I said no one had any objections to it, 20% of the population didn't refuse the polio vaccine and refuse to give it to their kids (which is the topic of discussion, if you need reminding again).

Of course they had objections to it, don't be ridiculous. You think something like that happened and everyone just shrugged and said, hey, no big deal? The reason vaccine companies are immune from legal liability is because after what happened at Cutter Labs there were floods of litigation and a jury found against the vaccine makers, which more or less killed off the vaccine business. From a review of the book:

"Dr. Offit also explores how, as a consequence of the tragedy, one jury's verdict set in motion events that eventually suppressed the production of vaccines already licensed and deterred the development of new vaccines that hold the promise of preventing other fatal diseases"

A big part of what drives vaccine refusal today is awareness that vaccination campaigns have a history of being so dangerous the producers cannot survive in the open market under the normal rules.

Also, the topic of discussion is actually the original article about misinformation and the internet, in general. It was you who insisted on bringing up vaccines in an unrelated thread.

> Of course they had objections to it, don't be ridiculous.

Not to the point where 20% of the population refused it, which is the point of this discussion. Major news networks didn't run opinion voices lying about the safety and safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Comparing that era to this one is misinformed.