Florida Grand Jury Releases Covid Report

On December 22, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court responded to the Petition by issuing an Order Directing Impanelment of a Statewide Grand Jury and tasking what would eventually become this body to determine whether “pharmaceutical manufacturers (and their executive officers) and other medical associations or organizations” engaged in “criminal activity or wrongdoing” concerning their involvement in the development, approval or marketing of COVID-19 vaccines.

The Grand Jury took sworn testimony from expert and lay witnesses, learning a great deal and admitting that they weren’t medical doctors. They relied on numerous doctors, professors, and scientists with various viewpoints. They mention that the their mission was to, “Follow the science.”

“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. These agencies have elected not to provide representatives to testify before this body, and federal law prohibits us from compelling their cooperation.”

Safety and Efficacy

“It should be apparent that when the FDA describes one of these products as “safe,” it is semantically different from the way people describe things as “safe” in everyday language. The definition incorporates a degree of relativity, meaning that a biological product can be fully approved for market and described as “safe” by the federal government with the knowledge that it will harm at least some of the people who take it.”

The Risk of Death From Covid

The overall infection fatality rate (IFR) from expert testimony was 2.7 people per 1000 confirmed cases.

Like the number of total hospitalizations, however, this figure is very likely inflated to some extent with people who died “with” rather than “of? COVID-19 disease in order to financially benefit whatever hospital the person died in. The CARES Acct also provides for a “death benefit” of up to $9,000 to the families of those who died from COVID-19 disease

Pandemic Modelling And Nonpharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs)

“We are interested in large-scale NPIs enforced by mandate at the government level and the question of whether these interventions had a significant impact on the overall risk of the SARS-CoV-2 virus For purposes of this Presentment, we have divided NPIs into the following broad categories

(1) “Lockdowns,” Stay-at-Home Orders, School Closures and other similar acts that impeded the movement of individuals regardless of disease status; and
(2) Mask Mandates & Social Distancing Guidelines”

"Our society is simply not organized in a way that could support long term isolation. People must leave home for essential goods, and there is a population of "essential workers" who must leave home to provide those goods. Even in a society that nails shut the doors of people's homes, someone must do the nailing. In short: Lockdowns leak"

The Grand Jury concluded that based on all scientific evidence, no lockdown, regardless of its stringency, would have been able to prevent those events for one fundamental reason: By the time these measures were implemented, there was already significant community spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

A meta-analysis of all the evidence shows there was "little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality" by instituting lockdowns. It is what was said all along, and yet the "experts" implemented such draconian measures.

The jury looked at the Collateral Consequences of the lockdowns.

Economic:

There was a severe impact on income; in the United States, there was a significant spike in government debt due to the CARES Act. Many other poor countries didn't have the where-with-all to implement such measures. Individuals and many businesses were adversely affected financially.

Restriction of Routine Healthcare:

The lockdowns restricted many from seeking medical care. Health screenings and many surgeries were cancelled. The result would have been many undiagnosed conditions and premature death for some. This is to be further investigated. The jury did mention increased mortality as a result, where the actual deaths were more significant than what would be expected––deaths unrelated to COVID-19.

"The WHO estimated in 2022 that anxiety and depression increased by 25% between 2020 and 2021. No kidding!

The jury questioned the implication that the post-Covid consequences were due to the virus rather than the government's overreaction with mandates. Did the policies kill more than the illness?

The report stated that "One analytical model from a peer reviewed journal concluded that there was a median of 54 days of school instruction lost by children in the United States ages 5-11 during 2020." In some jurisdictions, schools were closed for a year or more.

"No one understood this relationship more clearly than one of the world's most famous epidemiologists, Dr. Donald Henderson. Widely credited with eradicating smallpox, Henderson had this to say about large-scale quarantines in 2006

As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of

groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures - are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well

as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable."

Yes, you have to wonder how many so-called intelligent experts instituted such stupid things and caused so much mayhem in society. Maybe it was never about the virus. The jury concluded that the mandates were not worth the cost. They couldn't work.

Use Of Masks and Social Distancing:

The jury stated the messaging of the CDC that masks are an effective way of controlling the spread of the infection. They also noted the contradiction in the messaging with the following:

"In early 2020, the director of NIAID opined that masks would be ineffective at mitigating SARS-CoV-2 infection, onlychanging his opinion later to match newly-published federal public health guidance. In May of 2021, the CDC temporarily reversed itself on masks (in a now-deleted press release), citing observational studies showing lower viral transmissibility among vaccinated individuals as grounds to reconsider its prior guidance, only to reiterate its previous recommendation in July of that year (in another now-deleted press release) as the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant began to show higher transmissibility among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals."

Confounding the jury, the reporting on fraudulent studies claimed that masks were effective. They mentioned a Dummy study done by CDC scientists in which they exposed dummies to particles ranging in size from 100 to 7,000 nanometers. As they stated:

"The size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is approximately 90 nanometers, the very bottom of the range of particle sizes tested."

To its credit, the jury emphasized that the virus particles are carried by aerosols, not droplets, so they can spread by air currents in many directions, masks or no masks. They cited the conclusion of the Cochrane Research Centre, which is the gold standard for scientific studies. RCTs below stand for Randomized Controlled Trials.

"The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection."

We've been saying that masks don't work for viral respiratory illnesses; otherwise, we would wear them whenever the flu or a cold is around. It was all part of the fear of indoctrination, and we still see people walking around with the face cloths.

They also mentioned the six-foot distancing rule, which was effectively a joke. It was just a random number pulled out of a hat. They knew that aerosols could travel further than six feet through air currents.

Conclusion:

There were a few pertinent statements:

"With respect to lockdowns, there does exist a pattern in the data showing a short-term stabilization of case growth that persists until the lockdown is lifted, followed by months or even years of excess mortality that can partially be attributed to collateral consequences concentrated in the groups at lowest risk from COVID-19 disease. There is a case to be made that these lockdowns enabled others in high-risk groups to "bridge the gap" until 2021 when they had access to vaccines—a subject which this Grand Jury will undoubtedly examine in future presentments. On average, however, when one includes al age groups, lockdowns were not a good trade."

"With respect to masks, 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."

"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."

So, I've highlighted portions of this preliminary report, which is 30 pages. Will anything come of this? We shall see. This report didn't address the vaccines too much, but that will be investigated down the track, possibly in the next instalment. Hopefully, prosecutions will result from this grand jury.

The complete report is available here: FIRST INTERIM REPORT OF THE TWENTY-SECOND STATEWIDE GRAND JURY