I don't understand how parents who don't vaccinate their children aren't thought to be guilty of neglect as ultimately that's what is happening
It isn't. It would be if immunisations were completely risk free. But as I have said ad nauseum on here, the existence of vaccine damage legislation rather points to that not being the case. But parents don't want compensation, they want a healthy child, and as I said in my original post, they consider the risks of the illnesses to be smaller than those of the vaccine especially eg if you have a boy why worry about rubella (herd immunity aside).
There was concern about the MMR and autism before Wakefield came on the scene. That is often forgotten. I have no idea what he is trying to achieve in the US now other than earn lots of money of course.
What I also don't know is whether the formulation of today's MMR vaccine is exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. Certainly other vaccinations have changed eg ds still received the live polio vaccine but I believe that's not the case anymore? If the vaccine were formulated differently to the one that caused controversy, parents may be less concerned.
There is always a tendency on MN to categorise all"anti-vaxxers" as being crazy halfwits. Accepting other people's concerns and dealing with them respectfully would go a long way to persuading the doubters. Brexit was caused by the same thing - people weren't allowed to express concerns about immigration because they were accused of being racist. So because nobody was listening they voted to leave. Get out of your echo chamber, listen to other views, don;t shout them down as being idiots/racists/whatever, and you might change a few minds. I've said it in other threads but there is too much polarisation. Just because you believe yourself to be right, doesn't mean that you are. There are (nearly) always shades of grey.