On Tuesday Aug 25th Governor Shapiro and officials from the PA Dept of Health and Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health held a press conference in Lancaster County and announced two “measles-associated deaths.” (See my previous posts for more details on this.)
I have sought to keep an open mind and be objective, but the evidence now leads to the conclusion that there is deception happening here.
This is a matter of great public importance. The Governor claimed there were two deaths in Lancaster County – the first deaths from Measles in the U.S. in 35 years. We have a right to know the facts on this. You cannot drop a bombshell like this and then essentially say all the information around it is top secret.
The only way for government to have trust with citizens is through transparency and honesty. That is especially important since what happened during Covid.
Asking questions and following the facts is not “pro-measles” or “anti-science.” It is what we all should do. The following is an attempt to follow the evidence that we currently have available to us.
Ideally, in a functioning healthy system journalists would assemble this case and ask objective questions of the people who had the press conference rather than attack the people who are asking legitimate questions about the press conference. But that is not necessarily the system we are living in, so I will endeavor to do it.
Let me walk you through the evidence that we have as I would have done for a jury when I was a prosecutor trying criminal cases in court.
1. The press conference: Officials at the Governor’s press conference used the term “measles-associated” (see press conference and accompanying press release) but clearly framed it as deaths FROM measles. The Governor stated that these are the first two measles-associated deaths in the U.S. in 35 years. People died FROM measles 35 years ago. Therefore, it would not be accurate to make that statement unless these current cases were in fact being presented as deaths attributable to measles in some significant way. This appears to be a carefully crafted attempt to overstate the case, while also maintaining some later wiggle room, i.e. “associated” to muddy the issue if it became clear these were not in fact measles deaths. This indicates deception.
2. The desired media response: The media, in large part, dutifully took their cue and reported two deaths “from” measles in Lancaster County. The New York Times: “Two unvaccinated people in Pennsylvania have died from measles, as a large outbreak there continues to spread, the state’s Health Department reported on Tuesday morning.” ABC News: “BREAKING: Two people have died in Pennsylvania from measles, the state health department said Tuesday. Both unvaccinated.”
Importantly, the Governor, his administration, and other officials at the press conference did not correct these stories. The message had been conveyed as apparently it was intended.
Note – it is clear now that these stories are not true and any credible news source would retract them rather than just shrug and move on
.
3. The lack of transparency: Officials provided virtually no background information about these “measles-associated” deaths. DOH said to “protect the privacy of the individuals and their families, DOH will not release any additional details that could personally identify these individuals and their families,” however, they did release the medical information other than the fact that the two were “unvaccinated.”
Importantly, the law DOES allow information to be released that does not violate privacy – i.e. more demographic and background information. I contend it was very important to do this when making such a big announcement, which made national news. Officials provided no corroborating evidence to their claims.
4. The story unravels: I then conducted an investigation and learned from the Lancaster County Coroner that there were zero reported measles deaths in Lancaster County. (See earlier posts.) I announced this publicly to be transparent. Neither the Governor’s Office nor Penn Medicine replied to my questions. The law requires deaths from contagious disease such as measles to be reported to the coroner.
The coroner then released information that an infant had died during a home birth and the infant tested positive for measles but did not die of measles. (See Coroner statements to LNP, WGAL, and Philadelphia Inquirer.)
5. State officials then point to deceased infant: State officials, who previously refused to give any information on the two deceased individuals (other then they were unvaccinated) then pointed to the infant as one of the cases. (See DOH statement of 8/26/27.) PA Secretary of Health Dr. Debra Bogen released a statement on 8/26/27 stating that she “thoroughly reviewed the case investigation information and sadly can confirm that the were two measles-associated deaths in Lancaster County…”
6. County Coroner and Forensic Patholgist report contradicts state officials: The County Coroner and the Forensic Pathologist, both of whom have many years of experience, rule out the claim that the infant can be one of the cases. “Lancaster County Coroner Steve Diamantoni said the cause of death was not from the measles. The newborn died shortly after birth from a laceration of the spleen, although measle antibodies were present in postmortem testing…” (Coroner interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer.)
Moreover, the forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy indicated the cause of death was not related to measles (Coroner interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer), thus ruling out the theory that has been raised by some that the spleen was enlarged or otherwise susceptible to this injury due to measles exposure.
7. The death investigation: Importantly, the County Coroner is THE person who has statutory authority to rule on cause and manner of death in Pennsylvania. The Coroner said “state officials had not contacted him personally as of Wednesday about the two Lancaster County measles-associated deaths.” (Coroner interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer.) Because this was a home birth where the infant died, and because the County Coroner and the forensic pathologist were the ones investigating this case – and came to the conclusion it was not measles related, – what evidence did the PA Secretary of Health “thoroughly” review? (Statement of Dr. Debra Bogen on 8/26/27.) There would be no hospital records in this case. The Coroner investigation WAS the investigation. But they never personally consulted the Coroner. So what other evidence is she using to determine this death was “measles-associated” to such a degree that they could report to the world that this was one of two measles deaths in Lancaster County?
8. Deception: Also important is the fact that officials emphasized in the press conference that the two individuals were “unvaccinated.” Now, technically that would be true for a baby who was born at home and immediately died. But there would be no possible way for the baby to vaccinated. The framing of this, or underlying assertion in it, seemed to be to indicate that the deceased person was unvaccinated by choice. This shows intent on the part of officials to deceive. Announcing a technically true statement, but keeping secret the context which would show there was no possible way for the baby to have been vaccinated before its death is deliberately deceptive.
In the law, when trying cases in court, there is a jury instruction called “false in one, false in all.” It is the from the Latin term “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” It means that if you find a witness lied about a material fact, the jury may choose to reject the rest of the witness’s testimony. That seems appropriate here.
9. Deception: Similarly deceptive is the following - after my investigation revealed that the County Coroner has zero deaths from measles, PA DOH said: “Not all deaths are referred to a coroner under Pennsylvania law.” (DOH Statement on 8/26/26.) This is technically correct. For instance, an elderly patient who dies of natural causes would not necessarily be referred to the County Coroner. However, the law does require a death known or suspected to be due to contagious disease be reported to the coroner. Thus, the coroner should have a record of any measles death in Lancaster County.
Again, this is an apparent deliberate deception. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
10. The second case: We still know nothing about the second reported death. There has not even been an effort, to my knowledge, to explain this death or provide any details whatsoever – beyond “unvaccinated.” Again, under the law any death due to measles would be required to be reported to the County Coroner. He has no report.
Given the other apparent deception here it is fair to ask whether the facts of the second case have been materially manipulated similar to the first case, or whether the second case exists at all.
I think the people of Lancaster County deserve to have transparency over whether there were actually two measles deaths or not
