Over the last six months or so, many large meta-studies have been published on the harms caused by the COVID-19 jabs and other mRNA injections. In 1986, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was established under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 for physicians and other vaccine administrators, as well as self-reporting of vaccine side effects.1 Since its inception, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid $5.68 billion in total outlays to petitioners and their lawyers.
But what about government payments to the hundreds of thousands of people who have been injured or who have died because they took “two shots and a booster” to help “flatten the curve” and “to protect grandma”? Have they been compensated for believing the lie?
No.
Why not?
The following article is based on a chapter from my book, Zero Accountability in a Failed System: How Big Pharma Weaponized Vaccines, Public Health and the Law. (pp. 335-343.)2
The CICP
Authorized by Congress in the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP)3 is the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). 4 This program was designed to:
“provide compensation to individuals who sustained a serious physical injury, significant side effects, or death as a direct result of the administration or use of a covered countermeasure.”
The CICP was reactivated in 2010, when the 2009 H1N1 vaccine was determined to be a covered countermeasure for the swine flu pandemic. For detailed information, go here.
The vaccines on the list of countermeasures include:
- Anthrax
- Botulinum Toxin
- Ebola
- Marburg
- Pandemic Influenza for H1N1
- Smallpox and other orthopoxviruses (e.g., monkeypox)
- Zika
- COVID-19
Countermeasures under the PREP Act during COVID-19 included any drugs or medical devices used “to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure” COVID-19.
Notably, the language in the PREP Act prohibits Congress from funding the CICP to assist countermeasure-injured people.
Filing a Claim
Filing an injury compensation claim with the CICP can be a daunting process, particularly for individuals already burdened by disabling medical conditions. The CICP enforces rigid rules and deadlines and demands extensive documentation and medical records. Managing these bureaucratic obstacles would be no small feat, even for a healthy individual.
For those grappling with severe neurological impairment, cardiac injuries, or other significant health issues, trying to meet these requirements can be insurmountable. The complexity of the requirements is, of course, designed to act as a barrier, and naturally defeats the program’s intended purpose: to deliver relief to those harmed by countermeasures. The injured party may appoint a legal or personal representative to help compile and submit the required documentation for a claim, but if a lawyer assists, the legal fees are not reimbursed. This places an additional financial strain on the injured party. If the claimant has died, the estate may qualify for compensation, but only if the death can be proven to be a direct result of one of the covered countermeasures. This process adds another layer of difficulty to an already burdensome system, making it difficult for families to obtain relief.
The most disturbing aspect of filing a CICP claim is the strict one-year deadline to submit a claim. The Code of Federal Regulations on the CICP is very firm with this deadline:
If the Secretary determines that a Request Form or Letter of Intent was not filed by the set deadline (one year), the Request Form (or Letter of Intent) will not be processed, and the requester will not be eligible for benefits under this Program.
The unreasonably short timeframe poses a significant obstacle for injured individuals.
In the first year following a severe medical event, most are preoccupied with seeking treatment, undergoing tests, and trying to understand their sudden and complex health challenges. By the time they realize their condition was likely associated with or caused by the COVID-19 jab or a specific drug, such as remdesivir, the statute of limitations has already passed.
Missing the deadline results in the outright denial of their case, leaving them without any recourse. Such a rigid deadline fails to consider the practical realities of post-injury diagnosis and recovery, further harming those the program is designed to assist.
The CICP system was set up to move quickly. A staff person was tasked with reviewing a petitioner’s package of materials within weeks. But like many government initiatives, the CICP has not only failed to meet these expectations; it has failed miserably.
According to HRSA, the case backlog awaiting review is substantial. At the height of COVID-19, it took the agency about 12 months just to complete the initial review of each petition. This delay undermined the program’s purpose of timely relief and compounded the petitioners’ frustration, many of whom are still grappling with serious medical and financial challenges while awaiting a decision.
The CICP Tables
Similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP),5 the CICP has its own Injury Compensation Tables. The first Table was set up for problems associated with the smallpox vaccines given to first responders and military members after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. However, the list of Table Injuries designated as “presumption of causation” wasn’t published, and when it finally appeared in print, the Table didn’t take effect until September 15, 2021. Anyone injured twenty years earlier, even if their injury met the Table’s criteria, would no longer be eligible for compensation because the claim would be long past the one-year application limit from the day the shot was received.
A second Countermeasure Injury Table was intended to compensate injuries from the H1N1 pandemic vaccine used in 2009. It was not finalized and published in the Federal Register until 2016, five years after the vaccines were widely used. The Table listed anaphylaxis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and certain ventilator-associated injuries as eligible for compensation. However, injured individuals still faced the standard one-year filing deadline from the date of the vaccination. As a result, most claims were excluded, regardless of the severity of the harm suffered. Injured parties were effectively barred from accessing compensation, undermining the program’s intent to provide relief quickly.
The Injury Table is central to filing for and obtaining compensation through the CICP. Petitioners must either:
- Demonstrate that their injury matches one listed on the Injury Table within the government-specified time frame, or
- Prove causation independently, showing that the vaccine or countermeasure was the sole direct cause of the injury.
However, the government explicitly states that a “temporal association”, the timing of an adverse event occurring shortly after the vaccine or drug, is not sufficient evidence by itself to prove causation. For example, even if someone has a seizure or heart attack within minutes of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, that temporal link alone does not meet the program’s burden of proof.
According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, CICP claimants must prove their eligibility for compensation by demonstrating their injury was on the Countermeasure Injury Table, a distinct problem for COVID-19 injuries. The existing Table was established for the H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine. Sec. Kennedy placed the proposed COVID-19 Injury Table on its regulatory agenda under RIN 0906-AB31, a federal government tracking number. However, assigning a number does not mean that the Injury Table has been created, completed, or approved. HHS plans to publish a proposed rule in November 2026, followed by a public comment period. HHS must issue a final rule before the Injury Table becomes legally effective.
