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

GiveSendGo to support my efforts in my Florida case.

Dr. Joseph Sansone is a psychotherapist opposed to psychopathic authoritarianism.

Mind Matters and Everything Else is 100% independent. If you appreciate my writing and advocacy and would like to support it, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a donation of any amount. Donations may be sent c/o Joseph Sansone, 27499 Riverview Center Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, United States, or make an online donation on Ko-Fi or donate Bitcoin.

Dr. Francis Boyle was the law professor that drafted the Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act of 1989, which was the domestic implementation legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention. Dr. Boyle came out in January of 2020 and stated that COVID 19 was a bioweapon. Dr. Boyle also came out in December of 2020 and stated that the COVID 19 injections were bioweapons, before they were even rolled out.

Dr. Francis Boyle was an advisor to NationalARM.org, of which I still sit on the board. Dr. Boyle would sit in regularly on the meetings twice a month from 2021-2024, when he stopped attending regularly.

When I read him my original ‘Ban the Jab’ Resolution before it was passed at my local country Republican Party, in December of 2022, Dr. Boyle enthusiastically supported it. The first resolution was passed on February 21, of 2023. It went on to be passed by county parties in Florida and other states and eventually the Idaho and Arizona Republican Parties.

Two months later on April 1, 2023, around 3:30 AM, I went into the hospital with congestive heart failure and had triple bypass heart surgery on April 10, 2023. On Wednesday April 5, 2023, I asked Dr. Boyle to publicly endorse my resolution and he immediately did so. I was in the hospital and did not let anyone locally know, as I did not want to empower the people in the local Republican Party working against my efforts. Dr. Boyle immediately endorsed my Ban the Jab resolution in writing, and I was able to arrange Dr. Boyle’s appearance on a large podcast at the time I was getting operated on, on April 10, 2023.

Later in 2024, Dr. Boyle provided an affidavit at my request, stating that the COVID 19 and mRNA nanoparticle injections were bioweapons. This was for my appeal on the Writ of Mandamus that I filed trying to force DeSantis to stop the mRNA shots. I later used this affidavit in my current case initially filed on December 1, 2024, still trying to stop DeSantis from continuing to facilitate mRNA nanoparticle injections, because they are biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.

After reviewing my filing Dr. Boyle said it was a very fine piece of legal work.

My case has evolved a bit since then, as I won my first appeal, and am on my second appeal. A summary of my appeal can be read here.

I believe the folks in the Netherlands contacted me in 2024 after I filed my writ of mandamus. We had been in contact and I helped arrange for Dr. Francis Boyle to be a witness in the Netherlands case against Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, Mark Rutte, and other Dutch officials. Unfortunately, about three weeks later he died. Nobody other than myself, the attorneys, and maybe the other witnesses knew he was to testify. The court did not know yet. It is certainly possible that foul play occurred since all our communications are monitored, however, I have yet to see any evidence or a family member come forward with any such allegation. I talk about this in this interview.

The following is a detailed review of Dr. Francis Boyle’s legal perspective on why the COVID 19 and mRNA nanoparticle injections are in fact bioweapons. These views have been made public by Dr. Boyle when he was alive. This is not to say that he did not support other arguments of why the mRNA nanoparticle injections are biological and technological weapons of mass destruction. These are simply his stated views that I am aware of and remember at the moment.

It is important to note that Dr. Boyle’s view is not just an expert legal view, it is legislative intent as he wrote the law.

My view is to not attack any arguments about why the COVID/mRNA injections and products are weapons. I believe there are actually multiple arguments as to why the mRNA injections are weapons of mass destruction, and I prefer to allow the defendants to rebut any arguments.

I. Introduction and Statement of Purpose

This is a detailed legal and scientific analysis based on the expert opinion of Dr. Francis A. Boyle, the author of the U.S. Biological Weapons and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (BWATA) [1]. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive explanation of Dr. Boyle’s argument that the COVID-19 mRNA injections are biological weapons, the deployment of which constitutes a violation of international and domestic laws. I believe these also apply to laws in the Netherlands, which I am a potential witness, along with Catherine Austin Fitts, Sasha Latypova, Dr. Michael, Yeadon, and Katherine Watt.

Dr. Boyle’s core argument is that the injections contain derivatives of illegal gain-of-function research, making them, by definition, biological weapons.

This analysis will demonstrate that the actions of the individuals and entities responsible, meet the requisite standards of criminal intent (mens rea), including both specific intent and knowingness, for the gravest crimes against humanity.

I am focusing more on the Netherlands because I am going there next month for the hearing. However, the legal arguments here also clearly apply to my ongoing litigation here in Florida and elsewhere.

II. Applicable Legal Framework

Dr. Boyle’s arguments are grounded in a robust legal framework that includes international treaties and their national implementations.

1. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) (1972): 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 the
treaty into its domestic law [2].

2. The Netherlands Biological Weapons Convention (Implementation) Act: This
Act, passed on March 25, 1981, incorporates the BWC into Dutch law. Violations are
prosecuted under the Economic Offences Act and are referenced in the Dutch
Criminal Code [3, 4]. Specifically, Section 4, subsection 8a of the Criminal Code
establishes jurisdiction over offenses committed under the Biological Weapons
Convention (Implementation) Act.

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 like murder, extermination, and other inhumane acts committed as part of a
widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with
knowledge of the attack [5]. Dr. Boyle’s argument is that the deployment of a
bioweapon against the civilian population falls under this definition.

4. The U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (18 U.S.C. § 175): Drafted by Dr. Boyle, this Act provides a clear definition of what constitutes a
biological weapon and criminalizes its development and possession. It serves as a
foundational reference for interpreting the intent and scope of the BWC [1].

III. Dr. Francis Boyle’s Central Thesis: The mRNA Injection as an Integrated Bioweapon System

Dr. Boyle’s argument is that the mRNA injection is not a vaccine, but a novel, military-grade biological weapon system. The central proof is that the injection’s core component, the genetic code for the spike protein, is a direct derivative of illegal gain-of-function (GOF) research. Because it is derived from prohibited bioweapons research, the injection itself is a biological weapon. Dr. 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 Antiterrorism Act (BWATA) [1,2]. These laws forbid developing biological agents that have no justification for ‘prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes.’ In Dr. Boyle’s expert legal opinion, research designed to make a pathogen more dangerous to
humans (e.g., by increasing its transmissibility or virulence) has no such peaceful purpose and is therefore prohibited as offensive bioweapons research. This weapon system consists of two integrated components: the pathogenic payload and the delivery mechanism.

The Pathogenic Payload (Spike Protein Genetic Code): The payload of the weapon
is the genetic code for 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 evidenced by the
2015 Nature Medicine paper [7]. The research was designed to create a chimeric virus
with a spike protein optimized for human infection. Therefore, the genetic code for
this protein is, in itself, a product of bioweapons research.

The Military-Grade Delivery System (Lipid Nanoparticles): The delivery system
consists of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that encase the mRNA payload. Dr. Boyle
argues this is a nanotechnology-enhanced delivery platform, stating the technology
was “paid for, developed, financed, and envisioned by the Pentagon” and its
research agency, DARPA [6]. Its purpose is to evade the body’s natural defenses and
deliver the pathogenic genetic code directly into human cells, turning the recipient’s
body into a manufacturing plant for the bioweapon’s spike protein. The direct
involvement of the FDA in developing the agent and Fort Detrick in the foundational
research confirms the military and state-sponsored nature of the entire weapon system
[11]. This nanotechnology platform was not an afterthought; Dr. Boyle points out that the virus itself was”aerosolized, nanotechnologized, right from the very beginning,” indicating a long-term program focused on advanced delivery systems that culminated in the injections. He further connects this to the military-academic complex by identifying a “head of the Harvard Chemistry Department, who was an expert on nanotechnology and applying nanotechnology to chemical weapons, biological weapons” and who also “worked with Fort Detrick.” This establishes that the LNP delivery system in the injections is the result of a dedicated, military-sponsored nanotechnology bioweapons program.

