The American Academy of Pediatrics Is Being Sued for Racketeering
The AAP conspired with the pharmaceutical companies to fraudulently market and indeed mandate dangerous and ineffective vaccines.
On January 22, 2026, Jon Rappaport wrote an article wherein he revealed a lawsuit filed by Richard Jaffe against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) alleging that the AAP has engaged in racketeering. The lawsuit alleges that the AAP conspired with the pharmaceutical companies to fraudulently market and indeed mandate dangerous and ineffective vaccines.
The conspirators colluded to fraudulently push dangerous vaccines that kill and injure people. The parents of twins are among the named plaintiffs in the case. Rapport explains:
The lead plaintiff in the case is Andrea Shaw. Her twins received their 18-month vaccines on April 23, 2025. She warned the pediatrician about family history of reactions. Dismissed—AAP’s framework doesn’t recognize family history as a basis for delay.
Next day: both twins in the ER. Blue lips, lethargy, sunken eyes. The ER physician’s documented diagnosis: ‘post-immunization reaction, initial encounter.’ Eight days later, both dead.
Rather than investigate the documented reaction, authorities opened a homicide investigation against Andrea—still pending. Their theories: ‘postpartum blackout’ or ‘the house was too hot.’
When the system is told vaccines can’t cause serious injury, grieving parents become suspects.
Anecdotal proof of vaccine danger is abounding. Often, anecdotal cases can be dismissed as “idiopathic.” But when cases of sudden infant deaths happen to identical twins immediately following vaccination, the inference of causation is compelling. Indeed, one doctor explains that “cases of identical twins developing a condition immediately following an intervention are often considered a gold standard in proving causality.” That doctor tracked down 10 cases of twin SIDS, each happening shortly after receiving vaccines, including, but not limited to, DTP, hepatitis B, and oral polio. The vaccines killed the twins. Any other cause is almost impossible. Such evidence is being concealed because it would end the profitable practice of infant vaccinations.
Safety Study Fraud
The AAP falsely claims that vaccines are fully tested and safe. That is a provably false statement. Indeed, no vaccine has ever been subjected to a double blind placebo control group test. The gold standard for a scientific study is a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In an RCT, the study participants are selected from the targeted population and randomly assigned to either a trial or control group. In a vaccine study, the trial group receives the vaccine being tested for efficacy and safety. The control group is supposed to receive a placebo injection, which should be an inert liquid like saline. The study participants and administrators should be kept blind as to which persons are in each group.
The control group is supposed to give the background base for determining adverse events. The adverse events in the trial group are compared to the adverse events in the control group to determine if the vaccine is safe. But pharmaceutical companies have a problem. They know their vaccines are unsafe and could never pass muster as safe and effective in a properly conducted RCT. They could fudge the data, but the problem with doing that is it’s a crime, and they don’t want to go to jail.
The pharmaceutical companies have figured out a way to rig their vaccine studies to conceal the health dangers of their vaccines and, at the same time, avoid jail. Pharmaceutical companies use a trick to make their dangerous vaccines appear safe. They use a bioactive ingredient, which they falsely call a “placebo,” to administer to the control group. The bioactive injections cause adverse events in the control group. This raises the background adverse events so that when the vaccine group is compared to the control group receiving the “placebo,” the vaccine group’s adverse events do not look so bad by comparison.
That is what Merck did when it tested Gardasil. Gardasil® is a quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine (qHPV) made by Merck. The 2006 Gardasil package insert describes two placebos used in its testing. One placebo was an inert saline injection given to 320 members of the control group, and another was an injection containing amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS) given to another 3,470 members of the control group. The total number of persons in the control group was 3,790 (3,470+320=3,790). When the total control group of 3,790 participants was listed, they were described as receiving a “placebo.” But AAHS cannot be truly described as a placebo. It is a bioactive ingredient that is formulated to cause the body to have an immune response.
A placebo is an innocuous, inactive substance that does not have a physiological effect on the body. Some prefer to call such inert substances dummies. Indeed, Merck acknowledges that a placebo is supposed to be inert and inactive. “On its website, qHPV vaccine’s sponsor [Merck] defines a placebo as ‘an inactive pill, liquid, or powder that has no treatment value’. This definition is consistent with the decades-old notion of placebos as pharmacologically inert substances used to obtain unbiased assessments in experimental research.”
But when Merck sought FDA approval for Gardasil in 2006, it administered AAHS to the control group, while misleadingly calling it a placebo. Furthermore, Merck concealed the independent reporting of the systemic effect of the actual placebo (saline solution) on the control group. This was purposeful because Merck specifically broke out the different localized reactions to the injections site for the “”Aluminum-Containing Placebo” and the saline “placebo.” That is because it was expected that there would likely be some reaction to the injection site for anything injected into the body. But systemic reactions, like fever and nausea, are a whole other matter. Merck lumped the AAHS control group and the saline placebo control group together when reporting systemic reactions. This had the effect of elevating the systemic adverse events caused by the “placebo” injections. Merck reported the combined 3,790 members of the AAHS and saline control group as a single “placebo” group. It made it appear that the systemic adverse event rate of approximately 38.6% for the Gardasil test group was not so bad because the combined 3,790 members of the control group had 35.1% systemic adverse events. Merck purposely obscured that 92% of the control group received AAHS.
Even though 92% of the control group received a bioactive AAHS injection, Merck described the control group throughout the 15-page package insert as receiving a “placebo.” The first mention of an “Aluminum-Containing Placebo” appeared on page 6. But it was only in a chart heading. AAHS is not mentioned again until pages 10 and 12, where it is again listed as an “Aluminum-Containing Placebo,” and only in a chart heading. But there was no explanation.
Interestingly, the insert explains: “Each 0.5-mL dose of the [Gardasil] vaccine contains approximately 225 mcg of aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant) [AAHS]” among other ingredients. Thus, the test subjects and 92% of the control group were injected with AAHS. When you realize that the purpose of AAHS is to stimulate the immune response and that immune response is the catalyst for adverse events, you get an idea of the trick Merck was pulling. They wanted the control group’s immune system ramped up to have as many adverse events as possible to make the expected adverse events from Gardasil not look so bad by comparison to the “placebo” injected control group.
Once Merck received its 2006 FDA approval for Gardasil it slithered back and rewrote its package insert to explicitly describe the use of AAHS as the “placebo” in the control group. In September 2008, Merck published a new Gardasil package insert that made 68 references to AAHS use in the control group. Suddenly, the group of 3,790 people in the control group that was labeled in 2006 as receiving a “Placebo” was now listed as receiving “AAHS control or Saline Placebo.” Merck then explains in the package insert that “AAHS Control = Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate.” Once they obtained FDA approval and the coast was clear, Merck decided to go back and tidy up its package insert to reflect what was really happening in the trials.
Peter Doshi, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Practice, Sciences, and Health Outcomes Research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. He wrote an article with other scientists exposing the fraud of vaccine researchers using bioactive placebos. In particular, he cited the example of the Merck Gardasil study using AAHS with Merck misleadingly calling it a “placebo.” Dr. Doshi correctly identifies that practice as an ethical issue. Dr. Doshi describes the problem:
[T]he efficacy and safety analyses of these five qHPV [Guaradasil] vaccine trials were conducted as if the trials were controlled with inert placebo when they were not. None of the key publications for these trials, which have been used to inform regulatory and health decision making, appear to discuss how AAHS-containing control could affect the interpretation of results.
Doshi was troubled that Merck lied to the trial participants by telling them they would receive an inactive placebo. When in fact they were receiving a bioactive AAHS injection.
We also consider that the use of the term ‘placebo’ to describe an active comparator like AAHS inaccurately describes the formulation that the control arm participants received, and constitutes an important error that requires correction. If trial participants were told they could receive ‘placebo’ (widely defined as referring to an ‘inactive’ or ‘inert’ substance) without being informed of all non-inert contents of the control arm injection, this raises ethical questions about trial conduct as well.
Using a bioactive ingredient that is actually one of the adjuvants used in the Gardasil injection renders the study results almost useless. Dr. Doshi explains:
With respect to adjuvants in vaccines, the FDA has noted that ‘adjuvants have their own pharmacologic activity, which may affect both the immunogenicity and the safety of vaccines. Adverse reactions may include local reactions such as pain, swelling, injection site necrosis, and granulomas. Systemic reactions may include nausea, fever, arthritis, as well as potential immunotoxic reactions. Unexpected, rare events may also occur.’
Dr. Doshi opined that the reasons given by Merck for using AAHS in the control arm were not credible. Merck claimed that it wanted to test only the HPV virus-like particles and therefore used the AAHS in the control group. But that appears to be a deceptive cover story that makes no sense. If that was Merck’s objective, it could not accomplish it by only using AAHS. Merck should have included all other excipients that were in the Gardasil vaccine to inject in the control group. Dr. Doshi explains:
According to qHPV vaccine’s prescribing information, each dose of vaccine contains ‘9.56 mg of sodium chloride, 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80, 35 mcg of sodium borate, <7 mcg yeast protein/dose and water’, in addition to AAHS and HPV virus-like particles. To test HPV virus-like particles, as the manufacturer stated was its intention in using an AAHS control, the control would logically have also included these other ingredients in addition to AAHS.
Finally, Dr. Doshi explains that the study would be irrelevant even if Merck included all other ingredients in the control group injection. To conduct such a study would be scientifically irrational. A vaccine trial aims to assess the safety and efficacy of the vaccine as manufactured and not just one component of the vaccine. That is because there is a synergism between the ingredients in the vaccine, and people are injected with all those ingredients, not just the antigen in the HPV virus-like particles.
[T]he stated rationale of using AAHS control, to characterise the safety of the HPV virus-like particles, lacks clinical relevance. The clinically relevant question is what are the effects (benefits and harms) of qHPV vaccine—the whole product, not one of its components.
Clearly, the real reason that Merck used AAHS and misleadingly labeled it as a “placebo” in its control group was to ramp up the adverse events in the control group to then show that the Gardasil vaccine was safe compared to the control group receiving a “placebo.” Those reading the study will not realize that the “placebo” was not a placebo at all but an injection of a bioactive substance made up of amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS).
Merck is not alone. All pharmaceutical companies making childhood vaccines use the same deceptive trick. An author of a book titled Turtles All the Way Down needed to remain anonymous to protect himself from backlash in the medical community. The anonymous author explains how the pharmaceutical companies rig the trials while staying out of jail:
Vaccine trials in general, and childhood vaccine trials specifically, are purposely designed to obscure the true incidence of adverse events of the vaccine being tested. How do they do this? By using a two-step scheme: First, a new vaccine (one which does not have a predecessor), is always tested in a Phase 3 RCT in which the control group receives another vaccine (or a compound very similar to the experimental vaccine, see explanation below). A new pediatric vaccine is never tested during its formal approval process against a neutral solution (placebo). Comparing a trial group to a control group that was given a compound that is likely to cause a similar rate of adverse events facilitates the formation of a false safety profile.
The pharmaceutical companies use the word “placebo” to describe the injection given to the control groups in their studies of childhood vaccines. But the “placebos” always contain bioactive ingredients that cause adverse events. Those adverse events in the control group are then used as the supposed background rate of adverse events to compare the tested vaccine’s safety. The tested vaccine may be quite dangerous, but because it is often being compared to an equally dangerous bioactive “placebo” the pharmaceutical companies can announce that the vaccine is safe because it does not significantly increase the rate of adverse events as compared to the control group receiving a “placebo.” Shocking as it may sound, it is a historical, scientific fact that no vaccine on the CDC childhood vaccine schedule was ever tested in a randomized controlled trial using an inert placebo for the control group.
The CDC has described the hepatitis A vaccine as “very safe.” The CDC recommends that children get a two-shot administration beginning as early as 12 months old. Merck, in 1996, tested its hepatitis A vaccine (VAQTA®) against a control group that was given a “placebo” containing an aluminum diluent. Aluminum is a bioactive ingredient that not only stimulates the immune system but it is also neurotoxic. There are significant side effects to being injected with such a heavy metal. Merck described the placebo as (alum diluent). That means that the aluminum was a diluent. A diluent is a substance used to dilute other ingredients. That suggests the “placebo” carried other unspecified ingredients diluted in the aluminum carrier.
