You may recall Florida’s vaccine analysis which claimed that mRNA vaccines are associated with increased risk of cardiac death in young men. This week, the Tampa Bay Times shared earlier, unpublished drafts of that analysis. Those earlier drafts tell a dramatically different story…

If I had a nickel for every time someone has accusingly asked me “who funds you??”, I wouldn’t have enough money to buy a box of pipette tips, because research is expensive and requires funding to do much of anything.

This week a shocking headline was published: ER misdiagnoses kill up to 250,000 per year!

Turns out this statistic is based on the death of just one man. In Canada. Over a decade ago…

Florida just announced the results of an analysis that they performed, claiming the results show “an increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39” for the mRNA vaccines, and recommend this group not receive these vaccines.

Is this justified? Let’s look at the data…

Graphs are central to scientific communication, and when used appropriately are amazing tools that help people understand complex data. But with a few small changes, graphs can also be used to mislead and distort what’s going on. Recently I came across a graph (trying to minimize the effectiveness of COVID vaccines in kids) that was so bad it deserves its own entire post. Check out a break down of the chart crimes here.

Recently, BA.5 has been all over the news, raising alarming questions about immune evasion, reinfections, and the future of the pandemic. What makes BA.5 different from previous COVID viruses? In our latest post, we address what makes BA.5 special, along with what these differences mean for vaccine efficacy and the chances of reinfection.