On August 15, 2025, attorney Rick Jaffe, Esq. filed Thomas v. Monarez, Civ. Action No. 1:25-cv-02685 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs — Dr. Paul Thomas, Dr. Kenneth P. Stoller, and Stand for Health Freedom — are challenging the CDC’s universal childhood vaccine schedule, calling it “the most aggressive program in the world” and alleging that it has never been tested in the way it is “actually administered.”
The defendant is Susan P. Monarez, in her official capacity as director of the CDC. The case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to suspend the CDC’s “Category A” universal childhood vaccine recommendations until real-world safety studies are completed. The complaint explains that Category A applies “universally to children in an age group, while ‘Category B’ involves shared clinical decision-making between physician and family based on individual circumstances.”
Nearly all childhood vaccines carry the Category A designation. Only two — COVID-19 and the meningitis vaccines — are not considered Category A.
It is important to note that this case does not challenge state vaccine laws, nor are the plaintiffs in the case anti-vaccine. Instead, the plaintiffs demand that the federal government provide real safety evidence before issuing universal recommendations that become the basis for state mandates.
Why the plaintiffs are suing
According to Jaffe, “the United States administers more vaccines to children than any other country, yet the CDC has never evaluated the safety of the full schedule in the form in which it is actually given.” Instead, it assumes that because each vaccine has been studied in isolation, the entire 72-plus-dose regimen must be safe.
For more than 20 years, Jaffe explains, “the government’s own top scientific advisors” have warned the CDC to study cumulative effects of the full vaccine schedule. The response? Silence — while the CDC expanded the schedule and punished doctors who questioned it.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) “develops recommendations on how to control disease in the U.S.,” and its recommendations are forwarded to the CDC director. Once approved, they become the official CDC vaccine policy.
Plaintiffs argue that the universal Category A recommendations are overly rigid and are “enforced through ACIP’s narrow contradictions and precautions framework, which excludes many documented risk factors and prevents physicians from exercising individualized medical judgment.”
The complaint goes on to explain that ACIP “propagates an unscientific, one-size-fits-all model” that fails to protect from the serious harm some children might experience “from continued vaccination.” When physicians deviate from the schedule to protect their patients, they often face “career destruction.”
Jaffe continued, “American children have become the sickest in the developed world, with over 50% suffering chronic conditions,” from autism and ADHD to asthma, diabetes, and severe allergies. Meanwhile, the CDC continues to expand its “untested vaccine schedule.”
States then use the CDC’s recommendations to mandate school and daycare vaccine requirements, creating coercive policies without foundational science.
The plaintiffs argue,
The CDC’s universal childhood vaccine recommendations are not supported by cumulative safety evidence, but by the untested assumption that if each vaccine is safe in isolation, the whole schedule must be safe.
In addition, plaintiffs in the case assert that the CDC participates in “deliberate ignorance” regarding its vaccine policies. “There is no record of any biennial vaccine safety report made by HHS to Congress concerning the safety of vaccines, which violates statutory duty.” It seems the CDC “does not want to know if its program causes more harm than good.”
Arguing for a more measured approach to vaccine administration, the complaint cites a study that shows that “seventeen EU nations, the UK, and Japan already use the voluntary model while maintaining over 90% vaccination rates.” Jaffe also hopes the lawsuit will make the public at large more aware of the fact that the “CDC has never tested the complete schedule for safety” and that the Institute for Medicine (IOM) has been begging the CDC to do so “for almost 25 years.”
What the plaintiffs want
The lawsuit makes three clear demands:
- Suspend all CDC universal childhood vaccine recommendations until cumulative, long-term safety studies are completed.
- Require shared clinical decision-making — so every vaccine decision is made between doctor and family, not imposed by a federal committee.
- Protect physicians from retaliation when they speak openly about patient safety.
This case could set a new precedent, one that would require that no universal medical recommendation exist without cumulative safety evidence. Families who want to vaccinate their children can and will continue to do so.
The plaintiffs stress that “until the CDC proves the full childhood vaccine schedule is safe, every vaccine decision must be made between doctor and family.”
This case is about proving safety first. It is also about protecting the rights of physicians to assert their First Amendment rights and ensuring that parental consent is part of the discussion before administering a vaccine.
The lawsuit, according to Jaffe, is being “100 percent funded by the community,” through his GiveSendGo crowdfunding campaign.
Image: Triggermouse via Pixabay, Pixabay License.