Her Discussions by Dr Faye - How to Spot Health Misinformation Online | Full MRI Scans, Ozempic Influencers & AI

Episode Date: September 21, 2026

📚Win a FREE BOOK! 📚Deborah is giving away a copy of ‘Bad Influence: How the Internet Hijacked Our Health’ to two of you!To enter, comment the most shocking fact you learned from this week’s episode. We’ll announce the winner next Monday on @herdiscussions Instagram stories 🏅What health advice can you actually trust?This week, I’m joined by Dr Deborah Cohen, a medically trained investigative journalist, to unpack how health misinformation spreads and why women are especially vulnerable to it.We talk about:🩻 The hidden harms of full body MRI scans😳 Why finding something wrong on a scan isn’t always a good thing🤖 The right way to use AI for health advice💸 How to spot health advice that’s actually marketing💊 Why social media can be a risky place to get advice on weight loss drugsResources & links mentioned:Deborah’s book ‘Bad Influence: How the Internet Hijacked Our Health’: ****https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Influence-Internet-Hijacked-Health/dp/0861549880 ****Our episode with sleep expert Dr Lindsay Browning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH5VAf__TgA&t=1890s🔔 Join the HERd* broadcast channel here: https://www.instagram.com/channel/AbY4liwxlLnewx4H/?igsh=MWhuaXFweGtucTB3cA==📱 Find us on socials:Instagram & Tiktok - @drfayebatePodcast Instagram & Tiktok: @herdiscussionspod📩 Want to reach out?Email: [e-mail]🛑 Disclaimers:Opinions are my own. This content is for educational / entertainment purposes and not medical or financial advice.

Women are told to advocate for their health, but what happens when doing your own research starts making you feel worse? Because online, every symptom has a possible explanation. Every fear has a product and every influencer seems to have a solution. So today I'm asking Dr. Deborah Cohen, a medically trained journalist, how to know when health advice is helping and who we can actually trust. Well, I'm extremely excited to have this conversation today because I have to say you're a woman after my own heart. You speak about a lot of things that I'm very, very, very passionate about health misinformation online and also how women are particularly vulnerable to health misinformation online. But first, I always love to find out a little bit more about the road you've taken

in your career because so many of our audience are young, ambitious women, also trying to find a path for themselves. So let's start with your journey. You medically trained, became a doctor, and then moved into journalism. What is it about medicine that made you want to understand health from the outside as well as the inside? I think part of the things when you study medicine, one of the issues is they take...

This is a criticism of medical school, perhaps. They take sort of bright... I'm not saying I'm very bright, but bright inquisitive people and put them through a bit of a sausage factory and churn you out to be doctors to work on the NHS, which is great, obviously. because we need doctors to work on the NHS.

But I've just got one of those minds that just constantly questions. And when you're on the wards, when you're training, some doctors like that, some of your consultants like that, and some of them just used to drive insane. But there was always a bit of me that wanted to be a journalist. And I was never, like, I want to be a doctor from the minute I was born. I've always just gone a bit of a journey with things. And so, you know, when you study medicine, you can do something called intercalate.

And so I did a degree in journalism. So what effectively that means? You study journalism and you can go and study something else. And I managed to persuade the dean of the medical school to allow me to study medicine. And I think he was just happy to have me off the wards. He was like, yeah, there was some very successful journalists, medically qualified journalists out there. Go, go, go. So that's what I did.

And then I did some of my training in France as well. And then it just sort of evolved. I went to then work for the BMJ, British Medical Journal, as an editor. And I set up there investigative journalism there. Because what was happening is when I was editing an academic section, I had doctors and academics come to me with issues they wanted to talk about, but it was too controversial. Or they couldn't write about it themselves because they couldn't write.

Or you needed to do what you call writer replies. It's something called defamation. It's part of libel law. And the editor at the time said to me, well, why don't you go and set up a journalism section? That's exactly what I did. And then started doing investigations. So the very first investigation I ever did was about a flu drug called Tamiflu.

And it was 2009. We all know about the pandemic. This was a different pandemic. It was a swine flu pandemic, not COVID. And we had stopped pile a load of this drug to the tune of half a billion pounds, which sounds tiny amounts of money now when you think about how much was spent on the COVID pandemic. But we couldn't verify the evidence because a lot of the clinical trials hadn't been published. And that was an issue in healthcare at the time.

It still is, I think, where drug companies would conduct clinical trials, but not publish the results. So you got only a selection of what they wanted you to see, which tend to be the most favourable results. So the trials that don't show the good results don't get published. And that was what we were making major decisions on, both about our individual health, should I take this drug, but also on a popular. level. So what does a government buy? We'll look at the evidence, but it wasn't clear at the time only two out of ten trials had ever been published. And that was the first story I ever did. And it had a big knock on effect. And this is what I think interesting for me as someone trained to be a doctor is actually, if you do journalism right, you can have a massive impact

on a population level, which obviously then in effect helps individuals. Obviously, a lot of journalism that's done really badly as well. We've umpteen headlines constantly bewildering about, you know, coffee causing cancer, coffee cures cancer. There are better examples than that. But that started me off on that journey. And then I was collaborating with Channel 4 News, with dispatches on Channel 4 on Panorama, the BBC news night,

the mainstream, the print press at the time, which now everything's digital, isn't it? and then I was reported Panorama. Then I was health editor of news night during the COVID pandemic. And then I was science editor of ITV News. So it's sort of gone on that journey. And then I was just like, right enough. And wrote a book.

So that's it in a nutshell. And I'd imagine being the health editor during the pandemic, that must have been God. That would have presented so many unique challenges and also a very tangible shift in public perception and trust in healthcare. How did you experience that? Oh, it's horrific. I'm going to say, I hated every minute of it. Some people said, oh, you were right place, right time. I was like, no, wrong place, wrong time.

Although I think if I'd have been stuck at home, I would have gone stir crazy. But it was intense because nothing was certain. And people don't deal with uncertainty very well. People want to know, people want to be sure, particularly when they're scared. And as you know, uncertainty is medicine. You can't really be sure if you prescribe something, what effects someone's going to have. You don't automatically know.

And so that's why we deal with statistics in medicine. We deal with risk. You know, what's the chance of this happening, a benefit, you're getting a benefit, and what's the chance of you getting a side effect or a harm? But that on a massive scale every day, people are scared, people aren't, their loved ones, schools are shut, they're not mixing.

On top of that, this virus that was killing people. And I think on any given day, I was either called a COVID-denier or part of a global conspiracy, part of Bill Gates to get vaccine in absolutely everybody. Because again, when I think about health and whether that's about an individual or whether that is more globally about a population, it's everything. It may or may not have a benefit. it may or may not have a harm. We're not sure about stuff.

And then, so report that. So what's the benefit of doing stuff? So when you had lockdowns, what are the benefits of lockdowns? Well, it might stop the virus. But what the harms? Well, closure of schools. What's the impact on kids? What's the impact on cancer weights?

What's the impact on the economy? And trying to take that middle road. And this is so much of healthcare is polarized. And this is, this was one of them. I mean, I could do a whole list. It feels to me that it's been coming increasingly polarised, but this was one. And trying to tread that middle ground and really think, well, what is the impact of this?

And try and listen to people. People were concerned and people were scared. Rather than just dismiss people, try and listen. Where's that concern coming from? People obviously had legitimate concerns. But at times you weren't allowed to voice them. And trying to find that balance. I was what you called a COVID centrist before I knew it was a,

thing. It was, I was neither, well, this, if we locked down, this virus is going to go away. Never thought that. I thought it would become endemic. And that means, you know, it'd stick around. On the other hand, I thought people were actually dying. And that's a really sort of tricky situation. So that informed my reporting. But it was much easier. And what you'll find, again, in health, it's far easier. Like many walks of life, but we're talking about health is, it's easier to fall to an extreme. It's easier to find your. your tribe. It's safer. But when you're in that middle ground as a reporter, and again, as reporters, it's easier to find a tribe, stir people up. You've got your, you've got your people and

they will back you. But to try to find that middle ground, and not artificial middle ground, and report that way is, is difficult because you get attacked by both sides. I really like that you said that you were being called a COVID-denier and a, what was the other one, a COVID-denier, a part of a global conspiracy to vaccinate the world, you know. Because for a long time, like, the reason I started this podcast is because I don't, on social media, is there's nowhere near enough nuance. And at least in a long-form platform, you get a bit more of that context. When we do an episode and there's someone criticizing me for being one, too far this way, and someone else criticizes me for being too far the other way on the same episode,

I know I've done my job right. But what I do worry about is that we're losing our ability to hold two truths at the same time. We're losing our ability to hold balance in our minds. You know, recognize that during COVID people were dying and that was a reality and recognizing that this isn't how we're meant to live our lives as humans. We're not meant to live our lives locked away, you know? And those two things can be held at the same time. And COVID is a particularly good example because we all experienced it in the age of social media. How many years have you been a journalist? Oh gosh, nearly 20 years. 20 years. and how have you watched health information change across those 20 years?

We've always had hyperbolic sensationalist headlines. We had the MMR scare, and that was published in the Lancet, a medical journal that then was picked up by the press and carried on and carried on and carried on. So one thing I'm always very conscious of is it's easy to criticise. And I struggle this really weird world where I am. sort of partish of the medical profession, but I'm not in clinical practice, but I'm actually mainstream media. So I'm in this, wear this, these sort of two strange hats. But what I am

conscious of is before we attack over there, we need to get our own house in order. We need to think, what are we doing wrong? How did we fertilise this territory and enable this mistrust? And don't get me wrong, there are bad players out there. There is disinformation. So there is misinformation, but for me what I'm interested in is disinformation, the willful misleading of people, not just you've messed up and you might be a bit wrong, but why you're willfully misleading people. And we've seen that in healthcare for years, haven't we, with the tobacco industry hiding evidence that they knew smoking cause cancer. We've seen that with the fossil fuel industry hiding evidence about CO2 emissions leading to climate change. We've seen that across

the board, food industry, hiding information. And then the drug industry, as we were talking about with Tamiflu, you know, not publishing evidence or selectively reporting their studies. So we've got to be aware of what creates mistrust as well. And so when I think about these things, I don't just think, oh, well, it's sensationalist press trying to get headlines, which is true or influencers trying to go viral. And virality obviously brings all sorts of benefits.

you know, there's nothing better than, oh, look, I'm trending, and then there's monetary gain on top of that. But what are we doing to create this atmosphere as well? So we have a role to play, I think, and I'm speaking here more with a person that I guess I am a senior visiting fellow at LSE more in this sort of academic-e health professional. Equally, what's appealing about this group, thinking, and this tribal mentality?

I loosely, and it's very, I mean, it's not very evidence-based, but think when people are angry, they'll find a cause to hang their hat on. If people are scared, they'll find a cause to hang their hat on. If they feel lonely, they'll find a tribe to bomb with. And there are some people that don't fit that rubric, but loosely. I think we need to think about what else is going on

besides just the dodgy information. And they could say for years there's been bad reporting of studies and there is a lack of scientific literacy and health literacy in the press as well. Again, I wouldn't necessarily stick the boot into journalists, although sometimes they get things badly wrong, is they're under different pressures. So what is it we've got in front of us that creates that mix?

The big difference I would say now, though, that aside, is that as a BBC reporter, I have an element of accountability. You know who I am, you know where to find me, You know who I'm representing. You know how to complain about me, whether that is to the BBC directly or whether that's to off-com. To a certain degree, I'm regulated.

And it's similar with the, what is the traditional print press. Although that's all gone up in the air now, hasn't it, with all these different platforms, is that you're regulated by IPSO. There's an accountability, there's a face. You can't suddenly just delete your whole history of your publications.

What's different with social media is there's no accountability. Anyone can say anything. And the advertising standards authority, because there's a lot of advertising involved in all of this, can't keep on top. It's a vast, vast, vast array of people out there giving you different information.

There's just no accountability. We don't know why certain people are on the platforms and there's a lot of really well-meaning people, but also there's people trying to sell your stuff. There's people with vested interests. That's not automatically clear. It might simply be the joy of going viral.

So one thing I always say to people and one of the first things I do, and this is one of the reasons I write the book, is when I'm approached as a journalist about a story, I give my sources quite a difficult time to start off. I'm like, look, I've got to get this right. If I get this wrong, we're all going down, is that why are you coming to me now?

What is it you want from this situation? Why should I believe you? Why should I listen to you? And this is why I wrote the book because what was happening, Well, a lot of my girlfriends, I'm male friends. We're getting like HRT information online or ADHD or full body scans or this, that and everything else. And one of them said to me, we were in the pub because all best ideas happen in the pub.

Actually, I was in two places it happened. Once was in the pub and one of my mates said, oh, you've got right about this. Because what she was trying to do every day was do what I do in my day job. What the benefits? What the harms? What the uncertainties? Is this disease even real? and follow the money.

Where the conflicts of interest in, as a journalist, you always follow the money. And that is often the case, I think, with social media. So that was one, I wrote the book. The other one, the big one was, I'm from Liverpool originally. And I was at my aunties, I'll go all scouse now for you. I was at my auntie's birthday party, and it was like hissing down, excuse my language, with rain,

huddled under a gazebo, and one of my cousin's mate said to me, she said, just bought an AMH test. Now, why did you do that? That's anti-malarion hormone. I said, well, why did you do that? And she went, I want to know how fertile I am. And I was like, well, is it going to tell you that? And she said, well, that's what they tell me on social media.

And I said, but it's not. It's only part of what makes you fertile, whether it enables you to conceive. You've sort of been missold it. You'll go to you. What are you going to do with the results? What are you going to do if they're high or low? And she said, well, I'm going to go and see my GP.

And I said, then they're not going to be able to do anything with it. So, and it was at that point, I became aware that these platforms are really a space for marketing to people. And it's that sort of misinformation and helping people unpick and unpack that. And information as well now is dressed up as marketing. A lot of it is marketing. And being able to unpick medicine for marketing is really, really difficult. I do it for a living. And I'm confused permanently about what to believe.

Yeah. I know sort of how to critically appraise papers. I know where to go for sources. And I'm lucky because I can pick up, like the heads of the nice guidelines, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines that produce guidelines that doctors follow. I can phone them up as a journalist and get advice.

Now, the vast majority of people can't do that. So I'm in a privileged position and I struggle. How's everybody else making sense of what they see? I remember years and years and years ago, I think I had a sick day from school and that's going to work with my dad. And I always think I was probably like nine years old. And I ended up doing on news,

They had a thing at the time, like the online news round, CBBC thing. And it was like little journalists academy games, whatever. And I just vividly remember randomly, like all the codes that journalists had to follow, how, you know, making sure your sources were accurate. Now I look back at that and I think I look at some people with podcasts and who don't have the same codes or haven't even been trained in those codes that they have to follow or they aren't part of wider organizations that have years and years, and years of codes that they should and, you know, procedures to follow.

And I'm not saying that traditional media hasn't had its fair share of controversy, but because of those controversies, systems exist and are in place to avoid them happening in the future. And then there are certain podcasts where famously there have been a lot of misinformation spread, and a lot of the misinformation leads back. One episode will be fearmongering about something. And then the next episode, the solution will be the sponsor. of the episode, and I say this is someone who has a podcast. How has that changed the landscape?

Podcasts are a real issue. Podcasts and books, actually. We talk a lot about social media, but I think books and podcasts are real problem when it comes to misinformation. And what happens, and I talk a little bit at the, that is my book. She says on a podcast talking about misinformation and books, no hypocrisy there whatsoever. But anyway, listen to me, don't believe them and all that. why I always say to people is you should always ask why should I believe you equally that applies to me. Why should you believe me? You don't have to. But I'm going to tell you why you should. But podcasts are a circuit. And it's funny because when you have a book that comes out, someone said to me, or why don't you get in the podcast circuit? I went, I'm never going to be on it. I'm far too critical. I'm not going to sort of go yet nod, yet nod, yet nod. And that's what it takes. So you get the podcast circuit where the same people appear on. on the same podcasts and they keep it going and they never disagree, even if someone is talking absolute BS, they keep it going, they keep it going. And there's no room for critical appraisal

or critical thinking. Where I would stick up for Instagram, unless you stop your comments or delete them, which is a problem actually in health and have repeatedly heard comments are deleted or people are booted out of forums if they dare disagree with the ongoing narrative is that it's very hard to break through. And that's what you hear constantly. Social media you can comment, but you hear this dominant narrative. And women's health is terrible for it, actually. Yeah. And it's the same people.

It's the same faces, doing the circuit, speaking to each other, talking nonsense, repeating what they say, and then adding to it. And podcasts are outside what's the offcom code. So offcom regulates, like the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky, the sort of even, you know, GB News and so on. It doesn't regulate podcasts. in essence you're supposed to be fair and balanced now we can have conversations

whether we think like DB News is fair and balanced and things like that maybe maybe not there was a recent report actually done by offcom that looked at the sponsorship of some podcasts from supplement companies and then they were promoted on those podcasts

I won't name the person I will do in future but I won't hear because I'm aware what defamation is and write a reply so I won't get you into hot water but that is an issue particularly where And this is where I have a problem, particularly when the presenters are medical. It gives it that extra credibility.

I have been very vocal about criticising certain podcasts because of spreading misinformation. And then I remember one guest came on the podcast. And a lot of the things this guest said, I was like, oh, that's not aligned with my understanding of what the evidence was. But I'm not a journalist. I was on the spot. I was also on the spot with someone who had many more years experience than me, many more years, my senior. There was those interpersonal issues of I didn't feel comfortable challenging this individual. And there was one point where I kind of like, I was like, I have to challenge her.

I have to challenge her. And I challenged her very feebly, but I was very, very proud of it. And I realized, do you know what? I've been very critical of these other podcasts, not being more challenging. But when I was in that situation, I found it really difficult. And then afterwards we went away. We hired someone to basically fact-check the whole episode and put up disclaimers for things, put up the papers to back it

and try and fact-check everything that was said. But then there was another issue that rose because when we were fact-checking and something didn't quite line up, it was, well, if we leave a disclaimer on screen and people are listening through their ears, they're not going to see the disclaimer that this is not correct information. Social media is incredible in so many ways. I didn't do a journalism inculcation

and trying to challenge people and understand that is a challenge. But then, yeah, you're right, I have a medical qualification which legitimises it more than... But you're aware. And that's then you're aware of that. And I think it's when that lack of awareness. And it's not easy. There's a reason why we have sort of very skilled and I'm very lucky.

