The doctor at the centre of the MMR row was today struck off the medical register by the UK authorities.

Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council (GMC) at a hearing in central London.

He acted in a way that was "dishonest", "misleading" and "irresponsible" while carrying out research into a possible link between the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine, bowel disease and autism, the GMC said.

Furthermore, he "abused his position of trust" and "brought the medical profession into disrepute" in studies he carried out on children.

The GMC said there had been "multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct".

The GMC described how Dr Wakefield took blood from his son's friends at a birthday party, paying the youngsters £5 each, before joking about it during a US presentation in March 1999.

Panel chairman Dr Surendra Kumar said: "In causing blood samples to be taken from children at a birthday party, he callously disregarded the pain and distress young children might suffer and behaved in a way which brought the profession into disrepute."

Dr Wakefield, 53, who is currently in New York, caused controversy when he published a study suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine, bowel disease and autism.

The research, which appeared in The Lancet medical journal in 1998, sparked a massive drop in the number of children given the triple jab.

The GMC said Dr Wakefield went against the interests of children in his care in conducting his research.

He ordered some youngsters to undergo unnecessary colonoscopies, lumbar punctures (spinal taps), barium meals, blood and urine tests and brain scans.

Yet most of the children did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the research, the GMC ruled.

Furthermore, Dr Wakefield and two other doctors involved in the research - professors John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch - did not have ethical approval to investigate them.

Furthermore, Dr Wakefield submitted an application for funding from the Legal Aid Board for research but failed to disclose that some of the costs would have been met by the NHS anyway.

Dr Kumar said: "In all the circumstances and taking into account the standard which might be expected of a doctor practising in the same field of medicine in similar circumstances in or around 1996 to 1998, the panel concluded that Dr Wakefield's conduct not only collectively amounts to serious professional misconduct over a timeframe from 1996 to 1999 but also, considered individually, constitutes multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct."

The GMC hearing, which has lasted 217 days and heard from 36 witnesses, is the longest in the GMC's history.

It has reportedly cost in excess of £1 million.

Dr Wakefield was an honorary consultant in experimental gastroenterology at London's Royal Free Hospital at the time of his research.

In February, he left his role at Texan clinic The Thoughtful House Centre for Children, which he founded to study developmental disorders.

In a statement, Dr Wakefield said: "In reporting their findings the GMC panel sought to deny that the case against me and my colleagues is related to issues of MMR vaccine safety and specifically, the role of this vaccine in causing autism.

"This is not in fact the case.

"Efforts to discredit and silence me through the GMC process have provided a screen to shield the Government from exposure on the (Pluserix) MMR vaccine scandal."

Professor Walker-Smith was also found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off the medical register.

The GMC noted he is 73 and retired a decade ago.

The GMC said Dr Wakefield's contract with the Royal Free "was subject to a stipulation that he would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients", yet this was breached.

Dr Kumar said: "On five occasions he ordered investigations on children - when he had no paediatric qualifications - and in contravention of the limitations of his appointment."

Dr Wakefield and Prof Walker-Smith have 28 days to appeal against the decision.

Prof Murch was found not guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Dr Kumar said that, while Prof Murch should have ensured there was appropriate ethical approval for research on the children, he brought carrying out lumbar punctures to an end after not being able to draw any clear inference that the youngsters were suffering from a serious neurological disorder.

Prof Murch's involvement was also subsidiary to, and more limited than, that of Dr Wakefield and Prof Walker-Smith.

Dr Kumar said: "The panel concluded Prof Murch acted in good faith, albeit it has found he was in error.

"His actions, although comparable to professional misconduct in respect of undertaking procedures which were not clinically indicated, were mitigated by the fact he was under a false impression that they were clinically indicated."

Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), said: "Measles, mumps and rubella vaccines have all been shown to be safe and UK families are fortunate to have free access to these which is not true of many parts of the world.

"The false suggestion of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine has done untold damage to the UK vaccination programme.

"We cannot stress too strongly that all children and young people should have the MMR vaccine.

"Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that it is safe."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said: "The safety of MMR has been endorsed through numerous studies in many countries.

"Thankfully, more parents are having their children vaccinated with MMR and they see it as being as safe as other childhood vaccines."

Journalist Brian Deer, who has investigated the case for six years, said: "The GMC decision is a vindication of investigative journalism which succeeded where doctors and scientists failed.

"Wakefield had three kinds of victim: the children involved in his research, parents who have been terrified over the safety of MMR, and the parents of autistic children who have been wrongly led to believe it was their own fault for agreeing to vaccination.

"Today's ruling is a warning to doctors and scientists that dishonest medical research can sometimes be detected."

Dr Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat MP, said: "Today's decision, while welcome, does not close this matter because it is about more than one man.

"There needs to be an inquiry as to how these unacceptable invasive tests came to be done on so many vulnerable children despite the existence of ethics committees designed to prevent this sort of abuse, and the medical establishment needs to ask itself whether there are any other published papers, based on the same flawed research, that need to be retracted as The Lancet paper eventually was."