My husband, Mark, took this pic from his phone on the way back from the barn, this morning, titling it "Christmas Dove" - it's a little far away, so look closely - it's a dove sitting on the pine and cedar bough on my balcony railing, just in behind the holly tree, in picture-perfect pose.
"On the 10h Day of Christmas, my true love gave to me ... a Christmas dove close to a holly treeeee ..." lol
(*Edited - content added regarding "The placebo effect," considering the possibility of subscription-style contracts)
So this is the busiest time of the year, at work, these last few weeks of the year, as it is for pharma, trying to tie up loose ends before new products launch - so I'm just taking a momentary break from a particularly long job to give a general comment.
I've mentioned what I do before, which is transcribe interviews for an independent marketing company for payers, regional, national, and international - and KOL clinicians, or key-opinion leaders, experts in a particular field or disease state, both physicians and pharmacists, both academic and private practice - and PBMs, or pharmacy benefit managers, who handle large-scale pharmacy plans for insurance companies.
Typically, these are held separately - one interview is with a payer alone, a separate one with a KOL, etc.
Every now and then, they hold the interviews with both a payer and a clinician together at the same time.
Just a general comment - why don't they do these more often? LOL.
They always go very well, nobody fights, they always really listen to each other to try to understand where the other side is coming from, and they're enlightening for both parties as to what the other side of the healthcare system is going through and has to deal with, as well as enlightening to the interviewer, and me.
(I know, who cares if I gain insight, I'm a nobody just transcribing these, but still, point being, we all gain more insight into how these things actually work).
And both the payer and the KOLs always say afterwards, "Wow, I learned so much from this - I had no idea this was going on, on your side."
Right?
IDK, maybe they're too expensive to do - or they have a hard time scheduling them both at the same time, coordinating schedules?
If the reason is expense, pfft, Big Pharma - you know you have enough money to do it, in your R&D budget (which you're going to bake into the high WAC price anyway) - so why not spend a buck for prevention now, rather than lose thousands to millions later, because you thought insurance companies were at your mercy and would have to pay for your drug, and you thought physicians would pressure them to cover it - but you learned pretty quickly with Aduhelm, that wasn't always the case, now, didn't you? ;)
If you do these pre-launch and at-launch interviews, you're going to know beforehand exactly how payers and clinicians view your drug, or at least a ballpark idea, including even their reaction to test prices.
So ... can we infer from the fact that the only time they seem to do these types of interviews is when a breakthrough treatment is expected to obtain FDA approval (or recently approved) - and that they don't do these types of interviews ordinarily, because pharma already know that most of their new drugs coming to market are not breakthrough treatments, do not offer significant incremental benefit, and are simply "me-toos" - but still want to charge a premium price for them anyway or-? ;)
Because the fact is, most physicians have no idea what something costs, unless the patient comes back and tells them they can't afford the copay or coinsurance - and they really don't want to be influenced by cost to the insurance company, because they want to pick the best drug for the patient regardless.
They may have a rough idea of whether something is expensive or not, but they'd honestly rather not know, because their main goal is choosing the best and most effective drug, with the least side effects, to treat the patient.
At most, they then check to see whether or not their insurance covers it, but they don't usually know the actual price, and they definitely don't know what the patient's copay/coinsurance is unless the patient calls/comes back and tells them.
I understand why they don't want to know the price, so as to not let it interfere with best drug choice - and yet in this day and age, perhaps they really should?
Now - insurance companies know very well what things cost, and they're the ones making sure that the efficacy and side-effect profiles make the drug worth the price.
And they're getting very frustrated with the amount of "me-too" medications that come in, with similar efficacy and safety - making their trials versus placebo instead of direct competitors - and yet still trying to find reasons why they deserve a premium price to their direct competitors anyway lol.
Speaking of "versus placebo" trials, they're also getting very frustrated with drug trials still going up against placebo, or non-comparable drugs, instead of direct competitors, if they already exist in the class.
Now, going up against placebo makes sense, when there's no other comparable drug, the new drug will be a first-in-class drug - i.e., new vaccines or new mechanisms of action - because there is nothing else to compare it to.
It also makes sense if the "placebo" is actually the current standard of care - like when the first monoclonal antibody drug came out for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, it went up against steroids as the placebo - but still a different mechanism of action than the new drug.
