They cite their sources! Many of the points they make are based on case studies, and some appear to be misinterpreted. But importantly, they cite their sources

They cite their sources! Many of the points they make are based on case studies, and some appear to be misinterpreted. But importantly, they cite their sources so we actually look at the science, and as such are a shining example of what good science journalism looks like. That said, I think they accidentally omitted a couple words or edited something in a way that it no longer makes sense: > According to some reports, as many as 7 percent of deaths from COVID-19 may result from myocarditis. (Others feel that estimate is too high.) The arrhythmia that sometimes accompanies it is also worrisome, and researchers have found that to be fairly common among COVID-19 patients. In J.N.’s case, he noticed his heart racing on several occasions into the 130 beats per minute range. And while the prevalence of this in virus patients is not known exactly, a study found that ventricular arrhythmias occurred in 78 percent of patients without COVID-19, with up to 30 percent of them experiencing serious arrhythmias 27 months later. I think that latter sentence was based on "Peretto et al32 reported in a recent study that 78.7% of myocarditis patients exhibited some form of ventricular arrhythmia" from Siripanthong et al[1]. "78% of patients with myocarditis present with arrhythmias" makes a lot more sense than "78% of patients without COVID-19 experience arrhythmias". Still, I think it's important to note, once more, that this is science journalism that actually cites and links to its sources, and as such should be encouraged. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199677/#bib32 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199677/#bib32 -- yes they're citing a researcher citing something else, but the Peretto et al study appears not to be available without a paywall so that's understandable