I googled it (plenty of results...) and this was the basic analysis I found:
"The study of teenagers in Thailand following a second COVID-19 vaccination found that 18% -- not one third -- experienced any detectable cardiac effect, and that 1 in 301, not 1 in 43, had confirmed myocarditis. A large proportion of purported abnormalities detected by testing were without symptoms, and 100% of the teens in the study fully recovered after 14 days, the authors reported."
I'm not knowledgeable enough about anything regarding this subject to make any determinations about if that is being downplayed or misleading. I don't want to pretend like I understand it.
They're downplaying the harm by changing the context.
Re: "found that 18% -- not one third -- experienced any detectable cardiac effect"
This research found 1:43 harm - because that harm included detection of damage to the heart via blood:
"Troponin blood test - troponin is a protein which is released into the blood stream when the heart muscle is damaged. The troponin level provides a quick and accurate measure of any heart muscle damage. It's used to help in the assessment following suspected heart attack."
Troponin was part of the research - and in 1:43 trooponin was detected post-shot vs. pre-shot.
And 1:301 is still extremely bad, no? Certainly you can make a judgement on that? It is actually harming 1:43 but even harming a heart - which is permanent damage as the heart doesn't heal - 1:301 of harming a young person's heart is completely unacceptable - especially when they're at very little risk of any significant harm, nowhere near 1:301 from COVID itself.
Also, 100% of the teens didn't recover after 14 days: there is permanent heart damage in 1:43.
They also focus on only including myocarditis numbers to make their numbers seem less worse (1:301 is still horrific) - by excluding the case(s) of pericarditis from their numbers.
Notice how Reuters is at the top of Google, and Reuters has routinely misled people to train them of these shallow-narrow talking points - to give them enough narrative to make them think the alarming research was less true than it actually is.
I guess that would be a big concern if 301 wasn't literally the number of participants in the study. What kind of confidence interval can you extrapolate from that?
And elevated troponin is not definitive of permanent heart damage.
"The study of teenagers in Thailand following a second COVID-19 vaccination found that 18% -- not one third -- experienced any detectable cardiac effect, and that 1 in 301, not 1 in 43, had confirmed myocarditis. A large proportion of purported abnormalities detected by testing were without symptoms, and 100% of the teens in the study fully recovered after 14 days, the authors reported."
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-heart-teens-vaccin...
I'm not knowledgeable enough about anything regarding this subject to make any determinations about if that is being downplayed or misleading. I don't want to pretend like I understand it.