Talk:Samuel Willard (physician)

message: There are some problems with this page. 
I believe the Samuel Willard mentioned in conjunction with "witch trials" (I believe the writer means "witchcraft trials,"  which is how the 1692 event and others were usually described) was the minister of Third Church (Old South) in Boston, and his activities were actually in support of those who opposed the trials, which is the opposite of what the sentence seems to imply. In fact Rev. Willard of Old South assisted three accused individuals in their escape to New York, bringing horses to the jail (just down the street, on what is now Court Street, from his church). He was also the minister who read Judge Samuel Sewall's statement of repentence for his involvement with the Court of Oyer and Terminer five years later. (I was not aware that he was originally from Concord; it might be good to verify that statement as well.)
All of that doesn't need to go in the text, of course, but a footnote to that effect, for clarity, and a clean-up of the rest of the text would be well-advised. Likewise, a footnote to the cause of the following and a further related text clean-up might not be amiss:
In addition, the writer does not seem to understand the actual situation with the inoculation trials of 1721, initiated by Rev. Cotton Mather (who also practiced as a competent physician, and coined the phrase "Angelical Conjunction," for other ordained clergy who used their knowledge of Latin and their expected bedside visits for the good of the sick in their churches--see Patricia Watson's book by this title) and Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, to test the efficacy of variolation, or the introduction of smallpox matter into the skin to evoke a weak form of the disease that would arouse the production of antibodies and prevent a more severe case, thus saving the life of the inoculated individual. 
This was not "just" a New Englad practice; the writer seems to be implying that it was somehow a "backwoods" practice not up to date with those elsewhere. The opposite is in fact the case; New England was ahead of Old England in this matter, a fact recognized in the literature.
Innoculation's history is well established in several sources; it was tried on six prisoners in London just prior to the more extensive and revealing field trials in Boston in the same year, 1721. For their results--of 200 individuals inoculated, less than 5 died, whereas the expected death toll could have been 35-60 had they had a full-blown case of the disease acquired naturally--Mather and Boylston were inducted into the FRS (I believe this is recounted in the page on Mather; simplest might be to cross-reference it) 
The practice of inoculation, although still questioned and admittedly less safe than Jenner's later substitution of the weaker strain of cowpox, which also conferred immunity while offering even less risk of contracting a full case of smallpox, became a common one throughout the Western world. (In fact, a Harvard MD and teacher of natural science, Benjamin Waterhouse, introduced jennerian vaccination to North American and the Harvard Contaway medical library still owns the engraved silver snuffbox sent from Jenner to Waterhouse.)
I'd say, if these errors and omissions are notable in the article already, it needs a good go-through. There are probably other issues that should be more accurately addressed, and the writing is very uneven as well. It functions well enough as a stub, perhaps, but I wouldn't leave it in its present form.
168.122.12.22 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled