Ok. Lol.
Also that contrarian doctor is only giving one side of the ledger and not even accurately describing that one side of the ledger.
Myocarditis from the mRNA vaccines is generally relatively mild and transitory in most cases. The vast majority of cases have complete recoveries within 3 months. Whereas the myocarditis from coronavirus infection is much more severe, more likely to land someone in the ICU, and more likely to have poor long-term prognoses.
Myocarditis from coronavirus infection is significantly more common than from the vaccines. For a subgroup of teen and young adult men in their 20s, Moderna's second dose has a marginally higher risk of myocarditis than coronavirus infection, but even within this subgroup Moderna's first dose and both of Pfizer's doses have much lower risks of myocarditis.
For young children vaccine myocarditis rates are much lower than teens and young adults.
Likewise for booster doses we are seeing much lower rates of myocarditis than with second doses.
More centrally myocarditis isn't the only risk of coronavirus infection. People obviously can be hospitalized and die from coronavirus infection. Even in regards to heart health, coronavirus infection can cause cardiac arrhythmia and pericarditis. It is nonsensical to hyperfocus on one adverse effect, and completely ignore the rest when talking about the costs of vaccination versus coronavirus infection.
If any of these individuals actually bothered to read the Nature study they are citing all of this is described in the paper explicitly. Instead they cherry pick and abuse the paper's findings.