The following groups are funded by Pfizer, etc. and are suing Kennedy. This provides a way to expose vaccines via discovery during the trial because they don’t have the protections pharma companies have but are funded by pharmaceutical companies. To me, it’s a like going through the back door to get pharma.
*This week, 6 groups sued RFK Jr. and HHS for:
Replacing ACIP members
Removing the COVID shot from the childhood schedule
American Academy of Pediatrics.
American college of Physicians.
American Public Health Association.
Infectious Disease Society of America.
Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine.
Multi Purpose Health Assistant.
They knew in March of 2021 that pregnant women should not take the shot. Rochelle Walensky was out all spring and summer all over the media saying "the shot is safe before during and after pregnancy" Evil!!!!!!
Same & he has to be. He was another source that put all the stray pieces together while reassuring us that all was going as planned even when it looked bad.
Yes, six major medical groups (including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Massachusetts Public Health Association, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine) along with an anonymous pregnant physician filed a lawsuit on July 7, 2025, against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and HHS (as well as other related officials and agencies like the FDA, NIH, and CDC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit challenges Kennedy’s May 19, 2025, “Secretarial Directive” removing COVID-19 vaccines from the CDC’s recommended immunization schedules for healthy children (ages 6 months to 17 years) and pregnant women, alleging it was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs seek to vacate the directive, reinstate the recommendations, and obtain injunctive relief.
Regarding discovery rights: In this type of lawsuit, which is a pure APA challenge to agency action (with no additional non-APA claims like constitutional violations or torts), judicial review is generally confined to the administrative record compiled by the agency (HHS) at the time of its decision, under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and precedents like Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971). This means broad civil discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26—such as requests for production of documents, interrogatories, or depositions—is not available as it is in typical litigation. The goal is to assess whether the agency’s action was arbitrary and capricious based on its own reasoning and record, not to create a new evidentiary record in court.
RFK Jr. and HHS (as defendants) therefore do not have a general right to conduct discovery into the plaintiffs’ vaccination data (e.g., internal studies or records on COVID-19 vaccine safety/efficacy held by the medical groups) or emails/communications between the medical groups and pharmaceutical companies. Such materials are outside the agency’s administrative record and typically irrelevant to APA review, which focuses on the agency’s process and basis for the directive, not the plaintiffs’ private information, motives, or external relationships. Exceptions allowing extra-record evidence or limited discovery are narrow and primarily benefit plaintiffs challenging the agency (e.g., upon a strong showing of agency bad faith or pretextual reasoning, as in Department of Commerce v. New York (2019), or if the record is so inadequate it frustrates review, per Camp v. Pitts (1973)). These exceptions do not extend to defendants seeking broad discovery from plaintiffs to probe for bias, conflicts, or other collateral issues.
If defendants believe such information is crucial (e.g., to contest the plaintiffs’ standing by arguing no genuine injury), they could motion the court for limited discovery on that threshold issue, but even then, it would be narrowly tailored and subject to judicial discretion— not a guaranteed right. Emails with pharma, in particular, would likely be deemed irrelevant or disproportionate unless tied directly to a bad-faith claim against the plaintiffs, which is uncommon and hard to substantiate in APA cases. In practice, courts disfavor expanding discovery in APA reviews to avoid delaying resolutions and burdening parties, as noted in analyses like those from the University of Chicago Law Review on evidentiary scope.
If the case evolves (e.g., via amended complaints, counterclaims, or consolidation with other suits), the discovery landscape could change, but based on the current filing, defendants lack the right to pursue this type of discovery.
Looking at how the agency arrived at their reasoning for approving the vaccines is all that is needed. What type of scientific basis did they use, where is the data, how was the data collected, for how long was it collected, what were the control parameters, those are the questions that need to be answered and all of those will lead to a decision on whether or not sound scientific methods were used.
