Claim: CDC covers up research linking MMR vaccine to autism

[yoshy]

RFK Jr. is not a credible source.

I know it's technically not the right way to be a skeptic, but I often stop reading as soon as I see the words "RFK Jr claims ..."

 

[FatPhil]

I know it's technically not the right way to be a skeptic, but I often stop reading as soon as I see the words "RFK Jr claims ..."

Reliable shortcuts are good. Our laws of nature are all just shortcuts - we presume things will behave the same as they have previously behaved. You certainly wouldn't say that we're not being reasonable skeptics by assuming the earth will keep orbitting the sun. Is your shortcut reliable? Most would say it is. Even if something out of his mouth occasionally makes sense, that doesn't change his status as an unreliable source. Were there a significant trend in that direction, I'm sure you'd reevaluate your shortcut, as it would no longer be a reliable shortcut.

 

[KalleMP]

The Web MD article starts with some discussion of the medical fraud perpetrated by Andrew Wakefield, who has played a very significant part in the increase of "vaccine hesitancy" from 1998.

In 1998, Wakefield and collaborators published a paper in The Lancet that claimed to find a link between autism and the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine.

So much data out there on both sides of the argument yet there is still a peculiar desire for one side to systematically push a false narrative.

The Wakefield et.al. study did not claim to find a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. That was what they were crucified for but that was not their claim. Repeating this false claim is simply repeating propaganda.

The study is only 5 pages long and it is worth reading to determine when it is misreported and use those sources critically in future.

Regards

Kalle
--
Helsinki, Finland

 

[Mendel]

The Wakefield et.al. study did not claim to find a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.

"Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children"

From the final section of the paper:

this stands uncontradicted

and this, at the very end, which should be labeled "conclusion" but isn't, links the vaccination to a gastrointestinal condition that Wakefield has linked to autism earlier.

I don't know why you want to argue "Wakefield was not an anti-vaxxer" when all of the anti-vaxxers have claimed him as one of their own?

 

[FatPhil]

The Wakefield et.al. study did not claim to find a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. That was what they were crucified for but that was not their claim. Repeating this false claim is simply repeating propaganda.

However, it would be very strange if they weren't *trying* to find such an association, given that that's what he'd been paid nearly half a million quid to do, and it's what he put on his grant application:

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed

BMJ 2011; 342 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5347 (Published 06 January 2011)

...
Unknown to Mr 11, Wakefield was working on a lawsuit,7 for which he sought a bowel-brain "syndrome" as its centrepiece. Claiming an undisclosed £150 (€180, $230) an hour through a Norfolk solicitor named Richard Barr, he had been confidentially 8 put on the payroll two years before the paper was published, eventually grossing him £435 643, plus expenses.9

Curiously, however, Wakefield had already identified such a syndrome before the project which would reputedly discover it. "Children with enteritis/disintegrative disorder [an expression he used for bowel inflammation and regressive autism10] form part of a new syndrome," he and Barr explained in a confidential grant application to the UK government's Legal Aid Board11 before any of the children were investigated.12 "Nonetheless the evidence is undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology."

-- https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

If you read the paper, it takes very little reading between the lines to see how disappointed he was in not finding a strong enough link - despite absolutely definitely fudging his data -
"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue."
"Resolve" the "issue" - ewww, that's a huge tell.

 

[Mauro]

The Wakefield et.al. study did not claim to find a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. That was what they were crucified for but that was not their claim. Repeating this false claim is simply repeating propaganda.

They clearly said they

did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.

But they surely suggested (mistakenly at best, fraudulently at worst, I don't know) there may be a link between 'neuropsychiatric dysfunction' (*) and the vaccine:

We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

And this was enough to cause deaths, don't forget that.

(*) 'autism' is specifically mentioned elsewhere in the text.


I'd love if you could summarize what, instead, the article actually claimed according to your interpretation, if different.

 

[FatPhil]

(*) 'autism' is specifically mentioned elsewhere in the text.

Only very subtly...

 

[KalleMP]

I don't know why you want to argue "Wakefield was not an anti-vaxxer" when all of the anti-vaxxers have claimed him as one of their own?

I am not arguing that at all yet on reflection it was almost certainly true at the time.

Even though the PRO-VAXX movement often wants to discredit him, claiming hypocrisy because he was developing a monovalent vaccine at the time. Basically at the time he was PRO-VAXX, though based on his observations probably an ANTI-MMR-VAXXer and an ANTI-AUTISIMer. Yet after he was attacked he accepted the label ANTI-VAXXER as would anyone else in his shoes. So it was an own goal for the vaccine industry. All they needed to do was let him develop a vaccine that did not cause those harms, phase out gut-issue/autism linked tri-valent vaccines and everyone could keep making money for a few more decades and retire rich.

Fear of what might happen if others read the results and started to follow the line of research caused the pharma cartel to try and bury the data and the unrepentant vocal messanger and chill sincere enquiry into the conenctions.

Over the years the vaccine-gut and gut-brain connections have been shown many time, if the Wakefield paper was published now it would prbably stand based on previous findings.

So these days he is known as an ANTI-VAXX advocate because of what was done to his carreer.

If you read the paper, it takes very little reading between the lines to see how disappointed he was in not finding a strong enough link - despite absolutely definitely fudging his data -
"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue."
"Resolve" the "issue" - ewww, that's a huge tell.

Realy, you have the receipts for your claim "despite absolutely definitely fudging his data" when the reason he was crucified is that he reported on what the parents observed. It was a dozen or so cases, there was no way to find a strong link. That media claims he made this claim is propaganda.

I accept that he may have had financial interests in publishing what he did and how he interpreted it but the problem I have with the vaccine advocates is that the data was an observation and even if Wakefield adused or misused the data it does not make the data go away. There are more horifying things I have read in published papers than what you accuse Wakefield of.

Regards

Kalle
--
Helsinki, Finland

 

[KalleMP]

Only very subtly...

Yeah, I can see why the vaccine industry would want to bury the hint of an association.

Regards

Kalle
--
Helsinki, Finland

 

[FatPhil]

I don't know why you want to argue "Wakefield was not an anti-vaxxer" when all of the anti-vaxxers have claimed him as one of their own?

Hyperpedantically, that's not what Kalle's claimed. And, hyperpendantically, his much weaker claim is kinda correct. However, the hyperpedantic and the useful don't intersect as much as one might like.

 

[Mauro]

Yeah, I can see why the vaccine industry would want to bury the hint of an association.

Expecially when there is no association at all (noone likes to be slandered).

Over the years the vaccine-gut and gut-brain connections have been shown many time,

Whatever that actually means, can I see some references, please?

if the Wakefield paper was published now it would prbably stand based on previous findings.

Oh, really? You say this because you can prove it, or just to close the sentence with an impressive ending?

 

[NorCal Dave]

So much data out there on both sides of the argument yet there is still a peculiar desire for one side to systematically push a false narrative.

No. There is not "so much data on both sides of the argument". There is a mountain of published and peer reviewed research that shows no link between vaccines and autism. None.

On the other side is Wakefiled's discredited and retracted article. Even if his article was legit, and it wasn't, it only studied 20 individuals that were chosen for specific reasons, with no randomized control. Had his findings been correct with such a small non-controlled sample, at best it would indicate the need for bigger, better controlled studies. Those, in fact, took place and were all counter to Wakefield's findings.

In addition, there is Wakefield's movie Vaxxed about the flawed paper Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young African American boys: a reanalysis of CDC data by Brian Hooker (PhD Chemical Engineering), a professor of biology at a small private Christian Collage in Redding CA.The paper was retracted for Hooker's bad use of statistical analysis and unreported conflicts of interest. There is also RFKjr's sequel, appropriately titled Vaxxed II, but seems to be more about the people that drove a Vaxxed promotional bus during the first Vaxxed film release.

There's always Jenny McCarthy and other Hollywood medical experts.

Given the lack of "so much data" on the anti-vax side, people like RFK resort to the classic conspiratorial tropes, like suggesting there is a bunch of data being hidden away somewhere. In this case, it's being hidden in the part of the government he runs. He, like others, hold an unchangeable belief in the dangers of vaccines, so when confronted with study after study that is contrary to that central belief, a conspiratorial response is invoked.

This is exactly the logic we see in the UFO world. There are no UFOs, so those that believe in UFOs contend the government is hiding them. There is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism, therefore the evidence must be hidden. The lake of evidence for a claim, becomes proof of the claim.

 

[FatPhil]

Realy, you have the receipts for your claim "despite absolutely definitely fudging his data" when the reason he was crucified is that he reported on what the parents observed.

Sure thing, cowboy - the BMJ report linked to above continues...

