Dutch Court Hears Suit Alleging COVID Shots Were Bioweapons; Defense Lawyers Reject Every Claim

Since the civil suit was filed in 2023, the Dutch case against Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and former Prime Minister Mark Rutte has moved slowly through the courts. On Oct. 22, it reached a hearing on the merits before three judges at the District Court of Northern Netherlands in Leeuwarden.

The case number is C/17/190788 / HA ZA 23-172. Lawyer Peter Stassen leads the plaintiffs. The defendants also include the Dutch State and more than a dozen other parties. Sources differ on the exact count, putting it at 13 or 14 besides the named figures.

What the plaintiffs argued

Stassen told the court the COVID-19 injections "are lethal, or at least highly harmful to human health and fertility." He also said: "These injections are a biological weapon."

He argued that deploying them worldwide "can only take place through the unlawful deception of the public on a global scale." He said the defendants are "implementers" of a project he called "COVID-19: The Great Reset" and are being sued individually.

After the hearing, which ran more than three hours, Stassen told supporters outside: "COVID-19 was not a disease; It was a project." He said the plaintiffs hold "crucial evidence" that the official narrative is false. Those are allegations. Stassen has not presented that evidence to the public, and no court has found any of it to be true.

Two of the original seven plaintiffs have died since the suit was filed. The sources do not say how they died, and nothing in them links either death to the claims in the case.

The defense

Lawyers for the defendants rejected every claim. They said the shots were safe and effective and were developed through normal science.

The sources do not say whether Gates, Bourla or Rutte attended in person. No public statement from any of them on the hearing has surfaced.

The judge acknowledged how far apart the two sides are. The judge described the case as highly unusual, with one side arguing there was no virus, that the injections were a bioweapon and that genocide had occurred, and the other insisting the opposite.

Critics outside the courthouse and in mainstream outlets called the plaintiffs' arguments extreme conspiracy theories.

Why supporters are treating it as a win

Plaintiffs' expert witness Sasha Latypova framed the hearing itself as progress. "This is already a victory because the court recognized there is a case to be had," she said. The court has issued no ruling that says so.

Latypova contrasted the Dutch case with the United States, where she said "the perpetrators of COVID crimes are completely shielded from liability." She alleged that those responsible "lied to the people."

Dr. Joseph Sansone, speaking to the crowd, said people had been "poisoned with biological and technological weapons of mass destruction." He offered no evidence in the remarks quoted. Doug Mainwaring, writing for the outlet Todayville, argues that Dutch law offers no equivalent of the U.S. liability shield for vaccine makers.

A hearing being held is not a finding that claims have merit. Civil courts hear cases that parties are entitled to file. The judges have said nothing on whether any allegation is supported.

What the case is built on

The suit rests on two separate ideas. One is personal injury: plaintiffs say they were hurt after vaccination and want the defendants held legally responsible. The other is much larger: that the vaccines were deliberately deployed as weapons through a coordinated deception tied to the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset" initiative.

The second claim is the one driving social media attention. A post of Stassen's quotes drew more than 536,000 views on X. The quotes themselves match across the accounts of the hearing.

The larger claim also asks the court to accept that named individuals acted as coordinated implementers of a single plan. The defense denies that, and the plaintiffs' side has so far offered the court's attention as its main proof of progress, not any announced finding.

What comes next

No judgment date has been announced in the sources. The three-judge panel can dismiss the claims, accept some of them, or ask for further filings or hearings.

It is not yet clear whether the court treats the injury claims separately from the bioweapon and deception theory. Whatever it decides, the written ruling will be the first judicial statement on which parts of the 2023 suit, if any, move forward.