Thread by @VPrasadMDMPH

This is DEEPLY CONCERNING editorial behavior... and
I think its time we start talking about the Use, Misuse and Abuse of Academic Power. [THREAD] #cardiotwitter medscape.com/viewarticle/89…

First, the ISCHEMIA trial is clearly ruffling feathers since the primary endpoint was changed. It is a costly 100mi buck FEDERAL funded trial, and it just switched from a bias resistant to a bias prone endpoint

That's a big deal

I read the article by Murthy and Eagle in FULL
I found it to be a lucid, stellar commentary about the deep and fundamental problems with the trial.

It was a SLEDGEHAMMER of clear thinking & reason
& it was persuasive

perhaps that was the problem

Is it possible that the article made minor errors that warrant clarification or correction?
NO DOUBT.
This is true with ALL human efforts. Murthy notes this:

Is it possible that the article was fundamentally flawed and unable to justify its central theses?

NO WAY IN HELL that is possible.

The fundamental and core message is as certain as the change in the trial endpoint

Now, why has the article been pulled off line?

Overreaction?

Hmmmmmmmm, my spidey sense tingles

It is hard to not see this as an action aimed to cast aspersions upon the merit of the article, rather than one that follows conventional journal precedent. And with a potential conflict of interest...

I think @boback is wise to realize that this does not smell right....

The more time I spend in academics, I note that when a message offends people in positions of power, one often observes unconventional tactics used to demean the work or person, which evade the thorny issues of engaging in the argument.

Unfortunately, in my career (not this example), I have already been disappointed when I have witnessed the most childish behavior from senior faculty who one would not expect to sink to such actions.

I fear my spidey sense is tingling here.

What do you think?
Should this paper be immediately restored?

Can any concerns be handled through post publication discussion?

Should every student of trials read this paper when it is restored so they may learn the importance of trial design and conduct?

I will answer that

YES

And finally, should the authors not only stand by their work but be PROUD of it, as it is fine thinking

I will also answer that
YES

#freethepaper

Wow, the plot thickens! The paper is back up as it originally printed.

I wonder why the minor errors were deemed so important they must be corrected now (and paper pulled), and not in the months the journal has had the paper?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, interesting.