IV. The Standard of Intent (Mens Rea)

Dr. Boyle’s argument satisfies the legal requirement for criminal intent through three distinct but related standards: Specific Intent, Malice Aforethought, and Knowingness.

A. Specific Intent: The Plan to Develop a Bioweapon Delivery System

Specific intent is demonstrated by evidence that the accused parties acted with a conscious objective to develop and deploy a bioweapon system. The most direct evidence of this specific intent is the very nature of the injection’s payload. The genetic code for the spike protein is a direct derivative of the illegal gain-of-function research documented in the 2015 Nature Medicine paper and the 2018 DEFUSE proposal [7, 8]. Knowingly including a component derived from prohibited bioweapons research in a product for mass injection is, by definition, a deliberate act of deploying a biological weapon. The specific intent is proven by the fact that the defendants knew the origin of the pathogenic payload they were putting into the delivery system.

• The 2015 Nature Medicine Paper: This paper, 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 [7]. The stated purpose was to test “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 Proposal (2018): This grant proposal, submitted by Peter Daszak’s
EcoHealth Alliance to DARPA, serves as a blueprint for creating SARS-CoV-2. It
proposed to engineer coronaviruses with features that would make them more
infectious to humans, including the insertion of a Furin Cleavage Site (FCS) [8].

According to Dr. Boyle’s analysis, these documents are not mere academic exercises; they are evidence of a premeditated plan to develop the pathogenic payload for this delivery system. The research was aimed at creating a spike protein with enhanced pandemic potential, which would then be encoded into the mRNA platform. The development of the LNP delivery system by military-funded entities like DARPA shows the specific intent to create a deployable weapon.

B. Malice Aforethought: Reckless Endangerment of Human Beings

Dr. Boyle argues that the actions of the defendants meet the standard of malice aforethought, a key element for the crime of murder under Anglo-American Common Law. He explains that malice aforethought is a legal term of art that includes “reckless endangerment of human beings.”

This standard is met because the defendants knew that the gain-of-function research was “existentially dangerous” but proceeded with it anyway. They then knowingly deployed the resulting bioweapon, the mRNA injection, on a global population. This act of deploying an experimental injection derived from prohibited bioweapons research, with full knowledge of its dangerous origins and emerging safety signals, constitutes a profound and reckless endangerment of human life.

Dr. Boyle explicitly applies this standard to both the creators of the virus and “those responsible for the COVID shots,” including the chief executives of Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson [12]. He argues that their actions satisfy the legal requirements for murder and conspiracy to commit murder with malice aforethought.

C. Knowingness: Awareness of the Weapon’s Danger and Deliberate Deployment

Even if specific intent were not considered, the lower standard of “knowingness” is
overwhelmingly met. This requires showing that the accused were aware that the deployment of the injections was reasonably certain to cause mass harm and death.

Knowledge of the Payload’s Origin: Dr. Boyle asserts that U.S. intelligence
agencies knew the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a bioweapon from a lab as early as
September 2019 [11]. Therefore, they knew that the spike protein derived from it was
a pathogenic, engineered component. Deploying an injection that forces the body to
produce this known pathogenic component demonstrates, at minimum, a knowing
disregard for the certain harm it would cause.

Knowledge of the Injection’s Harm: Immediately following the rollout, safety
signals for severe adverse events appeared in official databases like VAERS and
EudraVigilance. The defendants and public health authorities had direct access to this
data showing the injections were causing myocarditis, thrombosis, neurological
damage, and death. Despite this, they continued to falsely claim the injections were
“safe and effective.”

Deliberate Continuation Despite Known Harms and Ineffectiveness: The
defendants and public health authorities had direct access to official data showing the
injections were causing unprecedented harm and were ineffective at stopping
infection or transmission. Despite knowledge of catastrophic safety signals
(myocarditis, thrombosis, death) and evidence of negative effectiveness, they
continued to falsely promote the injections as “safe and effective” while
systematically censoring dissenting experts. This constitutes a deliberate continuation
of a harmful act with full knowledge of its devastating consequences.

This deliberate suppression of data and propagation of known falsehoods while harms
mounted constitutes a “widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack,” meeting the definition of Crimes Against Humanity under the Rome Statute [5]. The deployment of this biological weapon has resulted in unprecedented, systemic harm across a non-exhaustive range of categories, as documented in the peer-reviewed literature [9]. These damages include:

• (1) Immunological harms, such as the generation of autoimmune diseases,
widespread reactivation of latent viruses (e.g., EBV, shingles), and immune system
degradation through IgG4 class switching.

• (2) Cardiovascular harms, including a dramatically increased risk of myocarditis,
pericarditis, myocardial infarction, stroke, and widespread thrombosis (blood
clotting).

• (3) Oncological harms, characterized by a surge in aggressive, rapid-onset “turbo-
cancers,” the relapse of previously stable cancers, and the appearance of rare cancers
in younger demographics.

• (4) Reproductive harms, including catastrophic rates of miscarriage, stillbirth,
menstrual abnormalities, and neonatal complications such as congenital
malformations and developmental delays.

• (5) Neurological harms, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), acute
disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), and the production of aberrant, misfolded
proteins with the potential to induce prion-like neurodegenerative diseases.

• (6) Genomic harms, stemming from the confirmed presence of plasmid DNA
contaminants (including the SV40 promoter sequence) and the demonstrated potential
for reverse transcription of vaccine mRNA into the human genome, creating a
permanent risk of genetic alteration and oncogenesis.

V. The Seven Violations of the Biological Weapons Convention by the mRNA Injections

Dr. Boyle’s argument is that the mRNA injections are a novel biological weapons delivery system, and their deployment constitutes a direct violation of the BWC. These violations align with the seven categories of concern for dual-use research outlined in the 2004 U.S. National Research Council’s “Fink Report” [9]. The following table details how the mRNA injections themselves fulfill the criteria for each prohibited category [10].

Prohibited GOF Category

Dr. Boyle’s Argument for Violation by the mRNA Injections

1. Render a vaccine ineffective

The mRNA injection itself is the agent that renders the recipient’s immune system ineffective. By forcing a sustained, unnatural production of a single antigen (the spike protein), it induces immune tolerance via mechanisms like IgG4 class-switching. This makes the recipient more vulnerable to repeated infections and future variants, directly subverting the purpose of a traditional vaccine. The injection is a bioweapon that functions by degrading the immune system.

2. Confer resistance to therapeutics

The mRNA injection was deployed as the exclusive therapeutic option, while safe, effective, and inexpensive treatments were systematically suppressed. This act of forcing a population to accept a patented, experimental bioweapon injection as its only recourse is a key biowarfare tactic. It confers resistance to all other useful therapies through political and regulatory force, not just biological mechanisms.

3. Enhance 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 engineered SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon: the gain-of-function spike protein, complete with its pathogenic Furin Cleavage Site. The injection turns the human body into a factory for a virulent toxin, causing systemic damage (e.g., myocarditis, thrombosis) far beyond a typical respiratory virus.

4. Increase the transmissibility of a pathogen

The mRNA injection is a key component of a bioweapon system. The lipid nanoparticle (LNP) platform, developed with Pentagon/DARPA funding, is a novel and highly efficient delivery mechanism for genetic material. It perfects the ability to transmit a genetic payload directly into human cells on a mass scale. Furthermore, by providing non-sterilizing immunity, the injections create an environment where vaccinated individuals can still carry and transmit the virus, potentially driving the evolution of new, more transmissible variants.

5. Alter the host range of a pathogen

The mRNA injection’s payload is the genetic code for the very spike protein that was engineered to have an altered host range (i.e., to jump from bats to humans). By injecting this code, the bioweapon bypasses natural barriers and forces human cells to produce a protein they would never encounter naturally. This directly applies the altered host range technology to the human population.

6. Enable evasion of diagnostic/detection

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

7. Enable the weaponization of a biological agent

The mRNA injection is the culmination of weaponization. It combines a pathogenic genetic payload (the GOF spike protein) with a military-funded, stealth delivery system (LNPs) designed for mass administration. This creates a scalable, deployable biological weapon system capable of turning a recipient’s own body into a bioweapon factory. This is the very definition of a weaponized biological agent.

