Medical Release Form Printable: Fill & Download for Free

Writing has become democratized and concomitantly has had some new rules.Democratized: My editor took me out to lunch celebrate the release of my latest book. “What are you celebrating.” My editor grinned, “Kate’s latest book.” Our server said, “I was thinking of writing a book.”Whenever I hear that I sincerely and invariably think, “Good for you!” A decade or two ago the server’s statement was not the automatic response. The response is “I can do that, too.” Anyone can, right? All you need is a word processor. Some software for novel writing is all you need. Just write? Right?The only real word processor in existence is between your ears.And man, I think how much work writing, rewriting, proofing, checking, and publishing takes.New Rules: This plays out in writing groups, which also have changed in the last decade or two or three. Writing groups are helpful and it’s truly a missed opportunity not to go to them or to writer’s conferences. That said the rules have taken on.You don’t get certified as a professional writer in the way a doctor, or lawyers, or CPA do. There are programs the have burst on the scene and there are writing coaches and agents and no one is board certified because there is no board of certification. It’s not like deciding to go to Harvard Medical School and by sticking with it you are a medical doctor in four years.Crit groups can be very good and I’ve been in some super ones, but they can also be exercises in sadism and poppycock. “No one uses adverbs any more.” “No one writes in third person any more.” “No great writers ever head hop.” “Show, don’t tell.” “I would never write a novel on that subject.” “Who made you an expert of Japan?”Writers are rehearsing elevator pitches and while it is good to be able to talk knowledgeable and succinctly with potential publishers, sometime the tail is wagging the dog. More time is spent pitching than writing. We see pitchmen, not authors flooding conferences. And again, to not attend is a big mistake, yet the tone has changed. So has the industry.Traditional Publishers: A few decades go there there were hundreds of publishing house in New York City and others elsewhere. Most have been gobbled up by the big five—kind of like all the wineries are owned by Gallo, it only looks like its a bunch of mom and pop outfits. Granted there is a lot of autonomy within any one of the big five, but this has led to a different sort of gate keeping.e-Books: This is a double-edged sword for everyone, reader and author alike. When I first started blogging, most people did not know what the word meant. It was a small pond, but getting an audience was not hard. Today, like my servers who was going to write a book, too, the barriers to entry have been lowered vastly. e-books can vary from workmanlike and polished all the way to disasters. Of course the big five have a mixed view of this. On-demand printing such as the Espresso Book Machine that is an instant bindery is on the horizon.I came out of Hewlett-Packard in the days there was one or two laser printers in a facility of a thousand people. Today many houses have two or more inkjet or laserjet printers—color no less—in a home. The Espresso Machine is just around the corner and instead of reading my next novel in pixels on Kindle or similar device, or waiting for an on-demand (JIT) service like Lightning Source to express my latest book to you, we will do it like Harvard Business School’s Harvard Business Review does it and send you a printable PDF and with your own Espresso-like book machine, you’ll be reading a hardback or paperback in minutes, curled up and relaxing in your favorite reading spot or while sitting on the Metro North headed into Grand Central.Disruptive Technology: So, following the classic model of disruptive technology that Clayton Christensen first identified and popularized in his books about the Innovator’s Dilemma, publishing is going through a disruption and revenue models are shifting.Many of us saw this when Borders Book Store went under. As a former Barnes and Nobel manager I can say that the B&N store of 20 years ago is a shade of what it once was. Amazon has eaten the lunches of many of those stores. Who remembers the Paperback Book Smith store in Harvard Square. Gone! The Harvard Coop book store—run by B&N! B&N also runs the University of Chicago Book Store.But like in most classical disruptions, the channels of distribution will change as the low-end disruptor enters the market and as Christensen so wisely pointed out, they will compete against non-consumption. His example of the crummy transistor radio finding a market among teens in the 1950s/1960s with lousy Sony and Panasonic sound was a delightful thing because mom and dad would not let us listen to rock and roll on the family RCA or Magnavox set with the fabulous sound. And then the tail wagged the dog. Sony moved upmarket and RCA and Magnavox disappeared and many young readers here will gave to do a search to understand those dead brand names.In another Quora question, the OP asked if electronic books will drive out print. So the answer is yes and no. Print will exist. It is the delivery system that will change.A cottage industry will spring up. My business partner and I are in it, which will make sure the self-published books are as workmanlike as any-and that is what the big five provides—but that’s not all. One piece (and there are more) remains and that is knowing which books are “good.”Right now some newspapers and magazines review some books and there are bookstores that have the best sellers (deeply discounted, sometimes sold below cost) staring the shopper in the face as they enter the store.This is much like before cable TV and 218 channels. Back in the day there were maybe three network channels and half a dozen UHF channels and we could get all our programming out of TV Guide. Not any more. TV Guide is a button on the remote.Who will be the book TV Guide? Maybe we can barely read all the books when the NY Times or New York Review of Books makes recommendations. As the distribution channels morph, what will be needed are very intelligent search programs that will sift through the torrent of books and connect readers and reading communities with these titles and with honest reviews.The past decade has brought about changes, but you ain’t seen nothing yet.And any angel funders out there can message me in private and we’ll get this baby rolling.

I doubt the medical community's comment would be printable so I'll take a whack at it.The "medical community's" profits are spread among a large group of companies and organizations.The cure's profits would concentrated in one company or organization. Ignoring all other reasons for wanting to cure cancer, that one by itself makes conspiracy theories concerning cancer cures being suppressed ridiculous.

Since the largest (7,000 patients) and newest study by none other than the CDC found that only about 1% of the people coming down ith CoVid-19 were smokers, I have edited the question somewhat so it is more open to what is currently out there. tSee the CDC Study itself at Preliminary Estimates of the Prevalence of Selected Underlying... (Preliminary Estimates of the Prevalence of Selected Underlying...) to verify both my claim and my reason for rephrasing your question to be more accurate.The original question was phrased more with the intrinsic assumption that smokers were indeed more likely to suffer from and spread the coronavirus. If indeed that were the case, and if indeed such a prohibition of tobacco products was shown to be vital to protecting the spread of the disease to nonsmokers throughout the world, then such governmental action might be within the realm of consideration. Unfortunately, what we see too often in today’s real-world is that situations like the coronavirus are simply taken advantage of by Antismokers to attack smokers through newly discovered vulnerabilities. While I do not believe the OP meant to do so in this case, I have seen it being done elsewhere over the last few weeks.* MJM, who’d also to point to the cute trick played, not by the OP but by the author of the link that likely spurred the question to begin with: Right near the beginning of that linked article, it says “smokers who developed COVID-19 were 14 times more likely to develop severe disease.” The link was to a populist article in *SkyNews*, NOT to a medical journal study. To compound the problem, the study supposedly referenced by the article to “The Chinese Medical Journal” simply does not exist in any issue of that journal from the date referenced to the current issue. See: Chinese Medical Journal (Chinese Medical Journal) for verification if you like.Additionally, the linked Skynet article had the same feeling of being a bit too “slick” to be just a random piece. It felt more like a part of the well-funded antismoking propaganda effort that I’ve seen all too often over the years while researching in this area. Basically the article contained a number of antismoking “talking points”, including a quote from a public figure warning indeed that smokers are endangering everyone around them with their nasty coronavirus smoke: Here are the phrases as Googled:"Professor John Newton" "those around you"You will find that the story is **not** a one-hit wonder. On just the front page of Google results, you'll find the story-base of this Question repeated at:US (US)news, politics, opinion and sport from the i newspaper (news, politics, opinion and sport from the i newspaper)Home | The Star (Home | The Star)Home | Blackpool Gazette (Home | Blackpool Gazette)Home Page | Al Arabiya English (Home Page | Al Arabiya English)News, sport and local information, family notices, jobs, homes and cars near Alloa (News, sport and local information, family notices, jobs, homes and cars near Alloa)The US Sun (The US Sun)Talking Retail: Grocery & product news for independent retailers (Talking Retail: Grocery & product news for independent retailers)Daily Times (Daily Times)KPRC AM 950 - Real Texas, Real Talk (KPRC AM 950 - Real Texas, Real Talk)Home - The Guide Liverpool (Home - The Guide Liverpool)Home | Milton Keynes Citizen (Home | Milton Keynes Citizen)Proper Local Radio (Proper Local Radio)Cornwall's Pirate FM (Cornwall's Pirate FM)Wired-Gov (Wired-Gov)The Irish Post - latest news for the Global Irish (The Irish Post - latest news for the Global Irish)Home | Home | Buzz.ie (Home | Buzz.ie)Metro (Metro)Breaking News, Sport, Features and Video (Breaking News, Sport, Features and Video)NHS Stop Smoking Service (NHS Stop Smoking Service)Home - UKVIA (Home - UKVIA)Today on Medscape (Today on Medscape)Albilad (Albilad)Nicotine Science and Policy (Nicotine Science and Policy)Money - Financial & Business News, Stocks | This is Money (Money - Financial & Business News, Stocks | This is Money)Home - The Fly (Home - The Fly)The Station that Loves Surrey and Hampshire (The Station that Loves Surrey and Hampshire)Euro Weekly Newspaper (Euro Weekly Newspaper)Employment Law and Health & Safety Specilaists - Key Group Services (Employment Law and Health & Safety Specilaists - Key Group Services)Spire FM (Spire FM)(The specific hits change a bit from one search iteration to another, but as you’ll see, that’s not important!)Try repeating the search with Google showing “all similar matches” and you’ll find that this nonsense warning people about smokers and the deadliness of their corona-laced smoke“ has been featured **ON ROUGHLY THREE HUNDRED WEBSITES!** This is a classic result of a well-funded professional press release aimed at a favorite target: smokers.I may not have the funding to pay for a counter-press release, but at least I can respond in places like this.While originally I had a great deal of annoyance with the OP, I now realize, in seeing some of his responses here that he actually more likely shared in being a victim of a very slick and heavily funded campaign that simply succeeded in “weaponizing” him to do their dirty work. In recognition of that I’d like to invite him to read a few things from the other side of the aisle, while recognizing that they’re going to be saying a few things quite different from what he’s seen over the years in the paid propaganda out there. I would have done this privately but Q’s PMs seem to be glitched at the moment and I don’t want to simply leave all the expansions/changes up in my answer without some explanation.Soooooooo (heh, my final “So” expansion), Bob, I’ll offer two areas of reading that you might find interesting in countering what you see all too often out there. The first is to a somewhat “populist” style printable handout meant to help small pub owners in defending their life’s work against attacks by a huge and well-funded machine. It’s writing in very “plain language” style with lots of BIG PRINT and bullet points etc, but the points it makes are all very carefully researched and I’ll happily stand behind any of them for questions. Here it is: Smoking Ban LiesThe second is to readings in one of my book sites. Simply go to TobakkoNacht! and click on to read the Author’s Preface image in the middle down a bit on the page, If you’d like to read a bit more of the substance at the base of my stance, click on the “Book Selections” tab under the front cover image and check out Stratistics, The Giblets, and Of Vapors And Vapors.OK… that’s it for now Bob, and sorry about my initial posting being a bit harsher than usual in tone. ’Twas at the end of a long day ’n night where I saw many other less well-intentioned folks writing things that I had to contest with.MJM, who’ll try to message you again if the glitch heals! :>