On May 21, a bombshell grand jury report exposed shocking COVID-19 lies and cover-ups, revealing misconduct by pharmaceutical companies, government health officials, and media figures, significantly impacting public health and trust since the pandemic began.

Last Monday, a Florida grand jury’s second interim report on its investigation into possible “wrongdoing” by companies that manufactured COVID shots and those that advertised them was made public.

The grand jury was asked to investigate whether “pharmaceutical manufacturers (and their executive officers) and other medical associations or organizations” engaged in “criminal activity or wrongdoing” about “their involvement in the development, approval or marketing of COVID-19 vaccines.” The grand jury was authorized by the Florida Supreme Court in December 2022 and was requested by Governor Ron DeSantis. In February, the jury’s first interim report was made public. Its members verified the veracity of numerous allegations that media pundits and health “experts” had written off as “misinformation.”

The second interim report from the grand jury, which was submitted to the Florida Supreme Court on May 21, includes information on several subjects not addressed in the first, including the frequency of natural immunity in COVID-19 patients and drugs used to treat the infection. This updated research, like the previous one, includes devastating evidence that the “expert” class did not, in fact, “follow the science.”

1. Covid Patients Gain Natural Immunity Through Infection

The phenomenon known as “natural immunity,” or infection-derived immunity (IDI), is not new. The grand jury stated that the idea that the human body develops natural defenses against dangerous antigens through infection has been around for “thousands of years.”

Even though no one had ever contracted Covid-19 before the outbreak in late 2019 and early 2020, it became clear in the months and years that individuals who contracted the virus and recovered from it had stronger natural defenses 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 last four years,” the report reads.

According to a 2021 Israeli study that was referenced by the grand jury, “individuals with IDI who were not vaccinated had an overall effective protection rate of approximately 86% against the Delta variant.” In the meanwhile, a 2021 study involving patients from California and New York “showed that infections per 1,000 unvaccinated persons were only 5 among the IDI, a 96% relative risk reduction rate,” and approximately 129 infections per 1,000 individuals without IDI.

The grand jury pointed out 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.” The jury also emphasized how nonpharmaceutical interventions like masks and lockdowns, which their first interim report showed had little to no scientific effect, “had little to nothing to gain” for “people with IDI in 2020 and 2021.” Additionally, they chastised government health agencies for their contradictory recommendations for public policy and their disregard for biological facts.

“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 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

The grand jury bemoaned how certain government health officials made “avoidable mistakes” when it came to “messaging and communication” with the American public about potential early treatment options, even as it acknowledged the challenge of developing effective treatments for a new virus amid a global outbreak. The “expert” class’s struggle against hydroxychloroquine, a medication that is frequently used to treat malaria, was one of the most prominent.

The jury observed that certain “well-credentialed scientists and clinicians” decided to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to patients based on the data they were looking at, despite being “dissatisfied” with the data the Food and Drug Administration used to support its decision to revoke the drug’s “Emergency Use Authorization” for treating Covid patients. Supporters of the drug contended that the FDA-cited data had numerous problems that compromised its validity, including the fact that it “focused on using the drug in hospitalized patients as opposed to outpatients, contained large numbers of low-risk individuals.”

The grand jury stated that considering the drug’s “long history” of generally safe use and the constantly evolving nature of “the science,” it does “not believe it was unreasonable [for doctors] to include hydroxychloroquine in an early outpatient treatment regimen for Covid-19.”

Government organizations and the media did not agree with the grand jury’s assessment that doctors’ use of the medication to treat Covid patients was justified. According to the grand jury report, “[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 also looked into the “bizarre” information warfare against the 1987 FDA approval of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin, which won the Nobel Prize. A “pointless, ugly war of words over a proven-safe drug with questionable effectiveness” was waged by government and media figures, while researchers submitted papers confirming and disproving the drug’s effectiveness against Covid.

The grand jury censured public health authorities for their condescending and juvenile remarks, citing a 2021 FDA tweet concerning ivermectin that stated, “You are not a horse.” You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” Additionally, the verdict chastised the media for calling the drug “horse paste” and mentioned how certain state licensing bodies “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 brought to light the avoidable situation in which people who felt misled took matters into their own hands due to the attempts of government health “experts” and legacy media to silence criticism over the effectiveness of medications like ivermectin.

“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.

Just today, GreatGameIndia reported that The Mayo Clinic faces renewed legal scrutiny as a federal court revives a lawsuit, dismissed in 2023, over COVID-19 vaccine mandates conflicting with employees’ religious beliefs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit overturned the dismissal on May 24.