The Dr Louise Newson Podcast - 78 – Primodos: The forgotten synthetic hormone scandal

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

Millions of women were prescribed Primodos as a pregnancy test even though there were concerns that it was associated with many different and often devastating birth defects. More than 60 years later, many of the questions surrounding the drug - which contains synthetic hormones that are still prescribed to women today - remain unanswered.In this episode, Dr Louise Newson is joined by ProfessorNeil Vargesson, Professor of Developmental Biology at the University of Aberdeen, whose research into Primodos has helped shine a light on one of themost dreadful drug scandals in modern medicine.Together, they explore how Primodos came to be prescribed, why concerns raised by women were not properly investigated, and why it took 20 years for the drug to be withdrawn. They also discuss what the scandal reveals about the regulation of medicines, the importance of knowing about the difference between synthetic and natural hormones and why this history should never be forgotten.We hope you love the podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, please make sure to follow us, leave a 5-star rating and share it with someone who might find it helpful.LET'S CONNECT👉 Subscribe on YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/@menopause_doctor?utm_source=DLNpodcast+&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=BAU+👉   Instagramhttps://www.instagram.com/menopause_doctor/?hl=en&utm_source=DLNpodcast+&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=BAU+👉 LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/drlouisenewson/?utm_source=DLNpodcast+&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=BAU+👉   TikTokhttps://www.tiktok.com/@drlouisenewson?utm_source=DLNpodcast+&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=BAU+👉 Spotifyhttps://open.spotify.com/show/7dCctfyI9bODGDaFnjfKhg?utm_source=DLNpodcast+&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=BAU+LEARN MORE👉 Download mybalance apphttps://balance-app.com/?utm_source=DLNpodcast+&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=BAU+👉 Order my new bookhttps://bio.to/ThePowerofHormones?utm_source=DLNpodcast+&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=BAU+👉  Speak to Newson Clinichttps://www.newsonhealth.co.uk/?utm_source=louise_podcast&utm_medium=show_notes&utm_campaign=clinic_cross_promotion👉  Visit my websitehttps://www.drlouisenewson.co.uk/?utm_source=DLNpodcast+&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=BAU+

This is a really important podcast to listen to digest, but also share with other people. I've got on the podcast today, Professor Neil Vargason, who is a professor in developmental biology at University of Aberdeen. And I connected to him a while ago when I read and learned about the Primodos scandal, giving a synthetic estrogen and a synthetic progestogen as a pregnancy test in the 1950s. It was associated with congenital abnormalities, the fetus and the child, yet it took 20 years to come off market. But it contains synthetic progestogens that we still prescribe in contraception. So we talk a lot about the difference between natural hormones and synthetic hormones.

And I feel as doctors, as women, we need to know this. We need to know the difference so we can make empowered choices about any hormones we take in the future. So, enjoy it. So, Neil, I'm super excited about this podcast. I've been excited for a while actually because I reached out to you after watching a program that really shocked me. Like really shocked me and I'm not easily shocked. But it was about the Primodos scandal, which we'll talk about in a minute. And I don't know how you managed to reply to my email.

It was just wonderful. And we had a quick conversation because you're a researcher, you're an academic, you're a scientist. And I'm a medical doctor who has prescribed hormonal preparations for years. And I'm really just waking up over the last 10 years or so to the huge difference between what people call hormones and contraception and what I now call hormones, which is what we naturally produce in our body. And the two are very different, which we will talk about. But many years ago, women weren't used in experiments. We didn't have to be in scientific experiments at all. There was a real shock with a therodomide scandal where people realized that if they were taking medications that hadn't been tested on,

women who were pregnant, it could have a massive detrimental effect on unborn babies when they were born. And that did really shock the world. But then there was this other scandal that happened. And now it is a scandal. And I watched the program in horror and then I've read a lot about it. And I've reflected a lot about it because it just doesn't feel very comfortable what happened. So let's just talk about what happened. So Primodas was a pregnancy test and before they had this it was quite hard to diagnose pregnancy wasn't it? Yeah. Before the primilus test you had this, they called it the Hogbin test which was where you used of toads and you would inject the urine of a potentially pregnant lady into the

toad and then if that toad ovulated then because the toad and the humans used the same sort of mechanisms then it was pregnant. But if it didn't then then you wouldn't then you would. weren't but but because that's classified as an animal test um you'd get through an awful lot of frogs and toads a year so there was something new that didn't use animals yeah and it took a bit of a time didn't it it was like you'd you'd have to send it off and whatever it's so it was a bit of money because you've got to look after the animals and things so the hormone pregnancy test was born because of that it was trying to come up with a way of not using animals in a much more simpler way that we give an answer quickly.

So, and it, and it, it sort of did, but just explain what Primodos was or is. I mean, it's still a hormone that's used now. Well, Primodos is a, is two hormones put together. Yeah. And they're synthetic estrogens and a synthetic progesterone. So it's, you know, it's man-made. And you would do this twice. And if you didn't have a menstrual bleed over two different days, you were classified as pregnant.

But if you were not pregnant, you'd have a menstrual bleed the next day. You do it twice. If you had two menstrual bleeds or two spottings, you were classified as not pregnant. Very messy. And, you know, not an accurate test whatsoever. But that's how it worked. And that was the plan of it. If you didn't bleed, you were pregnant.

If you did, you were not. So just to be clear, this was something that doctors prescribed. They often got money, obviously, for it. So it contained ethanol estradiol. so it's a synthetic form of estrogen and it also contain norathistone, which is a synthetic progestogen, which is not progesterone.

So they've both got very different chemical structures of the natural oestodial and progesterone that women produce regularly anyway, but produce in high amounts when they're pregnant. So had this been tested on women before to test whether it was safe to give in pregnancy? see. It's not clear what the testing procedures were. And in that particular, you know, it first came out in 1958, we're just, the thalidomide disaster was just, just happening at that

particular point. And in those days, testing of drugs, there was no consensus. Each country had its own regulations. Each company had its own regulations. So there was no, there was no guideline that said you had to do this in every single country, which we now have. have today and that's thanks in part to the thalidomide disaster. So it was, I don't believe it was ever tested in humans. I don't know what animals it would have been tested on. But it was because it was a synthetic progestogen based and a synthetic estrogen based, it was believed to be, you know, safe because it was mimicking what was seen with the normal hormones. The problem is, as you say, the chemical structure is slightly different. And it is, you know, it is.

not progesterine and it is not issues in it. They are synthetic versions of it. And so how they act in the body is not 100% known, even to this day. No. And that's really interesting because I sometimes think about basic chemistry and chemical structure. And I've also said to people, if you think of a graphite pencil that's made out of carbon, it's got three carbon atoms together, if you add another carbon atom and change the structure, so it still all just contains carbon. but it's got a different bond, it becomes a diamond. Now, everyone knows there's a big difference between graphite pencil and diamonds. So sometimes a very small chemical change can make a big difference to the structure

and in the body, the biological action of something, content. Totally. You make, you know, thalidomide is a great example. You can break that drug down into slight changes, completely changes the different products. So it looks the same, but it's got a slight change and it changes its entire behaviour. And so that's, you know, the idea that these synthetic hormones in Primodos act like progesterone and estrogen, well, they've got similar qualities, but they're doing different things. And the half-life, so that's the activity that they spend in the body that's active is different.

So, you know, depending on which textbook you read, you know, progesterone can have a half-life of between five and 15 minutes. depending on which textbook, whereas these synthetic ones can last hours. So if they're asking hours, they're in the body longer than you would normally have them. And so what's the impact of that? Yeah. That's the question I've got and others have got as to what. And we know that ethanol Esterdial has got a lot greater affinity to the Esterdial receptor, but it also blocks the action of natural Esterdial working because it's like a magnet.

once it's stuck over the receptor, it's very hard to get the natural Easterdial there. So anyway, people were given it, in good faith. The doctors thought they were doing the right thing because that's what they were taught. And then there were some problems, weren't there? Yeah. So children were being born with problems. And there was, you know, a lot of people, a lot of people were complaining that the babies had these issues or were being born with issues. and because primidos was deemed safe because it was based on naturally occurring hormones

but there was synthetic and that perhaps weren't that probably wasn't realized at the time it was deemed well how can a hormone cause these problems so they were ignored they still are yeah and this is a real problem with the primordos scandal because it did unmask the history of it because no one, and even sadly now, not many people listen and believe women, but women were saying, and it was a pattern recognition thing. So there were a lot of cleft lips, cleft palates, limb deformities, heart deformities, in a way that hadn't really been seen before. And the common denominator, if you were like, where these women had been given primidos.

And it had been given to probably millions of women as well. By the time they actually thought there might be an association. The real issue here was unlike thalidomide where the babies were assessed and doctors looked for common signs of problems between these babies to see, okay, yes, there is a common denominator here so therefore this drug could be doing this. That was never done for primrodos because the medical community decided it couldn't be primidoss causing it. This must be something else, which is this.

Amos Fraser you're told, oh, your son's got, your daughter's got a problem. It's just one of those things. Well, yes, it might be one of those things. And we can't explain 60% of all birth differences that are born today. We can't. But that's probably more than it was 10 years ago. And it's certainly more than it was 35 years ago. But what we failed to do, or what the community failed to do, was take seriously those women's concerns that this medicine that they were prescribed in early pregnancy could have been causing a problem. And because, those children were never assessed, we don't know if they're, what the common factors this drug may or may not have caused. You know, could it, could it be that actually, you know, the limb

malformations that you refer to and some of the facial abnormalities, are they linked in some way that you see these with people that were exposed to priminous, but, and you might see, individually, you might see facial problems or limb problems in other conditions. We don't know that. And so that's a failing of particularly when it was, you know, it was occurring well after the thalidomide disaster as well. So you'd think that we might have put two and two together. So they're my questions as to why we, why the community hadn't looked at it and said, well, actually we need to look at this a bit more. People are, women are saying, my kids have been born with problems. Why aren't we taking it more seriously?

And this is a problem of that particular era and we still don't have an answer. So one of the things that really concerned me about this is that the drug company were alerted that there was a potential problem. And the drug company tried to hide that there was a problem. And they were prepared for some people pursuing legal action against them with babies with deformities. But they weren't prepared to look into it properly. It was very sort of reactive. And one of the other problems is one of the medical advisors was really trying to push out. the synthetic progesterogens as contraception.

And I read somewhere that one of the messages was that he was saying, you mustn't put any warnings out because all women will then be scared of progestogens and it was in the early 60s. So there were all the synthetic hormones being marketed as contraceptions. And they were worried it was going to have a negative effect on the impact of contraception. And I feel that's quite irresponsible of that doctor who was working for the government because surely he should have thought maybe this is a public health issue. How much research have we really done on these synthetic hormones,

the ethanol-easterdial and the North Eastern? Because we know a lot of the experiments that were done by Pinkus and so forth were just looking at the lining of the womb to try and stop women having periods and contraception actually hadn't been tested as a contraception. It was pushed out and marketed just for periods. And then a year later they changed the licence without any evidence. but there was still there's very little evidence to show the safety of these synthetic hormones. And I say hormones in inverted commas because they're not hormones,

but these synthetic substances throughout the whole body. And obviously in pregnancy, anything is exaggerated because you've got highly dividing cells, haven't you? And that's where, you know, it's sort of magnified, if you like. But we've got some cells dividing in our bodies all the time. It just means you don't somehow know what's going on and it can take a lot longer to see a detrimental effect than in utero in the fetus. The embryo and the adult are two very different things.

So you're taking synthetic hormones to control periods, for example, in an adult female. Well, that's one thing. But if that's exposed to the early embryo, which has got all these different signaling systems and all these different processes going on, it's very different. And cancer in adults is a recapitulation of the embryonic scenario.

Yeah. And it's uncontrolled. So, you know, you've got, yeah, I mean, I don't know what the testing was that was done, if any, in a pregnant situation. And we're only just starting to learn and understand how these synthetic versions of progesterone and are working in the embryo and in the adult itself anyway. And we're talking 2025, 2026 now, right? I know. And this scandal was 1958? You say it was started in 58 and they were driven in 1978. They'd put on warning signs in 1974, which were mysteriously removed after a couple of years. The warning signs being don't take if you're pregnant. And there's no records as to why the warning was put on and then why the warning was taken off. And if you ask the company to supply the safety data, they don't have that data anymore. They claim. because it's so long ago, which might be true. And it might be true.

I don't know how long they can be. It's quite something. It took 20 years to withdraw something. And in the program, one of the things that really struck me, whether I really wanted to reach out to you, was that you were pipetting some of the synthetic progestogen. Can you just explain what you were doing, what you were putting it on?

So we, we, I'd been bombarded by, with emails and telephone calls from various primodos survivors asking, you know, there's no research on this for years and the research that's out there is contradictory. There's a paper that says it does cause problems and there's a paper that says it doesn't cause problems. So what do we do? And we need something definitive. So at that point I was working with thalidomide. So we used the same assays we used to test thalidomide. We made some primidos ourselves. So we just, we got the two components that makes up primidose. We made them up and we put them onto zebrafish embryos

and found that the zebrafish embryos have problems. Now, as zebrafish embryos isn't a human, of course, but it does share 70% of its genome or genes, and it does share 87.5% of its disease-causing genes. So it's a good interpreter, if you like, about what a drug or a chemical or a synthetic hormone might do if it was exposed to a human. So it caused problems.

And, you know, I'm not surprised. I mean, you're talking, you're taking in a synthetic hormone. It shouldn't naturally be there. And you're putting it into an embryonic situation where there's lots of things going on and it causes issues. So would that happen in a human? I don't know because a human's got a placenta and it's a very different situation. But if you put it, if you put the hormone, if you put that, you know, mix of hormone, onto human cells, it affects those cells as well.

So the chances are that it could cause a problem. So yeah, yeah, but it's taken a long time to find that information out. Well, it's quite striking because in the picture you can see the drops going on the zebrafish and you can see their spine, you know, the development of their spine changing very quickly. And these are obviously rapidly dividing cells. But like you've actually said just now, if someone, has a cancer, you have rapidly dividing cells.

And what we don't know if someone has a cancer and they're on a synthetic hormone, does that make a difference to it? But the other thing is with a lot of these synthetic hormones, people often don't feel great on them. And I've written a lot about it in the book. There's been very few studies, or published studies, at least, with people on contracept, hormonal contraceptives. But we know that there is a risk.

of cloth and heart attack and stroke and cancers with them. It's a small risk, and I was always taught as a medical student. It means the risk is so small. These women are young. They're otherwise fit. Don't worry about it. But actually, I do worry about it because so many millions of women are taking these drugs. A small risk still means quite a few thousands women that could be potentially harmed.

But when you look at some of the studies looking at the brain and how it can block some of the other neurotransmitters in the brain and affect our natural Easter dial progesterone, testosterone, which are important neurotransmitters they're made in the brain. A lot of people go on antidepressants, then they become quite low, then they go on hormones, or contraceptor hormones, then they go on antidepressants. And there's this cycle going on, and I see it so much in my daughter's friends,

that it really concerns me, because if it's having effect on their brain, where else in the body is it having an effect? And I can't understand how little research we have on these synthetic substances when they've been around for so long. Yeah, I would agree. Okay, so if you look at your typical hormones, progester and estrogen, they probably act largely on the brain and on the gonads

because that's where the receptors for them are. But we haven't studied the synthetic virus. versions of those hormones. So we don't know where they act. What we do know is that the damage that they cause in a zebrafish embryo is far wider than the gonads in the brain. It's affecting multiple tissues. So that tells you already that if these hormones are working through, if these synthetic hormones are working through the same receptors of progesterone and estrogen are, they're probably doing more than that because they're affecting other tissues of the zebrafish. So again, that tells you, if you're taking synthetic hormones to treat a hormonal condition,

it's not, you're probably going to have side effects, yes. And we don't know what they are because they've not been studied properly. And this will go down to what are the tests that were done on these synthetic hormones? When were they done? And are they repeatable? And have they been repeated and do they show the same effects? And I'm not aware of those sort of testings and I'm not aware of those. And they don't need to be done because these products are now out in the market,

so they don't need to do so much post-market surveillance. But I'm very interested in the immune-regulating effects of progesterone, eustodial, testosterone, our natural hormones. I love the macrophage. I like mitochondria. I'm a bit geeky, really. But we know that inflammatory conditions are so common. You know, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dementia, osteoporosis,

even schizophrenia and depression are sort of as neuroinflammatory diseases. Also Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, inflammatory bowel disease, cancers is an inflammatory disease. And autoimmune diseases is a dysregulation of our immune system. So when we have our hormones as women, we have less of those inflammatory diseases. We've known that for years because women who have a surgical menopause or women who become menopause will have an increase,

they have an acceleration of inflammation. in their bodies. But what really interests me is that when people are on these synthetic hormonal contraceptives, there's likely to be more inflammation because you're blocking those receptors. And whether these chemicals, if you like, increase inflammation more, that's what hasn't really been studied. But it's a concern when you're looking at long-term health. And, you know, I took the contraceptive when I was younger and I sort of wish I hadn't really,

because I didn't understand what I was doing. I was just not wanting to get pregnant really, but I know it affected my mood a bit, affected my weight a bit. You know, had it had any long-term effects? I don't know. But I do know that I wouldn't want to be on them now and I'm really cautious with my children.

But it's very limiting because we don't have a natural body-identical hormonal contraceptive. We have one in the UK called Zoli, which contains estradiol, but it contains a synodial. but it contains a synthetic progesterone. So it's really difficult, actually, isn't it?

Yeah, and I'm assuming that's because, you know, using natural progesterone, the half-life is so sure you'd need to take a lot of it. Well, it's interesting because when we give the natural progesterone, so we usually use it orally or we can use it as a pezzary, vaginally or rectally, when it's given continually every day, people then stop their periods often. And so then I sort of think maybe a bit too naively, but if someone isn't having their periods and the lining of the womb is thin,

the chances of getting pregnant are actually very slim because you haven't got a thickened endometrium for any fertilised egg to implant in. So we just don't know. But quite often if someone is on a contraception or they're having a hormonal coil, which again is a synthetic progestogen, I will give them natural hormones on top.

so then their own receptors will have some of their natural hormones or they'll use a non-hormonal coil, for example. Sure. Because a lot more younger people are thinking about the effects of these hormones and non-hormones, if you like, in their bodies. But if you don't know about it, and they're called hormone contraceptives, so everyone just presumes doctors as well that they just contain natural hormones. It's scary, actually.

it's your long-term use of these things what is the impact? I don't know. It's not been properly studied and we know that when the first hormone pregnancy, the first oral contraceptors came out they'd cause cancer

and so they've reduced the dose of components to the bare minimum now. But long-term use, yeah, I don't know and again it's women that we're, the pill is for women, it's not for men, I think they're after. Why would men take it for goodness say? Why would men take it right? Exactly. And again, I don't know what the long-term consequences are. I know that if we do know that if you take, if you're pregnant and you're still taking the oral contraceptive pill for a long period of time, it will have consequences for the forming baby, yes. Yeah.

So again, if it's, you know, it's a risk-benefit ratio, right? Yeah. It gives a medicine out based on, is this going to solve the problem that you've got? Here's a risk, but if you're prepared to take the risk, this is the benefit? And the problem I've got with synthetic hormones is just that I don't think we know what the risks, the true risks. No. I mean, we know like the Depo-Povira injection, we know is associated with meningioma, for example. And years ago when I used to give it, I was worried about osteoporosis risk because they had an increased incidence of osteoporosis. So I tried to avoid giving it. But any of these long-acting reversible contraceptions contains. synthetic progestogens. And, you know, I do sometimes think, is why are so many women now

having, you know, gallstones, benign brain tumors, endometriosis, breast cancer has increased despite HLT prescribing going right down. So we can't always blame HART.T. You know, what else is going on in their bodies? And it's impossible to know we'll never have the answers because no one's going to do the studies. And there are new contraceptors coming out all the time because every time they bring out a new synthetic progestogen, it's got a new price label with it, because the drug companies make money on the new drugs, don't they? So, till they go off patent. So it's a, it is what it is. I get in that respect, everyone trusts what the medical profession or the drug companies tell us that this is safe and stuff. And, but, you know, what interests me the most is, when you look at,

If you go to a supermarket and you buy a packet of headache tablets, when you get like four or five pages of information, and it tells you the contrary indications, when not to take it, when to take it, what happens if you've got dizzy spells. Nowhere does it say this has been tasted safely and it's been convinced to be, it's been shown to be safe. Nowhere does it say it's been done.

Now where does it say what was done to show that this is safe in these certain conditions? Yet it must have been done because otherwise it would be on the market. And this is what concerns me, is why is that information hidden? Why can't you find information out? Why can't you go onto the web, onto a drug company's website and say, what is the evidence that this medicine is safe

if I take it for X, Y and Z? So it's really interesting. When you go on to some of the drug companies' websites, which I have done, so it's in the open domain, and you see about handling of these drugs. So the people that work in the drug company is actually making these synthetic hormones. There's a whole lot of warning,

and it's warning about the equipment that they should be wearing to protect them. cells because they are carcinogens, as in they cause cancer. So they're protecting the workers and obviously they'll be exposed to higher doses, I'm sure, whatever. But actually, I think a lot of people are understanding more about this when they're thinking about processed foods and natural foods. So if I was having, I don't know, some fruit, I couldn't eat too much of it. It's not going to cause harm. It would just make me feel a bit full and bloated or whatever. But it's not going to be harmful for my body. Whereas if I'm having some, I don't know, fruit juice or something that's

highly processed or like I'm having some rather than a natural organic meat, I'm having some synthetic burger from a takeaway, of course, the more I have, the more it's going to be detrimental. But even a small amount is not going to have the same effect as something that is processed in a better way. And so a lot of it is quite simplistic and people are understanding it's not always a dose response. It's just because it's a synthetic chemical. You don't need much arsenic to canoe. So it's looking at it and thinking what we're doing.

And recently my middle daughter was away traveling and her period came and she didn't want it. And so she went to see a doctor and was given some norathistro with synthetic podestogen. And she just took it for a few days and then she came back. And her skin had really broken out. And she doesn't really have spots. And her mood was a bit.

not the same. And obviously she'd come back from Australia to the winter, so your mood isn't going to be quite the same. But her skin was really, and the skin is a window into the other organs. It's a very big organ, but I do think, and she's looked at me, she goes, you're going to go mad with me when I tell you what I've been taking. And I said, no, it's your body. But she said, I've only taken it a few days. I said, okay, I understand. Once she stopped taking it, her skin improved, her mood was a lot better.

And that's only a short term. But it just also, I kept thinking about you as she was taking it, because thinking we haven't moved on, you know, like wouldn't it be nice to say to her, well, you've got risk of X, Y, Z, but only if you take it for this dose, for this length of time, and everything you have maybe is reversible. But we have no idea. We're just sort of chemically experimenting people. Yeah, it comes down to the doctors now sort of give you the risk-benefit analysis.

You know, what they should. So here's the benefit. I can give you this, which will take away this, the side effects are X, Y and Z. And the problem is that everyone's different. And so some people have much more severe side effects than others. And again, we can't predict that. No, absolutely.

And, you know, when we're talking about cancer risks, usually when cancer occurs, it's a multi-hit. It's not just one thing that's happened. There's genetic changes. There's environmental changes and whatever else as well. So before we finish, I don't want people to think we're saying absolutely no one can be on contraception at all. And all synthetic hormones are bad.

But what we are really saying is that we just don't know. And it's about choices and about talking in a very grown-up way, really, to your healthcare professional. To think about maybe alternatives. To think about what else is going on in your body and having that choice, I think, is so important. Because so much has been hidden from us as women for so long. there's that there's also just being aware and you know I'm sure a lot of people will say they've been on oral contraceptives for a long long time and everything's fine I'm sure that that's true but it but it isn't it isn't those those folks that we're referring to if you look at primodos

the number of people that were given primrodos the number of kids that were born it wasn't every single child that had a problem it's a very small number but there shouldn't be any and that's that's my concern. It's not, I think in the majority of cases, these things are fine, but there is a small minority that it isn't. And that's what I'm interested in trying to find out is that why does it do that? Can you make it safer? Can you make it so that it doesn't affect anyone? And no, you're absolutely right. We're not saying that all consciousness is a role, they're not, but there's that small minority where there is a problem. And I'm just as a scientist interested in how does it work, why does it do what it does? And can you make it safer?

Yeah, absolutely. There's so much that we need to do. And, you know, bear in your mind, these drugs are prescribed so widely we really need to be doing more. And, you know, women should be asking for more as well to change things for future generations as well. So I'm really grateful for your time, Neil. It's been great. I could talk to you all day. But before I end, I always ask for three take-home tips.

So three things that you would love to see happen over the last. next few years looking at research into synthetic hormone or contraceptives? I think I would like to see a scheme where there's a funding pot where you can apply to to get money to do proper research using modern techniques, modern methods to understand how these things work. Are they acting the same way as the hormone they're supposed to be replacing. If they are brilliant. If they're not, that's fine, but what are the consequences? The second thing is I'd like to see Primodos survivors treated with a bit more respect and there's an awful lot of them and I don't believe all of them are crying wolf and they're all born in

the same era. They all have birth differences. I can't explain them. Others can't explain them. They're not going away. So why would that be? If, you know, I've, you know, I'm. You know, Anyone that, if you're making this up, after a while, you get sick of doing it, right? So there's clearly something there. It's not just in the UK. It's in Germany as well. So it's third thing, I would just like no rain for a couple of months and just lots of sunshine. That's probably the hardest.

Well, they're all pretty hard actually. But it's been great because I think this conversation, we've spoken a lot. There's quite a lot of science in here. There's things that people will have been hearing for the first time. So you might need to listen to it more than once. but it's so important. Please listen to it, share it with people, have conversations, have discussions,

because the only way we can change things is being more open-minded and discuss with others. So please share this episode with others and let us know what you think. So thank you so much, Neil. I've been really, it's just been great, thank you. It's a pleasure. Take care.