Carl Heneghan

And I think thoroughly hacked off with our approach to reporting this type of evidence in a sensationalist way.

And what we need to do is when we report harms is have a statement to say, how does this fit in with pre-existing evidence?

Now, if it's similar and it's in line on a balance of probabilities, you're more likely to go, OK, this makes sense and I'm going to go with this as not causing cancer.

But if it's completely at odds, then you have a different issue and you can't have this conclusion saying it does not cause cancer.

It almost became a bit of a rant there, didn't it, really?

Well, just to say it's also been implicated in mesothelioma.

So I think it's the direct travel into the body.

So in the lungs, you can inhale it.

And within the genital tract, has it got a passage that can go up and travel up towards your ovaries?

And because you only need a micro deposit of asbestos and if it's there for 20, 30 years, you set off an inflammatory approach.

But I think it's been quite an interesting issue, talc, because if you go back in the literature, it's been there as an issue for 50, 60 years.

There's some really interesting stuff about it.

We used to put talc on surgical gloves.

And that was banned as a practice because people said it's setting off inflammatory reactions at the time of surgery.

So there's really interesting issues.

In fact, they even used to use talc on condoms.

Don't ask me why.

But to be honest with you, I can remember as a kid, you two were probably too young, maybe not.

We used to throw talc all sorts of over us when we went to the swimming baths.

And I have no idea why.