The article mentions that about 9000 adverse reactions have been reported, some of them very serious reactions. Of cours it doesn't mention how many of them were serious, not how many people have been given the drug.
I'm guessing it seems safe to assume that people are far less likely to have an adverse reaction to this drug than to peanuts or shellfish. There are very few substances to which someone doesn't have a serious adverse reaction.
I'm sure the drug doesn't immunize against all versions of the virus that have been linked to cancer. I however, suspect they picked the two that are most common.
What is so notable about this article is how obviously it attempts to skew the facts by leaving out important details.
You would think that on a topic so important as people's children's health that someone that was truly concerned about those children's health would try and present an accurate picture of the risks and benefits of this drug so that the parents can make an informed decision about how best to protect the health of their children.
The author doesn't appear to have that kind of integrity.
Politicians with connections to Merck pushed through attempts to REQUIRE girls to take it. That’s a lot of sales. The question is whether there was corruption involved in the decision and why the legislature was not permitted an opportunity to debate the measure.