The Morning Shadows We Miss
After years of never noticing my own dining room's morning shadows, I explore why perspective and connection are what making writing human. Thoughts on AI, mentorship, and staying human as a writer in 2026.
On perspective, collaboration, and being a writer in the age of AI
I lived in this house for eight years and never noticed these morning shadows. It wasn’t until I started writing in the dining room that I saw them.
Change your perspective, change what you see.
Ask others what they see, and you’ll see something new.
As a writer, you keep those reminders at your core. It’s why writers need people.
Mentorship helps you start. Feedback keeps you humble. And readers keep you going. Through it all, staying human keeps it real. Writers create chemistry through shared humanity.
AI can’t replace writers, obviously.
Still, they’ll try and try. Still, we’ll keep writing.
A year ago, “I wrote AI Word Monsters Eating Us All.” I started the post with, “I’m not an AI expert, *top voice*, or anything like that, even on a purported level.” This year, I’m more confident talking about AI and more certain that we need everyone engaged in as many places as possible where decisions about AI use are being made. AI is only the monster we let it be.
I feel my stomach churn every time I hear another iteration of “If you don’t use AI, you’ll be replaced by someone who does.” Not because it’s wrong—AI-augmented workflows have already entered many workplaces—but because it instills fear. It’s framed as a threat and divides people into those kept and those let go. Get on board or get thrown off. Who doesn’t want to be a keeper when your livelihood depends on it, and others are depending on you to have it?
When people don’t feel safe to speak up, they usually don’t. They might even push themselves into performative optimism. Both are dangerous, especially together. With so many ethical issues at stake and almost no safeguards or regulations in place, we need people to bring up concerns as every group—from families and classrooms to large corporations and governmental institutions—makes AI-use decisions daily.
This post is the first of several in a new AI series. Like last year, I’m sharing to help build “regular people” discussions on figuring out what to do or how to think about all the changes. We need more people to know that they know something important and should be at the table and in the conversation where decisions are being made. We need some sliver of a counterbalance to the “guidance” often coming from people and places selling AI products or services or benefiting from them in other indirect ways.
The trouble with the name
“Artificial intelligence” is a provocative name for a futuristic field of research dating back to the 1950s. Artificial is fine. Accurate I’d say. But the “intelligence” part is the problem. Together, it becomes an absolute-sounding oxymoron, which sets it up as a divisive topic. A “thinking” thing without a soul also sounds horror movie-esque.
Conflict entrepreneurs love limited language like that because it’s easier to create questions with the purpose to divide: Are you for it or against it? An optimist or a pessimist? With them or with us?
But those binaries leave out the most critical questions: Optimist or pessimist of what? In what context? And crucially, from whose perspective? I’m trying to let go of any optimist/pessimist thinking anyway because it’s just a distraction, a futuristic binary often created by people who want us to forget our own agency, scaring or lulling us toward a future they want.
The trouble with ‘out of sight, out of mind’
A large language model (LLM) generates responses from patterns inside its black box of “training data” and presents them as if whatever’s in the mysterious box is all that’s known. How intelligent is that? Sure, we’re not born with object permanence, but develop it around eight months. For young infants, it’s out of sight, out of mind. But no one’s considering handing them the keys to run the world while they’re still clueless that things beyond their own field could exist.
Before object permanence is fully developed, babies may look shocked or surprised when you play peek-a-boo. (This cutie is my oldest son who’s about to turn 21.)
Not only does AI have an infantile sense of “knowing,” but using AI makes you feel like it’s trying to infantilize you too.
Infantilization is good and even perfect if you are in fact an infant. Caring for an infant is one of the most joyful simplicities in life: mirroring, reassuring, and coddling. All you have to do is give them what they want—babies cannot be spoiled. Your own self merges with them, not that different from when a baby grows inside you.
But soon, your child needs to start learning they are not the center of the universe; others have their own needs and are not here to cater and flatter you the way chatbots sycophantically do. And if your child is able to do something for themselves, then they should usually be the one doing it.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not “anti-AI.”
AI is amazing at certain tasks. We’re drowning in data and AI can help. The speed it can sort and find is pretty fantastical, and I know that ages me because young people are not all that impressed by AI, at all.
But I’m not hurrah hurrah about it either.
