The Birth and Re-emergence of the “Vaccines Cause Autism” Conspiracy Theory

Mary C. Vrtis, Ph.D., MSN, RN, OCN, NEA-BC, FCN

August 12, 2025

Time to read:

Autism Spectrum Disorders

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex group of neurodevelopmental conditions that affect behavior, emotion, and the ability to communicate. Though there are certain characteristics and behavioral changes that are common in autism, it is labeled as a spectrum because there is a great deal of variation from child to child. Before 2013, when the American Psychiatric Association changed the terminology to autism spectrum disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), there were four different diagnoses applied to autism: autistic disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified, and Asperger syndrome (NIH, 2023 January. Autism spectrum disorder. https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/autism-spectrum-disorder#). 

A parent whose baby tested “normal” at birth may start to see delays in speech and verbal skills, limited interest in other people, avoidance of direct eye contact, repetitive behaviors, and/ or stress with changes in routines as the child becomes older (NIH, 2023 January). Signs and symptoms can be evident at any age, and the diagnosis can be made at any time, but most autism spectrum diagnoses are made before the age of two.

Developmental milestones, behaviors and skills that are typical at specific age ranges, and more skills develop as children age.  Figure 1 is a milestone checklist for a nine-month-old and a two-year-old (2021, CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics).

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children have the first screen for developmental disorder at their 18 to 24-month exam (Maenner, et al., 2023; NIH, 2023 January).

The U.S. began collecting prevalence data on children in the year 2000 through the U.S. Autism Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network. ADDM is a network of surveillance programs at 11 sites in the US (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin) that were set up in the year 2000 to monitor the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders. In 2000 approximately 1 in 150 children were on the ASD spectrum (CDC, 2023 April 6). In 2020, 1 in 36 children aged 8 had been diagnosed with ASD. Autism is far more common now than it was in 2000. (CDC, 2023 April 6; Maenner, 2023).        

In the 2020 U.S. study of 8-year-olds, 37.9% of children with ASD had an intellectual disability and those that did were more likely to be diagnosed earlier; 23.5% of children had a borderline IQ, and 38.6% had average or high IQ. ASD is seen in all racial groups. Boys were 3.8 times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with ASD. Of the 4,663 eight-year-olds who had a diagnosis of ASD documented in their medical record, the median age for the first ASD diagnosis was 49 months with a range of 36 to 59 months (Maenner, et al., 2023).

Current research into the causes of autism spectrum disorders suggests that neurodevelopmental dysfunction is the result of a complex interaction of:

• Genetic factors,
• Epigenetic elements,
• Ages of the child’s parents,
• Other prenatal factors.
• Toxic environmental exposures in early childhood.

A combination of factors is likely to be involved, including the presence of specific gene variations that are inherited from the father or mother, or due to a more recent mutation of an autism-related gene. Twin studies have shown that at least some genes that are associated with autism are inherited (Havdahl, et al., 2021; Styles, et al., 2020; Thapar & Rutter, 2021; Wang, et al., 2023).

Epigenetics, which refers to the science of how specific genes are turned on and off, may also be a factor. A gene variant that is associated with ASD may be present but not active (the gene is essentially turned off) unless certain biophysiological chemical reactions occur. Epigenetics looks at how behaviors, environment, and other factors impact how a gene remains “off” or “turns on” and causes dysfunction (Havdahl, et al., 2021).

Abnormal behaviors may be associated with possible pathogenesis in brain circuitry in early childhood (Styles, et al., 2020; Wang, et al, 2023). There are up to 400 genes that have been identified to have a strong link to ASD. Many of these genes affect neuronal wiring, signaling pathways, or synaptic transmission within the brain – which would affect how the brain functions (Styles, et al., 2020). Unfortunately, the technology to evaluate this activity and possible anatomical alterations on the living brain does not yet exist.

For a parent, learning that one’s child may be on the autism spectrum can be devastating. Early intervention with specialty care is typically helpful in terms of improving outcomes. Parents need help to cope with all the sudden changes in medical and other care needs. It is not then surprising that so many people become victimized by disreputable individuals who intend to make money from the desperation of others.

Author’s Note

This author has tried to objectively present the history of the Vaccines Cause Autism movement that arose from Wakefield’s efforts to discredit vaccinations. Primary sources were used whenever possible, and the evidence has been provided by including documents within this chapter or through hyperlinks. We have made every effort to verify Information from secondary sources as much as we were able to.

Unfortunately, this debate has been going on for over 25 years, so it has not been possible to find all of the primary sources in 2025. We are only citing information for which we have viewed the supportive documentation. We have meticulously referenced and hyperlinked to original documents when we were able to find them online. In some cases where investigative reporters had personal contact verbally or by email, it was not possible to provide direct evidence, but the links in this segment currently contain a wealth of information. For readers who wish to do a deeper dive we have also provided hyperlinks in the reference list.

We recommend the following website: https://briandeer.com which contains countless documents and Brian Deer’s book The Doctor who Fooled the World.

Additional information can be found at: The Citizens for Responsible Care and Research website at http://www.circare.org/autism/wakefieldindex.htm

Autism Speaks (n.d.). Do vaccines cause autism? https://www.autismspeaks.org/do-vaccines-cause-autism

Andrew Wakefield – Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) and the Birth of the Contemporary Anti-Vax Movement, 1998

To understand the beginning of the anti-vax movement that impacted acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, it is necessary to start with Andrew Wakefield in 1998. The “Vaccines Cause Autism” conspiracy theory is based on a fabricated report that was discredited and eventually retracted from the journal that first published it. The “research” involved subjecting several children to invasive procedures that they did not need. The conclusion that became the basis for the contemporary anti-vax movement was not supported by the data. The results of the study could not be reproduced by other scientists because Wakefield falsified all aspects of the results of his so-called “research” for financial gain. Wakefield eventually lost his medical license (discussed below). His claims that measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines (MMR) were the cause of autism related changes in children have been shown to be false many times over. Unfortunately, every dollar spent on sham “research” is a dollar that could have been spent on identifying the factors that DO contribute to ASD, preventive strategies, and on finding effective treatments.

The Journal Article

On February 28, 1998, The Lancet, a well-respected UK medical journal published a short paper that described a study entitled “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.” In Wakefield, et al. (1998, February 28) the authors stated that they investigated a connection between regressive developmental disorder and enterocolitis.

A total of 12 children, 11 boys and 1 girl aged from 3 to 10 years old were included in the study (Wakefield, et al., 1998 February 28). This was a very small sample.

The Wakefield publication alluded to a connection between MMR vaccines and autism, in that it stated: “onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children…” 

Within the publication, the authors of the Wakefield article acknowledged that the study findings did NOT support a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and autism: “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome”(Wakefield, et al., February 1998).

Enterocolitis is an inflammation in the bowels that can be caused by infection, auto-immune disease, and other reasons. “Pervasive developmental disorder” (PDD) is a term used in the 1990’s as a diagnosis for developmental delays, milestones that were not achieved, in children. PDD is sometimes considered to be synonymous with ASD. “Regressive developmental disorder” refers to a loss of skills or milestones previously achieved – this is not the same as PDD.

We will discuss the flaws in Wakefield “research” and the sequelae in depth below.

The Press Conference

The Vaccines Cause Autism conspiracy theory began with the press conference. and publication. Andrew Wakefield and the Free Royal Hospital and Medical School of London, England, held a press conference to announce that the study conducted at the hospital was published in Lancet. On February 26, 1998, Wakefield, the principal investigator and first author of the article announced that MMR vaccines should be stopped until further research was complete and that the vaccinations caused developmental delays and autism in children (Laurence, 2010; Offit, 2020).

During the initial press conference Wakefield claimed that parents should only allow administration of each of the three vaccines in a single vaccine dose, one year apart (Laurence, 2010). Wakefield’s research did not support the statements he made at the press conference. As the vaccination program in the UK had been very successful in suppressing measles, mumps and rubella in the past, such a proclamation led to widespread confusion. As we will demonstrate in detail below; Wakefield had much to gain financially from the pronouncements, as he:

• Held a patent for a separate measles “vaccine” that he applied for in 1996.
• Was a consultant for a lawsuit against the UK manufacturer of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
• Received £55,000 from the UK Legal Aid Fund to conduct research that was used to support the claims in the vaccine lawsuit.
• Accepted funds from Legal Aid for medical procedures on children that had already been paid for by the UK National Health Service.
• Arranged to have children involved in the lawsuit referred to the “study.”

The Lancet Published a Critical Review of the Wakefield Article in the Same Issue

Anticipating controversy, and over concerns about an anti-vaccination backlash, the editor of The Lancet also published a commentary of the Wakefield article by Chen and DeStefano (1998, February 28). Both Chen and DeStefano were affiliated with the U.S. Vaccine Safety and Development Activity, National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Chen and DeStefano critical review and the Wakefield study were published in the same issue of the journal. The commentary states:

“Although immunisations rank among the most important public-health measures, no vaccine is perfectly safe. Because vaccines are given to millions of healthy people, usually infants, extremely high standards for vaccine safety are demanded. It is therefore important to examine, critically and with an open mind, the report by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues of several children whose chronic bowel and behavioural abnormalities were linked by their parents and physicians to measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination.”

“How well then do the features of the association reported by Wakefield and colleagues fit with causality?

First, hundreds of millions of people worldwide (including those in Scandinavia and North America, where there are excellent clinical facilities) have received measles-containing vaccine without developing either chronic bowel or behavioural problems since the mid-1960s. This finding provides important negative evidence as well as an appropriate framework for the assessment of the cases described by Wakefield and colleagues—namely, that if MMR vaccine does cause this syndrome, it does so extremely rarely.