Chevron deference always backed the “experts” brought in by federal govt agencies. They no longer have that ability to say that the workers at the various agencies are the experts. Yes, RFK will have to prove his case against vaccines by using data, but that’s exactly what we want anyway. He gets to prove that the vaccine approval process has been unscientific.
He has got a team of medical people and years of exposure himself. We need him to delegate, orchestrate, and fight against the medical tyranny and harmful mandates and policies. This is his expertise.
If anyone can get this done, it's Bobby. Pharma didn't become entrenched overnight. Therefore, to dismantle what they have built is also going to take time - one brick at a time removed from very strategic locations. At the point of critical mass, the entire wall crumbles. May it be so soon.
Hopefully, after all the evidence is produced in court, the AMA and other governing groups will have to stop pushing the covid vax (and any other mRNA vax). This could be the end of it.
They sue, hoping people can't afford litigation and corrupt judges and fold. But if you align the stars there's a wonderful thing called "discovery phase" that bring the smell of genuine fear out for everyone to experience.
The following groups are funded by Pfizer, etc. and are suing Kennedy. This provides a way to expose vaccines via discovery during the trial because they don’t have the protections pharma companies have but are funded by pharmaceutical companies. To me, it’s a like going through the back door to get pharma.
*This week, 6 groups sued RFK Jr. and HHS for:
Replacing ACIP members Removing the COVID shot from the childhood schedule
These groups include:
• AAP • ACP • APHA • IDSA • SMFM • MPHA*
They are suing the environmental attorney who hasn’t lost a case.
And that was before he had the full weight of the US government behind him.
Good ol'e Acronyms .
American Academy of Pediatrics. American college of Physicians. American Public Health Association. Infectious Disease Society of America. Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. Multi Purpose Health Assistant.
AAP is the worst as they said it was safe for pregnant women to take the bio weapon jabs.
Pure evil.
They knew in March of 2021 that pregnant women should not take the shot. Rochelle Walensky was out all spring and summer all over the media saying "the shot is safe before during and after pregnancy" Evil!!!!!!
Thank you ! 👍
That's what I heard.
They are going to get it.
👍❤️🇺🇸
FYI, I found out about this from X22
X22 is a good source for truth bombs. I have wondered if Dave is working with White Hats.
If not working with them directly, he gets info from them. He is always one step ahead of everybody.
Same & he has to be. He was another source that put all the stray pieces together while reassuring us that all was going as planned even when it looked bad.
I always feel like I know before Dave....
Discovery... will air the dirty deeds
Amen.
From Grok4 (says no discovery rights for RFK)
Yes, six major medical groups (including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Massachusetts Public Health Association, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine) along with an anonymous pregnant physician filed a lawsuit on July 7, 2025, against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and HHS (as well as other related officials and agencies like the FDA, NIH, and CDC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit challenges Kennedy’s May 19, 2025, “Secretarial Directive” removing COVID-19 vaccines from the CDC’s recommended immunization schedules for healthy children (ages 6 months to 17 years) and pregnant women, alleging it was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs seek to vacate the directive, reinstate the recommendations, and obtain injunctive relief. Regarding discovery rights: In this type of lawsuit, which is a pure APA challenge to agency action (with no additional non-APA claims like constitutional violations or torts), judicial review is generally confined to the administrative record compiled by the agency (HHS) at the time of its decision, under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and precedents like Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971). This means broad civil discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26—such as requests for production of documents, interrogatories, or depositions—is not available as it is in typical litigation. The goal is to assess whether the agency’s action was arbitrary and capricious based on its own reasoning and record, not to create a new evidentiary record in court. RFK Jr. and HHS (as defendants) therefore do not have a general right to conduct discovery into the plaintiffs’ vaccination data (e.g., internal studies or records on COVID-19 vaccine safety/efficacy held by the