Because no Table was in place, claimants had to present extensive medical documentation, expert testimony, and scientific evidence to establish a direct causal link. This process was costly, complex, and often unattainable for injured parties. This process was long and expensive, especially given the PREP Act protections afforded to drug companies.
Claims Filed to Date
The CICP has received a meager 14,830 claims since it was established in 2010. Only 93 claims have been compensated over the last 16 years, a strikingly low number given the total claims filed. How many thousands more didn’t even know to file a claim? HRSA carefully peppers the word “alleged” throughout its forms, pages, and tables.
Further, as of September 1, 2026, only 63 COVID-19 claims have been compensated, for a total government payout of $491,914.78. If the four largest payouts are set aside, the average award per person is about $5,500. Payments are inconsistent. For example, one person who contracted Guillain-Barré syndrome received a payment of $69,539 while two others received an average of $5,200. An individual who experienced an anaphylactic reaction received $2,020, while compensation for myocarditis ranged from $1,171 to $370,376; the average was about $13,515.
Let that sink in.
Only 63 injured people have been compensated, while more than 1.6 million injury reports were filed incorrectly with VAERS (instead of with CICP). In addition, the compensation is extremely limited. It will only cover:
- Reasonable medical expenses that are not already covered by the petitioner’s private health insurance (e.g., unreimbursed hospitalization costs);
- Income lost from inability to work due to disability – capped at $50,000/year with a lifetime cap yet to be determined, and a standard death benefit that ranged from $370,000 to $422,000.
Under the current CICP, injured individuals receive no justice. The program does not cover attorney fees, nor does it compensate individuals for pain-and-suffering damages. In essence, it deprives claimants of essential financial support for legal representation or health recovery. Most troubling, HRSA decisions are final and cannot be challenged. The PREP Act explicitly prohibits any legal or judicial review of CICP determinations, leaving victims with no avenue to appeal inadequate compensation awards when claims are denied. This lack of oversight ensures that HRSA’s decisions remain unchecked, effectively shutting the door on those harmed by government-designated countermeasures.
In practice, it has been said that the CICP offers the vaccine-injured “little more than the right to file and lose,” further compounding their suffering.
The Bottom Line
The above discussion regarding the CICP may have sounded like a bunch of dry legal explanations and government mumbo-jumbo, but what this outlines is hard to swallow.
Here’s the summary:
- Since no CICP Table has been created for the COVID-19 jab, no injuries or side effects have been given the designation of presumption of causation. No conditions, not even myocarditis, have been assigned to an Injury Table.
- Without an injury table for the COVID-19 jab, all injuries or side effects are considered “off table” injuries and must be proven by “compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence” in accordance with the rules set forth by 42 CFR 110.42(f). More than 3,000 peer-reviewed articles and the analysis of 450,000 pages of documentation summarized in The Pfizer Papers expose the cardiovascular, neurologic, oncologic, autoimmune, and reproductive injuries and harm that have been caused by the COVID-19 shots. Even with this extensive documentation, as of this writing, the government continues to deny the association between the COVID injection and injury and has done nothing to create an injury table or further fund the CICP program. We don’t need more research; we need to use the documentation already available to force the government to act.
- All COVID-19 injury reports filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) will be denied. Yes, all 1,678,201 reports filed as of August 28, 2026 will be tossed out. The injury reports were filed with the wrong agency; they should have been filed with CICP.
- Most injury reports will be denied because the one-year filing limitation has expired. Most injuries occurred when the rollout began in early 2021 and continued into 2023. Injury reports must be filed within one year of the injection or use of the countermeasure. Because the filing deadline was missed, a person can submit a request for reconsideration to HRSA within 60 days of the denial, but as previously explained, HRSA routinely denies it. As of this writing (September 2026), all early injuries have missed filing and reconsideration deadlines.
- HRSA case reviewers’ decisions are final. Injured parties are not entitled to counsel. They have no right of appeal, and there is no judicial oversight. There are no pain-and-suffering damages, and awards are a pittance compared to actual economic damages. Section (b)(7) of the PREP Act, under Judicial Review, states that “no federal or state court will have jurisdiction to review any action taken by the Secretary.”
This ruling will preempt all state laws that differ from, or conflict with, the declaration. The distinct lack of checks and balances undeniably puts the public at risk and is indeed frightening. It appears that an appointed politician has been handed the power to order mandatory vaccination for everyone. This lack of due process is being challenged in court as being unconstitutional. Let’s hope the legal petition will change this provision.
- Lawsuits against Pfizer and other manufacturers remain prohibited by the PREP Act. Even if a pharmaceutical company knowingly harms people, the company will be immune from legal prosecution unless the US Attorney General initiates “enforcement action” against the company on the claimant’s behalf. However, the protection that the PREP Act gives COVID-19 countermeasures could come to a screeching halt if Secretary Kennedy ended or eliminated the PREP Act before its scheduled December 31, 2029, expiration.
Can you now see that this lack of response and compensation has all been by design, starting in 2005 with the passage of the PREP Act?
The public has a right to know about this terrible program. Hopefully, this information will fan the flames of the injured parties’ anger and frustration. It will rightfully drive vaccine refusal even further.
Dr. Sherri J. Tenpenny is the founder of Tenpenny Integrative Medical Center in Ohio. She is widely regarded as a knowledgeable and outspoken physician on the adverse impact vaccines can have on health. She has written several books including her latest, Zero Accountability (drtenpenny.com/zero) and she hosts a daily podcast, The Tenpenny Files, for The America Out Loud Network.
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
Click here to view References:
