CDC Sued Over ‘Untested’ 72-Dose Vaccine Schedule: Doctors Claim Constitutional Violations

Two prominent doctors who lost their medical licenses for questioning vaccine safety have filed a groundbreaking federal lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), alleging the agency’s 72-dose childhood vaccine schedule has never been properly tested for cumulative safety effects.

The lawsuit, filed August 15, 2025, in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, represents the first comprehensive legal challenge to the CDC’s entire childhood immunization framework.

The Plaintiffs: Doctors Who Paid the Price for Speaking Out

The case is led by two physicians whose careers were destroyed for questioning the CDC’s vaccine recommendations.

Dr. Paul Thomas

• Former Oregon pediatrician with 40+ years of experience
• Lost his medical license after publishing peer-reviewed research comparing health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children
• Oregon Medical Board suspended his license claiming he was “a threat to public health”

Dr. Kenneth P. Stoller

• Former physician who wrote medical exemptions based on genetic risk factors
• Had his license revoked for considering individual patient risk factors beyond CDC guidelines
• Advocated for personalized vaccine decision-making

Stand for Health Freedom

• Co-plaintiff organization representing parents seeking vaccine choice
• Receives daily calls from parents unable to obtain medical exemptions for vaccine-injured children
• Advocates for informed consent and shared medical decision-making

Core Legal Claims: What the CDC Is Accused Of

The lawsuit makes explosive allegations about the CDC’s failure to meet basic scientific and legal standards for the childhood vaccine program.

Constitutional Violations Alleged:

First Amendment Violations:

• Censoring physicians who question vaccine safety
• Depriving parents of information needed for informed consent
• Using medical board discipline to silence dissenting medical opinions

Fifth Amendment Violations:

• Depriving parents of fundamental liberty to direct their children’s medical care
• Violating children’s fundamental right to bodily integrity
• Denying due process in medical decision-making

Administrative Procedure Act Violations:

• Acting “arbitrarily and capriciously” by ignoring safety testing requirements
• Failing to consider important aspects of vaccine safety
• Ignoring decades of expert recommendations for cumulative testing

The 72-Dose Problem: A Schedule Never Tested as a Whole

The lawsuit reveals stunning facts about America’s childhood vaccine program that most parents never knew.

Key Statistics from the Complaint:

• Current Schedule: 72+ vaccine doses by age 18
• Historical Comparison: Only 24 doses required in the 1980s
• Safety Testing: Individual vaccines tested for days or weeks only
• Cumulative Testing: Zero studies on the full schedule’s combined effects

Alarming Health Trends During Schedule Expansion:

• Autism Rates: Increased from 1 in 150 to 1 in 31 children
• Chronic Disease: Now affects over 50% of American children
• International Comparison: U.S. gives more vaccines than any nation while producing “the sickest children in the developed world”

Relaetd Lawsuit: Quaker Oats Class Action Lawsuit, $6.75M Settlement Claims End June 27, 2025

Expert Recommendations Ignored for Over 20 Years

The lawsuit documents how the CDC has deliberately ignored its own scientific advisors’ recommendations for comprehensive safety testing.

National Academy of Medicine Recommendations:

• 2002: Urged CDC to study cumulative effects of pediatric vaccine schedule
• 2005: Repeated calls for comprehensive safety research
• 2013: Again recommended testing the full childhood vaccine program
• CDC Response: Implemented none of these recommendations with no explanation

The lawsuit describes this as “deliberate ignorance,” stating that “CDC has implemented none of these recommendations” and “offers no explanation for ignoring its most prestigious scientific advisor for over two decades.”

How the CDC Silences Dissenting Doctors

The legal complaint exposes how the CDC’s recommendations become de facto mandates used to discipline physicians who question vaccine safety.

The Censorship Mechanism:

1. State Adoption: Most states incorporate CDC recommendations directly into law
2. Medical Board Enforcement: State medical boards use CDC guidelines as exclusive standard of care
3. Professional Discipline: Doctors who deviate face license suspension or revocation
4. Research Suppression: Studies questioning vaccine safety are retracted even after peer review

Real-World Impact on Medical Practice:

• Medical exemptions limited to severe allergic reactions and rare conditions only
• Physicians cannot consider genetic risk factors or family history
• Individualized medical judgment effectively prohibited
• Shared decision-making eliminated for most vaccines

Legal Strategy: Forcing Scientific Transparency

Attorney Rick Jaffe, representing the plaintiffs, explains the lawsuit’s broader goals beyond just legal victory.

