--- title: The Anti-vax Movement is Even Worse than you Think description: "Written by Dave Page\n\nThese days it seems that as soon as an idea is proposed, no matter how much peer-reviewed scientific evidence exists to back it up, a huge group of misinformed, angry objectors will immediately form online and attempt to dispute it. Some of these groups of objectors, such as the members of The Flat Earth Society, are completely harmless and even fairly entertaining, even if it is somewhat disconcerting to discover that such people are increasing in number.\n\nMore serious false claims, such as those which suggested that the Covid 19 vaccination drive was really a secret conspiracy to microchip the entire population of the world or turn everybody into 5G signal transmitters would have also been nothing more than a bit of light entertainment, were it not for the human propensity to believe almost anything we are told assuming it is presented in a clear and authoritative manner.\n\nA quick Google search will allow you to spend many hours perusing untold numbers of similar conspiracy theories, and the sad thing is, to anybody who is not satirically impaired, many of the theories that have gained significant traction online clearly started out as nothing more than a bit of tongue in cheek humour.\n\nBut what happens when one of these conspiracy theories really does take off? Could it be possible for a few misguided individuals to create such a powerful campaign of fake news that it actually has a detrimental effect on the general health of the entire world?\n\nIn this article we will take a look at just such a campaign. Please join us as we discover the origins, justifications, and effects of the anti-vaccination movement.\n\n## Early Religious Opposition\n\nAlthough it is tempting to assume that the anti-vaccination movement is a recent development—a result of online echo chambers or celebrities so desperate for attention that they will parrot anything they hear on Twitter—there have been people speaking out against vaccinations for almost as long as vaccinations have existed.\n\nIt will probably not come as a shock to most of you to learn that the most vociferous objectors were religious figures.\n\nOne of the earliest documented examples of this comes from a sermon by Reverend Edmund Massey, apocalyptically titled \"The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation.\" In this sermon, which he delivered during 1772, he states that:\n\n> \"Diseases are sent, if not for the Trial of our Faith, for the Punishment of our Sins. Bad as the World is, it would still be worse, if the Wickedness of Mankind should be so successful as to meet with no more Rebuke than it would willingly suffer.\"\n\nThe implication being that vaccinations subvert the will of God. This viewpoint was not purely a product of the Church of England. Several other religions such as Orthodox Judaism and the Church of the Latter-Day Saints employed similar fear mongering rhetoric.\n\n## The Vaccination Act and the Anti-Vaccination League\n\nThe next big push against vaccination, in the United Kingdom at least, came after the enactment of \"The Vaccination Act 1853\" which, according to \"navigator.health.org.uk\":\n\n> \"Made it compulsory for all children born after 1 August 1853 to be vaccinated against smallpox during their first 3 months of life. Parents who failed to get their children vaccinated would be subject to a fine.\"\n\nWhilst this law undoubtedly created a reduction in cases of smallpox, there were those who believed that forcing parents to vaccinate their children was far beyond the remit of any government and that it should be a matter of personal choice.\n\nThe spreading of this belief led to the forming of \"The Anti-Vaccination League\", an organisation that claimed its aims were to:\n\n> \"Protect the liberties of the people which were being 'invaded' by Parliament and its compulsory vaccination laws.\"\n\nThis organisation was able to gain enough support and put enough pressure on Parliament that, in 1898, the government not only removed the previously mentioned fine but also allowed parents to choose not to vaccinate their children if they believed it to be unsafe or not beneficial.\n\nBelieve it or not, this led to a sharp rise in cases of smallpox.\n\n## The Pertussis Vaccine Scare of the 1970s\n\nNot vaccinating children against potentially deadly diseases once again became popular during the 1970s when a report, which was later debunked, listed 36 negative neurological reactions to the whole-cell pertussis vaccine.\n\nThe subsequent mass reporting of this inaccurate information by the press lead to vaccination numbers dropping from 81% in 1974 to 31% in 1980. This catastrophic drop in immunisation meant that a serious outbreak of Pertussis was almost inevitable and, such an outbreak did in fact occur between 1981 and 1983.\n\nVaccination rates were only restored after a national publication which reaffirmed the medications efficacy and benefits alongside a somewhat questionable program in which general practitioners received financial incentives to hit vaccination targets.