> "The clinical presentation of myopericarditis after vaccination was usually mild and temporary, with all cases fully recovering within 14 days." The sample s

> "The clinical presentation of myopericarditis after vaccination was usually mild and temporary, with all cases fully recovering within 14 days." The sample size of the study was far too small to estimate risk of serious illness, and, if you took the time to read the study, you would know that already. The point was to estimate the overall risk of myocarditis using a prospective study and compare it to contemporary estimates, and, unsurprisingly, the study showed that the risk may be much, much higher than currently reported. > "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote Thanks for the unneeded lecture! Notice that I: 1) supplied a study with data to back up my anecdote. 2) pointed out that there is actually a dearth of high-quality data which would prevent anyone from concluding anything in either direction based on data alone. 3) The prospective study I linked already addressed correlation versus causation. It looks to me like, when you see scientific evidence that contradicts your current biases, you reach for some very weak tools to try to justify ignoring the evidence. That's not surprising, frankly. Most people are that way.