Who do you think you’re Kidd-ing?

by Meryl Dorey

Dr Richard Kidd
Dr Richard Kidd, Council and Board Member of the Australian Medical Association, QLD

On Thursday, September 10th, I attended an inquiry that was held in the QLD Parliament regarding the possibility of excluding unvaccinated children from childcare. I was there as an observer and to support the AVN contingent who, I must say, did a masterful job under very difficult conditions. You can read more about that by clicking here.

I am starting this blog series with the speaker who I felt should have been the best-informed of the lot, but who unfortunately showed himself to be terribly ignorant of some basic vaccination facts.

If he were a neurosurgeon or a kidney specialist for example, one might almost understand his errors. But Dr Richard Kidd is a Council and Board Member of the Australian Medical Association, QLD and he is also a general practitioner – the sort of person who both administers vaccines and is meant to advise parents with up-to-date and accurate information.

During his testimony before the Committee, Dr Kidd was asked by the Committee Chair about boosters for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR). She said that she had boosters when she gave birth to her young children but not the MMR. She asked the doctor if that was necessary.

His answer blew me away. And it should leave you with grave concerns about the competence of Australian doctors if such basic and egregious errors can be made by someone so high up in the medical fraternity.

Dr Kidd answered that, “…we do like to give people MMR preferably before they become pregnant but you can do it during pregnancy.”

Now, if Dr Kidd is giving his pregnant patients the MMR vaccine, he is not only putting their unborn children at risk, but he is also acting in direct contravention to the Australian Government’s guidelines on vaccination!

According to the Australian Immunisation Handbook which is published on the Australian Government Department of Health website:

“MMR-containing vaccines are contraindicated in pregnant women. Pregnancy should be avoided for 28 days after vaccination.”

Pregnancy VaccinesThere is no doubt about this; no controversy. The rubella portion of the MMR vaccine has been contraindicated in pregnancy since it was first manufactured in the 1960s. Rubella vaccines are meant to prevent congenital rubella syndrome, which it is thought can cause congenital malformations and death in a percentage of infants whose mothers contract it during pregnancy. Because the vaccine contains the live attenuated rubella virus, it is possible for it to cause the very same condition it’s meant to prevent if administered during pregnancy – especially during the first trimester. So Dr Kidd’s advice is deceptive, misleading and dangerous.

It is not the only error he made during his testimony. During the same answer to the Committee Chair, Dr Kidd stated that:

“We are routinely giving people boosters for tetanus in particular and attached to that is diphtheria. Maybe we should have the pertussis attached to that as well.” 

The mind boggles.

Dr Kidd was speaking about vaccination for adults (because that is what the question was about). There is only ONE vaccine that is recommended for adults who are seeking to have booster shots against diphtheria and tetanus. It is called Boostrix and it is a trivalent vaccine containing antigens for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Did the good doctor really not know that?

There is a vaccine that is only for diphtheria and tetanus – called ADT (Adult diphtheria and tetanus) but it is not recommended for boosters and is only used in rare instances. Most doctors’ offices would not even have this shot in the fridge.

There were several other instances where Dr Kidd made statements that were either verifiably incorrect or were riding the thin edge of what is provable. I don’t have time to deal with all of those here. But I will end with one of the more bold-faced incorrect statements he made, towards the end of his testimony.

One of the other committee members, a doctor himself, asked Dr Kidd about information that had been provided earlier in the day regarding the possibility of vaccines causing immune dysfunction. The AMA representative was asked if this was true.

His response was:

“There have been a couple of studies but they have been flawed.”

Oh, really?

The link between vaccinations and immune dysfunction/autoimmunity is so strong, it has been given a name in the medical literature – Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA). Adjuvants are extremely toxic ingredients intentionally added to vaccines to induce an immune response. ASIA is autoimmunity caused by these ingredients. Again, there is no controversy about this – it is an accepted phenomenon within medical circles. So why is Dr Kidd, a GP who deals with vaccinations in his own practice (a practice he claims has a 96% vaccination rate) ignorant of this?

For one thing, there is a textbook by THE world authority on autoimmunity, Dr Yehuda Shoenfeld (you can read his CV at this link – it is very impressive indeed!), called Vaccines and Autoimmunity. This book was co-authored by Nancy Agmon-Levin, a professor in the Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University and Dr Lucija Tomljenovic, a PhD researcher at the Neural Dynamics Research Group at the University of British Columbia.

