I've had the measles, as did every last one of my school mates and kinfolk. Honestly, no big deal. Nobody died. Nobody I know ever heard of anyone dying or having serious adverse events from the measles (as far as we all knew). Now, data is funny, in that it can only show you what you specifically focused on in your measurement. Tell me Gato, how much long-term, subtle physiological damage has occurred as a result of all of this childhood vaccination that is wholly unable to be measured? Notice any major health trends in the Western world since the adoption of mass vaccination of children? I'm still being told by serious experts in the field that the brain/blood barrier is a legit and foolproof guard that keeps the toxins in vaccines from affecting the brain. My 9-month old daughter, was basically a linguistic savant at her age, speaking in highly complex sentences without a single staggered word, yet, right after her safe-and-effective MMR, she not only stopped speaking completely for 2 months (other than 'da', 'ma'), but stopped responding to external stimuli almost completely. Symptoms came on within hours of the shot. The risk by far exceeds the reward, as we don't even know what the long term consequence is on human population's health - we simply do not even know enough about the human body to be able to know *what* to measure and when. Then you flippantly throw in the mention of the flu vaccine. Yes, we all know it doesn't work. However, one again, risk is higher than acknowledged by the 'expert' class. I personally know one very fit, weightlifting RN, forced to take a flu shot for the first time in his life due to working in California, in the height of his prime, and within 4 days being paralyzed from the waist down. It took him *many years* to get someone to even acknowledge that it was vaccine-induced. Since we don't admit or acknowledge fault, often never, with regards to vaccine-related injuries, why would you, Gato, assume that you have anything remotely resembling the full picture on the stats needed to assess risk/reward for meds you claim are "effective"?