 “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia is non-specific. Autism was known well before MMR vaccine became available.”

“Are there unique laboratory features, including detection of vaccine viruses in child specimens where they would not be expected? Although Wakefield has reported the detection of these viruses in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), other investigators, using more sensitive and specific assays, have not been able to reproduce these findings.”

“The Wakefield report is based on cases referred to a group known to be specially interested in studying the relation of MMR vaccine with IBD, rather than a population-based study. A first dose of MMR vaccine is given to about 600 000 children every year in the UK, most during the second year of life, the time when autism first becomes manifest. Not surprisingly, therefore, some cases will follow MMR vaccination. Biased case-ascertainment, as in this study, will exaggerate the association.”

“Was there recall bias? It is usually difficult to date precisely the onset of a syndrome such as autism. Parents and others may attempt to relate its onset to an unusual event such as coincidental postvaccinal reaction.”

“There are other reasons for doubt about the association reported by Wakefield and colleagues. They suggest that MMR immunisation may lead to IBD, which results in malabsorption, consequent neurological damage, and “autism”. However, behavioural changes preceded bowel symptoms in almost all their reported cases. No clear case-definition was presented, a necessary requirement of a true new clinical syndrome and an essential step in any further research.” (Chen & DeStefano, 1998, February 28).

Brian Deer:

An Investigative Journalist Uncovered Egregious Ethical Issues

As detailed below, investigative journalist Brian Deer identified numerous ethical violations, falsification of medical records, lack of consent forms, lies about how children were identified and included. One of the most egregious issues was the use of invasive and often painful procedures on children who did not require these tests. The procedures were performed purely for research purposes. Deer repeatedly reported his concerns about Wakefield, et al. to the UK General Medical Council (GMC) and an investigation was eventually launched. The invasive procedures performed on each of 11 children studied are shown in figure 2 (copied from the GMC reports). Child 11 was an American hospitalized for testing related to the study. Further detail is provided below.

As we will show below, the investigation into Wakefield and his colleagues, most of these children required sedation and even anesthesia for painful procedures that were not clinically necessary.

An Immediate Backlash in Letters to The Lancet Editor

Publication of the Wakefield article resulted in a backlash of letters from other researchers. Letters to the editor of The Lancet that expressed these concerns were published for months. The criticisms were on target. For example:

Beale (1998, March 21) expressed concern that publication of the Wakefield study by The Lancet would cause parents and physicians to give it credence when the paper should have been rejected outright:

“By publishing Andrew Wakefield and colleagues work purporting to show a link between MMR vaccination and inflammatory bowel disease and autism and related problems you give increased credence to their report. The Lancet is a prestigious, peer reviewed journal with high public profile. The profession, journalists, the public, and especially distressed parents of ill children suppose that a publication in your journal will be true. In this example you print a commentary, which if it had been a peer reviewer’s report, should have led to the rejection of the paper.”

“The result of publication and the subsequent general publicity is predictable… from previous experience well documented by E J Gangerosa et al (Jan 31, p 356) for whooping cough vaccine. Such publicity has led to parents refusing vaccination for their children and a resurgence of the disease (and deaths), and more anguish for the parents who expected recompense from the courts which usually failed for lack of evidence of causality. Also it frightened many manufacturers from continuing development and production of vaccines.”

“If my predictions are correct, then I think you will bear a heavy responsibility for acting against the public health interest which you usually aim to promote. Moreover, you will only increase the anguish of the parents of the sick children with whom all doctors will sympathise.” (Beale, 1998).

Bedford, et al. (1998, March 21) also expressed concern that The Lancet published an article that alluded to a vaccine complication without scientific evidence. The authors of the rebuttal stated the obvious that a resurgence of measle deaths and neurological damage and rubella related birth defects would result:

“We were surprised and concerned that the Lancet published the paper by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues in which they alluded to an association between MMR vaccine and a nonspecific syndrome, yet provided no sound scientific evidence. The commentary by Robert Chen and Frank DeStefano points out the serious flaws in the paper.”

“We acknowledge that anecdotal reports may sometimes contribute to the generation of hypotheses, but risk factors for rare conditions, such as those described, can only be identified by well designed epidemiological studies.”

“This publication provided a platform for the expression of views about MMR vaccination that have no proven scientific foundation: this could have damaging effects on public and professional confidence in vaccines in general. The MMR vaccination programme has been successful in this country, and we are now at a point when the elimination of measles is a real possibility. If, as a result of this paper parents reject MMR vaccine, this could lead to a re-emergence of measles infection with associated deaths and permanent neurological damage among young children, and a resurgence of rubella infection leading to a rise in congenital rubella births and terminations of pregnancy. Has nothing been learned from the experiences with pertussis vaccine in the 1970s”? (Bedford, et al., 1998).

Black, et al, (1998 March 21) rated the Wakefield study as inadequate and predicted that adverse publicity about the MMR vaccine would cause serious consequences. These authors recommended that future published research studies should be rated based on strength and quality of the evidence and health warnings be added to protect the public:

“Andrew Wakefield and colleagues report a case series of 12 patients and use this to generate a hypothesis that gastrointestinal disease and an associated developmental disorder may be related to MMR. This research was widely reported in the mass media and has generated considerable public concern, despite the weight of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of MMR vaccination discussed by Robert Chen and Frank DeStefano. Previous experience suggests that adverse publicity about vaccination, even though subsequently shown to be exaggerated or unfounded, results in reduced vaccine coverage with serious public health consequences. The widespread reporting of this case series is likely to have a similar impact.”

“The publicity generated by this paper is out of proportion to the strength of evidence presented. Description of the strength of research evidence is straightforward. There are standard scoring systems in common use that enable consumers of research to quickly understand the weight that should be given to the evidence presented.”

“In this example a reasonable score might be IV “evidence inadequate owing to problems of methodology, eg, sample size, length or comprehensiveness of follow up, or conflict of evidence.”

Research is essential to the advancement of knowledge and will always be newsworthy. However, we believe that it is now time for research publications to carry health warnings so that the public and health professionals are adequately appraised about the strength and quality of evidence presented. A critical commentary published alongside is helpful, but not sufficient.” (Black, et al., 1998).

Lee, et al. (1998, 2021 March 21) also predicted consequences from the Wakefield paper and addressed the poor quality of the work. The authors also opined that the paper did not merit publication:

“Wakefield and co-workers state ‘We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the syndrome described.’ However, there are enough references in the text to lead the reader to the assumption that there is sufficient evidence provided by the study, and by other scientific publications, to suggest that there is a likely (although as yet unproven) link.”

“The study suggests a temporal relation between the so-called autism-bowel syndrome and administration of MMR in eight of the 12 cases. However, the interval between receipt of vaccine and onset of symptoms is provided in only five cases (1-14 days), and the age at which the vaccine was given was provided in only three (15 months, 16 months, and years). Parents identified MMR to be the immediate precursor of developmental delay in eight of the 12 children, but developmental delay is likely to be detected by a gradual awareness over a period of time, not on a particular day. Although autism is rarely diagnosed before 18 months, the insidious onset of symptoms often predates the diagnosis by many months. As described by Wakefield, parents had trouble making a temporal link between the onset of autism and the onset of gastrointestinal symptoms for similar reasons. We therefore question the conclusion that there was a temporal association of the autism-bowel syndrome and MMR.”

“To prove a causal relation is much harder—it requires a selection of patients and matched controls, and a sample size that is capable of detecting a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The investigators may need to be blinded for such aspects as clinical assessments and laboratory tests. How does Wakefield’s study match up? There was no patient selection other than 12 patients referred to him. There were no controls. There was no blinding of investigators… We concur with them that Wakefield’s study fails at every level to make a causal association…”

“Wakefield and colleagues’ findings confront us with a new hypothesis—that measles-containing vaccine may trigger developmental regression. It is known that such speculation may seriously damage important public health programmes, causing a decline in vaccine uptake and a rise in the target disease. We can now expect such damage to occur in many countries. We question the merit of publishing this particular study.”

“Publication of this study is especially tragic because WHO and all consulted national public health authorities agree that it does not alter in any way the continued recommendation to use measles-containing vaccines throughout the world. Current measles containing vaccines are highly safe and effective.” (Lee, et al., 1998).

Lindley & Milla (1998, March 21) described concerns about the Wakefield report and presented results of testing done at a different UK hospital that directly conflicted with the Wakefield findings.

“The account given by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues’ is interesting, yet the structure of the study with biased case ascertainment and no suitable controls makes the findings no more than anecdotal. Perhaps the only saving grade for The Lancet is the accompanying well balanced commentary.”

“Chronic non-specific colitis, as described by Wakefield, is a common form of non-infective colonic inflammation in the age group studied. Furthermore, of 329 consecutive colonscopies done at Great Ormond Street Hospital (children aged 1 month to 16 years with chronic diarrhoea), 40 children were noted to have macroscopic ileal/ileocolonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, giving a prevalence in this selected population of 12%. 85% of these children had minor immunodeficiencies, as reported by Wakefield, but none had neuropsychiatric disorder.”

“The investigators concede that they have not proven an association between MMR immunisation and the syndrome described, and have in reality presented no hard data on this matter. The report has led, intentionally or otherwise, to the erroneous assumption by the media and parents of a cause and effect relation between MMR immunisation, inflammatory bowel disease, and developmental disorder, resulting in parental confusion about the safety of immunisation. This country’s childhood immunisation programme has dramatically reduced wild-type measles infection with its associated significant morbidity and mortality. Wakefield’s account risks setting back child health 30 years through disruption of this programme. If these researchers are able to prove cause and effect between immunisation and the described syndrome they should do so straight away. If they are unable to do so they should publicly set the matter straight lest the health of our nation’s children suffers.” (Lindley & Milla, 1998).