It is not surprising then to find that the 1996 Merck VAQTA® hepatitis A study showed systemic side effects for the control group receiving the ‘placebo” that in most instances were equal to or greater than those in the test group getting the VAQTA® vaccine. With that trick, Merck was able to say in their VAQTA® package insert that “[t]here were no significant differences in the rates of any adverse events or adverse reactions between vaccine and placebo recipients after Dose 1.” VAQTA® (Hepatitis A Vaccine, Inactivated), Suspension for Intramuscular Injection, Package Insert, Merck & Co.
Another example of the “placebo” scam run by pharmaceutical companies is a 2002 safety trial study for a new DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) vaccine. The CDC has concluded that “DTaP and Tdap vaccine [sic] are safe and effective at preventing diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.” The CDC based its conclusion that the DTaP vaccine was safe on a rigged study.
In the DTaP study, the “control group” received the older DTP vaccine. In that study, 1 in every 22 subjects in the experimental group became so ill that they were admitted to the hospital. But a similar rate of hospitalization was also reported in the control group. The study thus reported that the “rates of vomiting, convulsions and hospitalizations … were not significantly different between the two groups.” The study showed that the new DTaP vaccine and the older DTP vaccine both have a high rate of adverse events, which caused many children to be hospitalized. But the point of the study was to measure the safety of the new vaccine against the older vaccine and not to measure the vaccine’s safety in absolute terms. With the rigged criteria of relative safety, the FDA and the vaccine maker were able to announce a finding that the new vaccine was just as safe as the older vaccine because the rate of hospitalization was the same for both. But no rational person would ever say that a vaccine is safe that causes 1 out of every 22 children to be hospitalized. The trial showed that both the old and new vaccines were unsafe. But because the vaccine maker did not use an actual placebo there was no comparison to an inert (saline solution) the danger of the new DtaP was obscured.
The scam artists at the Pharmaceutical companies argue that when they have a childhood vaccine that has been proven effective, it is unethical not to administer that established vaccine to the control group. That is their cover story, but it is a provable lie. The testing of Prevnar® proves the lie. Prevnar® is supposed to guard against pneumococcus bacterium. Before Prevnar® there was no established childhood vaccine against pneumococcus bacterium. And so, no ethical claim could be made not to use an inert saline solution for the control study group. Nonetheless, Pfizer chose not to test Prevnar® against a true control group using a saline solution. Instead, Pfizer used a bioactive meningococol bacterium “placebo.”
It gets worse; the control “placebo” was an investigational vaccine. An investigational vaccine is an experimental vaccine that has only been tested in a laboratory and is approved by the FDA for use on persons for testing purposes only. An investigational vaccine has not been shown to be safe or effective. That means the “placebo” vaccine given to the control group was an unproven and possibly unsafe vaccine that could cause unknown adverse events. The testers introduced an unknown variable into their test.
Pfizer went a step further in contaminating the test. Pfizer gave both the control group and the test group the DTaP vaccine. The Pfizer Prevnar® insert states:
Efficacy was assessed in a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial in a multiethnic population at Northern California Kaiser Permanente (NCKP) from October 1995 through August 20, 1998, in which 37,816 infants were randomized to receive either Prevnar® or a control vaccine (an investigational meningococcal group C conjugate vaccine [MnCC]) at 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months of age. Prevnar® was administered to 18,906 children and the control vaccine to 18,910 children. Routinely recommended vaccines were also administered which changed during the trial to reflect changing AAP and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations.
Package Insert, Pneumococcal 7-valent Conjugate Vaccine (Diphtheria CRM197 Protein) Prevnar®, For Pediatric Use Only, For Intramuscular Injection Only.
Pfizer did all it could to obscure the dangerousness of Prevnar. It was as though they knew that Prevnar would be shown in the study to be dangerous to children. The test did not disappoint. Sure enough, the study resulted in about 1,000 infants being hospitalized; that amounted to one out of every 35 infants in the study being hospitalized. One out of every 16 children in the trial needed to be taken to the emergency room within 30 days of being vaccinated.
The study reported 5 cases of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) among the Prevnar test group and 8 cases of sudden infant death syndrome among the control group receiving the “placebo.” Prevnar was shown to kill children, yet because they rigged the study to ramp up the control group’s deaths by giving the control an experimental vaccine, they concluded that Prevnar was safe. Furthermore, the study authors stated: “The number of SIDS deaths in the efficacy study from October 1995 until April 20, 1999, was similar to or lower than the age and season-adjusted expected rate from the California State data from 1995-1997.” Package Insert, Prevnar. The study authors compared the SIDS data in the study to the SIDS data from a state that mandates childhood vaccinations and does not allow religious exemptions.
It is interesting that many of the childhood vaccine studies report SIDS data. But when people try to link SIDS to vaccines, they are considered conspiracy theorists or anti-vax wackos.
But Pfizer was not done. They must keep the poisons coming. Prevnar was purported to work against 7 strains of pneumococcus bacteria. In 2010, it updated its Prevnar vaccine to cover 13 pneumococcus bacterial strains. The new vaccine was branded Prevnar 13. How did they study the new vaccine for efficacy and safety? Well, they were not about to use an inert saline solution for the control group. So, they tested Prevnar 13 against the control group receiving the previously approved predecessor Prevnar vaccine. What was the result? The Prevnar 13 package insert reveals:
Serious adverse events reported following vaccination in infants and toddlers occurred in 8.2% among Prevnar 13 recipients and 7.2% among Prevnar recipients.
PREVNAR-13 Package Insert, supra.
You read that correctly. The FDA approved Prevnar 13 as safe even when 8.2% (one out of every 12 children) suffered a “serious adverse event” from the vaccine. But because Prevnar 13 was compared to an equally dangerous predecessor vaccine, it was deemed by the FDA to be safe. There was a lot of money at stake with Prevnar and its successor vaccine, Prevnar 13. Reuters reported in 2014 that Prevnar and Prevnar 13 combined annual sales of almost $4.5 billion made them Pfizer’s second-biggest franchise.
