I've seen it Baba and although Reinhart & Rogoff say their new data stills supports their inital conclusion this academic stuff will now go on for sometime as it should given the discovery of a discrepancy in the original paper. It's called peer review which is critical for any purported profession that aspires to scientific rigor, oh only if we could get global warmist alarmists (climate change nazis from their tactics of mis-information) to do the same.

From my perspective I must admit I have never considered economics a real science and find economists at best get it right about 50% of time at best, hardly a claim to scientific rigor as flipping a coin can give similar results. That having been said common sense suggest there is little likelihood of any country coming back from anything around a 90% debt to GDP level unless the underlying conditions can be argued to support large economic growth. Such conditions could be but not limited too, high interest rates, good demographics supporting growth, low personal debt levels, high savings rate, growing government revenues, low government costs, low leverage/cheap valuations, deregulation, low profitability, no economic concentration like too big to fail banks (high competition), property protection, bankrupcy laws that are used, rule of law, successful white collar criminal prosecutions, free & fair markets for all, good market regulation that is enforced.

In my humble opinion a well manged country should sustain it's debt to GDP at 40% and anytime it approaches 70% they must act aggressively to lower it. This doesn't require any low rigor scientific studies from a supposed science that gets it right about 50% of the time, just commone sense and an understanding of history and real leadership to act.