The Hoeg findings are off by 2X from the VAERS-based numbers cited by the FDA, but Hoeg examines "probable" vs. "medical chart-confirmed" cases. A factor of 2 is small in the scheme of things considering (a) the apple-to-oranges nature of the comparison, (b) the confidence intervals, and (c) the unacknowledged uncertainties that stem from our lack of understanding of reporting rates.

This new blog article you cite points out problems with 7 of the 257 cases included by the Hoeg study -- intermixed with a healthy dose of stay-in-your-lane-bro rhetoric. It also makes unfounded criticisms, such as "The claim from the study authors is that they replicate the [ACIP analysis] and found a much higher incidence than previously reported." In fact, the paper is clear that they follow a different method, and it claims "using these broader [emphasis mine] search and inclusion criteria, we found post-vaccination rates ... that exceed the rates previously reported."

This looks like someone is nit-picking when, in the big picture, considering the general concurrence with results from other studies, including other data sets, the findings are not misleading.

One recent publication: 370 / 1,000,000 rate of acute myocarditis/pericarditis following 2nd dose of Comirnaty in male adolescents between June and September of 2021. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article-abstract/doi/10...