Finding Satisfaction in a World of Endless Choice

This is an I Heart Podcast.

Guaranteed Human.

This is Dr. Maya Shankar from a slight change of plans.

All the talk of probiotics can get confusing.

Which to take?

Why?

What does it do?

Let's make it easy.

Garden of Life's doctor formulated one daily women's probiotic is the number one women's

probiotic.

Why should you take it?

Well Garden of Life transforms a range of probiotic strains to support digestive, immune,

and vaginal health.

Plus, this doctor formulated non-GMO formula is designed specifically for women.

Simply put, this is an easy way to support your gut health.

Garden of Life, formulas for feeling alive, available on Amazon.

Number one, based on Serkana, 52-week multi-eulite unit sales ending November 20, 2025.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Hey, it's Angela Yee.

Listen, we all want the best without having to pay the most.

That's where Verizon comes in.

Get this!

Now you can take your AT&T or a T-Mobile bill into any Verizon store.

They'll look at what you're paying and give you a better deal, period.

Now is the time to head to Verizon for a deal you don't want to miss.

You get the amazing coverage you want while keeping more cash in your pocket.

Visit your local Verizon store to start saving today.

Must provide recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person redeeming the deal,

additional terms and conditions apply.

Being a small business owner isn't just a career.

It's a calling.

Chase for business knows how much heart and effort going to building something of your own.

Manage all your business finances, from banking to payments to credit cards,

all in one place with their digital tools.

Plus, access online resources designed to help your business thrive.

Learn more at chase.com slash business.

Chase for business.

Make more of what's yours.

The Chase Mobile app is available for select mobile devices.

Message and data rates may apply.

JP Morgan Chase Bank and a member FDIC.

Copyright 2026, JP Morgan Chase and company.

Pushkin.

When our oldest grandchild was five-ish,

my wife went with her to Supermarket to buy a toothbrush,

and she got to the toothbrush section of the aisle,

and there were 150 or so, and she stood there my five-year-old granddaughter

and was just completely overwhelmed and paralyzed and finally said,

Grandma, would you pick?

Does this sound familiar?

Maybe for you, it wasn't toothbrushes,

but what couched to buy or what doctor to see.

Social psychologist Barry Schwartz, an emeritus professor at Swarthmore,

has spent decades challenging the idea that more choice is always better.

It makes making decisions harder.

It makes making good decisions harder,

and it ends up making you less satisfied even when you manage to make a good decision,

because you know, somewhere out there is something that is even better.

On today's show, Finding Satisfaction in a World Full of Endless Choice.

I'm Maya Shankar, and this is a slight change of plans,

a show about who we are and who we become in the face of a big change.

Barry Schwartz is an expert on decision making.

His latest book is called Choose Wisely.

In it, he challenges some of the conventional wisdom in tools people use to make decisions,

as well as what it even means to make the right choice.

We began with an overview of various models of decision making.

There are all kinds of ways that people make decisions, right?

Some people go with their gut.

Others choose a decision based on what they think will minimize regret.

Others go with their faith. They ask God,

can you just give us a quick history lesson on these different models

and how the scientific understanding of decision making has evolved over time?

I'd be delighted.

In some respects, this is the story that the book Choose Wisely is trying to tell.

You went through all of the kinds of approaches that people might have to make decisions

that would occur to me, going with your gut, relying on religious advice,

relying on what your friends have chosen, relying on what respected elders have chosen,

relying on habit, do the same thing today that you did last week.

All of these are ways to ease the burden of choosing.

In effect, when you do any of those things,

you're delegating the choice to some respected other person,

either the previous you or an elder in the community or a good friend or what have you.

What you just said reminds me of this very common refrain we have

in these tough moments of decision making.

Can you just decide for me?

How many times do we ask that?

We ask that of physicians.

We ask that of our parents.

We ask that of our friends, of our spouses, just make the choice for me.

In fact, a lot of times in my life,

I've wanted the universe to eliminate an option

just so that I don't have to make the choice

and have to deal with the psychic costs afterwards of regret

and questioning whether I actually made the right choice or not.

But here's the thing, from the perspective of the discipline of economics on the one hand

and the psychology of decision making,

any one of those alternatives you described is inferior to doing it the right way.

And to clarify, Barry, when you say, quote, the right way,

you're referring to a framework called a rational choice theory, right?

It is a model for how people ought to make decisions.

And you actually take issue with this model,

which we'll get to a bit later.

But for now, tell us what this theory reports.

Rational choice theory, mostly the product of economists,

is the view that the way to make good decisions,

rational choices is to assess how valuable each option is to you.

And how likely it is to be as valuable as you think it is.

Every decision is a prediction.

We sometimes predict that we'll love a restaurant,

and we don't, we predict we'll love a car, and we don't, and so on.

You create a little spreadsheet, you fill in for every option,

those two numbers, and then you do the math.

That's the way rational people make decisions.

And let me just say there's a cousin to this

that is much more consequential in a way,

because it affects policy decisions of whole entities,

rather than just yours and my decisions as individuals,

and it's called cost-benefit analysis.

What's the best way to reduce our carbon footprint?

Lots of people have different ideas about that,

and the idea is there probably is a best way,

and the way you figure it out is you figure out

how much it will cost to implement,

and how large the benefit will be,

and out of this analysis will come the clear answer to the question,

and you implement it, not just for your own personal use,

but for the whole society's use.

So we live with that kind of analysis all the time,

and we're encouraged to do that kind of analysis

when it's our own personal decisions.

That's what rational choice theory is.

It critically depends on being able to quantify things.

Is that why you think people are drawn to this model,

because it gives them a feeling of both ease and a feeling of confidence

that they have done the work, if you will,

and they have arrived at the right answer?

I think maybe so.

And let me say, it isn't incidental

that this theory is called rational choice theory.

Rational is not a descriptor.

Rational is an evaluative term.

What that means is rational choice theory

is the right way to make a choice theory.

Who wants to be irrational?

Yeah, of course.

It's in a front to our intelligence to be told

that we're being irrational.

Exactly. So there's an horrific attach to it.

And if they see weed articles and newspapers

where policy decisions are being made using a framework

very much like this, what more evidence do you need

that this is what the smart and powerful people do?

But to me, the critical notion is that

the 50 years of research by psychologists

on the errors we make

and two Nobel Prizes in economics

to psychologists who studied this.

And never, not for a second,

was there questioning of whether the standard

for what counts as a rational decision

is the right standard?

It was all just presupposed.

This is the right way to do it

and let's study the ways in which people fall short.

And the point of this book is to suggest

that the normative standard of rationality

is catastrophically bad.

You can't really use rational choice theory

unless you can quantify

how good the various outcomes will be for you

and how likely they are to be that good.

In other words, you need a value

and a probability for everything you're thinking about

and they need to be on the same scale

so that you can compare one option against another

with respect to all the things that matter to you

so you can actually do the math.

Putting discursive descriptions

in that Excel spreadsheet

isn't going to help you get to the answer

and the problem is

we give quantification more respect than it deserves.

We are often driven by the dimensions

that are most easily quantified

rather than by the dimensions

that are actually most important to us.

And that will lead to decisions

that distort what we actually care about.

There's also two other issues

that I see. One is

per the end of history illusion

where we forget that we will keep changing.

We assume we are a fixed entity

and that all of our preferences will stay stable

into the future

and that we will be excellent cognitive forecasters

and be able to anticipate how we'll feel.

We know from decades of research

that's simply not true.

We're very bad at predicting

how future events will make us feel.

And then the second thing is that

when it comes to large decisions

you have to differentiate

when it comes to how much value

you think you'll get from it

between what common

and what call experiential happiness

versus reflective happiness.

So there are lots of choices we make

where in the short term

things are really hard.

Think about having a newborn baby, right?

That's a really hard experience.

You're not sleeping.

You're barely eating.

You're not allowing your needs to be met.

But there's a massive payoff

when you take moments to evaluate,

hey, how's my life going?

Do I feel fulfilled?

Do I feel satisfied?

And having that kid

might give you a massive boost

or maybe 30 years down the line

it gives you that massive boost

and then how do you differentiate

between those and the Excel spreadsheet?

But here too,

the seduction of quantification

screws you up

because the long-term

satisfaction that you're talking about

can't be quantified

in the way that the number of hours

of sleep you get in night

and the number of hours

you can spend working on your latest project.

You know, those are quantifiable.

So what is salient

and pointable at

and measurable

in this case is all the bad stuff.

You know, and the things you're talking about

play second fiddle

because we don't know how to quantify them.

But you're absolutely right.

And let me say,

since this is your wheelhouse,

that one of the problems

that rational choice theory has

is that it takes a snapshot

of life in a given moment

and freezes it

and does not allow

for you to change

or the world to change.

You know, it tricks us into thinking

that decision-making should be easy

and it's not.

When I think about

my subjective assessment

of whether I made the best decision.

So let's say I'm trying to choose

the right car for me, okay?

I

we should not only integrate

how well the car services my needs

and meets my various

preferences and expectations.

We should also consider

these other more meta components,

namely

how I feel about the decision that I made,

whether it induces a feeling of regret in me,

whether I have psychic stress

because I'm constantly reevaluating

if it was the right choice or not.

Does rational choice theory

account for

the psychic factors,

the, well, again, when I'm calling

meta factors of how

we are in real time

evaluating the decision that we made.

Because if I'm really

upset with the decision

or it's causing me a lot of consternation,

that will eat away

at my positive utility.

You ask very good questions.

Oh, thanks very.

Every question has a more complicated answer.

I'm afraid.

So there are a couple of ways to treat this view.

You have to consider

what you might call transaction costs.

There is a price that you pay

for complexifying your decision.

And maybe it's not worth paying the price.

Like mental transaction costs to be clear.

Yes, and not just mental,

you know, like it takes time

and that's time

that you could be spending doing something else

like doing your job better.

So that's one problem.

If you factor in the transaction costs,

you might adopt a different decision strategy.

Yes.

The second thing is that from the economist point of view,

adding options and thus making the decision

more complicated can't be bad.

And they can't be bad because if you're happy,

alternating between two breakfast cereals,

and I add a third one to the grocery shelf,

you can ignore it.

So adding an option doesn't make you worse off

and it may make somebody better off.

And if it's true of a third option,

it's the same thing as true of a fourth

and a fifth and a fifth and a hundredth.

So that approach essentially doesn't acknowledge

that the kind of costs you're worrying about exist.

What I suggest in the book is that more is better than less,

but a point is reached where still more starts to become worse.

And it can become sufficiently worse

that instead of being liberated

by all these options you're paralyzed.

After the break, Barry gives us a path

out of decision paralysis.

We'll be back in a moment with a slight change of plans.

Okay, you've got a lot going on

and choosing the right probiotic might not be

at the top of your to-do list.

So let's make things simple.

Garden of Life is the number one women's

probiotic brand for a reason.

It's specifically designed for women

to support the immune system,

vaginal health, and overall women's health.

You can feel good knowing that this is the brand

so many women trust for their gut health.

Garden of Life transforms 16 diverse probiotic strains

and 50 billion CFU to support digestive health

and a flourishing gut flora.

And if you're worried whether

Garden of Life women's once daily probiotic

is a real deal, don't.

They're certified, non-GMO, and doctor formulated

for women's unique needs.

To put it simply, this is an easy way

to prioritize your gut health.

Garden of Life, formulas for feeling alive,

available on Amazon.

Number one, based on Serkana, 52-week multi-elite

unit sales ending November 20th, 2025.

These statements have not been evaluated

by the Food and Drug Administration.

This product is not intended to diagnose,

treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Hey everybody, it's Nate.

All right, two truths to the lie.

Here we go.

I wear size 13 shoes.

I can ride a unicycle,

and I have been a Verizon customer for 27 years.

Anybody, anybody?

All three are true.

I know.

Riding unicycle is not hard,

but Verizon isn't as expensive as you think.

In fact, if you bring in your AT&T

or T-Mobile build to a Verizon store,

they'll give you a better deal.

That's right, a better deal on the best network.

With the most ways to save on plans,

streaming, and phone deals,

take that AT&T or T-Mobile build

to your local Verizon store today,

get your better deal and start saving for real.

Based on RootMetrics,

best overall mobile network performance US,

the second half 2025,

all rights reserved,

must provide recent consumer mobile

in the name of the person redeeming the deal,

additional terms, conditions, and restrictions apply.

Being a small business owner isn't just a career,

it's a calling.

Chase for business knows how much heart and effort

go into building something of your own.

That's why they make your business growth, their priority.

The team at Chase takes the time to understand your mission,

where you are now, and where you want to go.

Their broad range of solutions is designed with you in mind,

so you can bring your ideas to life.

From banking to payment acceptance to credit cards,

you can conveniently manage all your business finances

all in one place with their digital tools.

Looking for tips and advice?

Their online resources are always available

to give you the solutions you need

to help your business thrive.

See how your business can get stronger

and go farther with Chase for business.

Learn more at chase.com slash business.

Chase for business think more of what's yours.

The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices,

message and data rates may apply,

JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, member FDIC.

Copyright 2026, JP Morgan Chasing Company.

Professor Barry Schwartz and I have been talking

about the sneaky mental costs of decision making.

One reason you might find choosing between options

particularly stressful is because you're a maximizer.

Psychologists contrast this with another type of decision maker,

a satisfacer.

I ask Barry to explain the difference.

A maximizer is someone who's out for the best.

Whatever that means, the best can be subjective.

In fact, it is almost always subjective.

But if you're buying a new appliance,

you want the best appliance.

And if you're buying a new car,

you want the best car.

And if you're buying a house,

you want the best house,

yada yada yada.

A satisfacer is someone who wants good enough.

If you're lucky, you'll look at one thing.

It meets your standards and you're done.

And in some areas, that can mean very low standards.

And in others, it can mean very high standards.

But once you find good enough, you stop looking.

And the reason this is important is that in the world,

we currently live in, if you want the best,

you have to look at every option.

And as everybody knows,

when you start looking at every option,

you'll be dead before you get to the end of the list.

So it's become an unachievable goal to find the best.

I love that you articulate that a satisfacer

can have very high standards.

It's just that it's good enough

against the backdrop of those high standards.

It does not mean that you are okay

with bottom of the barrel outcomes.

It's really important at this point,

because most people, when they hear

satisfying, which is a technical term

invented by a Nobel Prize-winning

psychologist slash economist 70 years ago,

they don't hear it as a neutral description.

Yes.

You know, when you say satisfies,

what people hear is settling.

Yes, exactly.

And nobody thinks that settling is neutral.

I mean, it's used disparagingly

in the context of relationships, for example,

don't settle.

Absolutely, you know?

And so there's a word in parentheses that isn't stated.

And that word is just.

He's just settling,

which is an implicit criticism.

And so I think everybody is pushing us

and we push ourselves not to accept good enough

because we should have higher expectations of ourselves.

We should make more demands of ourselves and so on.

What we've found, and other people have found,

is that it makes making decisions harder.

In some cases, close to impossible,

it makes making good decisions harder.

And it ends up making you less satisfied

even when you manage to make a good decision.

Totally.

Because you know, somewhere out there

is something that is even better.

Absolutely.

You know, if you get into, you know, 10 colleges,

you can torture yourself to oblivion,

trying to decide which of these colleges to go to,

when people a little older than you know,

it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Totally.

There's a New Yorker cartoon that I show sometimes

when I give talks on this

of a young woman who's got a sweatshirt

that says brown parentheses,

but my first choice was Yale.

Now, it's funny,

but imagine spending four years at Brown,

a wonderful institution.

And every day you wake up with that sentence in your head.

Yeah.

Are you going to get as much out of being at Brown

as you possibly can?

Not on your life.

You'll spend every day you're at Brown

thinking how much better life would be

if only you'd gotten into Yale.

So it's not, it's not a frivolous problem.

It's a very serious problem.

It's debilitating.

It makes people feel like they are consistently

making bad decisions

and it undermines confidence

and sap's energy.

So it's very, I think, very consequential.

Yeah, my friends who are on dating apps

feel this acutely, you know?

It used to be that you,

well, back in the good old days, right?

You had a few options.

Maybe it's who you went to school with

or to church with

or saw it your local community, whatever.

And now what's so interesting

about the dating app thing is

it's not even like you had the 10 options laid out

in front of you.

It's that you know

that if you keep swiping,

you will keep getting more and more people.

So there is this counterfactual world

of infinite options

that lives in your head at all times

which can really eat away

at your ability to

satisfy.

A lot of the point

of the paradox of choice is to show

that even when people make good decisions

by their own standards,

they feel less good about them.

Yeah, for a variety of reasons.

You know, if it's not perfect,

you regret having chosen it.

If you haven't been able to look

at all the options,

you're sure that some option out there

that you didn't get to

would be better than the one

that you ended up choosing.

And all of that makes the quality,

the subjective quality,

the decision feel less good.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

I have so many reflections here.

One is, I mean,

you strike me as someone who's

more of a satisfactory

than a maximizer.

Very much so.

I'm curious to know for people listening

who are,

well, one, I'm imagining

someone's listening,

they might think,

well, I'm not across the board,

a satisfactory maximizer.

There are certain areas of life,

certain domains of life,

where I doesn't really matter

to me what microwave I get.

I'm a satisfactory in that domain.

But when it comes to my long-term partner,

I'm going to be a maximizer.

So they might have that response.

What I want to know from you is,

is a satisfying mindset,

something people can cultivate.

Let's say that they're being driven

crazy by their maximizing tendencies.

Can they do something about it very

or are we sort of destined

just to be the way we are?

So I have two things to say.

First, you're absolutely right

that nobody's a maximizer

about everything.

Which means, of course,

that we all know how to be

satisfieders,

because there are some decisions

where that's what we are.

And people have,

that most people's intuitions are,

well, you know,

with unimportant stuff,

it's foolish to maximize.

But when it gets to be important,

why would you not look for the best?

And it relationships is often

where people, you know,

can't imagine what it would mean

to look for a good enough life partner.

So there's one or two studies

where they try to induce people

to take up maximizing

or a satisfying orientation

and suggest that you can create

a satisfying orientation

in people who on the questionnaires

that we develop look like they're maximizers.

How interesting.

What's unsatisfying about that

is you don't know how long this lasts.

You're in the lab,

you get something to read

or to hear and

it makes you a

satisfacer for the next 30 minutes.

And then what?

I'm imagining someone reading this

right before they get proposed too.

That's an issue of proposal.

I just need to last for 30 minutes, Barry.

Yes, the unsolved confident

proposer would probably

ship that treatment condition to the

partner so that, you know,

this is the golden 30-minute window

when you're going to say yes.

Yeah.

But the other piece of evidence I have

is that when the book,

The Paradox of Choice, came out

which was 20 years ago,

I've got hundreds, maybe thousands of emails

from people who said,

I thought I was the only one who had this problem.

I thank you so much for making it clear

that the world has given me

and a lot of other people this problem.

You mean, when they said I didn't know

I was the only one to suffer from this,

it was the maximizing mindset, right?

Correct.

And it succeeded in changing the way they

made decisions.

So this is personal testimony.

I obviously don't have any data

about what A, whether they actually

did change the way they make decisions

and B, whether that lasts.

I do think it's a meaningful

that if a short intervention

where you're reading about someone

who's a satisfy surface as a maximizer

can give you that little nudge

to think slightly differently,

that's meaningful because at least shows

this is malleable enough.

And I also think that the mere recognition

of these two concepts is powerful in its own right.

I feel like when I was studying

judgment and decision-making during my postdoc

and was learning about these concepts,

I'm just thinking through my daily decisions

and when I find that I've been

in the Google search rabbit hole

for four hours trying to figure out

what couch I want,

I can at least use labels.

To identify what's happening.

And you can ask yourself this primary question.

Is this decision worthy

of the maximizing mindset given the cost

I will incur to my psychological well-being?

I absolutely agree.

Giving a name to things often

in many ways defuses the impact

that these things will have

and finding out that you're just one

among many will make you stop

feeling like that you have some pathology

that needs to be corrected.

So I think that's right, naming things helps a lot

and it can lead to very different strategies

and very different approaches to making decisions.

Yes.

What I have just started doing

is using a slightly different word

to distinguish it from rational

and the word is reasonable.

And so it seems to me

that what you want

is reasonable choice theory

which acknowledges

that not everything can be quantified,

not everything can be compared to everything else.

All you can do is

you're giving it your best shot

and thinking about the

aspects of the decision that seem important

and how you'll respond to those aspects

and how the people you care about will

with the understanding

that you should not expect the level of precision

that is greater than the problem you are trying to solve.

There are certain kinds of decisions

where it seems quite reasonable

to try to be as precise as possible.

You know, if you're deciding

what bet to make in a gambling casino

you should know the odds

and you should know how much you're going to win

and how much you're going to lose.

The precision is there

and there's no excuse for you not knowing it.

But when you're trying to decide

where to go on vacation

or what job to take

or how to discipline your kid

who's just transgressed

that kind of precision doesn't exist.

And when you seek it

or impose it

you're distorting the problem

that you need to solve

rather than illuminating it.

But you know,

this is not snap your fingers

and it goes away.

You've got habits.

It's going to feel very uncomfortable

in the beginning

for you to break those habits

and you'll think,

oh, what did I,

what opportunity did I

pass up by not spending

another 10 minutes looking?

But over time you will discover

that you feel maybe even better

about your decisions

and your day has suddenly added

a couple of hours.

So how about reasonable choice theory

instead of rational choice theory?

Love it.

Barry, thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you so much.

It's such a pleasure to see you again.

Hey, thanks so much for listening.

If you know someone

who's currently struggling

with the tough decision,

make sure to send them this episode.

And if you found life

making choices for you,

make sure to read my new book

The Other Side of Change,

who we become

when life makes other plans.

You can find it wherever you buy books

or at the link in show notes.

We'll be back in a week

with another episode

of a slight change of plans.

I'll see you then.

Bye.

A slight change of plans

is created written

and executive produced by Mimeo Shunker.

The slight change family

includes our showrunner,

Alexander Gerritan,

our editor, Daphne Chen,

our lead producer,

Megan Luben,

our associate producer,

Sonia Gerwitt,

and our sound engineer,

Erica Huang.

Louis Scarra wrote

our delightful theme song

and Ginger Smith helped arrange the vocals.

A slight change of plans

is a production of Pushkin Industries,

so big thanks to everyone there.

And of course,

a very special thanks to Jimmy Lee.

Ooh.

Think Verizon is expensive?

Think again.

Anyone can bring their AT&T

or T-Mobile Bill to a Verizon store today

and we'll give you a better deal.

So bring us your bill.

Walk in, run in,

pogo, stick in,

teleport if you can.

Right on the back of a rollerblading yacker,

lie in on the wings of a majestic Falcon.

Any way you can,

bring your AT&T or T-Mobile Bill

to a Verizon store today

and we'll give you a better deal

on the best network.

Based on root metrics, best overall mobile network performance,

US Second half 2025,

all right reserved.

Must provide a very recent close paid consumer mobile bill

in the name of the person

where you need the deal,

additional terms, conditions,

and restrictions apply.

All the talk of probiotics can get confusing,

which to take.

Why?

What does it do?

Let's make it easy.

Garden of Life's doctor formulated

one-staley women's probiotic

is the number one women's probiotic.

Why should you take it?

Well, Garden of Life transforms

a range of probiotic strains

to support digestive, immune, and vaginal health.

Plus, this doctor formulated non-GMO formula

is designed specifically for women.

Simply put,

this is an easy way to support your gut health.

Garden of Life, formulas for feeling alive,

available on Amazon.

Number one, based on Serkana,

52-week multi-eulate unit sales

ending November 20th, 2025.

These statements have not been evaluated

by the Food and Drug Administration.

This product is not intended to diagnose,

treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Exema is unpredictable.

But you can flare less with ebglyce.

A once-monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema.

After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase,

about four and ten people taking ebglyce,

achieved itch relief and glare

are almost glare skin at 16 weeks.

And most of those people maintain skin

that's still more glare at one year with monthly dosing.

Ebglyce, LibriKizumap, LBKZ,

a 250-mg per 2-mL injection

is a prescription medicine used

to treat adults and children 12 years of age

and older who weigh at least 88 pounds

or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema.

Also called atopic dermatitis

that is not well controlled

with prescription therapies used on the skin

or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies.

Ebglyce can be used with or without

topical corticosteroids.

Don't use if you're allergic to ebglyce.

A allergic reactions can occur that can be severe.

Eye problems can occur.

Tell your doctor if you have new

or worsening eye problems.

You should not receive a live vaccine

when treated with ebglyce.

Before starting ebglyce,

tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.

Ask your doctor about ebglyce

and visit ebglyce.lili.com

or call 1-800-LiliRX

or 1-800-545-5979.

This is an iHeart podcast.

Guaranteed Human.