AI can “read” and “fact-check” and concoct booklet answers and overviews or personalized plans and lists by skimming vast containers of data. That’s not nothing, especially when it appears to do it “for free,” hidden costs TBD. I guess we never completely mature out of an ‘out of sight out of mind’ mindset.
Regardless of the costs, the benefits of whatever AI gives you aren’t always as great as they might seem. AI will never know to look under the blanket and find any of the zillion aspects of life that were never digitally captured, or simply can’t be. Parts you see, and I see, and others see - and together we can see more fully. And AI itself is soulless (why does that obvious point feel needed?).
Feeling AI’ed out? You’re not alone.
Mental health aspects are another “cost” that should be considered alongside efficiencies. Spend too much time with AI and you might end up feeling more exhausted than usual.
Me, exhausted. Editing and reviewing AI-generated documents, 10,000 words at a time, is way more work than people know.
Feeling AI’ed out? What if it’s part of your job and that part is growing or maybe even your whole job? Maybe you’ll like it? Lots would rather deal with an AI agent or “boss” than other humans. Many would prefer communication through an AI mediator. Some even want their own personal AI avatar, a digital clone, to handle the sometimes exhausting work of dealing with others and putting themselves "out there."
AI is literally stuck and might make you feel trapped too, forgetting that you can move and see something new, wander and daydream, and ask questions that aren’t only one-sided, rhetorical, or transactional.
We’re all kind of like experiments because no one can know the consequences of AI-use long-term. Many of us are entering this new experiment already worn down from the last one: social media.
Wanting something doesn’t make it good. But it does make it more likely to happen when that want also aligns with someone else’s profit.
The human side is typically the last thing considered when tech is involved. It’s also forgotten how that side has many viewpoints. Ask people around you? I’ve been very surprised by the range of feelings I hear. It’s far more complex than the all-in or all-anti broader conversations about AI.
Opinions seem age-influenced in opposite directions from past tech trends. It’s the young people more often sitting out. They think AI is for old people and corporations. It’s for people who wanna look like they’ve made something, they say, rather than true makers creating something good that they actually care about. Is it real, or AI wannabe? They can spot it right away. We sometimes worry too much about how impressionable young people are and not enough older ones.
What I hear from young people is so at odds with what I see and hear in my work worlds. We need more people engaging and questioning what’s being rolled in before a flattened landscape looks familiar to only those within it. Engaging doesn’t have to mean using, but everyone should be talking together.
Some people will adapt to AI-integrated work environments more easily because it meshes with their disposition or place in life. Others won’t, though they might feel so much pressure to be on board no one else might know. Whether you adapt easily or not, people who struggle have insight to help keep the group from adapting to something that maybe they shouldn’t be adapting to. Human connections matter. Efficiency is not everything. And all voices should be heard.
The real secret to human intelligence is when we combine it—two heads are better than one. It can be messy, frustrating, and like drudging through sludge. Working with real people is not always easy, but learning to do so is essential. We need each other. We can build real chemistry, meaning the back-and-forth kind that’s grounded in our shared flesh-and-blood vulnerability. You cannot get that magic with a machine.
Up close, most issues are gray and blurry, containing multiple, impossible-to-see sides that change depending on where you stand. Over time, issues look different, even when your ethics and values haven’t changed. And the older you get, the more receipts you have in hand, though you might not notice them unless you stop to look, or someone nearby asks you, “Hey, whatcha holding?”
Perspectives aren’t just our own, and even our own can change. This shapes what we see, how we process it, what we trust, and what we might miss.
You can live in the same house for eight years and not notice something that a visitor might see on their very first visit.
My usual writing spot perched at the kitchen table, often overlooking kids playing video games. I always prefer when they're on the same screen, sharing the same view.
Human-centered writing in the age of AI
It’s 4:51 am and I’m the only one up but the birds. Writing has a strong solitary side and AI can easily deepen isolation, even as much as ever.
Most of us aren’t seeing the same morning shadows. Our places and situations are also different. So of course writers have different stances, practices, and takes on AI, with different levels of options and choice. All of those might vary for you depending on the context.
I work in healthcare and am a medical writer and like writing memoir-style essays and now a book. Each context is so different. But I do have some general thoughts on how to keep writing human-centered. I’m sharing them here because I like hearing how other writers are figuring it out too so we can learn from each other and feel less alone.