Richmond & Goldblatt (1998, May 6) also pointed out flawed assumptions in the Wakefield study stating that the lymphoid nodular hyperplasia found during endoscopies on the children is often found in children and is considered a benign, normal finding. In addition, the reference ranges for IgA for adults were mistakenly used by Wakefield, et al. The ranges for the children were all within normal pediatric ranges: 

“Andrew Wakefield and colleagues dismiss selection bias because of the uniformity and significance of the gastrointestinal findings in a “unique disease process”. However, the most striking and consistent endoscopic feature, lymphoid nodular hyperplasia in the terminal ileum, is not unusual in children. Walker-Smith et al have described this condition as ‘benign lymphoid hyperplasia due to the frequency of its demonstration in asymptomatic children,’ and state that the association of gastrointestinal symptoms such as abdominal pain and diarrhoea with this condition is ‘all too often circumstantial’ This view is shared by other authors, who describe lymphoid nodular hyperplasia as ‘essentially a normal finding.’ It is not clear how the control children were selected for endoscopy. The clinical features described are thus far from unique, and the suspicion of selection bias remains.”

“lgA deficiency in four children is used to support the hypothesis that the consequences of an inflamed or dysfunctional intestine may play a part in behavioural changes in some children. However, the lgA concentrations in three of the four children are normal according to the UK age-specific reference range for immunoglobulins used to diagnose antibody deficiencies. The reference ranges for immunoglobulins quoted in this study would appear to be derived from an adult range, and the lgG and lgG1 values quoted as abnormal for four patients are also all within normal paediatric limits.” (Richmond & Goldblatt, 1998).

Sinclair (1998, May 2) also identified that the authors of the Wakefield study used adult instead of pediatric reference ranges for labs – and that the labs recorded for the children were actually within normal limits for their ages:

“I note significant inaccuracies in table 1 of the paper by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues, a table that records ‘abnormal laboratory tests’ and ‘normal ranges.’ The ranges given in the legend to this table are not age related, and those for the immunoglobulins vary markedly from the ones most laboratories use. For example, the normal range for alkaline phosphatase is given as 35-130 U/L. This is the adult range. Normal-growing children have activities up to 2.5 times the upper adult limit.”

“Patients 1, 4 and 6 (aged 4, 10, and 5 years, respectively) had normal alkaline phosphatases if the paediatric age-related range of 250-800b U/L is used.”

“Care should be taken in interpreting marginal differences from normal in plasma immunoglobulin levels, but the ranges given by Wakefield et al also differ from common standards. The normal range for lgA is given as 0.9-4.5 g/L but this too is an adult range. Patients 7, 8, and 12 appear to have significantly low levels of lgA but standard laboratory reference normal ranges appropriate for their ages show that these children have normal lgA concentrations.”

“The normal range for patient 8, whose lgG level was 7.0 g/L, is given as 8-18 g/L. This sort of result bears repeating. Even so, the normal range for this child, aged 3.5 years, varies significantly from paediatric standards (5.0-15³ and 4.9-16.1 g/L).”

“Patient 7 had an Hb of 9.4 g/dL with a marginally raised erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 16 mm. Had the ESR been corrected for packed cell volume it would have been normal.” (Sinclair, 1998).

Walker (1998, May 2) summarized similar concerns as follows:

“The second idea was the unsubstantiated reporting of an association between this new syndrome and measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine. This anecdotal reporting of a biased sample is poor science and has no place in a peer-reviewed journal. Nor was it new; the supposed association between MMR, autism, and inflammatory bowel disease has been published before by the same research group. Since no additional work was reported to substantiate this association and since considerable evidence has been collected by others to suggest that it does not exist, publishing it again lends further unwarranted credence to the hypothesis. Peer review seems to have failed to screen out this attempt to “piggyback” the cryptic suggestion of MMR as a causal factor onto a description of a new syndrome, and the criticism of this second idea obscures the important message of the first.”

“The anger of public health workers at this paper is not due to the challenge to public health dogma, as Wakefield suggests (March 21, p 908). It is because children are being put at risk from potentially lethal infectious diseases not by new reliable evidence but by media coverage of another badly designed study by this group.”

Other authors also questioned conclusions regarding gastrointestinal findings, stating that the reference values for specific labs were not correct for children. The concern was that most of the findings Wakefield, et al. had reported as abnormal were not (Richmond & Goldblatt, 1998, May 2; Sinclair, 1998, May 2). As will be presented below, investigative reporter Brian Deer found evidence that Wakefield, et al. also falsified several of the results (Deer, 2010 April 15; Deer, 2011 November 9).

Taylor Study: Vaccines Do NOT Cause Autism

This study was completed by other researchers at the Royal Free Medical School to test Wakefield’s hypothesis that MMR vaccines caused autism (U.S. House of Representative, 2000 April 6). Professor Brent Taylor and a team from the medical school conducted a study that was published in The Lancet June 12, 1999. This study identified 498 children with an autism diagnosis through special needs/ disability registers and schools in the health district. The title describes the findings: Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiological evidence for a causal association (Taylor, et al., 1999).

Given the amount of data that was available for research use in 1999, the Taylor study examined a fairly large sample, 498 children versus 12 in the Wakefield study. The sample was more representative of the population (children in London, England with an autism diagnosis) than was the case in the Wakefield study. The children in the sample were identified through the special needs/ disability registers and schools.

Taylor, et al. (1999) states:

“We identified 498 cases of autism (261 of core autism, 166 of atypical autism, and 71 of Asperger’s syndrome…) There was a steady increase in cases by year of birth with no sudden ‘step-up’ or change in the trend line after the introduction of MMR vaccination. There was no difference in age at diagnosis between the cases vaccinated before or after 18 months of age and those never vaccinated. There was no temporal association between onset of autism within 1 or 2 years after vaccination with MMR…”

“Developmental regression was not clustered in the months after vaccination… Nonsignificant temporal clustering for age at onset of parental concern was seen for cases of core autism or atypical autism with the exception of a single interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination. This appeared to be an artifact related to the difficulty of defining precisely the onset of symptoms in this disorder.”

“Interpretation: Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in this large, regional sample” (Taylor, et al., 1999).

Taylor and Wakefield were from the same institution. Wakefield, who by now had a fairly strong following, and a vested interest in being seen as an expert, took every opportunity offered to try to discredit Taylor.

Wakefield was Cast as an Expert in the U.S.

Wakefield’s credibility was being dismantled in the United Kingdom due to inappropriate research on children, major ethical concerns about unnecessary invasive procedures on children, and outright lies to the media. At the same time, Wakefield was being touted as an expert on autism and vaccines in the United States.

Wakefield Testifies at a Hearing at the U.S. House of Representatives in April 2000

Representative Dan Burton of Indiana from 1983 to 2013, a staunch advocate for parents of children with autism described his own belief that his grandson’s autism was related to vaccinations during several U.S. House of Representative hearings. He initiated an estimated 20 hearings on autism spectrum disorders during his time in Congress. Reading through the testimony of parents, it is clear that increasing rates of autism, already evident by the year 2000, was causing great suffering and vulnerable parents were desperate to find answers. The hearings increased awareness of autism, but Burton also helped to lend credence to the conspiracy theories by championing Wakefield and his already discredited study.

During the April 6, 2000, hearing, titled Autism: Present challenges, future needs – why the increased rates? Burton passionately expressed his own belief that childhood vaccinations and autism while telling his grandson’s story:

“We have received hundreds of letters from parents across the country. In fact, here are some notebooks, and each one of the pages represents a parent who has a problem with a child with autism. They have shared with us their pain and their challenges. My staff tells me that some of them cried when they read some of these letters–and I have a pretty hard-nosed staff.

I do not have to read a letter to experience the kind of heartbreak that is in these letters. I see it in my own family. I am very proud of this picture. The one on the left is my granddaughter, who almost died after receiving a hepatitis B shot. Within a short period of time, she quit breathing, and they had to rush her to the hospital.

My grandson, Christian, whom you see there with his head on her shoulder, according to the doctors was going to be about 6-foot-10–we anticipated having him support the family by being an NBA star–but unfortunately, after receiving nine shots in 1 day, the MMR and the DTaP shot and the hepatitis B, within a very short period of time, he quit speaking, ran around banging his head against the wall, screaming, hollering, waving his hands, and became a totally different child. We found out that he was autistic.

He was born healthy. He was beautiful and tall. He was outgoing and talkative. He enjoyed company and going places. Then, he had those shots, and our lives and his life changed. I do not want to read all the things that happened to Christian, because I am not sure I could get through it. But unfortunately, what happened to Christian is not a rare, isolated event.

Shelley Reynolds will testify today. Her organization, Unlocking Autism, will be displaying thousands of pictures of autistic children at the “Hear Their Silence” autism rally this Saturday.     Forty-seven percent of the parents who provided these pictures feel that their children’s autism is linked to the immunizations–almost half.”

Burton also stated that he was not anti-vaccination:

“But in this process, we must not get ahead of the science or raise false alarms. At every hearing in this Congress that this committee has held touching on childhood immunizations, I have made a point of emphasizing the tremendous public health value of immunization. More Americans have been saved by vaccines than by any other medical intervention. Across the globe, 2.5 million children die every year from childhood diseases; another 750,000 are crippled by these diseases. But American children are shielded from this death and misery by their vaccinations” (U.S. House of Representatives, 2000, April 6).