This same scam is being run for adult vaccines. For example, Jeremy Howick revealed that “in the COVID-19 vaccine developed by the University of Oxford, the control group receives a meningitis and septicaemia vaccine as a placebo.” The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine is made by AstraZeneca and sold under the brand names Covishield and Vaxzevria.
On April 29, 2020, Pfizer-BioNTech announced the phases 1-2 studies (NCT04368728) of its COVID-19 vaccine. The trial was described as “a Phase 1/2, randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind, dose-finding, and vaccine candidate-selection study in healthy adults.” One would naturally think that Pfizer-BioNTech would conduct the study using an inert saline solution. But you would be wrong.
The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FDA asking for the ingredients of the “placebo” used in the Pfizer-BioNTech studies. The FDA responded by denying the request. The FDA stated in pertinent part that information was a “trade secret” and thus “confidential commercial information.”
Dear reader, think about that. The placebo used in the control groups for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine trials is considered a confidential trade secret. We know from that alone that the placebo was not an inert substance like saline because saline is not and cannot be a trade secret. Thus, we know that the ingredients for the “placebo” were very likely bioactive. Pfizer-BioNTech likely used their usual procedure of administering a bioactive ingredient to the control group to set a very high level of adverse events against with which to measure the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to make the mRNA COVID-19 falsely appear safe. We now know that their scheme worked because the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine won emergency use authorization and immediately began injuring and killing people.
Paul Tholmas
Paul Thomas is one of the named plaintiffs in the AAP Rico lawsuit. Rappoport explains that “[p]laintiff Dr. Paul Thomas and James Lyons-Weiler published a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study.” The results were unfavorable for vaccines. “Eleven days later, Oregon suspended Thomas’s license. Study retracted. Thomas eventually surrendered his license.”
Dr. Thomas’ study, funded by The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) and published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, determined that unvaccinated children are significantly healthier than vaccinated children.
We can conclude that the unvaccinated children in this practice are not, overall, less healthy than the vaccinated and that indeed the vaccinated children appear to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated.
The study made a notable finding. “Remarkably, zero of the 561 unvaccinated patients in the study had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to 0.063% of the (partially and fully) vaccinated.” Id.
The study compared pediatric office visits involving specific medical diagnoses of 2,763 vaccinated children with the office visits of 561 unvaccinated children. Below are charts that graphically illustrate the difference in the number of office visits for various diagnosed ailments between vaccinated children (orange line) and unvaccinated (blue line) children. The stark difference illustrates the significantly better health of unvaccinated children.
The study reported: “The visual impact of the cumulative office visit plots is striking; more so than other plots, the time element (day of life) provides an index by which to compare the accumulation of human pain and suffering from potential vaccine side effects (Figure 5) [below]. These results are worth studying closely and noticing the variation among the cumulative office visits per condition and the stark differences between the rates of billed office visits in the most and unvaccinated patients born into the practice.”
“Figure 5. Analysis 5. Cumulative office visits in the vaccinated (orange) vs. unvaccinated (blue) patients born into the practice: the clarity of the age-specific differences in the health fates of individuals who are vaccinated (2763) compared to the 561 unvaccinated in patients born into the practice over ten years is most strikingly clear in this comparison of the cumulative numbers of diagnoses in the two patient groups. The number of office visits for the unvaccinated is adjusted by a sample size multiplier factor (4.9) to the expected value as if the number of unvaccinated in the study was the same as the number of vaccinated.”
The two researchers, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas are not anti-vaccination doctors. But as a direct result of this study, the state medical board has suspended his medical license of one of the researchers, Dr. Paul Thomas, within a week of the publication of the article. The suspension was in retaliation for having published the study showing the harmful effects of childhood vaccinations. The suspension was an unprecedented action because it was done summarily prior to any adversarial hearing. He is being punished as an object lesson for anyone who would have the temerity to publish the truth about vaccinations being harmful to the health of patients.
The following report was posted on the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) website:
Independent journalist Jeremy Hammond has authored a definitive and thorough report that reveals that the Oregon Medical Board is guilty of wrong-doing because they tried to coerce Dr. Thomas into changing his lawful pediatric practice into an unlawful medical practice under Oregon’s state law. The 210-page report reads, in part “The real story here isn’t one of a rogue doctor dismissing science and recklessly endangering his pediatric patients by bullying their parents into accepting ‘alternative’ care. The real story is one of a rogue medical board dismissing science and recklessly endangering public health by encouraging pediatricians to bully their parents into strict compliance with the CDC’s schedule and selecting Paul Thomas, MD, to set an example to other physicians of what their punishment will be if they instead choose to respect parents’ right to informed consent.”
Under Oregon state law, phyisicians, including pediatricians, must provide for fully informed consent and respect vaccine refusal. The board had tried to sanction Dr. Thomas for allowing patients to use antibody titre-testing as evidence of immunity. It [the Hammond report] found that the board’s actions were “ludicrous given the fact that Oregon law only requires one dose of mumps vaccine, and it specifically allows for the use of antibody testing as evidence of immunity in lieu of evidence of vaccination.”
The report also completely rebuts all eight of the allegations of medical misconduct alleged by the Oregon Medical Board. Under current Oregon law, The Board answers to the Governor of the State of Oregon.
The full report is available at Mr. Hammond’s independent journalism site. (http://bit.ly/hammondreport)
The medical board had suspended Dr. Thomas’ license after an emergency meeting was called following our publication of the analysis of data from over 3,300 patients in response to a request from the medical board for such data. See that peer-reviewed study here. Phase II of the IPAK Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed study is underway. Donations are needed now.
On December 3, 2020, the Oregon Medical Board issued an emergency suspension order to prevent renowned pediatrician Paul Thomas, MD, from seeing his patients by stripping him of his license.
The ostensible reason given by the board for this action against Thomas, who is affectionately known as “Dr. Paul” by his patients and peers, is that his “continued practice constitutes an immediate danger to public health”.
Thomas is perhaps most well known as coauthor, along with Dr. Jennifer Margulis, of the book The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, which provides guidance to parents who want to protect their children from infectious diseases but have concerns about vaccines. The book is a bestseller currently showing a five-star rating from over 1,800 customer reviews at Amazon.com.
Since 2008, Thomas has practiced pediatrics out of his clinic, Integrative Pediatrics, which is in Beaverton, Oregon, within the metropolitan area of Portland.
The main accusation leveled at Thomas by the state medical board is that he has “breached the standard of care” in his practice by having many patients who are not vaccinated strictly according to the routine childhood schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The true story is that parents have flocked to Integrative Pediatrics precisely because they’ve been bullied, with the state’s approval, by pediatricians in other practices who choose to dutifully serve the bureaucrats in government by compelling parents to strictly comply with the CDC’s schedule.
The story the medical board tells is one of a reckless and “bullying” doctor who coerces his pediatric patients’ parents not to follow the CDC’s recommendations and whose gross negligence in this regard has caused harm to children and negatively impacted the health of the community.[1]
But that’s not the true story.
The true story is that parents have flocked to Integrative Pediatrics precisely because they’ve been bullied, with the state’s approval, by pediatricians in other practices who choose to dutifully serve the bureaucrats in government by compelling parents to strictly comply with the CDC’s schedule.
Parents who did comply and then witnessed their children suffer harm as a result are mocked and derisively labeled “anti-vaxxers” for learning hard lessons from their firstborn children that they then apply to younger siblings by making different parenting choices. (Often, such parents respond to the derogatory label by insisting on being described as “ex-vaxxers”, but government officials and the major media institutions refuse to hear them.)
Parents who do vaccinate their children, but not strictly according to the CDC’s schedule, are also lumped into the group monolithically labeled “the anti-vaccine movement” by apologists for the one-size-fits-all approach of public vaccine policy.
These parents have all been told a million times that vaccines are “safe and effective”. They are well aware of the arguments in favor of vaccinations that we all hear incessantly from government officials, medical professionals, and the mainstream media.
They are also perfectly familiar with the tale of how, in 1998, public enemy number one, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, published a fraudulent study in The Lancet, later retracted, claiming to have found an association between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.[2] These parents know that numerous studies have since been published that failed to find an association.
They know that, by choosing to dissent from or criticize public vaccine policy, they are placing a target on their back. They know they will be met with disapproval by other members of their own family, accused of being irresponsible parents, scolded, and scorned. They know that they will be viciously attacked by government officials and policy advocates masquerading as journalists, as well as by doctors and other members of their community.[3]
And yet, despite the bullying and intimidation, they remain unmoved. There is one simple reason for this: they see it as their duty as responsible parents to act in their children’s best interest no matter what societal pressures are placed on them to conform with expected behavior. Consequently, they do their own research, think for themselves, draw their own conclusions, and take a stand to protect their children.
In many cases in Portland, parents who face the scornful intimidation of a routine well-child visit at their pediatrician’s office and still insist on exercising their right to make an informed choice not to vaccinate are told that they must either comply with the CDC’s recommendations or find another pediatrician.[4]
And, so, they go to Dr. Paul.
With respect to the medical board’s suspension order, Paul Thomas says that he knew the moment The Vaccine-Friendly Plan was published that this day was coming. He knew at the time that, because he was challenging the CDC’s schedule and therefore the “standard of care” of the medical establishment, he would be placing a target on his back and risking his career.
But he did it anyway.
Why?
The Oregon Medical Board wants us to believe it’s because he’s a villain who demonstrates reckless disregard and poses a danger to public health. The media have run with that story.
But what the results of the study do demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty is that his unvaccinated patients are healthier than vaccinated children and place less of a burden on the health care system.
However, what neither the board’s order nor the media have disclosed is that the board’s suspension order was issued just eleven days after Thomas published a study in a peer-reviewed medical journal showing that, among the children born into his practice, those who remained completely unvaccinated were diagnosed at significantly lower rates than vaccinated children for a broad range of chronic health conditions and developmental disorders.
The difference in health outcomes was even more dramatic when Thomas and his coauthor, research scientist Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, looked at cumulative incidence of office visits for given diagnoses rather than incidence of diagnoses alone. This result strongly suggests that his vaccinated patients not only suffer from a higher rate of chronic health conditions, but also that their conditions are more severe, therefore requiring more frequent visits to his clinic.
The study is titled “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination”. It was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on November 22, 2020.
As Thomas and Lyons-Weiler emphasize in the study, they do not show that vaccinations are the cause of the evidently worse health outcomes among vaccinated children. But what the results of the study do demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty is that his unvaccinated patients are healthier than vaccinated children and place less of a burden on the health care system.[5]
Importantly, this was data that the medical board had asked Thomas to produce to support his practice of vaccinating patients according to the principles of his “Vaccine-Friendly Plan”.
Yet, when Thomas surmounted this challenge by obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and publishing the deidentified data comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the board’s emergent response was to suspend his license until further notice “while this case remains under investigation”—and on grounds that are completely belied by the publicly available evidence.[6]
The real story here isn’t one of a rogue doctor dismissing science and recklessly endangering his pediatric patients by bullying their parents into accepting “alternative” care. The real story is one of a rogue medical board dismissing science and recklessly endangering public health by encouraging pediatricians to bully their parents into strict compliance with the CDC’s schedule and selecting Paul Thomas, MD, to set an example to other physicians of what their punishment will be if they instead choose to respect parents’ right to informed consent.
But that story doesn’t begin in December of 2020. To tell the true story and fully appreciate its significance, we need to go back and review the sequence of events that led Paul Thomas to this pivotal moment in his life’s journey.
On 16 July 2021, the MDPI retracted the article with the following cryptic notice. “The journal retracts the article ‘Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination’ cited above. Following publication, concerns were brought to the attention of the editorial office regarding the validity of the conclusions of the published research. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that raised several methodological issues and confirmed that the conclusions were not supported by strong scientific data. The article is therefore retracted. This retraction is approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors did not agree to this retraction.” https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7754/htm. The MDPI did not indicate what were the “methodological issues” or specify how the conclusions “were not supported by strong scientific data.” That lack of specificity for such an extraordinary action suggests the retraction of the article by the MDPI was not due to methodological issues or that it was not supported by strong scientific data but was rather due to financial and political pressure put on MDPI.
