BREAKING: American Academy of Pediatrics Hit With Federal RICO Lawsuit for Vaccine Safety Fraud

ER Editor: Others are publishing on this.  Check out Children’s Health Defense, Steve Kirsch and Celia Farber respectively —

Breaking: Children’s Health Defense Hits AAP With RICO Suit Over Fraudulent Vaccine Safety Claims

Parents, doctors, and CHD sue AAP in one of the most important lawsuits in medical history

American Academy Of Pediatrics Sued In Historic RICO Case Spearheaded By Drs. Stoller And Thomas, With Parents And CHD: “One Of The Most Important Lawsuits In Modern Medical History.”

LINK

We asked Google AI about RICO charges and what they are —

A RICO charge (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) is a serious federal accusation targeting individuals involved in an ongoing criminal enterprise, allowing prosecutors to prosecute leaders by linking them to a pattern of specific illegal acts, even if they didn’t commit them directly, such as murderbriberyfraud, or drug dealing. It requires proving an “enterprise” and a “pattern of racketeering activity” (two or more predicate crimes within 10 years) to hold members accountable for the organization’s illicit business. 

********

BREAKING: American Academy of Pediatrics Hit With Federal RICO Lawsuit for Vaccine Safety Fraud

AAP accused of operating a decades-long racketeering scheme that deceived America about vaccine safety for maximum profit

NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH

For decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has been treated like an untouchable authority on child health — the gold standard that parents, doctors, schools, and lawmakers were told to trust without question. But today, that image collapses.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and multiple plaintiffs just filed a federal lawsuit alleging the AAP spent decades running a racketeering operation that sold parents false safety assurances about the childhood vaccine schedule.

This isn’t another “vaccine debate” lawsuit. It’s a RICO fraud case—the same legal weapon used against organized crime and the tobacco industry.

The allegation is blunt and devastating: the AAP allegedly manufactured false certainty around vaccine schedule safety, shut down legitimate scientific scrutiny, and promoted sweeping assurances that were never validated through rigorous real-world safety testing—while operating within a system shaped by vaccine-manufacturer funding and financial incentives tied to high pediatric vaccination rates.

One of the most explosive points in the complaint is what it forces into the open. The cumulative childhood schedule has never been safety-tested the way any reasonable parent would assume it has. The lawsuit points to Institute of Medicine findings from 2002 and 2013 calling for more research, and acknowledging the lack of proper vaccinated vs. unvaccinated comparisons. Yet the AAP continued portraying the schedule as thoroughly tested and unquestionably safe, shaping pediatric care nationwide through repetition, authority, and pressure—not proof.

The complaint also describes what parents have learned the hard way. This system doesn’t merely recommend vaccines. It demands compliance. Physicians who questioned the schedule or deviated from AAP protocols were professionally targeted, disciplined, and financially crushed. The message was clear: follow the script, or lose your career.

The lawsuit further argues that the AAP’s public reassurances were built on “theoretical” talking points that became institutional doctrine, including the infamous claim that infants could tolerate an extreme number of vaccines at once. According to the plaintiffs, this wasn’t evidence—it was marketing disguised as medical authority, repeated in clinics to silence questions and keep the assembly line moving.

Then there’s the part that makes it all make sense: money. The complaint highlights conflicts of interest and financial entanglements with vaccine manufacturers and aligned institutions. The AAP presents itself as independent and science-first, while operating in a world of corporate sponsorships, incentives, and industry relationships that would be unacceptable in any genuinely transparent public health organization.

This is why the lawsuit matters. It’s not about a single product. It challenges the entire protection racket that has propped up the pediatric vaccine industry for decades. AAP’s model has relied on one rule: the schedule is safe because we say it’s safe—and anyone who demands real proof gets smeared, censored, or destroyed.

The lawsuit seeks financial damages for the families and physicians harmed, demands disclosure of the lack of comprehensive safety testing behind the cumulative schedule, and aims to stop the AAP from making blanket, unqualified claims that the schedule is “safe and effective” as if that question has already been settled.

If this case advances, discovery alone could expose what the public has been denied for decades—and that would be a historic victory for medical transparency, informed consent, and accountability in pediatrics. For years, parents were told to “trust the experts,” while legitimate safety questions were mocked, censored, or punished. Now those questions are headed to the one place the system can’t silence them with talking points: federal court.


Summary

  • CHD and multiple plaintiffs filed a federal RICO lawsuit against the AAP, accusing the organization of long-term fraud and racketeering tied to vaccine safety claims.
  • The lawsuit alleges the AAP violated RICO by engaging in a sustained pattern of deceptive safety messaging about the CDC childhood vaccine schedule, while operating within a financial ecosystem tied to vaccine-manufacturer funding and incentive-driven pediatric vaccination practices.
  • The lawsuit alleges the AAP repeatedly promoted false certainty that the childhood vaccine schedule is thoroughly tested and safe.
  • The complaint highlights the absence of proper vaccinated vs. unvaccinated comparisons for cumulative schedule safety, referencing IOM reports calling for more research.
  • Plaintiffs argue the AAP relied on theoretical reassurance (not real-world schedule safety trials) to shut down scrutiny and concerns.
  • The suit includes physicians claiming they suffered professional and economic harm for deviating from AAP vaccine orthodoxy or questioning safety claims.
  • It also includes families alleging severe injury or death following routine vaccination and describes how medical judgment was allegedly overridden by rigid AAP-driven standards.
  • The complaint raises concerns about conflicts of interest, alleging financial ties and aligned incentives undermined the credibility of AAP’s public safety assurances.
  • The lawsuit seeks financial damages, mandatory disclosure about safety-testing gaps, and to stop the AAP from making unqualified vaccine safety claims.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

Source

************

Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*