A correction re: the Florida study
The study is terrible, but I misread it and I'm sorry for that.
Earlier today I wrote a post analyzing the Florida DoH’s analysis of heart risks from vaccines.
This post was based on a misreading of the paper’s study design — I missed the sentence where the authors clarified that “individuals were excluded if they (1) had a documented COVID-19 infection, (2) experienced a COVID-19 associated death, (3) received a booster, or (4) received their last COVID-19 vaccination after December 8, 2021 (to ensure each individual had the 25-week follow-up period to experience the event of interest).”
I am embarrassed by the error, and apologize for the confusion.
I want to be clear that this does not mean you should trust the study — in fact, I actually trust it significantly less than when I first read it, because this kind of exclusion is a classic statistical error (“post-treatment bias”), and it also renders a number of sentences in the study and the guidance based on it straight-up lies, including:
“COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a
modestly increased risk for cardiac-related mortality 28 days following vaccination.” (No it wasn’t, because you threw away the cardiac events most strongly associated with vaccination and failed to plausibly relate this to what would have happened in an unvaccinated control group.)“With a high level of global immunity toCOVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group.” (Your study didn’t check this, and the studies you cited outright contradict it!)
So yes, the study remains badly designed and full of lies, and the guidance is going to kill people in pursuit of DeSantis’s political power. But sticking to the truth is important in exposing this kind of lie, and so I apologize for my original, erroneous post.
well done