<div dir="ltr">Ron: <br><br>You delighted me for the second time today by your RWL12 comment agreeing with Crispin's "last three sentences". I wish you agreed with all four. <br><br>I have just attended the Gold Standard Foundation's webinar on marketing aDALYs. Crispin is on-the-mark, just that I hesitate to ascribe to crookedness that which mere incentives or ignorance would suffice to explain.<br><br>My principal cites for this claim are <br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">a) The "methodology" they have approved (after all, they have the authority to approve whatever they want to market); this is available on their website. <br>b) A chapter on HAPIT by Pillarisetti, Mehta and Smith (2015 or 2016), available on Kirk Smith's website. <br><br></blockquote><div>I urge you and others to read these documents, and discuss their source data, methods of data collection, and assumptions on this list. I will be happy to chip in. <br><br>If you or anybody else wishes to have my reviews of these, please contact me independently. I am not yet finished, and I will check my review (in-text comments) reviewed by some others before putting them out in public. Give me a month or so. <br><br>----</div><div><br></div><div>Now, just for the record - <div><br></div><div>a. DALYs - a byproduct of GBD work - work was started by an economist, Christopher Murray, who also happens to be a MD that he has not used in practice. The co-founder of GBD, Alan Lopez, is not an MD. One of the lead figures in the US literature on PM2.5 morbidity - and environmental health generally - is C. Arden Pope, a professor of economics. I happen to know the method and madness of economics, and also of medicine. Please provide a cite for how many of the 775 co-authors of the latest GBD report are practicing physicians and surgeons. </div><div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div>(In my experience, practicing physicians have never heard of GBD, which is a construct of a group of public health academics. Why, I recently ran into a USAID professional who had completed her PhD in public health at Harvard 2-3 years ago; she hadn't heard of DALYs or GBD either. That hardly proves anything, for most people.) </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>b. The war against cigarette smoking began with Joe Califano in the late 1970s - and by many activists in the medical community back in the 1960s. Murray's GBD work started in 1990, and DALYs computation had nothing to do with the tobacco war. </div><div><br></div><div>c. DALYs and aDALYs are independent, and HAPIT linking of the two by means of an Integrated Exposure Response curve -- which the authors assert is not absolute, and can keep evolving - is not defensible. DALYs are for cohorts dead, aDALYs are for those alive. It is extremely presumptuous to consider that the the health, disease, and disability profiles of cohorts as different as those who lived in the US from 1930 to 2015, say, and the current world population using solid fuels are identical. (My cite for this - Kirk Smith 1999 piece for the World Bank, cited in my critique last September of Burnett et al. (2014) piece on the Integrated Exposure Response curve for air pollution.) </div><div> </div><div><br>Nikhil </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>List and ccs</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>This is a first. Usually I find something from Crispin to agree with. Below - nothing.</div><div><br></div><br><div><span class="gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Aug 30, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Dear Tom and Nikhil</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
I feel that the claims being made about what I consider a very technical matter of attributing specific health benefits in a calculable manner for individuals who adopt a highly improved cooking stove are creating mayhem in the world of stoves. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[RWL1: I see considerable favorable progress. All four groups that Crispin defines below are doing a good job - on a very difficult task. Crispin below complains about more than “ <i>attributing specific health benefits</i>”. Apparently we are to believe that there is absolutely nothing useful coming out of a lot of hard work by many talented stove testing people. </b></div><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
There are a lot of crooked things done and said about stove performance but this business of aDALYs takes the cake. The claims are cooked up out of nothing material, substantial, or defensibly true.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL2: If there a “<i>lot</i>” and “<i>crooked</i>”, you’d think there could be a cite. There have been thousands of Physicians involved in the Daly and aDaly numbers - for decades. Surprising that we have such huge international action to discourage cigarette smoking considering that health aspects apparently were believable to almost everyone by now - using the DALY approach in largest part. </b></div><div><b><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The “aDALY” concept is much easier to get at with data on work absences.<br></b><span class="gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial"><div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
For six years we suffered through the gerrymandering of the Lima meeting, the IWA and its silly metrics and 'tiers' and what followed. We never had so much as a single conference on the relevance of what has been learned in India and China over the past 40
