Within the last year we have witnessed the advent of public scrutiny of the results of surgical coronary revascularisation. The methodology em-ployed in order to achieve this scrutiny was flawed, as was the way the inadequate and incomplete results were presented to the general public. Data were presented without careful critical appraisal of what the figures actually meant. Little or no account was taken of context, risk assessment or case mix. This was either because of ignorance upon the part of those involved in publication or because of an inadequate level of concern for accuracy. In either case it was irresponsible. Inevitably, to make matters worse, any attempt to explain the fallibility of the presented figures and the flaws in their interpretation has lead to the charge of having something to hide.