LOL that is even more bizarre, to claim that one should produce evidence AGAINST this, when this wasn't even what he was charged with in the GMC case or what he COULD be charged with, even in theory.
... as you should well know the GMC can only act when there is professional misconduct between a doctor and his/her patient, wrong medical advice etc. There was no such thing in this case - no patient complained, no direct medical advice was given. Yet they charged him with professional misconduct against patients. And to make things even to more absurd than they are AW was a researcher, didn't even see patients etc.
Funnier and funnier, but lets get distracted some more from the real fraud that went on at the CDC ...
Yes, the anti-vax "movement" was around long before Wakefield did his research and was punished for it. It's interesting that no parents complained and many of them testified in support of him and his research when the GMC was railroading him. Some of them even told him they believed vaccination had caused their child's autism. Like many research papers, his did not come to the conclusion that vaccines cause autism. He said it might, in some cases, and the subject needed more research. This is the scenario the GMC sought to squelch - more research. Wakefield concluded, in addition to saying more research is needed, that the number of vaccines in one shot, the age of the child and the thimerasol in them could all be possibilities, and combinations of those factors could also.
In the US, the Feds quietly acknowledged the possible and potential damage of vaccines when the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed in 1986. There was enough evidence to support the passage of NCVIA then and the flurry of "research" the vaccine industry came up with to counter it is reminiscent of the flurry of CDC "research" proving ME/CFS is all in our heads.
When there is a political and economic agenda, there have always been "scientists" who find what they are being paid to find. Who has the big bucks for paying for the research findings they want?