\n\n## The MMR Controversy\n\nAlthough the instances that we have discussed so far certainly caused many people to become unnecessarily unwell, none of them even come close to comparing with the manufactured controversy that still surrounds the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination.\n\nIn 1998, Dr Andrew Wakefield published a paper in the highly respected British medical journal, *The Lancet*. In this article, titled \"Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children,\" Wakefield promoted a supposed link between having the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination, and developing autism.\n\nBefore we go any further, it is important that we take a quick look into some of the more problematic aspects of this published paper.\n\nIt is also important to clarify that nobody here at Into the Shadows is a medical professional. However, as you shall see, that particular skill set is not really necessary in this situation.\n\nFirst of all, the study only included 12 children. Whilst it is not entirely unusual to carry out a small-scale pilot study when building a hypothesis, in order to gain any meaningful validity for such a hypothesis, research needs to be carried out on a far larger scale.\n\nSecondly, any alleged link between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and signs of autism are at best exceptionally tenuous and at worst merely coincidental. The paper, which we must remember is often cited by anti-vaccine campaigners, contains such phrases as: \"He received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4·5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she did link with the immunisation.\"\n\nWhilst it is understandable that a concerned parent may make a link between a recently received inoculation and the first signs of autism, a concerned parent is perhaps not the most qualified person to carry out a medical diagnosis.\n\nFurthermore, most of the children who participated in the study received their measles, mumps, and rubella inoculation at around the same time that most experts believe the early signs of autism become apparent.\n\nEven *The Lancet*, the medical journal that actually published this paper, had some concerns about its credibility. In fact, saying that they had some concerns is putting it very mildly. In the same issue that contained Wakefield's paper, another piece was published which contained the following quote:\n\n> \"Vaccine safety concerns such as that reported by Wakefield and colleagues may snowball into societal tragedies when the media and the public confuse association with causality and shun immunisation. This would be tragic because passion would then conquer reason and the facts again in the UK.\"\n\n## The Press Conference and Media Frenzy\n\nIt is possible that Wakefield's paper may have been almost completely disregarded if it were not for the fact that, almost immediately after its release, he held a press conference in which he warned that millions of children might be at risk from the MMR vaccine.\n\nNot being in the habit of passing up an opportunity to unnecessarily terrify the public, the tabloid news jumped on this story. Over the next few weeks, headlines such as: \"MMR Killed My Daughter\", \"MMR Fears Gain Support\", and \"MMR Safe? Baloney\" were spread across the front pages.\n\nSeveral high-profile celebrities, such as American actress Jenny McCarthy, who also believed that her son's autism had been caused by the MMR vaccine, also began publicising the alleged findings and, before very long, the number of children receiving the jab had fallen dramatically.\n\nWakefield took every available opportunity to capitalise on his newfound fame, talking to journalists, writing his own articles, and appearing on various television shows. During these appearances, he made absolutely sure to state that he was not against vaccines at all, it was only that particular vaccine, the measles, mumps, and rubella injection, that he believed to be dangerous.\n\nHis message to those concerned parents, the overwhelming majority of whom had only become concerned after reading his travesty of a research paper, was that they should insist on three individual vaccines against measles, months, and rubella to ensure that their children were safe. Incidentally, although the individual injections were available, they came with a fairly substantial price tag.\n\n## The Motive Behind the Fraud\n\nSo, why would a doctor, somebody whose job it was to ensure the safety of the people in his care, actively encourage parents to avoid a free vaccination based purely on the alleged results contained within such a questionable paper? Was Wakefield simply a concerned medical professional who, whilst carrying out research, had stumbled across something which he genuinely believed could cause harm to millions of children?\n\nOr was something more sinister afoot?\n\nIn order to properly answer that question, we need to introduce another person to this story. Award-winning journalist and certified legend Brian Deer.