After months of promising a report on the cause of autism, the White House pointed the finger at Tylenol.

It’s been just over a week since the Trump administration very publicly claimed that the usage of acetaminophen – the active ingredient in Tylenol – among pregnant women is linked to the increased rate of autism in America.

Based on dubious evidence, President Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. forcefully asserted that Tylenol is what’s driving the “current autism epidemic.”

Trump put an exclamation point on it by repeatedly urging Americans to not take Tylenol. Attempts by the commander-in-chief to pronounce acetaminophen were a mixed bag. 

For all of the upheaval that arose from the blustery communications out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, there are real lessons to be learned for health brands and medical marketers on a professional level.

In the days since the announcement was made, Kenvue – which produces Tylenol – has taken proactive steps: issuing statements refuting the assertion that its product causes autism and establishing a webpage dedicated to FAQs about autism.

Then there is the curious case of GSK.

In conjunction with the announcement singling out acetaminophen for causing autism, the FDA expanded use of Wellcovorin, a 25-year-old drug from the British pharma giant, as a treatment for some people with autism. 

This development has put the drugmaker in a unique and challenging spot, particularly when it comes to informing patients about using the drug for an indication it did not actively seek out.

Then, on a personal level, there is also plenty that can be learned from those living on the spectrum or caring for those who do.

For this episode, I moderated a moving conversation between MM+M editor-in-chief Jameson Fleming and Rachel Lowenstein, co-founder and chief creative officer of the Neu Project, a creative consultancy. 

Over the course of nearly 40 minutes, both Jameson and Rachel offer a measured, nuanced response to the Trump administration’s public claim that Tylenol usage is linked to an increased rate of autism and dissect what it means from a comms perspective.

There isn’t a Trends segment at the end of this episode – we believe this longform conversation encapsulates a number of important thoughts and feelings related to this issue as it unfolds.

