A casual perusal of social media will demonstrate an active debate about vaccines in contemporary society. Many cite (relatively rare) side effects and disregard abundant scientific studies about vaccines’ effectiveness; these people argue that they should have a “choice” over whether to admit a vaccine in their bodies. They do not heed arguments that herd immunity protects the herd better – that eschewing vaccines hurt us all.

In this sociological work, Larson addresses how these rumors take root and why they persist. She looks at the historical roots of these arguments, which date back to the earliest vaccines by Jenner. These arguments have only multiplied in the cyber age, where social media blindly amplifies any message, regardless of its truthfulness. Despite the overwhelming support of science and evidence, vaccines questions persist, and Larson finds that this persistence stems from people feeling “talked down to” by the medical establishment.

At times, this book can appear encyclopedic – that is, it describes event after event without a corresponding narrative of ideas. It tends to report and list instead of expositing and dissecting. However, Larson does a thorough job and makes a broad argument. She argues that social media tend to make rumors a social “contagion” that quickly take root among people. This contagion combines with existing belief systems (like religion or politics) to take abiding root.

I would also like to see Larson dive deeper into the psychology of anti-vaccine sentiment. Why are people so opposed to something that mainstream science has reported as good and that human history has shown to be good? “Natural” anti-modernism has wedded itself to modern media to distort reality. Larson shows instance after instance where this takes place, but I wonder why she doesn’t dive deeper about how it persists.

Overall, this is a relevant topic worthy of academic exploration. It’s nice to have all the history compiled in one place. However, the theoretical analysis is somewhat lacking. I’d like to see Larson take more courage to share her individual perspective while poring through these events. The policy proposals, abbreviated though they appear, are not presented until the very end of the book. Why not empower the reader to see the application earlier? This topic is important and needs a direct voice to address the reading public. ( )