Covid 19 and the vax is a bioweapon.

This is not a theory, it is a conspiracy however! Conspiracy theorists were right again: Introducing Francis Boyle:

His Resume: Professor Boyle served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International, as a consultant to the American Friends Service Committee, and on the Advisory Board for the Council for Responsible Genetics. He drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

Here is his signed Affidavit:



Here is the live interview with all the details!




pretty tough, well more like impossible to find a better authority than this! this is no longer a theory. several states are working on banning it especially florida.

.

 

Hilarious. "Professor" (no-experience-whatsover) Boyle uses the phrase "in my expert opinion".

Another spam-thread, are any neutrals buying this batshit?
The ‘superspreaders’ behind COVID-19 conspiracy theories | Coronavirus pandemic News | Al Jazeera
The Origins and Scientific Failings of the COVID-19 'Bioweapon' Conspiracy Theory | Snopes.com

 

Wow! So much vitriol and absolute hatred against people that are merely telling the truth.

Highly qualified people like Professor Francis Boyle are called 'experts', and 'experts' give "expert opinions" in their fields of expertise.

snopes and aljazeera rag? wastewater sludge references of the interweb? Seriously? OMFG thats funny! I'd be too embarrassed to use either of them as a reference!



Francis Boyle

About
Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He received an AB (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a JD degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and AM and PhD degrees in Political Science from Harvard University. He practiced tax and international tax with Bingham, Dana & Gould.

Professor Boyle serves as counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the Provisional Government of the Palestinian Authority. He also represents two associations of citizens within Bosnia and was involved in developing the indictment against Slobodan Milosević for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Over his career, he has represented national and international bodies including the Blackfoot Nation (Canada), the Nation of Hawaii, and the Lakota Nation, as well as numerous individual death penalty and human rights cases. He has advised numerous international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes and genocide, nuclear policy, and bio-warfare. From 1991-92, he served as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations.

Professor Boyle served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International, as a consultant to the American Friends Service Committee, and on the Advisory Board for the Council for Responsible Genetics. He drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

Education
AM, PhD Harvard University
JD Harvard Law School
AB University of Chicago

Areas of Expertise
Constitutional Law (U.S. Foreign Affairs)
Human Rights
Jurisprudence
U.S. Foreign Affairs


Biowarfare and Terrorism
Francis A Boyle

• College of Law
• Unit for Criticism and Interpretive Theory
• Russian, East European and Eurasian Center
• European Union Center
• Center for South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies
• Center for African Studies
• Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies

Research output: Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Book



World Politics, Human Rights, and International Law
Boyle, F. A., Feb 2021

 

Wow, big-up the professor who has not even a scrap of relevant expertise. This is something else conspiracy theorists do quite well.

They'll take a doctor or professor and gleefully use his qualification title, regardless of how it was obtained or how important it is to the subject matter. Boyle drafts a bill and suddenly he knows how to examine the chemical composition of a vaccination.

 

Wow Ive seen misrepresentation before but the above post is pure batshit disinformation, and not a very good job at it either.

I believe the guy who wrote the US bioweapons legislation long before I believe any internet hacks self serving propaganda from provax sites.

Thats as ludicrous as claiming a judge in court has to be a microbiologist to determine the covid so called vax is a bioweapon.

Judges and high profile international lawyers like Boyle make those determinations fully within their area of expertise to do so.

He is using his expertise based on all the evidence what the so called vax really is, and in upper circles its well known its not a vax.

His expert opinion based on the evidence is that it is a bioweapon and he lists the laws national and international that it is in violation. He is fully qualified to make such a determination and no amount of batshit provaxers spread around in this thread can change the facts.

 

Arm waving crap. This is something else conspiracy theorists are good at. Bloviating, huffing and puffing.

Well duhhhh, yes it is!

Bullshit. They make the determination from referrals to expert witnesses! Boyle has zero relevant expertise.

It's hilarious how the barrel full of rotting crap continues to be scraped for anything these conspiracy theorists think will work. How many years before the batshit-bioweapon's start working? The conspiracy theorist failures just continue to mount up. They know the game is up, supposedly millions were going to die, but it never happened.

 

boring, I see nothing worth my time to comment on.

 

He isn't demonstrating any theory being right here though, he is just reasserting the same theory with the same (lack of) "evidence".

