On Tuesday, I got a very bad feeling reading Governor DeSantis’ X announcement that, 18 months later, the Grand Jury had finally issued its long-awaited final report on the covid shots. It worried me that DeSantis didn’t link the report. And he noncomittally said, “we are still reading through the report.” Uh oh. My worries were confirmed yesterday when I saw the Florida Pheonix’s triumphant headline, “ Statewide grand jury investigating COVID-19 vaccines finds no evidence of crimes.”

Well, that lack of crimes will come as a terrific relief to Joe Biden’s last five brain cells, desperately clinging to life in his cabbage-like cranium, forced to consider difficult questions like that posed Monday in USA Today’s headline, “Biden’s preemptive pardons could include Fauci, Cheney.” If there isn’t any evidence of crimes, then presumably the human cockroach and Benedicta Cheney have nothing to worry about.

Ah, but the truth is never quite so straightforward, is it? The Florida Phoenix’s headline was a lie by grotesque omission. It might be literally true —the Grand Jury could not find a fitting crime against anyone not legally protected— but nevertheless, it was a monstrous distortion of the Jury’s findings and was a classic case of what media just loves to call misinformation when other people do it.

Let’s dig in.

Here is the link to the Final Report of the Twenty-Second Statewide Grand Jury, if you have the time. It is worth the read.

Before criticizing the Grand Jury, recall that it was made up of a group of citizen volunteers who put their careers at risk to serve without pay for eighteen long months. They sacrificed family time, had to pass on other opportunities, and according to a short preamble, some lost promotions. Regardless of anything else, given what they had to work with, they did a terrific job and their 143-page report should be mandatory reading for anyone in public health.

The authors might disagree with this summary, but here is my attempt to boil down the book-length report:

1. The real criminals were in the U.S. government, and so, unfortunately, are protected from state prosecution.
2. Pfizer and Moderna protected themselves by disclosing everything to the FDA, which was and is running interference for them.
3. There is no reliable evidence that the vaccines are safe or effective, especially at this point.
4. The problem was and is that many corners were cut, facilitated by regulatory agencies, and we now may never know the full scale of the disaster.
5. The data that could really answer questions of safety and efficacy have never been, and probably never will be, disclosed to the public.

The Grand Jury began by noting that the FDA’s approval process for the covid ‘vaccines’ was anything but normal. The seeds of problem were planted long before the vaccines were approved at warp speed:

As befits a once-in-a-hundred-year pandemic, the first clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines conducted in the wake of the OWS ‘contract derby’ departed in many ways from the ordinary vaccine approval process. Some of those departures were understandable given the extraordinary nature of the crisis, some of them less so. By another axis, some of these departures resulted in relatively little loss of safety or efficacy data, but others had catastrophic and long-term consequences for our understanding of the ability of these mRNA vaccine products to mitigate risks associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The bottom line is the Grand Jury, having reviewed all the evidence, concluded the FDA erred by approving the jabs for anyone but the most at risk. “Unlike the FDA,” the Grand Jury concluded, “we do not believe that the COVID-19 ‘emergency’ necessarily applied to everyone; the EUA should only have been granted as to the elderly and comorbid populations most at risk from SARS-Co V-2 complications.” (The italicized and bold-faced type was theirs, not mine.)

Like the Florida Phoenix, if it mentions this report at all, the media will surely leverage the lack of any criminal findings as some sort of vindication for mRNA technology. But that’s not what the Grand Jury found at all.

Even if they couldn’t find any prosecutable crimes against the exposed (non-government) defendants, the Jurors didn’t exactly stamp their approval on anything. To the contrary, the Grand Jurors found a “pattern of deceptive and obfuscatory behavior” with both the drug makers and the government officials:

While we did not find criminal activity, we did find a pattern of deceptive and obfuscatory behavior on the part of sponsors and regulators that often straddled the line between ethical and unethical conduct. More importantly, however, not finding any indictable criminal activity does not mean we did not find any problems. On the contrary, there are profound and serious issues involving the process of vaccine development and safety surveillance in the United States. Some of those are acute, COVID-19-era problems that are unlikely to occur outside the context of another once-in-a-hundred-year pandemic. Others, however, are systemic; they will occur over and over until someone fixes them.

With Robert Kennedy waiting in the Senate’s wings, we are this close to having someone in a position to fix the problems. Even if this Report doesn’t lead to any criminal prosecutions, it does provide a starting point, a primer for fixing endemic problems, a roadmap compiled over thousands of hours of careful and skeptical review guided by recognized experts.

The Grand Jury’s scope of work was limited in three significant ways. The first major limitation they faced was that, unbelievably, government officials ignored their subpoenas. “Most notably,” the Report explained, “a significant number of current or former federal officials refused to testify to us. Federal law prohibits us from compelling those officials to appear.”

On the other hand, Pfizer and Moderna responded to the subpoenas to a certain extent and they sent representatives to testify. But the very same taxpayer-funded FDA officials who throughout the pandemic repeatedly demanded the public’s trust flatly refused to provide many documents or any witnesses to the Grand Jury.

