It's Official: Early "Conspiracy Theorists" Are Vindicated By Florida's Grand Jury

Finally some common senes from offical sources

Florida’s Governor DeSantis appointing a Grand Jury into the US Covid Response.

A year ago, Governor DeSantis commissioned a Grand Jury to objectively investigate the COVID-19 response in the USA. Unlike the UK inquiry, they seem to be independent and follow the science. It doesn’t look good for the US agencies that enforced many “unscientific” measurements, often doing an unexplainable U-Turn on their own previous policies, especially around masks and lockdowns.

The grand jury subpoenaed all these agencies, including the US Army, to testify. Unsurprisingly, they all refused. This tells us much about their confidence in defending unscientific and contradictory measures.

The first report of Florida's Grand Jury was issued yesterday. I think there is more to come. It is well-written, in plain English, and easily readable for laypeople. If you have time and interest, read it.

The value of it does not lie in the information provided. Most of us have known for years now, through instinct, common sense, and pre-2020 scientific consent, all about “risk and benefits, " “safe and effective, " masks, and lockdowns.

The immense value lies in the official status of the truth of our so-called “conspiracy theories” given now by an official, legal, professionally conducted independent enquiry of one of the largest states of the USA.

In the future, we save our breath by shutting up brainless COVID alarmists and simply referring them to this official report. I assume it also carries some weight in court proceedings around the world.

Hail Governer DeSantis. It is so sad that celebrity Trump is valued higher by a mindless Republican base and that he pulled out of the election run. But who knows? Maybe there is a silver lining to it. Maybe he can do more good in four years’ time when the world is more ready for it.

Unlike Trump, he is actively doing something about the biggest fraud and mindfuck in our history. We will never get a proper Covid disclosure with Trump. He was heavily involved in implementing it. I don’t get you, Americans.

Can you not for once forget your huge thirst for entertaining drama, show business, and revenge business and do what’s best for you and the country?

Yes, Trump potentially beating Biden is such great Hollywood material. I get it. Revenge smells so sweet. But you all forget that Trump already failed once against the globalist-bureaucratic machine. And trusting a narcissistic Billionaire? Seriously?

Bringing the Covid criminals to justice is the most important issue ever on this planet. Full stop. If they get away with it, they will repeat it. And they will repeat it much better next time.

Please, please let Trump go. He will not properly resolve this.

You still have Kennedy. Think, for God’s sake.

Here is the conclusion of the report for you:

CONCLUSION

This brings us back to our original question: How did these nonpharmaceutical interventions affect the overall risk presented by the SARS-CoV-2 virus? 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 lowest risk from COVID-19 disease. There is a case to be made that these lockdowns enabled others in high-risk groups to “bridge the gap” until 2021 when they had access to vaccines—a subject which this Grand Jury will undoubtedly examine in future presentments. On average, however, when one includes all age groups, lockdowns were not a good trade 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. Effectively, lockdowns traded the immediate welfare of a smaller, affluent, well-represented group of older Americans who could afford to stay home for the longer-term welfare of a larger, less-affluent, poorly-represented group of children, teens, twenty-, thirty- and forty-somethings who could not. If anything, the result of this was a modest benefit to the former group at the expense of the latter. With respect to masks, we have never had sound evidence of their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the form of reliable RCTs that demonstrated statistically significant benefits. 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. Public health agencies failed to adequately explain this important distinction to the American public in favor of a broad mask recommendation that did not makenearly enough distinction between the types of masks available and put at risk those it sought to help. 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 29 Likewise, the aerosol-based spread of SARS-CoV-2 changes the equation with respect to social distancing. It is not nearly as important how far away people are from one another as it is whether they are in an interior or exterior environment and whether that environment is subject to adequate airflow. Even today, this important information is missing from the CDC’s Social Distancing Guidelines As for their effect on overall SARS-CoV-2 risk, we cannot ignore the fact that these NPIs were not administered based on the best available scientific data. In fact, many public health recommendations and their attendant mandates departed significantly from scientific research that was contemporaneously available to everyone: Individuals, scientists, corporations and governments alike. Often this research was ignored by institutional policymakers. Occasionally it was even attacked. It is a sad state of affairs when something as simple as following the science constitutes an act of heresy, but here we are. Importantly, while some of these NPIs may have shifted risk to later in time or from one group to another or had some speculative efficacy against viral spread when used in perfect laboratory conditions, comparative evidence suggests they did not significantly change the overall risk profile presented by the SARS-CoV-2 virus in terms of excess death, especially once collateral consequences are taken into consideration.