Homeopathy and the cascade. Opening the (very dilute) can of worms

[Guest guest]

Hi Micheál,

 

> Phil, I read with interest what I think was the tail-end of a

> discussion on hiding behind the 'cascade' derogation to prescribe

> homeopathic products. You seek opinions on the interpretation,

> which I think emanates from a colleague. My opinion is that it has

> glaring omissions and is therefore fatally flawed. ...

 

Many thanks, Micheál, for correcting my fatal error in relation to the

application of the different applications between food animals and

non-food animals. The position of the EU Legislation vis a vis

homeopathy, herbal medicine and eclectic prescribing is even

worse than I suspected.

 

Your very thorough exposition suggests that we are heading for all-

out war between the vested interests of the adherents of

mainstream allopathic medicine and those of CAM. That war is not

only about vested interests, but also about the issue of freedom of

choice in therapy for clients and practitioners

 

The war has begun now in earnest in EU. IMO, it would appear that

CAM professionals in EU will face sanctions, right up to prison

sentences, as happened with chiropractors in the USA.

 

A colleague on another List wrote yesterday: " During the first 75

years of its existence, chiropractic doctors were jailed >15,000

times due to anti-chiropractic campaigns organized by state

medical societies and the AMA. The last chiropractor to be thrown

in jail for practicing was in 1974, in Louisiana -- *after* the bill

legislating the practice of chiropractic was passed.

 

It wasn't until Federal Judge Susan Getzendammer found the AMA

and other medical societies guilty of anti-trust violations that they

stopped telling our patients that we are quacks. Then they just

went underground, using fronts like NCAHF and other to continue

trashing us " .

 

The gloves are off in EU now. It may take an anti-trust case in the

EU Courts to resolve the impasse.

 

Many thanks,

Phil

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Micheál O Manhony wrote:

 

Phil, I read with interest what I think was the tail-end of a

discussion on hiding behind the 'cascade' derogation to prescribe

homeopathic products. You seek opinions on the interpretation,

which I think emanates from a colleague. My opinion is that it has

glaring omissions and is therefore fatally flawed.

 

Omission 1: At the end of this email I have given the link to the

cascade system in the Irish Animal Remedies Regulation. Read

the first paragraph of this regulation. Two conditions MUST be met

in order to invoke the cascade " where there is no authorised animal

remedy for the treatment of a condition in a particular species AND

where it is necessary in order to avoid causing unacceptable

suffering to the animal or animals concerned. " So if a licensed

product exists, then we cannot hide behind cascade to prescribe

unlicensed drugs Its very simple. Then, and only then, can we

invoke the cascade. Is this the case for the bulk of homeopathic

products???? I have never prescribed these products, but I'm willing

to bet that it is not

 

Omission 2: Please read the full cascade system. It is called the

cascade because it involves a progression of the leniency of the

derogation. If the above conditions are met the veterinarian may

INITIALLy CASCADE to an " animal remedy [authoriseed] in

another animal species or for another condition in the same

species " If that doesn't exist the veterinarian may THEN CASCADE

to " a medical preparation authorised for human use " If neither of

these three alternatives are available the veterinarian may THEN

CASCADE to " an animal remedy prepared extemporaneously " In

short, in order to cascade as far as unlicensed made-up

homeopathic products the first three alternatives must not exist. Is

this the case for the bulk of homeopathic prescriptions???? While I

am at it, the purest notion of homeopathy is the extemporaneous

make-up of product for a certain condition in a certain individual The

use of pre-prepared product does not sit well with either the

'extemporaeous' rung of the cascade, or the art of homeopathy.

 

Omission 3: In the case of Food animals, even when invoking the

cascade, the provisions of that paragraph shall only apply to the

administration or prescription of substances which are to be found

in animal remedies authorised by the Competent Authority or

licensed by the Minister for administration to food producing

animals. This again is very clear. Whatever rung of the cascade

system we stand on we can only give products to food animals

which are licensed in SOME food animal in this country. As there

are no homeopathic products licensed in any food animals in this

country, the cascade system cannot be used to warrant their use

in these species.

