Thứ Ba, 5 tháng 12, 2017

News on Youtube Dec 5 2017

Hundreds of volunteers pitched in during our last Community Clean Team event of

2017, which took place in the Mission Bernal Heights and the Portal neighborhoods.

In celebration of World Toilet Day we rolled out our newest Pit Stop Public

Toilet model which was designed in the style of the Painted Lady Victorian.

The much-anticipated second Street improvement project broke ground this

week, which when completed will improve safety and access for pedestrians,

bicyclists and transit as well as drivers.

Have you noticed iconic snowflakes lit along Market Street? The holidays are

just around the corner. In preparation for the season, we came together with the

mayor and the police chief to announce our efforts to ensure that residents and

visitors have a safe and clean experience during the busy holiday shopping season

in the downtown and neighborhood commercial corridors.

Hi, I'm Mohammed Nuru, the Director of Public Works City & County of San Francisco we're doing a

show for Public Works TV and my guest today is Lena Miller from the Hunters

Point Family. Welcome Lena.

Thank you Mohammed.

You run an organization that actually empowers people to be stewards of the

land and cause people to give jobs and really tries to change people's lives.

Tell us a little bit about your organization and maybe a little bit more

about kind of what you've been doing with Public Works lately.

Well I founded the

Hunters Point family when I was 23 and basically it was in anticipation of

having my first child and if I wanted a better community for my children then we

would have to begin to create that. We employ people who with the re-entry

population former lifers, that means people who had life sentences, to monitor

the toilets and that means to make sure that they keep them safe, that they keep

them clean. And the thing that this particular population does, is they have

over time developed in prison an exquisite sense of emotional

intelligence, so they are able to so easily and smoothly just make sure that

people can come in and out, that things are safe to defuse and deescalate any

kind of situations they get tense and really give people a sense of safety,

which I think really transforms their perceptions of themselves and in

society and other people's perceptions of them. So it really helps stabilize

this population as they come home and like I said really be an asset to the community.

I think one of the things that we are most proud of is that these

individuals are able to get work and able

to do something positive which I think there is a direct relationship with

crime or you know neighborhoods feeling safe because a lot of these

individuals, frankly if they want didn't have a job or they didn't have something

to do that they could earn money then people need to take care of their

families and people do sometimes resort to other types of situations that are

not necessary productive or helpful to the community.

You're absolutely right. Well there's an old

saying, "If people knew better, they would be better," and what I believe is that

this program gives people an opportunity to do better. It creates a life for a lot.

A lot of our employees have been in prison for 20 or 30 years and holding on

to little tiny glimmers of hope and when they get out to have this job for people

to look up to them in society, to feel like they're an important part of the

City family and giving back to the community on so many levels, it validates

that there is hope, that there is a life, that there is a place for them in

society and it helps them to to hone all that motivation and moving to the next

step in that drive to move up to continue to to better themselves and at

the same time society. So yes absolutely.

So I just want to say

thank you for all the leadership that you bring to the Bayview-Hunters Point

community. I think our partnership where changing people's lives but also giving

our communities better places to serve them or better places for people to use

a bathroom or a clean street or a nice park, as all being part of the

partnership that we have and just on behalf of Public Works just thank you

for everything that you do

For more infomation >> Public Works TV : EP.0008 - A Fresh Start - Duration: 5:12.

-------------------------------------------

Public hearing set for proposed toll hikes - Duration: 0:22.

For more infomation >> Public hearing set for proposed toll hikes - Duration: 0:22.

-------------------------------------------

REVIEW 03 | Ms. SHIVANI SAREEN | PRINCIPAL D.A.V PUBLIC SCHOOL | AMBALA CANTT - Duration: 1:21.

Click This TO Watch "THE SHOE WON'T FIT"

Click This TO Watch "THE SHOE WON'T FIT"

For more infomation >> REVIEW 03 | Ms. SHIVANI SAREEN | PRINCIPAL D.A.V PUBLIC SCHOOL | AMBALA CANTT - Duration: 1:21.

-------------------------------------------

F-Secure FREEDOME VPN – Stay Safe on Public WiFi - Duration: 0:31.

Every time you connect to a public WiFi, your traffic becomes public too.

Anyone on the same network

can see anything unencrypted you send or receive.

Even worse, someone can hijack your connection

and fool you into giving out your passwords.

But if you encrypt your traffic with F-Secure FREEDOME VPN,

you'll be private and safe.

Don't surf exposed.

Go to f-secure.com/freedome

to try F-Secure FREEDOME 5 days free.

For more infomation >> F-Secure FREEDOME VPN – Stay Safe on Public WiFi - Duration: 0:31.

-------------------------------------------

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attend first public engagement - Duration: 3:46.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attend first public engagement

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle held hands as they greeted well-wishers in Nottingham on their first public engagement since getting engaged.

The flame-haired royal and the Suits actress looked loved up as they greeted the crowds of people who had gathered outside the citys Contemporary Arts Centre.

The pair - who are in Nottingham for a World Aids Day fair and to visit a youth project - walked hand in hand as they made their way to meet local dignitaries.

They then went to separate sides of the crowds and chatted with those who had secured a place at the front of the five row deep throng.

There were gifts galore for Meghan and Harry, who were handed presents including chocolate, flowers and cards.

One person even handed Meghan some Haribo, Harrys favorite sweets, to give to the prince.

Ann McGuire, who brought her two-year-old son Leo with her, said: She grabbed my hand and said Im so glad you braved it to stand in the cold.

Meghans such a natural.   Whilst Katie Shaw, 22, added: They were very down to earth even though theyre royal.

Its all about Suits.

We really like Suits and she told us there are going to be two more series. And Harry even joked with one member of the crowd when they asked what it was like to be ginger and engaged to a famous actress.

Harry joked back that it was unbelievable [and] great, isnt it.

Meghan - a professional at red carpets - was so happy to be with her husband-to-be.

She told one member of the crowd: Im so happy.

Its just such a thrill to be here. The pair were constantly asked for selfies - something which Meghan had to politely decline, insisting they werent allowed to get pictures.

Getting out of the cold, the pair then headed to the Terrence Higgins Trust World Aids Day charity fair and also visited Nottingham Academy, where they met with headteachers taking part in the Full Effect program, which aims to stop young people getting involved in violence and crime.

For more infomation >> Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attend first public engagement - Duration: 3:46.

-------------------------------------------

Applied Communicaiton - Connecting in Public Speaking (Promo) - Duration: 0:53.

And I had a moment where I wept for all of my students up until that point

because I'd been teaching them from a performance orientation. I was like yes

yes the words that come out they're important but what's more important as

what you're doing with your body. Are you making meaningful eye contact?

Are you moving in a way that draws people in right?

I taught them how to do those things and they did them beautifully

and I think they said important things but I didn't really care.

Because it was about the drama of it. And then I read this and I wept.

Cuz I'm like no that's not why we give speeches. It's to connect with

people and that's the communication orientation

For more infomation >> Applied Communicaiton - Connecting in Public Speaking (Promo) - Duration: 0:53.

-------------------------------------------

Man accused of public indecency at Ohio State - Duration: 0:19.

For more infomation >> Man accused of public indecency at Ohio State - Duration: 0:19.

-------------------------------------------

Community development public hearing underway - Duration: 0:30.

For more infomation >> Community development public hearing underway - Duration: 0:30.

-------------------------------------------

ACLU asks public to review police tapes - Duration: 1:54.

For more infomation >> ACLU asks public to review police tapes - Duration: 1:54.

-------------------------------------------

Bristol, Va. leaders to hear public comment on fire, emergency medical services - Duration: 0:38.

For more infomation >> Bristol, Va. leaders to hear public comment on fire, emergency medical services - Duration: 0:38.

-------------------------------------------

ACLU asks public to review police tapes - Duration: 1:54.

For more infomation >> ACLU asks public to review police tapes - Duration: 1:54.

-------------------------------------------

Congressman Blake Farenthold pledges to repay public funds that settled claim - Duration: 1:01.

For more infomation >> Congressman Blake Farenthold pledges to repay public funds that settled claim - Duration: 1:01.

-------------------------------------------

Here's why Harry and Meghan hold hands in public but Wills and Kate don't - Duration: 3:29.

Here's why Harry and Meghan hold hands in public but Wills and Kate don't… and it's not all down to protocol

WEVE all gotten used to Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridges hands-off attitude towards public affection... but Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are very different.

The newly-engaged lovebirds arent shy to hold hands while out and about, in stark contrast to Wills and Kate, who have always steered well clear of any PDA.

But theres a reason why the brothers have such a different attitude towards getting touchy-feely... and its not all down to Royal protocol.

Etiquette expert Myka Meier told People magazine that Harry and Meghans back-rubbing and hand-holding may be related to how recently they got engaged.

She said: While Prince Harry and Meghan holding hands is atypical for royal engagements, it is a seemingly welcomed gesture to show unity and celebration of their engagement period.

There is no protocol that says they can not show affection on official engagements, and this gesture makes them relatable and lovable to the public.

Theres another factor in the mix too, besides the fact that Harry, currently fifth in line to the throne, has only just announced his big news.

The way Royals behave in public can depend on what kind of event they are at.

More serious, sombre events are unlikely to see any hand-holding, while breezier events like Harry and Meghans current tour of Britain, are more appropriate settings for PDA.

So far, we havent seen the loved-up couple appear at any serious events, so this could go some way to explaining their hands-on approach.

There is, of course, another possible explanation: the pair are just touchy-feely people - and wont let anything come in the way of that.

Etiquette expert Myka added: While we are much less likely to see The Duke and Duchess holding hands in public, we often see Prince Charles and The Duchess of Cornwall holding hands.

It's all simply a matter of preference for each couple and is also likely dependent on the nature of the event they are attending.

A more serious engagement would warrant a more serious level of professionalism, which each royal is sure to follow.

Weve got heaps more on the happy couple as the dust settles on their engagement.

Earlier in the week, we exclusively revealed that Princess Diana would have adored Meghan Markle, according to a former aide to the Royals.

We also revealed the royal experts prediction that Harry will have a riotous stag do... but hell have to behave if he doesnt want to distract from the big day.

For more infomation >> Here's why Harry and Meghan hold hands in public but Wills and Kate don't - Duration: 3:29.

-------------------------------------------

Seminole Heights murder suspect's public defender - Duration: 2:15.

For more infomation >> Seminole Heights murder suspect's public defender - Duration: 2:15.

-------------------------------------------

Public Health 11 17 17 - Duration: 1:01:57.

Hi everyone my name is Dr. Jennifer Pearson

thanks for joining us.

I am new faculty at the University of Nevada,

Reno School of Community Health Sciences

I'm in the health administration and policy department

and I'm also a Nevada native I graduated

from Reno High School in 1998 left for

various levels of school and Peace Corp

and now I'm back. So I'm really happy

to be here I'm happy to be speaking

with all of you and today we're going to

talk about e-cigarettes and federal regulation.

So once we get, there we go

here's the screen. So I'm going to ask

you as I speak if you wouldn't mind

I'm going to try and leave about 10 minutes

at the end of today's talk for questions

but as I'm speaking if something comes

to you, you could just use the chat box

and then when I imagine what will happen

is a bunch of you will have questions

that will kind of all be in the same

area and we can look at those and start

to answer those

during the question and answer session.

So let's get started.

So the topics for today's talk

I'm not going to assume

that everyone here knows about the

burden of cigarette smoking and tobacco

use in the United States so I'm going to go

over that briefly I'm going to introduce

you to the Food and Drug

Administration's authority to regulate

tobacco products. I'm going to apply the

authority to specifically to

e-cigarettes and we'll get into some

some basic key cigarette research.

I should also say so my credentials

I finished a PhD in public health at Johns

Hopkins University in 2011

I am PI or principal investigator of two

studies funded by the National

Institutes of Health, National Institutes

of Drug Abuse both on e-cigarettes

I'm also an associate editor

on the recent

Surgeon General's report on

e-cigarettes among youth and young adults.

I also focus somewhat on tobacco

products that are labeled natural

organic and additive free but that won't

be the topic of today's talk.

So I really am pretty focused on e cigarette

use and have been since I'd say 2009.

So the burden of smoking.

Cigarette smoking

is the leading cause of preventable

death in the United States. It causes

480,000 deaths a year that is both

primaries of smoking and also secondhand

smoke exposure that includes also

deaths from fires deaths from

sudden infant death syndrome.

And I think sometimes a lot of us think well smoking

is solved you know because it's

certainly doing better than we ever have

in the United States. But still 480,000 nearly half a

million people each year is in my opinion

utterly unacceptable. And this is from the

most recent general surgeon

general surgeon general's report. So this was the

50th anniversary report from a few years ago

and you can see all the

cancers and chronic diseases that are

caused by smoking. The red ones are

newly associated with smoking as of 2014.

So you see it's just innumerable causes

of disease from smoking. Tobacco is also

a huge problem globally as the globe

becomes richer people move away from

from being, from causes of death

from infectious disease and we move

towards chronic disease and the estimate

is as of right now that tobacco could

kill 1.2 billion people globally by 2100.

Smoking is absolutely a public

health crisis it is overwhelmingly

caused by cigarettes and other combusted

tobacco products or other products that are burned.

It's estimated that 5.6 million of today's youth

will die prematurely from smoking. And in Washoe

County where we are at this very moment

almost 850 out of a 100,000 deaths

a year are due to smoking.

It's almost 20% of deaths among US men

and almost 16% of deaths among US women

so you know I'm sure a lot of you

are health providers and you see this

every day that smoking is truly a public health crisis.

t's also a social justice

issue so we really see that smoking is, well

tobacco marketing availability and the

lowest prices are concentrated on poor

and minority neighborhoods. You can

see here...

One moment while we turn this on.

Ok there we go

you can see here that this is the

relationship between level of education

and the prevalence of tobacco use and

you see the folks with the least

education so people who either have

no high school diploma or a GED have the

highest percentage of smoking and then

you see it decreases as your

education increases. Same thing here,

annual household income you can see that

people making the most money over

$100,000 a year 12.1% of them smoke

as opposed to people making less than 20%

of a year 32.2%. So you can see a clear gradient

relationship between smoking prevalence and income.

A lot of people say well

smoking is solved but really what's

happening is it's being concentrated in

the groups that are least able to

effectively deal with it. So like I said

earlier we see that more tobacco

retailers are near schools or low-income

areas and in other areas we see that

individuals with mental illness account

for 46% of cigarettes sold in the United States

that is a remarkable amount of consumption.

And there's actually some people think

that nicotine people are essentially

self-medicating with nicotine and that

smoking helps alleviate some of the

negative feelings both physical and

psychological associated with depression

and anxiety that's why we're seeing such

concentration of smoking in those populations.

And then we're also seeing

some significant targeting of certain

groups for example LGBTQ young adults

are nearly twice as likely to smoke

as their straight peers. And I want to just

make sure that we're all clear also that

you know a lot of lot of these

statistics are attributed to tobacco use

but according to the Surgeon General's

report from 2014 the majority of deaths

are caused by cigarettes and other

combustible tobacco products and they say

rapid elimination of their use will

dramatically reduce this burden.

So as public health professionals we are

working in a world with limited resources right

and we can't do

everything at once and so what the

surgeon general here is suggesting is

that we really need to focus on the

thing that's causing an overwhelming

amount of death and disease and that is

cigarettes and other burnt tobacco.

So an aside before we move forward I just

want to make sure that we're all on the

same page with some terms that I'm going to use.

So you know we're gonna start

talking about e-cigarettes and there's a

so I was clear what kind of terms you're

supposed to use for what. So when I say smoking

I mean combusted tobacco use

like cigarette smoking, cigar smoking,

cigarillo, hookah little cigar smoking.

Burnt tobacco produces smoke however I'm not

going to use those terms when I refer to

e-cigarette use or perhaps ENDS used

people say that electronic nicotine

delivery systems might also hear ANDS used

alternative nicotine delivery systems.

People also say vaping or vape or vape pens

this is all the same thing it all means

just to consume nicotine using an e-cigarette or

whatever you want to call that thing.

These products do not produce smoke they

produce an aerosol of nicotine in like

little bitty particles and it's kind of

commonly called vapor but it's not vapor

it's not a water vapor it's technically an aerosol.

So I just want to make sure that's

clear if I say smoke or smoking I'm

referring to burnt tobacco if I say vaping

you know e-cigarette use or aerosol

I'm referring to e-cigarettes.

Okay so now we're going to move on and talk

about FDA authority to regulate tobacco

products. So this is where the magic

happens this is the FDA and it's

interesting so the FDA has lots of

different centers associated with it and

this is just these are just three kind

of the big ones that you might heard of

if you even think about the FDA ever.

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

this is the place where you're always

hearing about you know FDA approved this

medication well these are that's that okay.

These folks work on medical devices and then

you know if you ever hear about food recalls

for example you know salmonella outbreak

in spinach that's these folks and

there are other offices and Senators in

the FDA but this is kind of I think how most of us

think of what FDA does on a daily basis.

After 2009 we got this new center

the center for tobacco products

and I'm going to explain to you

about what they do and how they were created.

So they were created as part of

the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and

Tobacco Control Act this is a picture of

President Obama signing that that

legislation in 2009 and what this did

was a gave FDA authority to regulate the

manufacture distribution and marketing

of tobacco products to protect public health.

And this was a new thing before

2009 in the United States no one

agency or authority regulated tobacco products.

there were some regulations

on things like cigarette pack size

you know obviously taxes we had

restrictions on age of sale but the

actual product itself was not being regulated

and part of this law

created the FDA Center for Tobacco Products or CTP

and initially the law

was limited to cigarettes, roll-your-own

tobacco and smokeless tobacco but then

FDA expanded their authority to all

tobacco products including e-cigarettes in 2016.

So FDA can do all kinds of

stuff when it concerns tobacco regulation

what they did immediately was they

banned flavored cigarettes, smokeless

and roll your own tobacco except for menthol.

So I don't know if you remember before

2009 you get pina colada

cigarettes or cherry cigarettes or

I don't know if you remember the clove cigarettes

those are no longer legal.

The idea was is that they were unusually

attractive to youth and therefore they were banned.

These authorities also require

some changes to the cigarette and smokeless

warning labels which are still somewhat in progress

it requires disclosure of ingredients in

tobacco products so before this law

there was no requirement that companies

disclose what's actually in their products,

it requires that any modified risk

claims must be supported by science

and must go through a process where FDA does

not approve but allows marketing of

modified risk claims and so part of that

upon passage of this of this law was it

bans the descriptors light, low and mild

so no longer, it's not legal anymore to

have a light cigarette it can't say light on it.

What ended up happening however

was the companies just used

colors to convey the same thing so

instead of light we now see silver

so I don't know how effective that was.

It also just generally allows for

regulation of tobacco product

characteristics and requires pre-market

certification of products meaning that

tobacco companies can no longer just put out

whatever they feel like on the market

they have to show that the product will

not significantly affect public health

essentially but it's not a huge change

from the status quo. So the Center for

Tobacco Products makes decisions about

regulation of tobacco based on what's

called a public health standard which

has three parts. So first they have to

think about the risks and benefits to

the population as a whole including both

users and non-users of tobacco products

so both smokers for example and non-smokers.

Now they has to ask

themselves whether there is an increased

or decreased likelihood but existing

users of tobacco products will stop

using such products and we want that right

that would be good for public health.

And then we have to ask ourselves

whether there is an increased or decreased

likelihood that those who do

not currently use tobacco products

most notably youth will start using tobacco products.

So those are the three things that

you have to think about whenever they have

a new tobacco product application

in front of them or whether they're

considering using some of their

authorities to perhaps do something like

ban menthol which they could do or

decrease the amount of nicotine in

cigarettes to nonzero levels being just not zero.

So we can use

the public health standard as a guide

for research we can think about, there we

go, we can think about the harm

the population harm attributed to

there we go, the population harm

attributed to tobacco use as a equation

where we have appeal so that's like

products, product characteristics

that might get someone to start using a product.

Abuse liability are are the

characteristics of the product that

makes someone want to continue using

despite negative consequences so that's

like its ability to look to deliver

nicotine for example. And its toxicity so

you know we can have a product

that has high abuse liability

so it delivers nicotine really well

but it's not particularly toxic and

that might have a different population harm

but a product that is both very

addictive or has a very high abuse

liability and it's also very toxic and I

should say as an aside nicotine is not

particularly harmful on its own so you

can think about nicotine replacement

therapy right the patch the gum you can

actually buy these things over the counter

right there's there's no

restrictions on this. That's because the

nicotine is not the thing that causes

the disease now there might be a little bit

of cardiovascular effects it's the

delivery system so it's the burning

tobacco leaf that is the huge problem here.

So we think about e-cigarettes

this is a very interesting and complex

public health problem because and we'll

get into this e-cigarettes are not just

one thing so they have different levels

of appeal and different abilities to

induce dependence and they have

different levels of abuse liability they

also have somewhat different levels of

toxicity, we'll get into that more also.

So when someone asks you are

e-cigarettes all bad or are they all good

they are neither you say no,

or you say yes because it's not a simple answer

and we're going to talk about that.

So my question and the question of folks

in tobacco science is how do we keep people

in these nice green circles? So think of

the population, population can be in any

one of these circles right and they've

got little arrows you know go over here

and start smoking then can go over here and

start using e-cigs or they can stay in

their, intheir little green

circle and obviously want everyone

to stay here right we want them to be non-users.

But if they manage to find their way

down to the cigarette use category.

One of my questions for my research in my

work is how do we move them either to the

less harmful nicotine products which

I'll show you why I think that they're

less harmful or you know preferably how

do we move them into former use

this this is number two if I have mine

this is number one this is what we want

definitely want everyone to hang out up

there and non-current use if they're

going to move either here or here then

we want them to end up down here. But if

they are unable or unwilling to get into

the former use category then it is better

for them to be here and to be here or here

okay so from a public health standpoint

you know I would love everyone to

end up in former use or to

stay in current use but we have a very

diverse population of people with

different things going on in their lives

and different abilities at different

points of their lives and so we need to

acknowledge that and I think a lot of

you as as probably as providers

probably have experienced that

yourselves right you are with someone

you're inviting them to quit smoking and

they're saying you know it's just not for me right no.

So let's, we're gonna skip over this

So now I'm going to talk about FDA

regulation and apply it to e-cigarettes.

So a little bit of in the weeds

history here. So in 2009

FDA denied import of e-cigarettes from

Smoking Everywhere and NJOY these are

two e-cigarette companies and what they

said was you cannot import these because

they are an unapproved drug device

combination intended to help treat

withdrawal symptoms, nicotine addiction

and if you want to import these you have

to go through the Drug Evaluation side

of FDA and you have to essentially be

treated like nicotine patches or chantix.

And these companies of course are like

no no no we don't want to do that

we just want to import

our stuff and sell our stuff and make our money.

So they took FDA to court and

the court ended up decided in favor of

the e-cigarette companies essentially

they said just because something has

nicotine doesn't mean it's supposed to

be used for cessation. However that was

funny because a lot of people use them

for a cessation anyway so it's kind of

funny this is so this is how e-cigarettes

became regulated as tobacco products

even though as you can see there's no

tobacco leaf in them sometimes the

nicotine is derived from tobacco but you

know if for me ideally I would like to

see some sort of modified regulation

where they are treated more like a drug

or device than a tobacco product so that

we can really start working on treating

these things as people are using them

which is predominantly as cessation devices but

you know we are

in this situation so we're going to

go with it so like I mentioned

earlier e-cigarettes are not a

single product class so when someone

says doing e-cigarettes help people quit

smoking you say yes or no because the

answer is it depends. So we have a few

different kinds we have this first

generation which are called

cigalikes by us researchers and that's

because they look like cigarettes and

they have these little bitty, little

bitty batteries let me go back. So like

on cigalike this is the battery

and this is where the fluid the

nicotine containing fluid and these

little batteries don't do a great job

aerosolizing nicotine and therefore the

nicotine doesn't get all that deep into

the lungs and therefore it can get

absorbed to the bloodstream and thus

smokers do not find it particularly

reinforcing it doesn't do a good job

alleviating withdrawal and craving

symptoms and people who try these often

abandon them and say this is not going to help me.

Second generation these look more like

markers like big

Sharpie markers and they often are what

we call an open system so you can see

here this part right here is the tank

and you can unscrew that and put in

whatever kind of nicotine fluid you like

there's a wick in there and there's

a coil that heats up there's a wicked and a

coil that heats up in here to but you can

actually see it here and these things

tend to be a little better at delivering

nicotine and therefore tend to be

a little better at helping people quit smoking.

These products are also

products that people can use to vape cannabis.

So we need to remember that

it's not really these so much though you

can buy some some pre-made cannabis

products that do look like this but it's

mostly these products that people

use to vape cannabis.

We also now have what

we're calling the third-generation

sometimes they're called personal

vaporizers or mods and these are

products that are pretty sophisticated

you can change the wattage you can

change the resistance on the coils so you

can change how hot they get, you can

change how much visible aerosol people

produce, you some of them have like puff

cameras on them some of them can link

with via Bluetooth to your phone I mean

there's they're pretty sophisticated and

they can get pretty big too. This down

here is actually a e-hookah that you

know you can see these little this like

right here this is like a mouthpiece

this would be a mouthpiece and then we have

what I'm calling fourth generation

though I don't even know if this

necessarily even belongs in an

e-cigarette category and a lot of you are

probably becoming aware of a product

called JUUL it's very small it looks

like a thumb drive or a pen drive

whatever you want to call it and it has

little cartridges, it's not an

open system at the closed system

and it uses nicotine salts these other

products use nicotine in a propylene

glycol and vegetable glycerin solution

but the JUUL uses nicotine salts and it is

either the second or first most popular

e-cigarette on the market right now

it went from nothing to quite a lot of

market share in about a year. I'm very

interested to see what happens with this

product because it delivers nicotine

very well so smokers who are unable or

unwilling to quit find this stuff very

reinforcing very satisfying

unfortunately if you have a product that is

satisfying to adults then they're also a

product that is satisfying kids and that is a

problem especially since these things

are small they are easily concealed

so as you can see different populations

will have different public health effects

right so something that might be

good for one population can be bad for

another population and that's why I say

this is a very complex issue there's no

one-size-fits-all answer to how we

should deal with these products.

Okay

so e-cigarettes I'm just I'm going to

make a case here that you should think

of e-cigarettes as being much less

harmful than cigarettes. So first of all

cigarettes have 69 known human carcinogens

four thousand chemicals you're inhaling

tar you're inhaling carbon monoxide

I can't think of a single consumer product

that is worse for you than cigarettes okay

they blow everything else out of

the water they are terrible.

So it is

somewhat a low bar or a high bar it's

easy it's easy to have a consumer

product that is less harmful than

cigarettes right. However e-cigarettes

depending on the type of e-cigarette are

much less to significantly much less harmful.

So these products have

most of them nicotine not all of them

have nicotine they're propylene glycol and

vegetable glycerin which are humectants

they do have toxic constituents such as

tobacco-specific nitrosamines and heavy

metals but at much lower levels

somewhere between 9 and 450 times

lower than tobacco smoke. We also know

that some flavors are cytotoxic meaning

that if you have cells in a petri dish

and then you've bathed the cells in nicotine

fluid with different flavors that

it will kill the cells. So like cinnamon

for example in cytotoxic flavors that

have kind of a buttery flavor can be

cytotoxic so we want to use regulation

to remove those from products because

that's simply unacceptable we don't

that's like that's low-hanging fruit

we can get rid of that. So here's just one

example of a study that was comparing

biomarker levels so these are all some

these are all some well-known

biomarkers of harm from smoking from

tobacco use and you can see they're

comparing smokers to former smokers

and then within smokers and former smokers

they have those groups divided into two groups.

So here we see dual cigarette

and nicotine replacement therapy users

such as patches, gum, inhaler, etc., and then

here you see dual cigarette e-cigarette users

and you can see just looking across

the two groups you can see

there's really not much of a difference between

their biomarkers of harm in some

cases they're a little higher

bu there's statistically significantly

similar to each other I think in every case.

So if you continue to smoke using

e-cigarettes or NRT will not improve

your biomarkers of harm. But if you just

look at former smokers there's a

different a different story here so yeah

thank you

So looking at just NRT only users so

once again those are people who are

using patches or gum so there are former

smokers who are still using some form of nicotine

replacement therapy and we're

comparing them the people who are only

using e-cigarettes. You see across all

these different categories of biomarkers of

harm you see similar or even lower

biomarkers of harm for the e-cigarette

users compared to the NRT users

and remember NRT is FDA approved smoking

cessation available over-the-counter

anyone can go in and buy it. So this to

me is a good indication that at least on the

short term e-cigarettes are

about as harmful as NRT may you know

we really need the long-term cohort

data so we need to follow people for 30,

40, 50 years to really know that for certain

but given the data that we have this is

not the only study out there are lots

of other studies that show the same thing

given the data that we have our

best guess as of right now is that

e-cigarettes are in general as a class

less harmful definitely than cigarettes

and might be comparable to NRT.

So they also deliver nicotine a little bit more

differently than cigarettes so this is

from a recent study and this down the

side here this is nicotine plasma levels

and then right here this is time so what

they did is say had people come into the lab

and use an e-cigarette in a

controlled manner and then took blood

from them at five minutes and at twenty

minutes and at 35 minutes and so what

you see here this green this is a

cigarettes you can see like five minutes

after you start smoking a cigarette your

nicotine levels in your blood go way up

right that's why people find cigarettes

so reinforcing and so hard to quit

because you get a rush in nicotine

immediately you know the thing that we

say in tobacco control right is that you

feel the hit within seven seconds of your first inhalation.

With e-cigarettes they're a little bit

different so you see this red line

it does eventually achieve plasma levels

nicotine plasma levels

of a cigarette but it takes 35 minutes

and this is for a new generation device

or you know a second generation device

those ones that look like markers

Is this just for one hit of...

No no they are they are doing a

controlled bout so they're taking

I think this is from I think its 10 puffs.

But don't quote me on that so they reach

levels of comparable to cigarette

smokers but it takes takes a longer time.

So this is one of the reasons why

addiction scientists hypothesize that

e-cigarettes are not as addictive as

cigarettes because you're not getting

that drug hit all at once as quickly

the quickness of drug

delivery is one of the things that

predicts how addictive a drug will be.

How quickly you feel the subjective

effects of the drug and then you see

the little cigalike the little

devices that look like cigarettes they

never get to the point of a cigarette

and they just kind of, they're not doing

so great. So you can see how maybe a

cigarette smoker who is trying to

quit might not find these little

cigalike, e-cigarettes particularly useful.

So who is using e-cigarettes this is

from CDC so this is from I believe

yeah 2014 data so this is 2014.

So in 2014, 12.6%

of adults had ever tried an e-cigarette

and then of that 12.6%

the majority 55.4% are recent former

smokers maybe they quit in the past year.

Second most 47.6% of current smokers

8.9% are long-term former smokers

and 3.2% are

never cigarette smokers and then if we

look at who is currently using e-cigarettes

meaning any use in the past

30 days we see 3.7%

of US adults in 2014

were past 30 day users of that 22% of

that 3.7% were recent former smokers,

15.9% for current cigarette smokers, 2.3%

were a long-term former and

0.4% were never smokers. So what does

this suggest to me? This suggests that

there is an association between being a

former smoker a recent former smoker and

e-cigarette use current and ever.

I cannot tell the directionality of this

association because this is

cross-sectional data so I can't tell if

quitting smoking came first and then

they started using e-cigarettes or if

they started using e-cigarettes and then

they quit smoking. But I do think that

this is interesting and

suggestive of a relationship.

We also have a recent study from some people at

UC San Diego they did some really

interesting work with some population

level data and I have their conclusions

drawn out here. So let's first look at

the figure this is figure from the

current population surveys using supplements.

So this is the quit attempt rate

and then the annual cessation rate.

So obviously higher quit

attempt rate will lead to annual

a higher annual cessation rate right

because you have to try to quit before

you quit at least directly.

So you see it's pretty flat

from a one to three to six to

twenty ten and e-cigarettes were rare

really in 2009, 2010, 2011, they really

started taking off between I say 2011

and 2014 so you see there's a little bump

here in quit attempts and there's

also a little bump in cessation and then

when they looked at just the 2014 data

and they stratified by whether or not

someone had used e-cigarettes in the

past 12 months they see a big difference

both in quit attempts and

in actual cessation. And once again we can't

say for certain that's because they were

using an e-cigarette but this is again

suggestive that e-cigarettes and

cessation and quit attempts are

associated in the population so this is

among adult smokers.

But what about the

kids right. So we hear so much about kids

using e-cigarettes and it makes a lot of the news.

So the main concerns about

e-cigarette use in youth the first one is

that e-cigarette use is harm enhancing

for youth and really for all

non-tobacco users that is absolutely true

they while they're not as harmful

as cigarettes they are harmful

they're not harmless they're not just water

vapor. So if you you know consider they're

harm reducing for adult smokers who are

unable or unwilling to quit if they

switch completely right partial switching

is not going to do it they have to switch completely.

But they're harm

enhancing for people who are not using anything.

There's also some concern that

nicotine might be a problem for the

adolescent brain it might prime them

to be more responsive to other

substances of abuse in the future.

It's kind of up for debate about that but you

know it's best just precautionary

principle let's just let's just go ahead

and say best guess just avoid it.

The other concern is that e-cigarette use

as a gateway to more harmful forms of

tobacco use namely cigarette smoking.

This is a very difficult question to

answer with observational research

you are not going to do a randomized

controlled trial where you get a bunch of

kids and like randomize half of them to

e-cigarette use and half of them to none-cigarette use

and then see what happens right.

so that's not going to happen

the data is absolutely

all over the map on this. An occlusion

conclusions depend on the definitions of

exposure in the outcome so it depends on

how you define e-cigarette use,

depends on how you define cigarette use,

and so what I think is most useful right

now is we don't really need

to think to ask to know if

e-cigarettes are a gateway to anything.

Who cares?

For me we should think of e-cigarettes

perhaps as a marker of future risk behavior

right. So if you're

a clinician and you find out one of

your patients as a kid and he's using e-cigs

you might want to be like okay what else

is this kid getting in to, right?

Because what we're seeing is that it's

well my hypothesis I guess is

that it is like the lowest consequence

harm risk behavior that kids have found

right now it's really easy to sneak.

You don't smell like anything so my theory

is they're playing with some risk behaviors.

And so if you find this out

you kind of know this kid might be

pointing the direction that you don't

want that kid to go in right.

And so as I said who cares if it's a gateway or

not I mean let us scientists try to figure it out,

but for application

purposes kids should not be using

e-cigarettes it doesn't matter if it's a

gateway right

just boom that's all you need to know.

So just also kind of orient you to the

population level data

this is trends in past 30 day use

which is all often considered current

use for kids for cigarettes and

e-cigarettes among high school students

and I updated it with 2016 data.

So you see in 2011 cigarette smoking was

way up at almost 16%

e-cigarette use was down at 1.5%

and then as e-cigarettes became more

prevalent in the adult population we saw

kids using them more too. I mean where do

they get them from? They get some from adults.

Also online

so this change right here

this is some inside baseball news for

you all. This change is probably not real

the National Youth tobacco survey changed

the way it asked about e-cigarettes

between 2013 and 2014

and 2013 they said hey tell us all

what other tobacco products you use

and they had a list

it was just check all that apply. And in

2014 they asked hey have you used

e-cigarettes Yes/No

they also made that change for hookah

and if you if I put hookah on this you'd see

the same thing this huge increase in

prevalence of hookah use and it's this is a

well-known survey design thing when

you ask when you ask these questions

differently you get different prevalences

so I think this number is

correct I don't think this change is

correct it was probably more like this right.

So we were probably underestimating

use in 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and now

we're more at the right prevalence estimate.

So could you erase my scribbles (laughing)

Okay

Thank you so um

so what you're seeing is yeah e-cigarette use

took off in 2015 it outperformed

cigarettes what we're seeing is also

really good news for public health

because the thing that is causing the most harm

is continuing to decrease and

if e-cigarettes were a gateway

to cigarette smoking I would expect

you know here it takes off I would expect

this.. whoops I did not mean to do that

sorry

I would expect, oh my, anyway I would

expect an increase. Now it could be

that this line should be more like that

though probably not that dramatic. So it

could be that these things are a gateway

and this decrease would have been more

dramatic without e-cigarettes on the market

we can't know for certain but

certainly what we need to be doing is

keeping an eye on this, keep an eye on

prevalence of cigarette use and

e-cigarette use and we need to make sure

that this doesn't start to tick up

at minimum.

Okay and then also I just want

to make a quick point here you can look

at this, this is the source publication

for my colleagues and I

I just want to make the point that when you see

distribution so this is the frequency of

use in past 30 day cigarette use and

e-cigarette use when you see it

bimodal distribution like this where

there's a lot of use in one to two days

the past 30 days and there's a lot of

use in the past 30 days and then there's

kind of a lot of incidental use right there

that suggests that you know these

folks are experimenting,

these folks are addicted right.

What you're not seeing for e-cigarette use is

that you're seeing a lot of

experimentation and you're not seeing a

lot of past 30 days use. And among the

past 30 day users the you know 90% of

the past 30 day users are also using

other tobacco products so there's very

little past 30 day e-cigarette exclusive use.

So if you also see a kid if you're a

provider you see a kid is using

e-cigarettes that kids probably using

other tobacco products, almost certainly.

So yes in summary it's complicated right

e-cigarettes are complicated.

Really for me the question is how do we

use policy and product regulation to

amplify any positive effects and

eliminate any negative effects

of e-cigarettes on public health.

And yeah it's hard it's complicated and we could

ask similar questions about other

consumer products right. So we could ask

those questions about alcohol the

majority people can use alcohol without

a problem but for a subset of people

alcohol causes major problems, so how do we

regulate a product that has different

effects on different populations?

Marijuana gosh we'll see we'll let you

know in a few years how that goes.

Prescription opioids we're well aware

that there is a huge problem with opioid

abuse in our country right but also

these are products that are extremely

useful to people who have chronic pain.

And even think about automobiles we need

these things to get around and live our

lives but when used improperly they can

harm or kill us right. So we need to

figure out how to use policy, law and

product regulation to make all of these

consumer products as

good for us as they can be and to

minimize negative consequences of their use.

And here's something interesting so

FDA recently announced a couple months

ago that they want to reduce the amount

of nicotine in cigarettes to a point

where they think there's some sort of

sweet spot where nicotine will be or

sorry cigarettes will be

not particularly addicting for people who

are starting and so it'll be easier to quit.

But you notice that this picture

here this is not of a cigarette this is

of an e-cigarette because at the same

time that they said that they wanted to

decrease nicotine in cigarettes they

also said they want to for people who

are having a hard time quitting they

want to make lower harm products

containing nicotine more available. So

that's very interesting to me what

they're saying is we want to stop using

policy on the thing that causes the

overwhelming amount of death and disease

in our country a cigarette, the burnt tobacco.

When we want to see if we can

move millions of people from the high

harm product to either no smoking

ideally or if they can't do that

instead of them going to a black market we'd

like to see them use a low harm product

that's still has nicotine in it.

And I think that's a very very interesting

idea it'll probably take years to

implement because companies will sue

like crazy and what you actually saw is

this is Altria's stock price and this is

British American Tobacco stock price

Altria aka Philip Morris they changed their name

a few years ago because they thought you know

people don't like Philip Morris and they're right

and what you saw is after

FDA made their announcement their stock

price plummeted same thing in British

American Tobacco and to me when you see

that it's usually good news for Public Health.

So in summary the e-cigarettes ultimate

effect on public health is complex and

evolving as I think I've

hopefully made the point. We can use policy

and regulation to force companies priorities

to align with ours and public health as

much as possible. And the challenge

the public health challenge is how do we

allow smokers to pursue quitting in

whatever way gets them there I do not

care how you quit if you need to stand

on your head for 20 minutes a day and do

the Macarena and that gets you to quit fine

if you need to put on a patch and use an

e-cigarette and use verticin and

go to Fiji I quit that is the number one

thing I do not care how you get there

because the thing is is that when adults

quit fewer kids quit, fewer kids start smoking

essentially it changes norms

it changes supply of the product in the

population. So we need to support adults

to quit and how way they want to get there

while simultaneously avoiding

attracting youth to e-cigarettes and I put

this circular firing squad because if

any of you are in tobacco control you

might know that we've had a lot of

debate about e-cigarettes and their

role in tobacco control and public

health and I think we're doing ourselves

and smokers and non-smokers a disservice

when we waste all of our time debating

things like gateways when in fact all we

need to say is kids shouldn't use

e-cigarettes and adults should quit.

So let's get this number down to zero, how about it?

And I thank you for your attention

please do email me if you'd like

to talk some more.

Thanks

Do we have any questions?

I've seen the chat going on

we did see it a question earlier. So

if someone uses an e-cig with little or

no nicotine just to control the need for

something in their hand is it less

dangerous than smoking tobacco product?

Yes it is.

Do we have any other questions please feel free to

unmute yourself with the icon in the lower left

corner of your zoom screen or send them in

via the chat.

A lot of questions

and feel free to challenge me if you

I have a feeling that for some of you this

might be new and surprising that you

to hear someone a tobacco researcher

say e-cigarettes aren't terribly bad

for you and smokers who are unable or

unwilling to quit should switch.

So please do challenge me I love challenges

Um what about the difference in milligrams in e-cigs?

Right, right, right,

so you're asking about nicotine

concentration. So the question is what about

differences in milligrams? So I'm

going to interpret that to mean you're

asking about different nicotine concentrations.

So different products have higher or lower nicotine

concentrations remember that nicotine is

not the thing that's particularly harmful.

So um nicotine's in a patch

you can buy it over the counter right.

So different products have different

nicotine concentrations the smaller

products the smaller batteries have

higher nicotine concentrations because

they don't do as good a job at

delivering nicotine so they need to have more

nicotine in it to get it into you.

People who have those really big devices that

you know look like pieces of electronics

those can have much lower concentrations

of nicotine because they do a better job

delivering it to the lungs. So you know

a higher nicotine concentration is not inherently

more or less harmful you know it is an

indication someone who was like a

heavier smoker might want a higher

nicotine concentration than a lighter

smoker nicotine itself is adversive

so if you get a lot of it you feel queasy

your heart rate starts to starts to

pound I don't know if anyone saw

it came out years ago and

one of the jokes in it was they were trying

to kill a guy by covering him in nicotine patches

that's theoretically possible in fact

there have been some poisonings from nicotine

fluid that didn't have child safe caps on it

and that's a big problem clearly

something that could be addressed by regulation.

So yeah I hope I answered your question.

Another question does vaping or e-cigarettes

cause popcorn lungs?

Ah good question

so yeah this is a big thing that came out in the

in the news I'm aware of one case

of popcorn lung from vaping and that

is from that that flavoring that gives

like a buttery flavor.

So this is another

obvious opportunity for regulation that

flavoring that has caused popcorn

lung and I don't know what his exposure

was like but I imagine it was pretty heavy

should absolutely not be in that

product right, that that should be

you should use regulations to

remove that. That is once again like I

said low hanging fruit. But when you

think about

yes um you know there was

one guy that was maybe there might be

more people, I am aware of one case

one case study. That one person that is

unacceptable but at the same time when

you can compare it to the 490,000 people

from tobacco you know

it's dwarfed.

