Gov't Funding/Re: Sharing Cosmetics

I'm making this a separate thread so it isn't buried in a thread with an unrelated title.

In the sharing cosmetics thread a few of you started talking about the lack of funds for awareness, etc. Last year the Division of Viral Hepatitis got $17.5M. There is something you can do. Below is a copy of the letter that went out to Senators. It was prepared by the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable. The due date for the letter is May 1, 2009. Also, it needs to be sent only through your Senator's webform on his/her website otherwise it may be marked as spam and get trashed. I'm told that snail mail is not good either due to the previous anthrax scares. You can find your senator's email web form here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Here is the template for you to use:

The Honorable____________________
United States Senate
Washington, DC  20510

Dear Senator,
I am requesting your support for increased funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Division of Viral Hepatitis (DVH) in the Senate stimulus package.  Increased funding for DVH will make a significant impact in reducing the morbidity and mortality from chronic viral hepatitis, an investment that would not only prevent viral hepatitis infections, but stimulate the economy by creating much needed jobs.

We also want to thank you for your longstanding commitment to maintaining the health of our nation by vigorously supporting federal funding of our nation’s public health and research agencies. Through your leadership, CDC is poised to turn the tide against chronic viral hepatitis in the United States but can not respond effectively without additional funding.

Specifically, we are seeking the following hepatitis-specific funding:

$53 million to improve the detection of viral hepatitis by creating a complete and consistent national surveillance system;
$113 million to reduce illness and death from chronic viral hepatitis by building the capacity of state and local health departments to provide counseling, testing, education, case management, public awareness, and professional education;
$66.6 million to eliminate hepatitis B transmission among adults in the U.S. by providing vaccines to high risk adults and the infrastructure necessary for vaccine delivery; and
$26.4 million to prevent hepatitis B transmission and disease among infected pregnant women and their infants by creating a comprehensive case management program to vaccinate and monitor exposed infants, referring infected mothers for appropriate care, and screening and vaccinating family members.
Up to 5-6 million Americans are infected with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV), which are the leading causes of primary liver cancer -- the fastest growing cancer in incidence in the U.S.  Each year, 10,000 Americans die prematurely from end-stage liver disease or liver cancer due to chronic viral hepatitis infections. Without an increase in funding to support prevention and surveillance capacity, chronic viral hepatitis will exact an unacceptably high burden of disease, death, and associated costs on the American public. Immediate action will avert this result.

We strongly support the need to invest in CDC capacity to win the battle against chronic viral hepatitis, which will ultimately lower health care costs and most important, improve the health and longevity of our citizens.

Respectfully,

Now you're going to notice that there is a lot of money for hep B also and you may ask why can't hep C advocates go after just hep C funding. There are a lot of reasons that the people working on funding, legislation and policy have decided to go in this direction. The CDC has recently re-organized and made Viral Hepatitis part of a group that includes, TB, SSTD's and HIV. Another reason is that the government is moving away from one disease funding. They do not want to see "Ryan White" all over again. So the best shot at getting more money for HCV is when you "bundle" it.  So use this as a template or write your own letter before May 1, 2009.

Thanks,
Susie

[Bill1954]

Thanks, Suzie; I just e-mailed Senators Feinstein and Boxer; I appreciate your help,

Bill

[jdwithhcv]

Great post, Susie.  I will send this on to Senators Lieberman and Dodd.  Thank you.

jd

[Rain6866]

Everyone on this board should be doing this. as well as their friends and family.

TY Susie

[JennyPenny]

Thanks for getting right on this. I'll try to keep everyone informed of what is going on as soon as I hear anything.

[Bill1954]

.

[Rain6866]

I live in SC but born and raised in Ky. Senator Mitch McConnell of Ky was a friend of my dads and last years former senator was my 2nd cousin. I have been in touch with both on the issue.

Also Ive sent the letter to both SC senators.

[m_strings]

Thanks for posting this.  The letter refers to "we" in the plural.  Do we have permission from the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable to include their name in our letter or should we change the "we's" to "I"?

[JennyPenny]

You don't need permission from the Roundtable. I don't think it matters if you change the we to I, althugh it does sound better that way. I did it for you in the first word of the first sentence and then never gave the rest of the letter a thought. sorry 'bout that. And thanks so much for sending the letter.

[ladybug52]

Thanks so much! I can't think of a more fufilling way to spend a sleepless night. Cornyn and Hutchinson contacted, thanks to you!
Bug

[Marcia2202]

I would gladly join you all, if I lived in the US... So instead I am wishing you good luck with creating this awareness in your country.

You are all in my prayers.

Marcia

[GSDgirl]

Did my duty LOL, Casey and Spector

Denise

[Kathy73]

Sent it to John Kerry/Massachusetts. I'm also sending it to Ted Kennedy (who I feel terrible for).

[JennyPenny]

Shameless bump.

[portann]

Ditto.

[oneatenuff]

Hi everyone - here's another letter regarding hep C funding / the stimulus package that I received a few days ago.  Others may have, as well.   I'd like to pass it on here.   I'm not trying to encourage anyone to sign this particular letter over the other - I'm just passing the info because I think it's important for people with hep C to see these kinds of letters, read them, think about it, get involved, have a voice, etc.  - all good things.

Thanks

====================
Dear FAIR Foundation members with HCV as your focus disease,

I received this excellent communication from HCV advocate and FAIR member Peter Fisher. I have added my name to it as one of the many HCV patients who support this letter and I hope you will also add your name by sending your name to Peter at his email address ***@****. Please also distribute it to other HCV patients and advocates.

From: Peter Fisher [mailto:***@****]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:56 PM
Subject: Viral hepatitis sign on

Please consider adding your name to the sign on below requesting viral hepatitis stimulus funding and distribute within the viral hepatitis advocacy community. Please send by March 31 to ***@**** .

Peter Orszag, Director                                                              
Keith Fontenot, Deputy Assistant Director
The Office of Management and Budget                                      
725 17th Street, NW                                                                  
Washington , DC 20503

Dear Director Orszag and Deputy Assistant Director Fontenot:

We the undersigned representatives of the viral hepatitis advocacy community respectfully request that $150 million dollars of the $650 million in stimulus funding dedicated to the CDC for “evidence-based clinical and community-based prevention and wellness strategies authorized by the PHS Act, as determined by the Secretary.." be utilized to support comprehensive viral hepatitis surveillance, testing, prevention, and HBV vaccination programs. In addition, we ask for an equitable distribution of disease-specific funding to insure that HCV is not further underfunded in relation to HBV.

Viral hepatitis (VH) is grossly underfunded by the CDC yet, like HIV, it is largely preventable. CDC funding for HIV/AIDS Domestic and Research in 2008 was $691 million vs. $17.5 million for VH despite similar mortality levels. In the absence of major advances in treatment, and given existing trends, VH mortality and morbidity rates will far exceed HIV/AIDS in the coming decade, yet the CDC has no plan in place to address evolving priorities or direct resources where they will be most beneficial. One glaring consequence of the disparity in disease funding is that viral hepatitis is now the leading the cause of mortality among those HIV co-infected.

Viral hepatitis testing and vaccination for HBV should be made available to everyone, including those who lack medical insurance or coverage.

State viral hepatitis coordinators should be funded and mandated to develop and implement comprehensive surveillance studies to better understand VH epidemiology and implement prevention programs. State viral hepatitis surveillance statistics are notoriously unreliable.

Treatment for HCV remains problematic for those with the most common genotype (1) and there are significant to severe side effects for many patients. Rumors of new breakthroughs in VH treatment options 'just around the corner' are irresponsible and unsupported.

The CDC has worked laudably in recent years to address some disparities in public health. We ask that, in addition to providing requested stimulus funding, you and the new Administration take a closer look at disparities in infectious disease funding and consider ways to respond to a silent epidemic crying to be heard. We recognize that it is not good practice for disease advocates to cry favoritism, especially when the favored disease is HIV/AIDS, but existing CDC disease funding levels are blatantly discriminatory, and HIV/AIDS exceptionalism in infectious disease can no longer be scientifically, politically, or ethically justified.

Many of us are losing confidence in the CDC and federal government's willingness to step up to the plate and move beyond the politics and special interests that dominate infectious disease.

We hope you will not disappoint us.

Thank you.

[portann]

Wondering if you could fix the email addresses in the letter, so we can read them.

Thanks.

[oneatenuff]

Sorry about that - didn't know the email wouldn't be readable.  

This is all one word - no spaces

peter fisher at verizon dot net  

Hope that will work  

[JennyPenny]

Please be careful with Pete's letter. He feels that hep C doesn't get it's fair share. And while he may be right about that, I don't think it is a good idea to say unkind things to government agencies if you want to get a fair shake. NVHR spends a lot of time on the Hill, I know because my hubby is on the steering committee and he is secretary of NVHR. Some of the senators have been kind enough to share some tips with them about how to go about having the chance of seeing more funding for research as well as awareness.

[oneatenuff]

Hi Susie, I didn't know your husband was on the steering committee.   Sorry  - didn't mean to step on any toes.

I'm assuming the NHVR feels  (like Pete does)   that hep C does not get its fair share.  

I've read both letters.  I'm thinking.... if it's more funding for hep C that we all want and are going after, can you or someone else explain how that happens when no request was made specifically for hep C by the NHVR?   I'm just curious - that's all.   I've been comparing letters, and I just don't understand how leaving specific requests for funding for hep C helps people with hep C get more funding.

I realize you can't or probably shouldn't, but ... can you share any of the tips those senators shared with your husband?   Again, I'm just curious.   If you're not comfortable going into that - I totally understand.   I can't help but wonder, though, if it's been suggested that in order for hep C to get attention and more funding, it will need to be classified by the CDC as an STD.  

Thanks if you can shed any light.  If not, I understand.  

[HCVPETE]

Your reason for why HCV earmarked funding was not included in the NVHR sign on has me baffled. You state it is because it was "bundled" with other diseases. Well, yes - in a way. But then why was there zero HCV-specific funding requested, yet $92 million for HBV. And the sign on was written by a HBV lobbyist with close ties to the drug industry. I may be sick but I am not stupid!
Susie is right: I don't believe HCV gets a fair share of disease funding. It does not.  
As far as saying "unkind things to government agencies.." I spoke no harsh words, just the truth. Viral hepatitis has been horribly short-funded for years and now that the government can no longer ignore it, it wants to focus on HBV, not HCV.
That may be fine with the NVHR, but it is not with me.
Please support our sign on as a patient-based alternative to the NVHR.
Peter Fisher
http://www.ma-heppep.org/

[JennyPenny]

I just spent 1/2 hour on a post answering these questions and apparently MedHelp took it down or it disappeared right after it posted, by magic. Sorry, no time to redo it now.

[JennyPenny]

O:  " I'm thinking.... if it's more funding for hep C that we all want and are going after, can you or someone else explain how that happens when no request was made specifically for hep C by the NHVR?"
_________________________________________________________________________ JP:   You're right, no specific funding for hep C has been asked for. That is because no specific funding for HCV will be considered....no more one disease funding is going to happen. HCV falls under the language used asking for funding for viral hepatitis. That is where we are told we have the best chance of getting the funds.
===============================================================


O:  "I realize you can't or probably shouldn't, but ... can you share any of the tips those senators shared with your husband? "
_______________________________________________________________________

JP:  The only reason I can't is that I don't know. As soon as my husband gets home from his music lesson I will ask him to share that info with you. NVHR is not some secret, under the thumb of the pharmas agency, that will not share information. Also, I remember some talk about putting HCV under the umbrella of an STD, but it didn't happen. I will try to get you more information.

================================================================
P: "I may be sick but I am not stupid!" "I spoke no harsh words, just the truth."
_______________________________________________________________________

The truth is pretty harsh. I'm sure your mom taught you that you catch more bees with honey, Pete. You and I have had this discussion before and I don't find it necessary to go there again. I can't tolerate name calling and placing blame on people who have worked their butts off, particularly as volunteers, to help us patients get what we need.

[JennyPenny]

Now how did this happen? Are you trying to make me end up on the funny farm? LOL. How did my earlier post get to be last in the thread? Can you disappear the one that says "I just spent 1/2 hour"? Otherwise everyone else might be as confuzzled as I am right now!

[JennyPenny]

Now how did this happen? Are you trying to make me end up on the funny farm? LOL. How did my earlier post get to be last in the thread? Can you disappear the one that says "I just spent 1/2 hour"? Otherwise everyone else might be as confuzzled as I am right now!

