Part of the problem is that the title is addressing a symptom, rather than the cause. Indeed, $6m (and $15m, as noted) is chump change. More importantly: why did 72,000 people pay for this snake oil? It's very good muck-raking journalism because it offers so much information on the networks, money, prescriptions, the anti-vax campaigners, the Pro-Trump doctors, the Twitter disinformation campaigns, and other aspects of these outcomes of political disinformation about a simple vaccine, all for the sake of political gain (not the health benefits) from right-wing voters who want to believe in lies so much that they now have difficulty identifying lies from these very sophisticated, expensive anti-vax campaigns. They're not meant to make money, as the costs of the campaigns must run in the 100s of millions. They're meant to persuade potential voters to mistrust all aspects of government, so that the loudest authoritarian (regardless of his lies) can get votes. Long gone are the Eisenhower Conservatives (with whom I occasionally agreed), now replaced by Big Corp and its lackies, pushing pump and dump schemes (inc. crypto, insider trading, money laundering, small goverenment, deregulation, chaos, COVID/lockdowns, online commerce, reduction of small businesses, lower wages, healthcare reduction, &c). Perhaps there's a shorter way to say all of this, but essentially: the title and article refer to research on one aspect of the outcomes and the impacts of anti-vax disinformation propaganda. It merely scratches the surface of the overall problem.