\n\nDeer had been closely following the story ever since Wakefield's paper was published and, unlike many of his journalistic colleagues, he decided to investigate some of the more serious alarm bells rather than thoughtlessly parroting every word that came out of Wakefield's mouth.\n\nWhat Deer discovered after a complex and lengthy investigation was truly disturbing. Not only would it completely invalidate all of the claims published in *The Lancet*, it would also uncover a much more sinister motive behind Wakefield's actions.\n\nTwo years before the paper was published, and before Wakefield had even met any of the children involved, he went into business with a lawyer, Richard Barr, who hoped to bring a speculative lawsuit against the manufacturers of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination.\n\nIn a letter discovered by Deer, which was sent to Wakefield 6 months before the original paper was published, Barr said:\n\n> \"I have mentioned to you before that the prime objective is to produce unassailable evidence in court so as to convince a court that these vaccines are dangerous.\"\n\nEven without what happens next, this conflict of interest is absolutely staggering! Far from going into the research with, as he always claimed, a completely open mind, he designed the program in order to maximise the chances of providing the results for which he had already been paid.\n\nUnfortunately for Wakefield, given that his study was intending to find a link that did not exist, even his carefully assembled research program failed to yield the necessary results. So, he changed them.\n\nAccording to Deer's research, almost none of the information about the children who took part in the research was completely correct in the final paper.\n\nOne parent who eventually found out about this misrepresentation wrote a letter to Wakefield, part of which says:\n\n> \"If my son really is Patient 11, then the Lancet article is simply an outright fabrication.\"\n\nWakefield had carried out distressing, dangerous, and unnecessary tests on 12 young vulnerable children, fabricated some of the results, and all to further line his own pockets.\n\n## The Patent Scheme\n\nBut Wakefield was far too ambitious to concentrate on one scam at a time. Remember how we told you that, during every public appearance, Wakefield assured the public that he was not against vaccinations and how he would extol the benefits of having the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations separately? Well, it turns out that there was a very good reason for this.\n\nWakefield had filed a patent for a standalone measles vaccine.\n\nObviously, should this vaccine ever be produced, it would be utterly superfluous due to the already existing, and medically proven MMR vaccine. However, should the MMR vaccine somehow become discredited, Wakefield would stand to make an incredible amount of money.\n\n## Exposure and Disgrace\n\nThanks almost entirely to the exceptional journalism carried out by Brian Deer, this callous charlatan was exposed.\n\nIn 2006, a General Medical Council investigation was opened in order to investigate Wakefield's actions. Although Wakefield would continue to deny misconduct, the panel of judges disagreed and, on the 24th of May 2010, Andrew Wakefield was removed from the General Medical Council register and forbidden to practice medicine in the United Kingdom.\n\nSpeaking to journalists after the conclusion of the hearing, Wakefield said:\n\n> \"It seemed to me that they had come to this decision a long time ago, long before the evidence was fairly heard. This is the way the system deals with dissent. You isolate, discredit, and provide an example to other doctors and scientists not to get involved in this kind of thing. That is examining questions of vaccine safety.\"\n\nSadly, he has been able to carve out a fairly lucrative career speaking at anti-vaccination events around the world. The people who attend these events, despite the fact that he originally claimed not to be against vaccinations, herald him as the hero that restarted the anti-vaccination movement.\n\n## The Devastating Impact\n\nSo how much damage did this appallingly selfish, money-making scheme actually cause?\n\nWell, the exact amount of damage caused is impossible to quantify but let's take a look at some of the numbers.\n\nIn the year 2000, uptake rates for the MMR vaccine were 87.4%. As the Wakefield fuelled vaccination controversy spread over the next few years, uptake numbers dropped to 79.9% in 2003. This was the lowest uptake since the vaccine was widely introduced.\n\nThis, in turn, led to a rise in cases of measles, a disease which it has been speculated could have been almost completely eradicated in developed countries by the time of writing. Although the absolute discreditation of Wakefield's work has led to an increase in uptake of MMR, there is still an incredible amount of work to be done in order to undo the damage.\n\nAccording to an article published on \"contemporarypediatrics.com\":\n\n> \"A new Harris Interactive-Health Day poll found that 52% of Americans believe that vaccines do not cause autism.