List findings against Dr Andrew Wakefield
Executive summary
Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper asserting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism was formally retracted and later described as fraudulent after years of investigation; multiple inquiries found scientific misrepresentation, ethical breaches in how children were recruited and tested, and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest [1] [2] [3]. The UK General Medical Council (GMC) concluded Wakefield acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly,” found serious professional misconduct, and struck him off the medical register — outcomes that remain central to the documented findings against him [4] [5].
1. The retracted Lancet paper: weak science and later retraction
The 1998 Lancet case series of 12 children that sparked the controversy was scientifically limited from the start — uncontrolled, tiny (n=12), reliant on parental recall, and speculative — and subsequent epidemiology found no causal link between MMR and autism; The Lancet completely retracted the paper in February 2010, stating the data were insufficient to support the claims [1] [6].
2. Scientific misrepresentation and allegations of falsified data
Investigations by reporters and medical journals concluded that the paper contained misrepresentations of patients’ clinical histories and selective reporting; the BMJ and other inquiries documented that Wakefield “misrepresented or altered” medical histories across the 12 cases, with Brian Deer’s reporting finding multiple instances of data inconsistency and possible falsification [2] [3].
3. Ethical violations and improper treatment of child participants
The research was found to have violated human-subject protections: children underwent invasive procedures without appropriate ethical approval and, according to inquiry records, some were recruited through litigating parents and paid small sums to provide blood samples, conduct the investigations without proper consents [1] [7] [8].
4. Undisclosed conflicts of interest and financial entanglement with litigants
Wakefield failed to disclose that he had been funded by lawyers preparing litigation against vaccine manufacturers; inquiries and institutional reviews flagged undisclosed monetary conflicts that created a clear appearance of bias and motivated scrutiny of the study’s independence [1] [8] [9].
5. GMC findings: dishonesty, professional misconduct, and sanction
After the longest fitness-to-practise hearing in GMC history, the panel found Wakefield guilty on multiple counts — including dishonesty and abusing developmentally disabled children — concluded he acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly,” and imposed the severest sanction by erasing him from the UK medical register in May 2010 [4] [5] [10].
6. Public-health fallout and measurable consequences
The paper and ensuing media attention contributed to a significant fall in MMR uptake in parts of the UK and elsewhere, with later measles outbreaks and quantifiable increases in vaccine hesitancy attributed in part to the Wakefield episode; scholars have estimated substantial numbers of unvaccinated children in the U.S. and documented outbreaks that health agencies tied to declines in vaccination [1] [11] [7].
7. Wakefield’s denials, partial retractions by coauthors, and contested legacy
Wakefield has consistently denied wrongdoing and refused to join coauthors who retracted the interpretation of the paper in 2004, and he contends his work has been distorted; nevertheless, multiple independent reviews, forensic analyses, and journal editors concluded the study’s principal claims lacked support and that Wakefield bore responsibility for ethical and disclosure failures — a contested but well-documented record [12] [2] [3].
Conclusion
The consolidated findings against Andrew Wakefield encompass defective and possibly falsified science, breaches of research ethics involving vulnerable children, undisclosed financial conflicts, and a formal professional judgment that he behaved dishonestly and irresponsibly; these findings are documented across journal retractions, investigative reporting, academic reviews, and the GMC’s fitness-to-practise decision, though Wakefield himself continues to dispute the characterizations [1] [2] [4].