Pharma Just Took the Bait.
RFK Jr. has been waiting for this lawsuit. Are we about to get discovery?
This week marked a critical turning point in medical freedom. On July 7, six of the most powerful medical organizations in the country—including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Physicians—filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for removing the COVID shot from the childhood vaccine schedule and replacing key advisory committee members. My sneaking suspicion is that it’s all performative, because there’s no way these groups really want a lawsuit.
Or are they dumb enough to walk right into RFK Jr.’s trap?
Let’s discuss.
Why hasn’t RFK Jr. pulled the shots already?
It’s the number-one question in medical freedom circles.
Why hasn’t he already dismantled the vaccine schedule? Why not immediately remove dangerous products from the market?
The answer is simple: he’s one of the preeminent — if not THE preeminent — environmental lawyers of our time.
He knows exactly how to win in court, and the complexity of the system he’s up against. Big Pharma has engineered a regulatory fortress from within: endless liability protections, revolving-door allies, and millions in slush fund lobbying power.
This isn’t hopium on my end.
This is a strategy that RFK Jr. has discussed openly in speeches, interviews, and on his own campaign trail for President in 2024.
To understand it, we have to understand the Daubert rule.
Hang with me for a minute.
For those of us who aren’t lawyers, sifting through legal jargon is a close second to spending a cozy night in hell.
I’ll try to break it down best I can!
The Daubert Rule: The Courtroom Firewall Protecting Pharma
In a highly underrated interview with Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr. revealed his full, step-by-step legal strategy against Pharma.
“There is a rule in federal court called the Daubert rule.”
“Say you think Coca-Cola made you obese—you can’t sue Coca-Cola unless there’s a critical mass of studies, maybe 20-30, that say that that’s what it does.”
“Once you get that critical mass, then you can go to a jury.”
“Once enough science is out there … the lawyers are gonna come out of the woodwork. They’re gonna be representing a million kids with diabetes.”
“And the company is gonna say: ‘We’re not gonna make this product anymore.’”
RFK Jr.’s goal is to get these companies to take their own products off the shelves, instead of giving more power to the federal government to regulate and create new loopholes for Pharma. He knows they’ll only lobby new regulations, exploiting them down the line (or under a new administration).
To do this, he needs a critical mass of ironclad studies that are replicable, peer-reviewed, government-funded, and bulletproof under Daubert.
Daubert is the leverage he needs to go up against these corporations in court, and if not to win, at least get a settlement that removes products from shelves.
If he moves without meeting Daubert, the case gets thrown out.
Like they always do.
Let’s just take a peek at some previous rulings.
Daubert Always Protects Pharma. Here’s the Proof.
Let’s look at how this rule has shielded pharma—again and again.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993):
Bendectin, an anti-nausea drug prescribed during pregnancy, was alleged to cause birth defects. This case led to the landmark Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision, establishing the Daubert standard for admissible scientific evidence.
Even with extensive animal studies, in vitro data, and expert testimony showing a likely link between a drug and birth defects, the court rejected the evidence. Not “reliable” enough.
Pharma won. And Pharma would continue to win.
Zoloft (Sertraline) Products Liability Litigation (2015):
Zoloft, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant manufactured by Pfizer, was alleged to cause congenital heart defects and other birth defects when taken during pregnancy.
Despite multiple epidemiological studies, FDA adverse event data, animal models, and meta-analyses, courts still sided with Pfizer in lawsuits alleging Zoloft caused birth defects.
The evidence in this case was SUBSTANTIAL, but the court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate general causation (that Zoloft could cause birth defects) with sufficient scientific rigor.
The goal post for evidence was fuzzy, and Pharma used Daubert to move it as far off as possible.
Vioxx (Merk) Products Liability Litigation (2006–2009):
Vioxx, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) manufactured by Merck, was alleged to increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Some plaintiffs succeeded in Vioxx litigation, but most claims were dismissed under Daubert.
This is significant because the plaintiffs presented a large body of evidence, including:
Clinical trial data, such as the VIGOR study, showing an elevated risk of cardiovascular events in Vioxx users compared to naproxen.
Observational studies and epidemiological data suggesting an association between Vioxx and heart attacks.
Post-marketing adverse event reports and internal Merck documents suggesting knowledge of risks.
Expert testimony from cardiologists and epidemiologists linking Vioxx to cardiovascular harm.
