article,
“Despite the genius of American scientific discovery,” Makary writes, “a new medication will take over 10 years on average, and more than $1 billion, to come to market—while American children remain the sickest in the developed world.”
The FDA Commissioner thus attributes the alarmingly poor health of the US childhood population to a lack of pharmaceutical drugging, which is precisely the opposite of the aim of health freedom advocates who voted for Donald Trump with the hope of getting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. into the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Makary makes clear that the overarching goal is not public health but industry profit. “If the FDA does not cut the red tape that burdens any bureaucracy over time,” he remarks, “the US will lose valuable market access and investment.”
In other words, drug makers in other countries will gain an advantage if the US government does not vigorously support its domestic pharmaceutical and biotech industries, including “cell and gene therapies”.
The legal immunity granted to vaccine manufacturers, of course, serves that financial agenda.
The mainstream media, for their part, brazenly lie to the public about the safety and effectiveness of the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule. An especially salient example is the false claim by the Washington Post’s resident vaccine propagandist Lena Sun that “No new immunization is added to the schedule until it has been evaluated both alone and when given with the other current immunizations.”
In truth, as observed by the IOM in a 2013 review titled “The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety”, no studies have been done to compare long-term health outcomes between fully vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children.
As the IOM noted, “existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule”, and “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”
After I confronted Lena Sun and the Post editors about their false claim, they refused to publish a correction—thus proving their intent to deceive parents into complying unquestioningly with the CDC’s schedule.
Another example I’ve written about is a New York Times article by pediatric infectious disease physician Jennifer Lighter demonizing parents who do not strictly comply with the CDC’s schedule and the false grounds that the schedule is “evidence-based”, and to “delay or deviate from the routine schedule” is “unscientific”.
“No other schedule for any vaccine provides better safety or efficacy,” Lighter claimed—as though studies have been done comparing the CDC’s existing schedule with alternative approaches, such as that recommended by Dr. Paul Thomas in his book The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, which was aimed at reducing the amount of neurotoxic aluminum children are exposed to from vaccines, and which put him in the crosshairs of the Oregon Medical Board.
More recently, since losing his medical license for revealing the superior health of completely unvaccinated children, Dr. Thomas has published the book Vax Facts: What to Consider Before Vaccinating at All Ages & Stages of Life, which goes further than his earlier book in confronting the medical establishment’s preposterous contention that every child should receive every vaccine.
Ironically, as I detailed in The War on Informed Consent, the Oregon Medical Board had demanded Thomas produce evidence supporting his alternative approach of respecting parents’ right to make their own informed choices about childhood vaccinations despite the CDC being incapable of meeting the same standard for its routine childhood schedule.
As accurately explained by Sayer Ji, who cofounded Stand for Health Freedom, a plaintiff along with Dr. Thomas and Dr. Stoller in the lawsuit against the CDC, children today receive approximately 72 doses of vaccines by age 18 under “the most aggressive vaccination program in the world”:
However, neither the CDC nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ever conducted studies on the safety of giving all these vaccines in combination according to the schedule. Each vaccine is tested in isolation in short-term trials for licensure, but the cumulative impact of administering all CDC-recommended vaccines to a child has never been studied.
The lawsuit demands that the CDC finally produce scientific evidence supporting the safety of its schedule and the need for individualized risk-benefit analyses. As Sayer Ji explains,
The CDC’s childhood schedule is officially “recommendations,” but in practice, ACIP’s Category A recommendations are treated as binding norms by states and medical boards. By failing to conduct required safety studies and by not considering “an important aspect of the problem” (namely, the cumulative risks of dozens of vaccines), the CDC’s actions are “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA. The suit points out that CDC’s vaccine program has ignored a critical safety factor—the combined effect—which even the CDC’s own scientific advisors have warned about.
. . . The plaintiffs assert that the CDC’s one-size-fits-all framework tramples fundamental rights. By promulgating an untested standard that states then use to mandate vaccination for school or daycare, the CDC is effectively depriving parents of their right to direct the medical care of their children, and infringing on children’s rights to bodily integrity and to life and liberty, without due process.
. . . Furthermore, the complaint raises First Amendment issues: it argues that the rigid CDC schedule, combined with state enforcement, suppresses free speech and inquiry in medicine. Doctors who even question the CDC’s recommendations have faced censorship and professional retaliation. Parents, likewise, are often denied truthful information — the lawsuit notes that many families can’t even find a doctor willing to discuss medical exemptions or acknowledge a prior vaccine injury, because the CDC’s framework is so narrow and any deviation is punished. This creates a climate where parents are denied their right to informed consent, which inherently includes the right to receive information and weigh risks vs. benefits. In short, the suit says the CDC’s policies have effectively shut down debate and stripped away the normal ethical practice of individualized medical judgment.
An example of how parental and childhood rights are being trampled here in Michigan is the denial of school enrollment to children who are not vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule despite parents lawfully fulfilling the requirement to provide a written exemption statement to school administrators.
For more information about how medical licensing is weaponized against ethical physicians for advocating individualized medicine and the right to informed consent, which equates to heresy against the vaccine religion, read my case study about the persecution of Dr. Paul Thomas by the Oregon Medical Board, The War on Informed Consent, featuring a Foreword by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Emeğinize sağlık, bilgilendirmeler için teşekkür ederim.
Rica ederim.