Moral Hazard
The system lobbied for by the pharmaceutical companies and enacted into law has created a moral hazard where the pharmaceutical companies have an incentive to make unsafe vaccines. The AAP RICO complaint alleges (accompanied by numerous examples) that the vaccine makers use vaccines as a means to create a market of ill people for the medicines that they make to treat the ailments caused by the vaccines. Jon Rappoport exlpains:
First, this suit charges the accused with RACKETEERING. This isn’t just a colloquial usage of that term. This is a RICO lawsuit!
From the complaint1: “This complaint is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d), against the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) for its central role in an enterprise that has defrauded American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule for several decades.”
BANG.
The official complaint uses the term ENTERPRISE again and again. That term applies specifically to RICO. Among the members of the enterprise are pharmaceutical companies. They are not being directly sued. The enterprise partner, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is being sued. It has many thousands of members—pediatricians.
Here we go. Buckle up. Here is an excerpt from Sections D and E of the filed complaint. Read every word:
“The Vaccine Racket: Create the Condition, Sell the Treatment, Keep the Sick Customer for Life”
“A racket is a service that creates its own demand. The same pharmaceutical conglomerates that serve as enterprise participants in manufacturing childhood vaccines have systematically acquired companies developing treatments for autoimmune disorders, allergies, and neurodevelopmental conditions, many of which are listed as adverse events in vaccine package inserts produced by them.”
“…In 2021, Merck bought Pandion Therapeutics for $1.85 billion, adding [Pandion’s] treatments for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, is listed in clinical trial safety data for Merck’s GARDASIL [vaccine]…”
“…These acquisitions create a closed-loop revenue system across the enterprise. The vaccine serves as the customer acquisition mechanism. A child who develops eczema after vaccination with an enterprise participant’s vaccine becomes a customer for another participant’s eczema treatment. A child who develops an autoimmune disease becomes a customer for the enterprise’s immunosuppressants. These are just a few of many examples. The enterprise profits from the vaccines, and profits again from the treatment of the vaccine package insert documented side effects.”
“AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] ensures this revenue stream continues. It blocks studies that might reveal connections between [vaccine] schedule expansion and chronic disease. It promotes ever-expanding [vaccine] schedules. The $115-125 million AAP generates annually is a fraction of the tens of billions at stake.”
“AAP controls pediatric medicine and dominates childhood vaccine policy. Its Red Book defines the standard of care…Its Bright Futures guidelines dictate the content and timing of well-child visits. Physicians who deviate from AAP guidelines face medical board discipline, loss of hospital privileges, exclusion from insurance networks, and professional destruction…”
Congress passed the National Vaccine Injury Act (NVIA) of 1986, which granted immunity to the pharmaceutical companies for injuries caused by the vaccines they manufactured. As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth 1, the reason for that protection is that Congress deemed vaccines to be unavoidably unsafe, 2 thus no manufacturer would make a vaccine if they had to suffer the liability for injuries they would unavoidably cause. 3
Mary S. Holland explains the issue: “The success of the national vaccine program has come at a cost. Some children are permanently disabled or die from their vaccine exposures. … Between 1980 and 1986, people who claimed vaccine injury brought over three billion dollars of damages claims to U.S. civil courts against vaccine manufacturers.” 4
In response to the litigation that held them accountable for the injuries caused by their vaccines, the vaccine manufacturers lobbied Congress, and in 1986 they were able to get the NVIA law passed. That law had the effect of protecting them from civil liability for injuries caused by vaccines that they manufactured.
The underlying legal reasoning of Congress for the 1986 NVIA law was a concept borrowed from the Restatement of Torts law that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe.” Holland explains that “[t]he Restatement describes all vaccines as ‘unavoidably unsafe’ products and implicitly recommended that manufacturers not be liable for injuries if doctors administered them properly.” 5
The NVIA set up a system of government compensation for vaccine injuries that has in practice served more to prevent compensation than anything else. Robert F. Kennedy explains:
Parents, legal guardians and legal representatives can file on behalf of children, disabled adults, and individuals who are deceased. According to the vaccine-injured and their loved ones, the program has failed miserably as a litigious, broken system where the injured are up against a government vaccine program, government owned vaccine patents, government health officials who administer the program and government paid attorneys from the Department of Justice. There is no judge, no jury of your peers and no discovery. Claimants feel the system is set up for their claims to fail. 6
The U.S. Supreme Court in Bruesewitz, supra, ruled that language in the statute categorically preempts even design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers. Holland explains that U.S. Supreme Court ruling “removed incentives for pharmaceutical corporations to conduct the extensive research and development necessary to ensure that FDA-approved vaccines remain as safe and effective as possible after licensure. FDA approval alone has not been a sufficient guarantee of drug safety, owing in part to the FDA’s limited authority to compel further safety research after final approval.” 7
Holland reveals the real-world consequences of the NIVA for vaccine recipients:
[Gayle] DeLong showed that the proportion of people that reported a serious complication from a vaccine after [enactment of the NVIA in] 1986 is more than double the proportion of people who experienced a serious complication from a disease before a vaccine for it was available. The difference is statistically significant and is likely greater because of underreporting.
DeLong’s analysis suggests that the Vaccine Act “gave firms greater incentives to capture the regulator: If consumers cannot sue firms for product liability, the only barrier to sales is regulatory approval.” 8
The NVIA protects vaccine makers from liability for “unavoidable” injuries caused by vaccines. The NVIA states in pertinent part:
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings. 9
In order to make sure the immunity from liability pill goes down easier for the public, the NVIA mandated that the Secretary of HHS “promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines [presently] on the market.” 10
That requirement was supposed to be performed by a task force made up of the “Director of the National Institutes of Health [NIH], the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control [CDC].” 11
The NVIA statute required that “within 2 years after December 22, 1987, and periodically thereafter, the Secretary [of HHS] shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate a report describing the actions taken pursuant to subsection (a) during the preceding 2-year period.” 12
The NIH, FDA, and CDC scoundrels thumbed their noses at Congress. They violated the law by not filing the required reports with the U.S. Congress. Why did they not file the required reports? The only logical reason is that they did not meet as required, and they did not “promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines [presently] on the market” 13 as required by the statute.
