Whatever your preconceived notions of the anti-vaccination movement are, “The Pathological Optimist” will make you question them entirely. Directed and produced by Miranda Bailey, the documentary centers around Andrew Wakefield, a British doctor and researcher who is credited with starting the movement.


Wakefield is known for publishing a 1998 paper, now proven fraudulent, stating that there was a link between autism and bowel disease and the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. Following the publication of this paper, Wakefield became embroiled in defamation suits and criticism from the medical community, resulting in the loss of his medical license in the United Kingdom.

“The Pathological Optimist” follows Wakefield, his wife and their four children as they rehash their legal troubles and navigate their daily lives in their new home in Austin, Texas.

The magic in this documentary lies in its lighting, music and camerawork, which successfully highlight the Wakefield family’s emotions and make them more relatable to viewers.

Through consistent close-up shots and harsh lighting, viewers are able to clearly see the faces of the subjects: the dark circles under Wakefield’s wife’s eyes as she discusses her family’s financial troubles; the nervous shifting of their son’s eyes as Wakefield discusses their family’s situation with him; and even Wakefield’s eyes watering slightly as he recounts losing legal battles.

The interviews often take place inside the Wakefields’ home, and as Wakefield talks of the claims made against him, the camera switches occasionally to close-up shots of the family photos placed behind him, reminding viewers of his humanity. This lighting and attention to detail, combined with the powerful musical score, guide the viewer into feeling the same emotions the Wakefield family felt. Given the film’s highly complex discussion of the anti-vaccination movement, this emotional arc was certainly needed.

“The Pathological Optimist” also succeeds in being incredibly thought-provoking. Interviews and scenes with Wakefield’s family spliced with clips of Anderson Cooper and other news anchors berating his logic and intentions provide viewers with both sides of the spectrum.

This documentary hints at the importance and necessity of hearing both sides of the story and the ways in which the media can warp one’s actions and words. Although viewers may still firmly hold their beliefs regarding vaccination, they may be compelled to do more research for themselves and better understand the other side’s beliefs.

The filmmakers do not insert much additional information beyond news clips in support of or against Wakefield. Rather, they let him and his family members talk and let their words guide the audience in forming its opinions on the situation.

That being said, this tendency to show only Wakefield’s side of the story was one of the film’s weaknesses. The film spends far too much time attempting to make viewers sympathize with Wakefield, and in the process, neglects to include sufficient objective information about his role in the anti-vaccination movement. For example, rather than including information about the arguments against Wakefield, the filmmakers allow Wakefield to counter every claim against him, giving him a level of authority that may be unwarranted.

Despite this drawback, the documentary was quite well executed. It succeeds in its purpose of making audiences question and think critically, and will linger in viewers’ minds as they attempt to reconcile their beliefs with what they have just watched.

“The Pathological Optimist” may not change your mind about the anti-vaccination movement, but that is not the film’s purpose. Rather, it focuses on exposing audiences to the other side of a story that often goes untold.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.


  1. Very much appreciated reading your perceptions of this documentary Mr. Fitzpatrick. What struck me most about this film is the hypocrisy of Wakefield, who spends years raising funds to support his own legal battle, rather than helping children in need of autism services. This is a man who, in early 2017 in the wake of a measles outbreak in MN among Somali immigrants, continued to advise this vulnerable population not to vaccinate their children! Our blog also features an unfettered review of this film, which I hope you will take a moment to read.


    Would welcome a continued conversation on this critical issue.

  2. Andy is a dear friend and has never stopped helping children with autism. This man had makes a real difference in people’s lives and always makes times for our families who are suffering. That says it all. He raised money to go to trial and fight back against the injustice on behalf of all our kids. Time will tell. We will look back on this era’s approach to managing infectious disease and it will be regarded like blood letting.

  3. *had made a real difference

  4. I think it’s important to point out that Wakefield’s retracted paper never stated that there was a link between vaccines and autism, and actually concluded “We have NOT proven a causal association between autism and measles, mumps and rubella vaccination.” (caps mine)

    I would also suggest that the term “anti-vaccination” is inappropriate, in describing both Wakefield and people protesting vaccine policy.

    Wakefield made a point to suggest a return to the older, tried-and-true separated measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines until further research could be done. That’s not “anti-vaccination.” The response of the industry was to withdraw the separate vaccines from the market, which prompted many parents to delay or refuse vaccines altogether. Perhaps we should call the industry’s move “anti-vaccination?”

    A large proportion of parents protesting vaccine policy do so because either their own child had a serious adverse reaction, or they know another child that did. Such reactions often go unrecognized as such and unreported, since doctors tend to insist that “vaccines don’t cause bad reactions” when, in fact, they can and do. This, of course, tends to prompt parents to distrust both doctors and the recommended vaccine schedule.

    Perhaps the doctors insisting untruthfully that “vaccines don’t cause harm” should be labeled “anti-vaccination,” since their unethical behavior results in parents refusing vaccines.

    There is a myriad of studies — peer-reviewed and published in mainstream science journals — that do link vaccines to many serious problems, including but not limited to seizures, autoimmune disorders, neurological problems, severe intestinal disorders, brain damage, and death. There are several recognized susceptibilities to such reactions, including but not limited to genetic predisposition, genetic mutation (such as MTHFR), intestinal permeability issues such as IBS and Crohn’s, celiac disease, autoimmune issues such as lupus, MS, fibromyalgia, and thyroid disease, some vitamin deficiencies, and glutathione depletion.

    Do you think the scientists who published their evidence of either harm or vaccine failure should be labeled “anti-vaccination” for doing so?

    It’s time to retire the phrase “anti-vaccination.” Pointing out serious problems and criticizing both government and industry for failing to admit and address those serious problems does not make the critics “anti” anything. Let’s stop allowing the industry to distract us from their unethical actions by labeling the critics, and let’s start insisting that the problems be addressed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *