I know that I will probably get down voted for voicing opinion against majority but I will go with it anyway.  There are evidence that vaccination is not safe, contains mercury and has negative long term side effects. Also there are long lasting  debates on whether the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the harm.  I have looked at both sides of the argument and based on what I have read and concluded that  I would not  vaccinate myself or my kids(see my reasoning below).  
Government cares only of the short term effect and keeping society from outbreaks of deceases where they are less concerned of long term effect that will be hard to link to any past vaccinations anyways.   Even the fact the insurance companies do not cover vaccination due to possibility of severe side effects poses a question why?
The long trim effect of vaccine is not well studied yet.  If you look at both sides of the argument, the major question is what side has more benefit for fighting.   Pharmaceuticals make tons of money on vaccination and have tons of money to promote it including usage of science as well government policies.   So looking at both sides where none have concrete scientifically proof on long term effect of vaccines, what side would you take thinking on benefits that each side might have in the argument as well as possessing knowledge of possible danger of vaccine including the fact that vaccine do not work 100% as well.  So the ultimate question, would you put substance containing mercury in your body knowing that it will have side effect  for sure what might be mild or severe in long term against some low chance possibility of getting diseases that your body will fight anyway and that having vaccinated might not even protect you against.  Here is some more info for consideration: <a href="http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html</a>