We the People vs. the CDC: A Lawsuit for Our Children's Health

Historic Legal Challenge Demands CDC Prove Safety of 72-Dose Childhood Vaccine Schedule for First Time Ever

Read, share, and comment on the X thread dedicated to this announcement here: https://x.com/sayerjigmi/status/1959422831843815735

---

Breaking Announcement: I am grateful to share that Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) -- the nonprofit I co-founded in 2019 with Leah Wilson, Esq. and Dr. Joel Bohemier -- hFas filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). We have joined forces with two courageous physicians, Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. Kenneth Stoller, and our lead counsel Rick Jaffe, Esq., to challenge the CDC's childhood vaccine program on behalf of "We the People."

For decades, the CDC has recommended an ever-expanding schedule of vaccines for children (72+ doses by age 18) -- without once conducting safety testing on the cumulative effects of the entire schedule. This lawsuit finally puts that long-standing failure on trial.

In what follows, we delve into the background of this historic case, the people behind it, and why it could profoundly impact children's health and medical freedom in America.

Background: The CDC's Expanding Vaccine Schedule & Safety Concerns

For many years, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has added more and more shots to the childhood immunization schedule. In the 1980s, children received around two dozen doses; today, the official schedule calls for approximately 72 doses by age 18 (when counting each dose of multi-dose vaccines and annual flu shots). This aggressive schedule is the most extensive in the world.

However, neither the CDC nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ever conducted studies on the safety of giving all these vaccines in combination according to the schedule. Each vaccine is tested in isolation in short-term trials for licensure, but the cumulative impact of administering all CDC-recommended vaccines to a child has never been studied.

This gap in safety research has been flagged by experts for decades. The prestigious Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) urged the CDC to investigate the cumulative effects of the childhood vaccine schedule in reports published in 2002, 2005, and 2013. In those reports, panels of scientists raised concerns that simultaneous or back-to-back vaccinations might pose risks that wouldn't be apparent in single-vaccine trials. Yet the CDC ignored these recommendations, undertaking none of the comprehensive safety studies requested by its own advisors. The lawsuit calls this pattern "deliberate ignorance," noting that the agency offers no explanation for disregarding its most prestigious scientific adviser for over 20 years.

Meanwhile, American children have been getting sicker. Chronic health conditions such as asthma, allergies, autoimmune disorders, developmental delays, and autism have surged in the past several decades. The complaint points out that as the schedule ballooned from 24 to 72+ doses, autism diagnoses exploded from 1 in 150 children to 1 in 31, and over half of U.S. kids now suffer from some form of chronic illness. Of course, correlation is not causation -- but the core issue is that no one in authority has rigorously investigated whether this massive increase in pharmaceutical interventions in early childhood could be contributing to these poor health outcomes.

Instead, any concern about "too many, too soon" has been met with the refrain that vaccines are safe and that questions are unwarranted. As far back as 1984, federal policy was explicitly oriented to "not allow" safety doubts about vaccines to persist, lest vaccination uptake decline. In essence, the public was told to provide proof of harm -- even though the very agency in charge refused to actively look for that harm.

To those who would object by labeling this lawsuit “anti-vaccine” outright: that is not what this case is about. It does not seek to ban vaccines or remove individual shots from the market. Rather, it demands that the CDC do what any responsible public health authority should—scientifically validate that the entire schedule as administered in the real world (multiple shots per visit, 30–40+ injections by kindergarten, 72+ doses total) is safe. If the CDC claims this aggressive regimen is necessary and beneficial for all children, then proving it does more good than harm should be a simple, unquestionable step.

Yet up to now, the CDC's position has been that such studies are unnecessary, or even "unethical" (since they assume every child must get every shot, they claim it's unethical to have an unvaccinated control group for comparison). The result has been a 29-year gap in accountability: federal law required Health and Human Services (HHS, the parent agency of CDC) to report to Congress on vaccine safety progress every two years after 1986, but for roughly 27+ years HHS filed none of those reports. During this silence, the vaccine schedule tripled and American children became, by many measures, the sickest pediatric generation in our history.

Other developed nations take a more cautious approach. In fact, 17 European countries, as well as the UK and Japan, have no mandatory vaccine schedule -- and yet they achieve over 90% vaccination rates through education and choice, not coercion. These countries, which use far fewer pediatric vaccines than the U.S., also enjoy generally better infant health outcomes across multiple metrics. This directly challenges the CDC's premise that only an ever-growing mandatory schedule can protect public health. High vaccination rates do not require strict mandates; when parents are given honest information and the freedom to consent, most will choose what's best for their children. The CDC, by contrast, has assumed that Americans cannot handle medical freedom -- an assumption our lawsuit intends to prove wrong.

The Lawsuit: Seeking Accountability and Safety Studies

On August 15, 2025, Dr. Paul Thomas, Dr. Kenneth P. Stoller, and Stand for Health Freedom filed a federal lawsuit against the CDC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case is titled Thomas v. Monarez (Monarez being a CDC official, as is customary in suits against government agencies). This is a groundbreaking legal challenge: for the first time, the CDC's entire childhood immunization schedule -- "the most aggressive vaccination program in the world" -- will have to be justified in a court of law.

View the full lawsuit: https://standforhealthfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/complaint2.pdf

Key allegations and legal arguments in the lawsuit include:

Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

The lawsuit argues that the CDC effectively turned its recommendations into de facto mandates without following the proper rule-making process required by the APA. The CDC's childhood schedule is officially "recommendations," but in practice, ACIP's Category A recommendations are treated as binding norms by states and medical boards. By failing to conduct required safety studies and by not considering "an important aspect of the problem" (namely, the cumulative risks of dozens of vaccines), the CDC's actions are "arbitrary and capricious" under the APA. The suit points out that CDC's vaccine program has ignored a critical safety factor -- the combined effect -- which even the CDC's own scientific advisors have warned about.

Constitutional Violations (5th Amendment & 1st Amendment)

The plaintiffs assert that the CDC's one-size-fits-all framework tramples fundamental rights. By promulgating an untested standard that states then use to mandate vaccination for school or daycare, the CDC is effectively depriving parents of their right to direct the medical care of their children, and infringing on children's rights to bodily integrity and to life and liberty, without due process. The lawsuit highlights that the CDC's approach "denies the existence of medically vulnerable children" -- the agency refuses to recognize that some children (for genetic, medical, or environmental reasons) may be at significantly higher risk of vaccine injury. By denying this reality, the policy does not make any accommodation for those children, thus endangering their lives and health (a violation of equal protection and due process).

Furthermore, the complaint raises First Amendment issues: it argues that the rigid CDC schedule, combined with state enforcement, suppresses free speech and inquiry in medicine. Doctors who even question the CDC's recommendations have faced censorship and professional retaliation. Parents, likewise, are often denied truthful information -- the lawsuit notes that many families can't even find a doctor willing to discuss medical exemptions or acknowledge a prior vaccine injury, because the CDC's framework is so narrow and any deviation is punished. This creates a climate where parents are denied their right to informed consent, which inherently includes the right to receive information and weigh risks vs. benefits. In short, the suit says the CDC's policies have effectively shut down debate and stripped away the normal ethical practice of individualized medical judgment.

ACIP's "Category A" Recommendations as a Shadow Mandate

A central focus of the case is the CDC's use of ACIP Category A recommendations. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) classifies vaccines for children into Category A or Category B. Category A vaccines are recommended for all children in a given age group (universal recommendation), whereas Category B vaccines involve individual clinical decision-making -- i.e. recommended based on individual circumstances, in a conversation between families and providers.

In theory, ACIP recommendations are just advice. In reality, nearly all U.S. states embed the CDC's Category A list into their laws or public health regulations. Category A vaccines form the basis of school and daycare entry requirements across the country, and state medical boards often treat the CDC schedule and contraindication list as the de facto "standard of care". This means a physician who goes against Category A -- for example, by spacing out vaccines, omitting certain doses, or writing a medical exemption outside the CDC's very limited criteria -- is easily branded as practicing below standard, and can face discipline.

The lawsuit points out that virtually every pediatric vaccine has been put in Category A (applying to all children), even when there are legitimate reasons for individual discretion. As of today, only two vaccines (COVID-19 for healthy kids and meningococcal B for teens) are in Category B shared-decision status -- all others (dozens of shots for 16 diseases) are Category A "musts." By categorizing them this way without due consideration for cumulative safety or individual risk factors, the CDC essentially forced a one-size-fits-all mandate onto the entire nation's children. Our lawsuit calls this a "shadow mandate" -- an unofficial mandate that arose without Congress or regulators ever formally requiring it.

What We Seek -- Admission That ACIP’s One-Size-Fits-All Recommendations are Reckless

The plaintiffs are asking the court for injunctive and declaratory relief to fundamentally reform how the childhood immunization schedule is handled. Specifically, we request that the court vacate ACIP's Category A classification for all pediatric vaccines and order the CDC to reclassify them as Category B (shared clinical decision-making) until such time that proper, long-term, scientifically rigorous studies are conducted on the cumulative safety of the full schedule.

In practice, this would suspend any vaccine "mandate" tied to the CDC schedule -- making all childhood vaccines recommended and decided upon by parents and doctors, not mandated by government, unless and until the CDC can demonstrate through evidence that the entire schedule is safe for every child. We are also seeking a declaration that the CDC's existing framework is unconstitutional and unlawful, given the reasons above. In short, the goal is to restore scientific integrity and medical freedom in public health: recommendations should be based on solid evidence and open discussion, and families (especially those with vulnerable children) should have the freedom to make informed healthcare decisions without coercion.

It's important to note that this lawsuit is 100% funded by the community -- by ordinary Americans who are concerned about children's health and parental rights. We are not backed by any industry interests. This is truly We the People vs. the CDC, in every sense. If you feel called, please lend support to this entirely grassroots effort by donating here.

Now, let's meet the people who brought this case forward.

Who Are the Plaintiffs and Supporters?

Stand for Health Freedom (SHF)

This Indiana-based nonprofit organization is the third named plaintiff in the case. SHF was co-founded in 2019 by myself (Sayer Ji), Leah Wilson, Esq., and Dr. Joel Bohemier, DC, as a grassroots movement to empower individuals to safeguard their health rights. Today, Stand for Health Freedom, along with its dedicated staff, represents over 960,000 active advocates nationwide and relies entirely on citizen support. Our mission is to defend informed consent, parental rights, and medical freedom. SHF provides advocacy tools that have enabled over 4 million civic actions (such as emails to lawmakers) by our members, contributing to health freedom victories across the U.S. Learn more by reading our Impact statement here.

Leah Wilson serves as SHF's Executive Director. She is an attorney and mother who has dedicated her career to ensuring that policies respect families' rights and wellbeing.

Dr. Joel Bohemier is a chiropractor and natural health practitioner from a family of 46 chiropractors; he has been a passionate voice for holistic healthcare and honoring the body's innate wisdom. Together with our team, we built SHF to be a platform where ordinary people can stand up to extraordinary overreach.

In this lawsuit, SHF brings the voice of hundreds of thousands of parents and concerned citizens to the courtroom. We have seen first-hand the desperation of families whose children were harmed by one-size-fits-all policies -- families who then found no medical support because doctors feared retribution for deviating from CDC guidelines. SHF has been "forced to deal every day with the consequences of an untested childhood vaccine program," as Attorney Jaffe wrote. By taking this legal action, we aim to give those families a seat at the table and force a long-ignored issue into the light of day.

Dr. Paul Thomas, MD

A pediatrician with over 30 years of experience caring for children, Dr. Paul Thomas is a central figure in this case. He ran a large pediatrics practice in Oregon and is the author of the bestselling book "The Vaccine-Friendly Plan." Dr. Thomas dared to question the CDC schedule in his practice, opting for a more gradual and individualized vaccine plan. In 2020, he published peer-reviewed research comparing health outcomes in his practice between children who followed the CDC schedule, those who partially vaccinated, and those who were not vaccinated. The data showed that children who received fewer vaccines had lower rates of chronic illnesses like asthma, allergies, and ADHD, whereas those fully vaccinated had higher rates -- a finding that called for further investigation.

