Health
Vaccine Liability is On the Table
Secretary Kennedy Makes a Stunning Announcement
The national conversation on vaccine injury and accountability has returned—this time from within the halls of power. On July 28, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a blistering rebuke of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), calling it a morass of inefficiency, favoritism, and outright corruption. His statement follows decades of criticism from researchers, patient advocates, and injured families who have watched the program drift further from its original mission: to compensate those injured by vaccines swiftly and fairly, in exchange for protecting manufacturers from lawsuits.
But now, the call is coming from inside the building—and so are the corroborating accounts. I speak from personal experience.
A System Designed to Protect Industry, Not People
Established in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the VICP was sold to the public as a compromise. Vaccine makers would be shielded from product liability lawsuits, but a special court would hear injury claims and disburse funds from a trust financed by a 75-cent surcharge on every dose. The result was a legal anomaly: a taxpayer-funded compensation system adjudicated by government attorneys and so-called Special Masters, immune from civil discovery, unbound by the rules of evidence, and utterly inaccessible to traditional tort remedies.
It is, in every material sense, a system rigged against the injured.
More than 12,000 petitioners have received compensation totaling over $5.4 billion, but this figure hides more than it reveals. The average payout may hover around $450,000, but cases can drag on for years. Worse, over half of all claims are denied—often without genuine examination of mechanistic plausibility or patient history.
And contrary to public assumption, most of these awards are not for injured children, but for adults—many of them harmed by influenza vaccines and other products routinely administered to working-age populations. This pattern directly undercuts the common refrain that VICP is merely a safeguard for pediatric vaccination. It is not. It is a backdoor bailout system for manufacturers—deliberately kept quiet, procedurally opaque, and inaccessible to public scrutiny.
My Departure: Bribery, Aluminum, and the End of Trust
I left my role in the VICP process after a Special Master attempted to bribe me.
During sworn expert work on behalf of a petitioner, I had prepared testimony linking aluminum adjuvants to autoimmune conditions via well-established immunological pathways, including molecular mimicry, the use of aluminum hydroxide to induce autoimmunity reliability and reproducibility in animals, and chronic inflammatory cascades. The science is robust—rooted in animal models, systems biology, and translational studies.
Instead of rebutting the data, the Special Master took another path: off the record and improper. The plaintiff was informed that the VICP had already determined that aluminum was not a problem (a violation of the rule of not citing precedent), and they were told —explicitly—that unless I softened or removed my statements on aluminum’s causal role in the development of post-vaccination autoimmune disease, the Special Master was not likely to want to compensate me for further testimony. It was implied that my future participation in the program and reputation within the Court system would be accommodated.
My response was to put the attempted bribe on the record in my next expert statement, withdraw all of my invoices in protest, and to depart the program.
That recording is in the possession of the plaintiff, multiple attorneys and myself. Its contents will, when considered by the AG office, obliterate any illusion that the VICP operates under the rules of ethics or law. The incident does not stand alone. It is the tip of a very large iceberg—one built on procedural fraud, scientific suppression, and judicial strong-arming.
Secretary Kennedy: Course Correction from Within
RFK Jr. made clear that reform will not be cosmetic. He criticized the VICP for prioritizing the solvency of the HHS Trust Fund over the duty to compensate victims, and called out the agency for denying plaintiffs access to the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)—the most robust adverse event surveillance system in existence.
In his words, There is no discovery, and the rules of evidence do not apply… Special Masters dismiss over half of the cases… the government lawyers do not allow children attorneys access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink.
Whether one agrees with Kennedy politically is irrelevant. The rot he describes is not ideological. It is institutional. The structural incentives are clear: HHS defends HHS. DOJ attorneys defend HHS. Special Masters are selected and paid under HHS. The CDC owns the VSD but hides its data from plaintiffs. The DOJ has an incentive to dismiss claims to protect the trust fund balance. This is not a court—it is a closed circuit.
Reader Reactions: The Three Americas
In response to the Seeking Alpha article covering RFK Jr.’s announcement, readers offered unfiltered insight into public sentiment. Three distinct worldviews emerged.
First were the Realists, who support vaccines generally but are appalled by the injustice baked into the VICP. As one commenter put it, Sunshine is a good disinfectant. Another added, If it is a societal good to mandate immunizations and shield companies from liability, then we should be willing to compensate those with adverse reactions.
Second came the Defenders of the Shield, who insisted that removing liability would collapse vaccine innovation. One commenter claimed, There would be no vaccines in the US once that happened, ignoring the fact that other nations without liability shields still fund, develop, and manufacture vaccines. Others leaned on the misleading statistic that adverse effects are rare—failing to mention that injuries are underreported, dismissed without evidence review, and often not tracked in any meaningful long-term way.