So, this is kind of a special episode of the MMN podcast and it’s it takes place in this kind of odd context that we’re in as a country and a society and we’re going to delve into all of that. But I’m I’m pleased to be joined by two wonderful guests. Jameson Fleming is our editor and chief at MMN that most of our audience is more than familiar with. And then we have Rachel Lowenstein who was last on the show in August of 2024 talking about divergent, convergent.
Obviously, there have been a a number of different changes in your life since then, Rachel, if you want to fill in our our audience a little bit before we delve into what we’re going to talk about. Sure. Thanks for having me on. Indeed, a weird time right now, but nice to be here. I’m Rachel Loewenstein. I am the co-founder and chief creative officer at The New Project, which is a non-profit consultancy that helps brands reimagine experiences so all minds can shine. I’m autistic.
I’m also an autistic content creator where I talk about being an executive, an entrepreneur, just a person who sits in the world who has a disability and who is neurodivergent.
I appreciate you coming on the show and again it’s in this at the time of this recording we’re a few days out from the announcement from the White House that was claiming a link between Tylenol, acetaminophen, the usage by pregnant women and the rising rates of autism in America and we recorded this past week’s episode shortly after that announcement was made and Jameson you made a lot of very passionate cogent points about the fact that you know you are raising a son who has autism And I thought it would be a worthwhile conversation to have you both on here.
To hear your thoughts in terms of what you make of this announcement. Let’s start just on a personal level and maybe Rachel you can kind of kick us off there. And just when you heard that news come through and we’d had the Wall Street Journal leak a couple of weeks earlier that they were going to make this assertion, they were going to make this claim on some very dubious evidence. What was your reaction actually seeing that press conference take place in the White House? Yeah, I mean there there was A lot of feelings that went into it.
One was frankly just not being surprised. These claims, these candidly these conspiracy theories, misinformation have been circulating for years. So to position it as this this new finding with to your point with pretty dubious information that sits behind it that pretty much all medical experts are saying is is not factually correct. It felt like we were just recirculating some pretty old claims that are really harmful to the autistic community.
So on one hand, unfortunately I wasn’t surprised. Um on the other hand, it’s extremely frustrating and sad to see. I think this announcement unfortunately at a cultural level is going and to set the autistic community back decades. You know, we’re we’re back to where we were talking to how we were talking about autism in the 90s.
I think the the good point is that people like myself, like Jameson, like other figures in culture and media are pushing back pretty hard and we have a voice in culture where historically autistic voices, especially adults have not been heard or seen and that’s no longer the case.
So while the frustration and the anger and the sadness is very real, I’m hopeful because um because of my community, because of people that I’m surrounding myself with who are pushing back and and saying we’re not going to stand for this type of treatment or information towards our community which is is largely going to set set us back and say that autism is something to be cured or something to be fixed which as a reminder autism is not a disease.
Autism is a cognitive disability and difference. Just like there is variation of diversity and multiple facets of somebody. Cognitive diversity is a a part of the human experience and that includes autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of someone’s personhood to say that there’s a part of them that needs to be fixed or quote un quote cured.
I appreciate those insights there and we’re going to delve more into it from a marketing perspective because obviously you’re able to come at that from a professional lens. But Jameson, before we get into that, you know, you touched on it in the episode the other day, but on a personal level, like what has this all meant to you given your your experiences? Yeah, so for a little more context or background, I have two sons that are both never divergent. My oldest is on the autism spectrum. We noticed some things when he was about two.
That was right when the pandemic was picking up. We weren’t able to do early intervention because of the pandemic. Uh We got one meeting with them about, I think it was a week before he turned three and they’re like, okay, yeah, you need to go take these other steps. And so, I think maybe when he was four, we finally got the diagnosis or maybe it was when he was three got the diagnosis.
He did ABA therapy for a year before starting kindergarten and he’s got what’s he’s on the spectrum considered pathological demand avoidance. So You know, a lot of people when we tell him he’s autistic, they’re like, wait, what? Seriously? Cuz for him, you know, he doesn’t, you know, perform any stereotypical way autism has been portrayed in the media.
Like, there’s so many different elements to somebody who is on the autism spectrum that it’s been portrayed so unfairly and accurately over the years that, you know, we get a lot of comments like, you know, wait, what? No, he can’t be. Um And so, a lot of what we see with him doesn’t show up in typical ways, but bring it back to the conversation here with Tonel.
It’s just such a devastating thing to hear an administration make the kind of comments that they have about autism. It makes you feel like your child is othered in ways that you have spent your entire life or not your entire life but entire time as a parent trying to make sure that your kid doesn’t feel othered and making him prepared for school, prepared for social situations.
And the way they talk about it, it just it sets to Rachel’s point, it feels like it sets everything back decades because suddenly people who are on the autism spectrum are othered in ways they shouldn’t be. I think Jameson’s point about the perception of like what it means to be autistic is so relevant here because the language that’s being used to talk about these so-called findings, are the exact reason why so many autistic people struggle.
