I would not have pursued Mansanguan 2022 if Reuters and AP hadn’t pursued these rather half-baked fact-checks. That both organizations did so is an indication to me that this paper is actually a serious problem for jurisdictions that wish to maintain the rare/mild fiction.
The 1/3 widely cited on social media refers to *any* cardiovascular effect. The Reuters "factcheck" then refers just to "rapid heartrate or abnormal heart rhythm" and finds that this is closer to 1/6. So what? That's a *different* fact. The 1/3 figure is still correct, and it would undoubtedly be closer to half, if the numbers were broken down by sex and we were referring just to males. The would-be Reuters debunking is so obviously bogus. Who takes them seriously?
I would not have pursued Mansanguan 2022 if Reuters and AP hadn’t pursued these rather half-baked fact-checks. That both organizations did so is an indication to me that this paper is actually a serious problem for jurisdictions that wish to maintain the rare/mild fiction.
The 1/3 widely cited on social media refers to *any* cardiovascular effect. The Reuters "factcheck" then refers just to "rapid heartrate or abnormal heart rhythm" and finds that this is closer to 1/6. So what? That's a *different* fact. The 1/3 figure is still correct, and it would undoubtedly be closer to half, if the numbers were broken down by sex and we were referring just to males. The would-be Reuters debunking is so obviously bogus. Who takes them seriously?
Thank you for your insights!