Biological Weapons: The Truth Trial #5 The Key Witness Is Dead

20/03/2026 · KAro

Armes biologiques: le procès vérité #5 Le témoin clé mort

An internationally renowned American lawyer, Professor Francis Boyle has demonstrated that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are weapons of mass destruction. He died suddenly after agreeing to testify as an expert witness in the Dutch trial against Bill Gates, Albert Bourla (Pfizer), Mark Rutte (former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, NATO), and 14 other defendants; his argument lives on, now championed by Dr. Joseph Sansone.

A lawyer and professor of international law, with doctorates in law and political science from Harvard University, Francis Boyle (1950–2025) specialized in human rights, war crimes and genocide, nuclear policy, and biological warfare. Author of the book *Biowarfare and Terrorism* and an advocate for the regulation of biological weapons, he drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act^[1] (Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act), which is the adaptation into U.S. law of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention^[2]. Unanimously adopted by the U.S. Congress, this legislation provides, among other things, for a life sentence for those who violate the Biological Weapons Act.

As early as January 2020, Prof. Boyle had contacted more than 500 media outlets to explain that the coronavirus was an offensive biological weapon^[3]. He then attempted to alert the public to the dangers of COVID-19 injections, which he described as weapons of mass destruction and linked their development to U.S. military research, as in the interview he gave in April 2023 to American journalist Stew Peters^[4]. “DARPA awarded Moderna Therapeutics a grant of over $25 million to develop messenger RNA-based therapies. You need to know that DARPA is the Pentagon. Let me repeat that: DARPA is the Pentagon. It was the Pentagon that purchased, paid for, and conceived these mRNA vaccine bioweapons. And I must also point out that Fort Detrick was involved in the development of COVID-19, the offensive bioweapon, at the Level 3 laboratory at the University of North Carolina. The Pentagon has therefore played both sides: it developed the weapon and the so-called vaccines, which are also a weapon. The proof is there.”

In a lawsuit filed by Joseph Sansone against the State of Florida to ban these injections there, Professor Francis Boyle officially stated under oath (affidavit): “My expert opinion is that injections of COVID-19 nanoparticles, or injections of messenger RNA nanoparticles, or COVID-19 injections, meet the criteria for biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction under Section 175 of the U.S. Federal Code on Biological Weapons of 1989 (Biological Weapons 18 U.S.C. § 175) and Section 790.166 of the Florida Weapons and Firearms Act of 2023 (§ 790.166 Fla. Stat. [2023])”^[5].

In late 2024, he had agreed to provide expert testimony on behalf of the Dutch victims of the injections. He died unexpectedly three weeks later, before he could testify. Dr. Joseph Sansone, with whom he collaborated, is now acting as his spokesperson. Read the exclusive interview we conducted with him in Amsterdam.

The following argument is excerpted from an article^[6] published by Dr. Joseph Sansone on his website Mind Matters and Everything Else. In it, he outlines the perspective and main arguments put forward by Prof. Boyle to demonstrate that the injections marketed as COVID-19 vaccines are military technologies and biological weapons, and that their deployment violates international and national conventions, as well as the Nuremberg Code.

I. Introduction and Statement of Reasons

This is a detailed legal and scientific analysis based on the expert opinion of Prof. Francis A. Boyle, author of the 1989 U.S. Biological Weapons and Anti-Terrorism Act (BWATA)^[7]. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive explanation of Prof. Boyle’s argument that mRNA injections against COVID-19 are biological weapons, the deployment of which constitutes a violation of international and national laws.

Prof. Boyle’s central argument is that the injections contain derivatives derived from illegal gain-of-function research, classifying them, by definition, as biological weapons.

The following analysis demonstrates that the actions of the responsible individuals and entities meet the required criteria for criminal intent (mens rea), including specific intent, that is, planning, and knowledge (as opposed to negligence), for the most serious crimes against humanity.

II. Applicable Legal Framework

Professor Boyle’s arguments are based on a solid legal framework that includes international treaties and their national implementations.

1. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), 1972^[8]: an international treaty prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling, and use of biological and toxin weapons. The Netherlands is a signatory and has incorporated this treaty into its national legislation.

2. The Dutch Biological Weapons Convention Implementation Act^[9]: this law, adopted on March 25, 1981, incorporates the BWC into Dutch law. Violations are prosecuted under the Economic Offenses Act and are listed in the Penal Code^[10]. More specifically, Article 4, paragraph 8a, of the Penal Code establishes jurisdiction over offenses committed under the Biological Weapons Convention.

3. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC): The Netherlands is the host state of the ICC. The Statute defines crimes against humanity (Article 7) as acts such as murder, extermination, and other inhumane acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with the intent to cause such harm^[11]. Professor Boyle’s argument is that the deployment of a biological weapon against the civilian population falls under this definition.

4. The United States Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989^[12] (18 U.S.C. § 175): drafted by Prof. Boyle, this law provides a clear definition of what constitutes a biological weapon and makes its development and possession a criminal offense. It serves as a fundamental reference for interpreting the intent and scope of the CAB.

III. Prof. Francis Boyle’s Central Thesis: mRNA Injection as an Integrated Biological Weapon System

Prof. Boyle’s argument is that the mRNA injection is not a vaccine, but a new military-grade biological weapon system. The main evidence is that the central component of the injection, the genetic code for the Spike protein, is a direct derivative of illegal gain-of-function (GOF) research. Since it stems from prohibited research on biological weapons, the injection itself is a biological weapon.

Prof. Boyle argues that this gain-of-function research was illegal because it constitutes the development of a biological weapon, an act prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and its implementing legislation, such as the U.S. Biological Weapons and Anti-Terrorism Act (BWATA). These laws prohibit the development of biological agents that are not justified“for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes.” According to Professor Boyle’s expert legal opinion, research aimed at making a pathogen more dangerous to humans (for example, by increasing its transmissibility or virulence) has no peaceful purpose and is therefore prohibited as research on offensive biological weapons. This weapon system consists of two integrated components: the pathogenic payload and the delivery mechanism.

The pathogenic payload (genetic code of the Spike protein): the payload of this weapon is the genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein. This is not a natural protein; it is the direct product of illegal gain-of-function (GOF) research, as demonstrated by the article published in 2015 in Nature Medicine^[13]. This research aimed to create a chimeric virus equipped with a Spike protein optimized for human infection. Consequently, the genetic code of this protein is, in itself, a product of biological weapons research.

The military-grade delivery system (lipid nanoparticles): the delivery system consists of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that encapsulate the mRNA payload. Prof. Boyle states that this is a delivery platform enhanced by nanotechnology, noting that this technology was “funded, developed, supported, and conceived by the Pentagon” and its research agency, DARPA^[14]. Its objective is to bypass the body’s natural defenses and introduce the pathogenic genetic code directly into human cells, thereby transforming the recipient’s body into a factory for manufacturing the biological weapon known as the Spike protein. The FDA’s direct involvement in the development of the agent, and that of Fort Detrick in the basic research, confirms that the weapon is military in nature and is state-sponsored.

This nanotechnology platform was not a last-minute idea. Prof. Boyle points out that the virus itself was “converted into an aerosol and into a nanotechnology form from the very beginning, ” indicating a long-term program focused on advanced delivery systems that culminated in the injections. He further establishes a link to the military-academic complex by identifying a “chair of the Harvard chemistry department, who was an expert in nanotechnology and its application to chemical and biological weapons,” and who “was also working with Fort Detrick.” This establishes that the LNP delivery system used in the injections is the result of a dedicated military-funded nanotechnology biological weapons program.

IV. Intent (mens rea)

Professor Boyle’s argument satisfies the legal requirements regarding criminal intent through three distinct but related criteria: specific intent, premeditation, and knowledge.

A. Specific intent: the project to develop a biological weapons delivery system

Specific intent is demonstrated by evidence that the accused parties acted with the conscious objective of developing and deploying a biological weapons system. The most direct evidence of this specific intent lies in the very nature of the injection’s payload. The genetic code of the Spike protein is a direct derivative of the illegal gain-of-function research documented in the 2015 Nature Medicine article^[15] and the 2018 DEFUSE proposal^[16]. The act of knowingly including a component derived from prohibited biological weapons research in a product intended for mass injection constitutes, by definition, a deliberate act of deploying a biological weapon. Specific intent is proven by the fact that the defendants knew the origin of the pathogenic payload they were incorporating into the delivery system.

• The 2015 Nature Medicine article^[17]: This article, co-authored by researchers from UNC-Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, explicitly details the creation of a chimeric virus by combining a bat coronavirus spike protein with a SARS-CoV backbone. The stated objective was to test the “emergence potential,” which is a euphemism for creating a pathogen capable of infecting humans. The authors themselves acknowledged the controversial nature of this GOF research.

• The DEFUSE Project, 2018^[18]: This grant application, submitted by Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance to DARPA, serves as a blueprint for the creation of SARS-CoV-2. It proposed genetically modifying coronaviruses to give them characteristics that would make them more contagious to humans, notably by inserting a furin cleavage site (FCS). An interview with a military whistleblower conducted by BAM! provides further details on the DEFUSE project^[19].

According to Prof. Boyle’s analysis, these documents are not mere academic exercises; they constitute evidence of a premeditated plan to develop the pathogenic payload for this delivery system. The research aimed to create a Spike protein with increased pandemic potential, which would then be encoded in the mRNA platform. The development of the LNP delivery system by military-funded entities such as DARPA demonstrates the specific intent to create a deployable weapon.

B. Criminal Intent: Reckless Endangerment of Others

Prof. Boyle argues that the defendants’ actions satisfy the criterion of “premeditated criminal intent,” a key element of the charge of murder in Anglo-American common law. He explains that criminal intent is a legal term that includes the “reckless endangerment of human beings.”

This criterion is met because the defendants knew that gain-of-function research was “existentially dangerous, ” yet proceeded with it anyway. They then knowingly deployed the resulting biological weapon—the mRNA injection—onto the global population. This act of deploying an experimental injection derived from prohibited biological weapons research, with full knowledge of its dangerous origins and despite the emergence of safety warnings, constitutes a serious and reckless endangerment of human life.

Prof. Boyle attributes this criterion of premeditated criminal intent to both the creators of the virus and those “responsible for the COVID vaccines, ” including the executives of Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson^[20]. He argues that their actions meet the legal criteria for murder, as well as for conspiracy to commit murder, with premeditation.

C. Knowledge: Awareness of the weapon’s danger and its deliberate deployment

Even if the criterion of specific intent were not applied, the less restrictive criterion of “knowledge” (criteria specific to the Common Law) is largely met. It suffices to demonstrate that the defendants knew that administering the injections would, with reasonable certainty, cause massive harm and deaths.

• Knowledge of the payload’s origin: Prof. Boyle asserts that U.S. intelligence agencies knew, as early as September 2019, that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a laboratory-derived biological weapon^[21]. Consequently, they knew that the Spike protein, which was derived from it, was a pathogenic component created through genetic engineering. Deploying a “vaccine” that forces the body to produce this known pathogenic component demonstrates, at the very least, a deliberate disregard for the harm to come.

• Knowledge of the “vaccine’s” harmful effects: Immediately after the rollout, safety signals indicating serious adverse effects appeared in official databases such as VAERS and EudraVigilance. Public health authorities had direct access to this data, showing that the injections were causing myocarditis, thrombosis, neurological damage, and deaths. Despite this, they continued to falsely claim that the vaccines were “safe and effective.”

• Deliberate continuation, despite known risks and proven ineffectiveness: public health authorities had direct access to official data showing that the injections were causing unprecedented harm and were ineffective at preventing infection or transmission. Although they were aware of catastrophic safety signals (myocarditis, thrombosis, deaths) and evidence of ineffectiveness, they continued to falsely promote the injections as “safe and effective,” while systematically censoring dissenting experts. Legally, this constitutes the deliberate pursuit of a harmful act with full knowledge of its devastating consequences.

The deliberate suppression of data and the dissemination of known false information, as harm mounted, constitutes a “widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with full knowledge of the facts.” This attack therefore meets the definition of a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute^[22]. The deployment of this biological weapon has caused systemic and unprecedented harm, as documented in peer-reviewed publications^[23]. This harm (non-exhaustive) includes:

Immunological damage, such as the onset of autoimmune diseases, widespread reactivation of latent viruses (e.g., EBV, shingles), and impairment of the immune system (via IgG4 class switching)
Cardiovascular damage, including a dramatic increase in the risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, myocardial infarction, stroke, and generalized thrombosis (blood clotting)
Adverse oncological effects, characterized by a resurgence of “aggressive, rapidly progressing turbo cancers, ” the recurrence of previously stable cancers, and the emergence of rare cancers in young people
Adverse effects on reproduction, including catastrophic rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, menstrual abnormalities, and neonatal complications such as congenital malformations and developmental delays
Adverse effects on the nervous system, including Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), and the production of aberrant and misfolded proteins, which may induce prion-like neurodegenerative diseases
Adverse effects on the genome, resulting from the confirmed presence of plasmid DNA contaminants (including the SV40 promoter sequence) and the demonstrated potential for reverse transcription of the “vaccine” mRNA into the human genome, creating a permanent risk of genetic modification and oncogenesis.

V. Seven violations of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

Professor Boyle’s argument is that mRNA injections constitute a new vector for biological weapons, and that their deployment constitutes a direct violation of the BWC. These violations correspond to the seven categories of concerns regarding dual-use research described in the 2004 “Fink Report” of the U.S. National Research Council^[24]. The following table details how mRNA injections themselves meet the criteria for each prohibited category.

Prohibited GOF Categories: Prof. Boyle’s Arguments Regarding Violations by mRNA Injections

1. Rendering a vaccine ineffective

The mRNA injection itself is the agent that renders the recipient’s immune system ineffective. By forcing sustained, unnatural production of a single antigen (the Spike protein), it induces immune tolerance through mechanisms such as IgG4 class switching. This makes the recipient more vulnerable to repeated infections and future variants, which directly contradicts the goal of a traditional vaccine. The injection is a biological weapon that works by degrading the immune system.

2. Inducing treatment resistance

The mRNA injection has been deployed as the sole therapeutic option, while safe, effective, and inexpensive treatments have been systematically suppressed. Forcing a population to accept an experimental, patented biological weapon injection as the only recourse is a key tactic of biological warfare. It confers resistance to all other useful therapies through political and regulatory force, not just through biological mechanisms.

3. Increasing the virulence of a pathogen

The mRNA injection is a manufacturing platform that forces the recipient’s own cells to produce the most virulent component of the modified SARS-CoV-2 biological weapon: the gain-of-function Spike protein, equipped with its pathogenic furin cleavage site. The injection transforms the human body into a factory of virulent toxins, causing systemic damage (e.g., myocarditis, thrombosis) far beyond that of a typical respiratory virus.

4. Increasing the transmissibility of a pathogen

The mRNA injection is a key component of a biological weapon system. The lipid nanoparticle (LNP) platform, developed with funding from the Pentagon and DARPA, is an innovative and highly effective mechanism for delivering genetic material. It enhances the ability to transmit a genetic payload directly into human cells on a large scale. Furthermore, by conferring non-sterilizing immunity, the injections create an environment in which vaccinated individuals can continue to carry and transmit the virus, which could potentially facilitate the emergence of new, more transmissible variants.

5. Modifying a pathogen’s host range

The payload of the mRNA injection is the genetic code for the spike protein itself, which has been modified to have an altered host range (i.e., to jump from bats to humans). By injecting this code, the biological weapon bypasses natural barriers and forces human cells to produce a protein they would never encounter naturally. The host-range-modified technology is directly applied to the human population.

6. Enabling evasion of diagnosis/detection

The LNP delivery system of the mRNA injection is a stealth technology designed to evade the body’s natural immune defenses in order to deliver its genetic payload into cells. This is a form of bypassing the body’s own detection mechanisms. The resulting production of the Spike protein may also lead to immunological dysregulation that impairs the body’s ability to detect and respond to other pathogens.

7. Enabling the Militarization of a Biological Agent

The injection of mRNA is the culmination of a militarization process. It combines a pathogenic genetic payload (the GOF Spike protein) with a stealth delivery system (LNP) funded by the military and designed for mass administration. This creates an evolving, deployable biological weapon system capable of transforming the recipient’s own body into a biological weapons factory. This is the very definition of a militarized biological agent.

