Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who heads the Health and Human Services, mentioned during a council hearing in June that children receive “69-92 jabs” by the time they are 18. Currently, two doctors are trying to shift the burden of proof on vaccine efficacy from patients to government agencies.
“I can’t say with certainty that vaccines aren’t linked to the chronic disease epidemic, as they haven’t been comprehensively tested,” Tony Lyons, president of Maha Action, stated.
Two doctors, backed by advocacy groups, have filed a lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, contesting the recommended childhood vaccination schedule.
Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. Kenneth Stoller have both faced suspension of their medical licenses for speaking out against the vaccination regime and are seeking to turn the burden of proof in this matter.
In a complaint submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 15, they argued that the U.S. administers more vaccines than any other nation while having some of the sickest children among developed countries.
The complaint further states, “Before recommending extensive medical interventions for millions of children, they should provide evidence that these interventions are less harmful than the conditions they aim to prevent.”
In their lawsuit, the doctors assert that the CDC has violated several laws, including:
- The Control Procedure Act, which they claim imposes “binding national obligations” without the proper rule-making processes, failing to consider the cumulative safety of vaccines.
- The Due Process clause in the Fifth Amendment, arguing that it coerces unscientific medical interventions and punishes those seeking proof of safety.
- The Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, stating that the CDC treats all children as medically identical, ignoring individual vulnerabilities.
- The First Amendment by allegedly suppressing dissenting medical and scientific opinions through retaliatory actions.
The doctors are asking the court to affirm these allegations and issue an injunction against the CDC, insisting that the current recommendations for childhood vaccines be classified as Category A.
The Vaccination Practice Advisory Committee, which creates vaccine recommendations for all Americans, depends on approval from the CDC directors to finalize policies.
This committee, appointed by Kennedy, consists entirely of Biden administration appointees and organizes vaccine guidelines into Two categories: A and B.
Category A recommendations apply broadly to all individuals within specific age groups or risk factors, while Category B recommendations are tailored to individual clinical decisions.
Thomas and Stoller argue that all vaccines should be moved to Category B until the CDC can conclusively prove, through rigorous scientific studies, that the cumulative vaccine schedule is safe.
Although ACIP recommendations are generally advisory, many jurisdictions enforce them as mandatory standards.
“High vaccination rates don’t necessitate enforcement,” the lawsuit claims. “Medical boards can revoke licenses for noncompliance, schools can exclude children, and insurance coverage often hinges on adherence.”
Lyons commented, “It’s misleading to suggest that children can’t attend school without following the vaccination schedules. Everyone understands the reality.”
Reclassifying vaccines as Category B could help mitigate these high-pressure situations.
Richard Jaffe, the plaintiffs’ attorney, noted that this case is distinct from past challenges to the CDC’s vaccination schedule, focusing on administrative and constitutional oversights rather than merely state mandates or exemptions.
“We’re not seeking a vaccine ban,” Jaffe clarified. “High vaccination rates don’t need coercion. Parents will comply when given honest information and medical freedom.”
The CDC, when approached for comment, stated it would not discuss the ongoing lawsuit.
Dorit Reiss, a vaccine policy expert at the University of California, remarked that the suit seems to lack a valid legal claim since the doctors did not experience direct harm from the vaccination schedule—though they lost their licenses for other reasons—and that the factual basis for their claims isn’t accurate.
“It appears to be more about ideology than science,” Reiss added, referring to the prior complaints about health policies regarding Covid-19 vaccines for pregnant women and children.
