Doesn't actually make a lot of sense.
If "90% of the control arm was contaminated", why didn't they simply remove those from the data, and rerun the analysis with the "10%" as the control arm? Sure it's a big drop in numbers - but the numbers were so big to start with, it would still be respectable.
And just because a study that says one thing is proven unsafe, it doesn't mean the opposite is true.
I'd not draw any conclusions until the scientists settle their 'handbags at dawn' struggle.