Burton Promoted Wakefield During the Hearing

Despite the massive wave of criticism of the Wakefield study in the UK, Burton invited Wakefield to participate in this U.S. House of Representatives hearing he held in 2000. By inviting Wakefield to serve as an expert, Burton bestowed on Wakefield and his co-authors credibility that they did not deserve. During the first part of the hearing during which the concerns of parents were discussed, Burton described the following anecdote:

“Liz Birt was one of the hundreds of parents who contacted us. Her 5-year-old son Matthew has been classified as autistic. He was developing normally. At age 15 months, following his MMR vaccine, he began to regress. Since the time of his vaccination, he has had chronic diarrhea. This is his picture–a good-looking kid. This is very prevalent, this chronic diarrhea, in autistic children. Matthew also did not sleep on a regular basis for over 3 years.”

“Liz took her son to numerous gastroenterologists in prominent medical facilities in the United States with no resolution. Finally, this past November, Liz took her son to London, to the Royal Free Hospital. A team of medical experts there examined Matthew. They felt that he had a bowel obstruction. To the family, this seemed impossible since he had constant diarrhea. An x-ray indicated that Matthew had a fecal mass in his colon the size of a cantaloupe. After the obstruction was cleared with laxatives, Matthew underwent an endoscopy and colonoscopy. The lesions in Matthew’s bowel tested positive for the measles virus.”

“Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Professor John O’Leary will be testifying today. Their research has uncovered a possible connection between inflammatory bowel disorder in children with autism who receive the MMR vaccine and have measles virus in their small intestines.”

“Since coming home from England and being treated for chronic inflammatory bowel disorder, Matthew has finally begun to sleep through the night. I know that is a welcome relief for his family. Unfortunately, Matthew’s story is not that unusual in children with autism. Our grandson has a similar problem.”

“Unfortunately, it is important that I make two things very clear today. I, and I believe every Member of Congress, I am not against vaccinations, and I do not think that every autistic child acquires autism after receiving childhood immunizations.”

Obviously, Matthew was sent to England to be evaluated by the Wakefield team as a private patient, but it is not clear if Matthew was or was not a patient in the study published by Wakefield, et al. in 1998.

Wakefield’s Testimony Before the U.S. House of Representatives

Burton introduced Andrew Wakefield at the hearing before the Committee on Government Reform on April 6, 2000. During his testimony, Wakefield discussed several slides and discussed a possible connection between intestinal disease and autism. His only reference to MMR vaccine as a potential cause at that time was the following statement:

“The story as told to us and which we have an obligation to report is that the majority of children regressed following a period of normal development in the face of MMR vaccination. That does not mean it is the cause of the disease. We also had two children who regressed after classical measles infection–one after the monovalent measles vaccine and one after a rare vasculitic rash. Thirty-six percent of parents could contemporaneously identify no particular environmental hit” (U.S. House of Representatives, 2000, April 6). During the hearing Wakefield and colleagues Dr. John O’Leary of Coombe Women’s Hospital in Dublin, Ireland and Vijendra Singh of Utah State University, suggested that measles virus in the bowel post vaccination contributes to autism. The proponents of this theory did not explain HOW measles virus could end up in the bowel after a vaccination that did NOT use live virus.

Dr. Offit Explained Why the Theory that Vaccines Cause Autism was Flawed

Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician and Chief of Infectious Diseases and the Henle Professor of Immunologic and Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and a member of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices also testified.

Dr. Offit stated that when MMR vaccines dropped in the 1990’s measles outbreaks resulted in 11,000 hospitalizations and 123 deaths. He responded to three of the widely circulating anti-vax theories:

“My role in these proceedings is to explore the theories that have arisen due to concerns by the public that autism might be caused by the combination of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines known as MMR. No evidence exists which proves this association…”

“The first theory is that children who get the measles vaccine make an immune response not only to the vaccine, but also to their own nervous system. This kind of reaction is called autoimmunity. To understand why this theory is invalid, we must first understand differences between natural measles infection and measles vaccination. During natural measles infection, the measles virus reproduces itself many times in the body and causes disease. In contrast, following measles vaccination, the vaccine virus reproduces itself much less and does not cause disease. Because more measles proteins are made during natural infection than after immunization, the immune response to natural infection is greater than the immune response to immunization. If the immune response is greater after natural infection, then the autoimmune response would also be greater. If this were the case, then autoimmunity should occur more frequently after natural infection than after vaccination. Or, said another way, if measles virus caused autism, then measles vaccination would lower, not raise, the incidence of autism.”

“The second theory is that the child’s immune system is simply overwhelmed by seeing three viruses in a vaccine at the same time. Some have gone so far as to suggest that it may be of benefit to divide the MMR vaccine into three separate vaccines. The rationale behind this theory is that children do not normally encounter such an assault on their immune system. From the birth canal and beyond, infants are confronted by a host of different challenges to their immune system. Their intestines encounter foreign proteins in milk and formula. Their lungs encounter bacteria inhaled on the surface of dust in the air. And literally thousands of different bacteria immediately start to live on the skin as well as on the lining of the nose, throat, and intestines.”

“Here is how infants deal with this immediate confrontation to their immune system. Babies have a tremendous capacity to respond to their environment from the minute they are born. The newborn has billions of immunologic cells which are capable of responding to millions of different microorganisms. By quickly making an immune response to bacteria that live on the surface of their intestines, babies keep these bacteria from invading their bloodstream and causing serious disease”. “Therefore, the combination of the three vaccines contained in MMR, or even the 10 vaccines given in the first 2 years of life, is literally a raindrop in the ocean of what infants successfully encounter in their environment every day” (U.S. House of Representatives, 2000, April 6).

Dr. Boyle Described Studies that were in Progress by CDC, NIH and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in 2000

Dr. Coleen Boyle, Chief of the Developmental Disabilities Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also testified. Dr. Boyle indicated that the CDC was working to determine actual prevalence of autism and the causes. At that time improved recognition and expanded diagnostic criteria meant that more children were being identified. Prevalence studies had begun, but it was not clear yet if autism rates were increasing. The CDC and NIH had a study in progress to determine if there was a link between MMR vaccines and autism. Data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (the mechanism for reporting vaccine adverse effects) and several HMOs was also being examined to determine if there was a link between MMR vaccines and inflammatory bowel disease. Scientific review was also in progress for a joint study with the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to determine how exposure to toxic environmental pollution may have contributed to a high rate of autism in Brick Township, New Jersey, where an unusually high rate of autism had been found. Dr. Boyle indicated that some genetic factors and events that occurred before birth had also been identified as possible contributing factors (U.S. House of Representatives, 2000, April 6).

Dr. Brent Taylor Described One of the First Large Studies (of Many) that Showed NO Evidence of that MMR Vaccines Caused Autism – and Critiqued Wakefield’s Claims

Brent Taylor, Professor of Community and Child Health at the Royal Free University College of Medicine and the Head of the Department of Pediatrics and Child Health in London (U.S. House of Representatives, 2000, April 6). Taylor was from the same medical school as Wakefield.

Taylor was the first author of the study titled: Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. No epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Taylor, B., et al. (1999, June 12). This study is discussed in more detail above.

“I know how desperate families can be to understand the cause of their child’s often devastating condition. I also know that if we are to avoid families being led astray by false hopes, advances in understanding and treatment must be based on high-quality and rigorous science.”

“Mr. Wakefield and Professor O’Leary’s testimony notwithstanding, the belief that MMR is the cause of autism is a false hope. I have four main points. We do not fully understand the reasons why autism has recently increased. We do know that there is no evidence that immunizations are involved. Second, there is no evidence that MMR vaccine causes autism. Third, there is no conspiracy to suppress information about the side effects of vaccines–completely the reverse.”

“Fourth, because of poor science, uptake of MMR vaccine has fallen to dangerously low levels in the United Kingdom, putting children’s lives at risk from a resurgence of the damaging and occasionally killing of preventable diseases, measles, mumps, and rubella. The same thing could happen in the United States of America…”

“Here are some figures from the United Kingdom… MMR uptake, which has fallen from about 90 percent in 1995 to 75 percent in April 1999. There is almost an exact parallel fall… in mothers’ confidence in the safety of MMR vaccine.”

“The reason for this loss of confidence relates mainly to two papers produced by Mr. Wakefield and colleagues. The first, which incorrectly related measles vaccine to Crohn’s disease, one form of inflammatory bowel disease, has subsequently been completely undermined. There is no evidence that measles or measles vaccine play any part in inflammatory bowel disease…”

“The second arrow shows the timing of a paper produced by Mr. Wakefield and colleagues describing a small group of inadequately described children with a range of autism-related disorders. Following each of these papers, there was a major effect on mothers’ confidence and a resultant further decline in MMR uptake.”“The overhead, which is downloaded from the Lancet Web page, is of rather poor quality, and so is Mr. Wakefield’s content. He has fiddled with the data regarding the dates of the introduction of autism, and to demonstrate other problems he has with time relationships, it is worthwhile just looking at the bottom line, where it goes from 1987 to 1960 to 1990. What is actually going on?” (U.S. House of Representatives, 2000, April 6).

Wakefield Left Royal Free Hospital Medical School

Wakefield resigned from his research post at the Royal Free hospital November 30, 2001. He said it was by mutual decision (Ramsey, 2001).

That does not appear to have been the case.

Representative Dan Burton Again Portrayed Wakefield as a Hero, U.S. House of Representatives, June 2002

Wakefield was also invited to present at another hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives, chaired by Dan Burton. The Status of Research into Vaccine Safety and Autism was held in June 2002. Burton not only continued to support him, but cast Wakefield as a victimized hero:

“We have twice received testimony from Dr. Andrew Wakefield regarding his clinical research into autism entercolitis. We will learn today that not only has he continued to conduct clinical research but this research is confirming the presence of vaccine-related measles, RNA, in the biopsies from autistic children. Dr. Wakefield, like many scientists who blazes new trails, has been attacked by his own profession. He has been forced out of his position at the Royal Free Hospital in England. He and his colleagues have fought an uphill battle to continue the research that has been a lone ray of hope for parents whose children have autistic entercolitis.”

“Unfortunately, rather than considering the preliminary clinical findings of Dr. Wakefield as a newly documented adverse reaction to a vaccine, the CDC attempted to refute these clinical findings through an epidemiological review. While epidemiological research is very important, it cannot be used to disprove laboratory and clinical findings. Valuable time was lost in replicating this research in determining whether the hypothesis was accurate. Officials at HHS have aggressively denied any possible connection between vaccines and autism. They have waged an information campaign endorsing one conclusion on this issue where the science is still out.

This has significantly undermined public confidence in the career public service professionals who are charged with balancing the dual roles of assuring the safety of vaccines and increasing immunization rates.”

“Before we go to the next witness, I believe other scientists who have differed with the prevailing opinions have suffered similar castigation as you have. You may rest assured that eventually the truth will out. Louis Pasteur found that out after 17 years when he was knighted, so eventually the truth will come out and those who criticize and continue to denigrate what you have done will be eating a heck of a lot of humble pie.” (U.S. House of Representatives, 2002, June 19).

Representative Henry Waxman of California Challenged Burton’s Support of Wakefield and Unsubstantiated Vaccine Theories

During the same 2002 hearing, U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, who represented California from 1975 to 2015, challenged Burton on his personal support for various unsubstantiated claims that MMR vaccines caused autism. He also presented data on the consequences that the CDC estimated could be expected if confidence in vaccine safety was compromised. Waxman also raised concerns about Wakefield:

“While rare side effects from vaccines are always possible, these studies have not found that vaccines are associated with any of these serious health problems. Since your first vaccine safety hearing, a blue ribbon panel of scientists convened by the Institute of Medicine has reviewed many of the most widely disseminated theories alleging harm from vaccines. This esteemed panel evaluated the allegation that the MMR vaccine causes autism. It studied the claim that thimerosal, a vaccine preservative, caused developmental delay. It reviewed whether the Hepatitis B vaccine causes neurological injury. It assessed the theory that multiple vaccinations cause allergies and asthma. In each case, the Institute of Medicine panel has found that scientific evidence does not validate the theories. Expert panels in other nations have reached similar conclusions.”

“Mr. Chairman, you have challenged the public health system to defend itself against numerous allegations that vaccines cause a wide variety of problems. I am not aware of any allegations about the safety of vaccines that you have not pursued. So far, the subsequent investigations and expert reviews have found vaccines to be safe. Because of your efforts in this area, Americans can have more confidence today in the safety of the vaccine supply than ever before.”

“There has also been a negative consequence to your approach. You have repeatedly provided a forum for unsubstantiated allegations about vaccine safety that have alarmed and confused parents. Although the scientific evidence for vaccine safety has grown stronger, parental concerns about vaccine safety have also increased since you started these hearings. This is a potentially dangerous development because it can lead to lower immunization rates and more disease.”

“I recently asked the Centers for Disease Control to describe what would happen if MMR immunization rates dropped. According to CDC, if immunization rates dropped to the levels they were in 1989, we could see over 26,000 hospitalizations for measles, 8,500 cases of pneumonia, 135 cases of encephalitis, and 224 deaths. According to the CDC, even a drop in immunization rates of 10 percent could result in an additional 2 million kids being susceptible to measles. It would also significantly increase susceptibility to rubella and congenital rubella syndrome which can cause serious birth defects such as blindness, deafness, and stillbirths. Congenital rubella syndrome is also a well known cause of autism, a disease we all want to prevent. How tragic it would be if an unjustified vaccine scare caused some children to die, others to have permanent brain deficits, and still others to suffer from autism. I ask that the information from the CDC be placed in the record at the conclusion of my statement.”

“While I am strongly opposed to reckless allegations about vaccine risks that scare parents and are not supported by the science, I also recognize that questions about vaccines will always arise. That is why I support efforts to fund additional research on vaccine safety. Some of the theories on the agenda for today do require additional research and I am pleased the Government is supporting such studies.”

“I also want to ensure that the Government does not lose the ability to conduct valid vaccine safety studies. We must assure the future of initiatives like the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project. This is a unique collaboration between CDC and several large health maintenance organizations that allows for valid and timely research on vaccine safety. Indeed this research has led to many important policy changes over the years.”

“Today, we will hear from scientists at CDC who work closely with the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project. These scientists are quite concerned about your threats to subpoena the raw data from this data base to pursue a vaccine related allegation because the raw data contain identifiable information from the medical records of more than 6 million Americans. A congressional subpoena would constitute a serious violation of medical privacy. According to CDC, a subpoena could have the effect of driving health maintenance organizations from the program and destroying CDC’s ability to scientifically test hypotheses relating to adverse effects potentially associated with vaccines. In other words, we are going to end up causing more harm than doing good if we pursue this subpoena approach.”

“You have an alternative to a subpoena, Mr. Chairman. The CDC has worked with HMOs to create a process for allowing independent researchers access to this data. I continue U

“Finally, I would like to address some allegations that Dr. Wakefield makes in his written testimony. Dr. Wakefield implies that a witness who testified here last year, Dr. Michael Gershon, either perjured himself or was guilty of sloppy science by noting problems in the lab that Dr. Wakefield used in his research. Dr. Gershon did not lie to this committee and this portion of his testimony did not involve his scientific expertise and thus was not sloppy. Dr. Gershon related what he was told by Dr. Michael Oldstone of the Scripps Institute, who has performed an evaluation of this lab. Dr. Gershon continues to stand by his testimony.”“Dr. Wakefield also is planning to make a needless attack on Dr. Gershon’s wife, who he alleges may have a financial interest in the chicken pox vaccine. In fact, according to Dr. Gershon, while his wife did conduct research relevant to a chicken pox vaccine patent, neither he nor his wife has any financial interest in the vaccine or its manufacturers. Dr. Wakefield’s allegation is therefore groundless as well as gratuitous. Dr. Gershon’s testimony last year was quite lengthy and he raised many scientific issues but Dr. Wakefield has not refuted any of them. Instead, he is resorting to name calling which does not move these scientific issues along and is unproductive.” (U.S. House of Representatives, 2002, June 19).

Wakefield and Financial Conflicts of Interest

After journalist Brian Deer of the British Sunday Times began investigating, numerous disturbing facts were uncovered. Deer located a wealth of documents that showed that Wakefield and others planned to reap millions of British pounds from the confusion created by his announcement that autism and MMR vaccinations were linked. We refer the reader to Deer’s publications, website, and book (The Doctor Who Fooled the World), as this journalist investigated and documented Wakefield’s ulterior motives in depth. The article referenced below is one of a series published in BMJ, formerly called the British Medical Journal that documents various aspects of Wakefield’s scams.

Deer, B. (2011). Secrets of the MMR scare. How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money. BMJ, 342-c5258. https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258

Wakefield’s 1997 Patent for a Separate “Measles Vaccine” is exposed in 2004

Wakefield did not disclose that he had filed a patent application for a single measles vaccine on June 6, 1997. As there was no other single vaccine being produced at the time, Wakefield personally could have reaped huge financial benefits if parents began to demand that measles vaccine be given separate from the mumps and rubella vaccines (Deer, 2011 January 15).

As shown in figure 3, Great Brittan patent number GB2325856. Page 1 of the patent states that the patent was for “a pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of an MMR virus mediated disease comprises a soluble dialysed leukocyte extract comprising a transfer factor.” The patent claimed that this drug was not only a single measle vaccine but a cure all drug: “Such a composition may be used as a measles virus vaccine and for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and regressive behavioural disorder” (Wakefield, 1998 April 6).

Neuroimmuno Therapeutics Research Foundation is a foreign nonprofit corporation When accessed on June 2, 2023, the corporation was recorded as “status: good standing” (South Carolina Secretary of State).

There were two inventors listed on the patent, Wakefield and Herbert Hugh Fundenberg (Wakefield, 1998 April 6). Fundenberg was an American immunologist who lost his medical licenses in both South Carolina and New York state for self-prescribing and using controlled drugs in 1996, before the patent application was filed (State of New York DOH, 1996 October 7). Fundenberg passed away in 2014. 

The patent application becomes even more interesting when the manufacturing process is described. As shown in figure 4, page 8 of the patent contains interesting details about how the transfer factor is produced. “Transfer factor” (TF) was supposedly made from mice lymphocytes (white blood cells), then injected into pregnant goats and TF was extracted from the colostrum breast milk during the first 3 days after delivery. There is also a mention of “horse myoglobin” which was used as some type of biomarker (Wakefield, 1998 April 6).

The process is described using many scientific terms and sounds very complicated. Though possible, it is a bit confusing as to why one would have so many species of animals involved in a manufacturing process for this product. For those interested in verifying this information, the full patent is available at: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/43/4a/98/cd9945c9084be1/GB2325856A.pdf

Complaints to the General Medical Council February 2004

After identifying the extent of the fraud and the evidence showing inappropriate experimentation on the children, investigator Brian Deer submitted documentation to support the allegations to the U.K. General Medical Council. Deer requested intervention in February of 2004 (Deer, 2004). The Sunday Times (U.K.) published a series of articles based on the issues that Deer had been finding during his investigation. The cover email listed Andrew Jeremy Wakefield and the 1998 co-authors Simon Murch and John Walker-Smith.

