A campaigner who believes her lifelong health issues were caused by a pregnancy drug given to her mother is waiting for a major High Court decision.
Tracy Newton, from Little Ouse, near Littleport, is one of more than 100 claimants attempting to reignite a case against the manufacturer of the drug Primodos.
An initial litigation attempt collapsed in 1982, but they now hope the High Court will allow new evidence to be presented suggesting the drug caused birth defects and other complications.
Tracy’s mother, Joan Panter, now understands she was given Primodos during the early stages of her pregnancy.
At the time, it was being offered by doctors as an oral hormone pregnancy test.
In February 1968, her baby daughter was born with dislocated hips and an enlarged heart, spleen and liver.
Tracy’s immune system is also weakened because she has congenital neutropenia, a blood disease resulting in her body not making enough white blood cells.
She’s currently in a wheelchair and waiting for an operation on her hip – but repeated infections have delayed the surgery.
Tracy said: “I have two older brothers and my mother only took the drug when she was pregnant with me.
“They were born fit and healthy boys, I wasn’t - but taking that drug was the only thing she did differently during that pregnancy.
“In 1975 she found a very small article in the newspaper about how a drug being given to pregnant women was being linked to birth defects.
“She cut it out and kept it in her purse; she knew this was the drug the doctor had given her.”
Tracy couldn’t find any mention of Primodos when she reviewed both her own, and her mother’s, medical records.
But she found a campaign group called the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests around four years ago.
After speaking to others about their experiences, and her mother remembering how the tablets were given to her, they now believe she was given Primodos.
The High Court is due to make its decision any day on whether the case can go ahead and campaigners are crowdfunding their legal costs for the fight.
Tracy said: “We need justice and we need the opportunity to present this new evidence to the courts.”
The manufacturer Schering is now owned by the pharmaceutical company Bayer, which denies Primodos “was responsible for causing any congenital anomalies in children, miscarriages or stillbirth”.
A spokesperson said: “Since the discontinuation of the legal action in 1982, Bayer maintains that no significant new scientific knowledge has been produced which would call into question the validity of the previous assessment of there being no link between the use of Primodos and the occurrence of such congenital anomalies.
He went on to outline a report published in 2017 from the Expert Working Group of the UK’s Commission on Human Medicines.
He said: “[It concluded] that the available scientific data from a variety of scientific disciplines did not support the existence of a causal relationship between the use of sex hormones in pregnancy and an increased incidence of congenital anomalies in the newborn or of other adverse outcomes such as miscarriage.”
Campaigners are also attempting to sue the Department of Health for failing to properly regulate the drug after scientists raised concerns about it in the 1960s.
Primodos was one of three women’s health scandals highlighted in an independent review published in 2020.
The First Do No Harm report concluded the drug had caused “avoidable harm” and recommended financial redress for the victims.
Other health scandals it featured were the anti-epileptic drug sodium valporate and pelvic mesh, the latter of which had its concerns highlighted by Cambridgeshire mum Kath Sansom.
- Primodos campaigners are crowdfunding their legal costs and are currently running a prize draw to win a Liverpool shirt. Visit https://bit.ly/LFCShirt to take part.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here