Instead of the medical community welcoming this research, it was met with punishment: just five days after his study appeared, the Oregon Medical Board suspended Dr. Thomas's medical license in an emergency meeting, claiming his approach was "a threat to public health." He ultimately had to close his practice under the weight of the sanctions. Dr. Thomas's rights and those of his patients were effectively trampled for challenging the status quo. In joining this lawsuit, Dr. Thomas is fighting not just for his own vindication, but for all families who want a safe, evidence-based immunization plan. "To expose the data on harm caused by vaccines would destroy confidence in the program," Dr. Thomas has said, underscoring the mentality he encountered. Now, he's demanding that the program prove it's actually helping, not hurting, our kids.

Dr. Kenneth P. Stoller, MD

Dr. Ken Stoller is another brave pediatrician and co-plaintiff. He originally practiced in California, where he was known for treating children with autism and other neurodevelopmental issues. Dr. Stoller took a special interest in genetics and vaccine injuries -- he would perform genetic screenings to identify kids who might be at higher risk for adverse reactions to vaccines (for example, children with certain mitochondrial or immune function markers). If he found significant risk factors, Dr. Stoller sometimes advised an alternative schedule or wrote medical exemptions to delay or skip certain vaccines.

His personalized approach ran afoul of California's medical establishment after the state passed strict laws essentially eliminating all vaccine exemptions except in extreme, CDC-recognized cases. In 2020, the California Medical Board revoked Dr. Stoller's license for what they deemed "departing from the standard of care" -- specifically, for writing medical exemptions for kids based on genetic susceptibility and medical history, rather than adhering to the CDC's very narrow contraindication list. Dr. Stoller has since relocated and is licensed in other states, but the injustice of his case remains. He has joined this lawsuit to stand up for medically fragile children and the doctors who serve them. The CDC's framework pretends those children don't exist -- denying that some kids are vaccine-vulnerable -- and Dr. Stoller knows from first-hand experience that they do exist and deserve protection. His message is that sound medicine is individualized medicine: if we ignore biological differences, we will inevitably hurt a subset of children. This lawsuit seeks to end that willful blindness.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Rick Jaffe is the lead attorney on the case -- a seasoned health-freedom lawyer with decades of experience battling bureaucracies on behalf of patients and practitioners. Mr. Jaffe has been involved in high-profile cases ranging from stem cell therapy and cancer treatment freedom to defending physicians targeted by medical boards. Notably, in the past few years he litigated Cardenas v. Monarez (challenging the CDC's inclusion of COVID-19 shots in the pediatric schedule and the requirements tied to it) and Kory v. Bonta (defending doctors' free speech in California).

In Cardenas, filed in early 2023, Jaffe sought to block the CDC from adding COVID vaccines to the routine child schedule and to stop the Vaccines for Children program from requiring pediatricians to stock the COVID shot. During the course of that lawsuit, HHS actually moved COVID-19 vaccines to Category B (shared decision-making) for healthy children and dropped the Medicaid pediatric requirement -- effectively achieving the main aims of the case. Once those changes occurred, Jaffe dismissed Cardenas as moot and set his sights on the bigger target: the entire schedule. That led to the current lawsuit. As Jaffe writes in his blog announcement of this case, "what's next was a much bigger problem" -- namely, the 72-dose schedule that had never been properly safety-tested.

Rick Jaffe is passionate about this cause. He notes that even the government's own vaccine advisory bodies (like the Institute of Medicine) have been calling for proper safety studies for decades -- yet the CDC failed to act. Jaffe calls the CDC's refusal to study the full schedule a "27-year cover-up", referencing the agency's non-compliance with the mandate to report vaccine safety updates to Congress. In his view, the CDC avoided doing such research because it might reveal inconvenient truths -- "a political liability rather than a legal obligation", as he puts it. By bringing this lawsuit, Jaffe aims to force the CDC to finally reckon with those inconvenient truths. "This case puts the CDC's entire childhood program on trial," he says. And importantly, he emphasizes that this is a community-funded effort -- a testament to the thousands of parents and citizens who are fed up with being told to "sit down and trust authority" when it comes to their children's health. Jaffe hopes the case will not only prevail in court but also raise public awareness that the schedule has never been proven safe in toto. If the American public realizes that fact, he believes, there will be an outcry that forces policy change.

Additional Key Supporters

Leah Wilson, Esq.: Though not a named plaintiff, Leah is the co-founder and Executive Director of Stand for Health Freedom and a driving force behind this initiative. As an attorney and a mother, she has been on the frontlines of health freedom issues for years -- from organizing grassroots campaigns to testifying on legislation. Leah provides the legal acumen in translating families' struggles into policy action. In the context of this lawsuit, Leah has spoken about how parents are increasingly reaching out to SHF for help -- for instance, parents of vaccine-injured children who cannot get any doctor to acknowledge the injury or write an exemption for a sibling, because everyone's afraid to deviate from CDC guidelines.

She also highlights a disturbing ethical inversion in public health: officials claim it's "unethical" to study vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations (because they assume no child should miss vaccines even for a study), yet it is somehow ethical to continue a medical program without rigorously examining its safety in aggregate. Leah's stance, and that of SHF, is that real ethics demand transparency and knowledge -- you cannot claim a product or program is safe for all children if you refuse to look for evidence of harm. She is helping ensure this lawsuit keeps the focus on children's rights and families' rights, which the CDC is supposed to uphold, not override.

Sayer Ji: Lastly, a bit about myself: I am one of the co-founders of Stand for Health Freedom and have spent over a decade advocating for natural health and informed consent. I founded GreenMedInfo, a large natural health database, to help people access research that often gets overlooked. The reason I helped start SHF in 2019 was precisely because I saw that health mandates (whether it be vaccines, censorship of health information, or other interventions) were encroaching on basic freedoms. This lawsuit feels like the culmination of many years of effort by countless activists, and a perfect expression of the growing national and international coalition I am helping to bring together as the co-founder and chairman of the Global Wellness Forum, alongside my dear co-founders Marla Maples, Dr. Ed. Group, and our executive director, Aimee McBride. Learn more about our initiative and how you can join us here.

I am immensely proud of Dr. Thomas and Dr. Stoller for stepping up as plaintiffs -- it takes courage to challenge such a powerful agency. I'm also grateful to Rick Jaffe and our SHF team (Leah, Joel, and many unsung heroes) for crafting such a strong case. Together, we are "breaking through decades of silence" on this issue and standing up for the health and freedom of our children, as I wrote in my initial announcement of the lawsuit. We know there is a long fight ahead, but we are ready to take this all the way. For me, this is not just professional -- it's personal. It's about protecting future generations and ensuring that public health agencies remember they serve the people, and must be accountable to truth.

Why This Case Matters: Potential Impact and Significance

A Historic Moment of Accountability

This is truly a David vs. Goliath battle -- concerned parents and principled doctors versus a massive federal agency with an annual budget in the billions. Never before has the CDC's vaccination program been subjected to this kind of judicial scrutiny. In the past, vaccine lawsuits tended to focus on single products (like a specific vaccine injury claim in "vaccine court") or on state mandates (challenging a state's law). Those are important fights, but they left the core issue -- the CDC's role in setting an untested national standard -- unchallenged.

Now, for the first time, a federal court will examine whether the CDC has scientific justification for its childhood schedule as a whole. The agency will have to answer why it never performed long-term combination safety studies, despite repeatedly being told to do so. They will have to confront evidence (if presented) of harm or weaknesses in their assumptions. As Rick Jaffe wrote, "for decades, the agency has demanded proof of harm while refusing to do the studies that could provide it". That era is over. We are now asking the court to demand proof of safety. If the CDC wants to maintain that the schedule is safe, it must prove it -- under oath, with evidence. This case thus sets a precedent that could ripple across all areas of public health: government agencies should not be above accountability, especially when it comes to our children.