Deer sent 60 pages of documentation in February 2004 to the General Medical Council to support his concerns. By this time, Deer had found evidence of unnecessary invasive testing performed on autistic children, alteration of scientific data, conflicts of interest for financial gain, and a host of other issues. The documentation can be found at http://briandeer.com and in Deer (2004) Allegations of Misconduct at http://www.circare.org/autism/gmcallegations_20040225.pdf. The GMC sent a letter notifying Andrew Wakefield that an investigation of complaints had begun in April of 2004, see Allegations of misconduct submitted to the General Medical Council re: Unethical research on autistic children conducted by Andrew J. Wakefield, John Walker-Smith, and Simon Murch. 2004-02-25 (Deer, 2004). This document is available through Citizens for Responsible Care and Research at http://www.circare.org/autism/wakefieldindex.htm.

Simon Murch and Nine Co-authors of The Lancet Publication Sent a Partial Retraction of the 1998 Study, March 6, 2004

Simon Murch and nine other co-authors of The Lancet paper published in 1998 sent the following retraction to the journal. It was published on March 6, 2004. Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith did NOT agree to the partial retraction:

“This statement refers to the Early Report ‘Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children’, l published in The Lancet in 1998. It is made by 10 of the 12 original authors who could be contacted. It should be noted that this statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the other co-authors.”

“The main thrust of this paper was the first description of an unexpected intestinal lesion in the children reported. Further evidence has been forthcoming in studies from the Royal Free Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology and other groups to support and extend these findings. While much uncertainty remains about the nature of these changes, we believe it important that such work continues, as autistic children can potentially be helped by recognition and treatment of gastrointestinal problems.”

“We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.”“We were unable to contact John Linnell.” (Murch, et al., 2004).

United Kingdom Parliament House of Commons Debate on MMR Vaccinations and Autism was Held in March of 2004

In the U.K., Wakefield’s research, the Royal Free Medical School ethics committee, and the U.K. Legal Services Committee were the subject of hearings with serious repercussions. Wakefield’s research was disparaged and the ethics committee at Royal Free was criticized for gross failures to protect the children. These matters were referred to the General Medical Council. The Legal Services Commission was also under scrutiny and “refused to grant further financial support for the litigants’ case and it appears that it will not continue.” Referrals to the Department of Health and Crown Prosecution Service were discussed (U.K. House of Commons, 2004).

Dr. Evan Harris who was the Member of Parliament representing Oxford, West and Abingdon in the U.K. House of Commons from 1997 to 2010 summarized the serious allegations under investigation:

“Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): I wish to discuss issues around clinical ethics and research ethics in the work done at the Royal Free hospital by the inflammatory bowel disease group since 1995. Before I start, I would like to declare my interests. I was a member of an all-party group that recently visited the American society of clinical oncology conference for four days in Chicago, which was organised and funded by the pharmaceutical company Aventis. I am a member of the British Medical Association medical ethics committee, although I am not speaking for that body. I also spent a number of years as a member of the central Oxford research ethics committee, which gave me direct experience of many of the issues that I will deal with tonight. I am a member of the all-party group on autism, and my father is a recently retired professor of paediatrics.”

“Autism is a serious condition, and all of us in the House need to be aware of how distressing it is to parents and other family members and how challenging and troubling autistic spectrum disorders are to the children and their families. The controversy surrounding the work of the inflammatory bowel disease group at the Royal Free should not detract from the need to improve the health and social care provided to the children or the need for more research into causation, diagnosis and treatment of developmental delay or regression in children. None of the criticisms that I make of the researchers, the ethical regulators and the Legal Services Commission should be taken to extend to the parents who gave their consent and co-operation to those studies in good faith. As we know, many of them still support the individuals involved and perhaps see no problem in what they did.”

“In the scandal over Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s failure to declare financial and conflicts of interest when his research group’s article was published in The Lancet six years ago, the welfare of the children who were his research subjects seems to have been forgotten. Documents revealed by the investigative journalist Brian Deer and by The Sunday Times raise major doubts about a far more serious matter than publication misconduct. By that, I mean doubts and allegations about whether children were exposed to unacceptable risks and unnecessary procedures.”

“I do not make those allegations lightly, conscious as I am of the need to avoid the abuse of parliamentary privilege, but there is very clear evidence pointing towards unethical conduct by the researchers—or by one or some of them—and equally strong evidence of failure and incompetence by the research ethics committee. The papers to which I refer are published on Brian Deer’s website: http://www.briandeer.com”

“In 1996, and subsequently, researchers in the inflammatory bowel disease study group subjected children to a battery of invasive tests. Those included upper GI endoscopy, which is passing a flexible telescope down the throat into the stomach and upper gut through the mouth or nose; ileo-colonoscopy, which is passing a flexible telescope through the anus and rectum right round the large intestine and into the small bowel; and spinal taps, which is passing a needle into lower back to drain some of the fluid that bathes the brain and spinal cord. Those procedures are not trivial on consenting adults, let alone on autistic children, who must be heavily sedated or even anaesthetised. In addition to those tests, the children underwent blood tests, brain scans and monitoring of electric currents in the brain…”

“In 1996, just as now, there were tough rules to protect children from being exposed to risk for research purposes. We are not judging this case by the standards of today but by the standards of 1996, when four separate sets of guidelines applied. The guidelines were published and circulated by the Department of Health in 1991, the British Paediatric Association—now the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—in 1992, the General Medical Council in 1994 and the Royal College of Physicians in 1996. The guidelines made it clear that children should not be exposed to anything more invasive or risky than a blood test unless certain conditions—likely specific clinical benefit to the child—were met; that proper approval be sought in advance from a research ethics committee; that the advice and instructions of the research ethics committee be followed to the letter; that changes to the agreed arrangements be agreed in advance by the research ethics committee; and that patients or their parents be given all the necessary information about risks for them to able to give adequate and adequately informed consent.”

“The research ethics committee was bound by the same guidelines to refuse permission for any tests or procedures that were more than minimal risk if they were not in the best interests of the individual child. That means that so-called non-therapeutic research—as it was called at that time—where there was no likely clinical benefit to the child in terms of therapy, was not allowed to involve anything worse than a blood test…”

“According to papers released to The Sunday Times by the strategic health authority, the research ethics committee did not appear to ask an independent outside expert—that is, someone who is independent and outside and expert—whether the battery of tests could be considered of therapeutic value to the children. In fact, after publication of the paper, the research ethics committee tried to claim that it was not even its job to make a judgment about whether procedures were in the children’s best interests. That in itself is a shocking admission of incompetence, so the Department of Health should investigate every ethics approval that the committee has ever given for research on children, to see whether anything else was allowed through—in effect, on the nod.”

“The published paper stated that the investigations had been granted clinical ethical approval by the ethical practices committee of the Royal Free, but the research ethics committee says, in a letter from the chairman to the dean, dated 24 July 1998:

‘On 9th July you wrote to me for my comment on the letter of Professor David Hull. In his letter Professor Hull states: ‘I see that the investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust.’ This is, of course, incorrect. We did not approve the investigations.’

“However, the paper says clearly that the investigations were approved by the ethical practices committee of the Royal Free hospital. They cannot both be right. I suspect that both are wrong, in some ways, but one at least is wrong.”

As it happens, the researchers had submitted their application in a form to which approval might have been given, even if the research ethics committee had looked at it properly. The researchers asked for permission to carry out the tests on 25 children with a condition known as disintegrative disorder, which is also known as disintegrative psychosis or Heller’s disease. DD is a much worse form of developmental disorder than autism, and the researchers stressed in their application that it is separate from autism. They said, in paragraph 5, “Scientific background”, that

‘disintegrative disorder differs from autism in the loss of motor and self-help skills and usually, too, in the lack of more complex stereotype behavioral patterns’.”

“The researchers were clear on that point, and it is still the accepted view today. DD is of later onset and involves significant loss of acquired skills. DD is rare and, in a few cases, can be caused by a metabolic disorder that can be detected by high lactate levels in the cerebrospinal fluid. It could be argued that doing spinal taps on such children would allow doctors to diagnose a metabolic disorder, or to rule it out. Since such diseases are not treatable, generally speaking, the benefit is limited, but at least a benefit can be argued. However, no major group of doctors in the UK argued at the time, or argues now, that spinal taps be performed on children with autism for any clinical benefit, and certainly not as an excuse to obtain cerebrospinal fluid for private research contracts.”

“Despite getting research ethics approval to perform the tests only on children with disintegrative disorder and despite the researchers stating that the tests were clinically necessary to benefit the children, the published research shows that not one of the 12 children had DD. One was diagnosed “Autism? DD?”, but not one had DD. Most had autism. In another paper published later in 1998—an abstract in Gut—the authors admit to carrying out the tests on 30 children, only two of whom had DD. By 2000, some 60 children had been subjected to endoscopies, according to an article in The American Journal of Gastroenterology, of whom only two had DD.”

“When the research ethics committee gave approval for the application it saw, it made it clear that any changes to the proposed tests or the group of children should be cleared with it in advance. That is standard, and it is written in the letter of approval. The research ethics committee received no such request to change the protocol, so up to 30 children were experimented on with no proper ethical approval and with no likelihood of individual clinical benefit.”

“The selection criteria at paragraph 7 of the protocol application include ‘presence of disintegrative disorder’; the applicants state that the syndrome is separate, and it is established in their argument that it could be caused by something that would make a CSF test worth doing, but not by autism. Autism was not mentioned in the scientific background; had it been, I suspect that the procedure would rightly not have been permitted. When CSF [cerebral spinal fluids] tests on autistic children were required for Legal Services Commission purposes, no hospital in the UK gave ethics approval and children had to be taken to America for the tests…”

“It turns out that Dr. Wakefield was receiving undisclosed funding for at least four of the children from the Legal Aid Board for some of the results. A central component of the deal was genetic analysis of fluid collected from those spinal taps, with further undisclosed payments for genetic analysis of biopsy samples from the bowels, following endoscopy. The evidence strongly suggests that, from start to finish of his research, Dr. Wakefield withheld the information about his legal aid board funding interest from the REC.”

“The question in the protocol application under paragraph 10 was,

‘How are the substances for the study being provided, and how is the study being funded?’

The reply was

            ‘Clinical research at the Royal Free Hospital (ECR)’.”

“There was no mention of any Legal Aid Board funding. The failure to disclose that information suggests that even the approval Dr. Wakefield received for 25 children with DD may be invalid. It also seems clear that he had no ethical approval to carry out those procedures on any child who did not have DD.”

“Without ethical approval, the consent that the doctors obtained from the parents may not be valid. Without a valid consent, doctors could face action for assault. I do not dispute that the parents gave consent in good faith, knowing that there was REC approval for the study—albeit apparently for a different study from the one that was carried out—but even valid parental consent does not make it lawful to conduct high-risk research procedures on children with no likely clinical benefit.”

“The GMC—currently the Government’s favoured path—cannot investigate or judge the LSC. It cannot look into the actions of non-medically qualified management. It cannot make recommendations to prevent any such practices from happening again, nor can it look for similar acts. That is why an independent inquiry is needed—not a hospital inquiry. The accused cannot investigate themselves, especially because, as the letter read out by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) shows, they have already declared themselves not guilty.” “An independent inquiry is needed and the Government must order one. After all, such activities could still be going on at the Royal Free or elsewhere. Children need protection from that sort of research behaviour. If the Government cannot guarantee that it is no longer happening at the Royal Free or anywhere else, they have no choice but to order an independent inquiry.” (U.K. House of Commons, 2004).

The UK General Medical Council Conducts Fitness to Practice Hearings, 2007 to 2010

Faced with serious allegations, Wakefield and two other physicians, Professor John Walker-Smith, and Professor Simon Murch were under investigation by the UK General Medical Council for 148 days over a period of more than three years. The council found Wakefield “irresponsible,” and he lost his medical license in 2010, twelve years after the initial paper was published.

Allegations regarding Wakefield are on pages 1 to 30, Walker-Smith pages 31 to 67, and Murch pages 68-85 (GMC, 2007 July 16). The hearings continued for the next three years.

General Medical Council 2007 Hearing

The final report and decision of the General Medical Council was published on January 28, 2010 (General Medical Council, 2010).

The GMC report summarized U.K. expectations for medical research. British Paediatric Association ethical guidelines state: “if research is of no therapeutic benefit then it can be of no more than minimal risk.” To conduct research related to National Health System (NHS) patients, a doctor needs to obtain approval from the relevant NHS ethics committee, in this case approval was needed from the Royal Free Ethical Practices Sub-committee. In addition, the research physician is “to conduct research within ethical constraints, and report it responsibly, accurately and fairly.” (GMC, 2010).

The U.K. General Medical Council held several hearings over three years to determine if Andrew Wakefield was fit to continue practicing medicine. Twelve years after his unfounded announcement and completely falsified study was published, the fitness to practice hearings were finally completed. The following allegations were amongst those “proven true”: 

• The Panel “determined that Dr. Wakefield caused research to be undertaken” on 11 children “without Ethics Committee approval and thus without the ethic constraints that safeguard research.”
• “The Panel found that Dr. Wakefield caused three of these young and vulnerable children (no. 3, 9 and 12) to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and not clinically indicated.”
• “In nine of the eleven children (2, 1, 3, 4, 9, 5, 12, 8, and 7) the Panel has found that Dr. Wakefield acted contrary to the clinical interests of each child.”
• He ordered invasive tests on five children though he had no pediatric qualifications, and he was acting outside of both his contract and job description with the Royal Free Hospital which specified that he would not clinically manage patients. He was hired as a senior lecturer and research consultant.
• Wakefield did not disclose a conflict-of-interest prepublication to the Ethics Committee or The Lancet editors: In 1996, prior to the 1998 publication that caused much damage, he served as an expert for a lawyer, Mr. Barr, who was representing families suing the MMR vaccine manufacturers.
• Wakefield also accepted £50,000 of public funds from the Legal Aid Board, thru Mr. Barr, to conduct research on several children.
• Public funds from the Legal Aid Board were misused as the costs specified were paid by the National Health Service, and Wakefield used the Legal Aid monies in other ways without disclosing this to the funding source, the Royal Free Hospital Ethics Committee, or the editors of The Lancet.
• Wakefield also failed to disclose that in 1997 he had a patent for a new vaccine for the measles virus called Transfer Factor to treat inflammatory bowel disease. Wakefield admitted that he had a financial and career incentive to see Transfer Factor replace the MMR vaccine.
• Wakefield set up a company with the father of one of the child research subjects with the intention of producing and selling Transfer Factor.
• Wakefield administered Transfer Factor to that child without Ethics Committee approval (subject no. 10).
• He applied to the Royal Free Hospital Ethics Committee but did not follow the guidelines in the approval. Several of the children did not meet the stated inclusion criteria and that invasive tests were not clinically indicated.
• In The Lancet paper, “he reported a temporal link between gastrointestinal disease, developmental regression and the MMR vaccination…” “he knew that it would attract intense public and media interest.” The Panel stated that Wakefield failed in his duty to report factual information.
• Wakefield falsified the referral source for the children in the study and in some cases the child did not actually have gastrointestinal symptoms.
• Wakefield stated that the children in the study were consecutively referred to the Pediatric Gastroenterology department with a history of pervasive developmental disorder and gastrointestinal symptoms – and none of that was true.
• In some cases, recruited children were already involved in the lawsuit against the MMR vaccine manufacturers, actively involved with the anti-vax organization recruiting patients for the litigation, or Wakefield personally contacted the parents of the referred child.
• Wakefield stated to The Lancet that the study was approved by the hospital ethics committee when it was not.
• Wakefield continued to state false information after the article was published.
• On the occasion of his son’s birthday party, Wakefield paid other children £5 to obtain a blood sample without Ethics Committee approval – and then joked about it at a public presentation.

(General Medical Council, 2010 May 24a; General Medical Council, 2010 January 28).

Wakefield Lost His Medical License in 2010

Wakefield and co-author John Walker-Smith lost their medical licenses in 2010. Reasons proven true included: ordering unnecessary, invasive procedures on children for research purposes, falsification of research data, financial fraud and misuse of public funds, acceptance of payments from a lawyer suing companies that produced vaccines and failing to disclose conflicts of interest (General Medical Council, 2010 May 24a; General Medical Council, 2010 May 24b).

The Lancet Fully Retracted the 1998 Wakefield Article

Twelve years after it was published, in 2010, following the U.K. General Medical Council decision to revoke Wakefield’s medical license, Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, fully retracted the Wakefield article published in 1998, see figure 5. The editor stated:

“Retraction—lleal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children

Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al l are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore, we fully retract this paper from the published record.” In a news article, Horton was quoted as saying that after reading the GMC report that “It was utterly clear, without ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false. I feel deceived.” (Boseley, 2010 February 2).

COVID-19 Reignited the Vaccines Cause Autism Conspiracy Theories

Although Wakefield and his co-authors were fully discredited, and his “research” was for financial gain and fraudulent, he continued to be a leading anti-vax hero.

The number of individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders continues to rise. Despite numerous studies that have countered the myth that vaccines cause autism, many parents remain hesitant to vaccinate (Gabis, et al., 2022). As shown above, the need for COVID-19 vaccines has and continues to provide huge opportunities for lining the coffers of anti-vaccination crowdsourced elites. In spite of strong evidence to the contrary, the mythical connection of a link, when the COVID-19 vaccine became available in 2021, many still believed that autism was related to vaccines. This impacted the fight against the COVID-19 virus. Anti-vax believers as well as the general public in many countries were not sure what was and what was not true. For example, Romer, et al. (2022) surveyed 1,655 adults to assess agreement with vaccine disinformation. In response to the FALSE statement “Increased vaccinations are why so many kids have autism these days,” 9.2% thought the statement was definitely or probably true, 15.2% were not sure, and 21.7% thought that it was probably false. In response to the TRUE statement “Vaccines given to children for diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella do NOT cause autism,” 12.5% thought the statement was definitely or probably false, 18.2% were not sure. Beliefs regarding other vaccination disinformation was also impacting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance/ hesitancy. The FALSE statement “COVID-19 vaccine changes people’s DNA,” 9% believed that the statement was definitely or probably true and 15.1% were not sure. The FALSE statement “Vaccines in general are full of toxins and harmful ingredients like antifreeze,” 6.3% believed it to be true with 15.2% not sure. The FALSE statement “COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility,” was deemed true by 8.1% with 20.6% not sure. The FALSE statement “COVID-19 vaccines have been responsible for thousands of deaths in the U.S.,” was believed by 21.1% of respondents, and an additional 9.4% were not sure (Romer, et al., 2022).

Summary

The Wakefield, et al. deception of 1998 lives on despite the fact that it was not even real research. Children were quite literally used as guinea pigs for sham research. There was no medical indication for the invasive tests these children were forced to undergo – and often required anesthesia during testing. The findings could not be replicated by other scientists because the entire document published was proven to be fabricated. Twelve years after Wakefield published this junk article, the UK General Medical Council revoked his license to practice medicine. Despite this, as shown above, Wakefield continues to reap financial benefits from his fraud and trickery.

References

Beale, A. J. (1998, March 21). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine. The Lancet, 351, 9106, 906. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70317-2/fulltext

Bedford, H., et al. (1998, March 21). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine. The Lancet, 351, 9106, 907. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70320-2/fulltext

Black, D., et al. (1998, March 21). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR. The Lancet, 351, 9106, 905-906. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70316-0/fulltext

Boseley, S. (2010, January 28). Andrew Wakefield found irresponsible by GMC over MMR vaccine scare 2010. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-mmr-vaccine

Boseley, S. (2010, February 2). Lancet retracts utterly false MMR paper. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/02/lancet-retracts-mmr-paper

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2023, April). Data and statistics on autism spectrum disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html#print

Centers for Disease Control and American Pediatrics Academy (2021). Your child at 2 years. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/pdf/checklists/Eng.-2-yrs-Milestone-Moments-Checklist-2021-P.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and American Pediatrics Academy (2021). Your child at 9 months. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/pdf/checklists/Eng.-9-months-Milestone-Moments-Checklist-2021-P.pdf

Chen, R. T., & DeStefano, F. (1998, February 28). Commentary: Vaccine adverse effects: Causal or coincidental. The Lancet, 351, 9103, 611-612. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)78423-3/fulltext

Chen, R. T., & DeStefano, F. (1998, July 4). Vaccine safety. The Lancet, 352, 9121, 63-64. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)79543-X/fulltext

Deer, B. (2004). Allegations of Misconduct Submitted to the General Medical Council re: Unethical Research on Autistic Children Conducted by Andrew J. Wakefield, John Walker-Smith, and Simon Murch. 2004-02-25. http://www.circare.org/autism/gmcallegations_20040225.pdf

Deer, B. (2010, April 15). Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” under the microscope. British Medical Journal, 340, c1127.  doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1127

Deer, B. (2011, January 8). How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. British Medical Journal, 342, 77-82. https://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/186183?path=/bmj/342/7788/Feature.full.pdf

Deer, B. (2011, January 15). How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money. British Medical Journal, 342, 136-142. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5258

Deer, B. (2011, November 9). Pathology reports solve “new bowel disease” riddle. British Medical Journal, 343, d6823. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/343/bmj.d6823.full.pdf

DeStefano, F., & Chen, R. T. (1999). Negative association between MMR and autism. The Lancet, 353, 9169, 1987-1988. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)00160-9/fulltext

Gabis, L. V., et al. (2022). The myth of vaccination and autism spectrum. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, 36, 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpn.2021.12.011

General Medical Council UK (2007, July 16). Fitness to practice panel: New case of serious professional misconduct Dr. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield, Dr. John Angus Walker-Smith, Professor Simon Harry Murch. http://www.circare.org/consents/wakefield_20070716.pdf

General Medical Council UK (2010, January 28). Fitness to practise panel hearing Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith, Simon Murch. https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

General Medical Council UK (2010, May 24a). Fitness to Practise Panel. Dr. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield determination of serious professional misconduct (SPM) and sanction. http://www.circare.org/autism/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION_32595267.pdf

General Medical Council UK (2010, May 24b) Fitness to Practice Panel. Dr. John Walker-Smith determination of serious professional misconduct and sanctions. http://www.circare.org/autism/Professor_Walker_Smith_SPM_32595970.pdf

Havdahl, A., et al. (2021). Genetic contributions to autism spectrum disorder. Psychological Medicine, 51, 13, 2260-2273. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8477228/pdf/S0033291721000192a.pdf

Horton, R. (1998, March 21). Autism, inflammatory disease, and MMR. The Lancet, 351, 9106, 908-909. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70324-X/fulltext

Horton, R. (2004, March 6). The lessons of MMR. The Lancet, 363, 9411, 747-749. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15714-0/fulltext

Institute of Medicine (2004). Immunization safety review: Vaccines and autism https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25344/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK25344.pdf

Kiln, M. R. (1998, May 2). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine. The Lancet, 351, 9112, 1358. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)79089-9/fulltext

Laurence, J. (2010, January 29). I was there when Wakefield dropped his bombshell. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/i-was-there-when-wakefield-dropped-his-bombshell-1882548.html

Lee, J. W., et al. (1998, March 21). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine. The Lancet, 351, 9106, 905. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)26012-0/fulltext

Lindley, K. J., & Milla, P. J. (1998, March 21). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine. The Lancet, 351, 9106, 907-908. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70321-4/fulltext

Maenner, M. J., et al. (2023, March 24). Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder in children aged 8 years – Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72, 2, 1-14. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7202a1.htm?s_cid=ss7202a1_w#print

MMR Vaccinations and Autism. UK Parliament House of Commons Debate, Publications and Records, 15 March 2004, vol 419, col 128-136. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040315/debtext/40315-34.htm

Mohammed, S. A., et al. (2022). Does vaccination increase the risk of autism spectrum disorder? Cureus, 14, 8, e27921. DOI 10.7759/cureus.27921. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9464417/pdf/cureus-0014-00000027921.pdf

National Institute of Health (2023, January). Autism spectrum disorder. https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/autism-spectrum-disorder#

Offit, P. A. (2020). Flawed research and its enduring repercussions: A journalist recounts how he exposed problems with a study linking vaccines and autism. Science, 370, 6512. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb3587

Ramsay, S. (2001, December 8). Controversial MMR-autism investigator resigns from research post. The Lancet, 358, 9297, 1972. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)07007-6/fulltext

Richmond, P., & Goldblatt, D. (1998, May 2). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine. The Lancet, 351, 9112, 1355-1356. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)79081-4/fulltext

Rouse, A. (1998, May 2). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine. The Lancet, 351, 9112, 1356. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)79082-6/fulltext

Sinclair, L. (1998, May 2). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR. The Lancet, 351, 9112, 1355. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)79080-2/fulltext

South Carolina Secretary of State Business Entities online (accessed 2023, June 2). Neuroimmuno Therapeutics Research Foundation. https://businessfilings.sc.gov/BusinessFiling/Entity/Profile/6b4e72ff-d6d4-4cb5-b8aa-cc420bdb7afe

Smeeth, L., et al. (2004). MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders A case control study. The Lancet, 364, 9438, 963-969. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17020-7

Smeeth, L., et al. (2001). A case-control study of autism and mumps, measles rubella vaccination using the general practice research database: design and methodology. BioMed Central Public Health, 1, 2. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-1-2

Styles, M., et al. (2020). Risk factors, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of autism. Frontiers in Bioscience, Landmark, 25, 1682-1717. https://www.imrpress.com/journal/FBL/25/9/10.2741/4873

Taylor, B., et al. (1999, June 12). Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine No epidemiological evidence for a causal association. The Lancet, 353, 9169, 2026-2029. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(99)01239-8.pdf

Thapar, A., & Rutter, M. (2021). Genetic advances in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51, 4321-4332. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-020-04685-z

The Lancet (2000, April 22). Measles, MMR, and autism The confusion continues. The Lancet, 355, 9213, 1379. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)02129-2/fulltext

The Editors of The Lancet (2010, February 6). Retraction – ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 375, 9713, 445. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/fulltext

United Kingdom House of Commons Debate (2004, March 15). MMR vaccinations and autism, 419, 128-136. 1https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040315/debtext/40315-34.htm

U.S. House of Representatives (2000, April 6). Autism: Present challenges, future needs — why the increased rates. Hearing before the Committee on Government Reform 106 Congress, second session. 106-180. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106hhrg69622/html/CHRG-106hhrg69622.htm

U.S. House of Representatives (2001, May 15). Instant recall on any vaccine that goes into our children that has mercury in it. https://www.congress.gov/107/crec/2001/05/15/CREC-2001-05-15-pt1-PgH2174.pdf

U.S. House of Representatives (2002, June 19). The status of research into vaccine safety and autism. Hearing before the Committee on Government Reform 107-121. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg82358/html/CHRG-107hhrg82358.htm

U.S. House of Representatives (2002, December 10), 107-153. Vaccines and the autism epidemic: Reviewing the federal government’s track record and charting a course for the future. https://www.congress.gov/107/chrg/CHRG-107hhrg84605/CHRG-107hhrg84605.pdf

U.S. House of Representatives (2004, June 18). Autism. https://www.congress.gov/108/crec/2004/06/18/CREC-2004-06-18-pt1-PgH4564-8.pdf

Wakefield, A. J., et al. (1998, February 28). Retracted Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351, 9103, 637-641. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

Wakefield, A. J., & Fundenberg, H., inventors. (1998, April 6). Pharmaceutical composition for treatment of MMR virus mediated disease compromising a transfer factor obtained from the dialysis of virus-specific lymphocytes. GB patent 2325856. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/43/4a/98/cd9945c9084be1/GB2325856A.pdf

Wakefield, A. J., et al. (1998, March 21). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine. The Lancet, 351, 9106, 908. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70322-6/fulltext

Walker, D. R. (1998, May 2). Autism, inflammatory bowel disease and MMR. The Lancet, 341, 9112, 1355. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)26018-1/fulltext

Wang, L., et al. (2023). Autism spectrum disorder: Neurodevelopmental risk factors, biological mechanism, and precision therapy. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 44, 1819. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9915249/pdf/ijms-24-01819.pdf