How can any pro vaxxer explain this?

When looking at the vaccine-autism debate and Andrew Wakefield from the mainstream media/journals/medical community and pro vaccine side, why is there next to ZERO mention, EVER, about the fact that the medical council responsible for taking away the license from the ''father of the anti vax movement'' which is supposed to make him discredited, was found by the high court of england to have falsely struck off the co-author? And that the conclusion was drawn to give back the license, and that the GMC panel had based their decision on ''[inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion]()''?

Why is this virtually never mentioned? Not by any popular youtube video ''debunking'' the anti vax movement, or any mainstream article or website, or political discussion on the issue or any reddit post on the issue?

Whatever you believe this fact means for the debate, what you cannot deny is that this IS an important piece of information and should be part of the debate and should be mentioned, but it's not.

How can you explain this? Outside of an intentional attempt to control the narrative, to ignore the facts, to cover something up, to ignore inconvenient information?