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

Dr. Boyle argues that the deployment of the COVID-19 mRNA injections constitutes a “blatant, obvious violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation.” While the Nuremberg Code itself is a set of ethical guidelines, its core principles, particularly the requirement for voluntary, informed consent, have been codified into both customary international law and the domestic law of the Netherlands, and elsewhere.

A. The Nuremberg Code as Customary International Law

The Nuremberg Code was established in 1947 in the aftermath of the trial of Nazi doctors who performed horrific experiments on concentration camp prisoners. It establishes that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” for any medical experiment. Dr. Boyle emphasizes that the U.S. government used these principles to prosecute, convict, and execute Nazi doctors, setting a powerful historical and legal precedent.

While the Code itself is not a treaty, its principles are widely considered to be part of customary international law, which is binding on all states. The deployment of an experimental injection on a mass scale without true informed consent is therefore a violation of these binding international principles.

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

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

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

True informed consent was made impossible because:

Information was suppressed: Data on adverse events (myocarditis, thrombosis, death) was actively censored and downplayed.

Coercion was used: Mandates and social pressure were used to force individuals to accept the injections, violating the principle of voluntary consent.

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

C. Dr. Boyle’s Argument: A Nuremberg Crime Against Humanity

Dr. Boyle argues that the violation of these principles is not merely a regulatory breach, but a Nuremberg Crime Against Humanity. He makes the direct comparison:

“What we’re seeing now with these Frankenshots for children, this is Dr. Mengele at Auschwitz all over again. That’s where this Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation came from.”

By deploying an experimental bioweapon under coercive conditions without providing true informed consent, the defendants have repeated the very crimes for which Nazi doctors were executed. This act, according to Dr. Boyle, satisfies 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 Dr. Francis Boyle, the architect of the U.S. Biological
Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, there is a powerful and coherent case that the COVID-19 and mRNA injections are illegal biological weapons. The evidence demonstrates both specific intent on the part of the researchers and funders who planned and executed prohibited gain-of-function experiments, and knowingness on the part of the pharmaceutical companies and public health officials who continued to push the injections despite overwhelming evidence of their harms and ineffectiveness.

The development and deployment of these injections violate all seven categories of concern for bioweapons research and fall squarely within the prohibitions of the Biological Weapons Convention, as implemented in the Netherlands and elsewhere. The subsequent 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 that those responsible are held accountable for their role in this unprecedented global crime.

References

[1] Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, 18 U.S.C. § 175.
[2] Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (1972).
[3] Biological Weapons Convention (Implementation) Act, Netherlands (1981).
[4] The Criminal Code of the Netherlands (Wetboek van Strafrecht).
[5] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 (1998).
[6] Boyle, F. (2024, June 21).Dr. Boyle’s Transcript Filed with Affidavit: COVID 19 Injections are Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction. Francis A. Boyle Substack.
[7] Menachery, V. D., et al. (2015). A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.Nature Medicine, 21(12), 1508-1513.
[8] Project DEFUSE, HR001118S0017-PREEMPT-PA-001 (2018).
[9] Zywiec, A., et al. (2025). COVID-19 Injections: Harms and Damages, a Non-Exhaustive Conclusion.Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 30(3), 80-88.
[10] Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology, National Research Council. (2004).Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. The National Academies Press.
[11] Affidavit of Dr. Francis A. Boyle, filed May 28, 2024, in the case ofJoseph Sansone v. Hon. Ron DeSantis, First DCA Case No.: 1D2024-1101 (Florida).
[12] Mercola, J. (2021, November 29). Harvard-trained lawyer wants Fauci, COVID-pushing lawmakers prosecuted for ‘conspiracy to commit murder’.

GiveSendGo to support my efforts in my Florida case.

Dr. Joseph Sansone is a psychotherapist opposed to psychopathic authoritarianism.

Mind Matters and Everything Else is 100% independent. If you appreciate my writing and advocacy and would like to support it, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a donation of any amount. Donations may be sent c/o Joseph Sansone, 27499 Riverview Center Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, United States, or make an online donation on Ko-Fi or donate Bitcoin.