But it does NOT make sense if there are comparable others already existing on the market, in the same class.
(To be fair, sometimes the trials begin before any competitors come out, too - but they usually know what's in the pipeline coming already).
However, by and large, there already are direct competitors on the market, they just choose something that's not really a competitor to make themselves look better.
HOWEVER - "The placebo effect" is real.
In fact, in every single trial that's done, there is always a placebo effect - meaning at least a small proportion of people taking the placebo improve - and not just subjective reports from patients - their objective lab markers actually improve.
By the same token, there can also be negative side effects reported with placebo, too - headaches, GI upset, dizziness, fatigue.
In fact, every single new drug in a "versus placebo" clinical trial is actually competing with placebo effect rather the actual placebo medication itself.
Why is there always a placebo effect?
There are (at least) 3 possible causes theorized, which depend on how much placebo improvement was reported - how many patients showed improvement or worsening on placebo:
1) If the placebo effect is large - and the placebo is actually either the current standard of care (different mechanism of action than the new drug, but still contains active ingredients) or older treatment, rather than a true placebo (no active ingredients) - it could signal that the standard of care or older agent acting as placebo is more effective than previously believed, or on the negative side, has a worse safety profile if the placebo appeared to cause more side effects.
In that case, it becomes a matter of how much better the new drug is than the current standard of care acting as placebo.
2) If the placebo effect is large - but the placebo is a true placebo (meaning no active ingredients) - this indicates that something was wrong with the study - either in the study design itself or in its implementation.
If a study design flaw, it's usually the patient population chosen for the trial - i.e., the study size was too small, they were already on prior or concurrent medication, or they weren't screened for genetic contributors or other comorbid conditions, which would of course affect the study's outcome.
It could also signal that the "controlled" study wasn't very controlled - parameters were not adhered to, and therefore flawed.
3) If the placebo effect is small, and a true placebo was used - meaning no active ingredients, just saline injection or water or sugar pill - the improvement is likely psychosomatic, psychological - people believe they're possibly taking something that's going to make them better, and so some of them actually do (but not all).
HOWEVER, there is always a placebo effect in these trials - if large, it's a study problem; if small, it's normal - likely psychosomatic rather than the first two reasons.
Never underestimate the power of the mind over the body;)
Thus, a new drug is considered effective if there is a statistical clinical significance of improvement VS. the actual placebo effect rather than versus the actual placebo medication - and sometimes, the FDA will pass the drug even if the delta between improvement on placebo and the new drug isn't very significant.
Regardless, point being, at present, the FDA incredibly still allows approval based on new drug VS. placebo trials, even if the drug only did slightly better than placebo, even if the placebo effect was large, and despite there being a direct competitor on the market when the trial began - for what reason I don't know.
In fact, having transcribed these interviews for international government payers, as far as I'm aware, we are the only first-world government in the world that still does so - at least to the degree that we do.
And in fact, these days, it's not so much the rebates going directly to the insurance companies that are the problem, because they've become much more transparent about where their rebate dollars are going - usually to lower your premiums.
These days, it's more likely the PBM that the insurance company has partnered with to manage the pharmacy benefits and negotiate the contracts with pharma for them, who offer no transparency at all about where their rebate dollars are going - which is why certain states have enacted mandates on them, or at least requesting more transparency from PBMs on where these rebate dollars actually go.
This is because nowadays, it's not so most the commercial insurance companies that are getting the big rebates anymore, it's their PBMs they're contracting with.
They get the biggest chunk of rebates first, because they are the ones actually negotiating the contracts directly with manufacturers - and they're not very transparent about where these rebate dollars are going.
Thus, the health insurance plan that uses them gets whatever rebate money is left, after the PBMs take the lion's share, with which they to try to reduce your monthly premiums (which unlike PBMs, they have become at least somewhat more transparent about) - and then whatever measly amount is left goes towards a patient's copay/coinsurance.
Though there are patient-assistance programs for patients offered by pharma, you're not eligible for them if you're on Medicare, for some unknown reason - despite the Medicare population needing them most - which is why some states, like New York, have started putting caps on copays, how much a patient pays out of pocket for meds, particularly lifesaving meds like insulin, leaving PBMs, insurance companies and pharma to eat the rest of the cost (as it should be:)
Because as we know, though biosimilars have come out for Sanofi's long-actin basal insulin of Lantus, the price has never dropped, and has in fact gone up.
Why?
Again, varying contracts, with steeper rebates offered for the brand names and "portfolio contracts" where you get discounts on other products by their company if you buy a certain volume of the new drug - mostly to the PBMs especially, my darlings - which does NOT trickle back down on your insurance premiums or copays.
Sorry, Republicans, but trickle down only works locally and regionally, and even then, it depends on the company - but "trickle down" has never once worked on a national or corporate level.
You can't give one example of trickle-down ever working at a national or corporate level, and we can use the cost of pharmaceuticals and healthcare as proof of the opposite - corporations, and certain C-suite individuals, are too greedy for the market to work properly like that.
I realize that governments can be greedy, too - it's just to act like one is any less greedy than the other is a pointless argument, because you throw the human element of greed into either public or private equation, and neither system alone works well.
Essentially, varying rebate contract deals are why the pharma market doesn't work the way it's supposed to, which is with more products and generics being the biologically similar equivalent, the market price should go down - but it doesn't.
Regardless, back to the interviews, both agree about the prices being outrageous.
The payer being interviewed on behalf of the insurance company is is usually either their medical director or the pharmacy director.
The medical director is an MD, but who no longer sees patients; typically a former family practice/ internal medicine, but not a specialist. The pharmacy director likewise no longer practices/dispenses medication.
They always explain why they put step-through restrictions on certain things to the clinician, to avoid automatically paying out millions for the latest, newest, shiniest, possibly just "me-too" thing that doesn't perform any better than what's already on the market, and that hasn't been tried in the real world yet.
The KOLs (key-opinion leaders) are current practicing specialist physicians who have been deemed by medical societies to be experts in their field, often practicing at Centers of Excellence for their disease states - or as pharmacy directors and pharmacists still practicing/dispensing at these institutions, and thus often are pharmacy specialists, i.e., oncology pharmacists.
They explain to the payer why some of these step-throughs are inappropriate in their treatment algorithm, wasting not only precious relief time for the patient, but more money, what they actually see in practice and how it compares to the study, and everybody better understands each other.
Dang, not only should they do this more, but if Congress could also do these anonymous, double-blinded interviews, too, just imagine what understanding we might gain from the "opposing" sides and what we might accomplish? :)
A Christmas tree is beautiful alone, but something about presents underneath makes it magic :)
Once upon a time, not so long ago, there weren't many there, but today, there are many - very happy and grateful for my life now :)
*Updated 12/19/2021 - apparently, they reached a deal today, 12/19/2021, so sayeth their new email.
So I'm going to lose my Christmas spirit for just a moment, for just a small rant at a couple of Scrooges, because this certainly isn't anyone's worst problem (well, unless you're a white-privileged Hallmark character, see below), but it is irritating, at the end of football season/beginning of basketball season.
But only for a moment, in order explain to YouTube TV streamers why you don't have ABC, Disney, or ESPN channels this morning, if you haven't heard yet.
First, every few months, YouTube sends us a series of emails warning us that their contract negotiations with some channel company aren't going well and that we may lose those channels (last time, it was NBC/Universal).
They were able to save that one, but this time, contract negotiations fell through and they lost ABC/Disney/ESPN.
I'm not sure why they send us these emails so many days in advance and what they want us to do about it?
What would they like us to do - call ABC/Disney/ESPN and rant like a bunch of overprivileged Karens on their behalf?
That's not going to happen lol.
Here's a thought, YouTube - it's pretty clear you don't receive any ad revenue from these channels, because of those "be right back" place cards you put up instead of ads on commercial breaks - so why don't you actually get your own advertisers to put commercials in those slots so that you have more revenue/cash flow to afford these contracts, hmm?
It's also pretty clear that your contract negotiations team aren't very good at their jobs, so perhaps time for new contract negotiators?
(And you may have to compromise a little? Giving up something to get something, that's the way business negotiations work.)
It's actually both of their faults, ABC/Disney/ESPN and YouTube, though - greedy a-holes lol.
As IF they don't have enough money already, despite COVID, because all people did was watch TV!
Well, at least they're going to drop our monthly rate from $70 to $55 because of it?
But it's still irritating.
Because we cut the cord a few years ago and chose streaming platforms, specifically YouTube TV because of its array of sports selections, including all of the ESPN channels.
