E-Cig Summit 2014 videos now available!

[DC2]

Also please note that when I mention "habits and actions" I am including things like...

--Getting a satisfactory amount of vapor
--Getting a satisfactory flavor
--Having the right amount of "fiddling" be that less or more

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Hmmn - could you tell me which ones were flaky? I'll try to see if there's any settings need be changed.

Remember, if you have probs watching them, ensure "HD" is switched off.

I've said it many times before, the things you learn on ECF. Didn't know you could turn the HD off. Problem seems to be solved for me. Sorry about that. Yehaw, back to the conference ASAP. Thank you SJ.

 

[Oliver]

Worth bearing in mind that Peter is currently doing a very comprehensive clinical study of vapers using different equipment, and measuring the efficiency of nicotine delivery/absorption. It's quite a task, because each vaper has to return to the lab, and have blood taken each time. I've been helping Peter to recruit vapers for this study.

So, he is generally interested in nicotine delivery. But there is no doubt whatsoever that there's near unanimity among researchers (in the UK at least) that it's a complex interaction of nicotine and repeated behavior that's responsible for the overall dependence phenomenon.

At somewhere around 17:00 into the Peter Hajek presentation...

He discusses the Cochrane Review study that will be coming out soon.
And he mentions results from those who used nicotine electronic cigarettes compared to those who used zero nicotine (placebo) electronic cigarettes.

He looks pretty excited about the results that will be presented, although he declines to present those results in deference to those who will present their results shortly.

But I have a REALLY good idea what those results will show.
And I would bet they will reinforce my long-standing belief that is more about the actions and habits than it is about the nicotine.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

I would like to qualify this with what Ricardo Polosa presented afterwards, which seems to show that nicotine levels can be very important.
At least at first, when trying to get off the cigarettes.

I suspect that may well be the case for many, and not so much the case for others.
But after vaping for awhile, I do believe the "nicotine" becomes less important over time (for a large percentage) as shown throughout this forum over the years.

In the end, I would think there will be quite a mixture of what works...
And it may include high nicotine levels for some, and not really needing much nicotine for others.

But the question is really two-fold...
--What works to get off the cigarettes in the beginning
--What works to STAY off the cigarettes for good

I'm thinking more nicotine in the beginning will be beneficial for many, if not most.
But over time, the habits and actions will be the thing that really keeps most from going back to cigarettes.

I'll agree with that from simple observation of people here. Those that quit the nic too soon, and quit ECF, wind up back here with their tails between their legs. Many drop down to 0mg and are as happy as clams in mud. Then there are the unfortunate few of us that can drop low but have physical and/or psychological problems without the nic even when we don't know it's the nic.The latter group seems pretty small just from looking around the room.

 

[csardaz]

Ian Gray and Hazel Cheeseman froze up at 11m09s on both my phone and my windows machine.

Thanks for putting them up - very interesting stuff.

If people have trouble playing them - many of them I didn't watch the video at all - and an audio-only track would have worked. They are mostly talking heads at a podium so its not very bandwidth intense - but one or two did use charts on the projection screen and in the debate videos was nice to figure out who was speaking,

 

[Kent C]

I'm about half way through and might not finish Not really impressed with the overall tone - it's still 'public health'/regulation oriented - anti-tobacco (and some outright anti-nicotine) advocates. Some have Cancer and Heart foundation backing and have for years, but were bright enough to see the benefits of harm reduction via ecigs or just saw the train coming down the track and decided to move out of the way, but not really 'hop aboard'. They can do their studies, but I wouldn't want any of them as Engineer, Conductor or Switchman of the train.

Suggest people google the names and see who they are, where they've been and what they've been up to.

