Interesting study, and I'm enjoying the comments on this post too! While any study is limiting to an extent, studies like this align with the growing body of anecdotal evidence that people experienced all types of serious injuries after the vaccine, some long-term. I personally know many people injured by the covid vaccine. My 21 year old cousin is an athlete, got a bad case of myocarditis after his first booster, and he still can't run or play basketball without feeling significant chest pain. The cumulative health burden of the boosters is another disturbing consideration.
Being willing to consider the varying results of different vaccine studies is an appropriate use of the precautionary principle, a social responsibility to protect the public from harm where scientific investigation has found a possible risk.
Yet as much as I appreciate the comments below that dissect the wording and technical details of this study, I feel like the overuse of this approach is making us more confused. We can get intellectual about the details within these studies. Or we can practice good sensemaking in the face of these studies, zoom out to the bigger picture and start asking deeper questions. Like why was this larger discussion of vaccines not allowed in mainstream public/media dialogue? Or how many times Big Pharma led the public to believe certain medications were safe and effective? Or the Big Pharma special interests that fund FDA?
Right. It is also telling that this was a European study, and similar American studies are nowhere to be found.
I do think it's important to develop sufficient science literacy to understand the scope of the problems we face with products like the vaccine. Anecdotal evidence can't necessarily tell us if we're looking at a 1 in a million problem or a 1 in 100 problem. This study shows that myocarditis is a 1 in 35 problem. Regardless of the details, knowing the scope of this problem makes it much easier to have productive conversations about it.