Why are Anti-COVID gene serums to be considered illegal weapons?

If experimental gene sera were used as a weapon of war, would they be legal? 

Why are anti-COVID gene sera to be considered illegal weapons? [1]

By Marco Saba, for Freedom in Law, no. 2, 2023

 Click to view the video


Above: Rosanna Chifari Negri talks about biological weapons contrary to humanitarian law

Background: From 27 December 2020 to 5 May 2023, the WHO instructed a global experimental campaign called 'vaccination' as part of the 'Covid-19 Pandemic' operation involving the forced inoculation of 'anti-COVID' gene serums. After 24 million excess deaths ascertained globally, the sovereign people demand that all those responsible for the campaign, which proved disastrous in health, economic and political terms, be tried in court. Those found responsible could resort to the expedient of declaring that it was a real 'war' in which weapons - called 'vaccines' - could be legally used. This article refutes this attempt.


Anti-COVID gene serums can be considered illegal weapons because they violate the principles of humanitarian law.


According to the rule of three limitations applicable to all weapons in war, to be legal weapons must:


1) be directed against legitimate military targets

2) have proportionate collateral effects

3) meet ethical standards for human experimentation.


Anti-COVID gene serums do not meet these criteria:


1) They are injected indiscriminately into the civilian population, not against military targets.

2) The serious and lethal side effects on large sections of the population, including children, cannot be considered proportionate.

3) Forced inoculation methods violate the required standards for medical experiments, not complying with wartime uses.


In addition to the above reasons, Anti-COVID Gene Serums:


cannot be contained in 'legal battlefields'
• continue to act even after the end of hostilities
• they are inhuman in the way they can kill and harm
• they can have long-term negative impacts on the environment


A weapon is made illegal in two ways:


(1) by the adoption of a specific treaty prohibiting it; and
(2) because it cannot be used without violating existing law and custom of war.

A weapon made illegal only because there is a specific treaty prohibiting it is illegal only for countries that ratify that treaty. A weapon made illegal by existing law is illegal for all countries. This is true even if there is a treaty on this weapon and a country has not ratified it. Since there is no specific treaty banning anti-COVID gene serums, their illegality must be established in the second way.
The laws and customs of war (humanitarian law) include all treaties regulating military operations, weapons and the protection of war victims, as well as all customary international law on these subjects. [2] In other words, to assess whether a particular weapon is legal or illegal in the absence of a specific treaty, it is necessary to consult the entire body of humanitarian law. [3]

There are four rules derived from the entire humanitarian law on weapons:
(A) Weapons may only be used in the legal battlefield, defined as legal military objectives of the enemy in war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect outside the legal battlefield. (The 'territorial' test).
(B) Weapons may only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to be used after the end of the war violates this criterion. (The 'temporal' test).[4]
(C) Weapons may not be unduly inhumane. (The 'humanity' test). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 use the terms 'unnecessary suffering' and 'unnecessary injury' for this concept. [5]
(D) Weapons cannot have an unduly adverse effect on the natural environment. (The 'environmental' test).


Anti-COVID gene serums fail all four tests.
(a) They cannot be 'contained' in legal battlefields and therefore fail the 'environmental' test. In contrast, Anti-COVID Gene Serums are inoculated away from legal targets and reach illegal (civilian) targets: hospital staff, school staff, jurists, children, youth, adults and the elderly in general, and even uniformed personnel with whom the pharmaceutical industries are not at war.
(b) They cannot be 'inactivated' when the war (COVID campaign) is over. In fact, anti-COVID gene serums continue to act even after the end of hostilities and therefore fail the time test. Even with strict care of personnel in war zones (COVID campaign), particles inoculated into the body can continue to kill and harm soldiers and civilians long after the war is over (COVID campaign).
(c) They are inhuman and therefore fail the humanity test. Anti-COVID gene serums are inhuman because of the way they can kill -- immunosuppression, myocarditis, cancer, neurological diseases, etc. -- and also long after the end of hostilities, when sudden premature deaths should stop. Anti-COVID Gene Serums are inhumane because they can cause sterility, miscarriages, (genetic) birth defects, side-effects of breast-feeding from serum mothers, thus affecting children who can never be a military target and who are born even after the end of the war (COVID campaign). The teratogenic nature of Anti-COVID Gene Serums and the possible burdening of the gene pool of future generations suggest that the use of Anti-COVID Gene Serums is genocidal.
(d) They cannot be disposed of without unduly damaging the natural environment with their nanoparticles and therefore do not pass the environmental test. The damage to the natural environment includes the contamination of water and agricultural land necessary for the subsistence of the civilian population well beyond the lifespan of that population. Clean-up is an inexact science and, in any case, extremely expensive, far beyond the spending power of a poor country.