[HCVPETE]

JP responded to Oneatenuff:   "You're right, no specific funding for hep C has been asked for. That is because no specific funding for HCV will be considered....no more one disease funding is going to happen".
Then why was $92 million specifically earmarked for HBV in two disease-specific line items in the NVHR sign on? You cannot have it both ways Susie ( or JP..You claim we have had this discussion before, but I do not know your real name..If you do not want to be publicly identified, contact me privately...).
Whatever my mother may or may not have "taught" me is not open for public comment, thanks, however I did learn a few things about public health while getting a degree in it: That public health is supposed to be for everyone and that those most under served are those most in need. And that the process by which we make decisions about where to put public health resources are determined more by politics than common sense. That process is warped by special interests.
For too many years HCV advocacy has been sidelined as the nation addressed the AIDS epidemic. We kept quiet about funding disparities because it truly is not a good idea to get into finger pointing. Where has it got us? I attended the 2005 NVHR conference as a delegate and swore I would never return. To watch pharma funded patient advocates schmoozing up pharma reps was enough to drive my viral load up. What has it gotten us? How are we better off now than a decade ago? Marginal gains in treatment response rates? Please!
The HCV patient community needs to take a cue from the AIDS activists of the old days, before they mainstreamed and took over the nation's infectious disease agenda and effectively sidelined viral hep advocacy.Take off the gloves. Fight back. Ask for more accountability and ethics from the drug industry and government. Before they partnered with the drug industry, AIDS activists demonstrated against them. Maybe we should take a cue.
Lobby for your own disease-specific, population-specific, and culturally-appropriate funding and resources.
And do not be misled by pharma-funded patient advocates and non-profits who have hidden agendas.

[JennyPenny]

This is Jenny Penny's husband posting under her name.


NVHR is well aware that HCV has been short funded for years.  John Ward, the Head of DVH at CDC is well aware of it.  And please don’t be misled by the fact that the NVHR letter was “written” by an HBV advocate. There are no Lobbyists engaged in this endeavor. It was written by a member of the NVHR Exec Committee with input and approval of all of the members.  And to repeat, notwithstanding the validity of the facts in  Peter’s letter, we need to be pragmatic about what we say, what we ask and to whom we address our messages.  

Points & Recommendations:
- OMB is not the body to ask for changes to the allocation of funds.  The message needs to be sent to Congress; specifically those on the Appropriations Committee.
- Congress is currently not receptive to single-disease appeals
- Congress is [sic] “scared to death” of anything that even looks like it might morph into a Ryan White-like program; and the number of people infected with HCV raises that concern in their minds.
- Too much information in an advocacy letter clouds the message and simply does not get read let alone get the intended/deserved attention.
- Tips for pragmatic communication with Congress:
  + Be concise
  + Avoid aggressive pressure especially on points that are known to be red flags that don’t stand a ghost of a chance of being considered.  E.g.; “HCV deserves as much money as HIV because more people are infected and it is easier to contract.”
  + Make your message consistent with what CDC is saying.  Remember, CDC is a government agency too. We do not want to be divisive influence between Congress and HHS.
+ Single disease legislation is simple not going to happen!
+ Write to Senators and Congressmen who represent your own district in addition to the Appropriations Committee members.
- Focused (read that as personal contact) negotiations with the Senators and House Members who will be making the decisions are being managed by HCAP.  For those of you who don’t know, that is Hepatitis C Appropriations Partnership.  (note that the HBV community has no problem with the acronym)
- Please take care about claiming to be representative of either the B or C community.  Both Congress and CDC recognize NVHR, HCAP and NHCAC as the representatives of the community (B&C).  Note that CDC has funded a grant to NVHR in partnership with NASTAD specifically to build and strengthen the coalition of HBV & HCV community-based organizations.  Please don’t take this the wrong way.  By all means write to congress but credibility is better served by describing yourself as a member of the community, not representative of the community.
- HBV got explicit asks for funding for vaccines.  There are accepted, effective vaccine programs for HBV PREVENTION.  There are no such programs for HCV.

[portann]

'HBV got explicit asks for funding for vaccines.  There are accepted, effective vaccine programs for HBV PREVENTION.  There are no such programs for HCV.'

That makes sense.

[JennyPenny]

Knock yourself out Peter or you could at least play the game that will give us all a chance.

And as for your comments on pharma funding....we have that. We have been asked to sign agreements not to mention drugs during our programs and speak about the drugs generically. It's interferon, not Peg Intron or Pegasys or even Albuferon. They do not ask to see our educational programs nor do they comment on them. I don't see what impact they have except they share their profits with us so we can continue to do our work....my organization is strictly for education and awareness.

You know me through a correspondence we had when I couldn't stand reading the things you had put in print about some people I know who have worked diligently and tirelessly to help people with viral hepatitis and guess what, many of them aren't even affected.  I wouldn't have had a  problem telling you who I am here but I don't think Medhelp allows that.And, I don't want to have this discussion in private.

[HCVPETE]

Ok. I'm not going to get drawn into trading barbs with ghost writers Mrs JP. Makes it hard to defend myself. Whatever my past offenses, real or imagined, I do humbly apologize. And I do appreciate Mr JP's lobbying pointers. I'll be sure to send our sign on to Congress.
Was surprised to hear that "Congress is currently not receptive to single-disease appeals".  Tell that to the President! I'm hoping he will make a gaffe about HCV soon like he did about the handicapped recently so we can get invited to the White House and get some media attention! But he'll probably be like Reagan was with AIDS and find himself unable to utter the word "HCV" . Too bad. We could sure use some political leadership.
This is my last post on this thread unless someone has a direct question.
Thanks

[Rain6866]

I wanna keep this going so posting again to raise it back to the top. Is that a Bump? lol

[oneatenuff]

I guess we could also say the CDC "bundled" hep C with the STD's a few years ago in a round about way under an umbrella and gave us what we didn't want.

As far as the statement "they don't want to see another Ryan White",  if that's what they don't want, that might be a good indication it's past time they be given what they don't want.  

That's all I have to say on the matter.  That, and thanks to all who are trying to make a difference.    

[Rain6866]

Keep this going!!

[MYS]

Isn't it a little late to write to our congesspersons regarding putting things in the Stimulus package - that passed last month, didn't it?  
Perhaps some Hep C funding could be put into the BUDGET.
MYS

[oneatenuff]

I've been reading off the NHVR site for about an hour - between proposals and the facts sheet and the plan, the letter re stimulus package....

I hope it's OK to post this - it's a very small portion from a "Fact Sheet" from the NHVR site.  

"Prevention
We request that the FY2010 budget proposal includes an
allocation of $50 million for CDC’s Division of Viral
Hepatitis. Currently CDC is funding a position in 55
health departments without any resources to provide core
public health services or to track chronic cases of
hepatitis. We seek to capitalize on the existing HIV and
STD public health infrastructure by integrating hepatitis
services. These additional resources should be directed
to initiate the following activities:
Funding for all 50 states and territories to establish a
national chronic hepatitis surveillance system. CDC
currently is unable to fund all states and has only funded
7 sentinel projects to gather information on the epidemic.
A surveillance system is essential to understanding the
burden of the epidemic and for appropriately directing
resources. Health departments are uniquely able to
conduct surveillance because of the expertise, statutory
authority, and confidentiality protection of existing public
health disease surveillance and reporting systems.

============

I asked before and got an answer  (a short one.)   If possible, I'd like an explanation of HCV falling under an umbrella of the STDs  (it didn't happen as Susie stated, but there was apparently talk of it happening.)  

I would like to know if it's the position of the NHVR to have HCV classified an STD.  

Susie, can you or your husband give any information on that?  

Thank you.

[JennyPenny]

From JP's Husband:

The Fact Sheet that you are quoting from the NVHR site is actually a newsletter published by HCAP.  It's fine for you to share it.  Also, please note that the "message" is about Viral Hepatitis; not HCV or HBV.  And it is coming from an organization that was originally organized to advocate for hep C.  This is another example of how the B & C communities are coming together for the benefit of both.  Regarding your question about why STD; the CDC has organized Viral Hepatitis, STD, HIV and TB in the same organization.  This does not mean that HCV has been classified as an STD, not by a long shot.  NVHR agrees with this strategy because it creates a louder voice for the government to reapond to.  To repeat:  NVHR DOES NOT CONSIDER HCV TO BE AN STD!!!!

I don't know what more to tell you.  No one in the hepatitis communities was involved in the CDC discussion on HCV/STD/HIV/TB.  They did what they did!  And we are working with it.

==============================================================
About HCAP:  The Hepatitis C Appropriations Partnership (HCAP) was formed in June 2004 as a coalition of hepatitis C community-based organizations, public health and provider associations, national HIV and HCV organizations, and members of the diagnostics and pharmaceutical industry. We work with policy makers and public health officials to increase federal leadership and support for viral hepatitis prevention, testing, education, research, medical management and treatment. For more information, please contact Laura Hanen at 202.434.8091 or ***@****.

[oneatenuff]

Thank you for clarifying that for me.   The reason I'm concerned about the STD part is .... (I suppose it's ingrained in my memory)  .... I was working in communicable diseases when AIDS came along and when the CDC mandated certain policies.  It was  (for a while) a public health nightmare and a double nightmare for the HIV infected.   I worked with three ICPs who did nothing but surveillance, reporting, and partner notification, pre and post test counseling - those "early year" of the epidemic as you may or may not remember (I have a feeling with your background and experience you are aware)    It was because of the "STD classification" that strict guidelines for reporting, surveillance, and counseling came about for folks with HIV.   Anonymous HIV test sites began popping up due to those policies in an effort to protect the names of those testing only to be closed some years later - or greatly diminished.

I guess what I'm trying to say (or what i don't understand about the concept of those with hep C just embracing what the CDC has done and going along with them)  is - the HIV community was losing their battle until they began protesting loudly.  It was through their protest they gained some respect, they were heard, and then much better treatments for HIV came about.   Stigma, though it tooks year to diminish, DID diminish some for them (thank goodness.)

I realize times have changed and that what may have worked 20 years ago within the HIV / AIDS community might not work now within the HCV community - especially in these economic times.  I also know that people with HCV don't want to be classified as having an STD or be thought of and recognized as someone who has a virus that can be passed sexually.  By all appearances, though, the CDC has put HCV in that category (haven't they?)  It's not as if HCV isn't now contained in the MMRW STD Treatment Guidelines.  We are now in those guidelines, and that is one thing people are wanting to know "is Hep C an STD - can I get Hep C having sex with my partner?"  etc etc.  

Additionally, there are statements on "Facts Sheets"  that "HCV is more 'infectious' than AIDS", and so it's been the CDC  and their panel of experts who have created this confusion AND what appears to be a pathway to THEIR classifying HCV as an STD  (for reporting and surveillance purposes, which most people don't understand.)  

Thanks for your help and input here, and Susie's, too - and for Peter's too.  And for the hard work everyone is doing.  Apologies in advance if I have spoken out of turn or babbled on about a moot point or made a comparative analysis that wasn't appropriate or had nothing to do with today's times when it comes to today's "STDs" and how they are managed, reported, and tracked.  I've been out of CD surveillance for a long time, but having worked in CD's and having to comply with very strict reporting guidelines and surveillance guidelines - it had a lasting impact on me, I guess.

......... dammit -if the CDC is going to have hep C on their MMWR STD guidelines, then why the heck don't they just so ahead and classify HCV as an STD and get this over with?    I guess that's what I really want to know.  You don't have to answer - this is over my head, I think, or if not it'll probably just give me a huge headache - lol - trying to figure out or understand how HCV can be "more infectious" than HIV and STILL be way behind times on the fundamental things about a REAL public health problem - such as the ignorance of today's HCWs on HCV, GPs ignorance, their lack of knowledge on WHEN to report and HOW to report and WHO to report it to, etc.  I'm not upset at the NHVR - I'm just in the dark trying to understand how this happened.  

As I said before, I appreciate all efforts being made.  

Thanks

[R Glass]

I just sent it to my Congressman William Cassidy (he is also a Hepatologist.) I also asked him if he has any information he can share with us. If he responds, I will post it.

[JennyPenny]

R Glass, thanks for taking the time to write.

Oneatenuff, I read your post back to my husband. He hasn't had time to read it yet. I can feel your frustration. It is palpable. I think most of us feel the way you do. Actually we weren't around in the early days of AIDS. We were raising teenagers and Denny was working in NYC. He does not have a background in any health field, just business. He got involved in HCV work part time because of me. Now that he is retired he is much more active in the policy end of things.....just don't ask him what a liver enzyme is. I still don't think he knows.

My guess isw that we all want the same thing. The only difference is how we get there. And like anything else, we will all get there the way we think is best. Thanks to you for being so nice and open-minded about the whole situation. I really appreciate that.

Have a great night.

[oneatenuff]

Hi Susie,   lol on the enzymes.  I enjoyed that chuckle.  He doesn't have to know the medical end of an illness to make a difference .  He only needs the desire - which very apparently he does - to make a difference and to try to help people with this virus.   When someone's going to bat and hitting them hard out of love for his wife who has hep C, that's very admirable.  ^5!   Hats off to your husband (and to Peter, too, as I feel he is very dedicated and works tirelessly doing what thinks will help.)

I agree - we all want the same thing.   No matter the differences in opinions or the differences in how someone goes about trying to make things better for us, it's the compassion we've been able to maintain (while being sick ourselves or while seeing loved ones sick) that makes us try to understand how to make a positive difference, a difference that will matter, the "making a bad situation better" kind of thing  (you get the point - :)  

Have a great day.  I've enjoyed the exchanges.  "Thank you" to you, as well, and to Peter and everyone else who contributed.