 

Homeopathic products are specifically defined as animal remedies

by the Irish Medicines Board. See article 6 on page 15 here:

http://tinyurl.com/53arv

 

While provision is laid for a 'simplified registration' for homeopathic

animal remedies this does not apply to homeopathic products for

food animals. Does anyone know of any homeopathic product that

is actually licensed by the IMB?

 

The cascade system protects the meagre access which our

profession has for 'minor-use' and 'minor-products' (MUPs) Flagrant

misuse of the cascade system by suggesting that we can invoke it

at will to justify the use of whatever product we like is unlikely to

protect our access to MUPs in the long term. Micheál O' Mahony

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

The cascade system, copied and pasted from SI179 1996

http://tinyurl.com/5e8uj

 

ADMINISTRATION OF ANIMAL REMEDIES

 

40. (1) Notwithstanding Regulation 38 and subject to the

subsequent provisions of this Regulation, where there is no

authorised animal remedy for the treatment of a condition in a

particular species and, where it is necessary in order to avoid

causing unacceptable suffering to the animal or animals

concerned, a registered veterinary surgeon may administer, sell,

supply or prescribe the use of—

 

(a) an animal remedy in respect of which there is for the time being

in force an animal remedies authorisation authorising the use of

such animal remedy in another animal species or for another

condition in the same species, or

 

(b) if there is no animal remedy such as referred to in subparagraph

(a), a medical preparation authorised for human use in accordance

with the provisions of the Medical Preparations (Licensing,

Advertisement and Sale) Regulations, 1984 and 1989 and the

Medical Preparations (Licensing, Advertisement and Sale)

(Amendment) Regulations, 1993 (S.I. No. 70 of 1993), or

 

© if there is no animal remedy or medical preparation as referred

to at subparagraphs (a) or (b), an animal remedy prepared

extemporaneously by —

 

(i) a pharmacist in accordance with the prescription of a registered

veterinary surgeon, or

 

(ii) a registered veterinary surgeon, in respect of animals under his

or her care concerning which he or she has been consulted in a

professional capacity, or

 

(iii) a person licensed to manufacture such class of animal remedy

in accordance with Regulation 21.

 

     (2) Where it is necessary to treat a food producing animal in

accordance with paragraph (1), the provisions of that paragraph

shall only apply to the administration or prescription of substances

which are to be found in animal remedies authorised by the

Competent Authority or licensed by the Minister for administration

to food producing animals.

 

     (3) Where a registered veterinary surgeon administers or

prescribes an animal remedy in accordance with paragraph (1) for

administration to food producing animals such registered veterinary

surgeon shall specify an appropriate withdrawal period so as to

ensure that food produced from the treated animal does not contain

residues which may be harmful for consumers of produce derived

from treated animals.

 

     (4) Where an animal remedy or medical preparation

administered or prescribed in accordance with paragraph (1) does

not indicate a withdrawal period for the species to be treated, the

following withdrawal periods shall be mandatory unless a longer

withdrawal period is specified in accordance with paragraph (3):—

 

-  eggs from treated animals  - 7 days 

 

-  milk from treated animals  - 7 days 

 

-  meat, including fat & offal from poultry and mammals  - 28 days 

 

-  meat from fish  - 500 degree days. 

 

     (5) Where a registered veterinary surgeon administers or

prescribes an animal remedy in accordance with paragraph (1) a

record shall be kept detailing (a) date of examination of animals, (b)

identification of animals, © number of animals treated, (d) name

and address of owner or person in charge of the animals, (e)

diagnosis, (f) details of the animal remedy or medicinal product

administered or prescribed and reasons for such choice, (g) the

dosage administered or prescribed, (h) the duration of treatment, (i)

the withdrawal period, if any, specified.

 

     (6) The records specified in paragraph (5) shall be maintained

for three years and be furnished on request for examination by an

authorised officer.

 

     (7) This Regulation applies to the treatment of an individual

animal or a small number of animals on a particular holding or

premises and shall not be construed so as to provide for the

general manufacture, sale, supply or use as an animal remedy of a

medical preparation or an animal remedy to which subparagraph

(1)(b) or subparagraph (1)© applies.

 

     (8) A registered veterinary surgeon who prescribes, sells or

supplies an animal remedy under this Regulation (or a pharmacist

who sells or supplies an animal remedy in accordance with the

prescription of a registered veterinary surgeon) shall label the

animal remedy with a notice in the form prescribed and containing

the information specified by Regulation 33 (3).

 

     (9) This Regulation shall not apply to the administration of an

animal remedy to an animal or class of animal where the

administration of such animal remedy to such animal or class of

animal is specifically prohibited by the animal remedies

authorisation or where the animal remedy consists of, or contains,

a substance the administration of which to such an animal or class

of animal is prohibited by the law of the State or any provision of

Community Law.

 

     (10) An animal remedy administered in accordance with, and

for the purposes provided for by, this Regulation, shall for the

purposes of such administration be deemed to be an authorised

animal remedy. On 23 Sep 2004, at 08:16, wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Phil Wrote:

 

Hi Carvel, Jan, Susan, & Vet Ireland Colleagues,

 

Susan asked: So exactly what implications follow from the letter

below? If homeopathics are approved for people, then they can still

be used under the 'cascade'?

 

I have forwarded the letter to the Vet Ireland List for comment.

Gaels, I would value your comments on my interpretation, below.

My interpretation is:

 

EU is moving towards total regulation of vet medicines.

Registration will specify the species and the indications.

 

EU Legislation will force vets to use only registered medicines as

animal remedies; use of unregistered products could leave them

liable to litigation if cases do not respond, or adverse outcomes

occur. Exceptions will include the cascade system if a registered

remedy does not exist for a specific condition.

 

3. To qualify as a registered medicine, each product must prove

safety, efficacy and quality control for indicated species and

conditions in an expensive registration process.

 

4. For many reasons, if current rules of registration apply, it is

unlikely that homeopathics will be registered as medicines for

humans or animals.

 

5. Ergo, vets or doctors who use them as remedies will be using

" unregistered " (unapproved) products.

 

Best regards,

Phil

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Vet Times Volume 34, no. 36, 20th September 2004, page 39:

 

Use of medicines under the cascade

 

Dear Editor, I would like to thank Simon Baker (23rd August issue)

for providing a further opportunity for me to comment on the use of

veterinary medicines under the cascade. In his letter, he raises the

important issue of how veterinarians may try new modes of medical

treatment. New medicinal treatments should be thoroughly

researched, documented and then assessed and authorised by the

regulatory authority before veterinarians are able to use them

legally.

 

Selected veterinary practices may play a part in clinical trials of

new medicines before they are fully authorised, but such a trial wil

be conducted under an Animal Test Certificate (ATC) issued by the

regulatory authority. The ATC will restrict the extent of the trials

conducted and the data produced will be used in the assessment

of the veterinary medicine prior to its authorisation.

 

Veterinary surgeons conducting trials outside these rules are

clearly taking considerable risks [as] their actions could be more

correctly described as research and, therefore, may require an

ASPA licence from the Home 0ffice, even if the animal owners have

given their consent to the treatment being used.

 

On an entirely different front, Simon Baker asks for some guidance

as to where homoeopathic remedies sit within the cascade.

Homoeopathic remedies should be authorised in a similar manner

to other forms of veterinary medicine. Thus, assuming a

homoeopathic remedy is authorised either as a veterinary or human

medicine, it may be used under the cascade using exactly the

same rules as any other veterinary medicine. If, however, the

homoeopathic remedy is not authorised for use as a human or

animal remedy, then it may not be used under the cascade

provision. Veterinary surgeons may like to know that there are

currently no homoeopathic remedies authorised for use as

veterinary medicines in the UK.

 

Yours faithfully, STEVE DEAN, BVetMed, DVR, MRCVS, Chief

Executive, Veterinary Medicines Directorate, Woodham Lane, New

Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3LS.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

 

Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt man doing

it "

[Guest guest]

Hi Micheál,

 

> Phil, I read with interest what I think was the tail-end of a

> discussion on hiding behind the 'cascade' derogation to prescribe

> homeopathic products. You seek opinions on the interpretation,

> which I think emanates from a colleague. My opinion is that it has

> glaring omissions and is therefore fatally flawed. ...

 

Many thanks, Micheál, for correcting my fatal error in relation to the

application of the different applications between food animals and

non-food animals. The position of the EU Legislation vis a vis

homeopathy, herbal medicine and eclectic prescribing is even

worse than I suspected.

 

Your very thorough exposition suggests that we are heading for all-

out war between the vested interests of the adherents of

mainstream allopathic medicine and those of CAM. That war is not

only about vested interests, but also about the issue of freedom of

choice in therapy for clients and practitioners

 

The war has begun now in earnest in EU. IMO, it would appear that

CAM professionals in EU will face sanctions, right up to prison

sentences, as happened with chiropractors in the USA.

 

A colleague on another List wrote yesterday: " During the first 75

years of its existence, chiropractic doctors were jailed >15,000

times due to anti-chiropractic campaigns organized by state

medical societies and the AMA. The last chiropractor to be thrown

in jail for practicing was in 1974, in Louisiana -- *after* the bill

legislating the practice of chiropractic was passed.

 

It wasn't until Federal Judge Susan Getzendammer found the AMA

and other medical societies guilty of anti-trust violations that they

stopped telling our patients that we are quacks. Then they just

went underground, using fronts like NCAHF and other to continue

trashing us " .

 

The gloves are off in EU now. It may take an anti-trust case in the

EU Courts to resolve the impasse.

 

Many thanks,

Phil

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Micheál O Manhony wrote:

 

Phil, I read with interest what I think was the tail-end of a

discussion on hiding behind the 'cascade' derogation to prescribe

homeopathic products. You seek opinions on the interpretation,

which I think emanates from a colleague. My opinion is that it has

glaring omissions and is therefore fatally flawed.

 

Omission 1: At the end of this email I have given the link to the

cascade system in the Irish Animal Remedies Regulation. Read

the first paragraph of this regulation. Two conditions MUST be met

in order to invoke the cascade " where there is no authorised animal

remedy for the treatment of a condition in a particular species AND

where it is necessary in order to avoid causing unacceptable

suffering to the animal or animals concerned. " So if a licensed

product exists, then we cannot hide behind cascade to prescribe

unlicensed drugs Its very simple. Then, and only then, can we

invoke the cascade. Is this the case for the bulk of homeopathic

products???? I have never prescribed these products, but I'm willing

to bet that it is not

 

Omission 2: Please read the full cascade system. It is called the

cascade because it involves a progression of the leniency of the

derogation. If the above conditions are met the veterinarian may

INITIALLy CASCADE to an " animal remedy [authoriseed] in

another animal species or for another condition in the same

species " If that doesn't exist the veterinarian may THEN CASCADE

to " a medical preparation authorised for human use " If neither of

these three alternatives are available the veterinarian may THEN

CASCADE to " an animal remedy prepared extemporaneously " In

short, in order to cascade as far as unlicensed made-up

homeopathic products the first three alternatives must not exist. Is

this the case for the bulk of homeopathic prescriptions???? While I

am at it, the purest notion of homeopathy is the extemporaneous

make-up of product for a certain condition in a certain individual The

use of pre-prepared product does not sit well with either the

'extemporaeous' rung of the cascade, or the art of homeopathy.

 

Omission 3: In the case of Food animals, even when invoking the

cascade, the provisions of that paragraph shall only apply to the

administration or prescription of substances which are to be found

in animal remedies authorised by the Competent Authority or

licensed by the Minister for administration to food producing

animals. This again is very clear. Whatever rung of the cascade

system we stand on we can only give products to food animals

which are licensed in SOME food animal in this country. As there

are no homeopathic products licensed in any food animals in this

country, the cascade system cannot be used to warrant their use

in these species.

 

Homeopathic products are specifically defined as animal remedies

by the Irish Medicines Board. See article 6 on page 15 here:

http://tinyurl.com/53arv

 

While provision is laid for a 'simplified registration' for homeopathic

animal remedies this does not apply to homeopathic products for

food animals. Does anyone know of any homeopathic product that

is actually licensed by the IMB?

 

The cascade system protects the meagre access which our

profession has for 'minor-use' and 'minor-products' (MUPs) Flagrant

misuse of the cascade system by suggesting that we can invoke it

at will to justify the use of whatever product we like is unlikely to

protect our access to MUPs in the long term. Micheál O' Mahony

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

The cascade system, copied and pasted from SI179 1996

http://tinyurl.com/5e8uj

 

ADMINISTRATION OF ANIMAL REMEDIES

 

40. (1) Notwithstanding Regulation 38 and subject to the

subsequent provisions of this Regulation, where there is no

authorised animal remedy for the treatment of a condition in a

particular species and, where it is necessary in order to avoid

causing unacceptable suffering to the animal or animals

concerned, a registered veterinary surgeon may administer, sell,

supply or prescribe the use of—

 

(a) an animal remedy in respect of which there is for the time being

in force an animal remedies authorisation authorising the use of

such animal remedy in another animal species or for another

condition in the same species, or

 

(b) if there is no animal remedy such as referred to in subparagraph

(a), a medical preparation authorised for human use in accordance

with the provisions of the Medical Preparations (Licensing,

Advertisement and Sale) Regulations, 1984 and 1989 and the

Medical Preparations (Licensing, Advertisement and Sale)

(Amendment) Regulations, 1993 (S.I. No. 70 of 1993), or

 

© if there is no animal remedy or medical preparation as referred

to at subparagraphs (a) or (b), an animal remedy prepared

extemporaneously by —

 

(i) a pharmacist in accordance with the prescription of a registered

veterinary surgeon, or

 

(ii) a registered veterinary surgeon, in respect of animals under his

or her care concerning which he or she has been consulted in a

professional capacity, or

 

(iii) a person licensed to manufacture such class of animal remedy

in accordance with Regulation 21.

 

     (2) Where it is necessary to treat a food producing animal in

accordance with paragraph (1), the provisions of that paragraph

shall only apply to the administration or prescription of substances

which are to be found in animal remedies authorised by the

Competent Authority or licensed by the Minister for administration

to food producing animals.

 

     (3) Where a registered veterinary surgeon administers or

prescribes an animal remedy in accordance with paragraph (1) for

administration to food producing animals such registered veterinary

surgeon shall specify an appropriate withdrawal period so as to

ensure that food produced from the treated animal does not contain

residues which may be harmful for consumers of produce derived

from treated animals.

 

     (4) Where an animal remedy or medical preparation

administered or prescribed in accordance with paragraph (1) does

not indicate a withdrawal period for the species to be treated, the

following withdrawal periods shall be mandatory unless a longer

withdrawal period is specified in accordance with paragraph (3):—

 

-  eggs from treated animals  - 7 days 

 

-  milk from treated animals  - 7 days 

 

-  meat, including fat & offal from poultry and mammals  - 28 days 

 

-  meat from fish  - 500 degree days. 

 

     (5) Where a registered veterinary surgeon administers or

prescribes an animal remedy in accordance with paragraph (1) a

record shall be kept detailing (a) date of examination of animals, (b)

identification of animals, © number of animals treated, (d) name

and address of owner or person in charge of the animals, (e)

diagnosis, (f) details of the animal remedy or medicinal product

administered or prescribed and reasons for such choice, (g) the

dosage administered or prescribed, (h) the duration of treatment, (i)

the withdrawal period, if any, specified.

 

     (6) The records specified in paragraph (5) shall be maintained

for three years and be furnished on request for examination by an

authorised officer.

 

     (7) This Regulation applies to the treatment of an individual

animal or a small number of animals on a particular holding or

premises and shall not be construed so as to provide for the

general manufacture, sale, supply or use as an animal remedy of a

medical preparation or an animal remedy to which subparagraph

(1)(b) or subparagraph (1)© applies.

 

     (8) A registered veterinary surgeon who prescribes, sells or

supplies an animal remedy under this Regulation (or a pharmacist

who sells or supplies an animal remedy in accordance with the

prescription of a registered veterinary surgeon) shall label the

animal remedy with a notice in the form prescribed and containing

the information specified by Regulation 33 (3).

 

     (9) This Regulation shall not apply to the administration of an

animal remedy to an animal or class of animal where the

administration of such animal remedy to such animal or class of

animal is specifically prohibited by the animal remedies

authorisation or where the animal remedy consists of, or contains,

a substance the administration of which to such an animal or class

of animal is prohibited by the law of the State or any provision of

Community Law.

 

     (10) An animal remedy administered in accordance with, and

for the purposes provided for by, this Regulation, shall for the

purposes of such administration be deemed to be an authorised

animal remedy. On 23 Sep 2004, at 08:16, wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Phil Wrote:

 

Hi Carvel, Jan, Susan, & Vet Ireland Colleagues,

 

Susan asked: So exactly what implications follow from the letter

below? If homeopathics are approved for people, then they can still

be used under the 'cascade'?

 

I have forwarded the letter to the Vet Ireland List for comment.

Gaels, I would value your comments on my interpretation, below.

My interpretation is:

 

EU is moving towards total regulation of vet medicines.

Registration will specify the species and the indications.

 

EU Legislation will force vets to use only registered medicines as

animal remedies; use of unregistered products could leave them

liable to litigation if cases do not respond, or adverse outcomes

occur. Exceptions will include the cascade system if a registered

remedy does not exist for a specific condition.

 

3. To qualify as a registered medicine, each product must prove

safety, efficacy and quality control for indicated species and

conditions in an expensive registration process.

 

4. For many reasons, if current rules of registration apply, it is

unlikely that homeopathics will be registered as medicines for

humans or animals.

 

5. Ergo, vets or doctors who use them as remedies will be using

" unregistered " (unapproved) products.

 

Best regards,

Phil

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Vet Times Volume 34, no. 36, 20th September 2004, page 39:

 

Use of medicines under the cascade

 

Dear Editor, I would like to thank Simon Baker (23rd August issue)

for providing a further opportunity for me to comment on the use of

veterinary medicines under the cascade. In his letter, he raises the

important issue of how veterinarians may try new modes of medical

treatment. New medicinal treatments should be thoroughly

researched, documented and then assessed and authorised by the

regulatory authority before veterinarians are able to use them

legally.

 

Selected veterinary practices may play a part in clinical trials of

new medicines before they are fully authorised, but such a trial wil

be conducted under an Animal Test Certificate (ATC) issued by the

regulatory authority. The ATC will restrict the extent of the trials

conducted and the data produced will be used in the assessment

of the veterinary medicine prior to its authorisation.

 

Veterinary surgeons conducting trials outside these rules are

clearly taking considerable risks [as] their actions could be more

correctly described as research and, therefore, may require an

ASPA licence from the Home 0ffice, even if the animal owners have

given their consent to the treatment being used.

 

On an entirely different front, Simon Baker asks for some guidance

as to where homoeopathic remedies sit within the cascade.

Homoeopathic remedies should be authorised in a similar manner

to other forms of veterinary medicine. Thus, assuming a

homoeopathic remedy is authorised either as a veterinary or human

medicine, it may be used under the cascade using exactly the

same rules as any other veterinary medicine. If, however, the

homoeopathic remedy is not authorised for use as a human or

animal remedy, then it may not be used under the cascade

provision. Veterinary surgeons may like to know that there are

currently no homoeopathic remedies authorised for use as

veterinary medicines in the UK.

 

Yours faithfully, STEVE DEAN, BVetMed, DVR, MRCVS, Chief

Executive, Veterinary Medicines Directorate, Woodham Lane, New

Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3LS.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

 

Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt man doing

it "