years, and how manifestly the tiny Western stove community has failed to address the fundamental errors in both technical evaluations, and the absence of meaningful evaluation criteria relevant to the users. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL3: I recall that the Lima meeting decision was unanimous (I don’t wish to take the time to look up that cite, but I gave it on this list a while back). I don’t understand why call anything about stove testing to be “gerrymandering”. The ISO process is open to every country - and is progressing well mostly (I listen in from time to time). India is the site of the next GACC meeting and China has plenty of stove conferences. China was well represented at GACC’s meeting in Cambodia. I still know of no place to go to look at the claimed “fundamental errors”. Why issues of efficiency (tiers) and especially CO and particulate emissions should not be “<i>relevant"</i> is a mystery (that could be solved with a cite).</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
I think a thrust in favour of greater consideration of the users has come from, among others, Cecil Cook first during the ProBEC era, and again in the WB Central Java stove pilot - a high quality conversation which did not take place on this list. Cecil came
up with a couple of proposals that are quite radical departures from the 'engineer-centric' evaluations assumed to be taking place during a WBTest. First, he feels that a focus group should be used to do all the pre-screening of products to eliminate those
that are silly, useless, bizarre, ugly, cumbersome, fiddly and unaffordable. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL4: Cecil has reported on this list that he has never asked a question to any stove user about possible advantages of char-making stoves. And he didn’t think it appropriate to ask. Similar to asking about the use of cell phones a few years back. I submit that Cecil should not be considered the world’s best expert on how to improve stoves. And probably he has been under instructions.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Next, having passed muster, stoves can be submitted to the (expensive) process of testing their technical performance. At that point I entered with the SeTAR mantra which holds that a stove does not have an 'efficiency' number, it has a performance curve like
a water pump or [fill in your best analogy for a range of answers].</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL5: If I as a user or a group want to reduce my fuel consumption - I believe efficiency is exactly the right parameter to measure and report. And heath issues are also related to the amount of emissions - which is known from the tier placement.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
The only way a performance rating can be reduced to a single number is if the product is doing something arguably consistent with its typical pattern of use. Outside that context the numbers mean little, as affirmed by the unpredictable performance of stoves
in a different context. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL6: These tests (ongoing for decades) are comparing stoves for one task, not different tasks. Different users and different tasks doesn’t invalidate great work by people like Jim Jetter - over many years. I have seen no one ever propose a better single task than heating water. </b></div><div><b><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Also, I believe there is considerable correlation between lab and field testing results. It should be no surprise to anyone that the lab results are lower when you watch how little time is spent away from flame tending.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Having accept this reality, which is growing throughout the sector, one comes to the matter of the 'health claims' of the WHO emission rates and all that EPA jazz about concentrations of various pollutants. How is it possible that a proper evaluation of impact
on energy and fuel performance is accepted as being meaningful, accurate, predictive, in a carefully understood context, but a health impact can be made based on flights of fancy about ‘concentrations' that would make a WBT tester blush?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL7: I intentionally mentioned Jim Jetter’s name above because he works for EPA. It is disappointing to see Crispin call EPA measurements of pollutants “jazz”. Sounds eerily reminiscent about arguments on the health impacts of cigarette smoking. </b></div><div><b><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Jim’s measurements are not on concentrations - they are on emissions. Others (such as at Berkeley) have done a marvelous job of relating the two. I doubt that Jim - a WBT tester - would “blush”. The talented folks that I know and respect in going from emissions to concentrations clearly know what they are doing - as seen in published cites we have mentioned many times on this list.</b></div><div><b><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Still - Crispin is providing no cites for his beliefs. </b></div><div><span class="gmail-"><b><br></b><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
This is a ridiculous situation. We have an entire sector of international and national development being bent to suit the careers of certain anointed actors who don't wish their preliminary works tossed aside because they overreached, or didn't check their
math, or avoided peer review. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL8: This (“<i>anointed actors</i>”) is ad hominem and highly derogatory. Again no cites to justify any part of the three allegations.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
This nonsense about a 'WHO' approved PM emission rate 'delivering countable future health benefits for the user' is intolerable. It is junk science. The objections to it are very technical: concatenated assumptions based on several other layers of assumptions
cannot make predictions of the future health of stove users. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL9: This is a mis-statement of what is “approved”. Tiers are given - only ranges on the emission levels that have been released. We have tiers because the Lima group knew that nothing firmer could be justified at this time. I for one believe that less emission is logically related to health (as with cigarette smoke - including second hand smoke). There is more behind this belief in the harmful inhalation of cigarette smoke than WHO use of death and illness statistics. For instance, CSU is even now testing inhalations from stoves with volunteers. Other less drastic testing on animals and cadavers also provides data. Believable to all but a few.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
It happens that at this time, this discussion is critical. The ISO Draft International Standard for stove testing is being circulated, complete with a set of 'voluntary' emission standards that were forced into it over the objections of the experts. Everyone
knows that Berkeley, GACC, EPA and WHO are behind this - they have been for years. This is not new, it is just ‘more'. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL10: This continuing reference to “the experts” is weird. I know quite a few of those participating on the various ISO panels as well as Crispin’s “ expert” detractors. F</b><b>rom my perspective, t</b><b>here is no comparison in either numbers or expertise. The intent here is to claim better expertise from his “the experts” (un-named) than those many of us know from </b><span style="text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><b>“</b><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, Slate Pro, sans-serif, sans-serif"><i>Berkeley, GACC, EPA and WHO” . </i></font></span></div><div><span style="text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, Slate Pro, sans-serif, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I can’t comment fully on Crispin’s final sentence since I have no idea what it means. But yes - we are (thankfully) getting closer to an international decision on a voluntary standard, so one would be greatly surprised if “not new” and “more</b></font></span><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, Slate Pro, sans-serif, sans-serif"><b>” didn’t appear.</b></font><span class="gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Nikhil, who observes much about this and other policy matters, is raising the flag of falsity over this abuse of science, trust and position. Which hand, at any of those institutions, lifted a finger to sort this matter out? No, rather, they perpetuate it
carefully, consistently, repeatedly, promoting themselves as essential to developing countries and their domestic energy policy decision-making processes. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span> <span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[RWL11: Again totally ad hominem - still without a cite (and cites are plentiful in the “voluntary” standards backup documents). Not sure why Crispin found it appropriate to put “voluntary” in quotes. I was equally disturbed by Nikhil’s recent flippant reply to Tom Miles - and will get to that ASAP. I deemed this response more critical.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
The bandwagon we should get on is the killing of the WBT, and the tradeable aDALY. Then we should get on the bandwagon that puts the user and their context first. We should do it now. It is quite important. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL12: I started by saying I could agree with nothing in Crispin’s message. But I do agree with the last three sentences. However my original blanket objection stands, since Crispin’s first sentence advice is 100% opposite from mine. The WBT IS valuable and should stay until replaced with something better - with agreement from other than Crispin’s “<i>the experts</i>”. All “the experts” I trust are advocating continued use of the WBT. </b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I don’t know the markets where aDALY’s are “tradable” - and doubt one exists.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><span class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Others in any agreement on any of my 12 responses?</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Ron</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><br></b><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div class="gmail-h5"><div lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Sincerely </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Crispin </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div id="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863_originalContent">
<div dir="ltr">Tom: <br>
<br>
What you mean is that technical discussions outside of boiling water are beyond the comprehension and that "practical alternatives" to hocus pocus of Kirk Smith's premature mortality claims are to be concocted by different speculative assumptions and misleading
models. <br>
<br>
Nikhil</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7477883798716055863gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">------------------------</font></div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">Nikhil Desai</font></div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">(US <a href="tel:(202)%20568-5831" value="+12025685831" target="_blank">+1) 202 568 5831</a></span><font face="georgia, serif"><br>
<i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div> </div></div>