Book traces three-century history of vaccine opposition to modern political divides
A Pox on Fools examines how anti-vaccine arguments have evolved from religious objections to political risk factors, with key developers expressing regret over the current decline in acceptance.
Stanley Plotkin, 93, played a pivotal role in the development of numerous vaccines throughout his career. He has recently expressed regret at his longevity, stating that “we’re going downhill” in reference to the current state of vaccine acceptance. This sentiment underscores the central thesis of Thomas Levenson’s new book, A Pox on Fools, which categorises anti-vaccine arguments into three distinct groups: true believers, grifters, and cynics.
Levenson, who teaches and has directed the Graduate Program in Science Writing at MIT, traces opposition from the 18th century to the present. The work notes that modern dissent in the United States is increasingly associated with Republican political affiliation. Levenson argues that while early opposition may have been understandable due to limited scientific knowledge, contemporary claims against vaccines are contradicted by germ theory and centuries of data.
In the early 18th century, inoculation against smallpox was introduced to Western societies after learning from Ottoman women and an enslaved African. Historical opposition included moral and religious arguments, such as the belief that interfering with disease was defying God’s will. This sentiment was later substituted with “nature” by Transcendentalists and Romantics in the 19th century, maintaining the implicit moral judgment that illness results from impure living.
The text discusses the philosophical and legal debate surrounding vaccine mandates, referencing the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts. The ruling relied on germ theory to justify mandates, establishing that individual liberties are not absolute when they infringe on the rights of others to health and safety. Although the concept of herd immunity was not yet developed at the time, the court’s decision laid the groundwork for public health interventions.
Since 2021, being a Republican in the US has become a “measurable risk factor for illness and death,” according to Levenson. The review highlights Levenson’s argument that while early opposition may have been understandable due to limited scientific knowledge, contemporary claims against vaccines are contradicted by germ theory and centuries of data. The review describes Levenson’s tone as measured and free of anger, despite the incendiary nature of the topic.
