It's not apples-to-oranges, it's apples-to-less-carefully-selected-apples. The Hoeg paper mentions a broader case-finding method, but "We otherwise maintained t

It's not apples-to-oranges, it's apples-to-less-carefully-selected-apples. The Hoeg paper mentions a broader case-finding method, but "We otherwise maintained the specificity of our analysis by requiring the same objective findings of cardiac injury used by the CDC to identify probable cases (Supplement 1) and excluded cases without sufficient objective evidence of cardiac-specific injury." The 7 cases in the blog are highlighted to demonstrate that this is clearly not true; they have not excluded cases without sufficient evidence of cardiac-specific injury in line with the CDC. So no, that criticism is not unfounded. You've dismissed as apples-to-oranges the 2x difference in numbers between the two publications using VAERS data, then linked a third paper using different data (which isn't available in full; who knows what their inclusion criteria were) that shows another 2x discrepancy as evidence that the findings are in general concurrence? Would you have me believe that's not actually an apples-to-oranges comparison? Why not this paper[1] out of Canada the gives a rate of 97/million for the group most closely matching your 370/million number? Or this one[2] out of Israel with 137/million. [1]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v... [2]https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730