Skip to content
Breaking News Alert Poll: In Agreement With Trump, 6 In 10 Voters Back Mass Deportations Of Illegal Aliens

Here Are The 3 Biggest Findings In Florida’s Grand Jury Report On Covid ‘Wrongdoing’

A new grand jury report contains damning information about how the ‘expert’ class did not, in fact, ‘follow the science’ on Covid.


A Florida grand jury released its second interim report last week on its investigation into potential “wrongdoing” by Covid shot manufacturers and entities who promoted them.

Requested by Gov. Ron DeSantis and authorized by the Florida Supreme Court in December 2022, the grand jury was tasked with determining whether “pharmaceutical manufacturers (and their executive officers) and other medical associations or organizations” participated in “criminal activity or wrongdoing” concerning “their involvement in the development, approval or marketing of COVID-19 vaccines.” The jury released its first interim report in February, in which members confirmed the accuracy of many claims health “experts” and media apparatchiks dismissed as “misinformation.”

Submitted to the Florida Supreme Court on May 21, the grand jury’s second interim report details various topics not covered in the first, such as the prevalence of natural immunity among those infected with Covid and medications used to treat infected patients. Much like the first report, this new analysis contains damning information about how the “expert” class did not, in fact, “follow the science.”

1. Covid Patients Gain Natural Immunity Through Infection

Infection-derived immunity (IDI), or “natural immunity,” is not a new phenomenon. As noted by the grand jury, the human body acquiring natural protection from harmful antigens via infection is a concept that has existed for “thousands of years.”

While no human had previously been infected with Covid-19 prior to the outbreak in late 2019 and early 2020, it became evident in the months and years that followed that those who got infected and recovered from the virus possessed greater natural protection against reinfection. According to the report, “[m]ost studies show that, on average, IDI lowered chances of reinfection from the Ancestral, Alpha and Delta variants of SARS-CoV-2 in the unvaccinated by roughly 80%,” with such “immunity generally [starting] to decline around 40 weeks after infection but level[ing] off to what appeared to be a roughly stable 50% that lasted from 60 to 80 weeks after infection.”

“These promising IDI numbers did not just appear out of the blue in 2024. They were echoed in numerous studies produced at different times over the course of the last four years,” the report reads.

A 2021 Israeli study cited by the grand jury, for instance, reportedly found that “unvaccinated people with IDI had an overall effective protection rate of approximately 86% against the Delta variant.” Meanwhile, a 2021 study of patients in New York and California “showed that infections per 1,000 unvaccinated persons were roughly 129 for those with no IDI, and only 5 among the IDI, a 96% relative risk reduction rate.”

The grand jury noted how “[n]one of these statistics should have been a surprise to anyone in healthcare” and that such basic science “is so well understood that the broad strokes of it could be found in virtually any high school textbook.” Jury members further highlighted how “people with IDI in 2020 and 2021 had little to nothing to gain” from nonpharmaceutical interventions such as masking and lockdowns — two policies their first interim report documented had little to no scientific benefit. They also admonished government health agencies for ignoring biological reality and for inconsistent public policy prescriptions.

“Given that there were testing modalities available that could easily confirm whether a person had IDI, this Grand Jury believes it was irresponsible of government agencies not to have advised tailoring their mitigation measures to divide those at decreased risk due to IDI in the same way they would later divide the vaccinated, especially those of lower age with fewer comorbidities who were already at reduced risk,” the report reads. “… Where officials have concerns about certain behaviors, they should absolutely communicate those concerns and discourage those behaviors, but not at the expense of suppressing or ignoring ‘the science.'”

2. Government ‘Experts’ Attacked Potential Covid Treatments

While the grand jury noted the difficulty in finding effective treatments for a new virus amid a global outbreak, it lamented how some government health officials committed “avoidable mistakes” when it came to “messaging and communication” with the American public about potential early treatment options. Among the most notable was the “expert” class’s war against hydroxychloroquine, a commonly used drug often prescribed to treat malaria.

The jury noted how some “well-credentialed scientists and clinicians” were “dissatisfied” with the data the Food and Drug Administration used to justify its decision to revoke “Emergency Use Authorization” of hydroxychloroquine for treating Covid patients, and they chose to prescribe the drug to patients based on the data they were examining. The medication’s proponents argued the data cited by the FDA “focused on using the drug in hospitalized patients as opposed to outpatients, contained large numbers of low-risk individuals,” and had other issues undercutting its reliability.

The grand jury said it does “not believe it was unreasonable [for doctors] to include hydroxychloroquine in an early outpatient treatment regimen for Covid-19” given the drug’s “long history” of relatively safe use and the ever-changing nature of “the science.”

While the grand jury found clinicians’ use of the drug to treat Covid patients reasonable, government agencies and their media allies did not. The grand jury described how “[p]rominent government public health officials, of course, did not agree, widely stigmatizing the drug, vilifying the doctors who prescribed it, the researchers who advocated it and the people who took it.”

“In April of 2020, a mere two days after the Guidelines were initially published with an ‘Emergency Recommendation’ for hydroxychloroquine, a prominent newspaper characterized interviews with hydroxychloroquine proponents as ‘a big dose of dumb[,]’ and noting that ‘[c]laims about hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 have gained traction despite a lack of scientific evidence,’” the report reads. “From there, the information war was on. Even after the Guidelines changed hydroxychloroquine’s status to ‘Not Recommended,’ news agencies continued to criticize those who researched the drug, calling hydroxychloroquine ‘the most disappointing, disavowed drug that researchers keep studying for Covid-19.’”

The grand jury similarly examined the “bizarre” information warfare against ivermectin, a Nobel Prize-winning antiparasitic medication approved for human use in 1987. While researchers published studies both supporting and disproving the drug’s efficacy against Covid, the same aforementioned government and media figures engaged in a “pointless, ugly war of words over a proven-safe drug with questionable effectiveness.”

The grand jury criticized public health officials for issuing dismissive and childish messaging, specifically for an August 2021 tweet about ivermectin by the FDA that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” The jury similarly lambasted the media for referring to the medication as a “horse paste” and noted how some state licensing boards “began to threaten the livelihoods of doctors who prescribed Ivermectin to their patients for Covid-19.”

“Through all this, none of these opponents were able to effectively articulate a good reason for their contempt towards Ivermectin,” the report reads.

3. ‘Expert’ and Media Lies Put Lives at Risk

Above all, the grand jury highlighted how government health “experts” and legacy media’s efforts to squash debate about the efficacy of drugs like ivermectin created an avoidable scenario in which individuals who felt they were being lied to took matters into their own hands.

“Some people became so desperate to get this supposed miracle drug, so sure they were being lied to, that they began to resort to doses and formulations of the drug meant for animals, resulting in a number of well-publicized Ivermectin overdoses,” the report reads. “Once again, opponents looked down their noses at the foolishness of these desperate, misguided fools. Late night comedians made jokes at their expense and everybody who knew how to ‘follow the science’ laughed. This Grand Jury is not laughing.”

“This was a profound failure of public health messaging. We lay every overdose that occurred at the feet of those who authored this campaign of vilification,” the grand jury added.

Access Commentsx