Rigorous evaluation of medical AI is good for everyone, and we welcome it. Counter to a half-dozen independent studies from institutions such as the Mayo Clinic that were highly positive on OpenEvidence—a lone paper now purports to show that generalized AI beats specialized clinical AI (@UpToDate, @openevidence). The paper has a massive undisclosed conflict of interest and irredeemable methodological flaws. Behind the scenes: The study authors run a competing in-house medical AI at their hospital, and asked OpenEvidence for an API to power it — including rights to build a "competing product" with OpenEvidence's own API. OpenEvidence declined. Then, this paper coincidentally appeared. Point-by-point, looking closely at the datasets used in the study, the disingenuous and fatal flaws become immediately apparent 🧵.