It is important to note that his area of expertise is legal rather than medical and though he wraps it in scary sounding scientific terminology (correctly or not), his argument is an entirely legal one. The fundamental nature of the COVID vaccines aren't in question, nor are the potential side-effects, up to an including death in some cases (though the scale of that certainly is). The Professor's assertion is entirely based on the assumption of an intentional conspiracy to kill people via the vaccines. The problem is that he doesn't have any evidence to support that, just a handful of dots (real or imagined) that he is desperately trying to tie together.

Loads of legitimate medical treatments could fall under the definition of bio-weapons, but only if they were designed and/or used for that purpose. This assertion is based entirely on assuming that purpose with COVID vaccines, so anything said about the nature or effects of the vaccines, even any negative ones, is just a distraction from the void where any actual evidence should be. That's why he is presenting his claims on extremist web shows rather than to a court or government.

 

he is not talking about any other injectable, he is talking about covid 19 specifically.

The way the system works is an expert in the field presents the available evidence to boyle, and boyle compares the evidence to the law and makes a determination based on all available evidence.

This idea that someone has to have a degree in asswiping to wipe their ass is frankly gut busting hilarious, its a useless cheap seat play.

lets compare credentials

 

Haha, but you said he was qualified on his own! Now he needs expert testimony - flip-flopping.

WHO was his expert who gave him is batshit "evidence"!?

One of the most useless analogies I've ever seen. Nothing deserving of a degree is is ludicrously simple as that.

 

I highly suggest filing a court order and subpoena him for his evidence, or just listen to the video.

 

I listened to his baseless crap already. Which statements in particular were the ones that ensnared you with the batshit?

 

Yes, but why is he only talking about COVID vaccines? If he is taking such a broad interpretation of the legal definitions of bioweapons to include COVID vaccines, how could that interpretation not also include a whole range of other medical treatments which are known can cause some harm (but at an acceptable level compared to the befits), not to mention all of the treatments that have been replaced or banned because they were deemed to do too much harm for their benefits, but obviously weren't declared bioweapons?

Not exactly. What happens is that the scientific experts publish of their their evidence and conclusions on the medical aspects so that any legal expert can assess those conclusions on the basis of legality.

Nobody needs to present an affidavit to support their professional opinions, they just need to present the evidence they used, the methodology they applied and the conclusions they reached. And if anyone has reasonable questions or challenges to those conclusions, they should be respectfully heard and addressed.

Then why are you making such a big this about his legal qualifications and expertise?

My point about his expertise wasn't to dismiss his ability to reach this conclusion, but to highlight that his conclusion is a legal one, and isn't primarily based on demonstrated harm but an assertion of intent. As per the statement you opened your OP with, the claim here is that it is a conspiracy. That is a legal claim rather than a medical one, but it is a claim that has not been in any way supported.

 

I rebutted all your points but its not here anymore Im not doing it again.

 

To score irrelevant and useless points. Conspiracy theorists have been wrong about this from the very beginning, the batshit-bio-weapon has to be the worst claim of the lot.

Here we are, years down the road and nothing is happening. All the self-righteous indignant huffing and puffing and all proven as crap.

Correct, nor will it be.

 

Sure you did. What if I rebutted your rebuttal but that isn't here any more either.

The fact remains that there is zero actual evidence (scientific, legal or otherwise) here to support the assertion that COVID vaccines (or COVID itself, which doesn't appear to be what Dr Boyle wrote anyway) are bioweapons or that there was any kind of conspiracy involving them. You remain free to present and or link some if you want.

 

I read it before it was deleted - it rebutted nothing.

An interview with Stew Peters "the captain of batshit" is the "evidence" being presented. Another Alex Jones in the making, jumping on the bandwagon of conspiracy-theory suckers, eager to part with their cash.

 

I wasnt aware you were an expert on the subject.

Then you are claiming that an infectious disease cannot be classified as a bioweapon.

Since you believe that an infectious disease cannot be a bioweapon, give us a detailed itemized comparative example and list what "actual evidence" of a bioweapon, biological or legal would look like.

 

I wasn't aware you were either, but regardless, as someone once said (sorry, exactly who has slipped my mind); "This idea that someone has to have a degree in asswiping to wipe their ass is frankly gut busting hilarious, its a useless cheap seat play."

You really need to settle on how much credence you're giving experts in their field, and apply that to all experts, not just the ones saying what you want to hear. This expert is indeed saying one thing, and his opinion should be listened to and considered, but lots of other experts clearly disagree with him and you can't dismiss them out of hand. That is why the evidence for such claims needs to be formally and clearly set out, so other experts can review that evidence and reach independent conclusions (and note that a casual interview on a partisan web show isn't formal or clear).

I'm not saying that at all. Infectious pathogens certainly can be (and have been) used as weapons, which is why the legal definition of what could be a bioweapon is very broad. What there is zero evidence for is a conspiracy to develop and use COVID (or it's vaccines) as a bioweapon.

A baseball bat isn't a weapon, and MLB aren't treated as terrorist organisation because it has and uses them, but a baseball bat can certainly be used as a weapon, and if someone does (or intendeds to) do that, they can face criminal charges for use of a weapon. To bring those charges though, prosecutors have to demonstrate both that the item or tool in question can be used to cause harm and the act or intent of the suspect to use it in that manner.

The same principle applies to bioweapons. COVID certainly fits the definition of what could potentially be used as a bioweapon (though, it should be noted, not a very effective one) but for it to be a weapon, it has to have been used (or intended to be used) in that manner. It is that latter aspect for which there is no definitive evidence nor, for that matter, any coherent detailed hypothesis.

 

That was a whole lot of not answering my question, however:

They certainly wouldnt create a bioweapon that would kill themselves. They had the antidote, they were allowed to get we were not.

If someone makes a product and calls it a strawberry sunday and people are dropping dead or becoming ill from the product and we find out there was genome editing sequencing involved that shocked their bodies and the data proves more vaxd died than unvaxed there is no need to prove intent when investigations have already proven malfeasance. We dont have to look any further than the plethora of false statements made by the 3 letter bureaucracy.



We were lied to.


Proof of bioweapon data accepted by congressional investigators:

 

You didn't ask any questions. I would welcome you asking questions rather than making statements (including false assumptions about my position).

That is just an empty assertion. Do you have any evidence to support the idea that there is some sort of secret "antidote" to COVID?

It isn't true that a greater proportion of vaccinated people died than unvaccinated. You only get figures of more of the deaths being within the vaccinated group because a much larger proportion of the population was vaccinated.

You have to prove what you're actually alleging. There can certainly be evidence of errors, negligence or misinformation around the efficacy and safety of the various vaccines but that is a world away from the assertion of a pre-planned international conspiracy to artificially create the COVID pandemic.

Memes aren't evidence. Or are you actually claiming that the WHO literally said "You die, but you go to heaven"? Anyway, false statements aren't evidence of a conspiracy (after all, you keep making false statements too ).

Again, evidence of a medical treatment causing adverse effects, even if that is at a greater scale than expected or acceptable, is not evidence of that treatment being created and used as a bioweapon. Loads of medical treatments have serious side effects and some medical treatments have been withdrawn because of their side effects. None of those were declared bioweapons.

 

only the heaven part. lol

No comment on ICAN I see.

you failed to detail what a bioweapon is, and I get bored quickly now days.

sure it is look at one of my earlier charts.

Does not matter, per capita more vaxd died than unvaxed.

 

That's why memes aren't evidence. You don't know how much they're based on reality and how much they're misrepresentation or rhetoric.

Why would I comment on them? You posted a screenshot from something they apparently produced, but your claim was that it is somehow "Proof of bioweapon data accepted by congressional investigators". That data may well be accurate (though not necessarily honestly presented) but even if it is, it isn't evidence of your claim in any way.

You don't know? A bioweapon is a biological substance produced or used to intentionally cause injury or death in humans, animals or plants.

That is simple not true; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9848037/ (note that link is to actual research, not an image of some chart or meme).

 

(c) Definition.—
For purposes of this section, the term “for use as a weapon” includes the development, production, transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for other than prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes.

gain of function research is not 'bonafide' prophylactic research, it was/is illegal.

the study was cut short, making the unvaxd appear to have a higher mortality rate.

The study combines people that had one vaccine jab with the unvaccinated making the unvaxd look even worse.

Your study is bunk and this is in a section I do not post in any longer, so you have fun with this.

 

Oh god, we're back to the all-cause mortality failure again. Making unvaccinated worse? As opposed to the ludicrous lies that do the opposite!

You're lucky all your junk-spam threads aren't correctly placed here!