The two men also aimed to show a sudden-onset "temporal association"—strong evidence in product liability. "Dr Wakefield feels that if we can show a clear time link between the vaccination and onset of symptoms," Barr told the legal board, "we should be able to dispose of the suggestion that it's simply a chance encounter."13

But child 11's case must have proved a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. "His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age," notes the discharge summary. "In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration."

That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father's eye. What the paper reported as a "behavioural symptom" was noted in the records as a chest infection.

The reason he was crucified was because he was doing really bad science really really badly.

 

[Ann K]

I accept that he may have had financial interests in publishing what he did and how he interpreted it but the problem I have with the vaccine advocates is that the data was an observation and even if Wakefield adused or misused the data it does not make the data go away. There are more horifying things I have read in published papers than what you accuse Wakefield of.

It "does not make the data go away", yet his initial data came from a laughably small sample size of only twelve cases, so we are forced to wonder how good that data was in the first place. Most of his co-authors agree, and deserted ship. The whole thing smacks strongly of Lysenkoism.

In 1998, Andrew Wakefield and 12 of his colleagues[1] published a case series in the Lancet, which suggested that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may predispose to behavioral regression and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Despite the small sample size (n=12), the uncontrolled design, and the speculative nature of the conclusions, the paper received wide publicity, and MMR vaccination rates began to drop because parents were concerned about the risk of autism after vaccination.[2]

Almost immediately afterward, epidemiological studies were conducted and published, refuting the posited link between MMR vaccination and autism.[3,4] The logic that the MMR vaccine may trigger autism was also questioned because a temporal link between the two is almost predestined: both events, by design (MMR vaccine) or definition (autism), occur in early childhood.

The next episode in the saga was a short retraction of the interpretation of the original data by 10 of the 12 co-authors of the paper. According to the retraction, "no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient".[5] This was accompanied by an admission by the Lancet that Wakefield et al.[1] had failed to disclose financial interests (e.g., Wakefield had been funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies). However, the Lancet exonerated Wakefield and his colleagues from charges of ethical violations and scientific misconduct.[6]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3136032/

 

[John J.]

Realy, you have the receipts for your claim "despite absolutely definitely fudging his data" when the reason he was crucified is that he reported on what the parents observed.

All of Wakefield's 12 subjects were children who had marked developmental delay. And they had all received the MMR vaccine at a time when uptake was very high. Some of the parents believed that the MMR vaccine was, or might be, responsible, and Wakefield encouraged this belief.
No control group- again, at a time when MMR uptake was high. A massive red flag.

As it turned out, the father of one of the subjects noticed that dates in his son's medical history had been altered in Wakefield et al.s' Lancet paper in such a way that symptoms and the identification of developmental delay appeared temporally related to vaccination.

Wakefield had two significant, and undeclared, financial motives, for pushing his hypothesis (funding from an anti-MMR lawyer, and his own patent on a measles vaccine made redundant by MMR).
And he faked (not fudged) his findings.

@KalleMP, please tell me why lumbar punctures and colonoscopies were necessary on the child subjects: Subjects who could not consent, and who would not themselves benefit from those investigations. Painful, distressing interventions to test a hypothesis which, if supported, would benefit Wakefield financially.

And why Wakefield didn't seek approval from an appropriate research ethics committee, as required by UK and EU law, and in direct contravention of the Declaration of Helsinki. You think he was unaware of his responsibilities?
It slipped his mind? Or maybe genius maverick researchers don't have to comply with systems designed to safeguard the most vulnerable, "the ends justifies the means"?

The charges against Dr Wakefield include accusations that 11 children were subjected to invasive tests such as colonoscopies and lumbar punctures that were contrary to their best clinical interests.

"MMR doctor on misconduct charges", 16 July 2007, BBC News.

The GMC said he ordered some children to undergo unnecessary colonoscopies, lumbar punctures (spinal taps), barium meals, blood and urine tests and brain scans. Yet none of the children met the criteria for inclusion in the research and none of the doctors had ethical approval to investigate them.

"Doctor behind MMR scare struck off", May 24 2010, Irish Times (GMC = UK General Medical Council).

Wakefield admitted lying about events during his child's birthday party in 1998, when he used the occasion to draw blood from children attending (needless to say, without ethical oversight)

The GMC's charges against Dr Wakefield include allegations that, in 1998 while a consultant at the Royal Free Hospital, London, he unethically paid children at his son's 10th birthday party £5 (€6; $10) each to give blood samples he wanted for his research.

