Re: Misleading, coercive, and treacherous road signs in the [county name] area
I am writing to you regarding an array of highly unorthodox electronic road signage that has recently appeared in my locality. As a motorist of many years’ experience, I am accustomed to seeing electronic road signs on my journeys, furnishing me with useful travel information, such as updates on traffic; warnings of accidents; and speed limit reminders. This is all very salient, and potentially even life-saving, information for motorists, so I have always been happy to subsidise the production of these signs with my taxes.
However, these signs, which hard-working tax-payers such as myself pay for, and which motorists rely on to keep them and their passengers safe during journeys, have, in recent weeks, desisted from sharing vital travel updates, and, rather and instead, have launched what can only be described as an intensive state propaganda offensive.
Some examples of electronic traffic signs I now see around my locality include: "Plan ahead, stay safe, save lives"; "Follow the Covid restrictions, save lives", and, most perturbingly of all, "Get the vaccine. It's our best way out of this pandemic."
In the first instance, and as I have detailed above, I strenuously object to electronic road signs being used for anything other than their actual purpose and what we tax-payers pay for - important travel updates. I would be writing you a letter of complaint were these signs to be used for anything other than this purpose, regardless of what they were being used for instead, as this is a deeply inappropriate and potentially even dangerous misuse of council resources. A road sign that, for instance, reminds motorists of the speed limit could easily be the difference between life and death, so to suspend such life-saving campaigns for any reason is deeply troubling.
However, the specific campaign these signs are now being used to promulgate instead profoundly exacerbates my objections, and I must insist you review the current content of these signs as a matter of urgency.
In the first instance, these signs are not depicting factual health information, rather, they are promoting advertising slogans for the state and pharmaceutical industries. That "following Covid restrictions" is a behaviour that "saves lives" is an ominous attempt at crowd control that is based in behavioural psychology, not hard science. There is no compelling scholarly evidence to suggest that following Covid restrictions "saves lives", given countries that did not impose such restrictions saw no significant difference in their death rates - on the contrary: countries such as Sweden, which eschewed draconian restrictions and allowed life to continue as normal, actually had a lower death rate than the rest of Europe (1).
The idea that we are in the midst of an unprecedented health emergency that requires dramatic and draconian restrictions to our liberties is just that - an idea, and one that is promoted by and based upon state and media propaganda, not hard statistics and facts.
Official data clearly shows there was no significant excess mortality in the UK in 2020, and it was a completely ordinary year where total number of deaths were concerned (2).
Meanwhile, the median age of a person whose death is said to involve "Covid-19" is 83 - slightly older than the average age of death generally (3).
To be clear, statistically speaking, a diagnosis of "Covid-19" actually lengthens one's life expectancy and certainly has not created any kind of dramatic excess in either hospitalisations or deaths. On the contrary: emergency department admissions hit an unprecedented low in 2020, amongst all classes of patient, including those with severe illness (4). Hospitalisations have only reapproached normal levels since the commencement of the vaccination programme, and such admissions are concentrated amongst those who have received both doses of the vaccine (ref. 5, points 32 and 56).
Hence, for electronic road signage to state vaccines are "the best way out of the pandemic" is erroneous and wrong on multiple different levels.
In the first instance, it is coercive. The decision to receive, or not to receive, invasive medical procedures is a private and personal one that is between an individual and their chosen healthcare professional. It has nothing whatsoever to do with electronic road signs, which insinuate that an individual may be personally responsible for the enduring nature of a pandemic if they do not submit to a risky medical process. Such an insinuation is deeply unethical and represents a violation of multiple treaties on human rights law and medical ethics.
Because the injections currently being (inappropriately) marketed as Covid vaccines are, in fact, not vaccines, but experimental gene therapies (experimental as they have not yet completed clinical trials (6); gene therapy as they purport to alter the genes inside your body's cells in an attempt to fight disease (7)), then pressurising individuals to receive them without furnishing them with the full facts represents a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which states that medical experimentation must have the fully informed consent of the human subject (8).
In case you were unaware, the Nuremberg Code was established in response to the atrocities committed by the Nazis, and the "medical experimentation" carried out by high-ranking doctors, to ensure such horrors could never again occur under the guise of medicine.
These concerns were not without foundation. The experimental gene therapies that are currently being trialled on a largely unwitting populace have not only not completed safety testing, but they come with stark warnings from many highly eminent scientists around the world.
Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Dr. Peter Hotez, who was involved in the development of a potential SARS vaccine (the coronavirus responsible for a major 2003 outbreak) said of the dramatically accelerated nature of Covid-19 vaccine development:
"I understand the importance of accelerating vaccine timelines in general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to be doing it with." (9)
Dr. Hotez emphasised that, whenever attempts have been made to develop coronavirus vaccines in the past, these have always failed, as they have produced a potentially deadly effect known as 'vaccine enhancement syndrome'.
What this means is that, although test subjects initially produce a robust immune response to the vaccine, when they later come into contact with the wild virus, their immune system dramatically overreacts, creating very severe illness, and in many cases, death (9).
The emergence of vaccine enhancement syndrome is not instant and typically takes several months to emerge, so it is not something we would expect to see yet - but there is a very strong possibility we will see it later in the year.
Also issuing dire warnings about the vaccine is Nobel-prize winning scientist, Professor Luc Montagnier. Professor Montagnier warned in a recent interview that the so-called "new variants" are actually being created by the vaccine, as the vaccine is causing antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), and this could go on to be deadly - for the vaccinated.
Montagnier called the widespread vaccination programme "an enormous mistake", noting that, throughout the world, upward curves in death only began after the commencement of the vaccine programme (10).
Leading on from this are the multiple and ongoing reports of the severe adverse reactions caused by the vaccine, with tens of thousands of adverse reactions having been reported to the government pharmaceutical watchdog, the Yellow Card Scheme (11)
Taking the above into account, it is irrefutably clear that council departments should not be misusing their authority, nor tax-payers' money, to promote a medical therapy that comes with such an alarming array of risks, much less be declaring it as "our best way out of the pandemic".
In addition, I would also like to vigorously challenge the legitimacy of the notion that governments or any other body should be able to effectively hold people to ransom by threatening to continue to withhold essential and inalienable rights and freedoms from them, unless they submit to being injected with a foreign substance. I hope I do not need to further elaborate on why this is such a repugnant and dangerous precedent to set.
Human rights law and medical ethics legislation make it abundantly clear that individuals must exercise free and informed choice where it comes to deciding whether to receive medical procedures or products, and any element of coercion or threat immediately invalidates the prospect of legally valid consent.
People must be free to choose whether to vaccinate or not, with absolutely no penalty or disadvantage resulting from what they decide, and this freedom is enshrined within human rights law (12).
Finally, it is increasingly becoming clear that the Government has no intention of relaxing restrictions, regardless of an individual's vaccination status, as government ministers have recently confirmed that fully vaccinated individuals will still be required to isolate and get tested should they come into contact with those who have tested positive for "Covid-19" (13).
Furthermore, commercial, retail, and service industries all state they still require face coverings to be worn, regardless of a person's vaccination status. Therefore, it is patently and demonstrably untrue to state that "vaccines are our best way out of the pandemic", as all restrictions are clearly set to continue unabated regardless of a person's vaccination status, and, as vaccine manufacturers, the NHS, and the Government have all repeatedly confirmed, Covid vaccination does not prevent the contraction or transmission of Covid-19.
In closing, I expect the points raised in this letter to be thoroughly explored as a matter of urgency, and, resultantly, all the electronic road signs in [county name] to be returned to their official and proper purpose - giving motorists key travel information and not propagandising them on behalf of the state.