I think I may have caught an issue with this web site: https://briandeer.com/sunday-times-andrew-wakefield.htm
At the top is a graph that shows percentage of MMR vaccine uptake by year. The journalist Brian Deer then uses alphabetical markers to indicate dates when various media or research publications were made.
I haven't seen how Mr. Deer shows that declines in MMR uptake would by related to higher rates of autism, but a few paragraphs down it seems that is what he is saying.
This assertion is very problematic. Having spent a few years researching vaccines for myself, I can say that the MMR is far from the only vaccine, at least in the US, that can be associated with behavioral regression and/or neurological damage presenting as autism. I wonder how Mr. Deer generated his graph and how he can prove that children with fewer or no MMRs were more likely to get autism? This seems counter intuitive at best. If he's not really saying that, then what is he implying?
I have not dug deeply on Mr. Deer. However, I find a lot of what he says to resemble ad hominem attack and/or "projection". I don't see credible rebuttal of the actual research, but massive amounts of accusation related to possible conflicts of interest. If conflicts of interest alone were grounds to discredit vaccine research I'd think that virtually all of it would be appropriately questioned.
I have not found a link, however, one of Dr. Wakefield's possibly more well funded colleagues involved in the retracted paper was able to defend his medical license against the GMC as I recall.
I'd like to see any comments from UK anons on the Andrew Wakefield saga.
Personal research demonstrates, amply in my opinion, that all vaccines and especially the combined ones have vastly more risks that is commonly portrayed.
The 2016 movie "Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe" covers the CDC whistleblower who reported that the CDC hid a statistically significant relationship between early MMR vaccination and the development of autism. As I recall, Dr. Wakefield never concluded the relationship but merely suggested parents use the single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines in light of a possible risk.