It is difficult to even know where to start on this one. Suffice it to say that there are glaring issues with the way the article you linked to is written. First, there is no link to the actual study within the article. Second, quoting from the article, “The detailed analysis of nearly 43 million people was published Monday in the American Heart Association journal Circulation.” What “details are they speaking of.
3rd “during an important 12-month period of the pandemic when the COVID-19 vaccines first became available” Why not just name the 12 month period? Could it be that the data was collected so long ago that it is no longer statistically significant? And why is the American Heart Association relying on outdated foreign metadata?
This is an outdated worthless metadata supported piece of gobblygoo published to confuse people and the issues with no links to the actual study that supposedly shows something that actually does not.
I note the study period is from December 1 2020 to December 15 2021. Kind of AVOIDING the very obvious approach of just comparing total rates of myocarditis before covid-19, during covid-19 and before jabs, and after jabs.
Study seems like narrative defending not truth seeking.
fireman15 wrote: “It is difficult to even know where to start on this one. Suffice it to say that there are glaring issues with the way the article you linked to is written. First, there is no link to the actual study within the article. Second, quoting from the article, “The detailed analysis of nearly 43 million people was published Monday in the American Heart Association journal Circulation.” What “details are they speaking of.”
The details are in the link embedded in the second paragraph of the article. Click on ‘detailed analysis’. Come back after you’ve read the study.
For it occurred to me that I should find much more truth in the reasonings of each individual with reference to the affairs in which he is personally interested, and the issue of which must presently punish him if he has judged amiss, than in those conducted by a man of letters in his study, regarding speculative matters that are of no practical moment, and followed by no consequences to himself, farther, perhaps, than that they foster his vanity the better the more remote they are from common sense; -- Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method part 1
Its just so obvious that the "study" wants to find a clever way to rationalize an obviously false narrative. Its kinda sick.