Huxley talked about how in the future, the State wouldn't control the population with force, but with happy pills etc. There is a difference between prozac and the flu vaccine, obviously, but I'll get there. I forget if it was Wells or Bertrand Russell warning in one of his books about "injections and injunctions" in the future, how with the power of technology in the future, if power got into the wrong hands, they could force vaccinate the population with whatever type of drugs they wanted to and completely weaken the population to dominate it.
Meanwhile I've had friends who were conspiracy theorists who quoted some of these people's books out of context to say they were promoting a conspiracy to control the population etc etc, rather than warning against it. There are some passages that even in context seem to suggest that technological power in the future will be so great and dangerous, human society does need to be controlled for its own safety to a certain extent, but not so much that great artists can't emerge and there can't be freedom to create great art, something like that. A balance if you will.
So I have seen so much taken out of context, I have seen so much muddled up, I would like to ask, what did the "fathers" of these Dystopian books really believe about vaccination? Did they think it was an evil tool destined to be abused in an evil way by dictators, that needed to be warned against, or did they think it was a tool for the good that they thought of as separate and different from the happy pills Huxley warned about in Brave New World?