One problem with that argument: The WHO works in 'Undeveloped' countries.
Those countries have issues getting clean water, good food, a clean environment to live in, products and traditional medicine designed to combat diseases, and so it is not a fair comparison.
I will admit that in undeveloped counties is where vaccines do there best work, because they do help to significantly reduce the spread and affects of diseases.
But the post is referring to developed countries, where the risk of a disease like malaria or other highly transmittable and lethal diseases is already very low, and as I have already stated, there are many more factors that lead to the elimination of diseases, and the environment a disease lives in, then a vaccine alone.
I have finished my argument, I see that if I go any further it will turn into opinion-vs-opinion rather than factual statements.

Ok, present me this credible information.

I was researching this topic a while ago and found this: http://www.relfe.com/2013-2020/why_how_homeschool_what_is_home_schooling.html Number 43 he talks bout vaccines and the damage they do. He even links resources and articles to support his arguments.
I also see that a lot of people will take their view of their world and attribute its' state to anything that seems reasonable, 'There are no major diseases here. It must be because of vaccines', but they leave out everything else that can stop diseases. We wash our hands regularly, to keep germs off them, we wash ourselves and our clothes, to keep clean, we have various cleaning products designed to kill germs, and we have access to a lot of good food so our bodies can stay healthy enough to fight off diseases. We use said methods to keep our homes, workspaces, and ourselves clean and healthy to stop the spread of diseases.
Vaccines are only a very small part of a large plethora of things we use and do keep ourselves healthy.

Most of the diseases that we have vaccines for are either incurable diseases (AIDS, HIV) or for diseases that could cause someone harm (a severe Flu can harm infants and elderly). Because we live in developed countries we have a clean environment. We have methods of sanitation to keep ourselves and our living spaces clean, we have access to remedies that are affective against a vast number of diseases, we have access to medical professionals that can diagnose and treat diseases with products that are not vaccines, and who cares if someone gets sick because they did not get a vaccine. If someone chose not to get a vaccine then they knew that they where at risk of contracting a disease, it was there choice, not yours, and if they drop dead from it does it really bother you? It was their decisions that lead then to that end.

Internet high-five

Without going into the political opinion void, yes.
(Note: My comment was not opinion, it is fact. Taken from the Bill of Rights and distilled to fit the character limits of a post)

True American freedom can be found in the Bill of Rights.
We can speak freely in public, and in print, and can assemble without interference from the government (1st). We are free to arm and defend ourselves in order to secure a free state (2nd). We do not need to house the soldiers of the government against our will (3rd). We have a right to our privacy, and to keep the government from seizing our property (4th). We have the right to a trial by our peers (5th). We have the right to a speedy trial, a defense, to face our accusers, and to be informed of the reason(s) for our arrest (6th). We have the right to a trial by jury (7th). We cannot be issued excessive punishments (8th). No laws can be constructed to deny us our rights (9th). Unless we give our government power, it belongs to the people (10th)
As an American, to be free is to be free from your government.
Anyone can write down the norms of modern life and say; since we are all the same we are not free. But that would be a lie.

The kings who supplied the armies (the church had none of their own) did it for political gain.
The church did have a vested interest in keeping their followers safe, but the kings were in it for the gold and riches.

Close, but not quite.
The Islamist did have a jihad going in the middle east, but the church only went there to protect the lives of fellow Catholic/Christian pilgrims.
When towns or cities were raided and sacked it was under the commands of the kings who brought their armies in support to the crusade, and not the commands of the church (exception being Jerusalem, but that was a sacred city that had been captured by the Islamist).