Has the response softened or changed? When you had recommended this expanded hormone panel when Dutch first started, what was the receptivity like? And is it different now? Or do you find, no, we're really still getting the same level of pushback?

That's a good question.

I think like anything, it comes in like different camps of people of like Tars talking about people who are missing details.

And for those people, there's this whole education process that you have to go through because you're missing something you don't know about.

And then, and then there are people who like understand that, but really needed the testing and we were able to fill that spot.

And then now the pendulum is, I don't know, and probably just, I have recency bias, but in terms of focusing on one of those things, just because you know about it and then applying it to everything is also like a big problem of, which is why the educated provider is such a key part of that.

I have a, a family member that has Hashimoto's and another family member was like, Hey, this is something I found on social media.

Mark, are there things that you feel like they come up all the time on the Dutch test that people would just have never known or you could never suspect or guess without that testing?

... that would be really helpful to clear up from a risk data perspective, and, and why what we're talking about today is something a little bit different.

Yeah, maybe starting with that aspect of it is, I mean, just to keep it as simple as possible, different chemicals, um, you know, that have different impacts on the body.

Um, and I, I mean, we always talk about how frustrating it is to read papers where they interchange them even to have the word progesterone in the title, um, and then as you get to page four, you're like, "Oh," you know, I get into the methodology and you're not talking about progesterone, you're talking about a progestin.

So, you know, the body makes progesterone, um, and in a certain respect it works, uh, also to use a synthetic version of that.

And so in the WHI study and, uh, in, in many practices, um, they reach for that, and there are reasons for that that might get into politics and all of that, which I will not get into.

Um, just to say they're different compounds and different chemicals, um, and, you know, uh, the benefits of natural progesterone aren't, aren't completely mimicked by the, the synthetic progestins, although they do protect the uterus from, um, too much proliferation when you also have estrogen on board.

So a lot of confusion over that over the years, um, and we could get more into that.

Can you talk about that for us?

Mm-hmm.

And, and from there, there are layers to this that get really confusing because progesterone doesn't go up when you give it topically in serum, but testosterone and estrogen do.

So they go up, right? And the saliva goes much, much higher.

And so that's-- not to get into-- I mean, there are other layers of this that we need to unpack, but that I think is really the genesis point of this.

Um, and there-- and, and even from there, there are lots of confusing points that go-- So people will say, "When you take topical hormones, it doesn't show up in serum." And that is relative...

I would say that is true of progesterone, but for estrogen and testosterone, um, it's not true.

They do go up.

Yeah.

Can you talk a bit about that piece, Mark? And then I wanna shift back to talk about ca- breast cancer.

Yeah.

Yeah, and just to double down on what you said, it's pretty frustrating when you read...

I, I have seen somewhere, you read an abstract that uses the word progesterone, even in an, in an academic setting, and then as you peel down into the paper, then you see that they're actually not talking about, uh, progesterone, but they're...

And so when people are drawing conclusions, even sometimes if you just read the abstract, you can actually be, uh, misled, even if you're w- [chuckles] even if you're well-intentioned.

Um, but yeah.

The thing with progestins too is it's not a thing.

Welcome back to the Dutch Podcast.

How concerning is this miss for you, Mark?

Uh, not, not really concerned.

I mean, uh, actually, if you look at the numbers, it's not, uh, i- it's pretty, it's pretty close, and we actually, uh, from third party sources, we noted in our Apple tracker that the ASP was trending a little bit lighter than expected.

So we actually expected that the iPhone revenue could've been actually worse than this.

So I, I feel pretty good about the number a- as it is.

Um, obviously we need to go through a few more details to see what's trending and, and some of the details from the guidance we'll learn from the call.

But that's what I'm gonna be looking out for really is, uh, the guidance for iPhone going into next quarter, um, a- a- and including the gross margin and, and how, how is that holding up given, as you said, memory headwinds and, and other things, uh, going on in the market.

We had the ch- greater China numbers, which were up 28% year on year.

You think that makes sense here? Uh, and I guess are there other reasons that you're recommending it?

Yeah, I mean, it's, it's a stable, more defensive name, and part of the reason for that really is they never had this big upside from the AI boom that some of the other Mag Seven have had.

Uh, and so when you hear about and f- uh, hear about there's this fears of the AI bubble bursting, Apple tends to do pretty well on those days.

Um, it, it's very much, w- much more insulated from these AI fears.

And I think similarly just due to its valuation, its constant EPS growth, and free cash flow growth, and its ability to con- constantly compound its EPS and free cash flow, uh, it's generally a pretty safe haven when you're seeing fears in the market like we are today.

So, you know, we like it.

We think actually it's not that expensive anymore.

So does that filter into your expectations for iPhone performance?