Specific Relief Requested:

• Judicial Declaration: That CDC’s framework is unconstitutional and arbitrary
• Mandatory Studies: Court order requiring rigorous safety testing of the full vaccine schedule
• Reclassification: Moving all childhood vaccines to “Category B” shared decision-making status
• Comparative Research: Studies comparing fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children

Jaffe said the lawsuit “goes to the heart of the CDC’s childhood immunization program — a 72-plus dose medical intervention schedule that has never been tested.”

The Category A vs. Category B Distinction

The lawsuit challenges how the CDC categorizes vaccine recommendations to limit physician discretion.

Current Framework:

Category A (Most Vaccines):

• Universal recommendations applying to all children in age group
• No room for individualized medical judgment
• Basis for state vaccine mandates

Category B (Only COVID and Meningitis B):

• Involves shared clinical decision-making between physician and family
• Considers individual circumstances
• Allows medical discretion

Legal Argument:

The plaintiffs argue that classifying most vaccines as Category A creates an unconstitutional “shadow mandate” that eliminates medical freedom and informed consent.

Recent Developments: Task Force Reinstatement

In a remarkable coincidence, on the same day the lawsuit was filed, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it was reinstating the Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines, which hadn’t met since 1998.

Significance of Timing:

• HHS action suggests acknowledgment of safety testing gaps
• May indicate government awareness of lawsuit’s merit
• Could provide forum for the safety studies plaintiffs demand

Medical Community Response: Battle Lines Drawn

The lawsuit has exposed deep divisions within the medical establishment over vaccine policy.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Position:

• Represents 67,000 pediatricians nationwide
• Receives significant government and pharmaceutical industry funding
• Recently called for eliminating religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions
• Filed separate lawsuit against RFK Jr. over COVID vaccine policy changes

According to attorney Jaffe, “The AAP has become one of the strongest defenders of the CDC’s rigid framework.” Dr. Thomas added, “AAP has made it crystal clear that they represent industry and not our children.”

International Context: U.S. as Global Outlier

The lawsuit highlights how America’s vaccine approach differs dramatically from other developed nations.

International Comparisons:

• Vaccine Doses: U.S. administers more vaccines than any other country
• Health Outcomes: American children among sickest in developed world
• Chronic Disease Rates: Far exceed other nations with fewer vaccines
• Medical Freedom: Other countries allow more individualized approaches

Funding and Support: Community-Driven Legal Challenge

The lawsuit is being “100% funded by the community” through an online crowdfunding campaign, with Children’s Health Defense not being a party to the case.

Grassroots Nature:

• No pharmaceutical industry involvement
• Funded entirely by concerned parents and citizens
• Represents genuine grassroots medical freedom movement
• Shows widespread concern about current vaccine policies

Related Lawsuit:  Nicole Collier Sues Texas Over Capitol ‘Imprisonment’ – Lawsuit Could End Legislative Detention Powers

Legal Expert Analysis: Lawsuit’s Chances of Success

Legal experts are divided on the lawsuit’s prospects, with some questioning its merits while others see potential constitutional issues.

Potential Strengths:

• Clear documentation of CDC’s failure to conduct recommended studies
• Strong constitutional arguments about parental rights and informed consent
• Evidence of systematic suppression of dissenting medical opinions
• Compelling statistical correlations between schedule expansion and health problems

Potential Challenges:

• Courts typically defer to federal health agencies
• Plaintiffs must overcome presumption of government expertise
• Pharmaceutical industry likely to intervene with significant resources
• Political sensitivity of vaccine safety questions

Timeline and Next Steps

The legal process is just beginning, with several critical phases ahead.

Immediate Developments:

• Filed: August 15, 2025, in D.C. District Court
• Defendants: CDC Director Susan Monarez in official capacity
• Current Status: Initial motion and discovery phase

Upcoming Legal Milestones:

• Government response to complaint due
• Discovery phase for document production
• Expert witness testimony on vaccine safety science
• Potential preliminary injunction hearings
• Trial date to be scheduled

What This Lawsuit Means for Parents

The case has immediate implications for parents navigating vaccine decisions for their children.

