> exceeds the risk from COVID

To be clear the result in the paper is that myocarditis in that age group is greater than hospitalization risk from covid. No?

"For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two CAE is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate"

There's no result there about myocarditis from covid infection.

TL;DR: up to a 6.1x rate of cardiac adverse effects from mRNA vaccination compared to Covid 19 hospitalization for teen-aged boys.

> Results A total of 257 CAEs [cardiac adverse effect] were identified. Rates per million following dose 2 among males were 162.2 (ages 12-15) and 94.0 (ages 16-17); among females, rates were 13.0 and 13.4 per million, respectively. For boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021 (7-day hospitalizations 1.5/100k population) and 2.6-4.3-fold higher at times of high weekly hospitalization risk (7-day hospitalizations 2.1/100k), such as during January 2021. For boys 16-17 without medical comorbidities, the rate of CAE is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk, and 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at times of high weekly COVID-19 hospitalization.

Tracy Beth Høeg was touting ideas against children vaccination well before this study she coauthored.

A cardiologist commentary for this was that raw VAERS data is not to be trusted and CDC will know better. End of story.

This study also seriously underestimates the virus speed and complications.

Do not let any random quack fool you. Verify it.

Ahh yes the classic “if it doesn’t agree with my preconceived notions it must be a poorly done study” but if it furthers my beliefs then “anyone that questions it is obviously denying the truth/anti-science”. You dismiss this study without realizing that one of the authors is a very good cardiologist who chose strict criteria for what data to allow into this study.

I recommend you to read the comments section under the study.

Many other cardiologist disagree with this selection criteria and there exists clear bias that can affect the authors.