On March 11, Robert F Kennedy, Jr spewed a whole lot of bullshit at Sean Hannity while chomping on beef tallow fries at Steak N Shake. Kennedy once again invoked “freedom of choice” about the Covid-19 vaccine, as if millions of people were strapped down and forcibly injected against their will. He talked about all the mysterious vaccine-induced deaths that never seem to materialize but remain a bogeyman in the anti-vax imaginarium—one that will be on full display in front of Congress today. And he claimed that vaccines cause the diseases they aim to stop, plus a whole bunch of other ones cause why not.
Consciously or not, Kennedy is merely aping long-standing anti-vax rhetoric. To understand his playbook, we need look no further than British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, and biologist, Alfred Russel Wallace.
In 1898, Wallace published a pamphlet called Vaccination a Delusion; Its Penal Enforcement a Crime. The text attacks the findings of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, whose 1896 report became a landmark in public health history.
Their findings sound rather quaint today—or, if you’re a Wallace fan, conspiratorial:
The Commission concluded that vaccination against smallpox significantly reduced both incidence and severity of the disease, finding that vaccinated individuals were less likely to contract smallpox and, if they did, suffered less severe cases compared to the unvaccinated.
While acknowledging that vaccination was not entirely without risk, the Commission found serious adverse effects rare. The overall benefits of vaccination outweigh potential harms.
They acknowledged the role of improved sanitation and public health measures in reducing smallpox mortality, but maintained that vaccination was a crucial tool in controlling outbreaks.
They recognized widespread public dissatisfaction with the compulsory nature of vaccination laws, particularly the use of cumulative penalties, including repeated fines and imprisonments for non-compliance. They felt these measures were harsh and counterproductive and fostered resistance rather than compliance.
Their recommendations:
End cumulative penalties for non-compliance with vaccination laws.
Allow a “conscientious objection” clause, so parents who did not believe vaccination was safe or necessary could legally exempt their children from compulsory vaccination. They felt this would reduce social conflict and respect individual liberty.
They recommended improving the quality and safety of vaccination procedures, including better training for vaccinators and more sanitary practices.
I came across Wallace’s pamphlet while reading veteran science writer Arthur Allen’s 2007 book, Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver. His exhaustive history of vaccines takes the concerns of anti-vaxxers seriously, which proves to be a boon for those interested in the evolution of vaccination. Turns out there were good reasons to be skeptical in the 18th and 19th centuries: there were no regulated dosage amounts; early inoculations were sometimes taken directly from cow puss or other animal detritus; shipping was a a nightmare, leading to spoiled medications; an entire fake vaccine network mailed out junk chemicals that sickened people.
Yet as Allen shows, from Coton Mather and Edward Jenner forward—and from the centuries of inoculation practices in China and Africa that helped inform American practices—vaccination has always been an evolving science.
At the turn of the 20th century things got a lot more reliable. Thanks, regulations. The Royal Commission was a catalyst for better, safer practices.
Back to Wallace. A born naturalist, he’s most famous for independently conceiving the theory of evolution by natural selection, which he presented jointly with Charles Darwin in 1858. A public intellectual and social critic, he advocated for socialism, land nationalization, pacifism, and women’s suffrage. Wallace dabbled in spiritualism and believed a higher intelligence was involved in human development, which sometimes put him at odds with his scientific contemporaries—as did his views on vaccination.
In the early 1880s, Wallace became a prominent figure in the debate over compulsory smallpox vaccination in England. While he first viewed it as an issue of personal liberty, his stance evolved after examining data provided by anti-vaccination activists. Swimming in a sea of contrary opinion, he grew suspicious about their safety and efficacy.
His pamphlet reads like something that trickled down to Kennedy’s long-winded screeds:
Wallace doubted that vaccination significantly reduced smallpox mortality, arguing that improvements in hygiene and public sanitation, rather than vaccination, were responsible for the decline in smallpox cases.
He accused vaccination proponents of using misleading or false statistics. He conducted his own analyses, claiming that the data did not support the effectiveness of vaccines.
Wallace believed compulsory vaccination laws were a violation of individual rights and the sanctity of the home. He argued that such laws were a "gross interference with personal liberty" and that decisions about health should not be dictated by the state.
He pointed out that unsanitary vaccination practices could cause harm, and he believed vaccination was responsible for a significant number of deaths from related diseases.
Finally, Wallace saw the medical establishment’s support for vaccination as influenced by vested interests. He called for independent, objective evaluation of public health measures.
Wallace’s pamphlet helped shape the modern anti-vax movement, even though his ideas were already circulating for generations. Let’s call him a codifier. You can even hear echoes of Kennedy reverberating through the generations:
At the end of the main inquiry, as to the effect of vaccination on small-pox, the Commissioners adopt a very hesitating tone. They say that—“where vaccination has been most thorough the protection appears to have been greatest,” and that “the revaccination of adults appears to place them in so favourable a condition as compared with the unvaccinated.” But why say “appears” in both these cases?
Wallace should know better. Scientists qualify their statements out of an abundance of caution—and Wallace was a scientist. Fanaticism trails certainty.
Remember when Kennedy said autism “must be caused by an environmental exposure?" Not how science works. You can assume an exposure causes autism, but then you test it. Kennedy has no interest in such pettiness. He works backward from a conclusion.
Meanwhile, the US just hit its highest number of measles cases in 33 years, and we’re just over halfway through the year. The only other year remotely close was 2019, when measles ripped through predominantly unvaccinated Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in New York City. Now, residents of 16 states and counting are being infected with a completely preventable disease.
One of the most frustrating aspects of this entire debacle is how many breakthroughs are occurring right now. We’re looking at cancer vaccines in a near future. mRNA is a technology to celebrate. Instead, anti-vaxxers suck all the oxygen out of the proverbial room. They’re helping contribute to declining vaccination rates. As we know (but perhaps Kennedy doesn’t), infectious disease is one cause of chronic disease—that thing he’s supposedly focused on fighting. You can’t seriously address the latter without protecting against the former.
And so science keeps evolving while anti-vaxxers repeat centuries-old arguments. Wallace actually had some ground to publish his pamphlet, given he was a scientist and vaccinations were dicier at the time. Kennedy has no such excuses. His out-of-touch arguments fall flat in the face of generations of advancements in knowledge.
The stubborn never cease easily, however. Wallace ends his pamphlet by writing,
Absolute and immediate abolition is the only rational course open to us. Every day the vaccination laws remain in force parents are being punished, infants are being killed. An Act of a single clause will repeal these vile laws; and I call upon every one of our legislators to consider their responsibilities as the guardians of the liberties of the English people, and to insist that this repeal be effected without a day’s unnecessary delay.
The good news is that Wallace didn’t have political power to enact such legislation. The bad news is that Kennedy does.
A lot of those is the Socialist movement of this time opposed Vaccination and frowned upon the state dictates on the individual. One need look no further than George Benard Shaw for such an example. We are products of our times but the likes of RFK Jr are throwbacks to a courser era.