One of the most useful provisions of treaty-based humanitarian law is the 'Martens Clause' of the 1907 Hague Convention, repeated in subsequent humanitarian law treaties. The Martens Clause states that in situations where there is no specific treaty provision (as in the case of Anti-COVID Gene Serums), the international community is nonetheless bound by "the rules of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the established usages among civilised peoples, the laws of humanity and the dictates of public conscience."[6] There is a huge international 'NO-VAX' effort by a wide range of groups representing every aspect of civil society. The existence of the network against Anti-COVID Gene Serums is legally relevant to the finding that Anti-COVID Gene Serums are illegal and strengthens the arguments that the use of Anti-COVID Gene Serums is a war crime or a crime against humanity, and can play a decisive role in stopping the proliferation of these gene weapons.
All this shows how Anti-COVID Gene Serums, although not prohibited by specific treaties, violate general principles of humanitarian law and in particular the rule of three limitations. They must therefore be considered illegal weapons.
A multilateral debate is desirable to impartially reconsider the development and use of gene vaccines according to international standards that respect their potential usefulness, in parallel with the need to withdraw those currently distributed.




1] This brief is inspired by the work of US lawyer Karen Parker on uranium weapons 'The Illegality of DU Weaponry' (2003): https://guidetoaction.org/parker/duweaponry2003.pdf
2] Customary international law, which includes: Hague law (governing military operations) and Geneva law (governing protected parties in time of war) is binding on all countries. The US Supreme Court has consistently upheld the binding nature of customary law, including customary humanitarian law. All international law, including the UN Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice, reflects the binding nature of customary law.
3] In 1996, the International Court of Justice, in the Nuclear case, ruled that all weapons must be assessed according to the criteria of humanitarian law, but it does not state what these criteria are. I wrote this article on the basis of Karen Parker's memorandum to make explicit the criteria that had not yet been fully extracted from humanitarian law.
4] The first two tests ('territorial' and 'temporal') together constitute the rule that weapons must not be 'indiscriminate'.
5] Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Convention, Regulations. This article also prohibits 'poisonous or poisoned weapons'. Some might argue that Anti-COVID Gene Serums are necessarily poisonous, and therefore directly prohibited by Article 23.
6] The 1907 Hague Convention, 8th paragraph preamble. The 'Martens' clause (named after the Russian scholar who formulated it) is repeated in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. The United States is a party to the Hague Conventions and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The US Supreme Court, in a 1942 case (Ex Parte Quirin), ruled that this clause is US law. This principle only applies to humanitarian law (of armed conflicts), not to human rights law, although the latter is evolving in this direction. For example, the International Court of Justice, in the Corfu Channel, ruled that 'elementary considerations of humanity [are] even more to be demanded in peace than in war' (1949)." (Report of the International Court of Justice, 1949, p. 22).

Support the activities of
People of Mother Earth
People of Mother Earth
Ours is a self-determined state, with a presidential government and a board of ministers formed with men and women aware and united on the old ancestral identities of our territory, the Italic Peninsula, of the whole of Mother Earth.
E-mail: secretary@popolodellamadreterra.org
Subscribe to the newsletter
to stay up to date
on the initiatives and events of the People of Mother Earth
Copyright © 2022 - Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy
Powered by Giap Informatica