▁in ▁three ▁separate ▁dos es ▁would ▁be ▁sa fer ▁than ▁a ▁single ▁v acc ination . ▁This ▁suggestion ▁was ▁not ▁supported ▁by ▁the ▁paper , ▁and ▁several ▁subsequent ▁peer - review ed ▁studies ▁have ▁failed ▁to ▁show ▁any ▁association ▁between ▁the ▁v acc ine ▁and ▁aut ism . ▁It ▁later ▁emer ged ▁that ▁W ake field ▁had ▁received ▁fund ing ▁from ▁lit ig ants ▁against ▁v acc ine ▁manufact ur ers ▁and ▁that ▁he ▁had ▁not ▁informed ▁colle agues ▁or ▁medical ▁authorities ▁of ▁his ▁conflict ▁of ▁interest ; ▁had ▁this ▁been ▁known , ▁publication ▁in ▁The ▁Lanc et ▁would ▁not ▁have ▁taken ▁place ▁in ▁the ▁way ▁that ▁it ▁did . ▁W ake field ▁has ▁been ▁heavily ▁critic ized ▁on ▁scientific ▁grounds ▁and ▁for ▁trigger ing ▁a ▁decl ine ▁in ▁v acc ination ▁rates ▁( v acc ination ▁rates ▁in ▁the ▁UK ▁dropped ▁to ▁ 8 0 % ▁in ▁the ▁years ▁following ▁the ▁study ), ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁on ▁eth ical ▁grounds ▁for ▁the ▁way ▁the ▁research ▁was ▁conducted . ▁In ▁ 2 0 0 4 , ▁the ▁M MR - and - aut ism ▁interpretation ▁of ▁the ▁paper ▁was ▁formally ▁ret ract ed ▁by ▁ 1 0 ▁of ▁W ake field ' s ▁ 1 2 ▁co auth ors , ▁and ▁in ▁ 2 0 1 0 ▁The ▁Lanc ets ▁edit ors ▁fully ▁ret ract ed ▁the ▁paper . ▁W ake field ▁was ▁struck ▁off ▁the ▁UK ▁medical ▁register , ▁with ▁a ▁statement ▁ident ifying ▁deliber ate ▁f als ification ▁in ▁the ▁research