ClockworkOtter

I'll be back when they get back up.

I wish all mine were as good as the best I've had.

Yes, though if the sponsor is doing it on the cheap then they might pick facilities and monitors who don't care or don't have the capacity to pick up on all the details, or scrutinise minutiae. The monitor can only QC what's written down for example, and an investigator can be perfectly capable of having the bare minimum of a consent process and copy pasta as if it was done thoroughly.

I'm glad all my participants are of sound mind; the idea of navigating the world of incapacity and research gives me the heebie jeebies.

When it comes to therapies that are likely toxic, e.g. chemo, that's why the sponsor has to demonstrate through pre-clinical data that there is a high enough likelihood that the benefits will outweigh the harm that it is a legitimate therapy to trial on humans. Even then there should still be thorough, audited processes for obtaining fully informed consent before recruiting patients into these trials, including making certain they are aware the trial may cause more harm than standard of care.

It's the burden of evidence required in pre-clinical data that makes me defend animal testing despite being vegan.

I don't see the problem with that