Current Rights and Limitations:

• Most states still allow religious or philosophical exemptions
• Medical exemptions extremely limited under current CDC guidelines
• Physicians hesitant to write exemptions due to professional risks
• Parents largely dependent on CDC-approved reasons for exemptions

Potential Changes If Lawsuit Succeeds:

• Expanded medical exemption criteria
• Greater physician discretion in vaccine recommendations
• Mandatory safety studies before schedule expansion
• Shared decision-making for all childhood vaccines

Broader Implications for Public Health Policy

This lawsuit represents more than just a challenge to vaccine policy – it’s a fundamental question about how medical interventions should be evaluated and implemented.

Core Issues at Stake:

• Scientific Method: Should medical interventions be tested comprehensively before mass deployment?
• Medical Freedom: Can government override individual medical judgment and parental rights?
• Informed Consent: Do parents have right to complete safety information?
• Regulatory Capture: Have health agencies become too influenced by pharmaceutical interests?

Related Legal Battles

The CDC lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of challenges to current vaccine policies.

Other Active Litigation:

• Medical groups suing HHS and RFK Jr. over COVID vaccine policy changes
• AAP lawsuit challenging withdrawal of COVID vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women
• Various state-level challenges to vaccine mandate expansions

Frequently Asked Questions

What specific vaccines does this lawsuit challenge?

The lawsuit challenges the entire 72-dose childhood vaccine schedule, not individual vaccines. It argues the cumulative effect has never been studied.

Could this lawsuit stop childhood vaccination programs?

No, the lawsuit seeks proper safety testing and shared decision-making, not elimination of vaccines. It wants reclassification to allow individualized medical judgment.

What would “Category B” status mean for vaccines?

Category B would allow physicians and families to make individualized vaccination decisions based on specific circumstances rather than universal mandates.

How long will this lawsuit take to resolve?

Federal lawsuits of this complexity typically take 2-3 years to reach final resolution, including potential appeals.

What evidence supports claims about vaccine safety testing?

The lawsuit cites official CDC documents, National Academy of Medicine reports, and FDA approval processes showing individual vaccines are tested separately, not as a combined schedule.

Could this affect state vaccine requirements for school attendance?

If successful, the lawsuit could impact how states implement school vaccine requirements by allowing more medical exemptions and individualized approaches.

What do other countries do differently with vaccine schedules?

Many developed nations have fewer required vaccines, more flexible exemption policies, and greater recognition of individual medical circumstances.

How can parents stay informed about this case?

Parents can monitor the case through court records, the attorney’s website (rickjaffeesq.com), and legal news sources covering the litigation.

What rights do parents have under current law?

Rights vary by state, but most parents currently have very limited options for vaccine exemptions beyond CDC-approved medical contraindications.

Could this lawsuit lead to more vaccine safety research?

If successful, the lawsuit could mandate comprehensive safety studies of the full childhood vaccine schedule before any future expansions.

The Stakes: Children’s Health vs. Public Health Policy

This lawsuit ultimately raises fundamental questions about how society balances individual rights with public health goals.

Arguments for Current System:

• Vaccines have eliminated many dangerous childhood diseases
• Population-level benefits justify universal recommendations
• Individual risk assessment could reduce vaccination rates
• Herd immunity requires high participation rates

Arguments for Reform:

• One-size-fits-all approach ignores individual medical needs
• Lack of safety testing violates basic scientific principles
• Current system eliminates informed consent and medical freedom
• Rising chronic disease rates suggest current approach may be harmful

Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Vaccine Policy

As attorney Rick Jaffe stated, “This case exposes that structural failure” in the CDC’s approach to childhood vaccines. The lawsuit represents the first comprehensive legal challenge to assumptions that have guided American vaccine policy for decades.

Whether the courts will force the CDC to conduct the safety studies that have been recommended for over 20 years remains to be seen. But the case has already succeeded in bringing unprecedented attention to questions about vaccine safety testing that public health officials have long avoided.

The lawsuit’s core message is clear: “The schedule is essentially an experiment on our children, and one that becomes increasingly concerning as more shots are added and combination vaccines introduced.”

For parents struggling with vaccine decisions, this case offers hope that scientific rigor and medical freedom may eventually prevail over rigid bureaucratic mandates. The outcome could reshape how America approaches childhood vaccination for generations to come.

Legal Disclaimer: This article provides information about ongoing litigation and should not be considered medical or legal advice. Parents should consult qualified healthcare providers and legal counsel for guidance about their specific situations. Vaccination decisions should be made in consultation with licensed medical professionals.

Last Updated: August 2025 | This article will be updated as new developments occur in this ongoing federal lawsuit.