A group founded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is suing the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), alleging that the organization has violated federal law by saying that vaccines on the federal child vaccine schedule are safe.
Children’s Health Defense, which was founded by Kennedy, alleged in a complaint filed on Jan. 21 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the AAP has violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act by repeatedly describing the schedule as fully tested and proven safe, even though there is a dearth of studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
The AAP did not return a request for comment. It is involved with multiple lawsuits against Kennedy, and has created a vaccine schedule that is different from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) schedule, which has been narrowed multiple times since Kennedy took office.
The RICO Act makes it a crime to participate in an ongoing criminal enterprise or organization.
The complaint alleges that RICO comes into play because AAP, vaccine manufacturers, and others are operating as part of an enterprise that aims to maintain and expand vaccine uptake “by assuring pediatricians, hospitals, parents, and policymakers that the schedule is categorically safe, while concealing material facts about the lack of testing, inadequacies in the vaccine safety monitoring programs, and financial incentives tied to vaccine schedule compliance.”
AAP lists vaccine companies as partners, and some of its members receive payments from one or more vaccine manufacturers.
“This is an organization that is far more allied with Big Pharma and with vaccine manufacturers than it is with parents and children,” Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense, told The Epoch Times.
Lack of Comparison Data
The Institute of Medicine said in 2002 that there were no studies comparing children who received vaccines as recommended to children who did not, and said the CDC should explore the feasibility of studying the matter using data from its Vaccine Safety Datalink system.
“The data existed in this giant digital filing cabinet,” Children’s Health Defense’s new complaint states. “The [Institute of Medicine] was just asking the CDC to analyze the data.”
In 2013, the institute said that studies using data from the system had not been done.
“Twenty-four years later, the filing cabinet remains unexamined,” the new complaint reads.
AAP members have said that children can handle multiple vaccines at once. The AAP stated on one of its websites that “combining some vaccines in a single shot—or giving several shots at the same visit—has been carefully studied and tested over many years to ensure it works well for children” and that “each childhood vaccine has been carefully tested on its own and in combination with others.”
That statement omits the fact that no studies have compared children who receive all vaccines on the schedule to those who receive none, the complaint reads.
The CDC’s latest vaccine schedule routinely recommends eight vaccines, including four doses when an infant is 2 months of age. Officials said those vaccines are recommended across peer nations. Children’s Health Defense has expressed support for the updated schedule.
The AAP has also stated that clinical trial oversight boards would not authorize trials comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children, since vaccines are safe and effective.
Some outside researchers have examined the health outcomes of unvaccinated children versus those of vaccinated children. A number have found better outcomes among unvaccinated children.
“The pattern is consistent: when researchers conduct the studies AAP insists are impossible, the results contradict AAP’s safety assurances,” Children’s Health Defense stated.
RICO Allegations
AAP and its members profit from vaccination, the suit states. The AAP has denied that pediatricians profit from administering vaccines, although studies have found that pediatricians do.
Vaccine makers make money from vaccines and, in many cases, also own products that treat side effects, Children’s Health Defense said.
“AAP ensures this revenue stream continues,” the complaint states. “It blocks studies that might reveal connections between schedule expansion and chronic disease. It promotes ever-expanding schedules. The $115 [million to] $125 million AAP generates annually is a fraction of the tens of billions at stake.”
The suit describes the AAP as controlling pediatric medicine, in part because pediatricians who do not adhere to its guidelines can face punishment from medical boards, hospitals, and insurers.
Dr. Paul Thomas, another plaintiff in the new case, had offered an alternative vaccine schedule to patients. He surrendered his license in 2022 after the Oregon Medical Board determined that his alternative vaccination schedule posed a danger to the public.
The AAP shortly after revoked Thomas’s membership, and his ability to practice pediatrics was permanently ended, according to the suit. A journal also retracted a study he coauthored.
“As a proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. Thomas suffered loss of licensure, destruction of his medical practice, loss of income, loss of business expectancy, and enduring reputational injury,” the complaint reads.
Dr. Kenneth Stoller, a Montana resident, also joined the suit several years after his license was revoked for granting medical vaccine exemptions that deviated from AAP guidelines. Several other plaintiffs had children die after receiving vaccinations recommended by the AAP.
What the Plaintiffs Seek
Plaintiffs want a declaration that no studies have established the safety of the entire childhood vaccine schedule. They want a judge to rule that the AAP has made false and misleading representations and omissions, and that the AAP’s claims about the vaccine schedule fall under RICO.
The suit also requests that the court require the AAP to publish updated statements in its Red Book and HealthyChildren.org websites “disclosing the lack of comprehensive safety testing and insurer incentive programs, and prohibiting further unqualified safety claims without such disclosures.”
Holland told The Epoch Times, “For us at Children’s Health Defense, what’s really important here is that there’s declaratory judgment—that a court finds that they have no basis to say that the schedule has been robustly tested and is absolutely certainly safe, and that they would put that information out on their website.”
The plaintiffs are also asking for unspecified damages due to economic injuries suffered by the plaintiffs, as well as fees for attorneys, experts, and costs.