Critical thinking & Five surprising moments in vaccine history

 Summary

Vaccines have been heavily debated for centuries, and continue to be a topic of debate today. Five surprising moments in vaccine history by Anna Rothschild—a  science presenter and journalist—highlights facts she uncovered about the history of vaccines as she was researching to answer other questions that have sparked public debate over the efficiency and safety of vaccines. The article discusses life before the first smallpox vaccine, the emergence of germ theory, and eventually what led to most people receiving the smallpox vaccine in the 1940s. 

In Rothschild’s three part video series: The Vaccines Project, Rothschild goes through the history of vaccinations and how they are made to address public distrust of vaccines. 

Part 1: Part one discusses the history of vaccines and how the first smallpox vaccine was discovered by using cowpox to build antibodies. Vaccinations educate your body on how to fight diseases without having to get you sick. While many were worried and anti-vaccination sentiments were prominent, smallpox was eventually eradicated due to most of the population getting vaccinated. 

Part 2: Part two discusses how more modern vaccinations are made, what are in them, and if they are harmful. Toxoids, weakened, or dead versions of diseases are used to prompt our body’s immune response. Additionally, additives to vaccines such as aluminum are something many anti-vaxxers find concerning. However, they are not harmful, serve the purpose of increasing vaccine efficacy, and are in many other things we consume or are in contact with frequently. This part concludes with other technology that exists today that allows for people to be vaccinated without coming into contact with these diseases at all—not even a weakened or nonpathogenic version. 

Part 3: This final part discusses how vaccines are tested and the continued controversy that follows them. Today, the FDA regulates vaccines to ensure they are carefully tested and monitored before being administered. It goes through various phases before it is ever given to the public, and it continues to be observed afterwards for long term effects. Papers linking vaccines to autism, for example, have previously been retracted for fraudulent data. The video then highlights the most severe risks possible from vaccines and compares them to the even more extreme risks of getting the diseases itself. Afterwards, it ends with the importance of vaccines even if we don’t see an incentive to do so, especially in an ever connected world. 

Critical Thinking & My Personal Findings

I’ve taken various pathophysiology courses in the past, so while none of the facts mentioned in the video series and article were completely new, it was still extremely informative. The video series was made extremely well and addresses public mistrust of vaccinations in a way that does not villainize those that may have not known better. 

The two of the many ways critical thinking was used in this article/series that I would like to highlight are (1) evaluating the vaccination system itself objectively to form a sound judgment on its importance and (2) understanding where public hesitancies come from to address them effectively. 

1. Rothschild herself does research on the topic of vaccines and meets with many experts in the field to better understand the topic of vaccinations itself. Using various sources without relying on a single one allows her to evaluate all of the information about vaccinations that are available. 

2. Getting to the root cause of vaccine hesitancy goes beyond simply telling people they are wrong or simply too uninformed about the topic. It’s about recognizing where these fears come from and addressing them in a direct manner that fosters the space for critical thinking in others. 

From the tone of this series I’ve gained a deeper understanding of the significance of employing critical thinking not just in my personal decision-making but also in persuading others in a fair manner. It's about respecting differing perspectives while presenting a well-reasoned argument backed by evidence and empathy. This approach fosters genuine dialogue and mutual understanding, rather than scare tactics or coercion, ultimately leading to more constructive outcomes for all involved.