I've learned from some of the best in the business. I work with Emily Maitliss on Newsnight and people like that. I've worked alongside the best in the business, and it's hard. And I think the other thing with podcasts is, I've ambled up today. I knew very little about what we were going to chat about. It could have been a hostile interview. I'm sort of prepared to take that. You could be throwing all sorts of stuff at me,

and I should be able to defend what I've written and have the evidence to my fingertips. But I think one of the issues with the podcast space is, they don't necessarily offer a challenge because why would you go on something that challenges you? There are so many other podcasts out there that you can go and speak to and everyone will nod along

and it's all fine. Why would you do that? But it is difficult. There are particular skills. You know, I saw the recent interview with Elon Musk on The Economist. And that talked to me, I'd love to have seen Emily Maitlis do that interview,

say, for example, because the editor of the economist, Zani, Minto Beddows, which is great. She's not a broadcast journalist. It's a real skill. It takes years and years and years and years to build up. It's why it's hard to sort of cut through and do those hardcore interviews. But I think one of the issues now that we have,

and this is one of the big changes, is those accountability interviews. At one point, when I started my career, that you had to go on like the Today program or you had to go on Newsnight if you're a politician and had to face the music. Now you don't have to because there's so many other people that you can go and speak to.

And we've seen Andy Burner, and recently, you know, new Prime Minister, very cleverly losing social media. And that is a skill. That's probably one of the reasons where Keir Stama went wrong. But using that platform, I wrote a piece yesterday in the Sunday Times, and one of the doctors in it, and again, I won't name it, because I don't want to get you into hot water, is using her platform on social media because I've been like,

oh, this is very quiet. It's a very controversial subject, and we may talk about it. It's very quiet. I'm not getting attacked. And I am used to, I've seen every single trick in the book, whether that is people trying to get the research published to the sort of games that people play, the tactics, when you do publish or you come out with something controversial,

I've seen it all, I've been there, I've done it all, nothing surprises me. I've got the war wounds. I've got some fairly big war wounds. But it's been very, very quiet. But what I noticed is one of the people in question, just use the platform to say, I do this and I do that. didn't directly criticise me, which we know that she, you know,

she has criticised individuals in the past. And I've had various messages today and saying, why? Why has it gone really quiet? I'm like, don't really know. I suspect if they do criticise, I'll just write about it. That's one of the joys. I don't care. And I think one of the issues, again, is if you're going to do it,

this job, you have to be prepared to not be liked. If you're going to do journalism, them, you're going to have to be prepared to piss people or I are. A lot of people want to be on TV or social media because they just want, you know, they want the fame or the celebrity. I'm not interested in that. I don't care. I don't want to be Devinemichols, mate.

Don't care. And so you have to sort of be mindful of the reasons you're doing it. And if you're going to call things out, you have to be prepared to be disliked. But on the flip side, what I would always say is when you do it, you find out you have backers. They might be silent. They put the heads above the paraparral. it eventually. But it's the attacks that you hear and feel. You don't always hear the people that are sort of in the background going, yeah, go on, go on, go on. And that's what I've learned.

You learn it the hard way. If you choose to see the balance, you choose to see the nuance, you, you piss both sides off. Yeah. And I think that that is, especially in today's climate, that is the most important voice. People have a, people have a way of expressing themselves. Yeah. So when you started out, that said, the BMJ, when I was slidded today, they publish what's called rapid responses. So they automatically publish all the responses because we think about it in journal terms as post-publication peer review.

So they will publish everything. And I'll be there like, oh my God, my own employer is publishing those defamatory stuff about me. But what social media has done, and there's good and bad in this, although if you look at what Peter Thiel is doing actively encouraging people to go after journalists, the social media is Twitter or X is really,

really giving people a platform. And I noticed that during news night is that goes out half 10 a night. In the pandemic, it was caught to 11. People have had a couple of drinks probably. It goes out to the Twitter arty. People really have strong opinions. And so they will give you real-time feedback. Yeah. And that's a big difference. So you're sort of like, cowering in the corner as you get attacked constantly for everything your report. And then you have to sort of work out, God, is this worth it? And I suppose that's not good for your nervous system before you're trying to go to bed. You've got to, yeah.

Wired. Let's talk about women's health because women understandably are an especially vulnerable market because they have felt ignored by healthcare. Not felt ignored by healthcare. They've been ignored in research for a large part of history. They feel ignored in a clinic room. And if you walk into a clinic room and the doctor dismisses how you're feeling, they don't listen to you, you don't walk away with nothing.

You walk away with a lot of unanswered questions. and, you know, as we know, unanswered questions, create a vacuum. Vacuums need to be filled. And who fills that? Social media fills that. Now, social media is, we can look, turn our heads, as you've said, we can turn our heads to social media, or we can turn our heads to what has happened historically to women and what is happening in these clinic rooms.

So we have created this extremely vulnerable group of people when it comes to misinformation. What do you think of the biggest risks that women face when it comes to misinformation? I just think, if you think about we are marketed to from such a young age, whether that is about our physical appearance, so put that to one side. But we have periods, you know, start periods, what, 9, 10, 11, 12, 30, you know, in sort of in early teens, say, for example, and you marketed tampons and sanitary towels and all that kind of stuff and stuff to deal with your period pains.

And then you were marketed towards, contraception and getting pregnant and then fertility and then childbirth and then child rearing and then the issues that come post-partum post-childbirth and then perimenopause and then menopause and then post-menopause

there's a whole steady stream of ways of marketing to women then as you mentioned the research a lot of it has been done on men so heart attacks might present differently in a manner than it does in a woman.

But we hear about that, you know, that crushing pain and radiation down the left arm. You know, and that tends to be more of a male presentation. So because of that, we've got a slightly distorted evidence base. And we have these big gaps in women's health as well, you know, endometriosis and things like. And then we have big weights. And it has been underfunded.

And I think the National Institute of Health, and I always quote this, they didn't mandate women. So that's the big. US government funder. It's the biggest, well, was until I think Trump got in. It was the biggest funder, public funder, of health research in the world. And

they didn't mandate women being in trials until 1993. That was the year Jurassic Park came out, you know, it was sort of and so we've got this massive evidence gap that we're trying to fill. Now, when you create gaps in whether you're being

seen, whether you're being heard, whether you're being listened to, whether you've got a gap in healthcare treatments or research, there's people that are always willing to fill it. And that makes us vulnerable. Like there's been a massive rise in Femtech, which is great. Except it doesn't mean you should churn out all sorts of interventions without an evidence base. That isn't empowerment, that's exploitation. And women are vulnerable to that for all those different reasons.

So historically, you know, about our health hasn't been funded. There hasn't been enough investment in women's specific services. We have a whole different spectrum of conditions to men. Men have been largely in research. And then we have a whole from, you know, men don't have periods and, you know, they might have some fertile issues, but not in the same way. So, you know, egg freezing, all that stuff. We're constantly being targeted.

And into that gap, we have all these sort of interventions that claim that they're providing the solution. And the problem is, is it's not very well regulated. So while I talk about the drug industry, they're pretty well regulated comparatively. You've got to do a massive clinical trial before you get approval. This is an interesting question because you mentioned earlier,

the podcast hosted by someone who's medical, can be particularly dangerous because they have that added credibility. What do you think about people who have a medical title online? What are the dangers of that in general? So I think it's important that we have credible voice. is really important. But they have to sort of be objective voices

where I get concerned. And again, I won't name people, but I could trip a whole load off, is that one of the games that influencers pay, or one of the techniques for building up trust is I'm just like you. It's called parissocial relationships. So how you build it up,

you do your, you know, your film, you're real and your messy kitchen toddlers running around, or it might be, you're putting your lippy on, now getting your makeup on, you know, you're talking like that. And you build up trust and you let people into your home and you think, oh gosh, they're just like me. I do that. And then they impart that information.

And so you build up almost this faux relationship. It's called a parisocial relationship. But they're only showing you what they want you to see. And that's one of the issues, isn't it? You look at everyone, oh, my God, their life is absolutely perfect. But they're only showing you the bits that they want you to see. And then they build that up further by respect. responding to comments under the reel, or they'll drop into your DMs.

For marketers, that's the golden. That's the golden goose is a, you know, direct message. And so you're building up these relationships. They feel personal. If you think about the old school advertising, it used to be a celebrity. Let's say a celebrity, you know, advertising trainers or something. They feel distant. You might write them a letter and you might,

phone mail, you might get a letter back. This is a very, very different relationship. The other thing is, is think about where you see this stuff. It's on your phone. Your phone's intimate. Your phone's personal. It's where you go and phone your parents, your grandkids, or whatever else. So you have a personal relationship with your phone.

And that's where all this is dropping into. Coming back to the medical profession is when they use that personal relationship to sort of build up that trust, but then have, well, actually, I'm a doctor and this is what I do, that authority, it's called authority bias. So you do what I do because I'm a doctor, that makes me uncomfortable because you're leaning both on the parasitone, relationship, but then leaning into authority on the back of it. I'm a doctor and this is what I do for my health. Now, that for me feels pretty old school. It goes back to that. Should you ask you a doctor what you should do? Well, no, it's about patient choice, isn't it?

That's the way our training has been. It's all about shared decision making and patient choice. But then this idea that, well, I'm a perimenopausal doctor and these are the supplements that I take. Well, if a doctor's taking those supplements, they're just like me. Look, I've seen them in the gym running around or has seen them sort of harried driving or whatever. Is that how we practice medicine? Is this the future of medicine? I saw one comment from one doctor influencer who's now no longer on the GMC register, the medical register. He said, he can imagine in the future doctors will have parasocial relationships with the patients. I'm there going, is that what we want? Interesting. But when you see patients, are you? you in clinic, and this is a very different way of working, are you dispassionate and you're helping them come to the decision and you're presenting evidence in a cool, calm, sort of collected way? Or you sort of telling them all about your own?

It reminds me of that old comedy sketch, isn't it? A psychiatrist and the psychiatrist's couch, they say to the patient, or you lie down and tell me your problems, then I'll tell you mine. Yeah. It's just a very different dynamic. And the questions I have then is, well, that's what people are used to getting served up on social media.

What relationship then when they go and see their NHS GP that's got 10 minutes and has got harried and everything else? What do then they expect there? Yeah. Have their expectations been set before you even see your doctor? So obviously I am a doctor on social media. And I do film from my home, you know. my audience is relatively quite like young, young women. And I was working in acute medicine, like my first year as a doctor,

and I was talking to a family. And the daughter said to me, I watch your YouTube videos. I've watched your YouTube videos for the last three years. And I remember being like, oh, oh my gosh, like you've seen the inside of my house. You saw me graduate. You saw me my last three years of uni, a few years of uni.

You saw me like studying for my exams. And I remember feeling like, oh, that's taking me out of, Dr. Faymo, that's put me into, like, personal fame mode. I've always justified that by none of my friends from home are doctors. I think doctors to lots of different groups are so inaccessible. And I wanted to show that you can be a normal person. To me, like doctors were non-human. They were like rock stars and it was a little bit unattainable. And I wanted to show that personal side to show that it's attainable. I don't know, the, the, the parosocial relationship and the impact that has on people's expectations

and also the impact that has on what people believe is a very, very, very real concern. And it might be perfectly okay. And it's not to say it's bad. It's just, it's different. Yeah. And it's working out. Because we've always had TV docs,

but they've been few and far between. It's when you use that relationship to hard sell. That's for me where it becomes uncomfortable. Like, yeah, show people the life of a doctor and, you know, it's attainable. And you're probably not from too dissimilar background. To me, by the sounds of things, you know, I'm state school, Merseyside. But family in North Wales.

I thought you're from North Wales when you're talking. So you've got that very sight, Welsh lill, but the sort of north west. So I thought you might have been Chester, but I wasn't sure. And that's okay. But I think we have to understand what's happening. Yeah. That's the question. And it's also.

begs the questions, what do people want from their doctor? Now, when you're in an acute emergency situation, it might be quite different to when you're dealing with sort of day-to-day, more chronic, day-to-day sort of conditions. But is it changing our expectations? Or do people want stuff just from the palm of the hand? We mentioned COVID before. One of the big changes in COVID is we were forced to embrace telemedicine,

telehealth overnight. It was like phone your GP, do a Zoom consultation. Now, that was overnight and I don't think doctors had time to really train and learn about it. It was just sort of sprung. But then it sets a certain set of expectations. You'll know better than I do.

Sometimes you want people to come in and they don't want to come in because they've got used to it. And I'm quite, I've got I'm doing it from home. It works quite well. But you're like, no, no, no, you come in or the flip side where people don't want the telehealth or they want to come in.

It sort of changed. in many ways. Well, that was really thinking about, well, what the downstream affects. And this is where social media comes in again. It's really easy to build a website, have your own little clinic. And that's what we've seen massively in the menopause. And have Instagram as you shop front. It's the front of your clinic.

It's how you mark it. And how many sort of menopause doctor influences are there online? And they have private clinics. that is new. Because it used to be, you find out about the clinics, you'd have to Google them and you get them in your feed whether you want it or not. Yeah.

And that's not to say that women with the menopause haven't had their symptoms ignored and having, you know, there are two issues at hand, but one is not the solution for the other. I think your book is extremely important in that space. You mentioned about the expectation of people having access from their hands and how COVID-shaped that. where do you think AI plays into that?

Because I was writing something recently about advocacy and the person I was writing it for said, oh, you should mention the role of AI. I felt really torn because I'm writing this thing that's not going to come out for till March. And I thought, what I write about AI now is not going to be relevant by March. And I actually am not an expert in how AI plays into the role of advocacy

or how AI is playing into misinformation. I think there are very few experts in that because it just keeps on changing. But what are your views on the role of AI? Funnily enough, I've just, for the paperback edition that's coming out in January, I've just done a section on this because I think the accuracy of the models

are going to change. But I think some of the issues, there are going to be some key issues along the way. I again, right I am with social media, I'm quite nuanced about it despite the title of the book, where I think there's all positives for community and people finding their community on social media, finding out information and feeling heard and feeling seen. So Lizzo Reardon, who's a breast surgeon who I quote in the book, she found her community of support on social media when she's going through chemo, you know,

and people told her how to deal with the sickness and sent a blanket. and she had a real sense of... And again, during lockdown, and people with chronic illnesses in hospital, social media's the life lie. So I would never, ever denigrate that. We just have to be careful about what information that we get from it and how we process it

and think about what that's doing to our health. Equally, large language models. So we know there's a global shortage of healthcare professionals and it's all around the world and different reasons. There's strain on the health services. If AI can pick up some of the slack there, that's great. If you get a garbled or not a garbled

or you get a letter from your doctor that's heavily jargon and you can use AI to help you interpret it or if it helps you prep for an appointment, that's great. You know, what questions do I need to ask? But then there are other questions about where are information's coming from? It's a black box. Who's behind that information? Why we served up particular information.

So why I was interviewed for, and it might be worth you having look at this, is for Open Democracy. They did an investigation a couple of weeks ago about abortion advice on LLMs, and they posed as women who were pregnant in different countries to look at who was serving up the information. And it wasn't just public health authorities. It was anti-abortion groups that the LLMs were referring to.

And those issues, are going to be constant, unless we're transparent about our sources and where that information is coming from that they are going to be and how you ask LLMs a certain question.

So another example I've sort of got in there is about cyclospora, which happens to be quite topical at the moment because there's outbreaks of this explosive diarrhea around the world. And a doctor had symptoms and it was like, explosive diarrhea, a stomach pain, you know, the classic symptoms,

but knew exactly how to put the symptoms into chat GPT, you know, the sort of classic red flag or the classic sort of signs, okay, it's remitting, it's relapsing, it's explosive, this is what comes on, this is how long have had it, and was quite specific with what they put in. And the chatbot recognized it was cyclospora. But someone else tried it and just put in a general question, it didn't even mention cyclospora.

So we have to think about they're called prompts. So how we put prompts in, how we use prompt, when's the right time? Is a prompt, is going to chat GPT? Should I come off these antidepressants? Is that the right use? Oh, I've got a swollen, painful single leg. What is it? Is that the right use?

So it's knowing when, how to use them and when to use them, I think. And so AI will become part of health literacy. They're not going to go anywhere. And they may get better and better. may be a bubble, they may take over doctors. Who knows what's going to happen, what the trajectory is? There's all sorts of people speculating. But as they are now, and for the foreseeable, the questions for me are, is this information

accurate? Who's providing this information? And why should I believe it? And I don't think that will necessarily change. I wonder if you disagree is something I thought what could be good advice is asking the AI to give sources, clickable sources, and clicking on those sources and making sure they're from reliable, like making sure they're from the NHS or, you know, Mayo Clinic or, you know, reliable sources. Because sometimes, you know, you say give sources and you click on it and it's

something completely like bonkers. Yeah, exactly. So making sure that they give clickable sources to everything they're providing. I don't know if you agree. That's quite helpful advice. Yeah. The other thing I was the quite scary thing that I wanted to talk about was I was looking through TVs this week for the podcast. And someone had put on their CV that they had skills in LEO. So you've heard of SEO. So like search engine optimization. But it was like large language model. Yeah. Or GEO. GEO. That was it. Generative engine optimization. Yeah. And I just thought that is scary that you have the skills to train optimizing that AI mentions what you are. That's exactly. I talk about that. Okay. In the book.

So generative engine optimization, we know drug companies are using it, we know private clinical. Yeah, it's been used. So it makes it more likely for the bots to pick up. So if you ask them, please can you recommend, let's say, what's the best supplement for this thing? Then it's possible for companies to manipulate the information, the AI. Yeah, absolutely. Oh, so that's. And that is for me.

And also the big question will be is, how is, how is? they're going to make money? At the moment, they're valued at trillions, these companies. Yeah. Is it a, and you have lots of people speculating, it's a bubble, it's a bubble. How do you make that kind of money back? How do you make that money? How do you bring value? Now, obviously one way is through payment, subscribing, but if you've got 20 quits a month payment, to, I don't know, chat GPT, that's still loss making for chat GPT because the cost of running the data centres and everything else. How do you make money on top of that?

and it's an obvious thing to do is sell adverts or sell information or then do deals to serve you up information because they're going to have to work that out at some point. Already there are deals being done, but then you have to ask what kind of data is that giving me? God, that's scary. That's really, really, really scary. They are making money from us. Either way, they're collecting our data, they're collecting everything that we ask them.

And what my biggest concern is also we're losing our critical thinking ability. by relying on these AI terrifying. I'm going to come on to the section of the podcast called Bye or Bye Bye Bye. I'm going to show you something, and I would love to know whether you would buy this thing or say bye-bye. The only rule is that we love nuance, we love balance, you don't get enough of it on social media. So feel free to give context in nuance.

Full body MRI scans. If you're a healthy person, run. I was having a conversation with someone about this recently because I'm extremely anti-these. very antsy them, and they were saying, oh, they picked up what the full body MRI was suspicious of a melanoma. They had the melanoma removed quite quickly, and she was waiting for the biopsy to come back to confirm whether it was or it wasn't. I can't lie, I was a little bit hungover. It was in a personal context. And I didn't really have the cognitive ability at that time

to explain to her why, even why it's still on the grand scale of things is not. is not a net good, would you mind helping out, helping me out with that? I've got a whole chapter on this in the book because they've been heavily marketed and the chapter of the book is called Sick Until Proven Healthy. It used to be you're healthy and then if you've got symptoms, you go and see your Dutch and get it sorted. Now there's being promoted on social media. We've always got something lurking within us.

We just need to find it and it make us live longer. This falls into a category called screening. Now there's different reasons you do a test, one's for diagnosis. So you've got certain symptoms. You go to a doctor and a doctor goes, well, I'm going to do these tests because it's going to rule in or rule out certain things. You have a sort of set pathway in mind that you think,

you have a hypothesis, and it increases the chances of you finding something meaningful in those tests. And I won't go into the statistics about it, so it's quite complicated. This falls into something called screening. So healthy people being checked to see if they have any underlying illnesses. And we have screening tests. We've got cervical screening. We've got breast screening. Mammography. We've got bowel cancer screening. And in certain places, we've got lung cancer screening. But they go through really rigorous evaluation by the National Screening Committee.

And there's this idea that you pick something earlier, up earlier, it's always better. And that just isn't true. And it's really hard to get your head around because we've led to prevention is better than anything. Prevention is better than anything. And the companies that market, and the influencers that market these full body scans, really lean into that idea. Now, one debate people might be familiar about is prostate cancer, prostate cancer screening. If you screen most men over a certain age for PSA, for prostate, you'd probably find it's high. But it doesn't mean, or they might have prostate cancer, but the prostate cancer isn't going to kill them. They will die of something else, but they'll live with the prostate.

state cancer and it won't really cause, it might cause a few issues, but it's not, it's not going to cause serious harm. In fact, the harm comes from the major surgery that you have to have done to treat it. And so when you find something, then there's other things that you look in your body, we call them incidentalomas, like splodges. I've got no idea what they mean. But once you see it, you start investigating, investigating, investigating. And there's this idea, I think, that we sort of understand that if you take a pill, that you're going to get signed. effects, there's benefits and there's harms. People don't realise that you have a test, there are harms of a test. There's a harm of a diagnosis. There's a harm of finding something

because you might have more and more and more invasive procedures. So before we roll anything out, is we want to know whether you get false positives and false negative. Is everything that the test picks up actually something? And if it doesn't, that's a false positive. You might get a positive. We saw it in the pandemic. Oh, look, I've got positive lateral flow tests. You're going to have your PCR test and, oh, look, it's negative. That's a false positive. Then you have false negative, so it misses things that are there. And so when you do get symptoms, you ignore them, think, well, I've just had a scan, so I must be fine.

Then when you pick something up, is there anything you can do about it? Yeah. If you gave people a head scan, about 5% of people will have a little aneurysm in the brain, a little widening of the blood vessel. It's not going to kill them. But once you know it's there, every headache becomes a moment of crisis. Is that it bleeding? there's nothing you can do about it,

then do you need to know about it or is it going to cause you more harm, knowing about it or treating things that aren't going to cause you any harm? The other thing is that if you treat it, does it make any meaningful difference to your life? So one example of this is with thyroid cancer. So it was in South Korea,

they rolled out this big screening program and they asked people they wanted to be checked for thyroid cancer because guess what? You can test it. Just because you can test something doesn't mean you should. And they were picking up thyroid cancer. And so people were having their thirides taken out and then having to have hormones to supplement the hormones for the thyroid.

But no lives were saved. Didn't move the dial because guess what? That wasn't harming them. What was more harmful was the surgery and the lifelong hormones. Just because you spot a health issue doesn't mean that invasive treatment is going to make. a meaningful difference to your life. And in actual fact, it might cause harm.

Screening is one of the hardest things to explain. And then there's the balance is that every single thing it does pick up, how many false positives are you going to have or how many people that have unnecessary treatment as a result? So everything's a balance. You might go, okay, it's picked up my melanoma. But there might be dozens of people that have had unnecessary treatment. or false positives and unnecessary anxiety.

So it's really, really, really difficult thing to explain. I probably haven't done that justice. But there's a reason, I think, ultimately, why there isn't a single medical organisation around the world that recommends these for healthy people for screening. Yeah. And people can read more in your book as well. You go into much more detail there in a much more articulate way, I think.

That's all right. I've put you on the spot. I also struggles to explain it. Oro rings. Oro rings. They look nice. The fashion, apparently Prince Harry's got one.

So if you want to be down with the celebs, get an aura ring. I'd be careful how you use the data. It might tell you some meaningful stuff, but sleep. Are they accurate? I want to do a night shift, and I did not sleep during that night shift.

I know I did not sleep during that night shift. I actually tend to not sleep during a night shift. shift full stop because I just don't trust myself to wake up. But I was writing notes and it reported that I'd slept for four hours and it was at that point that I really started to distrust some information. And like I wear a whoop. I really love my whoop, but I love my whoop because I don't look at the data every day. I think you become extremely obsessed with the data. If I wake up and maybe like I look at it for some reason and I feel good and I feel energized but then I see I've got a bad night's sleep. then that is going to impact my perception.

Even if I felt fine, suddenly I feel tired. You know, the power of the brain is immense. I like it when it tells me what time I was getting to bed and what time I was waking up. Because over the course of a week, because say maybe I've got a deadline or whatever and I'm not getting enough sleep, I go, oh, do you know what?

I probably should work on something so that I'm relaxing better in the evenings or whatever. But I think that you can, there's a big, big, big risk that people become obsessed with the data. It speaks to the whole of wearables is you measure stuff because you, and it goes back to what we were saying about the full body scans, you don't,

there's this idea that the more data the better, that just isn't true. You measure stuff because changing that measurement leads to a meaningful difference. So if you think about blood pressure, you measure blood pressure because, you know, elevated blood pressure of a period of time increases your risk of stroke, heart attack, say, for example,

We also know if you measure blood pressure and you bring it down, there are ways that we can treat it. Yeah. Whether that's lifestyle or whether that's by a blood pressure medication, one of a different variety of blood pressure medications that bring it down, and that can have a beneficial impact. And some of those blood pressure medications have side effects. So you weigh up, you go, well, actually the benefits of taking this blood pressure medication,

I might get some side effects like, I don't know, pins and needles or something like dry, half or whatever, but it's worth it on balance. When you measure something, let's say, blood glucose, if you don't have a type 1 type due diabetes, you sort of need to know whether measuring it's going to lead to any meaningful difference and changing your blood glucose is going to make any difference. We don't have that evidence. And actually, anecdotally, speaking to clinicians of various or health professionals of various types, they see people either coming and panicking thinking they've got diabetes because toxic glucose spike is you know, a social media meme.

And so they swept a burgers. So they take out the banana and eat a burger instead. So the risk is with these things is you monitor one thing. So you have one very well monitored tree and you miss the forest around it. So in the case of glucose, and we saw it in the pandemic. We were really good at measuring COVID. But it's a lot harder to measure the impact of doing things like lockdown and stuff like that. It's much more diffuse and varied.

So we're very good at. focusing on the thing that's easy to measure and then perhaps ignoring the stuff around it that might have a bigger impact on your health. Sleep, one of the best markers of sleep is whether you've had a good night sleep is, are you tired? How do you feel? And one of the biggest things that stops the sleeping is worrying about sleep. Yeah. So going to bed going to go and I'm not going to sleep, I'm not going to sleep.

Like, I know I'm a bad sleeper, but I tell myself I'm a bad sleeper and I know that is not good for me. I'm a light sleeper, I wake up, and I know that. But then I'm like, oh, is that helpful for that belief? What does that do to my sleep? We had a brilliant episode on sleep. Dr. Lindsay Brown, and if anyone would like to search it, she basically said the same thing. She said, the worst thing you can do is, you know,

worry about how much sleep you get in. So she said, you know, she goes to sleep conferences with world-leading sleep experts. And they're all in the bar having a beer at 11 p.m. You know, they're not going, oh, this beer is. going to ruin my sleep. I'm not advocating for drinking more. What I'm advocating for is balance and you don't have to be constantly optimised, you know? And I think in the world of like Brian Johnson's going to bed at 7pm, how miserable. Life's about living. Exactly. But then there's this

pressure that you can feel guilt because you're not doing that and accepting that there are going to be nights that you sleep badly. There are going to be nights when you're stressed. There's going to be nights when you're staring at the ceiling, minds whizzing. And the best bit of advice that she gave when she came on, she said, try not to look at the clock. Because then you start counting how many hours you get in, and that's just going to make you feel worse. Get up, do something.

Don't lie there and think about your sleep. But then obviously if you wake up the next morning, you looked at your data, you're going to see that you didn't get much sleep and then maybe panic about it, which is why I try and only look at my data. I definitely don't look at it every day. Because I think if you look at every day,

you're not spotting patterns or, you know, yeah, ozempic influences. Ooh, well, depends what they're doing. Some of them are breaking the law. You're not supposed to advertise prescription-only drugs. There's a ban. We have a direct-to-consumer advertising ban of prescription drugs in most of the world other than the United States.

You might've gone to the States, you turn on the telly and you get these flashy drug company adverts telling about the benefits, then this long line of side effects, you come away like, ooh, there's all sorts of issues around here. And the advertising standards authority and the MHRA are always trying to get on top of it. You're not supposed to promote prescription drugs. Deals with online pharmacies and some of them have deals with online pharmacies. And again, that's frowned upon again.

Again, it's promoting a product. It's hard to regulate. And when they do clamp down on certain influences that promote weight loss medications, often the community, and there's a whole weight loss community on social media. It doesn't reach them. The other issue is, is they talk about mixing and matching the various different GLP1 drugs. So let's call it the brand name, so Mangaro or Wagovi or a Zempic or how you dose up

and dose down or microdosing or there's also a whole illicit market around them with a Zempic influences. And there's been stories and studies done that, you know, sometimes there's very little. as them pick in them and it's mixed with all sorts of stuff. The MHRA, the Medicines Health Care Project Regulatory Agency, our drug regulator, have got an eye on these drugs as well because there's lots of real benefit to them, but also, again, there are side effects.

And sometimes side effects take a long time to come out until we've used that on big populations of people. They're looking at acute pancreatitis at the moment, which is an unpleasant condition. And then there's eye conditions as well. So I'm slightly, again, I'm slightly skeptical. I think anything that has so many positive effects, whether that's on heart disease or whether that's on the liver or addiction,

that there's a lot of conversation about, they're called off-target effects. Then there's probably going to be some nasty surprises there too. I'm sceptical if something has so many positive things, there aren't some things that are going to be a bit dodgy as well. But one of the issues going back to that is when clinical trials are done, they're on a select group of people. And drug companies are very careful who they select into the trial.

So when we know these drugs were tested, there's a whole load of people with like depression and addiction issues or cancers that were excluded from the trial. Yeah. So what that means is we don't really know how well it works in those groups of people or what drug interactions there might be or how it might impact these other conditions. You only really know that when the drugs out in the wild on the mind.

market, real world evidence, they call it. So I'd be a bit careful listening to a Zempic influences. These are powerful drugs. They're very effective drugs in some people. There's some people that just cannot take them because they get side effects. When we get drug information and it's not just a Zemphic, let's be mindful of where we get it from and use authoritative sources, whether that is the Nice, National Institute of Health and Care Excellence,

the Mayo Clinic or the NHS website. for most things, because again, there are perverse incentives, their conflicts of interest that might be encouraging people to over-promote. And also, when we look on social media, you rarely get the balanced information. You'll get the, this drug is wonderful or this drug's not a disaster, where for a lot of people, you just have fine experience, nothing really to write home about, do you go and post about it on social media? No, you tend to get the extremes.

It's like those rating websites. It's having, yeah, it was a brilliant experience. that hotel was amazing or know that hotel was absolute dog shit, don't go there. You don't get there. Yeah, it was fine. And it's similar again, I guess, with social media. That has been an absolutely fabulous episode. Thank you so, so, so much for coming on.

There's a question that we ask all the guests at the end of the episode. And that is what do you wish every woman knew by the time she was 25? Oh my goodness me. What would I, is that if a situation feels bad, get out. Don't stick with things that aren't good for you. Move on. Get out of it. Whether that's a job, whether that's a relationship, whether that's a friendship. Don't be scared to try and move on to the next thing.

Don't stick with things that feel unhealthy and toxic for you. I love that. I think that's really, really important lessons. Don't do what I've done. Don't make my mistake. Yeah. Well, thank you so much for coming on. And we will leave the link for the book in the description.

Lovely. Thank you.