Despite all of this, the court sided with Merk.
Even overwhelming evidence isn’t enough, unless it’s replicable, established, and institutional.
RFK Jr. knows this. So he’s building the case slowly and strategically, from the inside out. One of the main things he needs is discovery. Release of all files related to these vaccines; data that’s been hidden, internal debates, etc.
This new lawsuit with Pharma’s front-groups could help do the trick.
How can you defend yourself when you’re not even allowed to access most of the data?
But Pharma Isn’t Thinking About That. They’re Thinking About Money.
This week, six powerful medical organizations filed suit against RFK Jr. and HHS:
AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics)
ACP (American College of Physicians)
APHA (American Public Health Association)
IDSA (Infectious Diseases Society of America)
SMFM (Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine)
MPHA (Massachusetts Public Health Alliance)
But wait — these aren’t pharmaceutical companies! They’re just innocent organizations, right? Sadly not. They’re little more than Pharma front groups. All we have to do is follow the money to prove it.
AAP — Over $1 million from Pfizer
ACP — Annual Pfizer funding up to $1 million
APHA — $200K from Merck
IDSA — $1.5M+ from Pfizer, Moderna, Gilead
SMFM — $100K–$300K per year from Pfizer and Moderna
MPHA — $50K from Pfizer in 2020
Unfortunately, these groups that play on our emotions and vulnerable sick populations aren’t in it for the right reasons.
They’re going to court to protect the bag, not to fight for you or your children.
The Lawsuit Tells All.
Counsel for plaintiffs put it plainly:
"This administration is an existential threat to vaccination in America, and those in charge are only just getting started.”
"The professional associations for pediatricians, internal medicine physicians, infectious disease physicians, high-risk pregnancy physicians, and public health professionals will not stand idly by as our system of prevention is dismantled.”
“This ends now."
While half of MAHA wonders if RFK Jr. “sold out,” the lawyers know exactly what’s going on.
They’re terrified that RFK Jr. is dismantling the entire system.
And they’re the ones IN the system!
About the lawsuit, Richard H. Hughes IV, a partner at Epstein Becker Green and lead counsel for the plaintiff told ABC:
Kennedy "has been on a warpath. It's gotten to the point that we are going to ... ask the court to put a stop to it.
This decision to unilaterally overturn the COVID recommendation based on a history of bias — it was an arbitrary, capricious decision.
They didn't make any effort to follow any ordinary processes."
Setting the Stage for the Big Lawsuit (Against Pharma Itself)
Vaccine manufacturers can’t be sued. This is a sad fact that frustrates MAHA more than anything else.
But these organizations, these fake, pharma front groups, can be.
If RFK Jr. wins here, he’ll unlock evidence, communications, and internal strategy memos that could blow the lid off the entire vaccine-industrial complex.
The key word here is DISCOVERY, and it could lead to countless other wins for MAHA.
Imagine seeing everything that’s going on behind the scenes. Imagine uncovering all the corruption, bribery, private conversations between Pharma and these non-profits.
The Timeline is Perfect. Some Predictions.
Not only will discovery rock our world, but the timeline of this lawsuit is set up to perfectly coincide with new studies coming out of HHS at Kennedy’s direction.
Given the history of Pharma litigation, and the nature of the courts in general, we can assume a few things about the timing of this case.
First, we know that plaintiffs are scrambling to get a ruling before more HHS studies come out about vaccines. Lead counsel Richard Hughes indicated a request for a preliminary and evidentiary hearing “within the next 2 weeks” from July 7, 2025, suggesting an expedited schedule for initial relief.
The plaintiffs request preliminary and permanent injunctions to block Kennedy’s directive, a declaratory judgment deeming it unlawful, and an order for Kennedy to reinstate the recommendations.
The request for a preliminary injunction suggests an expedited early hearing, which could accelerate initial rulings but not necessarily the final resolution. Given the high stakes and Kennedy’s prominence, the losing party is likely to appeal, potentially to the First Circuit and even the U.S. Supreme Court, which could extend the timeline significantly — perhaps even to 2027 or 2028.
By that point, we will have numerous new data sets out of HHS, and a stack of peer-reviewed, government-backed studies that meet the Daubert threshold.
Their case against HHS will become incredibly difficult.
Here’s what I think will happen:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to lauren lee to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.