I'm afraid you've been misinformed.
He did not write a paper linking autism to vaccination. He coauthored a paper linking autism with severe intestinal disorders, and mentioned that the parents had reported onset of symptoms after either MMR inoculation--or, in 1 of the 12 cases, after measles infection. In the paper, he very clearly stated, "We have not proved a causal association between autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination."
You might be interested in the fact that, out of the parents of the 12 children in the study, ALL of them supported him in the ensuing battle with the GMC. Many reported that they were misquoted by Brian Deer, who brought the case against Wakefield. They also all reported that, before Wakefield, no doctor took seriously their reports that their autistic children were suffering from debilitating intestinal problems. They were all told (as were all parents of autistic children in the 1980's and 1990's) that "autistic children just act like that," and that they were perfectly healthy.
We now know that a subset of autistic children do, indeed, have severe intestinal problems that either cause or exacerbate autistic symptoms and behaviors. This is now accepted by most doctors who work with autistic children, and by most gastroenterologists. But the substance of Deer's cases against Wakefield was that autistic children do not have severe intestinal problems; Deer charged that Wakefield was abusing the children by performing colonoscopies on them--even though colonoscopies were the standard protocol for non-autistic children with exactly the same intestinal symptoms.
If you do a bit of research, I think you'll find that an enormous number of facts have been left out of the "pro-vax" version of the Wakefield issue, and others have been twisted.
I hesitate to use the term "pro-vax," though, because it's a bit of a misnomer. There are people who believe in vaccination who also believe that vaccines result in severe side effects (including brain damage, autism, autoimmune disorders, seizure disorders, etc), and believe that this is a major problem that should be addressed as soon as possible. There are people who believe that vaccination is a wonderful thing for a few severe diseases, but has become a disaster because of a greedy industry who has managed to sell many unnecessary, ineffective, and dangerously reactive vaccines in addition to the original, helpful vaccines.
Perhaps I should use the term "vaccine damage deniers" instead, although that seems rather cumbersome. But that is the crux of the issue. The people who are living with the damage, who have observed it first-hand, and in the cases of some doctors, those who have treated it--these people are calling for recognition of a problem, and the necessary steps to effectively deal with it.
They are being met by denial that the problem exists, from people who haven't seen it first-hand.
It's a bit like seeing your child hit by a car, reporting that your child has been injured by being hit by a car, but being told, "no, because you didn't get the license number, and the accident was not observed by a medical doctor, it must have been in your head, and your child's internal injuries, which are not immediately apparent, had nothing to do with cars, they would have happened at that time anyway, and by the way, you must be anti-car." Then you're handed a stack of studies, designed by, directed by, funded by, interpreted by, and marketed by the car manufacturers, showing that they have never (in their personally picked test subjects) been shown to cause internal injuries. Whenever you find a study that shows exactly that, you are rebuked for not trusting your doctor, whose medical education was actually partially directed by consultants of the car industry.