VI. Violation of the Nuremberg Code and Dutch Law on Medical Experimentation

Prof. Boyle argues that the deployment of mRNA injections against COVID-19 constitutes a “flagrant and obvious violation of the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation.” Although the Nuremberg Code is, in itself, a set of ethical guidelines, its fundamental principles—particularly the requirement for voluntary and informed consent—have been codified in both customary international law and the domestic law of the Netherlands and other countries.

A. The Nuremberg Code as Customary International Law

The Nuremberg Code was established in 1947 following the trial of Nazi doctors who had conducted horrific experiments on concentration camp prisoners. It stipulates that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” for any medical experimentation. Professor Boyle points out that the U.S. government relied on these principles to prosecute, convict, and execute the Nazi doctors, thereby setting a powerful historical and legal precedent.

Although the Code itself is not a treaty, its principles are widely regarded as part of customary international law, which is binding on all states. The large-scale deployment of an experimental injection without genuine informed consent therefore constitutes a violation of these binding international principles.

B. Violation of the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO)

More importantly, the principles of the Nuremberg Code are enshrined in Dutch law through the Medical Research on Human Subjects Act (WMO). This legally binding law requires “prior written consent” for any participation in medical scientific research.

The COVID-19 injections, having obtained only an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or a conditional marketing authorization, were by definition experimental. The WMO therefore applies directly to their administration.

True informed consent was made impossible: because information was withheld. Data on adverse effects (myocarditis, thrombosis, death) were actively censored and downplayed.

Coercion was used: obligations and social pressure were employed to force individuals to accept the injections, in violation of the principle of voluntary consent.

The experimental nature was concealed: the injections were marketed as “safe and effective vaccines,” not as experimental gene products.

C. A Crime Against Humanity Under the Nuremberg Code

Prof. Boyle argues that the violation of these principles is not merely a regulatory offense, but a crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Code. He draws a direct comparison. “What we are witnessing today, with these ‘Frankenshots’ intended for children, is Dr. Mengele at Auschwitz all over again. That is where the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation comes from.”

By deploying an experimental biological weapon under coercive conditions without obtaining true informed consent, the defendants in the Dutch trial repeated the very crimes for which Nazi doctors were executed. This act, according to Prof. Boyle, meets the definition of a crime against humanity: “murder, extermination, or other inhumane acts committed against a civilian population.”

VII. Conclusion

Based on the expert analysis of Prof. Francis Boyle, architect of the U.S. Biological Weapons Act, there are solid and coherent arguments demonstrating that mRNA-based injections against COVID-19 constitute illegal biological weapons. The evidence demonstrates both the specific intent of researchers and funders, who planned and conducted prohibited gain-of-function experiments, and the knowledge on the part of pharmaceutical companies and public health officials, who have continued to promote these injections despite overwhelming evidence of their harmful effects and ineffectiveness.

The development and deployment of these injections violate the seven categories of concerns regarding biological weapons research and clearly fall under the prohibitions of the Biological Weapons Convention. The widespread and systematic administration to a civilian population under false pretenses constitutes a crime against humanity as defined by the Rome Statute.

It is time for those responsible to be held accountable for their role in this unprecedented global crime.

Karo for BAM! and Essentiel News.

[1] S.993 - Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, 101st Congress (1989–1990)

[2] Biological Weapons Convention | United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs

[3] Boyle: “Trump Lying Since The Get Go On COVID-19.”

[4] PLANDEMIC Elites BROKE Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act: Author Of 1989 Law: COVID IS A BIOWEAPON!

[5] Breaking: Law Professor Who Wrote the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act Provides Affidavit That COVID-19 mRNA Nanoparticle Injections Are Biological Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction

[6] An Overview of Dr. Francis A. Boyle’s Legal Analysis on the Classification of COVID-19 and mRNA Injections as Biological Weapons

[7] S.993 - Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, 101st Congress (1989–1990)

[8] Biological Weapons Convention | United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs

[9] Biological Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 1981

[10] Penal Code