Flu Vaccine Consent Form In Spanish: Fill & Download for Free

In 1918 health & sanitation were the responsibility of the Provincial Governments. The “British” response (policy change) can be noted only by about 1920.India had been suffering the Third plague pandemic - Wikipedia since the late nineteenth century. The foreign powers had insisted on epidemic disease control in order to continue to do business with India.The result of those negotiations was the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 - Wikipedia - which is what's being currently used in India. The model is the same.The problem in dealing with the plague was that control had to be under under Indian elected sanitation commissioners & elected provincial governments. In 1896 terrorist action against plague controllers had shown that domestic efforts must be by consent. Chapekar brothers - WikipediaThere have been no substantial modern studies on this issue - but we have a number of issues. Plague mortality at roughly 500k a year, a chronic cholera epidemic & - in this year - bad rains & an enfeebled peasantry. Lack of food & comorbidities make it hard to pin down as the sole cause.We can see the first wave of the Spanish Flu - relatively mild going across India, then by the August the mutated second wave entered Bombay. In British provinces, maybe 5 million and an unknown number in the Indian States.The disease did not penetrate to the east and south. But we don't know why.British failures can be listed; the army had a key role in sanitation but was still serving overseas and in frontier war. The second wave coincided with the return of troops from Europe.India In The Years (1917-1918) : Williams L. F. Rushbrook : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveAbove is the handbook provided to British politicians on Indian developments. (Search influenza - about page 184)It discusses the difficulties; lack of medical care, the highly mortality of the young, the failure of the monsoon meaning people were hungry and weak. & Refusal to obey social distancing for customary reasons.Provincial governments were aided by Central agencies to open free dispensaries of medicine & milk in affected towns. In many places Provincial Governments distributed free grain because the price had risen to famine level.They did the same disease awareness campaigns as now. Both by government and charity bodies. Much of this was ignored.50–80% of India got the flu. Whether you lived or not depended. If you were old and rich - got the first wave…you'd be fine. But a young person who got hit by the second wave when hungry and with cholera was sure to die.Comorbidities.By the next year, better measure were undertaken. The Indian cholera epidemic had made people used to getting vaccinated. The flu vaccination was provided free or at cost, preventing recurrence in the East and South.The British admit that medical facilities were very poor (tax was only 7% of GDP). But did not think it would make a difference. The crucial factors were hunger, price gouging & comorbidities.For economic & social reasons, the British Sanitarian movement had been very active in India for 50 years. They believed that the Indian people needed education in the disease, and in public health. But they were still focused on plague suppression, cholera inoculation, the deaths of 2 million babies a year…India In 1919 (1920) : Williams L. F. Rushbrook : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveThe problem is that it had to be elected Indian politicians who transmitted the information to the rest of the population. (Except in military areas).In 1920 the Central Health Board is created, it worked to educate the people - but ultimately failed to convince the Indians to create full local Provincial and local bodies to focus on epidemiology. However, their efforts succeeded in stopping the disease re-emerging in 1920. Mobile Epidemiology Board would focus on a range of measures in affected towns; food, medicine, education, research, etc.Sadly - later discontinued under the Republic.Given the 50 years of fight against epidemic diseases - the decision in 1918 had already been made that the fight against the disease was in the hands of directly elected Indians. Politicians like Vallabhbhai Patel - Wikipedia made their names as Sanitation Commissioner. In his success, he then gets elected as the Mayor for 3 terms.Effective Commissioners and charities were funded further by the central government - ie. the Social Service League.The third plank of the British response is from international NGO's - ie. the creation of the Indian Red Cross, funded and linked into the international network. Or the National Association for the Provision of Female Medical Aid to the Women of India (funded by the Countess Dufferin) - & the creation of Women's Medical Colleges in order that the message gets through to women.Essentially; under EDA 1897 - the Indian Empire did exactly the same as the Republic today. Then - as now - competence of local departments was key. Many regions of India still suffer epidemics and have active, competent departments.Then - as now - some people were very well educated on social distancing.Then - as now - wealth was the greatest help. Sadly; the advice from 1918 “remain calm and go to sleep” is harder to follow, because Opium was still legal, normal & without stigma. The USA changed that. #legaliseitThe evolution of pandemic influenza: evidence from India, 1918–19India In 1919 : Williams L. F. Rushbrook : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveSuch information is forgotten in India; HRD wants universities to study how India handled 1918 Spanish flu, revived economySadly; the last ten years has seen an explosion of anti British racism in India (since those who remember die). They erased the pandemic from memory in order to call it “famine”.Now they want to say that the combined deaths of two waves, the plague, the cholera and a failed harvest is all “Spanish flu” - and that the British did not do anything. How British Negligence During the 1918 Flu Pandemic Led to the Strengthening of the Anti-Colonial MovementThat's ignorant. I think I've described why.

I’m against me taking this vaccine so I’ll answer (I’m not in to protesting, per se)The discussion of a vaccine being mandatory or engineered in to my life by way of restricting me earning or spending my money in the manner I choose, or restricting where I go is ludicrous and an unwarranted imposition on my lifeIf the vaccine you take works, why do I have to take it?If the vaccine you take doesn’t work, why do I have to take it?if the virus mutates (as COVID family viruses do) do you think I should take a vaccine every year (bare in mind, in the U.K. the National Health Service (NHS) offer a free flu (aka Spanish Flu/influenza) jab to at risk groups. To date the nhs has, year on year, selected the wrong vaccine for strain of flu that becomes most prevalent. it maybe the strain guarded against works, but it makes no difference, another strain takes its place to do the killingalso the fatality rate is meh. At its peak fatality C-19 killed 7000 people a week for two weeks. Sounds bad? Normal flu (from memory) in 2001(ish) and 2014/15(ish) killed 15000 a week, also for two weeks, and more recently in 2018 flu caused an additional 50,000 deaths over the “flu season” (which is in winter, in the U.K., and has similarity to a lock down…the people who stay in and only go out when they have to, seem to be the ones who get sick the most .Get down the pub till you talk to the porcelain god armatige shanks! You’ll be fine)I’m in a high risk group (asthma, high blood pressure, sub clinical diabetes, family history of dropping dead bang on age 52 from heart attack) if I chose to shield my self, my choice, no? Shouldn’t bother you if I do or I dont.boo hoo I’m being selfish…yes I’m being selfish about my behaviour, not yours! why do you think you get to be selfish about someone else’s behaviour…sod off, you do you, how ever you like.I’ll turn it around to try demonstrate my point. “No one is allowed to go to hospital if they get Covid-19, hospitals should be kept clear of untreatable disease so normal function like routine operations for transplants births mental health clinics etc, so go die at home” …shity if I think you should do that, even though it’s more valid (based on death rate) than lock down and insisting other people are forced to vaccinate.protesting isn’t my style. At the moment it’s a few stupid politicians talking about mandatory vaccines in open letters, a few columnists opining their opinions. But politicians are slimy bastards, and the back door approach, “no flights no jobs, without vaccine” is very possible, is via the “back door” without consent. Or even a chat up and a drink.no. thank. you.if I haven’t pissed you off, yet, for getting to decide what I do……Trump 2020! 🇬🇧 🇺🇸I hope he gets in to U.K. politics just to break the stagnancy of U.K. politics, I’ll vote for him happily! But I won’t mandate that you have to. I’m nice like that

Thanks for the answer request, Javed. For all I know partial vaccination may be the best idea, at least in terms of social responsibility, though I really think few individuals have better odds vaccinating, unless they get no more than 2 at a time, and space them well out, and are sure of their gut health.To counter the unsupported statements of belief in other responses, here is some information that has convinced me, though I have medical reasons (allergies) not to be vaccinated, not to expect others to play what is typically a worse bet on my supposed behalf:First, I’m definitely not anti-vaccine. I think they should be available to all who want them, and with public funds, at least for those who can’t afford them, at that.However, I don’t view the matter of forcing them on people in quite the same light, and that people must be fully informed of their risks. I will present my reasons, which are rather detailed, so get comfy, and perhaps have a nice, healthy drink. Some may even be shocking, because they’re not widely known, and certainly not publicized (I wonder why?). The info certainly shocked me when I first saw it, and it actually took me a while to come to terms with it, however hawkish I am about critical thinking.It would be nice if this could be stated in a short post, but most people ignore links that might tell them what they don’t want to know, so I deemed it necessary to include a lot of actual info, and here we go.First let’s consider this hypothetical scenario:Say you have 100 million magic pills you can give people that would keep them from getting sick at all for 10 years, but a saboteur is caught poisoning them, telling you they had laced 50,000 of them with enough poison to cause harm, 10,000 with enough to send people to the emergency room, 1000 with enough to permanently disable people to some degree or another, and 400 with enough poison to kill people, but scattered the poisoned pills among the batch, and they don’t look any different, so couldn’t identify which were tainted, then takes one from the small pile which only has 3 left, and soon dies.The piles of the small percentage remaining are tested, as well as some random pills among the entire contaminated batch, and the results confirm his statement. Not only that, but the manufacturer has run out of the raw materials, so the magic pill won’t be available again for several more years at best.Would you offer these “magic pills” to the public at all, knowing 400 people, mostly children, are likely to die?Would you offer them to people, while fully informing the people of the risks?Would you sell them to people, while fully informing them of the risks?Would you coerce people to take these pills and pay for them, while not informing them of the risks, aside from a vague statement about a “very, very slight chance” of a “very rare” adverse reaction?Well, the latter just about sums up forced vaccination, except the figures are more optimistic. At least according to effectiveness data (some vaccines even had no noticeable effect on one’s survival prospects, such as last year’s poorly matched flu shot), and reported adverse events associated with vaccines on the CDC register of such reports, which you can read for yourself here: Search VAERS DatabaseIn 2016 alone, 59,117 vaccine injury reports were added, which included 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations and 10,284 emergency room visits.And vaccines do contain poisons. They’re called adjuvants, which are added to the vaccines to stimulate the immune response, and include such wonderful stuff as aluminum and sometimes even mercury compounds. Evidently they sometimes stimulate the response a bit too much.And there’s a strong possibility the injury figures may be optimistic by a factor of as great as 500 or more. So says the following ER nurse, who goes under a pseudonym because he doesn’t want to jeopardize his career, and noticed a lot of non-accident emergency admissions of people who had just been vaccinated reported that “he” was the only among a staff of over 300, possibly as many as 500, who reported such admissions.Not only that, others on the staff, were outright dismissive of the injuries, even when the evidence was right in front of them and clear as day, writing them up as “of unknown origin.And if you, like me, are not religious, it’s illogical dismiss the info because it’s on a site with a religious leaning. It’s not wrong to regard murder or stealing as wrong because Christians consider them wrong. Hitler liking dogs didn’t make dog lovers evil.ER Nurse Shares His Experiences With Vaccine ReactionsHere are some juicy excerpts:1) “I was training a nursing student, about to graduate, on their E.R. experience rotation in nursing school. This student and I floated up to triage to cover the triage nurse for a break. I was quizzing them on what to ask and look for as a triage nurse on pediatric kids that came through. I made a point about asking about immunizations right out the gates. The student was puzzled, and asked why, and I told the student because we see vaccine reactions every day and it's their job to catch it, alert the doctor and the parents, and report it to VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System: https://vaers.hhs.gov/index ].Some higher power apparently smiled on my attempt to open the eyes of another nurse I guess, because not even ten minutes later, a woman brought her child up to the counter. Sudden onset super high fever and lethargy.I asked if the child was up to date on vaccination. The mother replied he had them just a few hours ago.I glanced at the student, who looked shocked and looked back at me in disbelief. I nodded, told them to remember this, and then took the mom and her child to finish the triage in back. When I was done I came back and sat down with the student, and asked what he learned that night so far.The first response: ‘What I was told about vaccines wasn't true’.I couldn’t have said it better.”And this:2) “But here's the more disturbing part.For all the cases I've seen, I have NEVER seen any medical provider report them to VAERS. I have filed VAERS reports. But I am the ONLY nurse I have EVER met that files VAERS reports.I also have NEVER met a doctor that filed a VAERS report.Mind you, I have served in multiple hospitals across multiple states, alongside probably well over a hundred doctors and probably 300-400+ nurses.I've worked in big hospitals (San Francisco Bay Area Metro 40 bed ER,Las VegasNV Metro 44 bed ER) and small hospitals (Rural access 2 bed ER, remote community 4 bed ER) and everything in between.When I say NEVER, I mean NEVER.I have even made a point of sitting in the most prominent spot at the nurses station filling out a VAERS report to make sure as many people saw me doing it as possible to generate the expected "what are you doing" responses to get that dialog going with people.And in every case, if a nurse approached me, their response was "I've never done that" or "I didn't know we could do that" or, worse "What is VAERS?" which was actually the most common response.The response from doctors? Silence. Absolute total refusal to engage in discussion or to even acknowledge what I was doing or what VAERS was.The big take away from that?VAERS is WOEFULLY under reported. I am PROOF of that.”