You need to be careful how you interpret the vast amounts of info out there and verify that it really is information not scare tactics with a secondary gain.
The only reason that the actual numbers of reported dz is low is a componant of sevaral factors,
1.As long as the "herd" gets vaccinated in high enough numbers the unimmunized members are protected from communicable dz.
as there is not enough human host to carry, get sick and give it to someone else, (who is vunerable).
2.Only when that number drops to a point that there is enough unprotected members.
3.In close enough proximity to each other is the epidemic possible.
4. most importantly.. they have to be reported by someone. Example, how many actual rapes occur as opposed to reported??
The more important question is... how many unprotected person are falling victim as opposed to the persons immunized can be proven to fall victim to the vaccines.
I will refer all readers to an online and yes true article about the main theorist MD who was found to have fudged the figures about vaccines published in the BMJ 1998 by Doctor Andrew Wakfield to arrive at his own thoughts about the risk of vaccines.
MSNBC.com Study tying vaccine to autism was fraud, report says. THe BMJ had retracted all article it previously published on the topic.
I was in England (I'm American) about this time and it caused a large jump in deaths from whooping cough in Ireland because parents were refusing routine childhood vacc. for fear (unfounded) of autism. I guess that death may in some be preferred to "damaged mentally". The hospital numbers were staggering. First, his study had far too few cases included to have validity, only 12.
We will never really know what he percentages were before such good almost instant reporting "in the good ole days" Maternal death and yes neonatal deaths were fairly common and viewed as an acceptable risk for having a baby. Of course nowadays the lawyers don't accept this, because it has to be somebody's fault in order to make money out of it.