Between April and December of 1721, over six thousand colonists in Boston contracted a world-wide feared viral infection known as smallpox. After the occurrence of over nine hundred deaths in Boston alone, the infestation of this disease in the colony became known as the Smallpox Epidemic. During the epidemic, it became widely acknowledged that survivors of smallpox were immune to later occurrences of the disease.
This led to the consideration of the medical practice of inoculation, the deliberate introduction of the living smallpox virus to cause a mild case of the disease that would provide immunity. In contrast to the claims of its creators, inoculation was not always successful and did result in a small number of deaths in patients, but the fallacies of its “killing nature” were ultimately put to rest once news of its uncommon success began to spread throughout the colony.
Although it elicited heated debates between the fearful colonists and medical professionals, the preventative medical process of inoculation granted a better chance of survival, an emotional escalation of hope, and a starting point for the conductivity of superior medical techniques during the Smallpox Epidemic. When Boston residents first exhibited signs of the viral attack, medical entrepreneurs who supported inoculation proclaimed their techniques as the most reasonable elixir available with the possibility of protecting and invigorating the healthy and unhealthy colonists.
Matthew Niederhuber explains that “inoculations were significantly less fatal than the naturally occurring virus” (6) and is proved correct by a separate source that states “if a person was deliberately infected in this way, they found that their symptoms were milder and their survival rate much better than those of someone who ‘naturally’ contracted the disease” (“The Boston Smallpox Epidemic” 2). Inoculation provided an unhealthy individual relinquishment from the horrible attacks the disease posed on the body, which, in turn, ultimately led to the survival of the colonist.
Cotton Mather and Zabdiel Boylston were both strong advocates for inoculation and started to treat those who accepted the process once the fallacies of its failure were put to rest. The procedure was certainly a risk but those who survived were immune for the rest of their lives and “[e]ncouraged by this success, Boylston inoculated 247 more persons, 6 of whom still died as a result of the disease” (“Colonial Culture” 2). The colonists began to realize that the process of inoculation was their best chance of survival during a time where no other medical procedures were available.
Boylston’s ideas elicited one of the most heated debates in the history of the colony of Boston and, as shown in a novel from the standpoint of a colonist during the epidemic, their reaction to the procedure proved that it was greatly feared by the common people (Coss 4). Boylston continued to inoculate anyone who trusted the procedure and word of its success began to spread to the ears of healthy and unhealthy individuals infected by the disease itself, or the fear of it (“Colonial Culture” 2).
The fear of the procedure was starting to diminish causing a rapid growing amount of demand, which was the leading cure at the time of the spread of the disease. Inoculation served as a great influence on the continued prosperity of the colony of Boston during the viral attack of the Smallpox Epidemic. Colonists were very weary of inoculation until it became known to the common person that it was the only successful form of preventative treatment, which ultimately led to an increase in hope and prosperity in Boston during the continuing attack of smallpox.
It is explained that “[u]ltimately, this helped to disprove the opposition’s fear that such a technique would only facilitate the spread of disease” (Niederhuber 6). This expedited the start of a better future for the colonists now that some form of treatment had been introduced to fight the disease while they were fighting in the Revolutionary War. In contrast, some colonists argued that the procedure was not safe and only lead to death, but historic writer Adam Wernick refutes this idea by stating that it was an immaturely developed process:
Today, with our understanding of infection and hygiene, the idea of injecting pus into an open wound sounds repellent, to say nothing of dangerous. Yet it was this very procedure, known as inoculation, which saved many lives during the severe smallpox outbreak chronicled in “The Fever of 1721” and led to events that would affect US history. (3) This contributes to the idea that the procedure saved many lives during the time of the disease and was not something to be feared by those in need of relief from the infection.
A history review article states that “[m]any of Boston’s residents may have recalled a much different enemy that year” (“The Boston Smallpox Epidemic” 1). During the viral attack, the colonists of Boston were also fighting in the Revolutionary War and many of the soldiers were instilled with a sense of positivity and strength by remembering that they survived the disease, so they believed they could endure anything. Inoculation granted the colonists a sense of endurance to fight two attackers, one viral and one tyrannical, during the time of the Smallpox Epidemic.
Inoculation was an amateur preventative medical process that had a positive influence on the minds of medical entrepreneurs and served as the starting point for the creation of vaccination and other superior medical techniques. The successful portions of it were the basis for the development of the safer method of vaccination that reduced the possibility of inducement to the threats the disease posed (Niederhuber 7).
Neiderhuber also states that “annual deaths from the disease were reduced to only a fraction of what they were less than a hundred years prior” (7). Vaccination provided a better chance of survival to the colonists and stopped the infestation of the disease throughout the colony of Boston. Vaccination also took the place of inoculation as the leading cure in the colony to battle smallpox and was the initial start to the promotion of superior medical techniques.
As stated in a research project of smallpox disease, “[t]here is no cure for smallpox” but vaccination served as a form of advanced treatment based on the amateur structures of inoculation (Drake 11). Vaccination was developed from the basics of the process of the original procedure created by Boylston which was the example for the productivity of new ation was the starting point for the conductivity of more accurate preventative medical techniques that are applied to both already known and new viral attacks.
The Smallpox Epidemic in Boston raised acrimonious debates over the practice of inoculation between the colonists and medical entrepreneurs of the time. Many healthy and unhealthy individuals were fearful of the process and the outcomes it claimed. However, it had nothing but a positive effect on the colonies by granting a better chance of survival and contributing to the prosperity of life in Boston by reducing death and infection rates.
Before inoculation, there was no concrete method to stop the viral attack smallpox imposed, so this process instilled a sense of hope in the colonists that they needed against their unfamiliar opponent. It led to the development of high quality treatment such as vaccination, and also served as the starting point for later advancements in preventative medicine. Inoculation had an indisputable beneficial effect on the prosperity of Boston during the Smallpox Epidemic.