Reaffirming Informed Consent and Medical Freedom

The outcome of this lawsuit could dramatically shift the balance of power back to parents and healthcare providers in making medical decisions for children. If we win and the court orders a move to Category B (shared decision-making), no family would be forced to vaccinate their child to access education or public life -- at least not until the CDC does the proper safety studies and possibly revises its recommendations. Pediatricians would no longer face the threat of losing their license solely for tailoring vaccine recommendations to individual patients.

Informed consent -- the doctrine that any medical intervention must be voluntary and based on understanding of risks and benefits -- would be restored to its rightful place at the center of pediatric care. It's sad that we even have to fight for this principle, but recent years have shown that it can erode quickly under institutional pressure. This case asserts that medical freedom is a fundamental right. We believe that when parents are free to choose, and when doctors are free to guide them openly, vaccination can become a truly personalized risk-benefit decision, rather than a mandate. That, in turn, will build greater trust. The current climate of fear and coercion has polarized the vaccine issue; a win for us could establish a new paradigm where respect for individual choice and honest science go hand in hand.

Protecting the "Medically Vulnerable" and Improving Safety

A critical concept in this lawsuit is that of the "medically vulnerable child." Right now, the CDC's official stance is that aside from extremely rare conditions (like a severe allergic reaction to a prior dose or a severe immune deficiency), every child should get every vaccine on time, no matter what. The CDC effectively claims that no genetic, familial, or medical circumstances (e.g. autoimmunity in the family, previous vaccine reactions in a sibling, etc.) warrant deviating from the schedule. Our plaintiffs know, from clinical experience and data, that this is not true. Some children are far more susceptible to serious adverse reactions -- and there are biological markers and history clues that can identify many of these children in advance.

If the lawsuit succeeds, one practical effect would be forcing the CDC (and state health authorities) to expand their criteria for medical exemptions and contraindications. We want the agency to acknowledge that "vaccine-vulnerable" children exist and to protect them, not bulldoze over them. Imagine a world where no parent of a child who almost died from a vaccine is told "sorry, your second child still must get all the shots." That's the world we are fighting for.

Moreover, by demanding studies on the cumulative schedule, this case is inherently pro-safety. If the studies ultimately show certain combinations or timing of vaccines are causing problems, that information can be used to make the schedule safer for everyone. If, on the other hand, the studies truly demonstrate no long-term harm, that could reassure the public. The point is that either outcome is better than a stalemate of ignorance. Children deserve the safest possible medical care, and that can only be achieved by confronting potential safety issues head-on, scientifically and transparently.

Shining Light on a Broken System

This lawsuit is also about exposing systemic failures that have persisted due to lack of oversight. As mentioned, HHS never complied with the law that required regular safety updates on vaccines to Congress -- essentially a failure of accountability at the highest level. Astonishingly, the very week our lawsuit was filed, the new leadership at HHS announced the reinstatement of the long-dormant Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines. (This task force was mandated by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, but hadn't met since 1998!) The HHS press release called this "a bold step to restore public trust in vaccines" and acknowledged the need for "unbiased science...insulated from conflicts of interest" in guiding vaccine policy.

We view this as a positive and encouraging first step -- perhaps a response to the pressure that has been building from the public and legal actions. However, HHS's move to revive the task force still doesn't directly address the core issue our lawsuit raises: the lack of safety testing of the entire schedule. It's like admitting there's a problem but not yet doing what's necessary to fix it. Our case aims to compel the CDC to do the hard work of comprehensive safety research and to operate with "radical transparency" moving forward. In doing so, we are effectively helping the government correct course and fulfill its duty to the American people. If successful, this could herald an era in which vaccine recommendations (and indeed all health recommendations) are made with far greater rigor, humility, and public involvement.