They use language like tragedy. Autistic people are a tragedy. They use words like devastating or it’s a this is a huge problem. And of course, there are very material issues that parents of autistic kids are going to have to navigate, that autistic people will have to navigate. It does not mean that our lives are tragedies.
And if you can just imagine the self-esteem impact that is going to have on children on people who are already mentally sometimes struggling because of how society treats them. You know, this is this is a huge issue and of course the marketing and communications industry has a significant been rolling that too. And that’s where I kind of want to unpack it a little bit from a professional lens.
It’s you know Rachel, obviously you’ve been working in this industry for years, Jameson, you’ve been covering even before you came to MM&M, you obviously have that extensive experience at Adweek. Rachel, why don’t you kick us off there in terms of okay, so we have this announcement that comes out and a real attempt on the administrations and in a lot of players on that side to kind of reframe what has been years of very deliberate like narrative building around autism. And now, like you said, that’s just been kind of dashed away.
Where where does it go from there from your perspective? Obviously, you’re you’re familiar with that kind of advocacy work that’s been trying to say, “Hey, this is the language and the understanding and the messaging we should be using. How do you pick up the pieces from there?” Yeah, it’s a it’s a great question and something that is very type of top of mind for us at the new project right now because most of the work that we do is to help brands build about a better world, not just for neurodivergent people, but for all people. people, right? Because the work around neurodiversity benefits most people too.
I think if you think about, the we’ll say the the reason behind why the administration decided to pursue this, it wasn’t to give support to autistic families, our families with autistic children. It wasn’t to give support and resources to autistic adults. As it stands in the United States, those resources are pretty much non-existent. And if the goal was to do that, that money that went into that research would have been gone going towards actual material support for them.
So if I think about what the marketing and communications industry needs to have a very shrewd eye on is two things. It’s one, the work that we are doing and two, how we are creating space for neurodivergent, specifically autistic talent in our industry. A few years ago, I created an image library with Getty Images and a neurodivergent friendship app called Hiki where we created a series of self-portraits of autistic people taking images of themselves to dispel those stereotypes of what it means to be autistic.
Those images are usable. You can license them on Getty Images. That was really a first of its kind thing. The ad industry does not have, I will say, very broad or expansive representation of neurodiversity today. And even that work was so narrow in what we were trying to achieve that I think there’s more opportunities to think about how do you represent invisible disabilities like autism in a way that doesn’t reinforce stereotypes that doesn’t other us, that doesn’t treat us like a problem to be solved.
And then thinking about talent and how you create space for your own talent in your organization. A partner of ours understood.org and Havos, the media agency, they released a report at CAN this year where they looked at the state of the ad industry for neurodivergent talent and simply said it’s not great. A lot of neurodivergent people leave the ad industry because of the structural challenges that exist and how you work in advertising. advertising.
Um, there’s a a deep sense of burnout. And I think if you, you know, talk to non-neurodivergent people, they’re struggling with this as well, but if we’re looking squarely in the lane of struggling with sensory issues, social issues, all of that, the ad industry has a huge opportunity to evolve that. Now, I get we’re in a time where ROI is like the number one name of the game, but I will tell you that if you invest in neurodivergent talent, we will reward you 10 times over with the work that we can produce.
And I think, if I’m being very honest, very little if any marketing organizations, agencies, media companies have figured out how to create spaces at work for people to actually do their best work, especially the neurodivergent community. So there’s a lot of opportunity. Some of it is stuff that doesn’t require a lot of lift or complexity. It just requires a little bit of thought. James, is there anything you want to add in on that point?
Again, having having had the privilege over the past few years to really get a sense of the ad industry, and being able to communicate on this front? Yeah. I mean, I’ll jump off on Rachel’s point about making space for people to work. I think business forum in general has done a terrible job historically of creating space for people of all backgrounds to work.
And as we see all the return to the office mandates, the first people who get driven out of companies are people of color, women, no of a virgin because their needs typically are not met. in those spaces. And so I think also when I’m talking to an audience of business leaders and executives, like you also got to be thinking, not only do you want the best work, you want the best people, and you want the best space for those people to do their best work.
And so all that needs to be considered in this conversation as well. I kind of want to drill down a little bit and into the specifics of the situation. So the administration goes out there and I don’t know how many times President Trump said it during the announcement, but coming out there blatantly saying don’t take Tylenol. Ken View puts out a statement at this point they’ve established a website. There’s expectations from people I’ve seen in the industry that they’re going to just it’s going to be a counter ad blitz basically.
saying like, here’s why Tylenol is safe and Zydomycin has been safe and approved for decades at this point. And then there’s also the case which we can also touch on the fact that the administration in conjunction with this announcement reapproved a drug from GSK that has been on the market for about a quarter century to treat autism, which is already problematic in so many different ways.
I’m curious from a brand perspective, like how how do you assess how Ken view when we start there is handling this and like what are the next steps? Like how do you this is kind of unprecedented, I guess you can say, but like how do you as a brand navigate this from a communications perspective? I can start on that one.
I mean we’ve heard a lot with these FDA letters that which is another whole topic of this idea of communication for farmer companies is there to educate you on conditions, medications, whatever.
And this is an opportunity for for Kenview and Tyonal to really step up and educate people not only on this specific topic but also high fevers and pregnancy in general carry a lot more risk than the study that showed the tiny tiny tiny correlation not causation but correlation between Tyonal and autism.
There’s a huge education opportunity to show like you’ve got a if you have a high fever during pregnancy this is what you’re asked at this is why you need to treat And then on the side, we also talk about the consumer marketing world, especially when people are trying to tie themselves to a cause as a business, there often needs to be a really genuine authentic reason to do so.
This is a golden opportunity for Ken View and Tyron all to have a true authentic connection to the autism community and do various things for them that I think I don’t want to speak for people directly in that community as someone who’s just a caregiver, but I I would imagine that’s probably would be well received if they stepped up. I couldn’t agree more, Jameson. It’s it’s actually the like singular point that I want to make is Tylenol and Can view, they have two two things up play here.
One is a must do, which is protect their brand and the other I think is the how their brand can evolve and the opportunity for them from a social impact perspective, which is to support and stand with the community. I think this is a moment that we haven’t seen before.
I quite literally cannot think of another situation and I’m sure there might have been some but where a brand has been quote-unquote accused of hurting people in a way that then demonizes a community or others a community. I think Tylanol’s bare air minimum approach here needs to needs to be to protect their brand from a business level but in doing so they need to make sure that they’re not throwing nasty to people under the bus, right?
There’s a There’s a very nuanced way to talk about this and it’s not Tylenol does not cause autism and inferring that being autistic is a negative thing. But there is a way for them to think about how do you work with the community? How do you partner with their perspectives? How do you assure you’re using affirming language and language that doesn’t demonize parents or demonize their kids or or create blame on something that is just a fundamental part of of their identity.
It’s a tricky situation in the sense that they need to have the right people at the table. And unfortunately, there’s not a lot of autistic people in professional spaces. I went for a very little time without knowing any other autistic people let alone autistic women. We are out there. I hope that they are engaging and speaking with the right folks. And thinking about the long-term potential for impact here, right?
They shouldn’t just pick this up and then and then drop at the minute, it’s it’s not in conversation anymore. I think for families, you know, parents like Jameson down to people like myself, if this goes in a way that is harmful to the autistic community or the neurodivergent community at large, given that we are one-fifth of the world’s population, I’m not sure that we’re going to forget that.
But if it goes positively, I also think that we aren’t going to forget that either and we will remember a brand and a business that stood on business for us.
I wanted to pivot the conversation just briefly over and I think it’s kind of the I don’t want to say it’s an overlooked aspect of it but like GSK is also in a tough spot here too with the FDA going out there and GSK did not ask for this drug to be reapproved and now they’ve said in in public statements that they’re going to be working with the FDA to try and get this treatment well covered and you know relabelled and have its its indication like I I’m curious just from a GSK perspective perspective, like the focus is obviously primarily on Tylahan.
They were the the main subject of that press conference, and I think a lot of the the public consideration of this topic right now. But if you’re GSK, like how do you go about that from a brand perspective, is it just like we’re working with regulators and we’re trying to do the right thing, but you’re also not trying to alienate potential consumers? Like what how do you approach that side of the conversation? For me, the the same principles that I mentioned for Tylenol hold true for GSK as well.
There needs to be a very concerted communication strategy here. You know the the topic of disability, especially with autism is so individual and personal and will vary based off of your own experience with it. at your cultural background. And to say we have a pill that can that can cure you is first it’s not helpful, right? It’s like there’s there’s so many different aspects to autism. What does what does that mean? And two, in the same way that you can’t cure a gay person, you cannot cure an autistic person.
It’s part of our identity, right? But I think I would be I think it’s there are parts of autism that for some people if there is something that can mitigate sensory issues issues, for example, there’s there’s nothing wrong with wanting to pursue that for yourself individually. I think the broader language of wanting to pursue a quote unquote cure as an immutable part of your person hood is dehumanizing to somebody.
So they’re going to have to try very carefully on how they communicate this and work with expert communications leaders, especially people or specifically people from the community to make sure that they aren’t reinforcing a harmful stereotype. Um more to humanizing idea of disability. Yeah, you said great, Rachel.
And I imagine that the feeling inside the GSK hallways is the Homer Simpson meme where he backs into the bushes and disappears and they just don’t want to be a part of this, but you they have to have the courage to to do this the right way because there are a lot of easy ways out here of, yeah, we’re just going to do the bare minimum work with the FDA, but they have to actively message the situation and the way that Rachel just brilliantly described to make sure that they are not making people feel alienated that they are not suddenly having a cure that can be a a cure all for for everybody that this is a drug that may help a very small group of people in this community with a small portion of their symptoms uh or or things that they struggle with and not that it’s just magic pill that the Trump administration sort of portrayed as like like, well, here’s our cure for autism, when it’s not the case.
