A new federal lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., escalates long-running disputes over childhood vaccination policy into uncharted legal territory, accusing the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of operating a decades-long racketeering enterprise to mislead families about vaccine safety.

The suit, brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and five additional plaintiffs, alleges that the AAP violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by promoting what plaintiffs describe as knowingly false assurances about the safety of the U.S. childhood immunization schedule while maintaining undisclosed financial relationships with vaccine manufacturers and incentivizing pediatricians to meet vaccination targets.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief that would compel the AAP to disclose what plaintiffs characterize as gaps in cumulative vaccine safety testing and restrict future unqualified safety claims.

The AAP has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit. The organization has consistently defended the childhood immunization schedule as evidence-based and vital to public health.

A RICO Theory Modeled on Tobacco Litigation

At the core of the lawsuit is an argument rarely applied to medical professional organizations: that the AAP functioned as an “association-in-fact enterprise” analogous to the tobacco industry entities found liable in the landmark federal case against cigarette manufacturers.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Rick Jaffe argues the case does not challenge individual vaccines or seek traditional injury compensation. Instead, it alleges systemic fraud — a coordinated effort to manufacture certainty around vaccine safety while suppressing or discouraging research into long-term and cumulative effects.

The complaint explicitly compares the AAP’s conduct to that of tobacco companies found liable in U.S. v. Philip Morris USA, where courts ruled that industry leaders misled the public for decades by shaping scientific narratives and obscuring risk.

According to the filing, the AAP allegedly did the “inverse” of Big Tobacco: rather than sowing doubt, it presented absolute certainty — foreclosing scientific debate before adequate testing was performed.

Dispute Over Safety Evidence and the IOM Findings

A central claim in the lawsuit is that the AAP misrepresented the scope of vaccine safety research, particularly regarding comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

Plaintiffs cite reports issued in 2002 and 2013 by the Institute of Medicine — now the National Academy of Medicine — which acknowledged gaps in available research and called for further study of cumulative vaccine exposure. According to the lawsuit, no comprehensive studies had directly compared overall health outcomes between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The complaint alleges that the AAP worked to minimize or obscure those conclusions, instead presenting the childhood schedule as exhaustively tested.

The Paul Offit Article and the “10,000 Vaccines” Claim

The lawsuit identifies a 2002 article by pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit, published in Pediatrics, as a foundational element of what it calls “institutional fraud.” That article suggested infants could theoretically tolerate exposure to thousands of antigens without overwhelming their immune systems.

According to plaintiffs, the AAP adopted this theoretical argument as a practical assurance of safety, incorporating it into its influential Red Book guidance used by pediatricians nationwide.

The complaint argues that while the article addressed immune system capacity in theory, it did not empirically test real-world cumulative vaccine schedules — a distinction plaintiffs say was lost in clinical practice and public messaging.

Physicians Claim Retaliation for Dissent

Two physician plaintiffs, Drs. Paul Thomas and Kenneth Stoller, allege that deviation from AAP vaccine guidance resulted in severe professional consequences.

Thomas, whose Oregon medical license was suspended after publishing a now-retracted study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children, claims economic and reputational damage. Stoller similarly alleges that granting medical exemptions led to the loss of his licenses in California and New Mexico.

The lawsuit contends that these actions created a chilling effect, discouraging pediatricians from questioning or individualizing vaccine recommendations.

Parents Describe Vaccine-Related Injuries and Deaths

Several parent plaintiffs allege that strict adherence to AAP guidance overrode individualized medical judgment with fatal consequences.

The complaint details cases involving sudden deaths, seizures, allergic reactions, and neurological injury following routine or catch-up vaccinations. In each instance, plaintiffs allege that family medical history, illness at the time of vaccination, or prior adverse reactions were dismissed under AAP-endorsed standards.

It is important to note that such allegations remain disputed in the medical community, where causal links between vaccines and many of these outcomes are contested.

Alleged Conflicts of Interest

The lawsuit further alleges that the AAP maintains financial relationships with major pharmaceutical manufacturers — including Pfizer, Merck, GSK, and Sanofi — as well as federal agencies, without adequately disclosing those ties in policy statements.

Plaintiffs argue that these relationships created institutional incentives to defend the existing schedule and oppose reforms, including recent efforts by HHS under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to reduce the number of recommended childhood vaccines.

The AAP has previously stated that industry funding does not influence its policy positions.

Broader Implications

Legal experts note that applying RICO to a medical association would be unprecedented and faces high evidentiary hurdles. RICO cases require proof of intent, coordinated enterprise activity, and sustained fraud — standards that have historically been difficult to meet outside organized crime or corporate conspiracies.

Regardless of outcome, the lawsuit reflects intensifying conflict between institutional medicine, dissident physicians, vaccine-skeptical advocacy groups, and federal health authorities. It also signals a shift from scientific and regulatory battles to high-stakes courtroom confrontation.

Whether the claims survive motions to dismiss or reach discovery may determine whether internal communications, funding arrangements, and policy deliberations within one of the nation’s most influential medical organizations are subjected to judicial scrutiny.

For now, the allegations remain unproven — but the case underscores how deeply polarized the debate over childhood vaccination policy has become in the United States.

Follow Child Health Defense for more.