THE covid vaccine is a bioweapon and its architects are suspected of crimes against humanity, it was alleged during a court case in the Netherlands this month. The professor who drafted the current Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act also described the jab given to billions as ‘the product of illegal gain-of-function research’.
The allegations by Professor Francis Boyle were heard during a civil case being heard at the District Court of Leeuwarden, north Netherlands. Professor Boyle, formerly of the University of Illinois College of Law, is known for his work in human rights, biosecurity law, and international legal advocacy. He died suddenly aged 74 in January 2025 after swearing the affidavit that made the claims. The cause of his death has not been released.
High-profile defendants include Bill Gates, founder of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Gates Foundation, and Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla.
Link to larger version here.
Professor Boyle’s affidavit was read out by witness, psychotherapist and legal activist Dr Joseph Sansone, an adjunct professor, from Florida. It is paraphrased below to make it easier to understand but here is a link to the full transcript containing other witness statements.
***
Paraphrased, the affidavit said:
My conclusions are based on my expertise in bioweapons law.
In my view, the COVID-19 mRNA injections qualify as a biological weapon. I reached this conclusion based on their components and how they were developed.
The core of my argument is that these injections involve derivatives of gain-of-function research – that is, research in which viruses are modified to increase their ability to infect or affect humans.
By definition, a biological weapon consists of two parts:
- A harmful agent (the payload)
- A delivery system
I argue that both elements are present here.
First, the payload. Research published in the scientific journal Nature in 2015 examined bat coronaviruses and explored their potential to infect humans. In that work, a virus was synthetically created and shown to replicate effectively in laboratory and animal settings. This demonstrates the development of a SARS-like virus with characteristics enabling human infection.
In that publication, researchers state that they developed an infectious recombinant virus and demonstrated strong replication both in vitro and in vivo. In simple terms, this means a SARS-like coronavirus was created with features that allow it to infect human cells. The researchers involved were affiliated with institutions including the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
From my perspective, this represents gain-of-function research and contributes to what I consider the pathogenic component. I therefore view the spike protein not as purely natural, but as the result of synthetic development optimised for human infection.
Second, the delivery system. The mRNA in the injections instructs human cells to produce this spike protein, forming a key part of the biological effect.
The delivery mechanism is lipid nanoparticles – small particles that encapsulate the mRNA and allow it to enter human cells. I describe this as a nanotechnology-based delivery platform. In my view, this technology was developed, funded, and advanced through US defence-related research programmes, including work associated with the Pentagon and DARPA.
[DARPA – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – is the research and development arm of the US Department of Defense.]
I also note that the virus itself was aerosolised and processed using nanotechnology from early stages, which I interpret as part of a longer-term effort to develop advanced delivery systems.
Taken together, I conclude that the combination of the pathogenic element (the spike protein) and the delivery system (lipid nanoparticles) constitute what I define as a biological weapons system.
Based on this interpretation, I argue that there are legal implications under international law. In particular, I state that individuals such as Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla may qualify as suspects of crimes against humanity, as defined under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
***
The case was initiated in 2023 by seven vaccine-injured plaintiffs, one who has since died. Accused with Gates and Bourla are Mark Rutte, former Dutch prime minister, now Secretary General of Nato, and former Dutch health minister Hugo de Jonge.
Governmental and commercial organisations are accused too. They are Pfizer Inc, the State of the Netherlands, and the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), the Dutch national institute for public health.
They face five main charges including deception and misinformation, specifically ‘deliberate misinformation and concealment of risks that led citizens to receive harmful injections under false pretences’.
The lawyer bringing the case, Peter Stassen, said that the ‘safe and effective’ message was not appropriate for the plaintiffs who claim the jabs caused them serious physical and mental injury. It is stressed that all involved in the production of the covid vaccines must have known, or should have known, that the vaccines could potentially cause severe side effects.
Another charge is complicity in bodily harm: the claimants had no health issues before being coerced into taking the covid jabs and allege the vaccine caused them chronic physical and psychological injuries.
The defendants are also accused of abuse of power and of coercion, citing coercive tactics like ‘no jab, no job’ mandates, social pressure, and general exclusion from daily life as tools to override vaccine hesitancy. The prosecution says these tactics amount to violations of human rights and of bodily autonomy.
Peter Stassen, who specialises in European competition law, and Arno van Kessel are the Dutch lawyers prosecuting the case, which took a dramatic turn after van Kessel was arrested in June 2025 by armed police. He was reportedly blindfolded before being taken to a high-security prison where he has since been held without charge, accused of belonging to a ‘criminal network’. This prevented him attending an important hearing on July 9 that discussed jurisdiction, the merits of the case and whether the plaintiffs’ witnesses should be allowed to give evidence.
Unconfirmed reports say he has spent 260 days, almost nine months, in custody. No official charges have been brought against him.