That is clear evidence that the component agencies of HHS (CDC, NIH, and FDA) have no interest in the development of safe vaccines for children.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discovered the scofflaws at HHS when he filed a Freedom of Information Act request with HHS requesting the reports prepared and transmitted to Congress as required by the NVIA. HHS refused to comply with the request. He sued HHS. 14 After being served with the lawsuit, HHS admitted that they never filed any required reports with Congress. 15 That means that the component agencies of HHS (CDC, NIH, and FDA) never formed the required task force and made no effort to see that vaccines were made safer.
The CDC, NIH, and FDA never met to develop a plan for safe vaccines for children. Why? Because CDC, NIH, and FDA know that the pharmaceutical companies have no interest making vaccines safe for children! Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and the vaccine makers like it that way. Pharmaceutical companies get rich when people are made sick. It is a racket where they cause injury via their vaccines and then make the patent medicines to address the symptoms of the injuries they have caused. There was a fly in their ointment, and that was civil liability for the injuries they caused. The immunity granted by the NVIA solved that problem. Since the NVIA, the pharmaceutical companies have been off to the races creating one ineffective and unsafe vaccine after another.
As explained by Texans for Vaccine Choice, “[t]he [NVIA] removed all liability from vaccine manufacturers when their products injure or kill. Realizing that removing consumer accountability would eliminate any motivation for manufacturers to ensure their products are as safe and effective as they can possibly be, the Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines clause was added to the the Act as a check-and-balance.” But we now know that there is no check-and-balance. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explains:
This speaks volumes to the lack of seriousness by which vaccine safety is treated at HHS and heightens the concern that HHS doesn’t have a clue as to the actual safety profile of the now 29 doses, and growing, of vaccines given by one year of age. 16
The CDC, when asked, was unable to provide any evidence that any childhood vaccine has ever been tested for safety using a placebo control. Indeed, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. points out that “not one of the 72 vaccines on the schedule mandated for our children, have been tested with a placebo.” There is a reason. No vaccine could ever survive being tested for safety and effectiveness against a placebo. The pharmaceutical companies know that their vaccines are not only ineffective, they are injurious. Research has shown that childhood vaccines cause injuries. 17 And that is by design. A design for which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the drug companies have immunity from civil liability.
The CDC, NIH, and FDA know it is a fool’s errand to try to convince the drug companies to manufacture something safe when to do so would undermine the drug companies’ pecuniary interests. The surreptitious goal of the drug companies is to make people sick through vaccines. That is why the CDC, NIH, and FDA had nothing to report to Congress regarding their efforts to develop vaccines with “fewer and less serious adverse reactions.” The goal of the vaccine makers is to cause injury. The pharmaceutical companies, CDC, NIH, and FDA all know that vaccines will unavoidably cause injuries. They have no interest in mitigating the damage caused by vaccines because those injuries make the pharmaceutical companies rich through the patent medicines they sell to address the injuries caused by the vaccines.
For example, on December 13, 2021, Pfizer announced:
Pfizer will acquire Arena, a clinical stage company developing innovative potential therapies for the treatment of several immuno-inflammatory diseases. Under the terms of the agreement, Pfizer will acquire all the outstanding shares of Arena for $100 per share in an all-cash transaction for a total equity value of approximately $6.7 billion. The boards of directors of both companies have unanimously approved the transaction. 18
Pfizer is acquiring a company that makes drugs that treat the very immuno-inflammatory injuries caused by Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Arena has drugs in the pipeline to treat cardio inflammatory diseases like myocarditis; the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has become notorious for causing myocarditis. 19 Also notable is Arena’s development of a drug (Termanogrel) to address microvascular obstructions, which several doctors have identified as the root cause of many illnesses resulting from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. 20 For example, Dr. Charles Hoffe, MD — who practices in British Columbia, Canada — explained in very simple terms how the mRNA COVID vaccines create the spike proteins which cause widespread microscopic blood clotting that will eventually kill many people within three years of taking the shots. 21 Pfizer now wants to get in on the action of offering overpriced patent medicines to give to desperate patients suffering from the deadly side-effects of their vaccine. How much more Machiavelian can you get?
Please be mindful that the COIVD-19 vaccine manufacturers are also protected from civil liability. The COVID-19 vaccines will be subjected to the even more exacting standards and limited compensation of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to injured parties. A notable limitation under the CICP is that an injured party will be subjected to the statute of limitations that forecloses all legal actions not filed within one year of vaccination. 22 That is compared with the statute of limitations for an approved vaccine under the National Vaccine Injury Act (NVIA) of 3 years from the occurrence of the first symptom of injury from the vaccine. 23
Experts specializing in vaccine injury cases say that the bar for obtaining compensation is very high under the PREP Act. 24 Over the last ten years, 94% of injured patients who filed claims under the PREP Act received no compensation. 25 In reference to the virtually insurmountable hurdles erected under the CICP, Renée Gentry, director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at the George Washington University Law School, said COVID-19 vaccine claimants have two rights: “You have the right to file,” she said. “And you have the right to lose.” 26 Altom Maglio, whose 22 lawyer law firm, Maglio Christopher & Toale, specializes in vaccine injury cases, says that you’re out of luck if you’ve suffered an injury related to any of the COVID-19 vaccines in receiving any compensation for your injury. 27 That all is not intended to suggest that the NVIA is fair. The NVIA has its own problems. Two out of three claims filed under the NVIA are denied. 28
A “declared public health emergency” as described in the PREP Act is the legal landscape under which the COVID-19 vaccine is being developed. Under the PREP Act, there is a moral hazard where manufactures of the COVID-19 vaccines will be protected from any liability for injuries caused by their COVID-19 vaccines. They have no financial incentive to make a vaccine that is safe or effective. They can sit back and count their billions in profits as they injure the public with impunity. The demand for the product is guaranteed by a marketplace that is rigged by the U.S. and state governments, which will pay for the vaccine and then mandate that the public consume that vaccine. The attitude of the vaccine manufacturers toward the consumer who is injured is “oh well, too bad, so sad, it sucks to be you.”
