There's no hit and run about it. Was the Italian courts decision based, at least partially, on the Wakefield paper? Yes. Was the Wakefield paper retracted? Yes. Does citing a retracted paper lend toward the person or entity doing the citing being disregarded because, well, they're citing a retracted paper? Yes. Has it been proven in a court a law or anywhere else that the paper was retracted under duress or coercion? No. Where's the dishonesty?
In your denial of the existence of how the real world works when a trillion dollars in multinational interests are involved, as well as you refusal to acknowledge the very existence of the vast body of knowledge establishing the danger of many, many, many vaccines.
Other than that, you're a blazing example of illuminating honesty.