Enhancing communication, informed consent and recruitment in a paediatric urgent care surgical trial: a qualitative study, 2020, Sherratt et al

Posting solely as Esther Crawley is an author.

Open access, https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-020-02040-w

 

The absurdity of someone who has recently been found to have committed multiple blatant violations of basic consent lecturing on informed consent is really something. Do the journals simply take no position at all when it comes to credibility? Or facts? Do facts even matter when ideology is the goal? It's literally published in a BMJ journal, they are aware of Crawley's... "issues"... with ethics because they were forced to be involved in it and still the BMJ find it credible to have someone who was just recently found to have violated basic ethical requirements be a credible authority on ethics.

Wow. I'm not surprised but seriously this is beyond broken. I don't know if it's worth flogging that dead horse, @dave30th, but seriously it's still moving and basically rampaging and holy crap someone make the rampaging dead horse stop trashing around it's aiming straight at the children.

This take is particularly rich:

Equipoise is not something to be emphasized. It is not a matter of perception or persuasion, a concept hard to grasp here because it's coming from someone who has conducted dozens of biased studies and trials that held no equipoise, did not even bother with it, even actively promoted their treatment as effective after having promised authorities that they would "work". Equipoise is not a message, it is an obligation. Some of us have seen the laughable letter from Sharpe declaring he is at equipoise for the purpose of PACE, a laughably absurd false declaration. It means nothing to those people, and still they lecture on it. Oh, goodie.