Following months of fact-gathering, a Florida grand jury released its first interim report on Friday regarding its investigation into potential “wrongdoing” by Covid vaccine manufacturers and entities who promoted the shots.

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” partook in “criminal activity or wrongdoing” concerning “their involvement in the development, approval or marketing of COVID-19 vaccines.” In years prior, individuals who dared to broach such topics online were often censored by Big Tech at the behest of the federal government.

While the grand jury’s investigation is “nowhere near complete,” and has yet to disclose specific details on the shots’ safety and efficacy, the interim report provides insight into other facets of America’s egregious Covid response.

1. ‘Highly Likely’ Covid Hospitalization Numbers Were Inflated

Throughout the pandemic, many Americans suspected hospitals and federal agencies were misreporting Covid hospitalization numbers by neglecting to specify which patients were hospitalized because of Covid and those who had contracted Covid but were admitted due to another medical issue. According to the Florida grand jury, it’s “highly likely” these numbers were inflated.

The body noted how the CARES Act passed by Congress and signed by President Trump “created financial subsidies for Medicare and Medicaid patients with COVID-19 that were treated at hospitals and other medical facilities.” While such funds assisted these facilities in keeping their doors open during the Covid panic, they created “incentives to report more than just hospitalizations for COVID-19 disease.”

2. Covid Does Not Harm Most Children

The report confirmed what anyone with common sense has known for years: “Covid-19 is statistically almost harmless to children.” The grand jury noted that the same goes for “most adults,” and further highlighted how individuals 65 and older are the demographic most at risk of dying from the virus.

While The Federalist reported this fact as early as May 2020, so-called “public health officials” and politicians continued to ignore the evidence on Covid’s minimal effects on children. In the name of “science,” these figures kept kids out of school for months, subsequently ruining their educational development and learning opportunities.

3. Public Officials Ignored Preexisting Research

The grand jury not only found that previous research on nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) such as lockdowns and masking was ignored by public health officials. It also discovered these same figures and the media attacked anyone who raised such research when questioning the validity of baseless Covid policies.

4. Lockdowns Did More Harm Than Good

In a not-so-shocking discovery, the Florida grand jury found that American society is “simply not organized in a way that could support long term isolation.” The body also detailed prior studies and remarks from health authorities espousing such sentiments in the years leading up to — and in one case, during — pandemic lockdowns.

While the grand jury opined that lockdowns could offer short-term relief by temporarily stabilizing “case growth,” it determined that the months and years following the lifting of lockdowns produce “excess mortality that can partially be attributed to collateral consequences concentrated in the groups at lowest risk from COVID-19 disease.”

“[L]ockdowns were not a good trade,” the report reads. “Comparative data showed that jurisdictions that held to them 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.”

Despite Covid cultists’ continued insistence on wearing face masks in 2024, the grand jury noted there has “never” been “sound evidence of their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission.” This determination comports with the findings of a Cochrane Library study published last year. As The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson summarized, “Areas with mask mandates, the authors found, fared no better than areas without them. As the pandemic ran its course in the U.S., this became obvious, as different states (and often cities) had different masking rules. The mandates made no difference.”

“There have always been legitimate questions around the impracticality of individual adherence to mask recommendations, but once it became clear that the primary transmission vector of SARS-CoV-2 was via aerosol, their potential efficacy was further diminished,” the grand jury report reads.

The jurors also highlighted how public health agencies regularly failed to “adequately explain this important distinction to the American public in favor of a broad mask recommendation that did not make nearly enough distinction between the types of masks available and put at risk those it sought to help.” Instead, self-proclaimed health experts opted 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.”