Skip to content

ABC Tool

  • Home
  • About / Contect
    • PRIVACY POLICY
Grifters, cynics, and true believers: The family tree of vaccine opponents

Grifters, cynics, and true believers: The family tree of vaccine opponents

Posted on May 30, 2026 By safdargal12 No Comments on Grifters, cynics, and true believers: The family tree of vaccine opponents
Blog

Stanley Plotkin, 93, was instrumental in developing a number of vaccines over the course of his career. He recently said that he’s “beginning to regret having lived so long—because we’re going downhill.” How could we possibly have gotten here?

Maybe we’ve always been here. It turns out that the anti-vaccine arguments currently flooding the Internet have been around for as long as vaccines have. In his new book A Pox on Fools, Thomas Levenson breaks them down into three categories, as made clear in the book’s subtitle: “The True Believers, Grifters, and Cynics Who Convinced Us to Reject Vaccines.” The accusations these people levy against vaccines can just as easily be used to categorize the arguments themselves: They are wrong, they are bad, and they are intolerable.

Wrong

As Levenson tells it, in the early 18th century, a couple of forward-thinking Westerners learned about inoculations against smallpox from Ottoman women and an enslaved African. At that point, infectious disease was by far the leading cause of death, as it had been forever. In the 19th century, roughly 40 percent of babies died of infection before they turned 5.

(This is why the average lifespan back then was so low. It wasn’t that people didn’t live past their 30s; if they survived childhood, they largely did. It’s just that so, so many small children died that they dragged the average way down.)

When smallpox epidemics broke out in London and Boston in 1721, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and Cotton Mather initiated inoculation campaigns in their respective cities. Inoculation involved taking pus from a pock of someone with a not-very-severe case of smallpox, making a cut in the arm of the person to be inoculated, and rubbing the pus into the cut.

There was an immediate backlash. It was morally wrong, some claimed, to interfere with the divine ordination of who would sicken and die and who would not. Only God had that ability, and to thwart it was to defy God’s will. It was hubris and blasphemy. Levenson highlights how the subtext of this attitude was that contracting a highly infectious disease was divine punishment for sin and that the only way to avoid disease was to live a virtuous life.



Source link

Post Views: 3

Post navigation

❮ Previous Post: Microsoft under fire for threatening security researcher with criminal investigation
Next Post: Best Smart Home Gyms for 2026 ❯

You may also like

Xiaomi 17 Max to pack an 8,000mAh battery, 200MP main rear camera
Blog
Xiaomi 17 Max to pack an 8,000mAh battery, 200MP main rear camera
May 15, 2026
Huawei Enjoy 90m Plus goes official
Blog
Huawei Enjoy 90m Plus goes official
April 13, 2026
Scientists “bottle the sun” with a liquid battery that stores solar energy
Blog
Scientists “bottle the sun” with a liquid battery that stores solar energy
May 17, 2026
More than half of all Polymarket “long shot” bets on military action pay off
Blog
More than half of all Polymarket “long shot” bets on military action pay off
April 30, 2026

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Recent Posts

  • Listen to the new Steam Controller buzz to the tune of Doom
  • Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become world’s most valuable AI startup
  • $100 more for not much extra
  • Disney Plus: 30 Best TV Shows You Should Stream Right Now
  • PSA: Microsoft is killing SwiftKey’s Google account backups tomorrow. Do this to save your data

Recent Comments

No comments to show.

Archives

  • May 2026
  • April 2026

Categories

  • Blog

Copyright © 2026 ABC Tool.

Theme: Oceanly News by ScriptsTown