The State of Florida’s Grand Jury, which was set up to scrutinize the actions of pharmaceutical companies and medical entities during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, has published an interim report, Granite Grok reported.
While the report has yet to confirm any criminal wrongdoing by these organizations, it suggests that many of the criticisms concerning non-pharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic may hold weight.
“On December 13, 2022, the Governor of the State of Florida issued a Petition for Order to Impanel the Twenty-Second Statewide Grand Jury,” the report reads.
“In its 19 pages, the Petition described a litany of statements by pharmaceutical executives, state and federal government officials, doctors, scientists, reporters and other individuals regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, ultimately deeming it “to be in the public interest to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate criminal or wrongful activity in Florida relating to the development, promotion and distribution” of these vaccines.”
“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” with respect to their involvement in the development, approval or marketing of COVID-19 vaccines.”
The Grand Jury, selected through a random process akin to that of any legal jury, outlined its investigative approach, expressing a diligence that seemingly surpasses that of the FDA’s during the health crisis.
One of the key highlights of the report is the Grand Jury’s investigation into the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Officials have been accused of stating that side effects were “extremely rare” and that vaccines could “prevent COVID-19 disease” with over 90% efficacy. Moreover, claims that vaccines were key to developing herd immunity and that they were “safe and effective as determined by data from the manufacturers” will be under the Grand Jury’s microscope.
The report also offers critical insights into the narrative of lockdowns, suggesting that their impact might have been more harmful than helpful.
This report is supported by a significant study backed by Oxford University, which found that strict lockdown measures were no more effective at reducing infections than the Swedish-style softer approach, which allowed more personal freedom and recommended rather than mandated behaviors aimed at reducing the transmission of the virus.
The interim report also casts doubt on the effectiveness of mask mandates.
The report also scrutinizes pandemic data integrity, hinting at inflated infection and hospitalization numbers. It specifically addresses the misrepresented risk to children, who, according to the report, were largely not at significant risk despite contrary claims based on flawed data.
The report states that social distancing is potentially less significant than previously thought, with environmental factors such as indoor versus outdoor spaces and airflow playing a more critical role in transmission than physical distance alone.
The Grand Jury’s findings are presented as a vindication for those who questioned the scientific basis of the pandemic response by public health officials and institutions. It alleges that many public health recommendations deviated from available scientific research, which was sometimes dismissed or even condemned by policymakers.
The report concludes with a critical view of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), suggesting that while they may have altered risk temporally or demographically, they did not significantly change the overall risk profile presented by COVID-19, particularly when considering the collateral damage incurred by such interventions.
You can read the interim report below:
.jpg?1706984605)
