COVID Homicide: Will You Be Convicted of Murder for Breathing?
Could a plandemic lead to criminal charges for simply breathing near someone? Is it possible to be held responsible for another person’s death due to a “virus” that the world was still trying to understand? These are the chilling questions raised in the recent court case from Austria, where a 54-year-old woman was found guilty of fatally infecting her neighbor with COVID-19. In a segment on The Robert Scott Bell Show, Robert unpacked the details of the case, delving into the implications of such a verdict and questioning the legitimacy of the methods used to convict her.
The Case of Grossly Negligent Homicide
According to a report from the Austrian Press Agency (APA), the 54-year-old woman was sentenced to four months of suspended imprisonment and fined approximately $887 after being found guilty of fatally infecting her neighbor with COVID-19. The neighbor, a cancer patient, died of pneumonia, which was reportedly caused by the virus. DNA tests allegedly matched the virus strain in both the victim and the defendant, leading to her conviction for gross negligence.
However, as Robert pointed out, the details of the case raise serious concerns. “How do they determine that she purposefully or negligently infected someone?” he asked during his segment. The basis for the charge was a DNA match using the highly controversial PCR test—a method Robert has criticized for years. “The PCR test is flawed and unreliable,” he said, noting that it can be manipulated through amplification cycles to find whatever result you want.
The case stems from an interaction between the two neighbors in December 2021. The court heard that the two came into contact in a stairwell, where the defendant allegedly knew she had COVID-19 but failed to take precautions. However, the defendant denied both claims, stating that she thought she had bronchitis and did not even recall meeting her neighbor in the stairwell. Despite this, the DNA match from the PCR test was enough to convict her.
The Flawed Science of PCR Testing
One of Robert's biggest criticisms in the case was the reliance on PCR testing. Developed by Dr. Kary Mullis, the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test has been widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic to detect the presence of the virus. However, Mullis himself warned that the test was never intended for diagnostic purposes and could easily produce false positives when not used properly.
As Robert explained, “The PCR test doesn’t tell you if someone is actively infected or contagious; it just amplifies genetic material to find fragments of a virus. You can run it enough times to find anything you want.” This raises a crucial question: How can you convict someone of homicide based on a test that is not reliable for determining who spread the virus?
In the Austrian case, the PCR test allegedly showed that both the victim and the defendant had matching virus strains. But, as Robert highlighted, “Did they test anyone else in the building? The janitor, the doctors, the nurses? Or did they just zero in on this woman because she was an easy target?”
The Dangers of the Germ Theory
At the core of Robert’s commentary was the germ theory, which posits that pathogens like viruses and bacteria cause illness. According to Robert, the legal case exemplifies the dangerous implications of believing in the germ theory without questioning it. “We’re being conditioned to think that merely breathing near someone can make us criminals,” he said.
Robert further explained how this case, if it becomes a legal precedent, could lead to widespread abuses. “What happens when someone in the future is accused of killing someone because they sneezed in public? It sounds ridiculous, but this case is the beginning of that slippery slope,” he warned. The criminalization of natural human interaction, like walking through a stairwell, becomes even more insidious when flawed science is used as evidence.
Targeting Individuals: A Case of Convenience?
Robert raised concerns that the Austrian woman was unfairly targeted. “This woman had no chance of defending herself,” he said. The case relied heavily on the testimony of a doctor who claimed the defendant tested positive for COVID-19 and had been told to stay inside. However, the defendant allegedly dismissed this advice and went about her life, refusing to lock herself down because of a positive rapid test. As Robert noted, rapid tests have their own accuracy issues and cannot definitively prove that the woman was infectious at the time.
Moreover, the victim’s death was attributed to pneumonia—an illness commonly seen in cancer patients with weakened immune systems. “It’s tragic that this person died, but it’s a leap to say it was the defendant’s fault,” Robert argued. He pointed out that cancer patients often die from complications like pneumonia, especially when their immune systems are compromised by treatments. The idea that the woman’s death was due solely to COVID-19 infection, and specifically from her neighbor, seems far-fetched.
Setting a Dangerous Precedent
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the case, as Robert discussed, is the precedent it sets. “We are now in an era where you can be held criminally responsible for someone else’s illness, even when the science behind it is shaky at best,” Robert warned. He pointed out that similar cases could easily emerge in other countries, especially in places where governments are already cracking down on personal freedoms in the name of public health.
“If we allow this to stand, the next step could be imprisoning people for not wearing masks or for refusing vaccines,” Robert said. “This is not about public health—it’s about control.”
As the world continues to grapple with the aftermath of the pandemic, cases like this one in Austria raise uncomfortable questions about how far governments are willing to go in the name of safety. Are we on the verge of criminalizing everyday human behavior? Is the belief in germ theory leading us down a path where people can be convicted based on the mere presence of a virus, even without solid proof of transmission?
A Call for Caution
Robert concluded his segment by urging listeners to stay informed and vigilant. “We need to challenge these narratives and question the science being used to justify these legal actions,” he said. He also called on his audience to resist taking unnecessary COVID tests, especially PCR tests, which he believes are being weaponized against the public.