Last week the GMC panel saw video footage of a speech Dr Wakefield gave in 1999 at a meeting of parents of autistic children called by the Mind Institute of the University of California, Davis, where he jokingly described children fainting and vomiting after giving blood.

"Two children fainted, one threw up over his mother," he told his laughing audience in the clip. "People said to me, you can't do that—children won't come back to your birthday parties. I said we live in a market economy; next year they'll want £10."

But Dr Wakefield told the GMC panel that he had made up these details to amuse his listeners.

"Wakefield admits fabricating events when he took children's blood samples", Owen Dyer, British Medical Journal 336, 2008

The reason he was crucified was because he was doing really bad science really really badly.

-And utterly deliberately, with "findings" predetermined. Meaning his invasive procedures on vulnerable children were pointless. And his conclusions, false.

Wakefield tried to use legal action, and the threat of legal action, to stifle criticism, as identified by the Hon. Mr Justice Eady in a Royal Courts of Justice hearing, 27/28 October 2005

It is suggested that there was a consistent pattern of using the existence of libel proceedings, albeit stayed, as a tool for stifling further criticism or debate. For example, my attention was drawn to a letter addressed to Dr Evan Harris, a member of Parliament, on 25th February 2005. He had criticised the Claimant [Wakefield] on a radio programme. The letter was to warn him off and contained the following passages:
"[Mr Andrew Wakefield] has asked us to inform you that defamation proceedings have been instituted against Mr Brian Deer and The Sunday Times newspaper in relation to articles that have been appeared [sic] and statements that have been made by them which are defamatory of [him].

The following are the claims that Wakefield sued over, claiming they were defamatory, summarised by the judge;
that Wakefield

"i) Spread fear that the MMR vaccine might lead to autism, even though he knew that his own laboratory had carried out tests whose results dramatically contradicted his claims in that the measles virus had not been found in a single one of the children concerned in his study and he knew or ought to have known that there was absolutely no basis at all for his belief that the MMR should be broken up into single vaccines."

(ii) In spreading such fear, acted dishonestly and for mercenary motives in that, although he improperly failed to disclose the fact, he planned a rival vaccine and products (such as a diagnostic kit based on his theory) that could have made his fortune.

(iii) Gravely abused the children under his care by unethically carrying out extensive invasive procedures (on occasions requiring three people to hold a child down), thereby driving nurses to leave and causing his medical colleagues serious concern and unhappiness.

(iv) Improperly and/or dishonestly failed to disclose to his colleagues and to the public at large that his research on autistic children had begun with a contract with solicitors which were trying to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.

(v) Improperly and/or dishonestly lent his reputation to the International Child Development Resource Centre which promoted to very vulnerable parents expensive products for whose efficacy (as he knew or should have known) there was no scientific evidence".

In December 2006, Deer released records obtained from the Legal Services Commission, showing that it had paid £435,643 in undisclosed fees to Wakefield for the purpose of building a case against the MMR vaccine. Those payments, The Sunday Times reported, had begun two years before publication of Wakefield's paper in The Lancet. Within days of Deer's report, Wakefield dropped all his libel actions and was ordered to pay all defendants' legal costs

Wikipedia, Andrew Wakefield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Wakefield tried to bully those who doubted his work into silence. But when the objective evidence against him mounted,
he wasn't even prepared to pursue the claim that he had "gravely abused the children under his care" as libellous.

In light of the objective evidence, and bearing in mind this forum's politeness policy, we can safely describe Wakefield thus:
Fraudster, exploiter of children, bully, coward. Struck off the medical register.

Over the years the vaccine-gut and gut-brain connections have been shown many time, if the Wakefield paper was published now it would prbably stand based on previous findings.

The fact that that paper was fraudulent doesn't bother you?
You think it should be allowed into the pantheon of published medical research because you approve of its fraudulent conclusions?

There is no evidence of a correlation between autism/ autism spectrum disorder and vaccinations.

 

[FatPhil]

["vaccine-gut connection" context]
Whatever that actually means, can I see some references, please?

Polio on a sugarcube[1]!

Refs:
1. me, as a kid

 

[Mendel]

@KalleMP, please tell me why lumbar punctures and colonoscopies were necessary on the child subjects: Subjects who could not consent, and who would not themselves benefit from those investigations. Painful, distressing interventions to test a hypothesis which, if supported, would benefit Wakefield financially.

this immediately reminds me of Mark and David Geier.
Mark died 3 months ago, and David works for RFK Jr now.

