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

The Transcendentalists and Romantics substituted “nature” for “God” in the mid-19th century, but the argument has remained basically the same: vaccines are an affront to the “natural” world, and clean living is all you need to stay healthy. The implicit moral judgment remains, even without God: if you get sick, it must be because you ate/drank/breathed/wore something that wasn’t pure enough. The immense strides in public hygiene and sanitation that preceded the heyday of vaccine development certainly did curb the spread of infection and increase lifespans, but clean living will not help you fight off an infection if you’re exposed to a pathogen as effectively as a vaccine will. The argument that it would ignore most of human history and what we know about microbiology and immunology. But it sounds quite compelling, especially when the modern world around us is so scary and hard to understand. And especially when almost no one alive today still remembers just how many child-sized coffins were involved in the halcyon pre-vaccine days when nature got to take its course. Vaccines are unnecessary because our bodies can cure themselves, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his cronies claim. But they go beyond that and say they are actively harmful–and certainly more harmful than the diseases they are designed to prevent. This is an alluring argument to many, since the negative effects of vaccines are apparent (shots hurt for a moment, and you might get a sore arm or fever). In contrast, the lack of many small children dying from infectious diseases is harder to notice. Because of the spectacular success of vaccines, we take the lack of those deaths for granted. Vaccines can and have caused serious adverse effects (but not autism) in specific populations. And certain vaccines are not safe for certain subsets of people—infants, the elderly, or the immunocompromised. But this is not an argument that healthy people shouldn’t get them; rather, it’s an argument precisely for why healthy people should get them. They keep circulating levels of pathogens low enough to protect those who cannot get vaccinated themselves, which brings us to the final argument. This last thread has nothing to do with whether or not vaccines are effective, necessary, or safe. It is not a biological argument but a visceral, philosophical one. Because it is not anti-vaccine; it is anti-vaccine mandates. It is about the responsibilities that our governments have to us and that we have to each other, and about the inevitable clash between an individual’s needs and wants and the good of society as a whole. The Supreme Court case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts lays out the two schools of thought. Boston and Cambridge enacted vaccine mandates during the smallpox epidemic of 1901, and Jacobson refused. He argued that “a compulsory vaccination law is… hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best.” But the majority ruled that our liberties are not absolute. The Constitution does not allow us to do whatever we want—it is there to protect everyone’s rights and freedoms, and that entails sometimes curtailing each person’s rights and freedoms. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan summarized: “Liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others.” The concept of herd immunity hadn’t been developed yet, but the court’s decision still relied on germ theory; refusing vaccination endangers those around you, and your liberty of bodily autonomy must be limited because insisting upon it infringes on everyone else’s right to health—and possibly life itself. Facts and figures can demonstrate how many lives have been saved by vaccines. But they will never be an effective counterargument to “the government can’t tell me what to inject into my kid.” The only potential argument to sway someone who fervently believes that is appealing to their sense of solidarity—to the obligations that every member of society has to every other, to the sacrifices that everyone must make to ensure that society is safe for all. Alas, that sense of solidarity… does not seem to be at its peak in the US right now. As Levenson makes clear, these three arguments have been plied for as long as vaccines have. But there are a couple of key differences now. The first is that 300 years ago, people who claimed that vaccines were either ineffective or harmful could be forgiven for thinking they had a point. But we now have germ theory to explain exactly how vaccines work and centuries of data showing how infection and death rates from every disease have plummeted once a vaccine was introduced to counter it. We know better. The second is that now, arguments against vaccines tend to be touted by only one particular subgroup of people: Republicans. And that has come with predictable consequences. “In the US from 2021 onward,” Levenson writes, “being a Republican has become a measurable risk factor for illness and death.” Levenson teaches in and has directed the Graduate Program in Science Writing at MIT, so you might expect his writing to be clear, concise, engaging, and informative, with an effective mix of statistics and anecdotes. You’d be right. And despite the incendiary nature of his topic, his tone remains measured throughout; he never descends into anger or ranting. What does come through is his anguish that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s lies and policies will cause kids to needlessly be sickened by and die from diseases we have the tools to prevent.