Clive Bates (I skipped down to his presentation) is the one exception - although also a former anti-smoking advocate, at @8:20 he makes the anti-regulatory remark: "We've got a pretty vibrant market with not much going wrong and quite a lot going right." ....'and with the regulatory fanatics wanting more regulatory ideas'. And right after, while he applauds, Linda Bauld for her talk earlier, he seems to chide the focus on flavor, children and marketing. And he's right to do so. He also differentiates between companies operating in the free market and the predatory companies that are in collusion with the regulators - some call 'crony-capitalism' but there is no capitalism involved, which is why I call it what it is - fascism. He points to the earlier 'particle' debate (sigh) and states there's nothing to it! (with applause). And unlike others earlier about the 'leveling off' of ecigarette sales for which they had no idea, Bates understands it quite well - "the elements of the public health community are doing more harm than good and they should just Stop!"

And marketing - adverts - is something others talked about - how PR dupes people with attractive ads. When almost all of them said that ecigarettes are at least 1/20th the harm of cigarettes, one would think that anti-smoking advocates would encourage the most attractive ecigs ads possible! ....but that too is likely a 'carryover' from their pre-ecig days against the hated BT, which costs us in taxes, prices and created our much beloved 'smoking designated areas'. David Sweanor can add 'Ohio' to his pompous and elitist 'Texas' quips.

 

[Danie06]

I'm about half way through and might not finish Not really impressed with the overall tone - it's still 'public health'/regulation oriented - anti-tobacco (and some outright anti-nicotine) advocates. Some have Cancer and Heart foundation backing and have for years, but were bright enough to see the benefits of harm reduction via ecigs or just saw the train coming down the track and decided to move out of the way, but not really 'hop aboard'. They can do their studies, but I wouldn't want any of them as Engineer, Conductor or Switchman of the train.

I really cannot agree with this. Someone like for example Prof West is one of the most known/ respected anti tobacco researchers here in Europe.
To have someone like that 'aboard' is worth a million more than to just talk among ourselves, if you understand where Im coming from.
These are people with more authority/ knowledge than the average vaping activist (sorry I dont mean to offend anyone here).
The same is of course true for people like Farsalinos (goes without saying ofc), Polosa, Hajek, to name but a few of them.

Is it one thing to have people on your side who are themself vapers, but to be able to get such researchers and doctors on your side, like for example Prof West, who really can influence governments and government policies here in Europe, is invaluable.
What he has done so far (especially with his study on vaping as method of quitting smoking) and the way he is prepared to speak up for vaping is really incredibly important.
He is just one, but that is true for a lot of the others as well.

 

[Kent C]

I really cannot agree with this. Someone like for example Prof West is one of the most known/ respected anti tobacco researchers here in Europe.
To have someone like that 'aboard' is worth a million more than to just talk among ourselves, if you understand where Im coming from.
These are people with more authority/ knowledge than the average vaping activist (sorry I dont mean to offend anyone here).
The same is of course true for people like Farsalinos (goes without saying ofc), Polosa, Hajek, to name but a few of them.

Is it one thing to have people on your side who are themself vapers, but to be able to get such researchers and doctors on your side, like for example Prof West, who really can influence governments and government policies here in Europe, is invaluable.
What he has done so far (especially with his study on vaping as method of quitting smoking) and the way he is prepared to speak up for vaping is really incredibly important.
He is just one, but that is true for a lot of the others as well.

So as not to offend, I'll just say we disagree.

 

[DC2]

So, he is generally interested in nicotine delivery. But there is no doubt whatsoever that there's near unanimity among researchers (in the UK at least) that it's a complex interaction of nicotine and repeated behavior that's responsible for the overall dependence phenomenon.

Don't forget the other tobacco alkaloids.

 

[DC2]

Ian Gray and Hazel Cheeseman froze up at 11m09s on both my phone and my windows machine.

Thanks for putting them up - very interesting stuff.

If people have trouble playing them - many of them I didn't watch the video at all - and an audio-only track would have worked. They are mostly talking heads at a podium so its not very bandwidth intense - but one or two did use charts on the projection screen and in the debate videos was nice to figure out who was speaking,

I had the same problem with the Gray/Cheeseman video, but didn't have any problems at all with any of the others.

 

[BuGlen]

I'm watching each of the videos in order on the page and I've made it through to the 2nd panel debate. So far, all of the presentations have been well done for the most part, with the possible exception of the one on environmental particulates. Is it just my bias on the subject, or was the second professor who presented on that study trying really hard to justify particulate volume over composition?

I'll watch the rest of them tomorrow with fresh eyes and maybe review that one again.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I'm watching each of the videos in order on the page and I've made it through to the 2nd panel debate. So far, all of the presentations have been well done for the most part, with the possible exception of the one on environmental particulates. Is it just my bias on the subject, or was the second professor who presented on that study trying really hard to justify particulate volume over composition?

I'll watch the rest of them tomorrow with fresh eyes and maybe review that one again.

That one I really struggled to get my head around. Taking the debate as it was delivered, I kind of got the impression that boiling the kettle would be a greater health hazard than running a large unfiltered diesel engine in the kitchen.

I was quite amused then by McFiggins comment during the debate afterwards about a recent discovery that the smallest nano-particles detected anywhere were terpenoids (I think) emitted by trees, and that this was a natural phenomenon happening all around us. Therefore if it was just down to particle size then "we're all in trouble". The whole thing sounds highly speculative...

 

[Oliver]

There's been quite an amusing row in the BMJ, after their reporter wrote up the McFiggans/Harrison presentation - McFiggans did not like the write up: E-cigarette vapour could damage health of non-smokers | The BMJ

 

[olderthandirt]

Gonna take awhile to watch em' all but I'm gonna watch em' all.

Thank you SJ and crew!!

 

[BuGlen]

There seems to be an issue with the ian gray and hazel cheeseman presentation. At about the 11:09 point in the video, the video and audio freezes, but the progress bar continues to move. At first, I thought it was corruption in the stream and my local cache, but I cleared my cache and got the same results at the same point in the video.

Is anyone else having this issue?

 

[DrMA]

There's been quite an amusing row in the BMJ, after their reporter wrote up the McFiggans/Harrison presentation - McFiggans did not like the write up: E-cigarette vapour could damage health of non-smokers | The BMJ

Very interesting that McFiggans responded so forcefully to the reporter's alarmist overinterpretation of his study. I was rather under the impression that's exactly what their intent was: present some weak, equivocal findings about grossly exaggerated exposures in the hopes somebody (glANTZ?) would run with it and draw sweeping and ridiculous FUD conclusions.

Not quite sure what to make of this public criticism he lashed at the reporting...

 

[BuGlen]

I've finally finished watching all the videos with the exception of the one I mentioned that is having issues playing after a particular point. All in all, I'm quite encouraged by the overall theme of THR and it's role in public health, and I'm hopeful that this is a real trend that will continue.

Is there any way that we could encourage the organizers to forget to send an invite (by pure accident, of course) to the AHA?

 

[Maytwin]

There seems to be an issue with the ian gray and hazel cheeseman presentation. At about the 11:09 point in the video, the video and audio freezes, but the progress bar continues to move. At first, I thought it was corruption in the stream and my local cache, but I cleared my cache and got the same results at the same point in the video.

Is anyone else having this issue?

Yes, it's exactly the same for me.

 

[Danie06]

There seems to be an issue with the ian gray and hazel cheeseman presentation. At about the 11:09 point in the video, the video and audio freezes, but the progress bar continues to move. At first, I thought it was corruption in the stream and my local cache, but I cleared my cache and got the same results at the same point in the video.

Is anyone else having this issue?

Yes the same here, the video just freezes.

 

[Oliver]

Oops, sorry about that - the Ian Gray and Hazel Cheeseman video has been reuploaded and should work now. Sorry for the oversight.

Regarding the AHA - they were there. Check out panel debate 2 at 17:01