[typicalset]

That is the argument you are making, and I struggle to see in what world being published in Nature is "being suppressed".

They make the claim "vaccines that pose 50% higher excess risk of myocarditis compared to an infection", and this is a misleading claim.

The risk to an individual of taking the vaccine is more sensibly measured against what happens to somebody who isn't vaccinated, not what happens to somebody who isn't vaccinated and also didn't die.

This is like comparing injuries in people who survive jumping out of a plane with and without a parachute. How important is it if people without a parachute break their arms less often?

[mike_hearn]

Their study isn't an attempt to answer the holistic question of whether vaccines are saving lives or ending them in aggregate, and they never claimed it was, so I don't see what's misleading about it. The claim dannyw is making is about the studies and discussion that isn't being published in Nature, or at all.

Your counter-claim is that this alternative question is what they should have been discussing, and if they had been, it'd be misleading to focus on the risk of myocarditis alone. Which is correct, but then they'd also have to take into account injuries and deaths from other non-myocarditis vaccine side effects, the costs of medical care not given due to the spending of resources on vaccines instead, QALYs and so on. But the sort of institutions that fund such research don't want to know about vaccine downsides, so don't fund any research into it, and moreover expend considerable effort to suppress whatever little research does get done.