All the explanations I’ve heard today for the negative CLOSURE-AF result—some so strained they’re almost impressive. 1) The devices were “outdated” and therefore responsible for excess complications (the usual argument that things only go wrong elsewhere). 2) DAPT was used after LAAO, which is now said to be obsolete because of bleeding concerns compared with DOAC-based strategies (a claim that is often repeated, less often demonstrated). 3) Stroke rates were similar, so the signal is attributed mainly to bleeding and procedural issues—as if that were a minor point. 4) The composite endpoint is criticized for mixing different mechanisms, although if anything it should have favored non-inferiority. 5) The early phase of enrollment is invoked to argue that complications are not representative of current practice (again, complications seem to belong to others). 6) And then there are the usual remarks about loss to follow-up, crossovers, and lack of blinding. What seems to be missed in this accumulation of arguments is straightforward: the burden of proof lies with LAAO, not with the control arm. The issue is the strength of the evidence supporting LAAO, not medical therapy, which remains the reference standard.