Finally? Accountability for the AAP?

It’s about time that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is called to the carpet, and that is exactly what Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is doing.

In January, CHD filed a landmark RICO case (Shaw et al. v. American Academy of Pediatrics) accusing

AAP of running a decades-long scheme to mislead parents, doctors, and policymakers about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule. The lawsuit alleges that AAP violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act because they not only made false safety claims about vaccines but also failed to disclose their financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. AAP also incentivizes pediatricians to maximize vaccination rates.

The plaintiffs include not only CHD, but also pediatricians who had their licenses revoked and their livelihoods DESTROYED simply for deviating from AAP guidelines. Plaintiffs also include parents who had children injured (or who died) after routine childhood vaccinations.

AAP is one of the world’s most powerful medical institutions. CHD is directly challenging that power. CHD is challenging that power by making several claims in the lawsuit. First, the complaint alleges that AAP promotes vaccine safety without comprehensive safety testing. In other words, there are no clear studies comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. The lawsuit also alleges foundational fraud, meaning that AAP relies on a theory that infants can safely receive thousands of vaccines at once. The problem is that there is no clinical evidence to support that claim, and lots of clinical evidence pointing to the compounding harmful effect of giving multiple vaccines at once.

Another tenet of the lawsuit is that AAP uses its power and influence to punish physicians who dissent. AAP has knowingly damaged the careers of pediatricians who questioned vaccine safety claims. And perhaps the biggest claim of all is collusion..the AAP has failed to disclose its relationship with Big Pharma.

What Is RICO, and Why It Matters

RICO stands for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a U.S. federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. Yes, it has been used against the mafia, but also against businesses, political organizations, public officials, and other groups.

To win a civil or criminal RICO case, the plaintiff or prosecutor generally must prove several key elements:

• An enterprise existed. This can be a corporation, nonprofit, partnership, government entity, or even an informal group of people associated together.

• The defendant participated in or directed the affairs of that enterprise.

• There was a pattern of racketeering activity, meaning at least two qualifying offenses within a 10-year period that are related and show continuing criminal conduct.

• The plaintiff (in a civil case) was injured in their business or property because of the RICO violation.

It should come as no surprise that AAP filed a motion to dismiss. AAP argued that the complaint levied does not adequately fit a RICO claim. Basically, AAP is saying it does not demonstrate a pattern of racketeering activity.

The AAP Atrocities

Really? You be the judge. Here is just a smattering of what AAP has been up to in the past few years. We picked the top 4 atrocities but there are certainly many more.

#1: Remember when AAP rejected the CDC vaccine schedule and recommended its own?
The AAP continued to recommend the status quo, notably different from the CDC’s list of dramatically downsized recommended vaccines. “We’re going to publish vaccine recommendations that are based on scientific evidence and that are in the best interest of children.” The AAP recommendations are “not based on political ideology. They’re based on keeping kids healthy.”

Oh really?

#2 What about this one? It’s no surprise that AAP has ties to GLP-1 drugmakers. As far back as January 2023, the AAP issued new clinical guidelines for treating childhood obesity. The remedy? Pediatricians should offer GLP-1 weight-loss drugs and bariatric surgery to obese children. In an unrelated incident, AAP has undisclosed financial ties to the  major GLP-1 drugmakers.

#3 The AAP continued to promote the Hepatitis B vaccine for NEWBORNS. They even said that babies will DIE if they don’t get the shot. This was in direct defiance to the CDC vaccine advisers who said that babies should not receive the vaccine until they are 2 months old. Some experts suggest the AAP’s decision is motivated by conflicts of interest, not safety.

Really, you think?

#4 In what has been touted as a completely medical reckless move, the AAP has promoted that children as young as 6 months old begin regular screenings for mental or developmental issues at every well-child visit. What? The only outcome could be overmedicating children. Really? Actively looking for signs of depression in a 2-year-old? It’s ludicrous!

Is This the Final Reckoning?

At its core, the CHD case against AAP demands transparency, accountability, and an end to medical dogma that masquerades as science. CHD is using a similar legal strategy to the legal strategy used to expose Big Tobacco. Will it work? Let’s hope so, because the bottom line is that for decades, AAP has been promoted as the authoritative voice on pediatric health. AAP policies shape what parents are told in exam rooms, what doctors are allowed to question, and what options families are given.

At its heart, the CHD lawsuit seeks to expose how institutional power, financial conflicts, and untested assumptions became embedded as “settled science.” AAP has tried to close the door on legitimate inquiry and informed consent. CHD CEO Mary Holland said it best: “This case forces a reckoning with whether children’s health, or corporate profit, is the guiding priority.”

If CHD is successful, the remedy will be damages awarded to the injured plaintiffs, but even more importantly, AAP’s wings will be clipped in that they will be prohibited from making any further unqualified safety claims about childhood vaccines.

In April, AAP filed a motion to dismiss. This move on their part was anticipated. A decision regarding how the case will move forward is anticipated on or about July 14. We’ll be waiting to see…

But make no mistake. As this case moves forward, and hopefully it will, it has the power to fundamentally reshape how pediatric medicine, vaccine policy, and informed consent are understood in America.

And that is long overdue. For more information on CHD’s long-fought pursuit of justice regarding AAP, click here and enter AAP as your search term.