Thomas Levenson’s new book A Pox on Fools maps three strands of anti‑vaccine sentiment—True Believers, Grifters and Cynics—back to the era of small‑pox inoculation. He shows that early opponents framed inoculation as blasphemy, arguing divine will should decide who falls ill. The moral framing later shifted from God to “nature,” but the core claim persists in Western societies through the centuries.

Levenson notes that the “bad” argument—vaccines are unnecessary or even harmful—has lingered since the 18th century, riding on visible side effects while the dramatic drop in child mortality remained invisible. Modern data indisputably show vaccines cut disease deaths, though rare adverse events still occur. Those exceptions, he argues, actually reinforce the need for widespread immunization to protect vulnerable groups.

The final strand, “intolerable,” concerns mandates rather than biology. Citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Levenson explains the Supreme Court’s ruling that individual liberty yields when it threatens public health. He observes that today the anti‑mandate voice aligns overwhelmingly with Republicans, turning party affiliation into a measurable risk factor for illness. The book thus links historic rhetoric to current partisan vaccine gaps.