You may want to browse the website a bit and see if you feel like they might have a bias.
The tables are poorly labeled and I'm honestly having trouble figuring out what subset of the population they're referring to in each column.
As someone else pointed out, they got their numbers for mortality from myocarditis from the results of a study on a novel treatment that apparently was not very effective as far as keeping folks alive. I went to the study myself hoping that the other commenter had just misunderstood and that somewhere in the study, they had more general numbers for myocarditis outcomes, but that's not the case. The numbers are from the results and are only representative of the outcome if treated with immunosuppressants.
The only real argument that they have is that they managed to make two graphs which look similar. If it weren't on a web page dedicated to discouraging the use of the vaccine, I'd think maybe it was a relatively harmless misunderstanding of how science works.
It lacks any real substance and what little evidence they have is presented out of context.
I agree the study they linked to is an unfortunate choice but I looked elsewhere for mortality numbers for myocarditis and they don't seem to be that far off [1]. In the end I also don't think this is a meaningful finding, but I do believe it is worth looking at the data at least a bit and not dismissing it out of hand because of the venue where it was published. It's good to keep an open mind.
What I got from that study is that the prognosis for myocarditis is very dependent on the cause and how much damage happens before the cause is removed.
I dismissed it initially due to the website it was on. Then I spent a good half hour digging through their arguments and finding out whether they had any basis in reality. Now I know for sure it has no real merit and I've wasted a decent amount of time on it. For a more extreme example, I'm not going to go through every blog post the KKK puts up just because they used some scientific-sounding arguments to argue that black people are bad.
I get where people are coming from trying to consider all the data, but some sources aren't worth the effort.
The tables are poorly labeled and I'm honestly having trouble figuring out what subset of the population they're referring to in each column.
As someone else pointed out, they got their numbers for mortality from myocarditis from the results of a study on a novel treatment that apparently was not very effective as far as keeping folks alive. I went to the study myself hoping that the other commenter had just misunderstood and that somewhere in the study, they had more general numbers for myocarditis outcomes, but that's not the case. The numbers are from the results and are only representative of the outcome if treated with immunosuppressants.
The only real argument that they have is that they managed to make two graphs which look similar. If it weren't on a web page dedicated to discouraging the use of the vaccine, I'd think maybe it was a relatively harmless misunderstanding of how science works.
It lacks any real substance and what little evidence they have is presented out of context.