A Florida great jury’s final report on possible” criminal or unjust action” related to the creation and promotion of the Covid jabs was released on Tuesday.
Requested , by Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., and , authorized , by the Florida Supreme Court in December 2022, the grand jury was tasked with looking into whether individuals and entities, “including, but not limited to, pharmaceutical companies ( and their executive officers ) and other medical organizations or businesses” possibly violated state laws related to the development, diagnostic tests, and promotion of the mRNA shots. The judge recently released time reports in February and May 2024, between, which undercut much of the pseudo-science pushed by state “experts” on subjects such as concealing, lockdowns, and normal immunity.
Following its investigation, the grand jury ultimately decided not to charge any particular person or entity in the case because the jury members “did not discover any legislation that]they believed would be an ideal vehicle for a criminal prosecution based on the facts” in their last statement. However, the grand jury did take the view that a conclusion like this does not appoint entities to be ineligible.
The report states that” we want to be abundantly clear that this does not mean we believe the actions these sponsors took were always appropriate or that the statements they made turned out to be factually accurate.” Simply put, it means that those statements and actions are insufficient evidence to support criminal prosecutions.
Despite not being charged with any crime, the jury did discover a number of significant findings in its report that highlight deceptive behavior and actions related to the promotion and promotion of the Covid shots. What can we learn from the analysis in this article?
1. Premature Emergency Approval
While understanding the seriousness Covid posed to vulnerable populations ( such as the elderly ) and the desire to quickly develop medical interventions to save lives, the grand jury disagreed with the Food and Drug Administration’s ( FDA ) assessment that the Covid “emergency” “applied to everyone”. The jury argued that the” Emergency Use Authorization” ( EUA) granted to the Pfizer and Moderna Covid shots” should only have been granted as to the elderly and comorbid populations most at risk from SARS-Co V-2 complications” based on its assessment of the flagship trial data at the time.
The FDA did not require that the flagship trials be designed that way, and neither Moderna nor Pfizer took it upon themselves to incorporate transmission efficacy into their protocols, according to the report, which suggested a wider authorization might have been appropriate.
2. Disservice to Expectant Women
The jury discovered an alarming lack of consideration was taken when conducting secure flagship trials and conducting research on the effects of Covid shots on pregnant women. In particular, the jurors made clear that they believed that expectant mothers were not “well-served by the US public health apparatus” and that such” troubling issues” were not “properly and meaningfully disclosed and discussed over the past four years.”
The FDA, Pfizer, or Moderna did not contemporaneously disclose the troubling results of the flagship clinical trials, nor do they appear to have been meaningfully investigated beyond allowing pregnant women to serve as human guinea pigs based on scantly analyzed observational data that did not address infant health risks, and then using statistically unreliable safety databases like [the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ] to “enjoy vaccination” to this vulnerable group,” the report states. ( PAGE 59 )
3. Failure to Complete Safety Studies
As noted by the jury, the FDA provided” Full Approval” letters to Pfizer and Moderna, granting complete market access for their respective Covid shots. In order to keep their licenses, both companies were required to conduct a series of “interventional and observational” studies monitoring the” safety and effectiveness” of the jabs after they were released to market.
The grand jury found that both Pfizer and Moderna failed to finish several of the required studies by deadline and had received timeline extensions from federal administrators despite having been given these mandates years ago ( Pfizer in August 2021 and Moderna in January 2022 ).
” These missed deadlines do not give us confidence”, the grand jury report reads. Each one provides the FDA and the general public with a unique opportunity to learn more about the safety of these products, whose development, production, and administration cost billions of dollars. We appreciate that conducting these trials and studies can be difficult, but we believe the money Pfizer and Moderna made from their Covid shots should be more than enough to fund and perform these tasks as directed.
4. Lack of Info on Safety Signals
As detailed in the report, pharmaceutical companies and public health organizations have postmarketing surveillance databases that compile reports of possible side effects that recipients of vaccines have experienced. According to the analysis, after a” safety signal” is “identified”, the former entities will conduct research using available data and research to determine the validity of the safety signal. If such signals are valid, the companies share their data with the FDA to determine whether it is” confirmed” or “refuted”.
According to the report,” If a signal is’ confirmed,’ the FDA — in conjunction with the]Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices ] — must then decide what kind of response is warranted”, with some signals requiring” no more than a published communication or warning about potential risks”, and others requiring “updates to their physician or patient information”.
The grand jury noted that Moderna “refused” 60 safety signals after consulting with the FDA while confirmating five safety signals for its Covid shot.” The public probably does not know… that Moderna investigated a total of 65 safety signals,” according to the grand jury. A Pfizer representative interviewed by the jury said the company investigated” ]a ] bout 100 signals” for its shot, which resulted in “very, very few” being confirmed.
A Moderna representative told the jury,” No, it’s irrelevant for them,” when asked if the company made this information public, and that” the reason is that, these are issues that are unknown… [a]n and that, if we were to inform the public of every theoretical safety concern, I think that would be a disservice to the public.”
” We emphatically disagree”, the jury wrote. We think it perfectly captures the larger paternalistic attitude toward the public displayed by both government health agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. Keeping the details, methodology, and outcomes of scores of safety investigations hidden from the public does not foster public trust; it undermines it.
5. Myocarditis Cover-Up
The grand jury made important findings about such incidents, including the apparent withholding of such information from the American public, while maintaining that Vaccine-Related Myocarditis and Pericarditis (VRMP ) events are “very rare.”
The jury found that” a less-publicized safety signal for myocarditis” regarding the Pfizer and Moderna jabs “appeared after the United States military began vaccinating its servicemembers” in Israel in February 2021, when reports of a potential myocarditis signal first appeared in February 2021. Despite “representatives from Pfizer and Moderna ] confirming to the] Grand Jury that several government agencies, including the DOD, were investigating it well before that time,” the jury claimed that this information “was not made public until after the VRMP safety signal was confirmed on June 23, 2021.”
The grand jury was drawn to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s remarks, which claimed,” We have not seen a signal” when asked about reports of myocarditis among service members and a potential connection to the Covid shots in an April 27, 2021 interview.
The jury pointed out that, despite the director’s statement,” contemporaneous communications between top CDC officials suggest that the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna, and the DOD were all actively looking into the VRMP safety signal right when Director Walensky was saying CDC had not seen one.”
The report later acknowledges that,” For a sizeable group of healthy young men, there is credible evidence that the risk of side effects from second doses]Pfizer ] or]Moderna ] always outweighed their benefits, even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic”.
]Exclusive: Biden Admin ‘ Ignored ‘ Vaccine Safety Protocols To Fast-Track Its Covid Shot Mandates]
6. Government Censorship
The grand jury focused on the widespread censorship used by the federal government and Big Tech against Americans who disapproved of the jury’s preferred view on Covid. The judicial body noted how these government figures “exercised considerable soft power” by attempting to control vaccine-related narratives on social media websites, asking for specific posts or authors to be removed altogether, or even “blacklisted” on the grounds that they contained “misinformation” or “disinformation.”
The jury further noted how pharmaceutical companies exercised” indirect “influence in shaping the public discourse on Covid shots” by selectively releasing efficacy and safety data regarding their products,” which is then regurgitated by researchers, journalists, and medical organizations in their writings.
7. Deceptive Advertising
According to the report, Moderna and Pfizer also used deceptive “unbranded” advertising techniques when promoting their goods to the general public.
The grand jury took note of how pharmaceutical companies are required to provide a “major statement” about side effects and contraindications associated with their products, as well as the brand and generic names of their medications, as well as a list of their ingredients. ” However, these mandates are” only applied to advertisements that promoted the vaccines, not to advertisements that promoted vaccination generally.”
The FDA did not impose its marketing restrictions if the advertisement did not specifically mention the branded drug. … After all, it was not the product that was being advertised, just the act of getting vaccinated,” the report reads”. Although this distinction may seem fictional and completely absurd, it has real consequences, preventing businesses from communicating the risks of their goods while also educating consumers about their existence and even praising their advantages.
8. Risks vs. Benefits
Given the early results from the flagship trials and other “limited information,” the grand jury later remarked that “in the years since that call into question their necessity. Specifically, the panel detailed how the virus” infects and causes COVID-19 disease at a much lower rate than it used to” and produces” fewer hospitalizations and deaths.”
Additionally, it was made clear by the jury that the majority of cases had already recovered Covid.
” The issue in 2024 is that the COVID-19 vaccines may not be different enough. The SARS Co V-2 virus still mutates to new variants on a frequent basis, “report reads”. New formulations of [Pfizer and Moderna’s Covid shots ] frequently lag more than a generation behind the most recent variants by the time they reach consumers, meaning that they offer less protection from SARS Co V-2 risks and that whatever protection they do offer is likely to wane quickly due to the extra speed derived from the FDA’s willingness to accept immunogenicity results rather than clinical endpoints.
” We no longer have a clear idea of which demographic groups are still deriving a meaningful benefit from]Pfizer ] and]Moderna ] and whether that benefit is worthwhile in the context of their side effect profiles, “it added.
Grand Jury Recommendations
The grand jury made a number of suggestions for state and federal officials to ensure greater accountability in the vaccine-approval process, despite declining to indict any individual or entity.
Among those at the federal level include suggestions that the FDA” reinstate its pre-1997 ban on the direct-to-consumer advertising of therapeutics,” the federal government to institute policies” impeding the’ revolving door’ of private-sector employees and lobbyists in and out” of health agencies, and the implementation of rules requiring Big Pharma companies to” publish the anonymized individual patient data — with all their attendant safety, efficacy and immunogenicity information — shortly after]the ] granting of any FDA license.”
The jury at the state level suggested that Florida’s legislatures impose a “pre-swearing discovery period” for any statewide grand jury, forbid statewide grand juries from indicting and the Office of Statewide Prosecution to prosecute individuals who commit perjury while testifying before the jury, and forbid statewide grand juries from doing so.
Shawn Fleetwood is a graduate of the University of Mary Washington and a staff writer for The Federalist. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClear Health, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
