Akiva Cohen Profile picture
Jan 28, 2022 125 tweets 37 min read Read on X
OK, fine, fine, #LitigationDisasterTourists, I did promise you a rundown on that antivax lolsuit.
So, today's episode of litigation nutbaggery is brought to you by "Children's Health Defense" - the RFK Jr. group who brought you such antivax hits as "VAXXED (2016)" and "VAXXED II (2019)". These aren't just covid vaccine mandate fighters. They are general purpose antivaxxers
But CHD isn't the only plaintiff here, and the caption tells the story - they wanted to be in the Western District of Texas, so they found a local plaintiff or two to anchor the case there
As is now de rigueur for a political Lolsuit, Barnes - stellar attorney that he is - opens his complaint with a random political stump speech.

And, I just ... what even is this shit?
You're opening your complaint with an un-numbered bold-underlined rant about government power? Why?

Also, "the greatest threat to a government is often itself" is some serious 2:30am post-many-bong-rips freshman poli-sci dorm crap, right?
Aside from everything else, why are you, the plaintiffs suing the government, concerned about what is or isn't a threat *to the government*? Why should the court be concerned about it on your behalf? This is an idiot's idea of profundity
Also also, this next highlighted part? This is a problem for you. Because if what you're complaining about is a mandate, you should be suing the folks who imposed the mandate. "The FDA did something and downstream someone else did something that harmed us" is not a claim
This is a pretty basic standing problem, btw. None of these plaintiffs - frankly, no plaintiff I can think of, except maybe a competitor - was harmed by the FDA granting emergency use authorization for the Covid vaccines. Even if the rest of the complaint was valid (it ain't)...
the grant of an EUA can never be the relevant cause of an individual plaintiff's injury. An EUA just says that doctors are legally allowed to offer a drug to their patients. It's the doctor's and patient's choice whether to take the drug. So no injury can flow from the EUA itself
So what are these antivaxidiots whining about? Well, apparently they think that the grant of an EUA is subject to notice-and-comment procedures, that an emergency can't exist for any length of time, and that come on, Covid in kids really doesn't matter
Oh, and of course the insanely, galactically stupid "it's not a vaccine" take beloved of Alex Berenson stans everywhere
Oh, really?
Hey, did you know that the FDA is really a labelling and marketing agency with no real say in questions like "should a drug be approved"?

No? You're in good company, then.
Complaint is here, for anyone wondering drive.google.com/file/d/1q3dyn7…
Also, RFK Jr. can go fuck himself sideways with a rusty hanger for the continued Holocaust comparisons, and yes, @barnes_law can join him in that endeavor for bringing the fucking Nuremberg Code in to an antivax complaint.
Side note: I'm not going to be screenshotting every paragraph of antivax lunacy that Barnes vomited into this complaint; it doesn't need to be spread any wider. So this thread will proceed a little slower than usual as I try to figure out which paragraphs are relevant & which are
just RFK and Barnes taking advantage of their soapbox
I don't even know which joke to make here.
Like ... just LOOK at this
Is it the Gotye-ian "didn't have to stoop so LAW"?
The fact that Barnes is so out of touch that he still thinks Big Bird is the kids' favorite Sesame Street character?
That he appears to be complaining about the fact that the Food and DRUG Administration is, by law, the agency that regulates drugs in this country?
The fact that he's spending the first paragraphs of his complaint driving home that his clients are "injured" not by the FDA approval, but by downstream actors? The comically bad writing? TOO MANY CHOICES
Oh my God, they're going Klownhandler on us, @questauthority. Never go full Klownhandler!
So ... a brief "Previously, in #LitigationDisasterTourism ..." recap.

Last year, Howard Kleinhendler filed a suit against MLB for moving the All-Star Game out of Georgia on behalf of a business network that, among other things, advocates against policies it opposes
One of the arguments for injury to that network he made was "well, when MLB did this, JCN had to spend money on a billboard in Times Square to advocate against moving the ASG
To say that the judge was not ... amused by this argument would be a vast understatement. The oral argument went something like "Look, idiot, if part of your client's reason for being is to advocate against policies they oppose, they can't be 'injured' by spending money on that"
Apparently, Robert Barnes watched that argument go down in Hindenbergian flames and went
"Your Honor, CHD was founded to be a group of plague-spreading village idiots about diseases generally, but now the FDA is forcing us to spend money on being plague-spreading village idiots about Covid specifically! It's not fair!"
Also - and I recognize that logical thinking isn't Barnes's or RFKJR's forte - but nobody forced you to spend a dime on this. You could have just let this one go and, y'know, NOT been a plague-spreading village idiot this one time. Nobody went into your wallet
Also also, as some folks have already pointed out in the replies, NONE of that goes in the "Parties" section of your complaint.

You just put in a description of who your client is and where their HQ/home is located. Not
Next we come to the individual plaintiffs and ... oh boy.

1) You're not doing much of a job of anonymizing the children's names when you plead their parents' names in the clear. I wonder what the "D." and "E." stand for?

2) Again, none of this harm is FROM the EUA

3)...
3) again, none of these substantive allegations about the harm belong in the "parties" section

4) It sure seems like the *actually* injured parties (in the fantasy world where anyone is) would be the kids, not the parents, but the kids aren't plaintiffs here

5)
"We feel pressured [by people other than the FDA] to take the vaccine so we can sue the FDA for authorizing it" is not a thing! It's not the next door neighbor of a thing!

You cannot SEE a thing from there, even with binoculars. It is a NONthing!
I feel like Chris Tucker talking to Jackie Chan
Like, how can a presumably literate human being quote the words "responsible for assuring the safety, effectiveness, quality, and security" of drugs and take away from that "this is primarily a labeling and marketing agency"
Yes, yes, it's labeling and marketing that determines drug effectiveness

ALSO WHY ARE THERE NO DRUG COMMERCIAL GIFS ON THIS WEBSITE? I DEMAND SOMEONE WITH HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE JOGGING WITH A PUPPY!
Now we get to the part of the complaint where they start setting out their claims, so let's take a look at the emergency use section they're saying was violated
Did you catch that? The HHS Secretary has the authority to declare an emergency situation on the basis of their assessment that there's a public health emergency or the potential for one.

And that lasts until the Secretary says it doesn't
That is SUPER wide discretion that Congress gave the HHS secretary:

The HHS Secretary has discretion to determine when an emergency that would justify an EUA exists

The HHS Secretary has discretion in such circumstances to authorize the use of otherwise unapproved drugs
Given that exceptionally wide statutory discretion, anyone arguing that the Secretary's decision was wrong will effectively need to show that it was "arbitrary and capricious" - in other words, that no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion from the evidence
They also seem to want to make claims under the APA, which ... hooo boy, wow.
OK. I'm not a regulatory lawyer, so any of my followers who are and want to chime in - to correct my understanding or support it - PLEASE feel free. But basically, the APA sets out the procedure by which federal agencies can engage in rule making.
And the APA defines those terms. A "Rule" is: "an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency"
"Rule making", in turn, is "agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule"

Anyway, the APA provides that any agency rulemaking must include notice published in the federal register, a public comment period, and a right to petition to repeal any agency rule
But all of this applies to RULES and RULE making. In what ass-backwards universe would "approving or not approving a drug" (much less "issuing an emergency use authorization") be "Rule making"? (again, regulator[y lawyer]s:
Is drug approval "designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy"?

No. So is it rule making? Not as far as I can tell.

So does there need to be a notice-and-comment period? Not as far as I can tell
Again ... not my area. Maybe I'm way out over my skis here. Someone who works in this area please confirm if there's some precedent that makes these sections of the USC mean something different. But absent that, and after some quick research, that's my working assumption
This is good to see. I figured as much, but ... one of the tough things about doing these is I am very much NOT an expert in every area of law and I'm trying to educate, not misinform. That means calling out when I'm uncertain or out of my area. So thanks.
Oh come on, no!
Like, Bobby, we talked about this. If anyone is injured by "marketing to children" it's the children, especially for medications that have to be prescribed by a doctor and consented to by a parent. That Big Bird was OK getting vaccinated doesn't harm the parents!
This is just unhinged whining. "I want robust debate and meaningful public participation in the EUA process"

I mean, that's nice, but you don't have any right to that. Congress chose not to require it.
And oh, btw, that makes sense! An EUA is, by definition, issued in a situation that is at least on some level time-sensitive. You can't have an emergency provision that requires potentially years of notice-and-comment rulemaking.
You complete, absolute, slimy motherfuckers.

