When you break down case studies teaching MBA students, it’s imperative to supplement all the students’ frenzied suggestions with a final oft-forgotten option of doing nothing. This is still a strategic choice. And often the smart one.

Consider the advantages of inertia. Trump’s claim is so at odds with the scientific consensus, and so clearly political, that any direct engagement risks inadvertently elevating the controversy. 

Tylenol is not in possession of new information; all previous studies have been reviewed ad nauseam by regulators worldwide. 

The medical establishment, academic community, and international health agencies have already spoken in unison to debunk the assertion. A fresh statement from Tylenol would likely only refresh and legitimize a baseless news cycle.

If Tylenol plays along with the President, it could create a stigma in the mind of American consumers for a lifetime. Resisting the claims with data risks infuriating a president who, thanks to his mentor Roy Cohn, rewards resistance with a ten-fold escalation. 

History teaches marketers that modern crises are not always best managed with immediate action, irrespective of the generic advice of crisis management gurus who play every crisis the same way. 

Sometimes, letting the experts—and time—do the work is more effective, especially when a brand’s safety record is long-established and the accusation at hand is patently unscientific. By holding the line and letting the flurry of outrage expend itself, Tylenol stands to remind consumers of the dull power of expertise, not panic.

Sometimes, silence is not weakness but wisdom. And inaction does not always signify laziness or uncertainty. In an ironic twist: the bravest, wisest course for Tylenol may well be to endure the pain in silence.

Sign up here for Mark Ritson’s MiniMBA in Marketing, a ten-week training program for senior managers who missed or have forgotten their marketing fundamentals.