Third came the Disillusioned, who questioned the ethics of an industry so entwined with the state that corruption is normalized. Some accused RFK Jr. of fronting for trial lawyers. Others saw the pandemic response itself as evidence that vaccine policy is less about science and more about political obedience.
Whether extreme or reasoned, these perspectives highlight a growing truth: the VICP no longer commands public trust.
Legal Immunity is the Enemy of Innovation
The claim that loss of immunity will halt vaccine development is not only false—it is dangerously backward. In fact:
Loss of immunity will force vaccine makers to innovate.
Without accountability, companies have no incentive to improve adjuvants, reduce contamination, study long-term risks, or design surveillance systems that detect harm in real time. The current regime has enabled stagnation. Nearly all pediatric vaccines on the schedule are based on decades-old platforms. The most rapid innovation—mRNA—was released under EUA without liability and now shows signals of myocarditis, menstrual irregularities, and other systemic effects the courts may never adjudicate.
In no other industry is this tolerated. Heart valve makers, prosthetics manufacturers, and psychiatric drug developers all face liability. They still operate. They still innovate. They improve because they must.
Shielding vaccines from legal challenge has not increased safety—it has buried it.
Reform or Repeal: What Comes Next?
RFK Jr.’s proposals may be only the beginning. True reform requires:
- Open public access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink
- A neutral body—independent from HHS—to adjudicate claims
- The restoration of civil discovery and standard evidentiary procedure
- Time limits on case resolution
- Repeal of liability protections for any vaccine added under emergency use or without full pre-licensure safety trials
The American public has paid the price for blind trust in captured systems. The VICP is not broken because of incompetence—it was designed to serve institutional solvency over justice. That design must be reversed.
Conclusion: The Shield is Cracking
For decades, vaccine liability has been off-limits, protected by layers of legal abstraction and media silence. Now, with a reformer at the helm of HHS and credible insider testimony—mine included—exposing bribery within the program itself, the silence is breaking.
The VICP cannot be patched. It must be reimagined—or replaced entirely. The goal is not to dismantle public health. It is to restore it through accountability, transparency, and respect for those who paid the price in silence.
That silence ends now. Vaccine liability is back on the table.
Full Kennedy Post (on X):
“The 1986 Vaccine Act gave vaccine makers immunity against lawsuits by children who suffer vaccine injuries. The statute, and numerous subsequent court decisions, recognized that vaccines, like all medicines, are, in the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics case, “unavoidably unsafe,” and that a percentage of vaccinated children will suffer injuries or death. Congress, therefore, simultaneously created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which obliged HHS to compensate injured children. In the words of then Labor and Public Welfare Committee Chairman Senator Edward Kennedy, “when … children are the victims of an appropriate and rational national policy, a compassionate [g]overnment will assist them in their hour of need.”
Under the VICP, vaccine victims can petition for compensation to the so-called “Vaccine Court,” which pays out awards from a trust fund endowed by a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine. Congress intended that injured children be compensated “quickly and fairly” for injuries, “either presumed or proven to be causally connected to vaccines,” with doubts about causation resolved in favor of the victim.
To date, the Vaccine Court has paid out $5.4 billion to 12,000 petitioners. But the VICP no longer functions to achieve its Congressional intent. Instead, the VICP has devolved into a morass of inefficiency, favoritism, and outright corruption as government lawyers and the Special Masters who serve as Vaccine Court judges prioritize the solvency of the HHS Trust Fund, over their duty to compensate victims.
The structure itself hobbles claimants. The defendant is HHS, not the vaccine makers; and claimants are therefore facing the monumental power and bottomless pockets of the U.S. government represented by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, most of the Special Masters come from government, legal, or political posts, and typically display an extreme bias that favors the government side. There is no discovery, and the rules of evidence do not apply. The government lawyers do not allow children’s attorneys access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a taxpayer-funded CDC surveillance system that houses the best data on vaccine injuries. Attorney compensation is in the hands of notoriously biased Special Masters and often hostile government attorneys, who can leverage this power to turn petitioner attorneys against their clients’ interests.
The VICP routinely dismisses meritorious cases outright or drags them out for years. Instead of “quickly and fairly” awarding compensation, Special Masters dismiss over half of the cases. Most of those that proceed typically take 5+ years to resolve, with many languishing for more than 10 years as parents struggle to care for children suffering with often extreme disabilities. Petitioners’ attorneys complain that the Special Masters make punitive downward adjustments to attorneys’ fees and medical expert fees to punish effective advocacy. Expert witnesses for injured children complain that they suffer intimidation and even threats that they will lose professional status or NIH funding if they testify for injured children. The government pays its own medical expert witnesses promptly while simultaneously slow-walking payments for petitioners’ experts—sometimes for years.
The VICP is broken, and I intend to fix it. I will not allow the VICP to continue to ignore its mandate and fail its mission of quickly and fairly compensating vaccine-injured individuals.