Writers Should Write What AI Can’t.
Now is the time to dig deeper into curiosities and tell stories less told. Collaborate widely, interview primary sources (people! not only experts or well-known ones), and get out into the world to notice, listen, and talk with whoever you meet. If mediocre will do, things that can be written or sped up by AI generally will, especially since it’s far faster and cheaper than even a low-paid, experienced human writer (and oftentimes there’s not even a budget for that).
But realizations of AI’s limits are setting in. Quality costs. So does cleaning up slop.
I don’t use AI for brainstorming, writing first drafts, or final review. Using AI early in the writing process gives AI the steering wheel and power to pick the direction (maybe without you even realizing). It’s more useful in speeding up the sausage-making middle. If anything, an LLM’s direction early on might be useful in deciding where not to go—the same way I Google a topic to avoid drafting a rehash of what’s already been written. Then you can ask yourself and others: How can I (or we) do it better or different? What angles or gaps are missing?
Don’t Hide AI Use.
If you share information or images that came from AI, disclose that. If you use any AI writing tools, disclose what and how (as best you can), and update your disclosures if they change. Transparency is incredibly important especially when trust is low. It matters even if information sharing might seem too casual for those formalities. Everyone with a Substack or social following is media. We’re all influencers too.
You can find my writing disclosures on my About page. I also welcome questions on where any info or ideas come from, and am always open to new perspectives and differing thoughts.
Don’t blame freelancers.
Freelancing is hard. People are juggling other jobs and the pay is inconsistent and often less than minimum wage, especially when you factor in all the time. A lot of freelancers are caregivers or have limited paid work options. Besides, freelancers aren’t the decision-makers for the outlets they write for, and most outlets are just trying to stay afloat. (AI is not the only reason for all of that.)
Lots of people are still figuring out what to do. So am I. If I take a project that uses AI-generated content, I want to know about their internal LLMs, processes, and editorial standards. Does the use make sense for the context and type of content? Are they paying me and giving me the time to fully fact-check it and fill in any important gaps?
I don’t want to be a rubber stamper or use AI-generated content in manipulative ways (personal stories and essays should be written by people). I don’t write what I wouldn’t say to a friend or loved one or repeat something that feels wrong. And I don’t use sources I wouldn’t trust personally or use them inappropriately or without crediting. Being technically accurate is never enough if the information contextually misleads, nuances that LLMs often miss.
I walk away from anything I don’t feel comfortable with and speak up too, knowing many freelancers aren’t in a position to do either. But in the end it won’t matter much what any of us decide to do. Getting engaged wherever broader AI use and implementation decisions are being made is really important (right now!).
Support and Mentor Writers.
I started freelancing in 2021. Amy Cuevas Schroeder was so kind to follow up on my pitch and work with a new and nervous writer. Amy spent a whole hour on the phone with me before I even wrote anything.
I was really uncertain about the whole thing. Really, me? I could write something someone I don’t know might want to read? Plus, aside from a LinkedIn profile pic, I’d never even posted a photo of myself online much less a thought. But I felt like I was dying inside with stories that needed to come out—some people get this and some don’t, but if you know you know.
I learned journalism basics by working with Amy (she is a fantastic thinker and communicator).
🌟Writers need human feedback: Having another set of eyes is more valuable than any pass through an editing tool.
🌟We need diversity of views, experiences, and backgrounds: To get differing perspectives, we need a diverse workforce of writers to provide them. Supporting new and varied voices is essential, and something we all can do.
🌟Writers need humility. Keep me honest. What did I miss or get wrong? What’s unclear or might come across in an unhelpful way? What’s something you know that I don’t (but maybe think I did)?
Amy is an elder example building community and supporting women during midlife, a critical life phase for them as well as their families and whole communities. When women thrive, everyone does. Do you subscribe to The Midst? Did you read her latest, AI: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t? Amy’s gearing up for another Mastermind cohort, a structured program for women 40+ building their own businesses. I think writers are natural entrepreneurs!
More people are self-publishing and freelance opportunities are down. If I were starting today it’d be even harder to find those early learning opportunities. Now’s a great time to mentor new writers and team up with more experienced ones, maybe edit each other’s work. It’s also a good time to think more expansively about writing and ways to use the skills to find or create opportunities that might work for the market and moment we’re in.
