Here's the paper. It concludes the risk of myocarditis was increased after vaccination across multiple age and sex categories, and was highest following the second vaccine dose.
The absolute numbers are small compared to the number of people vaccinated, however VAERS is a data source that is known to undercount adverse vaccine events in general and perhaps even more so in the current context.
FDA revokes EUA for monoclonal antibody COVID treatment
They are revoking authorization for one of the only treatments that has proven safe and effective (albeit with limited effectiveness against omicron). Why? Solely to have a political impact, punishing states that prefer to treat COVID patients rather than putting them on ventilators to die? Maybe. Or maybe there are real health concerns.
This won't change the balance of the court, but it will likely preserve one of the three solidly left-wing seats as a left-wing seat. Breyer and/or the left generally are clearly reacting to Breyer's age and the risk that they may lose the Senate in 2022 and then face another situation where McConnell could hold the seat open for a Republican president in 2024.
With a 51-50 Senate the Dems will probably get this through. There may well be fireworks, especially after Kavanaugh and if Biden nominates someone from the far left. Which he almost certainly will.
The author's reasoning is interesting, but flawed, in that he believes he can gain useful information based on what he believes the "rules of the game" are in mediaworld. His understanding works just fine for his primary example -- ie, even a liberal who distrusts Fox News will probably trust Fox News if they are reporting on a police shooting or a terrorist attack, because Fox News doesn't lie directly; they may bias their reports differently than other media, or report on things other sources ignore, but they know their credibility would be shot if they actually, deliberately lied and got caught, so they instead report on real things and (sometimes) put a different spin on it. Liberals get outraged about that being lying, but they know it really isn't; and so they trust Fox on facts while disregarding spin.
The other hole in that line of reasoning is that it leads to false conclusions about what is reasonable to believe under circumstances where the writers (of both news articles and scientific papers) believe something is true when it is in fact false. (Both examples below are those used by the original author).
No one is really willing to sign letters or petitions claiming Muslim immigrants to Sweden do not commit more crimes than native Swedes. This reluctance is because such a claim is transparently false and the scientists would be both ashamed of themselves and ridiculed for making a transparently false and easily disprovable claim. (Instead, orthodoxy is maintained by preventing anyone saying what is obviously true).
In the case of climate change, however, the situation is different. The proponents of climate change mostly believe it to be true. They are convinced not by good science but by an exercise in faith, self-persuading scientific pursuits, and a self-reinforcing financial research structure. Every scientist looking for funding knows that to get funding you must frame your research to invoke climate change; and if you then find there is no climate change, you will not get any more funding, and moreover, climatologists will work to exclude you from publishing in any and all scientific journals with a fervor previously reserved for burning heretics at the stake.
My algorithm for finding truth in a media-hostile world works thusly: What you are forbidden to say is likely the uncomfortable truth.
Worth watching, even though there's not really much news. Basically, the router investigation is still struggling to find the three acceptable auditors, but may now have all three names and thus hopefully start actual work soon. And, the AZ AG is actually interviewing people in his investigation.
The lack of updates from the AG on an active investigation is annoying, but probably normal; good investigations don't leak. Of course, that sometimes makes it hard to tell the difference between a good investigation and no investigation, which is why people are nervous. However, at least some individuals are being interviewed.
One thing that puzzles me is that the AG has apparently interviewed state legislators. How exactly is that related to conducting a voter fraud investigation? But also "other officials", which could be anyone.
The AG has also separately taken action to block the AZ SecState from using an election rule book that was wide open to fraud, an action that seems unusual and significant to me.
This sounds like one of those "expections" that you have for your subordinates, rather than an "expectation" like a prediction. I don't know if the two Dem holdouts will be any more or less amenable to this than the other thinly disguised steal all elections forever legislation, but Sinema is a Senator from a border state.
Medical journal calls for immediate release of all vaccine data
The data from drug and vaccine trials should always be made public immediately, as soon as the drug is approved for any use including emergency use. People need to be able to make informed choices about their healthcare, which demands public data and public analysis.
I'm not quite ready to call this a political prosecution, but in my view the burden of proof is now on the FBI to explain itself and demonstrate that this isn't just political. Because it sure does look political.
Peer-reviewed study shows positive evidence for Ivermectin
So here's the thing. Ivermectin is safe for use in humans; not perfectly, no, but safe enough for over the counter use in many places outside the US. There is strong but not conclusive evidence that ivermectin provides significant benefits to COVID-19 patients, especially when given early. Much of the evidence is anecdotal, but much consists of a variety of studies usually done outside the US.
Many studies done inside the US on another popular potential treatment, hydroxychloroquin, were designed in ways that appeared to deliberately ignore the recommendations from earlier successful trials, particularly that of early treatment and use in combination with other drugs. Some were outright fraudulent. I rather wonder if some of the failed US studies of Ivermectin are similarly sabotaged.
Bottom line: it doesn't hurt and it may help. It's cheap and plentiful. Keep studying it -- but why not try it, too, at least with willing patients?