A United States-based advocacy organisation, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), has filed a lawsuit against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), accusing the professional medical body of allegedly promoting childhood vaccination programmes in a manner that created a profit-driven system benefiting pharmaceutical companies.
According to court filings, the CHD alleges that the AAP violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act by operating what it described as a long-standing scheme that allegedly misled American families about the safety of childhood vaccines.
The lawsuit claims that the promotion of vaccine schedules enabled pharmaceutical manufacturers to generate revenue both from vaccine sales and from medications used to treat medical conditions allegedly linked to vaccine side effects.
The complaint describes the alleged arrangement as a “closed-loop” business model, suggesting that vaccine manufacturers expanded their product lines by acquiring companies that produce treatments for autoimmune disorders, allergies and neurodevelopmental conditions.
These conditions, the lawsuit notes, have been listed in some vaccine product documentation as adverse events recorded during clinical trials or post-marketing surveillance.
As part of its argument, the lawsuit referenced several pharmaceutical acquisitions. Among them is Pfizer’s 2016 purchase of Anacor Pharmaceuticals for $5.2 billion.
Anacor produces Eucrisa, a medication used to treat eczema, which was initially approved for use in children aged two years and later expanded for use in infants as young as three months.
The complaint further cited research and post-marketing data that it alleges linked certain vaccines, including GlaxoSmithKline’s ENGERIX-B hepatitis B vaccine, as well as measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and COVID-19 vaccines, to eczema and other immune-related conditions.
READ ALSO: Controversial preprint revives vaccine–autism debate, draws sharp pushback from medical experts
In another instance, the lawsuit referenced Sanofi’s $3.7 billion acquisition of Principia Biopharma in 2020. Principia was developing experimental treatments for immune thrombocytopenia, an autoimmune blood disorder which, according to the complaint, has been listed as a potential adverse reaction to some vaccines produced by other pharmaceutical firms.
The lawsuit specifically mentioned Merck’s MMRII and GlaxoSmithKline’s Pediarix vaccines in this context.
Additional examples highlighted in the filing include GlaxoSmithKline’s 2012 acquisition of Human Genome Sciences for $3.6 billion, which added the lupus medication Benlysta to its portfolio, as well as Merck’s 2021 acquisition of Pandion Therapeutics for $1.85 billion, which expanded its pipeline for inflammatory bowel disease treatments.
Although not directly included in the legal filing, the complaint referenced Pfizer’s 2023 acquisition of biotechnology firm Seagen in a $43 billion deal. The lawsuit claimed that studies had linked Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines to increased cancer rates, though this remains a contested claim in the broader scientific and public health community.
The CHD argues that such corporate acquisitions allegedly created a pharmaceutical revenue cycle in which vaccines serve as a “customer acquisition mechanism,” generating demand for long-term treatment of chronic conditions.
“The enterprise profits from the vaccines and profits again from the treatment of side effects documented in vaccine package inserts,” the lawsuit claims.
The filing also accuses the AAP of supporting the alleged system by endorsing expanded childhood vaccination schedules and discouraging research into potential links between vaccination changes and chronic illnesses.
The lawsuit comes amid continued global debates over vaccine safety, pharmaceutical industry influence and the transparency of adverse event monitoring systems.
Public health authorities, including major medical organisations, have consistently maintained that childhood vaccination programmes are safe and effective, emphasising that reports of adverse events do not necessarily establish a causal relationship.