Let's give each other grace and extend it to anyone sharing in the common good, with a motive to tend and befriend. It’s ok to feel uncertain, not know, or change your mind. There are lots of us.
Here’s to new sunrises and shadows yet to be seen. I especially love watching the two dance together.
Next up in this series (more in the elder series is also on its way), I’ll get into how I’m trying to turn my own AI anxiety into agency and AI concern into action as LLMs rapidly integrate into daily lives and workplaces.
It’s been a few months since the sun set before 8:00. I remember older people noticing small shifts in light like it was a big deal. I get it now.
A few AI reads
The AI Judgement Penalty by Code For Good Now: “Fewer women using these tools means fewer women’s perspectives, experiences and needs reflected in what AI produces, and in how it evolves. We are not just talking about who benefits from AI. We are talking about what AI becomes.” - Zehra Chatoo, Founder, Code For Good Now. It’s not only bias in the training data. AI use itself is susceptible to bias. Depressing yes. Surprising no. A reminder to me of one more reason to be engaged.
Teens Are Pushing Back on AI—and They Have Good Reasons by Wendy Wisner. Good explainer why. Wendy’s a great writer. I’m seeing the same thing in my circles.
AI Governance at a Crossroads: America’s AI Action Plan and its Impact on Businesses by Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics research team, Harvard University: “As the federal government shifts from prescriptive regulation to “light-touch” governance and state-level legislators are incentivized to move in a similar direction, the responsibility increasingly falls to the private sector to establish and maintain its own standards of governance as they are not able to rely on governments to provide effective risk-management frameworks.” If everyone’s on their own deciding what to do, then we need everyone to be part of oversight.
Hundreds of Artists Ask NYC Mayor to Ban AI in Schools by Isa Farfan: Whether you have school-aged kids or not, we all can have a voice over how our local schools use (or don’t use) AI.
Don’t be scared about AI. Learn about it, even if you don’t use it.
I’m not drawn to learning about machines the same way I’m drawn to people, health science, and writing. But I think it’s really important for as many people as possible to understand the basics of LLMs to be fluent enough to be in the conversation. Decisions are happening everywhere. You deserve a seat at the table too.
A mysterious black box gives AI more power than it deserves and the people developing it less accountability. In general, tech workers and developers are assumed to be “smarter” in ways that aren’t true. They don’t know everything and shouldn’t be making decisions without insight and oversight from others.
This Stanford lecture is dated (from 2024) but explains the basics of how LLMs are built.
I also think there’s a huge myth that only certain types have the right smarts to enter tech fields, and the rest of us can at most become proficient users. The consequences of that longstanding myth just keep getting bigger, as tech becomes more immersed in nearly every aspect of life.
Prioritizing Diversity in Clinical Trials: An AMWA 2025 Reflection
Earlier this year, I wrote a reported piece for the MedShadow Foundation: “The Side Effects of Inequality: How Lack of Diversity in Clinical Trials Affects Drug Effectiveness and Safety.” Those conversations and research left me asking: How can I, as a writer, prioritize diversity and inclusion in clinical research? AMWA’s annual conference felt like the perfect place to discuss these questions with others in the medical writing community. My roundtable topic centered on the role medical communicators have in prioritizing diversity and inclusion in clinical trials.
In this newsletter, I’m sharing insights from conversations and sessions I attended at AMWA 2025 in Phoenix. It was a joy to learn from and connect with so many medical writers. I left feeling awe-inspired and energized to dig in and learn more.
TL/DR: Even when our impact as medical writers is limited by the scope of our work, we should consistently look for opportunities to highlight diversity and inclusion—whether by advocating for broader recruitment, transparent and contextualized reporting, or more inclusive communication. Speak up, share your perspective, and encourage others to do the same. We can make a difference to help ensure equitable access to medical care!
Why Medical Writers Matter
As medical communicators, we hold unique power. We help shape protocols, summarize clinical findings, and translate evidence for diverse audiences. We educate healthcare professionals and the public. We understand—at our core—why diversity and inclusion in research matter. And as the AMWA July 2024 blog put it:
“Medical writers are well-positioned to help ensure that clinical trials are designed, implemented, and reported with DEI principles in mind.”
