If Dr Andrew Wakefield enjoys inhaling the oxygen of publicity, he’ll be high tonight. At 9pm, Five will televise Hear the Silence, a dramatised account of his disputed research linking the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to a new variant of autism. To counter accusations by furious doctors that the drama is a “mockumentary” displaying all the balance of a one-legged chicken, the channel is screening a prerecorded debate afterwards.

I accepted an invitation to participate in the debate — after all, if I have explained to Times readers why I allowed my daughter to have the triple jab, then I ought to be able to do the same in front of a camera. It was also a rare opportunity to come face to face with Wakefield, who moved to America after his campaign against MMR led him to be disowned by the British medical establishment.

As we filed into a small hospitality room at the studios in Central London, the tall, handsome Wakefield was easy to spot. I introduced myself — he was polite and pleasant before retreating quickly to his entourage in the corner. I took refuge by the sandwiches, collaring the people who followed me in. It quickly became clear that those of us questioning Wakefield’s research would be in the minority.

But as our noses were being powdered in the studio, worse was to come. There would be no government representative to defend its pro-MMR stance, not even a minion. There would be nobody present from the Public Health Laboratory Service, which has been monitoring the measles outbreaks and has advocated strongly that parents should continue to give their children the MMR.

Wakefield’s former colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in London, who have denounced him publicly (one wrote an anonymous letter to Five demanding the drama be pulled because it would put children at risk), also found more pressing engagements on the night. Rumours that we would be graced with Professor David Elliman, a community child health expert from St George’s Hospital, and Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council, proved unfounded. Instead, we heard the Government’s position summarised in a terse statement read out by Kirsty Young.

All of which, of course, is bound to do wonders for parental confidence. Here was a golden opportunity to put Wakefield on the spot in front of millions of viewers and for a specialist to point towards the mountain of evidence casting such a convincing shadow over his molehill. But, in a disgraceful pique of high- mindedness, the opportunity was squandered. Instead, the defence of the triple jab was left largely to people such as Dr Evan Harris, MP, and Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, who has a son with severe autism and remains fiercely pro-MMR.

I can well understand why the drama inspired such anger. Timothy Prager’s script could not have been more one-sided and less questioning. His depiction of St Andrew versus a satanic, conspiratorial Establishment was as subtle as a hippopotamus performing the Nutcracker.

But being even-handed tends to get in the way of good storytelling. I did not wish to see the drama pulled from the schedules because that is a step towards censorship. I do, however, hope that the broadcasting watchdogs berate the production team for its calculated, or inept, omission of evidence that places Wakefield’s research in an altogether less flattering light.

What is so appalling is not that this drama is going to be screened but that Wakefield’s opponents were either too scared or too disdainful to come out with their intellectual fists up. This was their chance to interrupt his oxygen supply. Instead, Wakefield is breathing more freely than ever.

Join the Debate on this article at comment@thetimes.co.uk

Explore Health News

• Swine flu

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth