News Archive


Parents who blame Primodos for damaging their unborn babies fight for 40-year justice

The Scottish Record: 13th May 2019

Campaigners who blame hormone pregnancy test drugs for damaging their unborn ­children believe their 40-year fight for justice will finally succeed this year. The Record has led the way in reporting on those affected by Primodos – given to women as a ­pregnancy test from 1958 to 1978. read more...


The Primodos Story (Carl Heneghan)

CEBM: 21st March 2019

Oral hormone pregnancy tests such as Primodos, containing ethinylestradiol and very high doses of norethisterone, were given to over a million women from 1958 to 1978, when Primodos was withdrawn from the market because of concerns about teratogenicity. read more...


Oral hormone pregnancy tests and the risks of congenital malformations: a patient perspective

CEBM blog by Marie Lyon: 12th February 2019

I am the mother of a daughter damaged by Primodos, a hormone pregnancy test. I am also privileged to be the chair of the Association for Children damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests. Primodos contained 40 times the strength of an oral contraceptive in two tablets and was used as a pregnancy test. The tablets were given without patient information or consultation in the 1960s and 70s. We have been fighting to expose evidence of adverse effects and regulatory failures since 1978. read more...


Oral hormone pregnancy tests and the risks of congenital malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Carl Heneghan - F1000 Research (Version 2): 29th January 2019

Background: Oral hormone pregnancy tests (HPTs), such as Primodos, containing ethinylestradiol and high doses of norethisterone, were given to over a million women from 1958 to 1978, when Primodos was withdrawn from the market because of concerns about possible teratogenicity. We aimed to study the association between maternal exposure to oral HPTs and congenital malformations. read more...


Oral hormone pregnancy tests and the risks of congenital malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Carl Heneghan - F1000 Research (Version 1): 31st October 2018

Background: Oral hormone pregnancy tests (HPTs), such as Primodos, containing ethinylestradiol and high doses of norethisterone, were given to over a million women from 1958 to 1978, when Primodos was withdrawn from the market because of concerns about possible teratogenicity. We aimed to study the association between maternal exposure to oral HPTs and congenital malformations. read more...


A historical argument for regulatory failure in the case of Primodos and other hormone pregnancy tests

Reproductive Biomedicine & Society (Jesse Olzynco-Gryn): August 2018

The drug Primodos and other hormone pregnancy tests (HPTs) remained on the British market for about a decade after they were first implicated, in 1967, as a possible cause of birth defects. In November 2017, an expert working group (EWG) set up by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) concluded against such an association. However, it was explicitly ‘not within the remit of the EWG to make formal conclusions or recommendations on the historical system or regulatory failures’, a situation that has left many stakeholders dissatisfied. read more...


Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review - Jeremy Hunt Statement on IMMDSR Review

Hansard: 21st February 2018

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement setting out the action the Government are taking to address public concerns regarding the safety of medicines and medical devices used by the NHS. On Friday, I will host campaigners, clinicians and safety experts from across the world as part of the world patient safety, science and technology summit, which is being held for the first time outside the United States here in London. As part of that, we will release a landmark report on the extent of medication errors in modern healthcare systems, as well as the NHS’s plan to tackle them. Alongside those in the report, there are three areas of potential medication error that I wish to update the House on today where serious concerns have been raised by patients and their families. read more...


The Primodos components Norethisterone acetate and Ethinyl estradiol induce developmental abnormalities in zebrafish embryos

Nature Research (Neil Vargesson): 13th February 2018

Primodos was a hormone pregnancy test used between 1958–1978 that has been implicated with causing a range of birth defects ever since. Though Primodos is no longer used, it’s components, Norethisterone acetate and Ethinyl estradiol, are used in other medications today including treatments for endometriosis and contraceptives. However, whether Primodos caused birth defects or not remains controversial, and has been little investigated. read more...


Hormone Pregnancy Tests Commons Debate (Sir Mike Penning)

Hansard: 14th December 2017

I beg to move, That this House regrets that the terms of reference for the Commission on Human Medicines Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests asked the Commission to consider evidence on a possible association between exposure in pregnancy to hormone pregnancy tests and adverse outcomes in pregnancy, but the Commission’s Report concluded that there was no causal association between the use of hormone pregnancy tests and babies born with deformities between 1953 and 1975, even though it was not asked to find a causal link; believes that the inquiry was flawed because it did not consider systematic regulatory failures of the Committee on Safety in Medicines and did not give careful consideration to the evidence presented to it; and calls on the Government, after consultation with the families affected so they have confidence in the process, to establish a Statutory Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to review the evidence on a possible association with hormone pregnancy tests on pregnancies and to consider the regulatory failures of the Committee on Safety in Medicines. read more...


Campaigners vow to fight on after report finds no link between hormone test and birth defects

BMJ: 17th November 2017

Campaigners have called for a judicial review after a UK government report found that hormone based pregnancy tests (HPTs) given to women in the 1960s and 1970s did not cause birth defects. An expert working group of the Commission on Human Medicines, an advisory non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Health for England, found that after “an extensive review” of the evidence on the tests there was no “causal association between the use of HPTs . . . and birth defects or miscarriage.” read more...


Hormone pregnancy test 'no link to harm'

BBC News: 15th November 2017

The use of a controversial hormonal pregnancy test from the 1950s to the 1970s did not damage unborn children, a scientific review has found. The Commission on Human Medicines said the evidence did not support a "causal link". The inquiry was set up by the UK government amid concerns the drug may have caused defects and miscarriages. It was used in Britain between 1953 and 1975 - other countries stopped sooner. read more...


Primodos: Southampton woman's fight for justice over brother's disabilities

Daily Echo: 1st April 2017

A SOUTHAMPTON woman is campaigning for justice after her brother was born with severe disabilities, nearly 50 years ago. Charlotte Fensome, 38, grew up with an older brother who is unable to walk, talk, or feed himself. Steven, 49, has so many epileptic seizures a day that respite carers are unable to look after him. Now a film suggesting his disabilities were caused by the drug Primodos has been shown in Parliament, in an effort by campaigners to highlight his devastating story read more...


Woman speaks out about hormone-based pregnancy testing pill

New Zealand Herald: 31st March 2017

A woman whose son was born with birth defects after taking a hormone-based pregnancy test is demanding answers. Robyn Hughes, 63, is the first New Zealand woman to publicly share her story after new evidence from Britain this month, which showed women who took the hormone-based pill Primodos had a higher chance of having children with severe deformities or other serious health problems read more...


Thousands of women took 'unsafe' pregnancy drug

Irish Daily Mail: 27th March 2017


Irish women complained to medicines watchdog after taking pregnancy test drug and giving birth to babies with abnormalities

Irish Independent: 21st March 2017

A number of Irish mothers believed their babies were left with abnormalities as a result of a hormonal pregnancy test drug which is at the centre of a fresh scandal. Primodos, also marketed as Dougynon, was introduced in the 1960s as a method of detecting pregnancy by drugs manufacturer Schering. While, it was never licensed for use in Ireland, it was available and, despite a warning issued in 1975 to all doctors, expectant mums were prescribed the pills until 1978 when it was removed from the market. The pill was a high dose of hormones that, it was assumed, a pregnant woman would be able to absorb. Meanwhile, a woman who was not pregnant would have menstruation triggered. read more...


Pregnancy test linked to birth defects

News Hub (New Zealand): 20th March 2017

A pregnancy drug used by thousands of mothers in the 1960s and '70s greatly increased the chances of birth defects, a new investigation has revealed. Primodos worked by inducing menstruation in women who weren't pregnant. If a woman was only recently impregnated, it worked similar to a morning-after pill to end the pregnancy. If no menstruation occurred after taking the pill, it was a sign the woman was pregnant read more...


New evidence in claims against pregnancy-test drugs linked to birth defects that affected hundreds of families

The Telegraph: 18th March 2017

Explosive new evidence has emerged over claims that thousands of children suffered birth defects after their mothers took a controversial pregnancy-testing drug. Hundreds of families have for years been battling for compensation over claims the hormone-based drug Primodos led to their children suffering severe deformities and serious health problems read more...


No word for the victims (Von Udo Ludwig and Christian Schweppe)

Der Speigel: 2016

Translated from German. We owe a huge thank you for the assistance of Robin Hayes, former Secretary of the Association and to his Son in Law, for the translation.

Hundreds of women that have taken the hormone drug Duogynon have given birth to dead or severely disabled children. Internal documents show that the Schering concern knew about possible health dangers.

Birgit had nice hair long and blond, on pictures you can see her laugh. She got married to Heiko her childhood sweetheart and they managed a small shop. From her last cruise holiday she wrote, "the water in the Mediterranean Sea is glorious."

Birgit was the daughter of Gisela Clerc. Her mother has taken the pictures of her from the wall in the living room, "I could not stand to see them anymore" she says.

Birgit died on the 9 of January 2016 after a long battle with death, she was 47 years old and her heart did not managed anymore.

Gisela Clerc aged 74 has not coped with her death very well, she feel partly responsible that her daughter died so young, "I feel so guilty and the feeling does not leave me alone".

48 years prior, it was on a Tuesday, the mother of a 7 year old boy sat at her doctor, her menstruation did not happen and she was unsure, as doctors have told her that due to kink in her uterus she would not be able to have more children. Her Doctor suggested a pregnancy test the drug was Duogynon a hormone drug that was used to bring on the menstruation unless the women was pregnant. Gisela Clerc started to bleed heavily despite being pregnant.

When Brigit was born in January 1969 her parents were shocked, the baby was almost deaf in her left ear, bad eyesight and has crippled fingers on her left hand. But most serious was the Ductus Botalli - a potential life-threatening heart condition that will restrict your normal stamina.

To make sure Birgit could live a good life the family moved from Berlin to Franken, the nursing of the disabled child controlled their life from then on.

In the clinic where her daughter was operated on, Gisela meet other women that also where given Duogynon during their pregnancy. Their children suffered from Hydrocephalus, crippled arm and legs, damaged bladders and penises, hearts and kidneys.

Some of the women started to seek the responsible party for their ordeal. They started to look at way to start court action against Schering AG, a Berlin based pharmaceutical company which has bought Duogynon to the market. Gisela Clerc was now certain that what happened wasn't fate and instead the pregnancy test was responsible for the disabilities of her daughter.

But she decided not to sue, instead she brought up her child. The outrage came later, now she wants that the people guilty are going to take responsibility.

This is why she is now the main person in the drama surrounding Duogynon, a fight between people that see themselves as victims of a pharma concern and a pharma giant. It is a drama that always stood in the shadow of the big Contangan-Scandals, but we are seeing here similar pain and fate.

With support from the Duogynon Interest Society where affected parents and children are organised, Gisela filed a lawsuit at the Berlin Prosecution Service for murder of her daughter. The official lawsuit is aimed at unknown, but means the responsible personal at Schering AG at the time this happened. The opposition is not the Bayer Concern in Leverkusen which has bought Schering 10 years ago.

The new court case is possibly the last chapter in a health scandal which has left hundreds if not thousands of disabled people and parents of dead children. Until now they have had no explanation, no responsibility and no compensation. Until now all that they have seen is playing it down and playing for time, from one side to the other. A show of the power of money and the feeling of being powerless against a multibillion concern.

The history of Duogynon starts in the fifties. Schering sells the hormone drug for the treatment of menstruation problems and as a pregnancy test in form of pills or as an injection. There was already the possibility to do a urine test but it did not give accurate results. So if a woman did not start her menstruation bleeds the result was PREGNANT.

The drug become a hot seller, Schering sold worldwide just in 1968 around 3.8 million packets.

"My marriage did not survive the strain put on by having a disabled child".

Gisela was devastated when her daughter Birgit was born disabled, she never smoked and also did not drink alcohol. Her son was born healthy weighing 9 pounds. Initially she did not think about the 2 tablets of Duogynon given to her by her GP.

Also her Doctors seemed to be clueless on what could have caused the disabilities. Nobody drew a line between Duogynon and the possible dangers. The knowledge about possible dangers for growing foetuses was very limited - at least outside of the Schering AG.

Schering had, at least since the end of the sixties, knowledge that Duogynon possibly was risky medication. Internal documents which, were kept under lock and key, show that Schering certainly knew about possible risks of this drug - but still kept selling it regardless.

Schering brought this drug to market without adequate tests. This was not an uncommon practise in those days as the pharmaceutical market was barely regulated. Companies where allowed to sell even highly effective drugs without proper tests. Under today's rules and regulation Duogynon would not even remotely have a chance to become certified.

Old court files, which Der Spiegel was able to see, show that Schering was warned in the late sixties by various animal tests. They had knowledge of possible side effects of this hormone drug.

Tests were conducted with different dosages, with the result that some dosages resulted in disabilities and the death of foetuses. Other test showed that test animals showed weight loss. In 1971 a scientist recorded that a test dose was "highly embryotoxic is and a cause of early cell death".

But according to the test protocols these findings where put aside, sometimes with the argument that test samples were too small to relate the results to the drug. Further test where prolonged in order to delay further results. Then scientist also argued that the disabilities could have natural causes. Schering tested the drug on Rats and Rabbits, never on humans, for a long time not even of monkeys.

Most of the time the tests were conducted only on "Duogynon Simple" the injecting version. Critics felt that this version was not as dangerous as the "Duogynon Tablets". The aggressive tablets were sold considerably more often. The tablets effects are only recorded in a few tests on animals - with alarming results. One foetus had an oedema in the full body which indicates a serve heart fault, also recorded are deformity of the brain. There is a note in the test report saying "a connection between the abnormalities and the substance application cannot be fully discarded".

Unrest was raised by the end of the sixties at the concerns headquarters in Berlin, as more and more letters from angered parents reached the law department. All of which had children with severe disabilities and where making taking of Duogynon responsible.

Very critical was an initiative from the UK, where the paediatrician Isabel Gal 1967 openly raised the suspicion, that the female sexual steroids in the drug can cause the disabilities of the foetuses. The drug remained on the English market where it was sold by Schering under the name "Primodos".

It still took a few years before Schering added warnings about side effect to their packs not to take Primodos during pregnancy and to use this drug only for problems with menstruation.

In the Schering headquarters some doctors become very concerned, which is shown by an internal protocol notice from 1977. That there is still no evidence to be put forward in order to contradict Isabel Gal's suspicions. To quote these "Should this matter ever be discussed openly, would we as a company receive some compromising questions, why we have not made any afford to proof the safety of our products."

This was the time when the company started a strategy which was aimed to perfect the art of "playing it down". The driving force here was the Schering's internal law department. In 1977 Schering expected a law suit from the UK. At the beginning the law department did not enforce any tactical matters in order to fight this, as there was no knowledge on which court would handle this, so an internal notice from Schering states "we do not want to be forced at an early stage to have the public against us".

Law suits could endanger Schering worldwide business and concerns over the image of the company were growing. The danger of being held liable is always there - was noted by Schering for the Japanese market - and started to look for experts that could clear Schering from guilt if it went to court.

Schering was searching for suitable Professors all over Europe, and produced detailed profiles. In long list records of the first contact the name of the Schering employee that worked on this contact. The verdict on one scientist read, he is friendly toward the industry but does not come cheap!

1977 Schering's layers knew that their central line of defence was not easy to hold. Some experts raised concerns and judged the arguments of Schering's as "not sufficient". It was stated that even industry friendly science have a tendency to show morals. It was suggested that Schering has a serious problem as the results on animal test in the sixties should have been pursuit.

The law department ignored the critical voices, and went to go with optimistic experts and blocked further. It went so far that even their own insurance companies where not informed. The assurance did ask, because of the pending court case in the UK for the full file with all the documents available on this. The law department was ask to check which documents that could be given if forced, bearing in mind that internal documents also contain internal thoughts, which only reflect their point of view.

The in house documents showed that some of the own employees and internal experts where critical about their own Schering science: as they did not conform to the usual scientific standard, also where all the tests conducted were not applicable to humans. Schering still did not follow proper procedure "by taking the suspicious product of the market".

1976 - 25 years after introducing Duogynon to the market - Schering also first started test on Rhesus Monkeys. But more for selfish reasons: "such test would help when defence is needed in a court case" one internal note reads. In Germany the questionable drug was renamed from Duogynon to Cumorit.

Finally Schering found an English expert - at a symposium in Bermuda . This man produced a 2 page expert report in which he gave precise instructions.

"It would have been necessary to take the drug off the market - they did not do this"

In the public Schering still showed self-confidence. A company spokesman said in November 1978, it is the "solid" and most severe analysed and factual based conviction, that there is no causal relation between the disabilities and Duogynon.

1981 Schering stops the distribution of Duogynon in Germany without giving a reason.

In this year the second act of the Duogynon drama begins. Mothers that have given birth to disabled children went public. The Stern magazine showed large format pictures of children with crippled arms and legs. On picture shows a boy with Lederhosen: "Andre is 2 and a half years old and has severe disabilities on his bladder and penis".

Minutes for internal meeting in the higher ranks of Schering show how nervous they became. Prosecutors started in 1978 to interview Schering employees. An internal taskforce became the order to collect all files concerned and to check that they are worded in a way that could not be held against the company in any case of an expected court case.

In a board meeting Schering managers announced that they have signed an adviser contract with the lawyer who has been working for the Pharmacompany Chemie Gruenthal "to ensure his experience he has made in the Contangan case"

The drug Contangan which was recommended as a remedy for pregnant women caused birth defects in around 5000 children. It resulted in a court case, but after 250 days in court the damaged parties cut a deal with Gruenthal. They dropped the case and Gruenthal paid 100 million D-Mark to the Contangan fund.

Gisela Clerc learned about the criminal charge filed by the "Interest group Duogynon damaged against Schering" in the TV news in summer 1978. The spoke about "negligent bodily injury" Gisela was electrified, but she had not the strength to join. "My marriage has not survived the drain on bringing up a disabled child" she says, "during the day I have looked after my children and during night I have worked in order to maintain ourselves". In a readers letter to the Stern magazine she talk about her daughter Birgit who by then has been subjected to two complicated heart surgeries.

The Berlin prosecution office confiscated files at Schering, but then stopped the case against the responsible party rather quick with the reason, that it cannot be proven beyond doubt that the disabilities been caused by Duogynon, and embryos are not Humans in the letter of the law.

In a dossier over 182 pages the lawyer of the "Interest group Duogynon damaged against Schering" complains about serious faults in this case from the side of the prosecution - one of which was that he was not given access to important files concerning this case, but his criticism was not considered.

Schering documents are now proving that Schering has influential allies on the government side, and also had an informant in the Ministry for Health (BGA).

The Professor was employee of the Ministry of Health (BGA), but was also in close contact to Schering. Through him Schering was informed in advance about internal predictions, conclusion of internal discussions and possible steps to be taken by the Ministry. Through him Schering also placed documents into the Ministry in order to ease the relations between the Ministry and Schering in order to get a milder sentence.

According to a notice made about a conversation, the Ministry of Health person called himself an "Advocate for Schering", in another notice he states "his aim is to stop a decision made to withdraw Duogynon from the market".

Representatives from the Ministry and Schering had a number of informal discussions in order to decide, how to precisely doctors should be informed over the usage of the drug, or how the patient information packed inside the pack should be worded. Schering seemed to have such a good relation with the Ministry that letters in which they pay their respects and gratitude, are exchanged and talk about "that the common problems and interest where discussed in an atmosphere of trust and understanding shown by both sides".

In practise nothing was done by the Ministry to take Duogynon off the market. In interviews given by the head of the Ministry he was proud to say, that his department with oversight and responsibility have fought off calls for Duogynon to be withdrawn from the market.

With the withdrawal of the investigation in Berlin Schering was relieved of their biggest problem, the frustrated parents went back to their everyday lives. Also the court cases pending in UK did not go anywhere fast. One of the biggest German pharmaceutical scandals would have gone for forgotten if it had not been for Andre Sommer - A sporty man from the Allgaeu (Bavaria), who's picture, dressed in a Lederhose was published in the Stern magazine 35 years prior.

Sommer was born with his bladder placed outside his body, and he fought through life despite his disability, a massive burden to carry as he said. Due to his disability he had up to now suffered 14 operations, he has never had a normal childhood. His mother who was an early fighter in the Duogynon movement also suffered 15 years prior a heart infarct and is since then in a waking coma.

When Sommer started his job as a teacher in Pfronten (Bavaria), he felt secure enough to tackle the question that has been bothering him for a long time. How could such a disaster happen, and why have this never been fully investigated? He started internet site Duogynonopfer.de.

In summer 2010 the Spiegel magazine started to publish his story. That's how the 3rd act of the drama started. More the assumed 400 sufferers got in touch with Sommer, this time not the parents instead the damaged children, which were demanding answers. First Sommer started to catalogue of the damages suffered. 141 sufferers reported deformed limbs, 66 sufferers report deformed organs and 26 suffered brain damage.

