Big Pharma’s Lawsuit Against RFK Jr.: A Sign of Panic by Big Pharma! By Chris Knight (Florida)

On July 7, 2025, a coalition of medical organisations, led by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and including the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The lawsuit challenges Kennedy's May 2025 directive to remove COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) immunisation schedule. The plaintiffs argue that Kennedy's action was "arbitrary and capricious," violated federal procedures, and undermines public trust in vaccines. However, from a sceptical perspective aligned with critics of the pharmaceutical industry, this legal action suggests not a confident defence of science but a desperate attempt by the "Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex" to protect its interests in the face of mounting evidence and public scrutiny. This piece explores the lawsuit's implications, the scientific debate over COVID-19 vaccines for children and pregnant women, and why Big Pharma's resort to litigation may signal panic rather than strength.

Kennedy's directive, announced on May 27, 2025, via a video on X alongside FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, ended CDC recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women, citing insufficient clinical data to support their necessity. The move bypassed the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), prompting accusations from the plaintiffs that Kennedy disregarded established scientific processes. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, seeks to reinstate the recommendations and block HHS from enforcing Kennedy's directive, arguing it creates confusion, reduces vaccine access, and erodes trust in the broader immunisation system.

The plaintiffs, representing hundreds of thousands of medical professionals, claim Kennedy's actions have caused practical harms. For example, a pregnant physician plaintiff, "Jane Doe," fears she cannot access a COVID-19 vaccine due to the revised guidance, which has led pharmacies in states like Massachusetts to restrict shots based on ACIP recommendations. Paediatricians report spending more time addressing parental concerns, and some insurance providers, like UnitedHealthcare, may no longer cover COVID-19 vaccines for these groups if they are not ACIP-recommended. Dr. Susan Kressly, AAP president, called the directive an "existential threat to vaccination in America," warning of increased risks from preventable diseases like measles and influenza.

Yet, Kennedy's defenders, including posts on X, frame the lawsuit as a desperate move by a "medical cartel" to maintain control over vaccine policy. They argue that the plaintiffs' reliance on legal action, rather than scientific debate, reveals weakness in their position. If the science supporting COVID-19 vaccines for children and pregnant women were indisputable, why resort to the courts? This perspective suggests the lawsuit is less about protecting public health and more about safeguarding the financial and ideological interests of the pharmaceutical industry and its allies.

The plaintiffs assert that Kennedy's directive lacks evidence, but critics like epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher argue that substantial data supports withdrawing these recommendations. Hulscher's analysis, cited in his Substack article, highlights risks to pregnant women and children that challenge the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for these populations. While the lawsuit emphasises procedural violations, the scientific debate is central to understanding the motivations behind both Kennedy's directive and Big Pharma's response.

Hulscher cites multiple studies indicating potential harms from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines during pregnancy. Chen et al. demonstrated that mRNA vaccines cross the placenta within one hour, accumulating in foetal organs and producing spike protein that persists post-birth. This raises concerns about developmental impacts, as the spike protein is known to be cytotoxic. Thorp et al. reported that CDC/FDA safety signals were breached for 37 adverse events in pregnant women, including miscarriage, stillbirth, premature infant death, foetal cardiac arrest, and neonatal respiratory distress. Manniche et al.'s analysis of 1.3 million women found vaccinated women had 33% fewer successful pregnancies than unvaccinated women. In animal models, Karaman et al. showed that mRNA vaccines destroy over 60% of primordial follicles, suggesting potential long-term fertility impacts.

These findings contrast with the plaintiffs' claim that Kennedy's directive lacks evidence. The CDC's own data, as cited by Hulscher, shows higher rates of adverse events in vaccinated pregnant women compared to unvaccinated controls. Yet, the lawsuit does not engage with these studies, instead focusing on procedural norms and the need for ACIP input. This omission fuels suspicion that the plaintiffs are avoiding a direct scientific confrontation, possibly because the data undermines their narrative of vaccine safety.