\"\n\nWhich is certainly positive news. Unfortunately, the article goes on to say that:\n\n> \"18% of Americans are certain that vaccines, such as the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, can cause the disorder, and another 30% are still not certain.\"\n\nIt is worth noting that, in spite of numerous large-scale studies, no link has ever been found between any vaccination and the development of autism.\n\nFurthermore, when Wakefield himself was offered the opportunity to carry out a fully funded, larger scale research program by the hospital that employed him at that time, he would ultimately refuse. This resulted in the hospital in question, The Royal Free in London, terminating his employment, and the hospitals director, Mark Pepys, calling him a \"wanker and a fraud\".\n\n## Conclusion\n\nUltimately, it is not possible to change the mind of everybody in the anti-vaccination community.\n\nHowever, for anybody who is still on the fence about the matter, we invite you to take a moment and actually read Wakefield's paper which forms the basis of almost every anti-vaccination argument. As we previously mentioned, you do not need any sort of medical background to spot the deep flaws and glaring inconsistencies. Maybe, just maybe reading this document will allow a few people to see just how devoid of facts and evidence the anti-vaccination movement is.\n\n## Key Takeaways\n\n- The anti-vaccination movement has historical roots, including religious opposition and resistance to compulsory vaccination laws.\n- Dr. Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 study linking the MMR vaccine to autism sparked a significant decline in vaccination rates.\n- Wakefield's study was debunked, revealing financial conflicts of interest and fabricated research, leading to his disbarment.\n- The misinformation spread by Wakefield resulted in increased measles cases and ongoing public health challenges.\n- Despite Wakefield's discreditation, a significant portion of the public remains uncertain about vaccine safety.\n\n## Frequently Asked Questions\n\n### When did the anti-vaccination movement begin?\n\nThe anti-vaccination movement began almost as long as vaccinations have existed. One of the earliest documented examples is a sermon by Reverend Edmund Massey in 1772.\n\n### What was the impact of the Vaccination Act 1853 in the UK?\n\nThe Vaccination Act 1853 made it compulsory for all children born after August 1, 1853, to be vaccinated against smallpox during their first three months of life. This led to a reduction in smallpox cases but also sparked opposition, leading to the formation of the Anti-Vaccination League.\n\n### What was the result of the Anti-Vaccination League's efforts?\n\nThe Anti-Vaccination League's efforts led to the government removing fines for non-vaccination and allowing parents to choose not to vaccinate their children if they believed it was unsafe or not beneficial. This resulted in a sharp rise in smallpox cases.\n\n### What was the impact of the 1970s report on the whole-cell pertussis vaccine?\n\nA debunked report listing 36 negative neurological reactions to the whole-cell pertussis vaccine led to a drop in vaccination rates from 81% in 1974 to 31% in 1980, resulting in a serious outbreak of Pertussis between 1981 and 1983.\n\n### What was the content of Dr. Andrew Wakefield's 1998 paper?\n\nDr. Andrew Wakefield's 1998 paper, published in 'The Lancet,' promoted a supposed link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and the development of autism. The study was based on only 12 children and had significant methodological flaws.\n\n### What was the outcome of the investigation into Dr. Andrew Wakefield's actions?\n\nAn investigation by the General Medical Council found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct. He was removed from the medical register in the UK and forbidden to practice medicine.\n\n### What was the impact of Wakefield's paper on MMR vaccination rates?\n\nWakefield's paper led to a significant drop in MMR vaccination rates, from 87.4% in 2000 to 79.9% in 2003, resulting in a rise in measles cases.\n\n### What was the public's perception of vaccines and autism in recent years?\n\nA Harris Interactive-Health Day poll found that 52% of Americans believe that vaccines do not cause autism, but 18% are certain that vaccines can cause autism, and 30% are still uncertain.\n\n### What was the motivation behind Wakefield's actions?\n\nWakefield had a conflict of interest as he was in business with a lawyer planning a lawsuit against the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. He also had a patent for a standalone measles vaccine, which would have been profitable if the MMR vaccine was discredited.\n\n## Sources\n\n- [Original Into the Shadows video: The Anti-vax Movement is Even Worse than you Think](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPgnQo2_U-Q)\n- [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Certificate_of_Temporary_Registration_in_the_Medical_Register_Wellcome_L0071279.jpg) by openverse, by.\n\n## Related Coverage" url: https://intotheshadows.pub/article/anti-vax-movement-even-worse-than-you-think.md canonical: https://intotheshadows.pub/article/anti-vax-movement-even-worse-than-you-think datePublished: 2026-06-28 dateModified: 2026-06-28 author: - name: Simon Whistler url: https://intotheshadows.pub/author/simon-whistler publisher: Into the Shadows image: "https://media.intotheshadows.pub/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,height=900,fit=cover,quality=80,format=auto/articles/HPgnQo2_U-Q/hero.jpg" type: Article contentHash: 277f6d0b1c382c5e0fc2218fc13c45553734620108e5e2e3b57f168e5081a7a9 tokens: 5042 summaryUrl: https://intotheshadows.pub/article/anti-vax-movement-even-worse-than-you-think.md.summary.md --- Written by Dave Page These days it seems that as soon as an idea is proposed, no matter how much peer-reviewed scientific evidence exists to back it up, a huge group of misinformed, angry objectors will immediately form online and attempt to dispute it. Some of these groups of objectors, such as the members of The Flat Earth Society, are completely harmless and even fairly entertaining, even if it is somewhat disconcerting to discover that such people are increasing in number. More serious false claims, such as those which suggested that the Covid 19 vaccination drive was really a secret conspiracy to microchip the entire population of the world or turn everybody into 5G signal transmitters would have also been nothing more than a bit of light entertainment, were it not for the human propensity to believe almost anything we are told assuming it is presented in a clear and authoritative manner. A quick Google search will allow you to spend many hours perusing untold numbers of similar conspiracy theories, and the sad thing is, to anybody who is not satirically impaired, many of the theories that have gained significant traction online clearly started out as nothing more than a bit of tongue in cheek humour. But what happens when one of these conspiracy theories really does take off? Could it be possible for a few misguided individuals to create such a powerful campaign of fake news that it actually has a detrimental effect on the general health of the entire world? In this article we will take a look at just such a campaign. Please join us as we discover the origins, justifications, and effects of the anti-vaccination movement. ## Early Religious Opposition Although it is tempting to assume that the anti-vaccination movement is a recent development—a result of online echo chambers or celebrities so desperate for attention that they will parrot anything they hear on Twitter—there have been people speaking out against vaccinations for almost as long as vaccinations have existed. It will probably not come as a shock to most of you to learn that the most vociferous objectors were religious figures. One of the earliest documented examples of this comes from a sermon by Reverend Edmund Massey, apocalyptically titled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation." In this sermon, which he delivered during 1772, he states that: > "Diseases are sent, if not for the Trial of our Faith, for the Punishment of our Sins. Bad as the World is, it would still be worse, if the Wickedness of Mankind should be so successful as to meet with no more Rebuke than it would willingly suffer." The implication being that vaccinations subvert the will of God. This viewpoint was not purely a product of the Church of England. Several other religions such as Orthodox Judaism and the Church of the Latter-Day Saints employed similar fear mongering rhetoric. ## The Vaccination Act and the Anti-Vaccination League The next big push against vaccination, in the United Kingdom at least, came after the enactment of "The Vaccination Act 1853" which, according to "navigator.health.org.uk": > "Made it compulsory for all children born after 1 August 1853 to be vaccinated against smallpox during their first 3 months of life. Parents who failed to get their children vaccinated would be subject to a fine." Whilst this law undoubtedly created a reduction in cases of smallpox, there were those who believed that forcing parents to vaccinate their children was far beyond the remit of any government and that it should be a matter of personal choice. The spreading of this belief led to the forming of "The Anti-Vaccination League", an organisation that claimed its aims were to: > "Protect the liberties of the people which were being 'invaded' by Parliament and its compulsory vaccination laws." This organisation was able to gain enough support and put enough pressure on Parliament that, in 1898, the government not only removed the previously mentioned fine but also allowed parents to choose not to vaccinate their children if they believed it to be unsafe or not beneficial. Believe it or not, this led to a sharp rise in cases of smallpox. ## The Pertussis Vaccine Scare of the 1970s Not vaccinating children against potentially deadly diseases once again became popular during the 1970s when a report, which was later debunked, listed 36 negative neurological reactions to the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. The subsequent mass reporting of this inaccurate information by the press lead to vaccination numbers dropping from 81% in 1974 to 31% in 1980. This