Here's a meta analysis from 2023 about the effectiveness of the vaccine with around ~3 million subjects from the different studies: https://www.frontiersin.org/

Here's a meta analysis from 2023 about the effectiveness of the vaccine with around ~3 million subjects from the different studies: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1113156/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.... A meta analysis about the vaccines' safety record with around ~99 million subjects over different analysed studies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2... The conclusion from the article you shared also says the resulting myocarditis doesn't seem to be alarming: > mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient More common than previously thought doesn't equate to your claim of "myocarditis through the roof". As much as I liked to watch Dr. John Campbell in the beginning of the pandemic I verge on trusting more meta analysis covering dozens to hundreds of studies than a single person reviewing a few studies. If a slight increase in transient myocarditis gives me a huge boost in immune response against COVID I will take the transient myocarditis 100% of the time (which I had as a side-effect of the vaccine, got no complications from that after being assessed).