Thread by @ProfDFrancis

Welcome to Black Helicopter Saturday!

An everyday tale of the Megatriallisto-Industrial-Complex.

Journal Chief-Edited by an ISCHEMIA trialist publishes ISCHEMIA methods paper.

Editorial on it accepted but then mysteriously delayed: unlike normal pattern for papers/editorials, they do not appear online together.

Eventually editorial emerges.

ahjonline.com/article/S0002-…

This was the trial whose organisers forced a re-wording on a previous editorial in another journal. One would have hoped they would have learned from the Streisand Syndrome:

"When you are trying not to draw attention to something,
DON'T DRAW ATTENTION TO IT."

A Einstein
J Bleedin' Obvious 2018

However the Trial Security Committee decided to be one step cleverer.

"Keep quiet, eh? That's what they would be EXPECTING us to do!"

"We will depublish the paper! That will stop it attracting attention."

The Trial Security Committee has many Top People but it has a fatal weakness. Nobody wants to offer a contrary view.

Nobody wants to be dropped through the trapdoor ...

So they vote for the plan to cunningly avoid drawing attention to critical analysis of the trial, by drawing attention to critical analysis of the trial.

Lots of independent experts agree on plan, so must be good plan:

Turns out, that was not such a good plan.

Carditwitter pours scorn on them.
After a few hours of abuse, they relent and make the paper visible again.

Is this at all interesting or noteworthy series of events?

Well, Medscape think it interesting enough to run a story.

medscape.com/viewarticle/89…

Was this Black Helicopter event interesting enough to write about?

Compared to typical Medscape fare of alternating "Coffee causes cancer" and "Coffee cures cancer" stories based on different adjustments of the same 99 trillion patient observational database?

Well, your names have been taken down and will be passed on to the relevant authorities.

Because in fact it is not at all of interest and should not have been covered in the news, as indicated clearly here:

Top People confirm:

How would you interpret the above remark?

A. Yes clinical experiments are interesting and informative. We should discuss them.

B. Shut up all you plebs. Just hand over your patients, OK?

C. We give the orders here. Sit still and await further Top People Opinion.

And he received an excellent Reply. Which I "Like"d.

I liked it because it has multilayered subtlety. So subtle that I don't know what it means.

A "OK to debate trial design"
B "Recruit to trials"
C "Play sports, its good for you"

Well, that's it.

Enjoy your weekend. And if the black helicopters come for you, remember you can protect yourself with this wonderful new product from Francis Industries:

amazon.com/Electro-Deflec…