Do you know what these cockroaches have the balls to argue?
They're very worried about how this will impact "vaccine confidence" among the general public
THESE fucking plague rats are concerned about "vaccine confidence"
Seriously, these people need to fuck off into the sun
That aside, "we think the FDA got the science wrong" is just not a cause of action that private citizens (or organizational CHUDs like CHD) can bring. There's no citizen review board on whether a drug shouldn't have been approved by the FDA.
If a drug is approved and ends up being dangerous, your remedy is to sue the manufacturer. And the FDA may eventually withdraw approval if the data warrants it. But you can't sue to force them to do it
I'm not going to screenshot the next few paragraphs of antivax "data" "analysis" and claims that the vaccine is itself dangerous. Because not only is it dangerously wrong, but it doesn't matter. "We think the FDA got it wrong" doesn't get them anywhere.
So, slight problem here. That "1-5" thing? The statute doesn't say anything at all about "5"
No, seriously, where did they get the "right to decline treatment is protected by informed consent" portion? You might think that would be a nice condition to impose, but it's very much not in the statute. They just made it up!
There's so much wrong with the complaint that something this otherwise obvious feels like nitpicking, but do these pangalactic corncobs not understand the direction in which time flows? Why are these paragraphs in THIS order?
I mean "describe events in chronological order, especially where the first event in time leads to the second event you're describing" isn't exactly a recently discovered rule of writing. How do you manage to fuck THAT up? Even Paul fucking Davis didn't screw that up!
I ... what??
No, seriously. What on God's green Earth does the *press release* and *who signed it* have to do with anything?

Also, you're suing over an EUA issued by the Secretary of Health & Human Services. Why are you naming the acting head of the FDA??
1) Not going to quote all the nutbaggery

2) More "we think the FDA got it wrong"

3) More time running backwards in its tracks. Why are we jumping from an October EUA for kids (what your suit is about) to the December EUA for 16+ (which you're NOT suing over)??
Ohhh, that's why you're mentioning Woodcock and the press release - because she's quoted in it supporting the decision you hate, and you're bigmad at her.

Guys. That doesn't make her an appropriate defendant even in the bizarro universe where a claim against the EUA had merit
Like ... what the fuck? Robert Barnes is nominally a lawyer, and has represented plaintiffs in the past. "Identifying the defendants you have claims against" is plaintiff's lawyer 101. How can he screw it up this badly?
"You aren't doing what we want" is not a cause of action
See, and I'D argue that nothing destroys public confidence in vaccines more than a bunch of conspiracy theorists peddling long-debunked nonsense theories to ill-informed or partisan marks, but hey, tomato tomahto, right?
BTW, there absolutely is a "Citizen Petition" process that required the FDA to consider and respond to the petition within 180 days. Which the FDA did. And while RFK and his merry band of plague rats called it "dismissive & unsatisfactory" it was thorough as hell.
I mean, it was 50 pages of "Fuck You, No". Any medical twitter followers out there want to do a breakdown on it?
Anyway, let's break here for the night, and we can pick up with "we don't have the first fucking clue what the word vaccine means" tomorrow
Update: if you want an informed breakdown of the FDA's response to the plague rat petition, start here
Folks, Professor Reiss (who absolutely IS a subject matter expert in the area of agency regulation generally and vaccine law specifically) has been responding with comments (and where appropriate corrections). I encourage everyone interested to read them
Programming note: It's Friday. As long-time followers know, that means (1) today's continued tour will be broken up by cooking for shabbos as well as work (2) will end relatively early in the day and (3) something crazy will probably happen at 5pm EST or later. Fair warning
On we go. Next, our local disease enthusiasts go down the "it's not a vaccine!" road, apparently unencumbered by minor skills like "reading comprehension", "research ability", or "knowledge of the law"
They're arguing it's not a vaccine because it's mRNA, not "attenuated or killed micro-organisms", and citing to "The Free Dictionary". The Free Dictionary, while useful, is not a source of law. There's actually a law defining what "vaccine" means! (h/t )
Also, that quote from the CDC about what a vaccine is? Says nothing about formulations. It's "a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases." Full stop.

What do you think the Covid vaccine does, geniuses?
But Akiva, does that mean Congress and the CDC are arguing with <dun dun dun> the dictionary?!

1) They actually get to do that if they want to; if Congress wants to write a statute that says "no sneakers in schools" and define "sneakers" for purposes of the law as "open toed"
But also ... no. No they're not. Here are a couple of other dictionary definitions listed on that specific Free Dictionary webpage
Bottom line: if it's a preparation administered to help a patient develop an immunological response to a disease, it's a vaccine: legally, medically, and as a matter of dictionary definitions
Again, these disease enthusiasts absolutely got an A+ in their "fail to understand domain-specific language" classes in remedial school.

"Immunity" doesn't mean "you can never get a disease". It means "you have an immune system response to the disease"
Also, what exactly do they think the difference is between a "product" and a "preparation"?
Anyway, since these guys love online dictionaries ...
Sorry, brief break to try and settle a case #LitigatorProblems
Leaving out a whole bunch more antivax nonsense about how this is "really" 'gene therapy' which leads up to this idiocy here.

You don't get to allege "on information and belief we think that regulations weren't followed"
Again, this goes back to basic Twiqbal probability requirements. You can't just wave your hands and say "we think". You need to point to specific facts that would make that conclusion a reasonable one to draw.
Also, you don't have standing to complain about the absence of an "environmental assessment" since you aren't claiming an "environmental" injury. (Note: FDA environmental assessments for gene therapies are "if this gets into the wild, how will this impact the environment" not ...
"the vaccine makes me shed virus" the way these goons love to argue)
Everything about this paragraph is wrong.

(As others have pointed out, the Secretary has issued regulations providing that in an EUA context there should be a way to ensure patients are informed of the status, risk, and right to decline the drug; that's not in the statute!)
There's no "First Amendment Right" for Bob Plague Enthusiast from Topeka to be involved in the FDA's drug authorization process. The APA has exactly ZERO to say about what drugs the FDA can approve; it's a procedure statute, not a substantive one.
These goobers really seem to think that a "right to Petition" means "a right to have your Petition granted even if it's written in crayon by a submitter obviously in advanced stages of mad cow disease"
Oh, for fuck's sake, now they're going to spend time yelling about VAERS. I'm not screenshotting this nonsense
Anyway, this next bit is just a variation on the "we think the FDA got it wrong" theme and the court is not the FDA's substantive supervisor. (Bonus points to any non-lawyer who understands the pic below)
Just pages and pages of "look at our badly misunderstood or distorted data that supports our belief that the FDA got this wrong" and guys
Like, yes, your data and conclusions are shit and easily debunked by people who know what they're talking about. But from a legal perspective: Even if every last bit of it were true, you STILL couldn't get the relief you're asking for, because you don't have standing and because
courts don't get to second-guess the FDA's scientific decisions if there's any basis at all for the FDA to have made the decisions they made. "We'd have done something different" is not a cause of action
Man, it's almost like parents have the right to make these decisions. Crazy.
Uh, guys, are you OK? Because it's almost like neither the FDA nor the CDC have anything to do with that
And we're back to Twiqbal-useless conspiracy theorizing.

"We think it's all about the money and everyone is going to lie" doesn't get you through the courthouse doors
Yeah, this is very much not a thing. Even accepting their batshit premises "if you grant authorization there's going to be coercion and coercion is unethical and bad" doesn't mean "so you can't grant authorization"; it would mean "so get an injunction against coercion"
Yeah, no.

First: Texas has a literal ban on vaccine mandates. They can't happen there.

Second, if vaccine requirements are legally problematic (they're not), your remedy is to sue the entity imposing them, not the FDA for authorizing the drug for people who want to take it!
And look, we've been laughing at how bad this complaint is. But as @questauthority keeps saying, the heart of what they're trying to do isn't funny at all.

They're not arguing "don't make me or my kids get vaccinated"

They're arguing "don't let ANYONE get vaccinated"
It's a direct assault on the rights of every parent and child in the country who don't share these plague enthusiasts' views.
Luckily "I'm suing you because you bought the car that was used to drive the person to the place where he kicked the rock that caused the avalanche that made a deer flee through my garden and eat my azaleas" is not a viable claim
No, seriously: for want of a nail is a terrific proverb. But none of the folks who die in that battle can sue the ostler for not properly shoeing the horse
Oh God, @estockbridge, I've reached paragraph 133
I'm just gonna leave this side-by-side
And you definitely want to write about the Constitutional right to not have to be vaccinated without discussing Jacobson, the case in which the Supreme Court expressly held that states could require people to be vaccinated
Oh wait, they mention Jacobson in the next paragraph, as akin to Japanese internment (Korematsu) and forced sterilization for eugenics
We travel from here back through Nuremberg and Tuskegee and the plague enthusiasts' greatest hits and no I'm not helping spread that nonsense. They then move on to "other treatments are effective" and we're back in "this isn't a cause of action, dudes" land
On to the causes of action. Again, they don't seem capable of reading or understanding English; this isn't a "rule"
They move on (apparently still under the APA claim) to "Covid isn't an emergency" which ... good luck, and also, the statute just requires a declaration of emergency (which was made and not challenged)
More fun with "not reading the statute" - remember, Congress gave a specific statutory structure for when the HHS Secretary's health emergency powers terminate, and it's not "as provided under the NEA"
No need to quote the repetition of "yes, you reviewed and responded to our petition, but not granting our petition is a first amendment violation"
Same for "you redefined vaccine!!!11!!1!"

This is fun, though - what evidence of harm have you provided?
Oh
"People keep telling me I'm being an idiot and trying to persuade me to not be an idiot" IS NOT A FUCKING CAUSE OF ACTION
Wait, how did we get from that to this? Did MC Escher design this Complaint?
The rest of this is just variations on the "NO, THE FDA IS WRONG" theme
But again, they're asking a federal judge to order that nobody in the country can have their kids vaccinated. It's not going to work, but fuck them very much for trying

/fin

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AkivaMCohen

Jun 30, 2023
OK, time to get myself ratioed.

The SCOTUS affirmative action decision was legally wrong - poorly reasoned and legally silly. But in the long run, and if it spurs schools to use socioeconomic status and opportunity as the finger on the scales, it will be a net positive
Race is a blunt instrument, and I think we *all* agree that, for example, Willow Smith doesn't need or warrant any sort of bump on her college application. But Willow Smith is a WILD outlier and "but what about [insert rare exception]" isn't a useful policy framework
So yeah, it was perfectly reasonable for universities to use that blunt instrument.

As many of these university reaction statements are making clear, the burden will now be to find finer instruments that allow for the same intended benefit of taking into account the very real
Read 7 tweets
Jun 9, 2023
This thread from Yesh is a good example of a philosophical mistake I like to call "solutionism" - the belief that if a problem is bad enough then there must be a solution out there to resolve it, because "yeah, it sucks, it can't be solved for" is too unthinkable to bear
You see it a lot in the context of Israel/Palestine, with people convinced that the right mixture of fairy dust & button pushing can lead to a peaceful resolution that addresses all of the important and competing imperatives, it's just that nobody has found the right mixture yet
And we're seeing it with "a large portion of the population is willing to believe any prosecution of crimes by Trump is political"

Yes, that sucks. Yes, that's a potentially society-destroying problem.

No, there isn't a solution
Read 8 tweets
Jun 9, 2023
@yesh222 You don't worry about that, because it's not a solveable problem. You keep doing the right thing and hope that convictions and mounting evidence prevents more people from joining the conspiracy theorists, but that's all you can do
@yesh222 I said this 4 years ago, and it's proven true in every particular.

Read 4 tweets
May 19, 2023
That she was the one stealing the bike.

Literally nothing she did on the video is consistent with her new story. When her colleague came over and the kids said "that's his bike, he already paid for it" she didn't deny it, or look surprised by the claim.
Like ... how do you determine truth in a they-said-she-said situation? Watch human behavior. Throughout the video, the kids' tone is exactly what you'd expect for someone who believes their own story. Hers very much is not
And when her colleague comes and suggests that the kids get another bike, and they say "no, he paid for that bike, he unlocked it, it's his" there's exactly no reaction of "no, *I* paid for it" or "what the hell", which is what you'd expect if they were lying
Read 4 tweets
May 9, 2023
Hey, Twitter, and especially my #LitigationDisasterTourists, gather round. B/cwhile DM is focusing in on the court finding that selling videogame cheats is criminal copyright infringement and RICO, I'd like to tell you about something different. The CFAA, and @KathrynTewson
And don't get me wrong - that RICO stuff is big news that should be sending shockwaves through the cheat software industry. Cheatmakers often use resellers. Being found liable on a RICO violation means that every reseller could potentially be liable for 100% of the damage caused
by the cheat software.

And by 100%, of course, I mean 300%, since RICO comes with treble damages. Plus attorneys' fees. So that's a big deal.

As is the finding that it's criminal copyright infringement. Those are both new precedents in the area, and that's huge.
Read 21 tweets
Mar 8, 2023
I'm not inclined to forgive antisemitism, but this is more a learning opportunity than a defenestration opportunity. There are people who still legitimately don't understand that "Jew down" or "gyp" are slurs; it's just a phrase they've grown up around and use w/o thought
And yes, he doubled down when called out on it. That's almost always going to happen when someone who sincerely doesn't believe they're doing anything bigoted is called out for it in a public setting.

The real test will be whether he can learn (& apologize) as he gets more info
Also, HOLY FUCKING SHIT @pnj, you couldn't find an *actual* Jew to get a quote from, so you decided to go to a Christian LARPing as a Jew for missionizing purposes? What the absolute fuck? pnj.com/story/news/loc…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(