I think my point is e-cigarettes

are not harmless they're

harmful and you know you've seen on the

news the batteries exploding and um yeah

these things happen.

But they happen the negative effects

happen in a much lower rate

than cigarette smoking which

happens every day, every hour every second.

Yes

So there's another one,

do you think it's possible to sway adults without

swaying kids this seems a bit difficult

to do without perpetuating the image of smoking

with kids see smoking they think it's cool.

Yeah so good question.

So in the UK they have taken a very

different approach to e-cigarettes so

they have an explicit harm-reduction

slant to their National Health Service

which I guess makes sense they have a

National Health Service right so they're

trying to decrease costs.

They have this thing called the

Nudge Commission which is

trying to kind of slowly affect people's

behavior without them realizing and what

they have been doing is actually

actively promoting you e-cigarettes to

people who call the National quit line

and they have seen significant drops in

cigarette smoking without increases in

youths smoking and the way that they've

done that is they have seriously

controlled access to these products so

they have strong age controls I would

love to see tobacco 21 laws in every

state in the country right now there's

only a few states that do that and I

would like to see those apply to

e-cigarettes as well.

And I think that we

can frame these devices as crutches

to help you stop smoking right.

And I think

I can't speak for kids I don't know what

they think is cool or uncool but I think

if we're able to speak honestly about

these products as a thing that people

who are smoking can use to quit.

and not as a cool fun thing you use at parties.

I think we can do it UK is doing it

you know and then,

and here I'm going to be super controversial.

How many kids are we willing

to allow to start using e-cigarettes,

in exchange for adults quitting?

I don't know. But the

reality is that in the public health

on a public health level we're not going

to have a situation were absolutely zero

kids are going to use e-cigarettes right

it's just it's not the reality of public health.

So my feeling right now is

that we use all the stuff that we

know works in tobacco control, we

continued attacks, we continue to regulate,

we use warnings they use media campaigns

we get tabacoc 21 and every state, we make

chantix or varenicline over the counter

which is something that I'm working on

which is the best treatment for smoking

and let me know you know we make NRT

more accessible, we do all of these things

but perhaps we also say and hey

if you can't quit any other way

use e-cigarettes and then once we get to the

point where smoking is a very low

prevalent situation then we focus on

e-cigarettes then we say okay let's

get rid of these things too because

they're not harmless and now they're

causing a problem. But we have

limited resources in public health and I

really feel strongly that we need to

focus on the thing that causes almost

half a million deaths every year.

So a doctor asked

if a patient comes in says they smoke a

pack a day how many milligrams

is the equivalent for an e-cig?

That is hard to say because it depends on the device.

So definitely that person

shouldn't be using the little devices

the little cigarette looking devices,

but that person could use the

second-generation device with a

milligram with a nicotine concentration

of like 18, 1.8 milligrams per

milliliter or they could use one of those

big devices where it's like 6.

So it really depends on the device

what I recommend

and this is gonna sound crazy once again

for a public health person is that people

smokers who want to quit go talk to

smokers who have quit using e-cigarettes

and see what their advice is see what

their process has been. And a lot of

those people are utter evangelists about

e-cigarettes they're saying you know

this thing saved my life and they are

happy to talk about it. So that's my advice.

Kelli Goatly-Seals from the state

said that there was a recent study by QRI

talking about the aldehydes in e-cigs from the

flavoring, are there any other harm

markers that you didn't discuss today?

Yea so there's a few things. So there's

well known formaldehyde study there's

they do they produce particulate matter

PM 2.5 which you definitely don't want

to be inhaling

once again not harmless right

there is absolutely harm associated with

these things. So let's see, acrolein,

choline, formaldehyde yeah I mean

some of them have TNAs in them

but once again in almost every case

there are much lower levels than cigarettes.

The famous formaldehydes study that

came out from some people, I believe at

UC San Diego that or maybe San Diego State,

they essentially what they did

is they really kind of like burned an

e-cigarette they cranked it up to

like its highest ability to produce heat

and then had little to no liquid in it and

then were able to produce a lot of

formaldehyde off that product and kind

of the metaphor that I use is like

imagine you put a piece of toast in the

toaster and crank it up to its

highest setting then you put down and

then when it wants to come up you're like

put it down again and then when it want to come

put it down again and then you go

here is your piece of toast and like

no one we're actually going to eat that

piece of toast right it's burnt

it tastes bad

and that's the same thing. So that

product people are probably not using

inhaling that amount of formaldehyde

because it's averse it tastes terrible

but it's not acceptable that that

product can produce that amount of formaldehyde

it's not okay. We can use regulation to

put guardrails on these products and

make sure that they're not able to produce

toxic levels of anything.

It's the beauty of regulation.

And then same question from a couple people

second hand.

Ah second hand so yeah that's a big thing

depending on the setting of the e-cigs

sometimes it's super visible right if

this we get huge clouds of aerosol.

I am not aware of any studies...

Whoa there's some

crazy stuff going on next door

Oh okay alright sorry

so I'm not aware of any studies

that have shown negative

exposures from secondhand vapor.

So the last study I remember looking at they

essentially put a person in like a

column like a glass column pumped full of

aerosol and they were able to detect, so

nicotine in that person's blood but they

weren't able to detect any other

biomarkers of harm and that's probably

because if you think about a cigarette and

there's always sidestream smoke right because

it's burning, it's always burning. With an e-cig

that doesn't happen it only

produces aerosol when you take a drag

off of it and exhale.

And it also it's an aerosol so

it dissipates pretty quickly it kind of

falls to the ground. So I am not I guess

what I'm saying is the data is not

supportive that secondhand aerosol is

particularly harmful. The best advice

though is that certainly pregnant women

and kids especially infants and people

with respiratory disease should not be

exposed to this because there might be

some harms that we just haven't gotten to yet.

And I think best-case scenario is

that it should not be allowed indoors

just in general.

I am more ambivalent about multi-unit housing

I'm very supportive of smoking bans and

multi-unit housing I'm not convinced

that e-cigarette aerosol can travel far

enough for it to affect neighbors

in multi-unit housing. So, but I'm open to

science that would suggest otherwise

that's just my best guess right now.

All of this is my best guess by the way.

As things come out you make, you change your

ideas right and that's like what

happens when you're a scientist.

Okay so I

think we're over time.

So are we done?

Good yeah

Okay

Thank you so much everyone for

joining us today.

Bye! Thank you, email me!

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét