Back in 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis asked the state Supreme Court to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate possible crimes and wrongdoings the pharmaceutical industry may have committed against the state’s residents related to the COVID-19 vaccine. The plan was to have the Grand Jury impaneled between 12 and 18 months to investigate allegations and evidence.
The Florida Grand Jury has issued its first report. It is a disturbing review of the willingness of public health professionals to cooperate and the lack of scientific rigor used in developing pandemic response plans.
The entire 33-page report offers a master class in the type of analysis thoughtful review regular citizens can engage in when considering important issues of the day: “In a way, this Grand Jury has allowed us to do something that most Americans simply do not have the time, access, or wherewithal to do: Follow the science.”
While the entire document is worth reading for anyone concerned about the impact of COVID-19 policy on the nation, I will hit a few highlights.
To begin with, the Grand Jury received little cooperation from those in the administration associated with public health matters. The panel cannot compel cooperation, but its absence during this process, especially from those associated with The Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is extremely disturbing.
“Unfortunately, not all our investigative efforts have been met with fulsome cooperation,” the grand jury report states. “Some prospective witnesses have elected not to testify, often citing potential professional or personal consequences arising from their involvement with the Statewide Grand Jury process.”“Occasionally, prospective witnesses have raised concerns about the underlying fairness of this Body,” it adds.None of the federal agencies involved in the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines have been forthcoming with information, the grand jury has discovered, and the panel said it has no legal power to force the agencies to furnish information.“The Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Army, among others, all had a substantial hand in the contracting, approval and distribution process for the COVID-19 vaccines at the center of our inquiry,” the report states. “These agencies have elected not to provide representatives to testify before this body, and federal law prohibits us from compelling their cooperation.”
In addition to the vaccine, the Grand Jury also weighed science related to the benefit of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs)…and found it wanting, especially in the area of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
“We have never had sound evidence of their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the form of reliable RCTs that demonstrated statistically significant benefits,” it said.The grand jury scathed health agencies and the federal government for “fail[ing]” to accurately inform Americans on masks.“[They hid to] avoid the potential embarrassment of the public health advice they championed being invalidated by evidence,” it said.The jury found the public was also mislead on “social distancing.” During the pandemic, many businesses and Americans were told to space people six feet apart.“It is not nearly as important how far away people are from one another as it is whether they are in an interior or exterior environment and whether that environment is subject to adequate airflow,” the jury said.On lockdowns, the grand jury found that their usage only “modest[ly]” benefitted the “affluent” who could afford to stay home at the expense of children and Americans through age 40.
The Grand Jury’s experience aligns with the congressional hearing in which master COVID-policy maker Dr. Anthony Fauci could not recall exactly what science the 6-foot rule was derived from.
The report also contained important facts which are familiar to Legal Insurrection readers but which were apparently ignored over the course of three years of pandemic mania.
- Jurisdictions that enforced lockdowns “tended to end up with higher overall excess mortality.”
- “There have always been legitimate questions around the impracticality of individual adherence to mask recommendations, but once it became clear that the primary transmission vector of SARS-CoV-2 was via aerosol, their potential efficacy was further diminished.”
- Social distancing is not “nearly as important … as it is whether they are in an interior or exterior environment and whether that environment is subject to adequate airflow,” information that they said is still “missing from the CDC’s Social Distancing Guidelines.”
The best part of the report summed up the quality of the “science” used in establishing pandemic policy [highlights mine].
As for their effect on overall SARS-CoV-2 risk, we cannot ignore the fact that these NPIs were not administered based on the best available scientific data.In fact, many public health recommendations and their attendant mandates departed significantly from scientific research that was contemporaneously available to everyone: Individuals, scientists, corporations and governments alike. Often this research was ignored by institutional policymakers. Occasionally it was even attacked.It is a sad state of affairs when something as simple as following the science constitutes an act of heresy, but here we are.Importantly, while some of these NPIs may have shifted risk to later in time or from one group to another or had some speculative efficacy against viral spread when used in perfect laboratory conditions, comparative evidence suggests they did not significantly change the overall risk profile presented by the SARS-CoV-2 virus in terms of excess death, especially once collateral consequences are taken into consideration.
In conclusion, the Grand Jury found little science to follow. Its next report will likely make for further fascinating and disturbing reading.
Here is an X-thread that offers a point-by-point analysis of this report.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY