An interesting advert. Odd that it took until paragraph 10 to mention the potential harm to the subject of participating in multiple trials.
In some countries, such as the UK with its universal healthcare system, a mechanism already exists that could be used, namely the NHS number. However in the process described, given the information is de-identified I can only see this being of very limited use. It may even give a sense of false security to the researcher. Now, if unique IDs such as SSNs were used I could see it actually working although this would have to be weighed against the likelihood of potential subjects not wanting to share their SSNs when it is not to their benefit.

It’s a reasonable argument but the central point is “...and make a profit.” Now, what is a reasonable profit? COGS is often pennies per unit, yet the shelf-cost may be $10s or $100s per unit.
Pharma will still be profitable, but maybe not AS profitable. That's the point I was making.

"Will companies spend years and billions of dollars developing a molecule if they only have half the time to recoup their cost and make a profit? " Yes they will, because (a) there's still plenty of gold in them there hills (ill people aren't going anywhere soon), and (b) the majority of drugs do not cost anywhere near $1,000,000,000 to develop anyway.
This is a hackneyed mantra that Pharma loves to chant, despite no independent substantiated verification, much like the NRA chants that "guns don't kill..."
Also your phrase, "It has been estimated that only one in 5,000 compounds that undergo preclinical testing gets approval." may well be true, but is a little disingenuous as relatively little cost is incurred per compound at the HTS stage. By the time an IMP has made it to phase III development, when costs do really start to soar, the failure rate is probably closer to 1 in 5, in my experience, assuming a half-decent R&D team at the helm who know when to kill a poor product.
So, in short, it will be a long, long time before we see the new Mercedes, BMWs and Porsches replaced with 10-year old Fords and Kia's in the Pharma parking lots.

The woman is as mad as a box of frogs and a dedicated xtian bigot too. I don't think anythng that she says has any credibility and I have never understood why the press gave her any air time at all. Oh, wait a minute yes I can, $$$. Who's calling who a whore?

Thanks Mark, that's an interesting point. To be honest I don't tend to use the word "believe" very much at all. In fact I cannot think of the last time I used it. I find the word has too many pious connotations, so use the phrase "I think" instead as I think it has a more positive feel of ownership to the subsequent phrase. The word "belief" has many definitions to many people. I recall a discussion at work over the use of "believe" vs "think". My colleague argued the former was a stronger word to use in an official letter, and my reply that, "Well, my children believe in Santa Claus, but I don't think he exists", met with stunned silence. I guess you had to be there :-)

As others have pointed out, the phrase "I could never be an atheist. I need something to believe in" is somewhat bizarre in itself. As atheists we are only NOT believing in the existence of god(s). This does not mean we have no beliefs. In fact atheists believe in (and argue about) many diverse things, some of them quite strongly too, as your "shopping" post indicates (!) The only thing that we have in common is that we generally believe that things need to have some dependable, and understandable proof applied to them before they can be taken as credible. We do not need the comfort of a fictional sky-daddy to get through our days.