At the time, it was super cheap - $40 a month.
Since then, the price has crept up to $70, after adding channels that we never watch, of course.
Like we now have 4 Hallmark channels, which I sometimes watch at Christmas, but otherwise don't, because I OD on the saccharine.
Because the typical plot of a Hallmark movie is always the same white-privilege story that goes like this:
1) Incredibly wealthy white widow/widower and their child moves to an idyllic small town - again, filled with only white people, who immediately embrace them - to engage in fixing up/rescuing a house, farm, castle, or business that has left to them by a dead relative.
(Almost never divorced, always a widow - Hallmark is a Trump-supporting favorite for a reason lol.)
2) Their first meeting with their new love-to-be is always a literal bump-in - they slip on the ice and they're caught by their love interest, they aren't looking where they're going and bump into their love interest, spilling coffee all over them, etc. Their love interest is always surly at first, of course.
(Mark and I call this "The Hallmark Moment Bump-In" - even if it's not a Hallmark movie lol )
3) After a rocky start, the star and their love interest warm up to each other, and boom - a new family is created and the house/business/farm is saved in the 11th hour.
"Oh no, my worst problem is the multimillion-dollar specialty bakery franchise that my dead uncle left me is going under, and I can't save it because I don't know how to bake!"
"I keep throwing money at the problem anyway, without addressing the actual problem, and the whole town, who has less money than me, have pulled together a fundraiser to save my family business - even though they just met me a week ago!"
"I do declah, whatevah shall I do! I must save Terra at all costs!""Wait, I know - the handsome stranger I just spilled coffee all over is actually a world-class baker, but he hates me. I guess I'll pay for his dry-cleaning bill now, plus he's kind of cute! Oh, the magic of Christmas!"
And the message is Christmas magic saves the day for already wealthy white people!
(Actually someone swoops in with a lot of money in the 11th hour, but whatevs).
And of course, these good things are happening to them to compensate them for their prior struggles, i.e. God "took" their former spouse instead of divorce, and thus no fault of their own, and blesses them with prosperity and success.
Nice around Christmas, but otherwise ... yawn.
Because not only is it the same plot, over and over, but because sh*t doesn't ever go like that.
Life isn't like that and never has been - it doesn't even go like that for rich white people - but especially if the main character was black or Muslim, or even a divorced, broke white woman running from an abusive ex, I guarantee you that would never happen.
Okay, so they DID start to put more people of color in them ...
... and just this last two years, gay couples ...
But still, always wealthy, and no one discusses any real struggles at Christmas.
For instance, they neglected to mention that you were stopped by police and patted down on Christmas eve, driving home in your new Mercedes, simply because you were black and the cops thought you stole it.
Or that your wealthy relatives actually disowned you and damned you to hell because you were gay, so they certainly didn't leave you a multimillion-dollar business to run or even have a place for you at the table at Christmas.
And IMO, God's blessings aren't typically with prosperity anyway, he typically blesses with spiritual healing/uplift.
However the belief otherwise is why Trump supporters love that sh*t - because it's American Christian fantasy - it's not American Christian reality and never has been.
Speaking of, most of the time when Trumpers whine are upset about something - masks, vaccines, taxes - I try to listen, because a molehill to you might be a mountain to someone else, but I always find myself thinking to myself:
"Really? Your worst problem is someone made you wear a mask in the store, or you get a free vaccine to protect you from a deadly disease?"
"You clearly either don't have enough to do, or you've never known true struggle in your life, or both, that these things are the things that upset you so much."
Give me real, give me gritty, give me true struggle at Christmas, and how they were able to find their Christmas spirit anyway - because that is reality for millions of Americans, who find a way do it anyway, every year :)
Because the real Christmas magic that happens is not some handsome rich stranger swooping in to save your day, or even the whole town pulling together to save your business.
It's the little things that mean a lot - the fact that you are still able to find your Christmas anyway, that makes it magic - like that Christmas tree that was actually $200 was mismarked at $100, and when you asked the lot owner to double-check, he let you and your child have it at that price, in the spirit of Christmas :)
(That actually happened to me once - and no, I didn't switch the tags lol. I knew something was wrong, compared to the others, pointed out the discrepancy, he thanked me for pointing it out, and said if I wanted that one at that price, I could have it and wished me a Merry Christmas :)
Or it doesn't even have to involve anyone else - you made some paper snowflakes to hang up and you and/or your family had the silliest, best time doing it :)
NOT that Christmas is "all about you" anyway - the quickest way to gain Christmas spirit is to lose yourself and your problems is giving to others :)
But I digress ... back to my point about the ABC/Disney/ESPN Vs. YouTube struggle, apparently the struggle is real ;)
Ya know, I don't know all of the details behind the contract negotiations, but from the outside, a bird's eye view, there is an easy solution to this:
YouTube TV?
ABC/Disney/ESPN clearly owns their own advertising, due to those lame "be right back" place cards you especially put on ESPN instead of commercial breaks.
Get more of your own advertising, hellllooo?
And also, a new contracts negotiations team, because dang, how many times is this going to happen?
Speaking of which, you may have to compromise, give something to get something, that's the way contract negotiations work.
Disney/ABC/ESPN?
You already have more money than God, despite COVID, you pretty much rule world - in fact, you're scaring us - so stop it already, especially at Christmas and during the end of football season and beginning of basketball season. You know can afford this, even despite COVID, all anybody did was watch TV lol.
Knock a million or so off each channel's CEO salaries for a year, cut the billing price for a year, and call it "ABC/Disney/ESPN Christmas COVID discount" - you know the CEO's can afford it for one year, considering their base salary is millions - and you'd get more subscribers than ever, I bet.
(Loyalty to Mickey Mouse can only go so far, with adults especially.)
Boom, we're done here!
Ah, it's a Christmas miracle! lol
And with that, I'm done with my small rant on a small irritation with greedy people, this holiday season, and it's back to Christmas spirit!
Thank you, that is all lol :)
_____________________________
PS - Apparently, they reached a deal today, 12/19/2021, so sayeth their email, which also says they aren't raising the price.
And yet still - get your own commercials, YouTube, and perhaps a new contracts negotiating team, because this gets tiresome every few months?
*This post from last year was getting several hits, over the past few days, so I thought I'd repost it to make things easier (plus I just love the sound of dulcimers a Christmas, both mountain and hammered dulcimers :)
________________________________________________
ORIGINAL POST
... not to be confused with each other, because contrary to popular belief, the mountain/Appalachian dulcimer and the hammered dulcimer are actually not related instruments, and they are suspected to have two very different countries/regions of origin.
In fact, though the hammered dulcimer was adopted in the 20th century in folk music, unlike the Appalachian/Mountain dulcimer, it is actually not considered part of the zither-instrument family, and if pressed, would actually fit more closely to the inside of a piano, or even closer to the Appalachian/Mountain autoharp, than an Appalachian/Mountain dulcimer, only played with a mallet instead of a pic.
The hammered dulcimer is actually believed to have originated from Scandinavian countries, though later adopted in Wales and in nearby Bristol, England, and also in Northumbria, England - but surprisingly not so much Ireland and Scotland, nor Great Britain as a whole, at least until the 19th and 20th centuries.
The Appalachian autoharp can be played upright or in the lap, but even that comparison is a stretch, because like the mountain dulcimer, the autoharp is also in the zither family, while the hammered dulcimer is not.
Appalachian autoharp
In fact, the Mountain/Appalachian dulcimer may be more closely related to the mandolin or banjo, and distantly related to a mid-eastern or Asian zither, in that it is an elongated string instrument played only with the fingers - no pick or mallet.
However, unlike the autoharp and other zither instruments found in European countries, the Appalachian/mountain dulcimer is always played across the lap or on a table or stand - it is never held upright or across the chest.
An authentic Amburgey Kentucky Appalachian/Mountain Dulcimer
Mountain Dulcimer Carols
The Mountain Dulcimer, despite being associated with, and played by, mostly Irish-Scottish immigrants in the U.S., actually has no known record of this instrument existing in Ireland, Scotland, or England; but of course, any written record of how this instrument caught fire among Irish/Scottish immigrants in the U.S. has been lost.
What we do know is the first written history of someone actually selling mountain dulcimers was J. Edgar Thomas, from Knott County, Kentucky, who first began selling the instruments here in 1880.
And though they enjoyed a brief national popularity through Lorraine Wyman entertaining audiences with the instrument in WWI, it was really Kentucky native 1960s folk singer, Jean Ritchie, who put the Kentucky/mountain dulcimer on the national radar, her dulcimers being made by her cousin, Jethro Amburgey.