catastrophic drop in immunisation meant that a serious outbreak of Pertussis was almost inevitable and, such an outbreak did in fact occur between 1981 and 1983. Vaccination rates were only restored after a national publication which reaffirmed the medications efficacy and benefits alongside a somewhat questionable program in which general practitioners received financial incentives to hit vaccination targets. ## The MMR Controversy Although the instances that we have discussed so far certainly caused many people to become unnecessarily unwell, none of them even come close to comparing with the manufactured controversy that still surrounds the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. In 1998, Dr Andrew Wakefield published a paper in the highly respected British medical journal, *The Lancet*. In this article, titled "Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children," Wakefield promoted a supposed link between having the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination, and developing autism. Before we go any further, it is important that we take a quick look into some of the more problematic aspects of this published paper. It is also important to clarify that nobody here at Into the Shadows is a medical professional. However, as you shall see, that particular skill set is not really necessary in this situation. First of all, the study only included 12 children. Whilst it is not entirely unusual to carry out a small-scale pilot study when building a hypothesis, in order to gain any meaningful validity for such a hypothesis, research needs to be carried out on a far larger scale. Secondly, any alleged link between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and signs of autism are at best exceptionally tenuous and at worst merely coincidental. The paper, which we must remember is often cited by anti-vaccine campaigners, contains such phrases as: "He received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4·5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she did link with the immunisation." Whilst it is understandable that a concerned parent may make a link between a recently received inoculation and the first signs of autism, a concerned parent is perhaps not the most qualified person to carry out a medical diagnosis. Furthermore, most of the children who participated in the study received their measles, mumps, and rubella inoculation at around the same time that most experts believe the early signs of autism become apparent. Even *The Lancet*, the medical journal that actually published this paper, had some concerns about its credibility. In fact, saying that they had some concerns is putting it very mildly. In the same issue that contained Wakefield's paper, another piece was published which contained the following quote: > "Vaccine safety concerns such as that reported by Wakefield and colleagues may snowball into societal tragedies when the media and the public confuse association with causality and shun immunisation. This would be tragic because passion would then conquer reason and the facts again in the UK." ## The Press Conference and Media Frenzy It is possible that Wakefield's paper may have been almost completely disregarded if it were not for the fact that, almost immediately after its release, he held a press conference in which he warned that millions of children might be at risk from the MMR vaccine. Not being in the habit of passing up an opportunity to unnecessarily terrify the public, the tabloid news jumped on this story. Over the next few weeks, headlines such as: "MMR Killed My Daughter", "MMR Fears Gain Support", and "MMR Safe? Baloney" were spread across the front pages. Several high-profile celebrities, such as American actress Jenny McCarthy, who also believed that her son's autism had been caused by the MMR vaccine, also began publicising the alleged findings and, before very long, the number of children receiving the jab had fallen dramatically. Wakefield took every available opportunity to capitalise on his newfound fame, talking to journalists, writing his own articles, and appearing on various television shows. During these appearances, he made absolutely sure to state that he was not against vaccines at all, it was only that particular vaccine, the measles, mumps, and rubella injection, that he believed to be dangerous. His message to those concerned parents, the overwhelming majority of whom had only become concerned after reading his travesty of a research paper, was that they should insist on three individual vaccines against measles, months, and rubella to ensure that their children were safe. Incidentally, although the individual injections were available, they came with a fairly substantial price tag. ## The Motive Behind the Fraud So, why would a doctor, somebody whose job it was to ensure the safety of the people in his care, actively encourage parents to avoid a free vaccination based purely on the alleged results contained within such a questionable paper? Was Wakefield simply a concerned medical professional who, whilst carrying out research, had stumbled across something which he genuinely