Florida grand jury finds lockdowns more harmful than good, masks ineffective, COVID harmless to children and most adults, hospitalization numbers were “very likely” inflated
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis petitioned the Supreme Court back in December 2022, calling for a grand jury to investigate “crimes and wrongdoing” related to the COVID-19 vaccines. Two weeks later, Florida's Supreme Court gave the green light for a grand jury investigation.
As part of the grand jury's ongoing investigation, it has now released its first interim report. The panel notes that it still has “much more testimony and evidence” to gather.
The interim report from the grand jury highlighted that governmental agencies, such as the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Army, and others, have refused to testify regarding the contracting, approval, and distribution process for the COVID-19 vaccines.
Concerning Covid-19 hospitalizations, the panel found that the numbers were “very likely” inflated. This stemmed from the fact that “hospitals did not distinguish between patients admitted due to COVID and patients admitted for other reasons who happened to test positive for COVID.” The panel also pointed out that the CARES Act financially incentivized hospitals to inflate Covid hospitalizations. They concluded that “it is highly likely that the CDC’s number of total hospitalizations is inflated to some degree with asymptomatic or minor SARS-CoV-2 infections that were classified as hospitalizations in order to financially benefit the hospital.”
Turning to masks, the panel's report states, “Surgical and cloth masks have limited utility against aerosol particles. Well-fitted N95 masks will protect only the wearer, not anyone else, and only for as long as the filter remains viable and the mask remains dry.” The report underlines the minimal utility of the ubiquitous plastic shielding that persists in the retail and food service sector today.
Addressing mask guidance, the panel notes, “Incomplete, inaccurate advice is not without its potential consequences.” They highlight that high-risk individuals misled into believing masks offered more protection than they did may have engaged in activities they should not have or gone places they should not have. The report emphasizes that people who got sick with COVID-19 may have persisted in their daily activities with a misplaced belief that wearing a mask—even an N95 mask—would protect those around them from potential transmission.
The report concludes on masks by stating that there has never been “sound evidence of their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the form of reliable RCTs that demonstrated statistically significant benefits.” It points out that “Well-financed federal agencies chose to fill the discourse with flawed observational and laboratory studies, hiding behind their conclusion of no equipoise to avoid the potential embarrassment of the public health advice they championed being invalidated by evidence.”
Regarding lockdowns, the panel's report calls out an admission by the World Health Organization (WHO) preceding COVID-19, stating in 2006 that “[i]ll persons...should remain home when they first become symptomatic, but forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.”
The report concludes on lockdowns by stating, “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 the lowest risk from COVID-19 disease.”
The conclusion goes on to say that jurisdictions choosing to lockdown for extended periods “tended to end up with higher overall excess mortality.” This is especially evident when compared to jurisdictions that targeted their protective efforts towards the highest-risk groups instead of mandating large-scale, extended periods of quarantine for everyone.
In a section titled “Collateral Consequences,” the report highlights that lockdowns played a role in “Pandemic-related economic depression.” This has led to an “increase in extreme poverty,” and “food shortages associated with COVID-19-related economic fallout have been modeled to have contributed to thousands of deaths.”
The panel also points out another aspect of lockdowns that deserves “distinct consideration.” The pause in routine health check-ups, physicals, other health-related screenings, and minor surgeries may have “serious, unintended, and unanticipated health consequences.”
Regarding individuals congregating, the report states, “Isolation bubbles that appeared around exterior restaurant tables in some states may have increased the risk of viral spread between whoever was inside the bubble by limiting sources of potential ventilation.” The report suggests that congregating in open-air spaces should have been encouraged back in 2020, not shunned.
When analyzing Covid-19's impact on children and most adults, the panel examined the infection fatality rate and found that “COVID-19 is statistically almost harmless to children and most adults.”
Turning to the COVID-19 vaccines, the panel states, “It became apparent that this body could not answer the questions posed by the Petition in a vacuum.” The report emphasizes that examining the degree to which other modalities were employed to combat COVID-19 and their relative success or failure is necessary to contextualize the questions presented by the Petition and the Impanelment Order.
You can review the interim report at the link below.
You can read the Florida Governor Ron DeSantis petition to the Florida Supreme Court at the link below.
You can read the Florida Supreme Court approval for the petition of a grand jury at the link below.