Gisela Clerc also contacted Sommer. Her daughter was by now grown up but health wise she did regardless of all the operations suffered with a weak heart.

Sommer involved Joerg Heynemann a medical layer based in Berlin, who already had had fought a few big players in the pharmaceutical industry. He is also a pharmacist, "first of all I was very sceptical, but then I discovered the amazing parallels to the Contangan case" Heynemann says, "with the only difference that Bayer and Schering are taking advantage of their power even more than Gruenthal back then".

Heynemann filed a law suit against Bayer AG. But very quickly it becomes obvious that Bayer had no intention to hand over either the old files or that the wanted to go into battle with the Duogynon victims.

Heynemann talked to scientists who had been involved in Duogynon research. He also met a few times with a man who introduced himself as an ex-employee of Schering France. This man claimed that at the beginning of the nineteen eighties he handed five figure sums of money to well-known scientists. For this they vouched for the harmlessness of Duogynon. Heynemann stated this to the court in 2012 and ask for this man to be heard as a witness.

Bayer did not comment on this allegation. The company just repeated what they always have said, that there is no connection between Duogynon and the deformities and that this has been proven by numerous studies. The Bayer layers also stated that the case has now lapsed as time has gone by. The Berlin county court filed in favour of Schering on the argument that the case was lapsed. But the judge gave some advice to the layers of both parties, that he thought a large company such as Bayer should be interested in a solution and a dialog should be started.

Gisela Clerc was present at the court hearing. She gets angry when she listens to Bayer lawyers as well as the Bayer board at shareholder meeting, "Everything bounces off them like water of a ducks back", she says.

In 2013 she wrote to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel to ask her if she could make an effort to start a "round table" discussion, but the government saw no need to interfere.

The civil servants involved also advise that due to experts report triggered by the Ministry for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Equipment, the experts involved can neither confirm nor dismiss any connection between the deformities and Duogynon. That the Professor who led the project on behalf of the Ministry also worked for Bayer on the side, remains suspicious.

The story about Duogynon would probably end here, if Layer Heynemann and Sommer during her investigation for the lawsuit had not made a surprising discovery. In the county archives of Berlin they find the case files for the 1980 stopped court case, a total of 7000 pages. With them also the supporting files of the case, documents from Schering, which were not disclosed to the victims lawyers at the time. Now Bayer tried, unsuccessfully, to keep these files under wraps.

Whilst Heynemann managed to fight for the full hand over of these files in Berlin, the daughter of Gisela Clerc fights for her life. In the passing years Birgit has weakened considerably, her heart struggles to supply her body with blood and the heart valves are very damaged. A further operation on her aorta at the University Clinic in Essen is needed, Birgit is connected to heart-lung machine, she dies after 4 days after the operation.

Whilst Sommer and a team of helpers works through the old Schering files, he finds reports on the old animals tests, and the advice from the Schering scientists that, in case of lawsuits, to always doubt any connection between the drug and the problem.

At the beginning of June, Heynemann together with the law expert Detlev Stoffels, brings charges in the name of Gisela Clerc at the Berlin Prosecution Service for murder of her daughter Birgit - a criminal offence that never lapses, in the eyes of the law.

The files show, confirmed by the two lawyers, that leading Schering employees themselves did not dismiss causality between the taking of Duogynon and the deformities. Later, when it was feasible to see the risk, including cases of death, the medication should have been withdrawn from the market. By not doing so have at the least, responsibility for the consequential deaths of the children. The Berlin Prosecution Service is now investigating under case number 234 UJs 2041/16.

Until this day Bayer denies any responsibility. The company "still excludes Duogynon as the causing factor for the embryonal deformation". "Extensive studies have been conducted in the by prominent scientist and experts in the seventies and eighties which have been evaluated for possible causes without showing any evidence of a causality connection", as stated by a Bayer spokesperson.

The pharmaceutical people have not spoken to Gisela Clerc or anybody else concerned.


Parents of brain damaged woman tell of lifelong struggle to care for daughter and why they blame 'forgotten Thalidomide' pill for her condition

The Daily Record: 18th June 2014

ROSE and Bobby Stallard - along with other families who have blamed the pill for miscarriages and birth defects - are relaunching a fight to get compensation for their daughter Elizabeth. read more...