I don't know where you re getting your figures, but I just don't think they are accurate.
Not sure which figures you don't believe, but the reducing death rate from 14% to 7% in Africa came from an article often quoted by antivax idiots who think that it shows that vitamin A supplements "cure" measles: Barclay, AJG et al. "Vitamin A supplements and mortality related to measles: a randomised clinical trial.: British Medical Journal (January 31, 1987): 294-96
(Sorry, just realized I said "recent".. it wasn't particularly)
The 1 in 3000 death rate for measles in the West is rough: in the UK, it's better than most. According to the
ONS, it averages out at 1:3873 over the last 20 years; mortality in the US between 1987 and 2002 was considerably higher (
Acute Measles Mortality in the United States, 1987–2002
I don't think it is a tiny handful. The WHO simply refuses to acknowledge that...
non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) have increased 1200% since the oral polio vaccine was introduced to India a decade ago...
India: Paralysis cases soar after oral polio vaccine introduced By ignoring this and calling it
non-polio acute flaccid paralysis they can still go on claiming to be eradicating polio.
So it's basically your mistrust of the people whose analysis suggested a different disease agent?
Non-polio enteroviruses in acute flaccid paralysis children of India: vital assessment before polio eradication. - PubMed - NCBI
And please,
please get it into your head that correlation does not mean causation: an oubreak of a different disease which occurred at the same time as a vaccination programme does not mean the vaccine caused the outbreak. Come back when you have something other than paranoia to link these together.
Okay, how about this one for specifics
...Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk....Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. - PubMed - NCBI
Two things spring to mind here.. firstly, does this mean you will accept that all the other vaccines *don't* even correlate with autism, given that this is one specific vaccine delivery showing a correlation in one subset of people?
Secondly, can you see how this applies:
xkcd: Significant
..i.e. if you start trawling data, you will find correlations in specific subsets of your data. This does not mean that there is a causal relationship in the one subset which is surprisingly absent from all the others, it just means that if you're looking at dozens of different possible correlations, you're overwhelmingly likely to spot one.
How many "may"s are there in that abstract? If a correlation could be shown between MMR and autism (which there most emphatically isn't - even the link you gave above wasn't anything to do with MMR), then it "may" have given some hint towards the cause; but as there is no such correlation, all those "may cause" can simply be interpreted as "well, it may have, but it doesn't"
Actually, I think those who are so trusting of vaccines to protect their health are the ones who do so out of fear rather than take personal responsibility for their own health. It is a very common mentality today to expect a pill or a shot to fix everything.
I suppose thinking that allows you to cast yourself in the form of a fearless, personally-responsible type.. rather than the fearmongering paranoiac endangering others. I think that says more about you than people who get their vaccinations