Vaccine A is good for this disease; vaccine B is good for that disease; ... vaccine Z is good for ... you get the pattern, I'm sure. So, if one vaccination is good does it follow that 200 vaccinations are good? I don't think so.
One vaccine for each virus. Take them all. One vaccination usually doesn't hurt you, so there can't be a problem with taking hundreds of them, right?
You judge vaccines and drugs by totally different standards.
Vaccines have problems and drugs have problems. The level of problems with vaccines is trivial compared to the level of problems with drugs and yet you focus exclusively on problems with a few vaccines and present them as if they somehow prove that vaccines in general are bad.
Vaccines have save more, vastly more lives during the last several hundred years than have drugs. And the number of lives lost due to problems with vaccines is many orders of magnitude (factors of 10) less than the number of lives lost due to problems with drugs. That undisputed, universally accepted cold hard fact alone shows how warped and biased your attitude toward vaccines is.
RE: "Do you think that those people who were vaccinated for measles but got the virus anyway don't deserve to benefit from a research focus on treatment rather than the prevention that failed them?"
You are suggesting that because measles vaccines fail in a few cases (and vastly fewer cases that the overwhelming majority of drugs fail) and despite that this vaccine has reduced the annual number of cases of measles by 10's or 100's of thousands, that research should "focus on treatment"?! That we should give secondary emphasis to millions of cases of disease prevented and give primary emphasis to a small handful of cases where the vaccine failed? I never said that we should ignore treatments, of course we should work on them. But to give them priority over highly effective prevention is astoundingly inappropriate.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that apparently your investment in a drug has so warped your perspective that you have become blind to the most extreme imbalances of value.
RE: "I do not think that the 2/3 of measles victims who WERE vaccinated would agree that the vaccine was effective."
What you are completely missing here is that the antivaxers and NOT weakness in the vaccine, are directly responsible for the infection of those who got infected despite vaccination. Had the level of vaccination in the LOCAL populations been high enough (which it was before the antivaxers started spouting their distortions) they never would have been infected because herd immunity would have kept the virus from spreading when the few cases were brought into the community from abroad. Prior to the anit vaccination campaigns, such imported cases died out quickly with very short chains of transmission if any at all.
It is very clear that you don't understand the implications of herd immunity (incidentally this concept is very important to drugs as well as vaccines: herd immunity due to survivors (rather than vaccination) has huge implication for the rate of spread of outbreaks. Again, you really should look up "herd immunity" so you can understand what's taking place and avoid coming to very false conclusions (as, for example, failing to realize that the infections of those who were vaccinated are not really a failure of the vaccine, which would have prevented them by herd immunity absent the "free riding" of the anti vaxers, but directly attributable to the anti vaxers.
READ THIS STORY to see how the antivaxers are directly responsible for infecting others:
Vaccinations are highly relevant to NNVC because they address some of the same targets/markets and their use can have huge effects on the potential markets for NNVCs products.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
