Here's how Ben Franklin went from anti-vaxxer to advocate:
As the epidemic raged on, a Boston physician announced that he could expose people to the virus in a way that would give them a much milder, less dangerous infection – and then protect them from smallpox for the rest of their lives.
One reader even tossed a lit firebomb through Mather’s sitting room window in the wee hours of the morning. A breeze put out the fuse just in time, allowing Mather to read the attached note: “I’ll inoculate you with this,” it said.Why did people, including Ben Franklin and his older brother, have such strong feelings about an attempt to prevent the spread of a deadly illness? As
I wrote previously,“Racism is a big part of the answer. Documents from the time describe inoculation as a"heathen practice" brought by people from Africa, and that didn't sit well with the white Puritans of New England. Many also saw it as defiance of God's will; keep in mind, these were the same Puritans who believed that only a chosen few were pre-destined to go to Heaven, and everyone else was out of luck. So it's not too surprising that many of them also believed that if the Good Lord wanted you to die of smallpox, you should just take your smallpox and like it.
“Others saw inoculation as too risky. And to be fair, rubbing infected pus in an open wound does sound a little crazy.”What changed Franklin’s mind? First of all, he was (among many other things) a scientist. Decades after the 1721 smallpox outbreak, with more data to support variolation’s safety and effectiveness, it made sense for Franklin to change his mind. headtopics.com
Boylston managed to inoculate 248 people in Boston during the epidemic, and only 6 of them died of smallpox. Of the nearly 6,000 Bostonians who caught smallpox “the natural way,” 844 died. In other words, if you lived in Boston during the epidemic, you had to choose between a 2.1% chance of dying from inoculation or a 14.3% chance of dying of smallpox if you caught it, not to mention the much larger chance of scarring or blindness.
Mather published those figures as part of his campaign for inoculation, and today his work is considered the first time comparative data has been used to evaluate a medical treatment.It’s worth mentioning that 2% is an unthinkably high fatality rate for a modern vaccine; under most imaginable circumstances, including the Covid-19 pandemic, the Food and Drug Administration would never approve a vaccine that killed 1 patient in 50. Most drug companies wouldn’t even bother applying.
By the late 1700s, in fact, doctors in Britain had developed safer methods of inoculation which cut the risk considerably.Edward Jenner’s introduction of a vaccine, which used cowpox instead of smallpox to produce immunity, offered an even more drastic improvement. In 1721 Boston, however, people could only choose the least of a risky set of options: get inoculated or just hope to avoid the virus.
“If there was no risk of smallpox then ‘do nothing’ made sense. Inoculation became a relevant option when smallpox arrived in town,” wrote M. Best and colleagues ina 2007 paper(which is still an excellent look at the basic ways in which we evaluate the risks and benefits of medical options).“If [transmission] risk was high enough, then at some point inoculation with its 2% mortality would be justified.” headtopics.com
The problem is that humans, in general, aren’t very good at risk assessment. At the peak of Boston’s epidemic, you’d have about a 50% chance of catching smallpox “in the natural way.” Would you be willing to flip a coin if the result would determine whether or not you got smallpox, which had a 1 in 7 chance of killing you and a much higher chance of leaving you disfigured or blind?
Probably not – but many people in 1721 Boston probably thought, just like many people do today, “I’ll just be careful. It won’t happen to me.” If you’ve already mentally sorted yourself into the 50% of people who won’t catch smallpox anyway, because you’re too careful or too pious or too lucky, then inoculation probably seems like an unnecessary risk.
For Franklin, however, the difference between 2% and 14.3% came to mean everything. In 1736, he watched his four-year-old son Francis die of smallpox. The loss – and the feelings of guilt that accompanied the terrible grief – changed Franklin’s views on inoculation.Read more: Forbes »
This video of a 'dancing' tortoise will make your day - CNN Video
CNN News, delivered. Select from our newsletters below and enter your email to subscribe.
Pretty weird you wait until the final paragraph to actually tell us: “In 1736, he watched his four-year-old son Francis die of smallpox. The loss – and the feelings of guilt that accompanied the terrible grief – changed Franklin’s views on inoculation.” Saved you all a click How are slave owners activists?
Please stop trying to talk anti-vaxxers into getting a Covid vaccine until those of us who want one get ours. I'm not eligible to get a vaccine till summer. If brainwashed conspiracy theorists choose not to get a vaccine, I can get mine sooner. More good news please(((