(End of excerpts. I hope his trainees are filing VAERS reports)Even CDC itself correspondence has expressed concerns vaccine injuries could be under-reported by a factor of 100. If vaccine injury is indeed under-reported by a factor of 100 to 500 – if indeed there is even one nurse or doctor who reports such occurrences in every hospital - that would correspond to about 6 to 30 million vaccine injuries, including about 100,000 to 500,000 permanent disabilities, and about 40,000 to 200,000 vaccine injury deaths in 2016 that were erroneously reported as “of unknown cause”. That’s one very serious epidemic, and possibly worse than polio had ever done!Are we trying to the headache by cutting off the head?Those figures are more in line with my personal observations than the VAERS data. About 1 in 50 people I know have recently reported some sort of significant vaccine injury to themselves or a family member. It’s a small sample size, but that would be equivalent to 6 million among the US population of about 300 million. And that’s only those who have mentioned vaccine injuries. Who knows how many did not post about any such injuries? I’m infrequently on social media.And it may be even worse. According to this article, automated reporting test suggests as many as 1 in 10 may suffer vaccine reactions: How Much Do You Really Know About Vaccine Safety?Here’s the excerpt: “In 2010, the CDC had the brilliant idea of hiring a company to automate VAERS in such a way that any potential vaccine reactions reported to doctors participating in the Harvard Pilgrim HMO would automatically be uploaded into the VAERS database. What did they find? Preliminary data showed that out of 376,452 individuals given 45 different vaccines, 35,570 possible vaccine reactions were identified.”So why hasn’t the CDC acted upon this? Whose interests are they looking out for?But what about the diseases coming back? Here I have I have some good news to impart: THEY’RE NOT -- at least as long as a vast majority of people are well fed and good sanitation is maintained.I know we can look in any 19th century graveyard, and see so many who died as kids. Ever heard the expression “Dickensian”? What do we associate with that term? Filth, overcrowding, and malnutrition on a massive scale were the norm in those not so good days. Want to drink water straight from the local polluted river and see if you get sick? I hope not. But that’s what people did then.In those days people had no running water, let alone sanitary running water, surgeons would merely wipe their instruments on the same filthy cloth they wiped them on the last time. Malnutrition and even famines were rampant. Even most of the rich didn’t bathe, as it was still associated with “Roman decadence”. I’m not making this up.Here’s a graph of some factual, referenced data on the death rates of various diseases since 1838 in England and Wales, right from government statistics (click to magnify for a clearer view):Surprised? I certainly was when I first encountered these facts. Now does it look like vaccines deserve the lion’s share of the credit for the decline of infectious diseases?The measles death rate had gone down by 99.96% from its Dickensian peak to well under 1 death per year by the time the vaccine was introduced, and was still declining.Scarlet fever, which killed people at a higher rate than measles in the filthy, malnourished old days, has been virtually eradicated with no vaccination program at all. Likewise for typhus.The trends for all serious childhood infectious diseases have been about the same, regardless of when or even if vaccination programs had begun. The data indicate vaccines had far less of an effect on the death rates due to disease than economic and social conditions such as depressions, and wars and their aftermath. Infectious disease has sharply declined because of decades of improved nutrition and everyday public health. It’s not 1960, let alone 1860, any more.So, as long as people are well fed and decent public health is maintained, do we have any reason to expect Dickensian epidemics will ensue if people don’t vaccinate their children if they don’t want to? Let alone even if nobody vaccinates?The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that outbreaks will remain very rare, isolated, on a very small scale, and easily contained. And if such outbreaks occur, we have the vaccines available.The bad news is that if public health goes (ahem) down the toilet, vaccines won’t help much. Even if they protect against the diseases they’re supposed to, other diseases and even mutations of the same diseases will break out that unvaccinated people may be better able to fight off naturally, their immune systems having developed more naturally.One of several examples of similar evidence is in this controlled survey of medical records of 405 vaccinated and 261 unvaccinated kids:Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. childrenHere’s a table of some of the findings (please excuse the quality, the best I could do is a picture of the computer screen, but it will be clearer if you click on it to magnify):According to those medical records the vaccinated children were found to have a 19% (about 1 in 5, 44.0% to 24.9%) greater chance of having been diagnosed with chronic health issues than the unvaccinated children, 4.7 times the rates of autism and learning disabilities (4.7% to 1.0% for each), and over 3 times the rates of neuro-developmental disorders (10.1 % to 3.1%) and allergies (22.6% to 6.9%) as the unvaccinated kids.Perhaps more surprisingly, the vaccinated children had a 20% higher rate of sick visits to their doctor within the past year (36% to 16%) and a 5 times higher rate (5% greater chance) of pneumonia (6.4% to 1.2%) than the unvaccinated children.But the sick visits could also have been due to a greater inclination to treat illness at home, so I’d take that one with a big pinch of salt. Also, the survey was not controlled for diet, which may be better for the unvaccinated families, as one would expect them to have a more holistic orientation. But isn’t better overall health what really matters, however it’s achieved?Yes, there are some serious diseases that aren’t as rare as others, such as the flu and whooping cough. But the flu vaccine for last winter’s deadly outbreak was very ineffective. Vaccinated and unvaccinated people died at about the same rate, and the vaccine reduced the odds of getting it by only about 10%. Correcting vitamin D deficiency did way better.I think that flu bug had a go at me, as both my mom and brother, with whom I’d been in contact, got it, but I don’t know for sure because I smacked some bug down with elderberry, extra zinc, and the most massive amounts of buffered vitamin C I’ve ever taken, about 50 grams per day (over 800 times the RDA), which is about twice the amount I could usually take without getting the runs when shutting down a typical cold or flu. I didn’t really fall ill, but had some of the sort of elimination symptoms one typically gets at the end of an illness, such as coughing up some stuff.A large percentage of kids who have died from whooping cough were also vaccinated. That vaccine is another that is not particularly effective, and children often have come down with it very soon after receiving the vaccine, which suggests the possibility the vaccine itself may simulate the disease a bit too well.Vaccines seem to do a much better job of preventing people from getting diseases than surviving them. Maybe other aspects of the immune system are the real keys to recovery from disease.“But scientists and doctors overwhelmingly support vaccination”. Well, at least they do in public. You read about the levels of denial encountered by the ER nurse. There are many who question vaccination, but few dare to go public.Here’s the story of one courageous doctor who did go public after noticing the onset of kidney failure in numerous people who received the H1N1 flu shot, and the Spanish inquisition-like opposition she dealt with:http://drsuzanne.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/author-intro-Suzanne-Humphries.pdfShe has become a true “anti-vaxxer”; her observations having convinced her that vaccines cause many times more harm than good these days, and will continue to do so as long as proper living conditions are maintained.After extensively researching all the available info and thinking it through, agree with her on the facts, but am too pro-choice regarding health decisions to be an anti-vaxxer. But I very staunchly believe people deserve to be fully informed of the benefits, limitations and risks of vaccination, all but the benefits of which most people don’t become aware of until it’s too late, which is why I wrote all this.Medicine evolves. Not that long ago medical professionals forced homosexuals and people with mental health issues to undergo torturous electric shock treatment, which disabled and killed some, to “cure” them “for the common good”. It may seem strange now, but most really believed they were doing a great service to humanity. Anyone who spoke out against it was “anti-science”, an “idiot”, a “quack” (if a medical professional), “ignorant”, “dangerous”, or whatever. Does any of this language look familiar?Doctors and scientists used to assure us asbestos, DDT, and even cigarette smoking were perfectly safe. Many “strange ads from the past” slideshows show ads such as: “More Doctors recommend Tareyton cigarettes”.I’m a lover of science. I have a master’s degree in atmospheric science, with a focus on Great Lakes weather. Way back in 1983, as a grad student I wrote an adorably passionate paper about climate change, or the “greenhouse effect”, as it was then known, pleading for a transition to sustainable energy production sooner than later. You can probably find it by doing an internet search of my name and the journal, Environmental Conservation. But I have also observed that scientists have an inherent bias in favor of the “high tech” solution to any problem. It’s perfectly understandable scientists would root for technology. Except that it’s not always scientific, in a true sense, to do so.And then there are social aspects to the question. What if people are forced to vaccinate and larger numbers of kids are harmed, and even disabled or killed by treatments forced upon the kids against their will?Even based on the most optimistic vaccine injury estimates, anti-vax sentiment would inevitably sharply increase, and get angrier, perhaps even violent, as parents regard the doctors who forced this holocaust (in the words of one RFK Jr.) upon them to be criminals against humanity and even murderers.Guess what? That’s already beginning to happen in India, and “philanthropist” Bill Gates, who has invested massively in vaccines, is on the hot seat for his experiments that harmed and killed many poor children without the consent of their parents or having informed the kids themselves, and for conflicts of interest in doing so. You can read the ugly details here:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/controversial-vaccine-studies-why-is-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-under-fire-from-critics-in-india/articleshow/41280050.cmI’d rather not go there. Better to let people do as they please, and let the results sort things out. If outbreaks increase, more people would vaccinate without anyone having to “twist their arms”.So here’s the best info I can have in a form I could quickly copy and paste. Kudos to all who want to make an informed choice on the matter and respect other people’s choices.