An update from my health resource, Informed Consent Matters

At the time of writing (July 2023), news headlines across the UK and globe are warning of an imminent measles outbreak amongst certain populations.

Predicting that this outbreak could affect tens of thousands of people, and blaming it on waning measles (MMR) vaccination rates, health authorities are cautioning of the possibility of a serious epidemic.

Are they right to be concerned? Would a measles outbreak really pose a grave threat to the nation's health?

Although measles has, in recent years, developed a reputation as a serious, even killer, disease, this is a fairly modern "rebranding". Prior to the measles vaccination being made available in the 1960s, measles was considered a routine childhood infection, which almost all children passed through with no lasting effects. 

Indeed, when the then 12-year-old Prince Charles, heir to British the throne, contracted measles in 1960, it was casually reported in the newspapers that "the rash appeared Tuesday and it is expected the illness will run its usual course. No further bulletins are expected". 

There was certainly no concern the young prince might die - and most families experienced measles the same way: a rash and a fever which quickly ran their course with no lasting effects.  Even modern sources confirm that measles "usually passes in about seven to 10 days without causing any further problems".

So why does the word 'measles' strike fear into the hearts of parents and policy-makers alike?

It's true that there was a time, historically, when poor sanitation and overcrowding were rife, that measles was associated with more debilitating effects, including death. However, these trends were reversed by improvements in nutrition, sanitation, and plumbing. By the time the measles vaccination was introduced in the UK in 1968, deaths from measles had already declined to very low levels. 

Although advocates of vaccination often credit the measles vaccine with eliminating deaths from measles, this is not an accurate picture, and evidence shows that modern plumbing and sanitation, plus improvements in diet, had a far more profound impact on reducing severe effects associated with measles than did the measles vaccination. As anthropology scholar, Joel Edwards, said in a recent essay:

"Vaccines get all the glory, but most plumbers will tell you that it was water infrastructure – sewage systems and clean water – that eradicated disease, and they’re right."

So, by the time the measles vaccine came along, modern sanitation standards meant measles had already stopped being a serious disease for the vast majority of those who acquired it, and families saw it - as the Royal Family did for Prince Charles - as a minor inconvenience that meant little more than a few days in bed. 

However, with a lucrative vaccine to retail, pharmaceutical companies needed a market, hence measles gradually began to be rebranded by the government and press, from the routine and non-serious childhood infection it had become since modern plumbing, into a serious illness that could severely blight children's lives or even kill them. 

Twenty years after the introduction of the measles vaccine, this situation intensified, with the introduction of the trivalent measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination, meant to replace the single measles vaccination. 

The MMR has been surrounded in particular controversy in recent decades, owing primarily to the work of gastroenterologist, Dr. Andrew Wakefield. In 1998, Dr. Wakefield discovered a possible link between the vaccine strain of the measles virus, and the kind of bowel disorders often associated with autism. 

Dr. Wakefield only discovered this link with the then newly-released trivalent MMR vaccination, and not with the traditional single measles vaccine. 

Therefore, Wakefield advised parents to opt for the single vaccination as a safer alternative to the MMR. Of course, the single measles vaccination still comes with risks, as all vaccines do, but Wakefield judged the risk to be significantly lower. 

However, the UK Government discontinued the single measles vaccine shortly after the introduction of the MMR, and this vaccine is now only available privately, whilst the MMR vaccine continues to be associated with a wide and debilitating range of potential side effects.  (Note that, as of 2023, Dr. Andrew Wakefield no longer recommends any childhood vaccinations.) 

As a result of Wakefeld's work, many parents chose not to give their children the MMR vaccine, which officials have pointed to as a "risk factor" for a measles outbreak as - so they claim - in many areas, not enough children are vaccinated against measles to achieve "herd immunity".

It's important to realise that there is no evidence vaccination can achieve herd immunity, even with 100% vaccination rates, as has been evidenced by such contained environments as naval ships, where all on board are vaccinated, yet still experience disease outbreaks.

The theory of herd immunity was developed in relation to natural infection, and has never been shown to be achievable by vaccination. When health authorities give a figure to denote the number of people that need to be vaccinated to protect the rest of the "herd" (e.g., 95%, as the WHO claims is necessary for herd immunity to measles), they are not basing this figures on actual hard science or reproducible proof, given there is no definitive proof vaccination has ever conferred herd immunity to any infection.

It is also important to note anomalies in the diagnosis of the measles infection, insofar as, the test used to determine if someone currently has an active measles infection, is the same test used to determine if they are immune to measles - an antibody test.  This means a doctor could test a vaccinated person, discover they had antibodies to the measles virus, and use this as "proof" the vaccine had worked and conferred immunity, whilst using the exact same test on an unvaccinated person, finding they also had antibodies to the measles virus, and using this as "proof" they currently had an active measles infection. 

Please note that, in reality, a positive antibody test proves neither immunity to disease nor evidence of an active infection - all it shows is that the test recipient has, at some point, been exposed to the disease antigen in question. So a positive measles antibody test simply means the person being tested has at some point been exposed to the measles virus. It doesn't mean they are immune to it, nor does it mean they currently have an active measles infection. 

Testing anomalies around measles are even more profound when it comes to the PCR test, which can also be used as a diagnostic tool, and - in the face of a declared "epidemic" - may be more likely to be used as a quicker and cheaper alternative to antibody testing. 

This is deeply concerning because - as the "Covid" episode demonstrated - PCR tests are notoriously over-sensitive, and can give a false positive result for a more serious condition, when in reality, a person has nothing more than a cold - or even (as per so-called "asymptomatic cases") is not ill at all.

In understanding why PCR tests can create "false epidemics" with their over-sensitive nature, it's important to study their history, what they were really developed for, and why their inventor - Nobel-prize winning scientist, Kary B. Mullis - said of his test, "anybody can test positive for anything with the PCR. It doesn't tell you you're sick."

Real-world evidence of PCR testing being used to create false epidemics came in 2007, when a hospital in the USA declared a pertussis (whooping cough) epidemic on the basis of PCR testing. 

However, when the samples were further examined with the gold standard testing of growing the relevant bacterium in the lab, it was found none of the people believed to be infected actually had pertussis at all, but simply had ordinary respiratory infections like the common cold.

This is a highly cautionary tale, as, in terms of measles, most of its symptoms are the same general symptoms as are experienced with any seasonal cold or flu - runny nose, coughing, sneezing, and a fever. 

Therefore, it would be eminently possible for persons with such symptoms to take a PCR test, and - even though in reality they just have a cold - to test positive for measles: a result which could then be used as a statistic to "prove" a measles outbreak. 

Covid was often referred to as a "casedemic", as many of the more severe government restrictions were based on numbers of "positive cases", rather than numbers of hospitalisations or deaths - and a "positive case" based on PCR testing is, in many cases, scientifically meaningless. It doesn't prove someone has the condition they have "tested positive" for, and doesn't even prove they are ill at all. Most people who "tested positive" for Covid with the PCR had mild or no illness. 

Please note that, concurrently to predicting an imminent measles epidemic (many symptoms of which are indistinguishable from colds and flus), the UK government is also gearing up to - for the first time ever - offer the nasal flu vaccine to all secondary school children in England (as well as all primary pupils, as has been the case for some time, and as was linked to last year’s Strep A outbreak in schools).

This spray is known to create cold and flu-like symptoms, and to have the ability to spread them to others.

Therefore, this new highly vaccinated childhood cohort are at heightened risk of developing the kind of cold and flu-like symptoms, which - were they subject to over-sensitive PCR testing - could be falsely diagnosed as measles, therefore providing "evidence" there is another "deadly pandemic" which the government must impose harsh restrictions to contain. 

The government and its advisors have already warned there "will" be another pandemic, that it "will" be worse than Covid, and that it will be dealt with with much more "stringent" restrictions. 

At Informed Consent Matters, we prioritise the provision of accurate and impartial information, so - should the government declare another "pandemic" in future, especially on the basis of either PCR or antibody testing - people are equipped with the full facts before deciding how to respond. 

Positive PCR tests (or positive antibody tests) are not evidence of the existence of a currently active infectious disease - as the PCR's test inventor stated on many occasions - but they can be used as an effective "theatre prop" for governments to scare populations into compliance with harsh restrictions.

This is especially so if a new "pandemic" is seen to disproportionately affect children - which is likely, due to the potential ill effects of the flu nasal spray, which will this September be offered to more than three million more children than usual.

Informed Consent Matters hopes the information on this page, and contained in the rest of our resource, will help you make the right health choices for you and your family in the face of any future government-declared "pandemics". 

Thanks for reading and we hope you found this information helpful. As a genuinely independent health resource, informed Consent Matters receives no funding from the pharmaceutical industry, or any other commercial interest, and we are entirely funded by our readers. If you would like to make a contribution to help us continue our work, please consider:

Making a donation, or

Making a purchase from our awareness-raising shop. 

Thank you for your support in helping us to spread the crucial message that, when it comes to your family's health, informed consent really does matter. 

Originally published at my health resource, Informed Consent Matters