believed could cause harm to millions of children? Or was something more sinister afoot? In order to properly answer that question, we need to introduce another person to this story. Award-winning journalist and certified legend Brian Deer. Deer had been closely following the story ever since Wakefield's paper was published and, unlike many of his journalistic colleagues, he decided to investigate some of the more serious alarm bells rather than thoughtlessly parroting every word that came out of Wakefield's mouth. What Deer discovered after a complex and lengthy investigation was truly disturbing. Not only would it completely invalidate all of the claims published in *The Lancet*, it would also uncover a much more sinister motive behind Wakefield's actions. Two years before the paper was published, and before Wakefield had even met any of the children involved, he went into business with a lawyer, Richard Barr, who hoped to bring a speculative lawsuit against the manufacturers of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. In a letter discovered by Deer, which was sent to Wakefield 6 months before the original paper was published, Barr said: > "I have mentioned to you before that the prime objective is to produce unassailable evidence in court so as to convince a court that these vaccines are dangerous." Even without what happens next, this conflict of interest is absolutely staggering! Far from going into the research with, as he always claimed, a completely open mind, he designed the program in order to maximise the chances of providing the results for which he had already been paid. Unfortunately for Wakefield, given that his study was intending to find a link that did not exist, even his carefully assembled research program failed to yield the necessary results. So, he changed them. According to Deer's research, almost none of the information about the children who took part in the research was completely correct in the final paper. One parent who eventually found out about this misrepresentation wrote a letter to Wakefield, part of which says: > "If my son really is Patient 11, then the Lancet article is simply an outright fabrication." Wakefield had carried out distressing, dangerous, and unnecessary tests on 12 young vulnerable children, fabricated some of the results, and all to further line his own pockets. ## The Patent Scheme But Wakefield was far too ambitious to concentrate on one scam at a time. Remember how we told you that, during every public appearance, Wakefield assured the public that he was not against vaccinations and how he would extol the benefits of having the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations separately? Well, it turns out that there was a very good reason for this. Wakefield had filed a patent for a standalone measles vaccine. Obviously, should this vaccine ever be produced, it would be utterly superfluous due to the already existing, and medically proven MMR vaccine. However, should the MMR vaccine somehow become discredited, Wakefield would stand to make an incredible amount of money. ## Exposure and Disgrace Thanks almost entirely to the exceptional journalism carried out by Brian Deer, this callous charlatan was exposed. In 2006, a General Medical Council investigation was opened in order to investigate Wakefield's actions. Although Wakefield would continue to deny misconduct, the panel of judges disagreed and, on the 24th of May 2010, Andrew Wakefield was removed from the General Medical Council register and forbidden to practice medicine in the United Kingdom. Speaking to journalists after the conclusion of the hearing, Wakefield said: > "It seemed to me that they had come to this decision a long time ago, long before the evidence was fairly heard. This is the way the system deals with dissent. You isolate, discredit, and provide an example to other doctors and scientists not to get involved in this kind of thing. That is examining questions of vaccine safety." Sadly, he has been able to carve out a fairly lucrative career speaking at anti-vaccination events around the world. The people who attend these events, despite the fact that he originally claimed not to be against vaccinations, herald him as the hero that restarted the anti-vaccination movement. ## The Devastating Impact So how much damage did this appallingly selfish, money-making scheme actually cause? Well, the exact amount of damage caused is impossible to quantify but let's take a look at some of the numbers. In the year 2000, uptake rates for the MMR vaccine were 87.4%. As the Wakefield fuelled vaccination controversy spread over the next few years, uptake numbers dropped to 79.9% in 2003. This was the lowest uptake since the vaccine was widely introduced. This, in turn, led to a rise in cases of measles, a disease which it has been speculated could have been almost completely eradicated in developed countries by the time of writing. Although the absolute discreditation of Wakefield's work has led to an increase in uptake of MMR, there is still an incredible amount of work to be done in order to undo the damage. According to an article published