[Lani]

I think you are missing my point. When people sign up for clinical trials they allow a lot of testing to be done to see if the drug works, if it works better on some than others, what issues may determine who it works better on.

If there was a way to determine which participants in clinical trials who are assumed to be taking their antihormonals actually were taking them, the conclusions of the trials would be more accurate and meaningful. Since trial results are the basis for drug approvals and funding for further trials, I could only see that this would help. Who was or was not taking their drugs would be anonymous.

If trial participants are recurring because they are not taking their antihormonals rather than because the drug they are testing is not working and this can be demonstrated by this testing , a potentially efficacious drug may make it onto further testing and onto the market.

Would you want to be denied a drug that might work for you because the drug company stopped work on it or the FDA did not approve it because the statistics were influenced in a negative way by noncompliance from some participants in the trial?

I do not see this as a personal freedom issue. Noone is forced to participate in a trial.

If eating hot chili peppers was known to make tumors recur or grow faster, would you object to trial organizers testing participants blood levels of the active ingredient responsible (assuming it were known)? How is a test to detect NOT taking something different than a test to detect someone TAKING something.

Everyone is free to decide to take or not take any part of recommended treatment, but if those on a clinical trial do so and do not inform those running the trial so they can exit the trial, the trial results can become meaningless.

It seems I have hit some kind of raw nerve here or am I just not expressing myself well???!!!!