The Inoculation Controversy in Boston: 1721-1722

Blake, John B.

doi:10.2307/362582

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This controversy over inoculation was a spontaneous controlled experiment, although it was not called by that name at the time. Cotton Mather (1663–1728) and Zabdiel Boylston (1676–1766) introduced inoculation into Boston, and they pointed out that among the inoculated, the death rate was one in 60, but among those infected without inoculation, the death rate was one in six (Barret 1942, Blake 1952, Cassedy 1969:132–136, Finger 2006:52–56). Similarly, in Yorkshire, England, Dr. Thomas Nettleton found that only one of 61 people inoculated had died of smallpox, whereas 20% of those infected and not inoculated died (Nettleton 1722, Miller 1957, Rusnock 2002, Finger 2006:56–57).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 31: Studies of Animal Populations during the 1700s

Egerton

2009

Bulletin Ecologic Soc America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 31: Studies of Animal Populations during the 1700s

Egerton

2009

Bulletin Ecologic Soc America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…168 Even though some physicians saw the need for quarantine measures-for example, social taboos often seemed to "prohibit notification and isolation procedures", 168 especially regarding infectious diseases like cholera, yellow fever and typhus. 169 In terms of the flow of medical ideas, it seems ironic that as allopathy became spellbound by a very materialist doctrine (germ theory), the same doctrine sounded a very different homeopathic bell, pushing homeopathy in a completely different direction-reinforcing metaphysical and nebulous ideas and techniques (miasms, isopathy, and high potencies). This difference in direction probably arose more from big differences in their respective worldviews, 170 than from differences in technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Triumph of the light—isopathy and the rise of transcendental homeopathy, 1830–1920

Morrell¹

2003

Med Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern homeopathy dwells in a nebulous and metaphysical realm into which few non-homeopathic doctors would venture; a very different world and speaking a language virtually incomprehensible to science. Fundamentally incompatible systems, their highly sophisticated conceptions of “disease” and “cure” are sufficiently divergent to prevent their peaceful coexistence. Can the best of modern scientific medicine be reconciled with this recently resuscitated “medical Lazarus”? Could a creative dialogue be established? This article explores the development of modern homeopathic thinking between 1830 and 1920, charting a discourse within homeopathy initiated in the 1830s with reference to use of “higher potencies” and disease products (“nosodes”). Incorporation of disease products into the homeopathic mainstream killed off and supplanted the earlier allopathic version of homeopathy, encouraged the use of higher potencies, and legitimated a widespread adoption of metaphysical views within the movement, here termed “transcendental homeopathy”.Long before the birth of bacteriotherapy ... homeopathic physicians carried out investigation in their own way, and discovered similar medicines, and effected numerous cures ... Hydrophobium was proved in 1833 ... 50 years before Pasteur ... many others followed.1

show abstract

“…Surgeons also made important statistical research advances. Boston surgeon Zabdiel Boylston compared mortality statistics to argue that inoculation with smallpox was safer than acquiring the disease naturally (6 deaths among 242 inoculations vs 844 deaths among 5889 natural cases during a 1721–1722 epidemic) 7 . Nineteenth-century surgeons quantified outcomes of amputations, surgical drainage of empyema, and tracheostomy for croup 6 .…”

Section: The Long Search For Rigor In Surgical Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation and Tribulation in the History of Randomized Controlled Trials in Surgery

Bothwell

Jones

2019

Annals of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite persistent critiques of the rigor of surgical research, surgeons have actually pursued careful empirical studies for centuries. Their work has enriched not only surgical science but also the development of evidencebased medicine. From conducting landmark controlled trials, to using statistics, alternate patient allocation, randomization, and sham controls, surgeons have long embraced innovative trial approaches and played important roles in the development of key methods of RCTs. However, historical contexts unique to surgery have shaped the implementation of RCTs in this field. Unlike the history of pharmaceuticals, in which substantial research funding has been devoted to testing new drugs before their approval, surgical trials have followed a different trajectory. New operations have repeatedly come into wide use in the absence of RCTs. On many occasions, when established procedures have become controversial, surgeons have then marshaled the resources to conduct RCTs reassessing the operations. Such trials have triggered powerful debates in which proponents of surgical RCTs battled against ingrained practices and preferences. In such cases, RCTs often were not decisive factors in determining the fate of surgical practices but supporting tools that followed and reflected changes in surgical judgment already underway. Surgical trialists also have encountered specific, recurring challenges, especially with the methodological and ethical complexity of blinded and sham-controlled trials. The history of surgical trials thus reveals major contributions from surgeons to the advancement of evidence-based medicine, as well as ongoing challenges. Strengthened and systematic trial support could advance the future of surgical RCTs.

show abstract

The Inoculation Controversy in Boston: 1721-1722

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

A History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 31: Studies of Animal Populations during the 1700s

A History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 31: Studies of Animal Populations during the 1700s

Triumph of the light—isopathy and the rise of transcendental homeopathy, 1830–1920

Innovation and Tribulation in the History of Randomized Controlled Trials in Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About