For children, the evidence is equally compelling. Friedberg et al.'s study of 493,705 children and adolescents found a 23% increased risk of autoimmune diseases post-vaccination, with no similar risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection itself. Feldstein et al.'s CDC study showed that vaccinated children without prior infection were 159% more likely to contract COVID-19 and 257% more likely to develop symptomatic disease compared to unvaccinated peers. Berg et al. reported a 20% increase in emergency room visits and a 17% rise in doctor visits among vaccinated adolescents, suggesting post-vaccination health issues. The OpenSAFELY study of over 1 million children found myocarditis exclusively in vaccinated groups, with no COVID-19-related deaths in any group. Mead et al.'s review confirmed that vaccine-induced myocarditis is more common and severe than infection-related cases, particularly in young males.

These studies challenge the rationale for vaccinating healthy children, who face low risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. The absolute number of children seriously ill from COVID-19 is minimal, as noted in The New York Times, yet the vaccine introduces measurable risks without clear benefits. Kennedy's directive aligns with policies in countries like the UK and Sweden, which have largely halted COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy children, citing similar risk-benefit concerns. Makary's statement in the May video that "most countries have stopped recommending it for children" reflects this global trend.

The lawsuit's failure to counter these studies suggests a strategic choice to frame the issue as a procedural violation rather than a scientific dispute. If Big Pharma's science were "solid," as Hulscher argues, the plaintiffs could refute Kennedy's claims with robust data. Instead, their reliance on legal arguments, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, implies a lack of confidence in defending the vaccines' safety and efficacy for these groups. This supports the view that the lawsuit is a tactic to suppress dissent and maintain the status quo, rather than a defence of unassailable science.

Critics of the pharmaceutical industry, including Kennedy and voices on X, describe a "Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex" that prioritises profits and control over public health. The COVID-19 vaccine market has been lucrative, with Pfizer and Moderna earning billions annually. Removing recommendations for children and pregnant women shrinks this market, threatening revenue streams. Additionally, the plaintiffs' concern about insurance coverage, tied to ACIP recommendations, hints at financial stakes, as non-recommended vaccines may not be covered, reducing uptake.

The lawsuit also reflects broader anxieties about Kennedy's reforms. His replacement of all 17 ACIP members with a new panel, including some vaccine sceptics, signals a shift toward greater scrutiny of vaccine policy. Posts on X claim Big Pharma lobbied to oust Kennedy, citing a leaked memo from a vaccine industry group. While unverified, this aligns with the narrative that the industry fears losing influence over HHS and the CDC. The plaintiffs' alarm over Kennedy's "decades-long mission" to undermine vaccines, as stated by lead attorney Richard Hughes, suggests they view him as a existential threat to their authority, and profits.

This legal action may indicate panic for several reasons. First, the rapid filing of the lawsuit, within six weeks of Kennedy's directive, suggests urgency to halt his reforms before they gain traction. Second, the plaintiffs' focus on public trust erosion implies they fear losing credibility as parents and patients question not just COVID-19 vaccines but all immunisations. Third, the absence of a robust scientific rebuttal in the 42-page complaint undermines their claim of evidence-based policy, reinforcing perceptions of a defensive, rather than confident, stance.

The lawsuit's outcome will shape vaccine policy and public trust. If the plaintiffs succeed, the CDC's recommendations could be reinstated, preserving the current immunisation framework but potentially ignoring the cited risks. If Kennedy prevails, it could embolden further challenges to vaccine mandates and increase scrutiny of pharmaceutical influence. Either way, the litigation highlights a deepening divide between establishment medicine and a growing sceptic movement, fuelled by data like Hulscher's and amplified on platforms like X.

From a critical perspective, the lawsuit underscores the need for transparent, evidence-based decision-making. The plaintiffs' refusal to engage with studies showing vaccine harms, raises questions about their commitment to science over ideology.

In conclusion, the lawsuit against Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by the AAP and allied medical groups is less a defense of science and more a sign of panic within the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. Faced with compelling evidence of COVID-19 vaccine risks for children and pregnant women, and a reformer challenging their influence, Big Pharma has turned to the courts to protect its agenda. The plaintiffs' focus on procedural norms over scientific debate, coupled with their failure to counter studies showing harm, suggests a lack of confidence in their position. As Kennedy's reforms gain momentum, this legal battle may mark a turning point in the fight over vaccine policy, exposing the fragility of an industry that thrives on trust but struggles to earn it. Whether this lawsuit succeeds or fails, it has already revealed the stakes: a public health system at war with itself, with truth and lives hanging in the balance.

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-medical-cartel-sues-rfk