I am grateful to be working with @AGPamBondi and HHS staff to fix the VISP.
Together, we will steer the Vaccine Court back to its original Congressional intent.”
Popular Rationalism is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Health
Leslyn Lewis urges Canadians to fight WHO pandemic treaty before it’s legally binding
From LifeSiteNews
Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis is urging Canadians to demand a parliamentary debate on the WHO Pandemic Agreement, highlighting risks to national sovereignty.
Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Leslyn Lewis called on Canadians to petition against the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pandemic treaty before it becomes legally binding.
In an October 23 post on X, Lewis encouraged Canadians to demand that politicians debate the WHO Pandemic Agreement before it becomes law after warnings that the treaty could undermine national freedom and lead to global surveillance.
“I have raised red flags about its implications on Canada’s health sovereignty and the federal government’s willingness to enter a legally binding treaty of this weight without any input from Parliament,” she declared.
In May, Canada, under Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, adopted the treaty despite warnings that the agreement gives the globalist entity increased power in the event of another “pandemic.”
However, Lewis revealed that since the agreement has yet to be officially signed, Canada is not bound to it and can still make amendments.
“We are now in a critical window of opportunity to ask tough questions and debate the treaty before it is signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and binds our nation,” she explained.
Lewis encouraged Canadians to sign a petition calling for a debate of the agreement as well as contacting their local MPs to request a parliamentary review of the treaty.
Lewis revealed that Canadians’ persistent opposition to the treaty has already resulted in some of the more dangerous clauses, including restricting free speech, freedom of movement, and government surveillance, being removed from the final agreement.
“Thanks to the engagement of countless Canadians and concerned citizens around the world, the most extreme provisions in the WHO Pandemic Treaty were removed — these measures would have undermined national healthcare sovereignty and given international bureaucrats sweeping powers,” Lewis declared.
“The removal of provisions on vaccine mandates, misinformation and disinformation, censorship requirements, travel restrictions, global surveillance, and mandatory health measures happened because people paid attention and spoke up,” she continued.
Among the most criticized parts of the agreement is the affirmation that “the World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
While the agreement claims to uphold “the principle of the sovereignty of States in addressing public health matters,” it also calls for a globally unified response in the event of a pandemic, stating plainly that “(t)he Parties shall promote a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
Business
Bill Gates walks away from the climate cult
Billionaire Bill Gates — long one of the loudest voices warning of climate catastrophe — now says the world has bigger problems to worry about. In a 17-page memo released Tuesday, the Microsoft co-founder called for a “strategic pivot” away from the obsessive focus on reducing global temperatures, urging leaders instead to prioritize fighting poverty and eradicating disease in the developing world. “Climate change is a serious problem, but it’s not the end of humanity,” Gates wrote.
Gates, 70, argued that global leaders have lost perspective by treating climate change as an existential crisis while millions continue to suffer from preventable diseases like malaria. “If I had to choose between eradicating malaria and preventing a tenth of a degree of warming, I’d let the temperature go up 0.1 degree,” he told reporters ahead of next month’s U.N. climate conference in Brazil. “People don’t understand the suffering that exists today.”
For decades, Gates has positioned himself as a leading advocate for global climate initiatives, investing billions in green energy projects and warning of the dangers of rising emissions. Yet his latest comments mark a striking reversal — and a rare admission that the world’s climate panic may have gone too far. “If you think climate is not important, you won’t agree with the memo,” Gates told journalists. “If you think climate is the only cause and apocalyptic, you won’t agree with the memo. It’s a pragmatic view from someone trying to maximize the money and innovation that helps poor countries.”
The billionaire’s change in tone is sure to raise eyebrows ahead of the U.N. conference, where climate activists plan to push for new emissions targets and wealth transfers from developed nations. Critics have long accused Gates and other elites of hypocrisy for lecturing the public about fossil fuels while traveling the globe on private jets. Now, Gates himself appears to be distancing from the doomsday rhetoric he once helped spread, effectively admitting that humanity faces more immediate moral imperatives than the weather.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Stunning Climate Change pivot from Bill Gates. Poverty and disease should be top concern.
-
Business1 day agoYou Won’t Believe What Canada’s Embassy in Brazil Has Been Up To
-
Censorship Industrial Complex24 hours agoSenate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship
-
Business23 hours agoMystery cloaks Doug Ford’s funding of media through Ontario advertising subsidy
-
Crime11 hours agoPublic Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels
-
Automotive1 day agoCarney’s Budget Risks Another Costly EV Bet
-
International10 hours agoNigeria better stop killing Christians — or America’s coming “guns-a-blazing”
-
Environment18 hours agoThe era of Climate Change Alarmism is over
-
Aristotle Foundation10 hours agoB.C. government laid groundwork for turning private property into Aboriginal land




