My journey into decoding political nonsense has, once again, led me down a rabbit hole I didn't ask for. It started, as these things often do, with a simple research prompt from a friend about a group called the Informed Consent Action Network, or ICAN. My first thought was, "ICAN? Sounds like a super wholesome group that probably knits sweaters for puppies." Boy, was I wrong. Dead wrong.

Instead of hand-knit sweaters, what I found was a multi-million dollar political machine that's less about puppies and more about a very particular brand of democratic chaos. Think of them as the universal remote for misinformation—sometimes it works, and you get a clear message; other times, it just makes a weird static noise and turns on the wrong channel. And in this case, the channel is "How to Use the American Legal System as a Propaganda Tool".

It turns out, ICAN, led by a former Dr. Phil producer named Del Bigtree, is a fundraising powerhouse. They've seen their revenue skyrocket from a humble $120,500 to a mind-boggling $23.2 million. A good chunk of that cash—over a third of their 2019 income, in fact—went straight to legal fees. To a single law firm, no less: Siri & Glimstad. In 2020, their payments to that firm hit $2.1 million.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but even I know that’s a lot of billable hours. So, what were they doing with all that legal firepower? Building a case for a new form of governance? Advocating for a more efficient bureaucracy?

Nah. They were essentially weaponizing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Imagine this: The anti-vaccine movement is a social movement that uses legal tools to create a false narrative. ICAN filed FOIA requests not to get specific documents that they knew existed, but to ask the government to answer queries, which isn't what FOIA requests are for. For example, they’d ask for "documents proving the CDC has ever conducted a study on a specific topic". When the government—surprise!—couldn't produce a single document formatted exactly that way, ICAN would turn to its followers and say, "SEE? The government admits it! They have no proof!".

It's a brilliant, if deeply cynical, strategy. They're not trying to win in a courtroom; they're trying to win in the court of public opinion. The lawsuits and the court "stipulations" became talking points for their movement. They’d get a voluntary dismissal from a lawsuit and then declare it a "key legal win". It’s less about a legal victory and more about a public relations triumph. ICAN consistently misrepresents the results of its legal battles to its followers.

Take the time they filed a lawsuit against the CDC to get studies proving that a range of vaccines didn't cause autism. The CDC responded by providing a list of studies that, in fact, showed no link between vaccines and autism. But instead of acknowledging this, ICAN published an article titled "Stipulated Order Proving CDC Has No Studies to Support Claim that Vaccines Given in First 6 Months of Life Do Not Cause Autism". They lied. The studies existed. The CDC had provided them. But for ICAN, the truth was an obstacle to a better story.

They did the same thing with lawsuits against Facebook and YouTube after their content was removed. They filed a complaint for a Bivens violation, which is a fancy legal term for suing a federal agent for violating your constitutional rights. The only problem? Facebook and YouTube are private companies, not federal agents. The court ultimately dismissed the lawsuit, but not before ICAN used it to create the narrative that they were fighting against "censorship by these companies, at the behest of the government".

This, my friends, is the game. They’ve built an entire business model on generating "fear, uncertainty, and doubt about vaccines". And it's working. They're getting rich, their lawyers are getting rich, and all they have to do is keep the chaos coming. It's a survival guide for democratic chaos, all right, and it’s a playbook written for an audience of one: the checkbook.

This whole thing reminds me of a weird political theater. ICAN and their lawyers aren't just filing lawsuits; they're staging performances for their audience. They write their complaints not for the judges, but for their followers. The lawsuits are filled with a litany of anti-vaccine claims, even when those claims have nothing to do with the legal matter at hand. The goal is to provide their supporters with "official" sounding talking points.

They present the results of these lawsuits as "legal validation for anti-vaccine beliefs". They don't tell their followers, "We settled the claim, and that shows we agreed we received sufficient documents, and nothing more". They don't tell followers, "When an agency says it did not find documents, all it means is that it did not find documents". Nor do they tell followers, "ICAN agreed to voluntarily dismiss the suit". Instead, they spin the results to convince their audience that they are winning and that their beliefs are supported by the legal system. It's a way to reinforce the narrative that the government is hiding something, and that ICAN is the only one brave enough to expose it.

This strategy is particularly effective for people who are already hesitant about vaccines but lack the legal or scientific background to see through the misrepresentations. A person who is unsure about vaccines might hear that a court ordered the CDC to admit they had no studies and believe it without question. They don't know that FOIA requests can't "prove" a fact, only that a document exists. Creating this kind of fear and uncertainty is a clear gain for ICAN. It's a small step towards their larger goal of undermining public health initiatives.

And it's a model that's spreading. Other anti-vaccine groups, like Children's Health Defense, have followed a similar playbook, even trying to use the same failed legal arguments against social media companies. This isn't just a quirky organization with a weird legal strategy; it's a template for how a well-funded group can use the legal system as a shield and a sword for their agenda. They’ve created an alternate reality, and the lawsuits are simply the stage on which they perform their act.

The group's approach to citizen petitions is just as revealing as its litigation strategy. ICAN filed numerous petitions with the FDA, each one a carbon copy of the last, for different COVID-19 vaccines. They used these petitions to raise concerns about vaccine trials and demand changes, which the FDA routinely denied because they lacked scientific evidence. But again, the point wasn't to win. The point was to create a narrative that they were challenging the establishment and that the establishment was stonewalling them. They'd upload the petitions to their website with titles like "ICAN therefore filed a forceful petition", but they wouldn't upload the FDA's detailed response explaining why the petition was denied. They used this strategy to give their claims an air of official legitimacy and to galvanize their followers into action.

What we're seeing here is a masterclass in modern political activism. It's no longer just about lobbying or protesting. It's about using the very rules and procedures of the system to your advantage, not for their intended purpose, but as a marketing tool. It’s a cynical genius that turns legal defeats into fundraising victories and turns bureaucratic procedures into emotional rallying cries. In this world, the legal system isn't a place for justice; it's a content farm, and the lawsuits are just new episodes of the show. And as long as the ratings—and the donations—are high, the show will go on.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit carrieclendening.substack.com