In recent days, outlets from Reuters to cable news have seized on reports that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is considering adding autism symptoms to the list of compensable vaccine injuries. The coverage is predictable: breathless headlines positioning the health secretary as reckless, dangerous, even villainous. Rather than report on the countless suffering families who have begged for recognition for decades, they’ve chosen to paint Kennedy as the problem.

We’ve passed the point of expecting journalism from these outlets, so instead we get a defensive posture from a system losing its grip on the narrative.

The Real Story the Media Won’t Tell

Every major outlet parrots the same narrative: “If Kennedy gets his way, manufacturers could face lawsuits and leave the market.” Hardline pharma acolyte and ex-FDA chief Dr. Tom Frieden recently expressed this sentiment. Pro-pharma pundits like Frieden frame this like it’s the worst possible outcome—as though vaccine makers are sacred institutions that must be protected at all costs.

But here’s the question they never ask: why would one expect a ‘tidal wave’ of lawsuits if the product is ‘safe and effective?’

·  If children and adults weren’t suffering adverse reactions to vaccines, there would be no claims.

·  If injuries weren’t happening, there wouldn’t be a need for a compensation court that has already paid out over $5 billion to victims.

·  If these products were truly as safe as advertised, manufacturers wouldn’t have demanded immunity from lawsuits back in 1986.

Mainstream reporting skips these facts because they undermine the carefully curated narrative that vaccine injuries are rare, minor, and anyone who stops vaccinating because they or their child was injured is just an ‘anti-vaxxer.’

When Products Fail, Accountability Is the Market Talking

Think about it; in any other industry, if companies were drowning in lawsuits, the question would be, “What’s wrong with the product?” not, “Protect the enterprise from its customers.”

When an automaker settles billions in injury claims for brakes failing or faulty seatbelts, no one defends the carmaker by saying, “If we hold them liable, they’ll stop making cars!” We demand better cars.

So why is pharma the exception? Why are we told that if vaccine makers leave the market, it’s a tragedy for public health instead of considering that maybe, just maybe, their products aren’t living up to their promises?

If they leave, it’s not because Robert Kennedy is a mean anti-vaxxer. It’s because the marketplace—through lawsuits, payouts, and public pressure—is exposing the truth: their products aren’t as safe or effective as advertised, and there is no market for products that do that much harm.

Accountability Isn’t Anti-Science. It’s Pro-Truth.

Medical freedom has always been about choice, transparency, and accountability. But the media has twisted it into a caricature: “anti-science,” “dangerous,” “misinformation.”

What could be more Pro-science than investigating real-world outcomes? What could be more ethical than compensating families who have borne the cost of “rare” side effects? What could be more American than allowing the courts—one of the few remaining checks on corporate power—to hear claims without government-granted liability immunity shielding industry giants?

A Dying Narrative

This isn’t just about autism, or RFK Jr., Tom Freiden, or a few mainstream articles; it’s about a media-pharma alliance desperate to preserve a liability-free status quo. It’s about silencing anyone who suggests that families deserve a fair hearing.

They don’t want accountability. They want compliance.

But the tide is shifting. The injuries are too visible to deny. And as uncomfortable as it makes industry and their media mouthpieces, accountability is coming.

Conclusion

If manufacturers truly fear being held liable, there’s an obvious solution- make products that don’t harm people. Until then, spare us the scaremongering. Accountability isn’t the enemy—lack of accountability is.

Patrick Layton

Patrick Layton is the Chief Innovation Officer for the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and The HighWire with Del Bigtree, where he leads the vision, strategy, and execution of groundbreaking initiatives that advance medical freedom, public health transparency, and informed choice. In his role, Patrick develops and implements innovative campaigns, technologies, and media strategies that keep ICAN and The HighWire at the forefront of investigative journalism, legal advocacy, and public engagement. Patrick oversees projects that range from high-impact legal actions and donor engagement campaigns to cutting-edge digital platforms and creative media productions, ensuring that ICAN’s message reaches and resonates with audiences worldwide. His work bridges advocacy, storytelling, and technology, transforming complex health and policy issues into compelling narratives that inspire action and change. With a passion for challenging entrenched narratives and empowering individuals with truth, Patrick plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of ICAN’s mission: defending informed consent and holding public health agencies accountable, and eradicating man-made disease.