New Lawsuit Challenges CDC's Untested Childhood Vaccine Schedule
In a recent episode of BrokenTruth.TV, host John Davidson and co-host Jennifer Kennedy, Esq., an attorney from California, sat down with Rick Jaffe, Esq., a Connecticut-based lawyer known for his work in health freedom cases. The discussion centered on Jaffe's newly filed lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which alleges that the agency's childhood vaccine schedule—recommending dozens of shots over 18 years—has never been properly tested for cumulative safety. This legal action, filed on August 15 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, could have far-reaching implications for vaccine mandates, parental rights, and public health policy.
The Core Argument: An Untested Schedule
Jaffe explained that while individual vaccines undergo limited safety testing—often for just a few days—the entire schedule, which includes up to 72 doses containing numerous antigens, has never been evaluated as a whole. "The entire schedule has never been tested together to see whether it's safe and whether it does more good than harm," Jaffe stated during the interview. He highlighted reports from the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) in 2002 and 2012, which recommended comprehensive studies on the schedule's cumulative effects but were ignored by the CDC.
This lack of testing, Jaffe argued, renders the CDC's recommendations "arbitrary and capricious" under administrative law. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief to acknowledge this failure and injunctive relief to downgrade all childhood vaccines from Category A (full recommendation) to Category B (shared decision-making, akin to informed consent). Until proper observational studies are conducted, Jaffe contends, parents and doctors should collaboratively decide on vaccinations, similar to practices in countries like England and Japan where mandates are absent.
Kennedy, drawing from her experience in California—where strict vaccine requirements for school entry exist—emphasized the downstream effects. States largely adopt the CDC's schedule for their mandates, she noted, turning untested recommendations into enforceable laws. "How can they require these of children if they're not even safety tested, not sufficiently individually, and certainly not that entire recommended schedule?" she asked.
The Plaintiffs: Heroes of Health Freedom
The lawsuit, titled Thomas v. Monarez (Civ. Action No. 1:25-cv-02685), features two prominent pediatricians as plaintiffs: Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. Kenneth Stoller, alongside the organization Stand for Health Freedom.
Dr. Thomas, an Oregon-based physician, conducted a study comparing health outcomes among fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated children in his practice. His findings suggested that more vaccinations correlated with higher rates of illness, such as frequent office visits for non-wellness issues. Just five days after publishing, the Oregon Medical Board suspended his license, citing him as a public danger—a move Thomas and Jaffe attribute to retaliation. The journal later retracted the study without consulting the authors. Jaffe praised Thomas as a "hero" who "did the study that the IOM called to do" and paid the price.
Dr. Stoller, formerly practicing in California, faced similar persecution. He issued medical exemptions based on genetic markers like MTHFR variants, going beyond the CDC's narrow guidelines. This led to investigations, demands for patient records by San Francisco authorities under a "public nuisance" theory, and eventual license revocation. Jaffe, who represented Stoller in those battles, described him as one of the few doctors willing to predict risks using available tools, even if primitive.
Stand for Health Freedom, an advocacy group, rounds out the plaintiffs, aiming to amplify the call for transparency and parental choice. Jaffe noted that the case is community-funded, with donations accepted through a link on his website.
Broader Implications and Ties to Current Events
The interview delved into potential ripple effects. If successful, the lawsuit could undermine state mandates, as most rely on CDC recommendations. Jaffe referenced a prior case, Cardenas v. HHS, where similar arguments prompted the CDC to shift COVID-19 vaccines for children to shared decision-making and stop requiring them in certain programs—changes announced shortly after filing.
A key discussion point was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent actions as HHS Secretary. Kennedy has threatened the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that following their own recommendations—diverging from a potentially revised CDC schedule—could strip liability immunity under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Jaffe called this "genius," as it might expose manufacturers and doctors to lawsuits, deterring aggressive promotion.
Criticism extended to the CDC Foundation, a nonprofit raising private funds for the agency's mission, which has received over $208 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Davidson and Jaffe questioned its ties, suggesting conflicts of interest, including funding groups that targeted doctors skeptical of vaccines.
The panel also addressed systemic issues, like the broken Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the lack of placebo-controlled trials. Jaffe compared the untested schedule to polypharmacy risks or unstudied cancer drug combinations, noting that even EPA tests toxin mixtures—yet vaccines escape scrutiny.
Challenges Ahead and a Call for Change
Filed in the D.C. Circuit before a Biden-appointed judge, the case avoids a preliminary injunction, anticipating a motion to dismiss from the government. Jaffe challenged the CDC to defend not testing the schedule publicly: "Let them say that it's not important to test whether these 72 medical interventions are safe."With Kennedy at HHS, Jaffe sees a unique opportunity. He predicted revelations from ongoing investigations into COVID vaccines could shift public perception, demanding accountability. Kennedy echoed concerns about religious zeal in vaccine advocacy, citing Dr. Paul Offit's claim that infants could handle 10,000 antigens safely—yet one food at a time is advised to avoid risks.
The interview critiqued Jacobson's 1905 Supreme Court ruling, often misused to justify mandates. Kennedy argued it's overdue for scrutiny, as modern applications ignore whether products like mRNA shots prevent transmission or even qualify as vaccines.
A Turning Point for Vaccine Policy?
Jaffe's lawsuit represents a bold push for evidence-based policy, potentially ending blanket mandates in favor of informed consent. As Davidson concluded, "This is a fight that has legs and could leave a big bruise." With growing skepticism post-COVID, this case could empower parents and challenge entrenched interests, ensuring childhood vaccines are truly safe—not just assumed to be. For updates, follow developments in Thomas v. Monarez and support via health freedom organizations.
Share this post