A Turning Tide in Public Health

It's worth noting that this lawsuit arrives at a time when the landscape of public health policy is shifting. In early 2025, a new administration in Washington began implementing significant changes at health agencies. In June, for example, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 members of the CDC's vaccine advisory committee (ACIP) and reconstituted the committee with a new slate of experts. This bold move was aimed at "restoring public trust" by eliminating perceived conflicts of interest and bringing in independent voices. The prior committee had largely been installed by the previous administration in 2024, entrenching a specific ideology. By replacing them, HHS sent a message that "the committee will no longer function as a rubber stamp for industry" and that "unimpeachable integrity" and "gold standard science" must guide vaccine policy.

Secretary Kennedy also quickly took action on specific issues: for instance, he moved COVID-19 vaccines for kids to a Category B recommendation, stating that decisions should be left to parents and doctors, not dictated universally. He even cut or redirected certain vaccine-promotion budgets to focus on safety and research. These developments indicate a growing recognition at high levels of government that business as usual is not acceptable when it comes to vaccine policy.

Our lawsuit is in harmony with these changes -- it's part of the same zeitgeist of demanding transparency, scientific honesty, and respect for individual rights. We believe the courts, as another branch of government, have a vital role to play in checking the excesses of agencies. If the judicial branch acknowledges our claims, it will reinforce what the executive branch is beginning to do: ensure that public health policies are grounded in evidence, not habit or agenda, and that the public's trust is earned, not coerced.

The Stakes for Children's Health

Ultimately, this case is about our kids. We all want children to be safe from diseases -- that's the basis for why health authorities say vaccines exist in the first place -- but we also want them to be safe from the interventions meant to protect them. If we've learned anything in medicine, it's that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. A drug that helps many can grievously harm some; a policy that benefits one generation can backfire for the next if not continually re-evaluated.

The U.S. childhood vaccine schedule, as currently configured, has been described by some physicians (including one former NIH director) as "the most aggressive medical experiment in history" -- with American children as the experimental subjects, albeit without proper consent. Whether one fully embraces every vaccine or is more cautious, everyone should agree that constant self-audit is a sign of a healthy system. If half of our nation's kids are suffering chronic illnesses, we owe it to them to investigate every possible contributing factor -- and that includes the vaccine schedule.

Our children deserve no less. As Dr. Paul Thomas often says, "the ultimate measure should be whether our health interventions are doing more good than harm." This case is about making sure that measure is finally applied to our nation's vaccine program.

How to Follow and Support this Legal Battle

This lawsuit is not just an event, it's a movement. We invite you to be a part of it. Here are concrete ways you can stay informed and make a difference:

Learn More - Access the Legal Documents

• Read the Full Complaint: Download the official court filing (PDF) - This is the complete legal document filed in federal court

• Visit the Lawsuit Information Hub: Stand for Health Freedom - We the People vs. the CDC for an overview of the case, legal documents, and answers to frequently asked questions

Watch/Listen to the Announcement

• Featured Podcast: Listen to Leah Wilson and her husband Dr. Nick Wilson’s in-depth discussion about the lawsuit - Attorney Rick Jaffe explains the case, its implications, and answer audience questions about this historic legal challenge

Subscribe for Updates

To keep up with every twist and turn of this lawsuit, we encourage you to subscribe to Stand for Health Freedom's newsletter and updates. We will be sending out regular lawsuit updates, analyses, and calls to action as things progress (court dates, any CDC response, etc.). Subscribing is free and ensures you'll get the news directly.

• Stand for Health Freedom Newsletter: Get lawsuit updates delivered directly to your inbox

• Subscribe on Substack for regular case updates

• You can also subscribe to my personal Substack (Sayer Ji's Substack) where I share broader insights at the intersection of health, freedom, and science

Support the Legal Fund - Every Dollar Matched 1:1

As noted, this case is fully funded by grassroots donors, and we have a matching grant in effect. A generous supporter has pledged to match every dollar donated, up to $50,000 total. That means your contribution is effectively doubled. These funds go toward legal fees, court costs, research, and advocacy related to the lawsuit.

If you believe in what we're doing, please consider donating whatever you can -- it truly makes a difference. We are committed to seeing this through, but court battles against the federal government are neither quick nor cheap. With your help, we can sustain this fight for as long as it takes.

