The Greatest Capital Crime Against Humanity?

The European Commission destroyed — or failed to preserve — Ursula von der Leyen’s text-message correspondence with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and defended this before the European Court of Justice. An EU court found it unlawful. The appeal is ongoing. The messages are still not public.

That is the legal starting point. The biological and demographic data lying alongside it make the question in the title more than rhetoric.

This article is not a verdict. It is a composition of documented findings placed side by side — because until now they have been treated separately.

What the Court Documents

#

On 17 July 2024, the General Court of the European Union ruled in Cases T-761/21 and T-689/21 that the Commission had violated the EU Transparency Regulation by refusing to release documents on the COVID vaccine contract negotiations.¹ This concerned not only the contract texts but also the identity of the negotiators.

The Commission appealed — Cases C-631/24 P and C-632/24 P. On 11 June 2026, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos delivered his Opinion. His recommendation: dismiss both appeals and uphold the General Court’s judgments.²

The key quotation from CURIA press release No. 86/2026:

“The General Court was correct in holding that the transparency of the process of negotiating agreements for Covid-19 vaccines constitutes a specific purpose in the public interest within the meaning of EU law.”

The Court of Justice’s ruling is still pending. No date of delivery is publicly known (as of 29 June 2026). The Court follows the Advocate General’s Opinion in the majority of cases but is not bound by it.

What the proceedings do not decide: whether contract clauses shielded adverse-event data that had come to light. They decide whether the public had the right to know. The Advocate General says: yes.

What the Biology Documents

#

The IgG4 Class Switch: Tolerance Instead of Defense

#

In December 2022, Irrgang, Gerling, Kocher, Lapuente, Steininger and 14 further authors published an observation in Science Immunology that was discussed controversially in the specialist press.³

The finding: after the second mRNA vaccination, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies rose over the course of months. After the third dose they accounted for roughly 19 percent of the entire anti-spike IgG fraction. This class switch was associated with a reduced capacity for antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis and complement activation.

The authors put it precisely:

“This class switch was associated with reduced capacity of spike-specific antibodies to mediate antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis and complement deposition.”

In other words: the immune system learns to tolerate the spike antigen — instead of fighting it.

Counter-position: An editorial in the same journal (Science Immunology, DOI: 10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327) regards IgG4 as a potentially adaptive tolerance pattern that prevents chronic inflammation.⁴ The clinical consequence of the class switch, it argues, is unclear. This dissenting voice comes from the same journal’s peer-review process — it is not a fringe opinion.

Assessment: Irrgang et al. document an observed immunological effect. Its clinical significance is the subject of ongoing scientific debate. What is established: the class switch occurs, and it is biologically associated with immunosuppression.

Spike Protein and p53: Inhibited Apoptosis in Cancer Cells

#

Zhang and El-Deiry (Brown University / Fox Chase Cancer Center) published an in-vitro finding in Oncotarget in May 2024.⁵

Cancer cells into which spike DNA had been introduced (transfection model) showed reduced p53 activation of p21(WAF1), the TRAIL death receptor DR5 and MDM2 — proteins central to programmed cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. After cisplatin chemotherapy, spike-expressing tumor cells survived significantly better than control cells.

“Spike-expressing tumor cells showed increased cell viability as compared to control cells.”

Study design: in vitro, cell-culture experiment. No animal or human trial. The transfection approach is not a complete model for natural vaccine responses in the human body.

Assessment: Zhang & El-Deiry provide peer-reviewed laboratory evidence for a plausible mechanism — spike protein inhibits p53-dependent apoptosis pathways in cancer cells. A causal connection to clinical cancers in humans is not established by this study alone. Wafik El-Deiry is a renowned p53 researcher; the study appeared in an established oncological peer-review journal.

What the Demography Documents

#

The German Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) has published intra-year death figures since 2020. The benchmark is the median of the four immediately preceding years.

2021: For the full year, the WISTA publication 01/2023 (Kauermann/De Nicola, Destatis) reports a provisional excess mortality of +2.3 percent.⁶ In November, deaths were +22 percent, in December +25 percent above the four-year median.

2022: Around 1,060,000 deaths — +3.4 percent compared with 2021, in absolute terms roughly 35,000 excess deaths.⁷ Individual calendar weeks were up to 38 percent above the median.

2023: Around 1,020,000 deaths — -4 percent compared with 2022, normalizing toward the end of the year.⁸

The WISTA publication 01/2023 notes that population ageing effects may explain part of the raw-data excess mortality; age-standardized mortality rates are, it argues, the more robust measure.⁹ The Destatis finding stands: in 2022, statistically around 35,000 more people died in Germany than in a normal year.

What Destatis cannot answer: whether and to what extent this rise is connected to the vaccination campaign. The office reports the figure — it does not assess causality.

The Structure of Interests

#

This question does not answer itself. Who profits, who loses — that is not speculation when it is publicly documented.

The table does not judge. It structures what is publicly documented.

According to reports by the BBC and Politico on leaked Epstein emails, Peter Mandelson was also on Epstein’s contact list.

The Elephant in the Room

#

The questions that are not asked in this combination:

If the ECJ upholds the transparency obligation — what was in the contracts that was not meant to become public? Liability waivers for Pfizer? Clauses on adverse-event communication? The answer is not known. The question is not asked.

If Irrgang et al. document an IgG4 class switch after the third booster — which follow-up studies examine the clinical effect on cancer patients, the immunocompromised, the elderly? The answer: hardly any. NIH funding for independent long-term mRNA studies is, compared with the vaccine procurement volume, marginal.

If Zhang & El-Deiry show in cancer cells that spike protein inhibits p53-dependent apoptosis pathways — which authority commissions in-vivo studies? None that is publicly visible.

If Destatis reports 35,000 excess deaths for 2022 — why, to this day, is there no officially commissioned cause-of-death analysis of this cohort? The Bundestag’s Commission of Inquiry into pandemic management (analysis in a companion article) did not make this question a subject of its work.

The absence of investigation is not evidence of collusion. It is a fact.

Counter-Thesis: What the Synthesis Does Not Prove

#

First — causality: Excess mortality, the IgG4 class switch and the p53 findings exist on three separate levels of evidence. They are not causally connected. A common mechanism is scientifically plausible but not established by the available studies.

Second — intent: That Pfizer, BioNTech or governments knew of adverse effects and systematically concealed them has not been established by any court. No judgment, no unredacted primary source proves intent. The legal question — the transparency obligation of the contracts — must be separated from the criminal question — deliberate harm.

Third — alternative explanations: A substantial part of the 2022 excess mortality may be explained by COVID-19 illness itself, ageing effects and post-COVID complications. Destatis recommends age-standardized rates as the more robust measure. The raw-data excess mortality may overstate the effect.

Fourth — the IgG4 controversy: The tolerance pattern may be biologically adaptive. Science Immunology published the counter-position under peer review. Clinical harm is not proven.

These counter-arguments are valid. They are made in earnest. They do not cancel out the original findings.

Intent: The Open Question

#

Whether the decision-makers — in pharmaceutical companies, in the European Commission, in national health authorities — were aware of the adverse-event data and accepted it has not been conclusively settled in court.

What is settled: the European Commission violated transparency obligations. What is unsettled: why, and with what knowledge.

This is not rhetorical restraint. It is the difference between a documented finding and an unsubstantiated claim. Elizaonsteroids draws this line because precision is the only protection against the reflex the other side exploits: whoever overstates loses the documented parts along with it.

The question this article asks is the question in the title. The answer is: the evidence supports the question. It does not answer it.

The Finding

#

An EU court has documented that the COVID vaccine contracts were negotiated in violation of transparency law. Advocate General Rantos recommends upholding this. The ruling is pending.

Two peer-reviewed studies in established journals document biological effects of spike protein that are associated with immunosuppression and apoptosis inhibition in cancer cells. The clinical significance for humans remains scientifically open.

The Federal Statistical Office reports around 35,000 excess deaths for 2022. No authority has presented a publicly commissioned cause-of-death analysis of this cohort.

These three strands have not previously been placed side by side. To bring them together is not an assertion. It is a composition of publicly available primary sources.

Whether this is “the greatest capital crime against humanity” — that phrasing does not originate with elizaonsteroids. It circulates in investigative circles. This article tests which part of the evidence it carries.

The criminal part: none, not yet.

The structural part — capital flows, refused transparency, unasked questions, uncommissioned studies — that part it does carry.

Primary Sources

#

Further companion articles:

• Insider Trading — The Pattern: capital flows Gates/BioNTech, SEC filings
• Hypothesis: Anatomy of a Perfect Crime: chronology 2018–2026, framework of intent
• Pfizergate: ECJ Advocate General: AG Rantos 11 June 2026, full documentation
• Commission of Inquiry: The Pattern — Two Sessions: parliamentary investigation and its limits