We aren’t just content experts—we’re context experts. Angela Winnier, Robin Whitsell, and Tatyana Wanderer shared this important reminder in their session on why medical writers need a business mindset too, urging us to look up from our keyboards, expand our awareness of what’s happening in the wider world, and watch for navigational clues about where we can have the most impact.
Understanding who participates in research and who is left out is crucial context for expanding the process and helping ensure that the benefits of new treatments reach everyone who needs them.
Context & Representation
Meaningful diversity means more than checking boxes. Diversity in clinical trials goes beyond demographics to include:
Age and biological sex
Genetics and ancestry
Gender and sexual orientation
Pregnancy or lactation status
Socioeconomic factors
Disabilities and comorbidities
Life experiences
Environmental exposures
Health-impacting behaviors
Cultural, spiritual, or traditional beliefs
Local or regional standards or care
Advancing Diversity & Inclusion
Dr. Rafael Veintimilla, M.D., senior director of Clinical Trials Integration and Medical Science Liaison at the University of Wisconsin Clinical Trials Institute, explained this when I interviewed him for MedShadow:
“There have been serious ethical violations in research, particularly against vulnerable populations and those who put trust in researchers only to have their rights violated.”
The grievous history still shapes research today, because every new discovery is built on earlier work. Watch for its implications in places where it is overlooked or omitted, and state the facts when relevant. I recently encountered this firsthand while writing about cosmeceuticals for MedShadow’s Meet Me at the Medcart Substack newsletter. Leah Carroll, the newsletter editor, will share a future explanatory post about the disturbing information regarding the scientist who coined the term.
Regulatory Momentum: Diversity & Inclusion in Trials
The Food and Drug Administration’s Diversity Action Plan seeks to match trial populations to real-world users. Other regional regulatory bodies, such as the European Medical Agency in Europe, have implemented similar guidance.
The International Council for Harmonization's E6(R3) guidelines, adopted earlier this year, are helping to globalize standards that promote equitable access, improved trial design, and transparent reporting of diversity in clinical research.
Still, achieving true inclusion and meaningful diversity remains a challenge in practice. Without broad participation, drugs may work less effectively or less safely in underrepresented groups, deepening disparities and undermining public trust.
The American Medical Writers Association’s annual conference took place at the Sheraton in Phoenix, AZ.
Patient-Centric Approaches
Attending Dr. Simin Takidar’s session, “Patient-powered Perspectives for Regulatory Medical Writers,” reinforced a powerful truth: Engaging patients throughout a drug’s lifecycle is essential for prioritizing diversity in clinical research. Designing trials that accurately reflect the patient population can help ensure more meaningful inclusion and more equitable use once a drug reaches the market.
Physician key opinion leaders who help shape the clinical trial hypothesis may not be fully attuned to what patients need to truly feel better. Dr. Takidar urged writers to imagine clinical trial participation from the patient’s point of view—raising questions at every stage.
No single approach is enough for engaging patients. Instead, Dr. Takidar highlighted the value of persistent curiosity and adaptability. And then, she stressed consistency: “We engage early, we engage often, and we engage right to the very end and beyond.”
Simple, thoughtful questions can sometimes prompt changes that remove unnecessary burdens—such as prolonged fasting, extended driving restrictions, or invasive testing, examples Dr. Takidar noted. While these protocols may make scientific sense, they often create hidden barriers for participants, undermining recruitment and retention. Looser, patient-friendly rules allow trials to reflect real-world conditions, making treatments more accessible and equitable after approval.
Incorporating patients’ voices throughout research helps ensure treatments serve those who need them most.
Six Strategies to Advance Inclusivity
Here are six strategies Dr. Takidar discussed to advance inclusivity in trial design:
Reduce trial barriers: Streamline protocols to enable participation from a diverse range of patients and support strong recruitment.
Expand endpoints: Define outcomes that truly matter to patient quality of life.
Rethink data collection: Diversifying enrollment is only the first step. Data collection should evolve to incorporate cultural literacy and blend quantitative with qualitative methods, capturing patient experiences authentically. To be recognized as evidence by regulators, the data must be collected in a systematic way.
Personalize educational materials: Develop targeted, respectful, and impactful resources that center on people from diverse backgrounds, grounded in health literacy and cultural competence.
Engage communities: Meet people where they’re at, but first, Dr. Takidar stresses learning as much as you can about their culture and perspective before starting the conversation.
Make a business case: Patient engagement requires investment, but leads to better recruitment, higher launch success, and may also reveal what patients really need for future drug development.
Early Inclusion Impact
Phase 3 studies often receive the most attention—and for good reason. They’re pivotal in determining whether a drug is approved, and their results inform prescribing information. Still, when early-phase trials lack diversity, subsequent dose selections may fail to reflect all patient populations.
During her session on creating pharmacometric reports, Dr. Kristen Howery highlighted how phase 1 pharmacometric modeling influences downstream dose-selection decisions. By examining pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability across subpopulations, researchers can identify genetic, physiological, and environmental factors that influence drug response. When early trials miss some groups, these unrecognized sources of variability may translate into real-world differences in effectiveness and safety.
The Power of Reporting with Nuance
Medical writers are often the gatekeepers of accuracy, nuance, and ethical principles. In the “Writing About Efficacy in Oncology” session, Justin McLaughlin and Dr. Virginia Kelly emphasized careful language—especially around cross-trial comparisons. Even details like seasonality can affect outcomes. When we stop and think before jumping in and writing, we can ask some critical questions about the assignment itself. That same critical eye matters when reporting diversity data.
Five Strategies for Medical Writers
Report the basics: Always include participant demographics and study locations.
Compare: Are participant backgrounds aligned with real-world patient populations—or are key groups missing?
Highlight limits: Flag the inclusion/exclusion criteria that affect generalizability of findings.
Spotlight supportive measures: Note when studies provide resources (like home monitoring equipment or extra counseling) not widely available outside the trial.
Advocate in editing: When word count is tight, push to keep essential diversity data and places where information is missing.
Growing Challenges
Globalized clinical trials add complexity. Writers at the conference working within large clinical trials spread over continents noted that their contributions are often too narrowly focused to influence diversity and inclusion in a broader context. Assessing diversity also presents challenges: achieving diversity goals in one regional population isn’t necessarily accomplished simply by enrolling participants from those groups abroad—cultural, social, and healthcare context matters.
Improved diagnostics are leading to the identification of more rare diseases, but finding effective treatments still lags far behind. Writers working in rare disease spaces noted that diversity measures in these trials are especially difficult to achieve, given that recruitment is already challenged by the small pool of eligible participants.
Medical writers can help clarify these realities and avoid overgeneralizing findings.
Are you connected with Shellianne Booth? I had the privilege to connect and learn about her role at CISCRP—the Center For Info & Study on Clinical Research Participation.
My Closing Reflections
Diversity in clinical research isn’t a box to check—it’s a core element of scientific integrity and health equity. At AMWA 2025, I was inspired by colleagues who share a commitment to more inclusive, meaningful research and communication. As medical writers, we don’t just report clinical science. We can impact who benefits from the research and provide an important check and balance to ensure transparency and accountability.
Prioritizing diversity as medical writers also means we must champion it within our own professional community. The researchers I spoke to for the MedShadow piece also pointed out that if we want to expand clinical research, we need a more diversified research workforce. Of course, the same applies here.
The pipeline and paths into medical writing are often hidden, narrow, and overly burdensome, making it difficult for people from underrepresented backgrounds to access opportunities and advance in the field.
How can we expand pathways into medical writing to bring more voices to the table?
How can we expand opportunities and create a culture where people from different backgrounds, cultures, and life experiences feel more welcomed, included, and supported in their medical writing careers?
How can we communicate that growing a bigger tent of medical writers isn’t just a nice thing to do, but is essential for creating impactful deliverables, urgent for more inclusive science, and beneficial for everyone because it opens space to learn from many voices.
Ultimately, without a purposeful commitment to inclusion at every stage of the research process, scientific advances will continue to fall short of serving those most in need.
As Clyde W. Yancy, M.D., vice dean of Diversity and Inclusion and Chief of Cardiology in the Department of Medicine at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, told me in an interview for MedShadow:
“This is not a political issue. It’s not even a social issue. It’s a people issue. Folks want to get good care. They want to know that the treatment that we prescribe will work in them.”
Let’s keep the conversation going! If you have insights, questions, or challenges, I’d love to connect. Feel free to email me at daphnebberryhill@gmail.com or reach out on LinkedIn.
Daphne Berryhill, RPh
Clinical Pharmacist & Medical Writer
