Select Page

Live Science article and NPR program claim that having measles reduces resistance to other disease. This is the article:

Sherri Tenpenny, M.D. says this article is false:


Below is a link to an excellent article that addresses the subject, authored by PhD in Immunology Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych. To the core of your question, her statement:

"Dr. Aaby and co-authors were testing a commonly held assumption that after surviving measles, children would have a higher mortality rate from other infections due to long-term immune-suppression, which is thought to follow measles. But they got the opposite results. In fact, they found that: ‘Exposed children developing clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality over the next 4 years than exposed children who did not develop clinical measles.’”

Simple fact, there are countless parents who attest to the growth or learning spurt enjoyed by their kids following a bout of measles – or mumps or chickenpox, for that matter. A couple of links to studies that found that febrile childhood infections in general provide a degree of protection from cancer…

And finally, two archived newspaper articles, one from 1949, explaining that a bout of measles healed a toddler from nephritis; and one from 1963, before the measles vaccine was in general use, in which the MDs giving advice to moms of kids who had the measles summed up the ongoing measles epidemic, with over 2,000 cases in Minneapolis at the time, thusly:

"Everybody gets the measles during the epidemic, so they become immune."

You’ll notice there’s not a hint of alarm in the article. It’s only been the last few decades of alarmist mainstream rhetoric that’s reshaped public perception.

Hope this helps.



The Support Staff for
Cleveland, Ohio


Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD

· About

· Blog

· Vaccine Illusion

· NIF class


on Vaccination and Natural Immunity



By Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D.

Does measles suppress your immune system via immune amnesia? Let’s do some ‘fact-checking.’

In 2002, Dr. Peter Aaby and co-authors published a study conducted in rural Senegal, in the area which had an outbreak of measles. According to the study: "No index or secondary case of measles died in the acute phase of infection nor did any of the children exposed to measles die in the first 2 months after exposure." (And given what we know from the 2015 Lancet Global Health publication, identifying vitamin A deficiency as a risk factor for mortality from measles, we can safely assume that perhaps children in this area were not as deficient in vitamin A, as children in other parts of Africa and Asia, where measles infection is known to result in high mortality.)

Dr. Aaby and co-authors were testing a commonly held assumption that after surviving measles, children would have a higher mortality rate from other infections due to long-term immune-suppression, which is thought to follow measles. But they got the opposite results. In fact, they found that: "Exposed children developing clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality over the next 4 years than exposed children who did not develop clinical measles.”

Why then all this recent hysteria about measles resulting in immune amnesia, as if that’s going to kill you?

There are a few research publications that have been picked up by the media or referenced by other research publications to unnecessarily feed these fears.

Let’s first look at the PLoS Pathology 2012 publication titled “Measles immune suppression: lessons from the macaque model.”

Researchers state: “Here we show that MV preferentially infects CD45RA(-) memory T-lymphocytes and follicular B-lymphocytes, resulting in high infection levels in these populations. After the peak of viremia MV-infected lymphocytes were cleared within days… Our findings indicate an immune-mediated clearance of MV-infected CD45RA(-) memory T-lymphocytes and follicular B-lymphocytes, which causes temporary immunological amnesia.”

OK, here we have a preferential infection of memory lymphocytes by the measles virus resulting in a temporary loss of immunologic memory. So what? When was it ever proven that immunologic memory has anything to do with protection from re-infection? In fact, the opposite has been demonstrated by the research conducted in the lab of Swiss scientist Dr. Rolf Zinkernagel, who won the Nobel Prize in 1996. In the title of his 2012 review, he clearly states: “Immunologic memory does not equal protective immunity.”

Furthermore, the varicella (chickenpox) virus does exactly the same thing as the measles virus – it infects memory lymphocytes, as revealed in another research paper published in PLoS Pathology in 2013: “During viremia the virus preferentially infected memory T-cells, initially central memory T-cells and subsequently effector memory T-cells.”

Yet, no one is screaming from rooftops that chickenpox will make you die from the next common cold you contract. Perhaps, that would be too obvious a lie to all the chickenpox survivors who do not remember suffering from any type of immune-suppression, despite the fact that the varicella virus infected their memory T cells. But because the vaccine-measles generation has nearly completely taken the place of the natural-measles generation, the media can get away with spreading such fears without common sense to stop them.

Another paper published recently in Science is titled “Measles virus infection diminishes preexisting antibodies that offer protection from other pathogens.”

‘Antibodies that offer protection’? Let’s pause right here. When was it ever proven that antibodies offer protection? In fact, the opposite has been observed. Don’t we remember another famous immunologist and a 1960 Nobel Prize winner Sir Macfarlane Burnet telling us the following regarding the role of antibodies (or rather lack thereof) for immunity in children who lacked antibody production due to a genetic condition called agammaglobulinemia:

“To everyone’s surprise [children with agammaglobulinemia] showed a normal measles course with a typical rash which faded at the normal time and was followed by just as substantial immunity against reinfection as would be shown by any other convalescent. Antibody production is therefore not necessary either for recovery from or for the development of immunity to measles.” (Burnet and White. Natural History of Infectious Disease. Cambridge University Press, 1940)

And don’t we know of a modern-day paper showing that medical professionals with positive antibody titers for measles can still develop measles:

“Hospital employees working in patient care areas from July through November 1990 were screened for measles antibody levels using a commercially available enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Four healthcare workers vaccinated in the past developed measles. All had positive pre-illness measles antibody levels.”

Then who cares what is temporarily happening with antibodies that bind to other pathogens after measles infection?

A true correlate of protection is not the level of antibodies that bind to pathogens but virus- neutralizing serum titers. Those are measured by a technique called plaque-reduction neutralization, which is quite distinct from how antibodies are detected. When measured side by side using the same serum samples from research animals, virus-neutralizing measurements and antibody-binding titers do not follow the same pattern over time and therefore do not measure the same entity.

Before we start panicking over the demonstrated effects of the measles infection on the temporary loss of immunologic memory or diminished levels of virus-binding antibodies, let’s ask ourselves: do we even fully understand the biological basis of immunity from viral re-infection? Is the science really settled here? Because it doesn’t appear so to me.

Over the past century, the immunologic theory has been vacillating back and forth between holding a cell-based vs. humoral-based view of immunity. That debate was futile, because the majority of immunologic research has been done with non-infectious immunogenic substances that couldn’t really test the theory in action.

In 1942, Dr. Merrill Chase postulated that immunity could be transferred with immune cells from immunized animals to naïve animals.

In 1995, Dr. Zinkernagel’s research disproved that, showing that immunologic transfer of memory cells didn’t confer protection, when animals were then challenged with a virus. But the transfer of serum from immune animals did confer protection, which to Dr. Zinkernagel implied that protective immunity is in serum-derived antibodies.

Yet, back in the 1940s, Dr. Burnet already knew that it could not be the case, because of his clinical observations in agammaglobulinemic patients who lacked antibodies, yet could generate immunity to a childhood disease, like measles.

So, which is it: cell-based, antibody-based, or neither? And what is missing from the picture?

And what is missing in immunologic debate is a cell-derived factor called Transfer Factor. TF was discovered in the 1950s by Henry Sherwood Lawrence.

In 1980, a seminal clinical research paper was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showing that TF administered to children with leukemia in a double-blind saline placebo-controlled trial protected them from chickenpox during 12-30 months of the follow-up.

In this clinical trial, TF was prepared by extracting (dializing) it from leukocytes of donors who had a history of chickenpox. Researchers had to kill those leukocytes in order to extract TF out of them. And most likely, those were memory lymphocytes that contained TF, since it had to be obtained from people who already had chickenpox.

Let’s get back to the known propensity of the measles virus to infect and kill memory lymphocytes. Could it be that rather than making you less immune by killing your memory lymphocytes, the measles infection would make you more immune by killing your memory lymphocytes—due to releasing TF from all of those killed memory lymphocytes into your bloodstream? Did scientists measure the levels of the serum TF to previously encountered infections before and after measles, the way they did for antibodies? I bet, no. Because that would put an end to the spread of the panic. And that wouldn’t be good for vaccine business and for vaccine mandates.

And let’s address yet another facet of memory lymphocytes. A subset of them (memory Th2) is known to be an immunologic reservoir for atopic/allergic diseases, including asthma. In fact, it was even proposed in a 2006 publication in the Pharmacologic Theory journal that drugs are needed to target and kill these pesky memory Th2 cells, in order to reduce their contribution to asthma.

And if the measles and chickenpox viruses already do just that–kill memory T cells–shouldn’t that lead to a reduced risk of asthma and other atopic diseases? Indeed, it should. And here are some publications documenting such effects for measles in Africa and Europe, and for chickenpox in the USA.

Let’s re-read the conclusion of Dr. Aaby’s study and let it sink in: ‘Exposed children developing clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality over the next 4 years than exposed children who did not develop clinical measles.”

​Are you still afraid?


After joining, you will have immediate access to Natural Immunity Fundamentals (NIF) lectures and all prior BBCH HOUR slideshows, which you may review to build up your knowledge base.

PubMed links used in this article:

Richard Sacks says:

James, I am knowledgeable about this subject, but have only a minute to respond as I have two live shows today. These two studies are intentional fraud. Our medical system and industry have been completely compromised and corrupted. Those who control them have discovered that whatever propaganda they want to put out, they can call it a "study," and it becomes unquestionable truth. More like religion than science.

Measles in people who have the basics of health is no big deal at all. The people who all got it in the 50’s had no resulting immune problems. We were not in elementary school with allergies and chronic diseases out of control like today. On the other hand, the kids who today are victimized by vaccines and drugs, as well as dead and poisoned food and water, they do have destroyed immune systems.

What passes for "science" now and for "medicine" is a crime against humanity. Real health information is violently suppressed. So people have no real guidance of how to take care of their bodies or minds anymore, it is all intentionally corrupted. These "studies" are there to promote vaccines. Those whose common sense has been destroyed by "education" will believe them, and they actually think vaccines prevent disease and protect health. There is zero truth in that. Real information about vaccines is punishable by censorship or death, depending on the credentials and credibility of the speaker and how much a threat they pose to the system.

We should expect a lot more of these studies proving vaccines, drugs, chemotherapy, radiation, GMO’s, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, etc. are very good for you and have amazing additional benefits not hitherto realized. This will also prove that those against vaccines and questioning authority need to be silenced for everyone’s good and our survival. Their children need to be kidnapped by CPS.

Evil has taken over most of the power positions, and is now calling the shots. Humanity is at a major crossroads because the forces of evil now are armed with technologies that they did not have access to before. Their ultimate agenda is not imagined by most. What we do in response is very important.

Have a good weekend,


Richard Sacks, Host

Lost Arts Radio

Independent health scientist since 1965

Essene teacher and private health consultant



James Robert Deal
Real Estate Attorney & Real Estate Managing Broker

PO Box 2276 Lynnwood WA 98036
Law Office Line: 425-771-1110
Broker Line: 425-774-6611
KW Everett Office Line: 425-212-2007
Fax: 425-776-8081

%d bloggers like this: