Book traces anti-vaccine arguments to 18th century origins

A new book by Thomas Levenson, “A Pox on Fools,” traces the modern anti-vaccine movement’s arguments back to the very beginning of inoculation. The book categorizes vaccine opponents into three types: true believers, grifters, and cynics, and labels their accusations as wrong, bad, and intolerable. As a historical example, the book describes smallpox inoculation campaigns in London and Boston in 1721 led by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and Cotton Mather. Those campaigns faced immediate backlash rooted in religious objections, with critics claiming that interfering with who got sick defied God’s will. The article also quotes 93-year-old vaccine developer Stanley Plotkin, who expressed regret over living long enough to see a decline in vaccine acceptance. The article notes that infectious disease was once the leading cause of death, with roughly 40 percent of babies dying before age 5 in the 19th century.

What’s reported

Stanley Plotkin, 93, helped develop multiple vaccines and recently said he regrets living so long because “we’re going downhill.”
Thomas Levenson’s new book “A Pox on Fools” breaks anti-vaccine arguments into three categories: true believers, grifters, and cynics.
The book categorizes the accusations against vaccines as wrong, bad, and intolerable.
In 1721, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and Cotton Mather started smallpox inoculation campaigns in London and Boston.
Backlash at the time included claims that inoculation was morally wrong, hubris, and blasphemy because it interfered with divine will.
In the 19th century, roughly 40 percent of babies died of infection before age 5.

Open questions

The article does not specify how the three categories (true believers, grifters, cynics) specifically apply to modern figures or arguments.

Key figures

Stanley Plotkin – vaccine developer
Thomas Levenson – author of “A Pox on Fools”
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu – 18th century inoculation advocate
Cotton Mather – 18th century inoculation advocate

Sources: Ars Technica

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *