Florida Grand Jury Finds Average Citizens Aren’t Buying “Follow the Science” Propaganda on Masks and Social Distancing

The expert class is put on trial and found to be lacking expertise.

18 minute read

Dear Readers,

I want to take some time to delve into the findings from a Florida grand jury that is looking into the pandemic’s response. There have been several lawsuits about the pandemic, and the UK has an ongoing COVID inquiry which I reported about briefly (COVID Inquiry Finds Lockdowns Were Terrible, While Reporters Call Bullshit on Government’s Lead Academic Advisor), but this grand jury in Florida has been mostly ignored.

The Florida Supreme Court empaneled a statewide grand jury on December 22, 2022, to determine if pharma companies engaged in criminal activity during the development, approval, or marketing of the COVID-19 vaccines. The jurors come from across the state of Florida, from all backgrounds, ages, levels of education, and political affiliation.

Starting last June, the Grand Jury began eliciting sworn testimony from a range of expert and lay witnesses on pharma and other issues related to the COVID pandemic. Federal agencies involved in the pandemic—the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Army—have all declined to participate.

Grand Juries have the power to indict people or organizations for criminal activity and to release presentments to inform the public and raise awareness. Their first presentment runs 33 pages, which I picked through and read their findings on masks and social distancing.

Over the last year, I’ve reported that Cochrane found no evidence that masks provide protection from respiratory viruses (Researchers Find No Evidence Again! Of Mask Effectiveness, Yet Self-Styled Experts Continue Promotion), and exposed social media influencer Zeynep Tufekci for unseemly behavior in attacking Cochrane scientists (Zeynep Tufekci’s Unseemly Collusion With Cochrane Officials to Attack Scientists Is Falling Apart). Last month, I reported that Anthony Fauci testified under oath that COVID guidance for six-feet social distancing was not based on scientific evidence and “it sort of just appeared” (Anthony Fauci Exposes Yale’s Gregg Gonsalves as Academic Activist Who Fakes Data Claims).

Here's some interesting tidbits from the Grand Jury:

• The CDC has not put out quality science on masks through their journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR);

• False assurances that “masks work” may have harmed high-risk individuals who were misled into believing masks offer more protection than they do;

• Federal officials seem afraid to run a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) on masks, likely because they supect the results will show masks don’t prevent spread of respiratory viruses;

• Aerosol-based spread of SARS-CoV-2 means indoor social distancing was less important than being outside.

I’ll be coming out with some more sections of the Grand Jury’s initial findings in the future. The presentment does not have footnotes, so where possible, I have hyperlinked to studies or other cited information.

Below are the findings on masks and social distancing, which begins on page 20 of the report. [NOTE TO READERS: I found one error in this presentment. It states that the Cochrane review on masks is a “meta-analysis.” The review is actually a “systematic review” which is preceeded by a protocol, to be more transparent in how the analysis is conducted.]