Done this one - the problem is that as the huge benefit of vaccination is pretty much accepted by the bulk of the medical profession you would never get such a trial past a modern ethics committee.
Even if you could, you would then have great difficulty interpreting the results because the incidence of diseases which are vaccinated against in the general population is much, much lower than it would be without vaccination.
So, yes, given the low incidence of, or chance of contracting measles you might argue that, for an individual, any toxicity from the vaccination would mean that you were better off avoiding it - but you cannot extrapolate that to the conclusion that one should stop vaccinating the whole population.
These two kind-of go together.
Vaccination can cause side effects and harm - no-one is exactly claiming otherwise (the test should be whether vaccination provides an overall benefit, not whether it is totally, 100% safe in all circumstances).
Just about any adverse effect following a vaccination will be blamed on the vaccination (even more so if there is a chance of financial gain). Given the ubiquitous nature of vaccination programmes that’s probably going gto be a lot of claims, it would tie any drug company up in litigation, hence the need for this to be handled by an outside agency, not because of vaccines inherent flaws but because the benefit and harms of vaccination programmes need to be assessed over whole populations whereas the law tends to look at individual cases.
Humans are just very bad at assessing this sort of risk - we worry disproportionately about the risks of vaccination (10’s of deaths, perhaps, per annum in the US) and air travel (500 deaths worldwide in 2018) but happily get into a car and drive (over 37,000 deaths in the US in 2017). Heck even getting too involved with the police in the USA is more risky than vaccination (987 people were shot and killed by US police in 2017, most innocent bystanders, some even the individual who called the police in the first place).
They are tested and regulated in the same or similar ways to other medicines.
Nothing is completely safe 100% of the time for 100% of patients.
And debunked here and here - and not, as far as I can see asked by the Italian government to conduct research, nor were “various vaccines” tested, just one.
Again - your point is? If the incidence of measles is so low that virtually the only exposure is from vaccination it is not surprising that a large percentage of the very low number of cases will be found to be virus from the vaccine
