> That study (which was still a pre-print, not reviewed) was retracted. That study wasn't retracted. It's still here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/

> That study (which was still a pre-print, not reviewed) was retracted. That study wasn't retracted. It's still here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v... Maybe you're confusing it with another one. There was a Canadian preprint on myocarditis (sample size: 32) that got retracted by its authors: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/university-of-ottawa-heart-institute-myocarditis-study https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/university-of-ottawa-he... To make the confusion complete, there is a study on myocarditis that got peer reviewed and accepted for publication in an Elsevier cardiology journal, only to be "temporarily removed": > The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280621002267 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014628062...