Medical Groups Are Suing the HHS Over Vaccine Policies—and It’s a Good Thing

The lawsuit exposes what these establishment groups actually stand for. And it isn’t medicine.

Originally published on The Gold Report, republished by permission of the author

Medical Groups Are Suing the HHS Over Vaccine Policies—and It’s a Good Thing

Simone Gold, MD, JD

After decades of escalation, the HHS is reducing the number of vaccines recommended for American children. Predictably, the Medical-Industrial Complex is not taking it well.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), along with several allied medical organizations, is now asking a federal court to undo recent changes to the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule, and to stop the upcoming February meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The organizations first filed a lawsuit last year after the CDC removed the experimental COVID-19 shots from the childhood schedule. That case is still ongoing. Now they want the court to go further and reverse the broader changes altogether.

Those changes are significant. The U.S. childhood vaccine schedule no longer resembles the aggressive 71-shot regimen it once did. Instead, it now looks more like the more moderate schedules used in countries like Denmark, Japan, and Germany. The HHS narrowed vaccine recommendations for meningococcal disease, hepatitis B, and hepatitis A to children who are broadly at higher risk. It also shifted flu, COVID-19, and rotavirus shots to “shared clinical decision-making”—meaning families who want them are encouraged to discuss it with their doctor rather than be railroaded by a blanket mandate.

I’m glad these organizations filed this lawsuit. Not because they’re right, but because the complaint exposes what they actually stand for. And it isn’t medicine.

For one thing, the complaint contains virtually no medical science. None. The plaintiffs repeatedly claim that HHS “does not follow the science,” but they fail to show “the science.” They assert that the directives contradict a “wealth of data and peer-reviewed studies” proving the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines for children and pregnant women, yet they never actually show this supposed wealth of data.

Instead, they pivot to a familiar historical story—and it doesn’t hold up.

The complaint says that vaccines turned the tide against measles, mumps, and rubella in the 1960s, and that by the end of the century vaccines had eradicated smallpox and virtually eliminated measles. This is the same argument Americans have heard for decades: disease rates went down after vaccines were introduced, so the vaccines must be the reason.

That is classic post hoc logic—and it’s been debunked over and over. Deaths from infectious diseases dropped sharply in the mid-20th century primarily because of better nutrition and sanitation, not vaccines. Take measles. Though it killed tens of thousands in the 1800s, measles mortality had already fallen by 98 percent by 1960—before the MMR vaccine even existed. Why? Because nutrition and sanitation improved. Clean water spread. Indoor plumbing became common. As RFK Jr. has pointed out, deaths were dropping before vaccines.

The plaintiffs then mock RFK Jr. for suggesting that vitamin A can prevent measles deaths—apparently unaware that the World Health Organization, which they cite repeatedly in the complaint, openly acknowledges the same thing.

When it comes to actual evidence, things only get thinner. The groups attack RFK Jr. for directing the CDC in March to study possible links between vaccines and autism, claiming that “more than two dozen studies” have already settled the question. And what do they cite? Not the CDC’s own webpage, which carefully explains why the issue isn’t settled—but an article from the Washington Post. Legacy media propaganda.

Most of the complaint avoids medical science altogether and leans heavily on appeals to authority. Doctors affiliated with the plaintiff organizations offer their opinions that the HHS directives are wrong, unscientific, and dangerous. In other words: trust us, we’re doctors.

It’s a shame they didn’t ask us at America’s Frontline Doctors. We could have introduced them to hundreds of physicians at the top of their fields who can explain exactly why the childhood schedule must be trimmed.

Our doctors would have pointed out that as of early 2025, VAERS—the CDC’s own safety reporting system—listed 38,476 deaths and millions of adverse events from the COVID-19 mRNA shots in the United States alone. And that’s with VAERS being underreported by at least a factor of 20.

We would have cited Pfizer’s own trial data showing 42,086 injuries within four days of vaccination and 1,223 deaths within 90 days of rollout.

We would have noted that the trial used to justify vaccination for children under five involved just 10 COVID cases total—prompting even the CDC to admit a “very serious concern for imprecision.”

We would have highlighted the FDA’s recent admission that healthy children died from the shots and that, contrary to what the public was told, the benefits did not outweigh the risks.

We would have shown a study of nearly one million children finding myocarditis and pericarditis only among the vaccinated. Or the censored Henry Ford Health study showing a 57 percent increase in chronic disease among children who kept to the CDC’s schedule —329 percent more asthma, 203 percent more atopic disease, 496 percent more autoimmune disease, and 453 percent more neurodevelopmental disorders, including 228 percent more developmental delays and 347 percent more speech disorders.

We would have pointed to similar findings from Dr. Paul Thomas, showing that even partially vaccinated children returned with sharply higher rates of anemia, eczema, behavioral issues, eye disorders, ADHD, infections, and allergies.

But instead of seeking out both sides of the debate and searching for evidence, the plaintiffs complained about something else entirely: inconvenience.

“That Directive has caused physician members to spend more time counseling patients regarding the effectiveness of the Covid vaccines, which adds up to time and resources diverted from other patients,” the complaint read.

Translation: instead of vaccinating compliant patients and collecting insurance and Medicaid kickbacks, doctors now have to educate patients about what goes into their children’s bodies.

The American Public Health Association (APHA) made a similar complaint, saying its members must now “correct misinformation” and answer questions:

“APHA members are required to spend more time correcting misinformation with individuals and families regarding the effectiveness of the Covid vaccines, which diverts time and resources away from other important health care or public health duties.”

Translation: educating patients so they can give their informed consent is very inconvenient.

Another complaint warns that doctors are now forced to contradict the HHS secretary’s guidance, which “erodes trust” and threatens their practices:

“The Directive has put all AAP members (and, indeed, all other physicians in this country) in the untenable position of telling their patients that the country’s top-ranking government health official’s advice and recommendations are wrong and that we are right. This erodes trust, which is the foundation of a healthy physician-patient relationship and vital to the success of AAP members’ medical practices.”

Translation: patients are hearing different viewpoints and no longer treating doctors as unquestioned authorities.

“Parents are now distressed and unsure about Covid vaccines where they were not before,” the complaint adds.

Translation: parents are waking up and thinking for themselves..

Some doctors were even more direct. Dr. Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians, complained that “ACP physicians who now administer the Covid vaccine face financial harm because some insurers do not cover vaccines that are not on the CDC immunization schedules.”

Translation: informed patients hurt our bottom line.

Another physician worried that the new policy makes it harder to run vaccine clinics, order shots in bulk, and secure reimbursement.

Translation: informed consent is less profitable.

Most troubling of all were complaints that relationships with patients have “deteriorated” because parents chose to trust HHS guidance and declined the COVID shots for their children:

“[S]everal patients, such as parents of young children, have decided to trust the Secretary’s advice and refused to get the Covid vaccine for their child. [This doctor’s]relationship with these patients has deteriorated as a result of the Secretary’s May 19, 2025 Directive,” says the complaint.

Think about that: these doctors are allowing—or causing—their relationships with patients to sour because families made a medical decision.

This lawsuit lays it all bare. Informed consent, once the foundation of ethical medicine, is now treated as a nuisance. Patients who ask questions are seen as a problem. Parents who take responsibility for their children’s health are viewed as a threat.

That’s why this case matters. It forces the public to look closely at what modern medicine has become—and to accept a hard reality: not every doctor is worthy of the title. And it challenges Americans to choose their physicians more carefully, starting with one essential question: what is a doctor?

---