And we talked about this on the last episode, but it it just so reminds me of what we saw during the early stages of COVID where we saw hydroxychloroquine trotted out there as this is going to be the the antiviral that keeps you from getting COVID or helps with your treatment, and the same thing with Ivermectin, and obviously that kind of muddled the waters before we got to the COVID vaccines and all the debates about mandates and and and everything that happens there. And I don’t want to relitigate what happened five years ago, but I do want to make the point. I’m curious, Rachel, your thoughts.
The administration The first Trump administration had a very slap dash approach when it came to public health communication. And the Biden administration for four years sought to try and reestablish trust and reliable messaging only to then have Trump come back into the office. And now here we are where RFK Jr. gets confirmed in February, promises a report by September on the causes and treatment options for autism and then it’s just thrown out there like this.
I’m curious from your perspective again having been in the industry and having this personal connection to the issue, what you make in terms of public the public trust in health communications in messaging, the thing that our audience does, it it feels like it’s at a very volatile rocky time because I even have people you know family members, friends reached out to me being like did you see this announcement? What does that mean for your work? And it’s it’s all over the place. What do you what do you make of that on the comms level?
That’s a brilliant question, Jack, and something um I’m very passionate about and helping figure out. I think like if we just look at a broad macro cultural level, the issue is not Trump, the issue is not RFK. The issue is that we are living in a culture where people are struggling and our institutions are failing us. And with that, there is this lack of trust and There’s a lot of trust and expertise, right?
Like normalize expertise again first of all. Like that’s that’s the bigger issue I play. Because there is such a systemic failure on well-being, health, mental health, people are willing to listen to non-experts because they make it sound nice, right? They make it sound easy.
And it’s why it’s why the right, you know, just at a political level dunks on the left all day because Because candidly, as as I disagree with them, they’re much better marketers than the left are. The health industry has an immense opportunity to reimagine communications at large.
I’m not going to be able to cover all of this in in a brief podcast, but to reimagine communications at large to be less about this institutional kind of wall that’s up and more about how do you engage with the community, how do you build build for community, how do you understand and like truly address people’s challenges today versus just talking to them with a a magic pill.
Um the Maha movement, the cons, you know, far right, they’ve done a really good job at speaking to those insecurities, those anxieties that people have about their health, their finances, about their futures, about their children’s well-being, about their well-being. And they’ve done that based off of fear. And I think the health communications at large or health industry at large has an opportunity to think about hope as an antidote to that.
And not just, you know, wishy-washy kind of languages around hope, but how do you actually provide material support to people and communicate around that or create messages that are interesting and specific and work with the community that you’re speaking to to be an antidote to that fear and and anxiety right now. I think it’s like cheap and like low it’s cheap communications to lean into fear right now, right? We know rage bait and fear is going to perform on social media.
It doesn’t have to be that way. And and actually in fact in another category, I wrote an op-ed this summer called Slack Girl Summer talk talking about the really lazy ways that the industry was trying to market to women, right? You had Sydney Sweeney for American Eagle, you had Matt Reif for Elf and all of that was trying to induce anger with people, right? And then you had Gap come out with their Cats Eye ad and it delighted people. It performed better. It had more views. Gap’s sales were gangbusters. They made money. They didn’t have to piss people off.
They didn’t have to anger people. They didn’t have to feed into their anxieties. Different category, but think about those two case studies. It requires a little bit more creativity and work, but the payoff is there. Anyways, that was a bit of a tangent and I’ll get off my soapbox, but it’s something that really frustrates me at large about the creative industry right now of going to the lowest common denominator versus trying to ascend to like the highest potential of creativity that our industry can and should be doing.
Yeah, and Rachel, I I want to build off that cuz you know I I I think the the difference in the tactics is you know the right I don’t even know if I call them better marketers, I would just say There’s marketers that are willing to tap into tactics that most marketers are taught not to use anymore, which is fear because it is so effective, but it it it causes so many other issues, you know, ethical harm, like there’s so many issues with using fear in marketing tactic, but there’s so much that happens from organizations on that side of the aisle, and that is why they’re effective.
This is the fear and it’s the, you know, everything they they cause the anger, the, you know, “Oh, I have to have a solution.” to this problem. That may not be a problem that actually exists, but I’m being told as a problem. Um and so yeah, that’s where they come with their effectiveness. They’re willing to use tactics that most modern marketers are told not to use, are heavily criticized if they are used. Um and that’s you know that’s I think where we’re at here.
I appreciate the insights on both and again you you both have been involved in in your various ways with the advertising industry and the marketing complex. So it’s it’s It’s helpful to hear those insights of somebody that has spent their career covering healthcare because I do think that that’s lacking.
I know that when I covered hospitals and health systems, they were always slow movers to different innovations, different strategies throughout there and even now covering pharma, biotech, and life sciences, the same thing applies and so being able to take like you said Rachel, these ideas and these approaches from different sectors and say hey let’s try it here because what what else do you have to lose? You’ve already you already have a public that for the most part either is apathetic or doesn’t like you. So let’s try something. Let’s try anything that’s going to be able to to move the ball down the field.
Um we’ve covered a lot of ground on this topic. I’m I want to leave you both with kind of the the final word in terms of if there’s anything that we haven’t touched on anything that our audience should keep in mind because you know we’re only a few days into this but you can already tell the the impact that it’s had in terms of the conversation and while it has been largely unhelpful and in some cases destructive there is the opportunity for growth out of that.
And I’m curious, what else our audience of leaders should be keeping in mind as they process that and make a plan for going forward?
I think this is more of a comment for the broader industry of just I’m sure every company has a crisis communications plan, but I think RFK and Trump have shown that you need a plan specifically for them because at any point they could cherry-pick any study related to any medicine in any condition and throw something under the bus.
And so, if you swatched this tylenol thing unfold and you hadn’t as a group said, “Hey you know, in the next three weeks, we need to sit down and pull together a bunch of key decision makers and make sure we have a plan of who’s going to be in the room for crisis communications. Here are the first 10 steps we’re going to take across an organization. You should probably be be doing that because Tylenol isn’t going to be the last that they probably make some kind of outlandish claim about.
So everybody needs to be prepared and you should be having that conversation in very soon if you haven’t already had it. Yeah, I completely agree with Jameson. I think um being proactive rather than reactive is is your best weapon right now for for brand brand protection and brand longevity. The other thing I would add is going back to what you’re talking about with fear, right?
The the ability to like believe these types of claims and the impact it’s going to have on people at large, it’s not coming from data, it’s not coming from a perfect story or perfectly like articulated story, it’s just coming from a very salient message for people right now. And it’s because the folks who are promoting that type of message, whether I agree with it or not, are extremely fluent in culture. They understand people’s settings, their fears, their hopes, their optimism.
I think the broader opportunity for marketers is to have a strong focus on cultural fluency right now. A lot of the work that I do outside of the new project as I work with brands like Dove and Google and a number of others on cultural fluency in their marketing at large. I do focus on neurodiversity, but we also look at things like women and girls and other other cultural areas of growth.
Marketers have become so reliant on raw data to tell them everything that they need to know about their consumers that they forgotten that consumers are just people and people can’t be broken down into like neat little data points. So investing into culturally attuned insights leaders, marketers, strategists who don’t just sit on the tertiary edges of culture but are deeply embedded into it and can articulate the challenges and opportunities.
Sounds easy, but I have worked with very few marketers who have that type of skill set. In my opinion, it is the only way through the next four years and candidly like what what the future of marketing will even be is to be less myopic about clean data and more about understanding the broader context of culture. And I think your point’s right, Rachel, if if I can help kind of bring this to a close too, because you bring up the point about the next four years.
Like, what was said earlier this week on this topic is going to reverberate well beyond that. Like that discredited study from uh Dr. Andrew Wakefield came out in 1998 and people are still referring back to it you know decades later.
And so it’s it’s the unfortunate part two where you’re like this is a microcosm of a much larger issue that people are going to be dealing with for years and years and you either tackle it head on and you face the issues that you as an organization have been dealing with and try and find a new way forward or you just need to be plagued by it. And and that’s kind of the name of the game. It’s like how are how are you going to face it head on and actually make a meaningful change that’s going to positively impact patient outcomes, which again is what we’re after at the end of the day from a marketing perspective.
That’s right. That’s exactly right. I mean and I started this conversation saying I wasn’t surprised by it because you know, the research has been there since the 90s. And to Jameson’s point, we we have an opportunity to be proactive here because we know and we understand like broadly speaking what their agenda might be, whether it’s positive or in this case extremely negative and having a sense a sense making moving forward rather than being extremely reactive about what’s going to happen is is so important.
I mean it’s a non-negotiable for brands right now. Definitely. Well, Rachel and Jameson, again, I really appreciate you both coming on the show to talk candidly, articulately, you know, decisively. I think those are kind of the three words I think about when I I reflect on this about this topic. I know it’s something that is is very personal for both of you, but you both have the professional lens and acumen that you’re able to lend these insights and best strategies to our our audience. And so I thank you for that.
I think I can speak on the behalf of our listeners relaying that over, but really appreciate that. It certainly won’t be the last time that we talk about this topic, but I think it’s that’s a very interesting and helpful opening salvo and what’s going to be a larger conversation for years to come. Thank you for having us and most importantly, thank you to Rachel because for me as a caregiver of a child with autism, deeply appreciate everything Rachel is doing because you’re opening doors that hopefully someday my son will walk through. So thank you for everything you do.
Thank you for joining us on this week’s episode of the MMNM podcast. Be sure to listen to next week’s episode when we preview the 2025 MMNM awards with jury chair Megan Rivera. Take care.
The MMN podcast is produced by Bill Fitzpatrick Gordon Faylor, Lesha Bushek, Ira Rickraj, and Jack O’Brien. Great review and follow every episode wherever you listen to podcast. And be sure to check out our website mm-m-online.com for the top news stories on the pharmaceutical industry and medical marketing agencies.