DONATE HERE - Your contribution directly supports this historic case

• Matching Grant Active: Every dollar donated is doubled (up to $50,000 total)

• This is 100% community-funded - no industry backing

• Your $20 becomes $40, your $100 becomes $200

• Tax-deductible contributions through our 501(c)(3) nonprofit

Spread the Word - Be an Informed Advocate

Even if you can't donate, you can help us enormously by spreading awareness. Share this announcement or the Stand for Health Freedom Lawsuit Hub link with those in your network -- whether it's on social media, via email, or in conversation. There is a mainstream media blackout on stories that question vaccine policy, so word of mouth and grassroots sharing is absolutely critical.

• Share the Official Complaint: Direct link to the lawsuit PDF

• Share Rick Jaffe's Legal Analysis: Finally, The CDC's Untested Childhood Vaccine Schedule Is On Trial

• Use Hashtag: #WeThePeopleVsCDC

• Key Talking Points to Share:

  • "The CDC's 72-dose childhood vaccine schedule has NEVER been safety tested as a whole"

  • "For the first time, a federal court will examine whether the CDC has scientific justification for its childhood schedule"

  • "This is about informed consent and medical freedom for families"

Join Stand for Health Freedom

If you're new to SHF, we invite you to explore our website beyond the lawsuit page. You can learn about our values, see other ongoing campaigns, and use our platform to contact your legislators on important issues. We have tools that make it easy to send messages to policymakers -- including thanking those who support health freedom and holding accountable those who don't.

Consider joining Stand for Health Freedom (it's free) to become one of our citizen advocates. By joining, you'll receive action alerts tailored to your state or interests. This lawsuit is one part of a much larger effort to ensure that informed consent, bodily autonomy, and family choice remain at the forefront of public policy. We welcome you with open arms to this cause.

Quick Reference Links

Essential Resources:

• The Lawsuit (PDF)

• Podcast Discussion

• Donate (Matched 1:1)

• Main Website

• #WeThePeopleVsCDC

Closing Thoughts

On behalf of Stand for Health Freedom and our co-plaintiffs, I want to extend heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has supported us in this endeavor -- whether through donations, sharing information, or words of encouragement. It has been incredibly uplifting to see thousands of parents, grandparents, health professionals, and freedom-loving individuals rally together. We truly are a community, and together, we are making history.

This lawsuit is about breaking a silence and demanding long-overdue answers. The CDC's vaccine schedule has been called an article of faith -- always expanding, "safe and effective" because they said so -- with dissenting voices marginalized. But science is not served by silence or dismissal; it is strengthened by questions and accountability. By taking the CDC to court, we are asserting that the health of our children is above politics and untouchable doctrines. It must be scrutinized with nothing less than the highest standards of evidence.

If the childhood vaccine program is as safe as officials claim, then a thorough investigation will only confirm its merits and restore public confidence. If there are areas that need change, then children's lives and futures are at stake, and reforms must happen. Either way, transparency wins; children win.

We believe that We the People have not just the right, but the duty, to hold our public health institutions to their own stated mission: protecting our health and well-being. This case is our way of fulfilling that duty. It's been said that "sunlight is the best disinfectant." With this lawsuit, we aim to shine a light into a very dark corner of the public health system. Win or lose, that light will expose the truth -- and the truth will guide our next steps in advocating for safe, rational, and compassionate healthcare for every child.

Thank you once again to all who are standing with us. We are optimistic and excited to take this all the way with your support. Please stay tuned for updates, and keep standing for health freedom in your own communities. Together, we are turning the tide for informed choice and medical transparency in America.

DONATE NOW | READ THE LAWSUIT | SHARE THIS MESSAGE

Read, share, and comment on the X thread dedicated to this announcement here: https://x.com/sayerjigmi/status/1959422831843815735

---

Yours in freedom and health,

Sayer Ji

Founder of Greenmedinfo.com, Co-founder and Chairman, The Global Wellness Forum

For press inquiries or more information, visit StandForHealthFreedom.com