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” 1 Timothy 6:10.
The AAP RICO lawsuit exposes the criminal medical enterprise that systematically injures and kills people for profit under the false banner of safe and effective vaccines.
Endnotes
562 U.S. 223 (2011), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa–22, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22.
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Children’s Health Defense, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program/ (last visited on January 6, 2021).
Mary S. Holland, Liability for Vaccine Injury: The United States, the European Union, and the Developing World, Emory Law Journal, Vol 67, 2018, https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol67/iss3/3/.
Mary S. Holland, Liability for Vaccine Injury: The United States, the European Union, and the Developing World, Emory Law Journal, Vol 67, 2018, https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol67/iss3/3/.
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Children’s Health Defense, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program/ (last visited on January 6, 2021).
Mary S. Holland, Liability for Vaccine Injury: The United States, the European Union, and the Developing World, Emory Law Journal, Vol 67, 2018, https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol67/iss3/3/.
Mary S. Holland, Liability for Vaccine Injury: The United States, the European Union, and the Developing World, Emory Law Journal, Vol 67, 2018, https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol67/iss3/3/. Quoting Gayle DeLong, Is “Delitigation” Associated with a Change in Product Safety? The Case of Vaccines, Rev. Ind. Org. (June 14, 2017).
42 U.S.C. § 300aa–22, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa–27, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-27.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa–27.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa–27.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa–27.
RFK, Jr. Proves HHS is in Violation of the “Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines” as Stipulated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, Children’s Health Defense, September 13, 2018, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/federal-failures/rfk-jr-proves-hhs-is-in-violation-of-the-mandate-for-safer-childhood-vaccines-as-stipulated-in-the-vaccine-injury-compensation-act/. ICAN v. HHS, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, April 12, 2018, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rfk-complaint-against-united-states-department-of-health-and-human-services.pdf. See also ICAN & RFK, Jr. Call Out DHHS for Vaccine Safety Violations, Texans for Vaccine Choice, July 18, 2018, https://texansforvaccinechoice.com/ican-rfk-jr-call-out-dhhs-for-vaccine-safety-violations/.
ICAN v. HHS, Stipulation, July 9, 2018, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rfk-hhs-stipulated-order-july-2018.pdf.
RFK, Jr. Proves HHS is in Violation of the “Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines” as Stipulated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, Children’s Health Defense, September 13, 2018, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/federal-failures/rfk-jr-proves-hhs-is-in-violation-of-the-mandate-for-safer-childhood-vaccines-as-stipulated-in-the-vaccine-injury-compensation-act/.
Edward Hendrie, Study Shows That Vaccinated Children Are Significantly Less Healthy Than Unvaccinated Children, December 20, 2020, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/12/20/study-shows-that-vaccinated-children-are-significantly-less-healthy-than-unvaccinated-children/. Edward Hendrie, Vaccines Increase Mortality of Infants, August 17, 2020, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/08/17/vaccines-increase-mortality-of-children/. Edward Hendrie, Vaccines Cause Autism and Allergies, August 5, 2020, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/08/05/vaccines-cause-autism-and-allergies/.
Pfizer to Acquire Arena Pharmaceuticals, December 13, 2021, https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-acquire-arena-pharmaceuticals.
Edward Hendrie, Follow the SILENCE: Paper Proving That COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Myocarditis Is Removed From Publication Without Explanation, October 31, 2021, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/10/31/follow-the-silence-paper-proving-that-covid-19-vaccines-cause-myocarditis-is-removed-from-publication-without-explanation/. See also Edward Hendrie, The FDA and Pfizer Concealed Evidence That COVID-19 Vaccines Will Cause Myocarditis in Children, November 7, 2021, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/11/07/the-fda-and-pfizer-concealed-evidence-that-covid-19-vaccines-will-cause-myocarditis-in-children/.
Pfizer buys immuno-inflammatory firm Arena Pharmaceuticals for $6.7b, December 13, 2021, Outsourcing-Pharma, https://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Article/2021/12/13/Pfizer-buys-immuno-inflammatory-firm-Arena-for-6.7b.
Edward Hendrie, Doctor Finds That His Patients Have Permanent Organ Damage from Blood Clots Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines, Great Mountain Publishing, October 23, 2021, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/10/23/doctor-finds-that-his-patients-have-permanent-organ-damage-from-blood-clots-caused-by-covid-19-vaccines/, quoting CFT Team, Doctor Warns How COVID mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Will Cause Delayed Strokes & Heart Attacks — ‘The Worst Is Yet To Come’, July 14, 2021, https://christiansfortruth.com/doctor-warns-how-covid-mrna-vaccines-will-soon-cause-strokes-heart-attacks-the-worst-is-yet-to-come/.
Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, Request for Benefits Form Instructions, OMB Control No. 0915-0334, Expiration Date: 3/31/2023, https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/cicp/cicp-request-form-instructions.pdf.
42 U.S. C. § 300aa–16.
McKenzie Sigalos, You Can’t Sue Pfizer or Moderna If You Have Severe Covid Vaccine Side Effects. The Government Likely Won’t Compensate You for Damages Either, CNBC, December 17, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html.
McKenzie Sigalos, You Can’t Sue Pfizer or Moderna If You Have Severe Covid Vaccine Side Effects. The Government Likely Won’t Compensate You for Damages Either, CNBC, December 17, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html.
Megan Redshaw, Injured by a COVID Vaccine? Want Financial Compensation? Too Bad, Says Injury Compensation Law Firm, The Defender, July 1, 2021, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-injury-no-compensation-program/.
Megan Redshaw, Injured by a COVID Vaccine? Want Financial Compensation? Too Bad, Says Injury Compensation Law Firm, The Defender, July 1, 2021, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-injury-no-compensation-program/.
Vaccine Injury Fund: Lessons From a Vaccine Lawyer-“Covered” Vaccines in the Court (and the DtaP), Widman Law Firm, https://www.widmanlawfirm.com/vaccine-injury-fund-lessons-from-a-vaccine-lawyer-covered-vaccin.html (last visited on August 28, 2021).
Shaw-v.-AAP-Rico-ComplaintDownload
