in a proper study you take a non vaccinated cohort (simply a group of people) expose them to an intervention (in this case covid) and calculate the incidence of mariocarditis.
you then take another cohort, let's say vaccinated cohort, and expose them to the same intervention (in this case covid) and calculate the risk of mariocarditis (not a typo).
You can then calculate the odds ratio or simply put odds of getting mariocarditis from been exposed to the agent.
Now if the agent does not exist (enter the Cohoax magical entity) how can you run the study?
If the risk of myocarditis is 1 in 1,000,000.
Now the risk is 4 in 1,000,000.
Still not bad odds.
this is not how odds are calculated
in a proper study you take a non vaccinated cohort (simply a group of people) expose them to an intervention (in this case covid) and calculate the incidence of mariocarditis. you then take another cohort, let's say vaccinated cohort, and expose them to the same intervention (in this case covid) and calculate the risk of mariocarditis (not a typo).
You can then calculate the odds ratio or simply put odds of getting mariocarditis from been exposed to the agent.
Now if the agent does not exist (enter the Cohoax magical entity) how can you run the study?
Enjoy the $cience.
38 cases in 99,834,543 as published in the article, still is mighty fine odds.
I am not sure you understood what I wrote but in case let us know exactly how you came into this conclusion
I don't care what you wrote, it's always subversive.
I was commenting about the numbers in the article.