on "contemporarypediatrics.com": > "A new Harris Interactive-Health Day poll found that 52% of Americans believe that vaccines do not cause autism." Which is certainly positive news. Unfortunately, the article goes on to say that: > "18% of Americans are certain that vaccines, such as the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, can cause the disorder, and another 30% are still not certain." It is worth noting that, in spite of numerous large-scale studies, no link has ever been found between any vaccination and the development of autism. Furthermore, when Wakefield himself was offered the opportunity to carry out a fully funded, larger scale research program by the hospital that employed him at that time, he would ultimately refuse. This resulted in the hospital in question, The Royal Free in London, terminating his employment, and the hospitals director, Mark Pepys, calling him a "wanker and a fraud". ## Conclusion Ultimately, it is not possible to change the mind of everybody in the anti-vaccination community. However, for anybody who is still on the fence about the matter, we invite you to take a moment and actually read Wakefield's paper which forms the basis of almost every anti-vaccination argument. As we previously mentioned, you do not need any sort of medical background to spot the deep flaws and glaring inconsistencies. Maybe, just maybe reading this document will allow a few people to see just how devoid of facts and evidence the anti-vaccination movement is. ## Key Takeaways - The anti-vaccination movement has historical roots, including religious opposition and resistance to compulsory vaccination laws. - Dr. Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 study linking the MMR vaccine to autism sparked a significant decline in vaccination rates. - Wakefield's study was debunked, revealing financial conflicts of interest and fabricated research, leading to his disbarment. - The misinformation spread by Wakefield resulted in increased measles cases and ongoing public health challenges. - Despite Wakefield's discreditation, a significant portion of the public remains uncertain about vaccine safety. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### When did the anti-vaccination movement begin? The anti-vaccination movement began almost as long as vaccinations have existed. One of the earliest documented examples is a sermon by Reverend Edmund Massey in 1772. ### What was the impact of the Vaccination Act 1853 in the UK? The Vaccination Act 1853 made it compulsory for all children born after August 1, 1853, to be vaccinated against smallpox during their first three months of life. This led to a reduction in smallpox cases but also sparked opposition, leading to the formation of the Anti-Vaccination League. ### What was the result of the Anti-Vaccination League's efforts? The Anti-Vaccination League's efforts led to the government removing fines for non-vaccination and allowing parents to choose not to vaccinate their children if they believed it was unsafe or not beneficial. This resulted in a sharp rise in smallpox cases. ### What was the impact of the 1970s report on the whole-cell pertussis vaccine? A debunked report listing 36 negative neurological reactions to the whole-cell pertussis vaccine led to a drop in vaccination rates from 81% in 1974 to 31% in 1980, resulting in a serious outbreak of Pertussis between 1981 and 1983. ### What was the content of Dr. Andrew Wakefield's 1998 paper? Dr. Andrew Wakefield's 1998 paper, published in 'The Lancet,' promoted a supposed link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and the development of autism. The study was based on only 12 children and had significant methodological flaws. ### What was the outcome of the investigation into Dr. Andrew Wakefield's actions? An investigation by the General Medical Council found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct. He was removed from the medical register in the UK and forbidden to practice medicine. ### What was the impact of Wakefield's paper on MMR vaccination rates? Wakefield's paper led to a significant drop in MMR vaccination rates, from 87.4% in 2000 to 79.9% in 2003, resulting in a rise in measles cases. ### What was the public's perception of vaccines and autism in recent years? A Harris Interactive-Health Day poll found that 52% of Americans believe that vaccines do not cause autism, but 18% are certain that vaccines can cause autism, and 30% are still uncertain. ### What was the motivation behind Wakefield's actions? Wakefield had a conflict of interest as he was in business with a lawyer planning a lawsuit against the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. He also had a patent for a standalone measles vaccine, which would have been profitable if the MMR vaccine was discredited. ## Sources - [Original Into the Shadows video: The Anti-vax Movement is Even Worse than you Think](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPgnQo2_U-Q) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Certificate_of_Temporary_Registration_in_the_Medical_Register_Wellcome_L0071279.jpg) by openverse, by. ## Related Coverage