medical groups) or emails/communications between the medical groups and pharmaceutical companies. Such materials are outside the agency’s administrative record and typically irrelevant to APA review, which focuses on the agency’s process and basis for the directive, not the plaintiffs’ private information, motives, or external relationships. Exceptions allowing extra-record evidence or limited discovery are narrow and primarily benefit plaintiffs challenging the agency (e.g., upon a strong showing of agency bad faith or pretextual reasoning, as in Department of Commerce v. New York (2019), or if the record is so inadequate it frustrates review, per Camp v. Pitts (1973)). These exceptions do not extend to defendants seeking broad discovery from plaintiffs to probe for bias, conflicts, or other collateral issues. If defendants believe such information is crucial (e.g., to contest the plaintiffs’ standing by arguing no genuine injury), they could motion the court for limited discovery on that threshold issue, but even then, it would be narrowly tailored and subject to judicial discretion— not a guaranteed right. Emails with pharma, in particular, would likely be deemed irrelevant or disproportionate unless tied directly to a bad-faith claim against the plaintiffs, which is uncommon and hard to substantiate in APA cases. In practice, courts disfavor expanding discovery in APA reviews to avoid delaying resolutions and burdening parties, as noted in analyses like those from the University of Chicago Law Review on evidentiary scope. If the case evolves (e.g., via amended complaints, counterclaims, or consolidation with other suits), the discovery landscape could change, but based on the current filing, defendants lack the right to pursue this type of discovery.
Looking at how the agency arrived at their reasoning for approving the vaccines is all that is needed. What type of scientific basis did they use, where is the data, how was the data collected, for how long was it collected, what were the control parameters, those are the questions that need to be answered and all of those will lead to a decision on whether or not sound scientific methods were used.
The removal of the Chevron deference will also play a role in this lawsuit.
The removal of the Chevron deference will also play a role in this lawsuit.
What ya mean? I don't understand.
Chevron deference always backed the “experts” brought in by federal govt agencies. They no longer have that ability to say that the workers at the various agencies are the experts. Yes, RFK will have to prove his case against vaccines by using data, but that’s exactly what we want anyway. He gets to prove that the vaccine approval process has been unscientific.
Oh, paid actors, you mean. Thanks. I never heard of them.
Its a battle for life over death.
But don't just go after the big pharma, go after the individuals within big pharma that are driving this.
Heads must roll, otherwise they will regroup and come back from another angle. These people are evil.
I think it will if we have RFK
WOW Go RFK Junior. WE need a total about face in our thinking on health. 12 very young grandchildren, WE need it NOW.
RFK Jr is perfect for HHS Secretary. We need a lawyer with all his experience in this field.
He’s sued these companies for decades. Now he has a three trillion dollar budget, Trump and the military behind him.
By "misinformation" you mean information that does not fit the narrative?
Give some examples when making broad accusations about the Secretary.
He has got a team of medical people and years of exposure himself. We need him to delegate, orchestrate, and fight against the medical tyranny and harmful mandates and policies. This is his expertise.
Medical "knowledge" is the issue.
Discovery?
Yes, I think so.
Great find. Thanks OP!
Yo are welcome
Great find fren!
Amen.
LFG
We will find out a lot.
Discovery
Not just that, you cannot get them otherwise.
Excellent explanation. Thanks.
You r welcome.
If anyone can get this done, it's Bobby. Pharma didn't become entrenched overnight. Therefore, to dismantle what they have built is also going to take time - one brick at a time removed from very strategic locations. At the point of critical mass, the entire wall crumbles. May it be so soon.
Hopefully, after all the evidence is produced in court, the AMA and other governing groups will have to stop pushing the covid vax (and any other mRNA vax). This could be the end of it.
A black robed tyrant will never allow it to be presented in "court."
Luckily, things are moving a better direction recently.
Finding a cure for all the "side" effects will be the end of it.
Discovery!
Discovery
They sue, hoping people can't afford litigation and corrupt judges and fold. But if you align the stars there's a wonderful thing called "discovery phase" that bring the smell of genuine fear out for everyone to experience.