 

[Ann K]

I am looking to find out why what seems possible is RULED OUT and demonised. I want the mechanism found and no credible alternatives have been offered.

"No credible alternatives" does NOT mean "therefore my answer must be correct". I understand, you want an answer, but that does not mean you're going to get what you want. Suffice it to say that the matter has been evaluated again and again by credible medical groups without finding such a connection. Meanwhile adults and children who have been turned away from trusting vaccines continue to die from preventable diseases, and THAT, not autism, is the great tragedy of this discussion.

Bear in mind that if there is an answer to be found and a cure or prevention method for autism to be discovered, it'll be those same pharmaceutical companies that will find it.

 

[John J.]

The point is that the mainsteam media will have us believe that Wakefield said in his retracted study (I saw two others while reading just recently that I have not seen mentioned before) that MMR causes autism. Sure he laid the foundation for it, I think he believed it or it is unlikely he would have even gone looking for it even when prompted by money. In the study he said the autistic kids had a gastro complication that the parents mostly said followed a MMR vaccine.

It is broadly accepted that "the mainstream media" in the UK covered Wakefield's claims uncritically, and that this did tremendous damage.

The UK media was guilty of "catastrophic failure" over its coverage of concerns about the MMR jab in the 1990s, says a journalism expert.
Dr Andy Williams, of Cardiff University, says the media "dropped the ball... with very few exceptions".

"Wales measles: Media's 'catastrophic failure' on MMR", BBC News, Wales, 15 April 2013.

See also "Media misled the public over the MMR vaccine, study says", Roger Dobson, BMJ 326, 2003

[Wakefield's] findings were widely reported in the mainstream news media, and taken very seriously indeed.

"The media, MMR and autism – a cautionary tale", Brian McNair, 17 Feb 2014, The Conversation website.

...print and broadcast media have a special responsibility to provide clear, evidenced-based reporting. The decline in MMR immunization following Wakefield's article was accelerated by the pro-Wakefield UK media, despite increasingly strong evidence refuting Wakefield's claims.

"The Vaccine-Autism Myth Started 20 Years Ago. Here's Why It Still Endures Today", J.D. Quick, H. Larsen, Time 28 Feb 2018, their highlight.


No-one denies that the microbiome might influence development, that viruses can affect one organ system and then lie dormant elsewhere. Think chickenpox (varicella zoster) and shingles.
Wakefield didn't find anything to suggest a connection between autism and measles virus in the GI tract. He just manufactured the evidence. He didn't find any connection between MMR and autism, because no such link exists.
He knew his 12 subjects had developmental delay, and he knew they had received the MMR vaccine, because he selected them on that basis.

It doesn't matter if he believed it. He faked the results. Because reality wouldn't provide the results he wanted.

That link [MMR, GI disease, autism] was further enforced by selectively disregarding timelines given by the parents of three children that didn't fit their theory, and made stronger yet by altering the colonic biopsy results to show bowel inflammation in 11 of the 12 children – when the original results suggested only one child suffered any form of inflammatory bowel disease.

In short, the results were fixed.

"The fake MMR claims that struck fear into generations of parents", Metro, Katherine Fidler 22 Jan 2024.

" Commentary: I see no convincing evidence of "enterocolitis," "colitis," or a "unique disease process" ",
Karel Geboes, professor emeritus, BMJ 343 (2011):

Wording of Wakefield paper did not reflect the data shown in the grading sheets
I reviewed the gastrointestinal histology grading sheets completed by Amar Dhillon1 for 11 of 12 children with developmental disorders, who I understand were part of the clinical case series described by Wakefield and colleagues. The article reported that all but one child had histology showing "non-specific colitis." It described patients as having enterocolitis and colitis, and said that the findings suggested a unique disease process.
... ...
In general, the data are rather similar to the reports of the Royal Free hospital pathology service, which I reviewed for the BMJ last year. Although minor abnormalities are noted in a minority of patients, I see no convincing evidence of "enterocolitis," "colitis," or a "unique disease process" being present in all patients. The Wakefield et al paper is obviously problematic and its wording does not reflect the data shown in the grading sheets.

The Royal Free Hospital is where Wakefield was working; Geboes established that retained histology specimens did not match Wakefield's description of them. Geboes' report is worth reading in full.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children's cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.

"Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare", Editorial, BMJ 342 (2011).

Wakefield hurt disabled children to give the impression that he was doing research, but he wasn't. Because he faked the results so that he could promote a false conclusion- a lie.
Why do you think he didn't seek ethical approval?
We have Research Ethics Committees to prevent another Tuskegee, stop experimental lobotomies in out-patient clinics for minor behavioural issues, or other uses of vulnerable people as fodder for pointless or harmful experiments:

[Wakefield's] paper itself said, "Ethical approval and consent. Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent." The dispute over this would remain unresolved, however, until settled in the English High Court in March 2012, where a senior judge vindicated Deer. Quoting the text, Justice Mitting ruled, "This statement was untrue and should not have been included in the paper."

Lancet MMR autism fraud, Wikipedia.

Again, in the Royal Courts of Justice, 27/28 October 2005, the Hon. Mr Justice Eady summarized why Wakefield was bringing a libel case; Wakefield brought the action because he claimed his detractors were saying (amongst other things) that he

Spread fear that the MMR vaccine might lead to autism, even though he knew that his own laboratory had carried out tests whose results dramatically contradicted his claims in that the measles virus had not been found in a single one of the children concerned in his study and he knew or ought to have known that there was absolutely no basis at all for his belief that the MMR should be broken up into single vaccines."

But when journalist Brian Deer and the Sunday Times found clear evidence of Wakefield's financial motivations, and showed no signs of being silenced by Wakefield's lawsuit, and as it became apparent that other research was being conducted in this area, Wakefield cut his losses. He dropped the libel action. He no longer claimed that the statement, above, was libellous.
More disturbingly, he ended his claim that someone saying he had "Gravely abused the children under his care" was libelling him.

The UK General Medical Council is not a branch of government or in sway to big pharma.
The BMJ remains a highly-respected peer-reviewed journal (as is The Lancet, although it was damaged by the Wakefield affair).

 

[John J.]

But when journalist Brian Deer and the Sunday Times found clear evidence of Wakefield's financial motivations, and showed no signs of being silenced by Wakefield's lawsuit...

A bit off-topic, but re. the Sunday Times investigations into Wakefield's claims (which contrasted with the stance of much of the British media), it might be of interest that the same newspaper campaigned for years to make Distillers, the company responsible for distributing the drug Thalidomide in the UK, pay better compensation to its victims and accept that they (Distillers) had been negligent in distributing the drug, which they promoted as a treatment for morning sickness in pregnant women before its terrible teratogenic effects were widely known.

The Sunday Times campaign for the victims

— The parents of British thalidomiders were forced to fight a protracted court battle for compensation. Eventually, in the late 1960s a deal was negotiated with Distillers, the UK distributor, which gave the 370 known victims a pitiful amount – £3.25m over 10 years. This equated to about £15,000 for the worst affected. Actuarial assessments reckoned they would need £100,000 to support them for life.

— The Sunday Times, under the editorship of Harry Evans, decided to act. Some compensation cases were still continuing, so contempt of court laws meant that the newspaper could not challenge Distillers' negligence in distributing the drug. Legal advice, however, suggested that the newspaper could assert that the children deserved better on "moral grounds".

— In September 1972, The Sunday Times published the first in a series of articles under the headline "Our Thalidomide Children: a Cause for National Shame". Cheques and offers of help flooded in from readers. Jack Ashley, the Labour MP, took up the issue in the Commons and shareholders in Distillers revolted. Within months, the firm had reconsidered its offer and a deal worth £32.5m was finalised.

— The newspaper then decided to fight the injunction on its investigation into the origins and testing of the drug. The case went right through the British legal system and up to the European Court of Human Rights, which decided that the injunction violated the right of "freedom of expression". The full story of thalidomide could eventually be told in 1976, revealing that both Grünenthal and Distillers had not met the basic testing requirements of the time.

"Thalidomide: the battle for compensation goes on", Sunday Times, 23 March 2008, John-Paul Flintoff, originally at the Times Online website, archived on Wayback Machine website.
Format and "em dashes" as per original article.

The Sunday Times isn't institutionally tied to "big pharma", and it campaigned against a large British company (now part of Diageo) to seek justice for those harmed by a prescribed medication. This included combatting legal judgements over several years.
It didn't investigate Wakefield because of who he was, or what he claimed; it did so because journalist Brian Deer, who already had a substantial understanding of medicine, felt there was something amiss with the 1998 Lancet paper. He investigated, and helped uncover the truth.