Thanks for your comment and the important points you've pointed out.

For 1, yes, association does not prove causation. So, I've written vaccine-related myocarditis rather than vaccine-induced myocarditis. But I think thinking in terms of risks is more important in real-life settings. It's hard to prove that mRNA vaccine causes myocarditis because that would require a large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT), but randomly giving people placebo at this point would be unethical.

For 2, I'm no MD or PhD, and I'm open about this on my 'About' page (https://shinjieyong.medium.com/about. ). But I think the scientific content is what matters. Plus, we also see some MDs and PhDs popularizing the anti-vaccine narrative.

In the age of internet, I think its given that articles posted online are not equivalent to medical advice. Adding a disclaimer every time seems unnecessary at this point.

My point is that if given a choice, another type of vaccine would be better for young males. But if not, then Moderna's vaccine is still preferable to no vaccine.

Still, I've decided to write the science (including scientific interpretations) as it is, despite the potential controversy. And there is already an overabundance of misinformation out there, so I doubt mine can even add anything more.