Folk singer/musician and Kentucky native, Jean Ritchie, with an authentic Amburgey mountain dulcimer.
Now, let's get to the music - just a little sampler of different musicians, and I'll be honest, though a mountain dulcimer is closer to my family history, I prefer the sound of a hammered dulcimer.
First up, though, is the Appalachian/mountain dulcimer :)
Let's start with the queen of the mountain dulcimer Jean Ritchie, although her voice isn't to everyone's taste, so be forewarned ;)
I was unable to find Jean Ritchie singing Christmas carols with her dulcimer, only a capella - but I did find this recording of her singing on her "Carols for all Seasons" album, which of course included Christmas, as well as celebration of Spring, etc. :)
Now, if you search YouTube for somebody actually playing mountain dulcimer Christmas carols, you'll typically find people who have just learned it that aren't very good yet, so let me help you find the professionals or the otherwise gifted with a mountain dulcimer lol.
This is Benjamin Esh, a professional mountain dulcimer musician, playing "Joy To the World" ...
And perhaps the U.S. expert of the mountain dulcimer (though he actually hails from California), Bing Futch - who is a folk artist and plays many kinds of distinctly American folk instruments - with "Oh Holy Night" on a "courting" or double dulcimer ...
And though this is on Ben Esh's channel, I'm not sure who this is - so this is either Ben when very young or an unknown young man. Whoever he is, Ben or not, he's actually the best I found, playing the mountain dulcimer with some serious heart and soul, with "What Child is This/Greensleeves" ...
Okay, so in case you haven't noticed, no matter how happy the song, the mountain flair often makes the song sound warm and comforting, but also somewhat mournful?
So if you're in the mood for a more upbeat Christmas carol sound, like I am, then let's end this post with the grand dulcimer finale, with the hammered dulcimer :)
Hammered Dulcimer Carols
This is David Mahler, playing in downtown Gatlinburg, a few years ago, playing "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" - prepare to be amazed - this is actually my favorite of all the videos presented here :)
U.S. hammered dulcimer expert, Joshua Messick, playing "Ding Dong Merrily on High/Good King Wenceslas" ...
Multi-time U.S. hammered dulcimer champion, Ted Yoder, playing "Carol of the Bells"
This last one is Barbara J. Hunt with Dizzi Dulcimer, originally from Bristol, England, in the UK, with "Away in a Manger" - note she has a distinctly different, more formal sound and way of playing the hammered dulcimer than the Americans, a bit more of a slow, mournful manner, but still beautiful, if not hauntingly so :)
Lastly, bringing it back to America, folk musicians from our fellow Appalachian state of North Carolina, Carol and Michael Bowman, on guitar and hammered dulcimer, with "I Saw Three Ships"
Mark had written our apartment community property manager, Jessica, recently - and apparently she had this afterthought today - making it feel like extra birthday gift (though she had no idea it was my birthday lol) ...
And as wonderful as it is to receive gifts, cards, emails, texts, and birthday wishes from your family, friends, bosses, coworkers, etc. ... an unexpected kindness from someone who's unaware it's your birthday, just appreciating something you created, makes it even more special :)
Wasn't that thoughtful of her?
We just love her, she rocks :)
And I'm so glad someone enjoys my balcony display, that's why I do it - and her kind words gave me a smile in return :)
And that's what this season is all about - spreading kindness and joy :)
... under my living room wreath and tobacco baskets/vintage Christmas pillow covers ...
And THIS ...
And THESE ...
(ASICs Cumulus 23 running shoes)
Also some wonderful organic bathie stuff, because I'm a hot-bath addict!
... from my beloved "Hicks" (my husband, Mark) :)
Yes, unfortunately, I'm one of those PIA people born close to Christmas, which makes busy people sigh, feeling pressure to set aside money for birthday gifts as well - so I always tell them NOT to - and I mean it - because I don't want my birthday to tax anyone's finances or stress people out, when they're already stressed for the holidays!
(I will admit, though, that I'm grateful my husband never listens to that one - lol - although it would be perfectly okay if he didn't, too - a delicious, casual, completely unhealthy steak dinner is just fine;)
Thank you, "Hicks," my love!
~ "Ripley"
.JPEG)