This text is used to teach advanced immunology to students at universities around the world. And it has not been found to be ‘flawed’. It was presented by one of the speakers representing the AVN but the AMA representative was not present in the room at the time so he would not have seen that. The Committee members should have, however.

Below is a small selection of other articles from peer-reviewed journals discussing the link between vaccines and immune system dysfunction – there are many more respected (not flawed) studies. If you are interested in seeing some of them, just click this link to go to a Google Scholar search for studies discussing whether or not vaccines cause autoimmunity. Interesting note – there are 33,000 results – so much for Dr Kidd’s “couple”:

Vaccination and autoimmunity-‘vaccinosis’: a dangerous liaison?; J Autoimmun. 2000 Feb;14(1):1-10.

Vaccination and autoimmune disease: what is the evidence?; THE LANCET; June 3, 2003

Vaccine-related Risk of Autoimmune Reactions; Rheumatology. 2011;50(8):1358-1365

Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity; 10.1371/journal.pone.0008382

I will be sending a copy of this blog to all sitting members of the QLD Parliament – including those who sat on the Committee that heard Dr Kidd’s testimony. They need to be aware that the information they consider to be sacrosanct because it comes from doctors isn’t necessarily so. I hope to receive appropriate responses in the near future and I will share any and all responses on this blog.

In conclusion, while it is not necessarily surprising (since I have spoken with many doctors over the years who were not well-informed about vaccination ingredients, safety or efficacy), it is disappointing that someone in such an esteemed and responsible position would not be better informed. Doesn’t Dr Kidd realise that as a doctor, he holds a sacred trust? Parents come to him anticipating that he is an expert because the government says he is. The government says all doctors are experts.

But if Dr Kidd has been giving MMR vaccines to pregnant women, he has seriously breached that trust and needs to be held accountable.

Once again, it is clear that when making a vaccination decision, though you should be speaking with your doctor, you should also be seeking independent information from other sources including doing your own research. Taking this responsibility and doing your own research is the only way to keep yourself and your children safe.


Mark & David versus Goliath…

Mark & David versus Goliath….

The turn-around is well and truly started. First, the AVN won its case against the Health Care Complaints Commission’s (HCCC’s) decision to both investigate our organisation and to issue a warning against us. Both of those were ruled to be Ultra vires (outside of their jurisdiction and illegal) by the NSW Supreme Court.

Then, Professor John Walker-Smith, a co-author with Dr Andrew Wakefield of the 1998 case series published in the Lancet which posed the hypothetical question – can the MMR vaccine be associated with some cases of gut disease and autism – won his case against the General Medical Council (GMC) and had his license reinstated.

Now, we see that Dr Andrew Wakefield is taking Brian Deer, Dr Fiona Godlee of the British Medical Journal and the British Medical Journal itself to court in Texas (where he now lives) on charges of defamation and the defendants have already been caught it lies – they are obviously quite shaken because they felt they were untouchable – being supported by big pharma’s nearly bottomless pockets – yet now they are finding that they are not above the law after all. What a rude awakening!

In this article from Tim Bolen, we read about 2 other doctors who have been attacked by pharma-thugs and the worldwide pseudo-skeptic movement of which both The Australian Skeptics and Stop the AVN (SAVN) are a part.

Drs Mark and David Geier – a father and son medical team – have published many scientific research papers in peer-reviewed journals on the problems with vaccination and especially on the link between the vaccine-adjuvant / preservative, thiomersal which is 49.5% mercury.

As a result of this research, they have been subjected to an incredible barrage of complaints and Mark Geier has even had his license to practice medicine suspended by a medical community that is fearful of those who don’t toe the party line. The complaints against him were not from any of the patients he was treating. Just as with Andrew Wakefield, Dr Geier’s patients and their families supported him 100%. The complaints came from within the medical board who were simply neutralising a threat to themselves by getting rid of ‘competition’.

The Geiers have not taken these attacks lying down and in fact, they are winning the war against those who would try and suppress information critical of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

I believe we are currently on the cusp of some very major victories in this area and the attacks will only get worse in the near future as a result. But what we are seeing is the last gasp of a dying industry which can see quite clearly that, while they have won the battle to purchase the hearts and minds of those in government and the media – the general public are no longer for sale and have decided to shop elsewhere.

Danish researcher nicks off with 10 million kroner and disappears

Almost two million dollars is missing from Aarhus University, along with the lead researcher of the Denmark Autism studies on which the CDC has based their “no evidence of harm” opinion.His name has not been used in the articles, but the head of the program that they seem to be referring to is Kreesten M. Madsen, MD. Madsen was the lead author on the much disparaged “Denmark Studies”, that our own pediatrician referenced when my husband asked, “are these vaccines safe?” to reassure that vaccines didn’t cause autism. (Although he never mentioned autism, just asked if they were safe.)

Try as Madsen might… he just couldn’t find a link between autism and vaccines. But then again, there’s no money in finding a link between autism and vaccines… not when CDC is paying for your research. And it looks like Madsen may be just fine with placing money above ethics… and even the law.And Madsen (if indeed, it is Madsen) apparently lied about his employment at a conference in Italy last year, claiming that he was still at Aarhus when he was not. I have commented in the past on what a piece of junk the Madsen thimerosal study was, you remember, the one that docs use to say that autism rates shot up as mercury was removed from vaccines, so it actually might protect kids from autism?!? It is useless, as the second to last paragraph of the study tells the reader that the database used changed its inclusion criteria at the time thimerosal was removed and autism rates went up, then ignores that in the very next paragraph, the conclusion, that states that removing thimerosal was followed by an “increase in autism” (not an increase in the autism database, which had been changed from only tracking inpatient cases, to all cases in the country). This of course invalidates the whole study. And despite that fact, and that it was done with researchers that actually work for the country’s only vaccine maker, Pediatrics published it, CDC extolled it, and my pediatrician used it guide Chandler’s vaccinations.The articles are from mid February, and I have not found any updated stories on this. Danish papers report that he is in the US, and and employed at (CDC stronghold) Emory University in Atlanta (apparently he has been for some time, while still at Aarhus, unbeknown to Aarhus, which is a no no), but his Linked In profile says that he is employed at Nycomed Pharmaceuticals in Zurich, Switzerland.So will Aarhus confirm that this is Madsen? And where is Madsen? And where is the money? And why isn’t the GMC up in arms about this dishonest researcher? And what does CDC think about all this? And what moron actually believes that giving children a neurotoxin at 25,000 times the concentration allowed in drinking water will protect the child from brain injury?If anyone has any updates, or friends in Denmark that can help answer these questions… help us out with this one.Two reports from the Danish media:

Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the Distasteful Practice of the Ignorant “Pile On”

It is not often that I will publish an entire article from another source on this blog, but I felt that this article and the open letter that follows it were so important, they needed to be read and distributed as widely as possible. These pieces come from the excellent blog by Louise Kuo-Habakus of LifeHealth Choices. Louise is a tireless health advocate who has done amazing work in the United States – especially in the State of New Jersey – the home of just about every single multi-national pharmaceutical company out there and victim of some of the most repressive vaccination legislation around. I hope that those  of you who live in the US will appreciate the work done by volunteers like Louise and will support them with your donations and hands-on help.


I have been watching and listening to the media circus following the vilification of Dr. Andrew Wakefield with great interest and sadness. I pray that people will rise above our sound bite world to understand that there is a tremendous amount at stake and we all better be paying careful attention.


Here’s what you need to know. In February 1998, a paper entitled Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder was submitted by thirteen medical researchers to the Lancet, a British medical journal, observing the presence of a novel form of inflammatory bowel disease in twelve children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. All children received the combination measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and onset behavioral symptoms were noted after receipt of the triple jab in 8 of the 12 children. The paper recommended further inquiry and explicitly stated no proof of causation between vaccination and autism. That’s it. There is nothing in the paper that could lead anyone to state that the authors intended to wage war against the wisdom of vaccination in general or the MMR vaccine specifically.


There can be no doubt that the paper struck a chord among parents worldwide, already consumed with anxiety about the dramatic increase in very ill children diagnosed with autism, and the more important fact that our medical establishment and public health officials still have no idea why. The degree of parental concern is not unreasonable. Governments and doctors employ a variety of ways to urge and compel us to vaccinate. The trend has been to give more shots and earlier. In the U.S., we now start on day of birth. With the present addition of the H1N1 swine flu vaccine and a double dose for children under ten, fully 89 doses of 17 different vaccines are currently recommended to age 18. Increasingly, people are questioning whether all these shots are such a good idea.


There can be no doubt that the paper also struck a chord within the medical establishment.  Many parents stopped vaccinating and the government was hopping mad.

The Lancet paper merely offered an organized and methodical framework to view data on twelve children. It also recommended we do more science. What parents chose to do with this information is a separate issue.  That many stopped vaccinating to await the outcome of further scientific inquiry can be regarded as a public health failing, not the fault of one medical journal article about the experiences of twelve children.  What has subsequently unfolded is a systematic, chilling and deeply unfortunate process to blame the authors of the paper for reduced vaccination uptake.

Ten of the authors retracted their support. This happened six years later, in 2004, and is entirely understandable. Who could blame them? Their reputations, credentials and livelihood were at stake. Remarkably, however, the first author, Andrew Wakefield, would not retract. What has ensued, culminating in the General Medical Council’s recent decision to censure Wakefield, is a very public smackdown. The purpose is to send an unambiguous message to other researchers who might dare possess a similar degree of arrogance and continue their scientific inquiry into the causes of a disorder affecting a great number of very sick children.


It is also instructive how the media has seized, indeed lunged at the opportunity to draw applicability of the Wakefield example in our country, while failing to highlight a salient difference. Britons enjoy the privilege of vaccination choice. They cannot be compelled by the government to vaccinate for any reason, including a requirement for school admission or employment. Over half of Americans, in thirty-two states, do not have vaccination choice. If we are so keen to compare ourselves to our friends across the pond, perhaps we should start by looking at the reasons why they have choice and we do not.


Doctors have wasted no time in pillorying one of their own. Overnight, Andrew Wakefield has become the poster child for irresponsible and unethical medicine. I find the medical “pile-on” reprehensible. And I urge doctors who care about their profession to take heed. Please consider the following an open letter to all professionals who take the extraordinary step to label anyone concerned about vaccines: anti-vaccine, vaccine deniers, irresponsible, and societal parasites. Our nation must find the way to engage in a responsible and respectful dialogue about vaccines. In my opinion, the failure to do so will irrevocably damage public confidence in government, medicine and industry.

Two and a Half Years on and still no Verdict

It is time for the GMC to prove that they are not a kangaroo court. That they are not just out to cover up the fact that Wakefield has not done anything wrong nor has Murch or Walker-Smith. The GMC’s biggest problem appears to be – if they come out and tell the truth, the witch hunting of these three doctors will have to stop and the blame for the years of stress suffered by these men, their families and the families of autistic children everywhere will have to be laid right where it belongs – with the Ministry of Health, the UK Government, the Times and their ‘front man’, journalist Brian Deer who started the ball rolling but has not accepted any responsibility for the harm he has caused.

After all, the more than 1 million pounds which has been spent so far trying to crucify these caring doctors could go a long way towards researching why children are becoming autistic. The GMC needs to justify that expense and the time they have wasted.

But instead, we get articles like this which appear to be yet one more ignorant ‘trial by media’ piece.

It says, “Since the Lancet printed Dr Wakefield’s paper in February 1998, a series of epidemiological studies has failed to find any evidence of a link between MMR and autism”. The average layperson reading this may not be used to scientific terminology and may not understand the difference between epidemiology (the study of disease at the population level) and clinical science (actual studies in individuals across a spectrum of the population). This difference is critical to understanding that a lack of epidemiological evidence means nothing since epidemiology could be useless at picking up this sort of information.

A lack of epidemiological evidence does not mean a lack of evidence and the fact that the journalist in this piece made that distinction indicates that they could have and should have known this. There is a great deal of clinical evidence showing that vaccines can be implicated in the development of regressive autism – the form that is growing in epidemic proportions.

And while it may be true that epidemiological studies have not shown this connection, there are literally dozens of good, peer-reviewed clinical studies (and Wakefield’s initial study was a clinical trial – much more science involved there) that have come out since the 1998 study by Wakefield that have not only verified his initial hypothesis – they have expanded on it.

Two and a half years on and still no verdict on MMR scare – Health News, Health & Families – The Independent

The GMC’s case against Andrew Wakefield has cost over £1m – so far. Jeremy Laurance, health editor, reports

Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who sparked the biggest health scare of the decade over the safety of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, has broken a second record.

The hearing into the disciplinary case against him brought by the General Medical Council has become the longest and most complex in the organisation’s 148-year history with costs well in excess of £1m.

Preliminary verdicts on the “facts” of the case are expected this month, more than two-and-a-half years after the case began in July 2007. Hearings were initially scheduled for 64 days and the case was expected to conclude by November 2007.

Instead, it has run for 166 days so far (up to 19 November). The panel sat for an undisclosed number of days in December and a further 19 days of hearings have been scheduled during January. Extra dates have been set aside from April to June 2010, if required.