It is unjustifiable, inexcusable, and a disgusting, treasonous dereliction of duty. I hope Robert Kennedy guts the FDA with a rusty fishknife.

A legal example might help understand the Jury’s next frustrating finding.

There is a ‘secret’ legal technique that lawyers quietly use in certain situations, when a client wants to do something that everybody knows is going to look extremely sketchy later. For instance, I once represented some tech founders who had started a firm making a tiny, sophisticated, swallowable diagnostic device. After a major government contract fell through, the firm became insolvent, kaput.

But a group of the founders —my clients— wanted to buy the tech out of the first, insolvent firm and ‘reboot it’ in a different, profitable company, free from claims of original investors and existing creditors. But it was certain that, no matter how fair was the price the group of founders paid for the intellectual property, the investors and creditors would cry foul.

The short version of how we navigated the expected legal minefield was that we let the court do it. In other words, we asked a higher authority —the court— to approve the purchase, giving all parties fair notice of the hearing. Our goal was to get hold of an order finding the purchase price was fair and blessing the transaction. With that order in hand, my clients would be protected from later claims that they should have paid more, or that they had breached some duty to the old firm’s investors, or they were self-serving.

It’s not precisely the same, but the vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, handled their delicate legal situation in a similar way. Instead of using a court, they used the Food and Drug Administration. But unlike my clients, instead of facing a neutral judge, the drug makers enjoyed the benefit of a totally sold-out, fully captured regulatory agency eager to bless whatever was put in front of them whether it made sense or not.

With nearly everything Pfizer and Moderna did, they included regulators in the process. “Records and testimony we collected,” the Grand Jury wrote, “showed that time and again, sponsors operated hand-in-glove with regulators.“

Don’t blame us; the FDA was right there the whole time.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, the various deceptions, obfuscations, and ethical problems identified by the Grand Jury (and there were many) could always be traced, one way or another, back to the government:

Regarding the clinical trials and pharmacovigilance of MRNA-1273 and BNTl 62b2, it was genuinely striking to us just how many of the problems we found occurred at either the direction or acquiescence of the FDA, CDC and other federal regulators. Nearly every time we found an issue with MRNA-1273 or BNT162b2, the fingerprints of these agencies were all over the scene, advising that the flagship and surrogate clinical trials be performed in specific ways, authorizing dose after dose and formulation after formulation based on out-of-date immunogenicity comparisons and observational results, and even running interference for sponsors by misleading the American public about validated safety signals.

Although you wouldn’t know it after watching the long, drawn-out Trump cases unfold, it is very hard to prosecute federal regulators. They enjoy immunity from prosecution except under very rare circumstances. Ironically, until this year, the Supreme Court had never defined the boundaries of presidential immunity. But the broad immunity enjoyed by federal employees has been well-defined for a long time.

The next major limitation the Grand Jury faced was the scale of the deception and obfuscation, which resulted in a deficit of relevant evidence. Nowhere was that limitation more obvious than in the Jury’s extended and thoughtful analysis of vaccine safety and efficacy. Unlike the FDA, Moderna and Pfizer didn’t refuse to provide documents.

But they did something arguably worse: they provided millions and millions of pages.

There may be some gold buried somewhere under that document dump. Who knows. But the key documents, the documents that could have resolved long-lingering questions about safety and efficacy, were never produced. Instead, that information was withheld under long-recognized FOIA exceptions for patient-level data and trademark protection.

In spite of that, the Grand Jurors did the best they could, pressing their experts to review the data the shot makers provided, plus all the available open-source data, as well as the most current available studies.

In other words, the Jurors completed a Herculean effort involving an entire team of qualified experts. And guess what they found: Despite the millions of pages the shot makers gave them, and despite all the testimony from the manufacturers, various doctors, and jab experts, they could not confirm the vaccines were either safe or effective.

In fact, they had more questions at the end of the 18 months than when they’d started.

At best, the Jurors concluded that, at this point, the shots “may” help “some” very old and very sick folks; but the Jurors quickly admitted that even that halfhearted claim cannot be proven, and worse, we may never know:

How well are MRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 protecting people from the risks associated with SARS-CoV-2 disease in 2024? The answer is that these products may be affording at least some people of advanced age and with significant comorbidities at least some protection; we have no idea how much, in whom, or for how long — and we may never know. We had gold-standard RCT data regarding how vaccines affected COVID-19 outcomes in 2020 and 2021. The sponsors have been using those numbers ever since to infer correlates of protection, but the incidence, disease burden and population immunity today are very different than they were at the time those correlates were derived. We do not believe this is good science.

To unpack that a little, the FDA had initially required Pfizer and Moderna to complete two rounds of trials before EUA approval. The Jury’s experts repeatedly said that the initial results from those two rounds fairly supported inferences of efficacy and safety, even though the landscape quickly changed, obsoleting the initial findings:

With all those caveats, most of the experts we spoke to–even those who had significant reservations overall about the COVID-19 vaccines-believed the adverse event and SAE results from the blinded portion of the flagship trials constituted acceptable safety profiles for BNTI 62b2 and MRNA-1273 in a majority of potential vaccines.

My personal view is that, given the small study sizes, particularly given the very small numbers of comparative infections and adverse events between the placebo and vaccine groups, it would have been very easy for Pfizer and Moderna to manipulate the data to get their favorable results, especially given that the FDA clearly was looking the other way the whole time. If anything, the FDA’s role seemed to be just to bless whatever results Moderna and Pfizer produced.

As murky and indeterminate was the efficacy problem, determining the vaccine’s relative safety was even worse. Of course, by this point, most of us understand the vaccines are not “safe” in the sense that fresh air is “safe.”

Not even close.

The Report explained that, in this context, “safety” is a term of art boiling down to a risk/reward matrix: is the additional risk of encountering a serious adverse event outweighed by the relative reduction of risk of acquiring the disease? If yes, the industry considers the vaccine “safe.” This is a long-established terminology that has always blown my mind, since any risk/reward determination is inherently subjective.

Are the regulators risk-seeking or are they risk-averse? One clue is that they routinely find medical treatments to be “safe” even though there is a non-trivial risk of death, which most lay folks would not in any way understand to be “safe.”

Finally, the Grand Jury repeatedly stressed that a river of subsequent studies purporting to show vaccine safety relied on the original two rounds of EUA trials and their data, thereby stacking stale inferences on outdated assumptions. This limitation is, once again, the result of a combination of manufacturers taking advantage of loopholes and the FDA running interference for them.

For example, we should know a lot more about vaccine safety at this point, but the manufacturers stopped all safety testing once they got their EUAs. Although the FDA purportedly required “post-marketing safety studies” to continue, and has even asked for specific types, such as for pregnant women or on myocarditis, the manufacturers have never finished any of them:

To date, Moderna has not completed any of its other postmarketing requirements. All of the studies above except for No. 11, which was terminated, are still underway… The FDA would not speak to us directly, so we are not sure what their excuse would be for not holding Pfizer and Moderna’s feet to the fire. Frankly, we are not sure any answer would satisfy us at this point, nor should it satisfy anyone else.

In other words, the FDA just keeps granting Pfizer’s and Moderna’s requests for extensions.

So who is to blame? The manufacturer, who is legally compliant because the FDA has granted their extension requests? Or, is the FDA the real culpable party, since it is providing its stamp of legality on whatever the shot-makers are doing (or not doing)?

For instance, one still-uncompleted study includes the extremely important question of how many vaccines have elevated blood troponin levels consistent with a diagnosis of subclinical myocarditis? Private studies raised serious questions about this, and the FDA ordered the makers to conduct a study, which was started —checking the compliance box— but has never been finished.

The Grand Jury could not speculate about any problems that heterodox scientists don’t yet recognize as valid, established issues. For example, there was no discussion of turbo cancer anywhere in the report. I don’t think that’s a failure of the Grand Jury, it has more to do with the rules constraining them. Interestingly, they did discuss the contaminant DNA found in the shots, which the Jurors labeled as an established fact:

There is excess template DNA in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines. That is a fact. The residual DNA contamination does not appear to be causing any direct or obvious harms, but nobody knows for sure. Multiple witnesses we heard from expressed concerns about this phenomenon, but we found no studies demonstrating clinical outcomes that could be reliably attributed to DNA contamination. On the other hand, there is a lot about this technology that we don’t know, and none of the witnesses who we spoke to were able to definitively dispel our concerns.

Contaminant DNA is a perfect metaphor for the failure of government agencies. Scientists are concerned about the established fact of unintended “excess template DNA” in the shots, but what has the FDA done about it? Nothing. How can anyone say the shots are safe when so much remains unknown and unstudied?

The third significant limitation placed on the Grand Jury was its inability to access patient-level data. For example, when they wanted their experts to review the deaths in the trial groups that Pfizer ruled not caused by the shots, they were told the patient-level data was private and hence could not be provided to a Grand Jury.

This is such a wide-ranging problem that the Grand Jury thinks patient data should somehow be made available for every licensed drug. The Jurors were frustrated that Pfizer could hide behind privacy laws for every drug approval:

When pressed, however, Pfizer’s representative could not recall a single time the company had granted third-party access to its individual patient data. Frankly, given what we have learned in our tenure, we find it difficult to believe the company would ever allow a truly independent scientific analysis of this data if it were not compelled to do so.

The ability for drug makers to hide behind patient privacy and trademark limitations is a huge problem. Moderna’s early pre-licensing trials, as small as they were, detected sixty-five statistically significant safety signals. Pfizer’s trials identified over a hundred statistically significant safety signals. But in both cases, the companies “reviewed” those statistical signals and, in their opinion, found them produced by “other causes.” Worse, the sub-category of “other causes” itself includes another generic and uninformative sub-sub-category called “insufficient evidence.”

Somehow every one of those 65-100 statistically significant safety signals was buried, hidden from the public, by virtue of disappearing into the “other causes” bucket, and in most cases, because of “insufficient evidence.” The FDA unquestioningly accepted Moderna’s and Pfizer’s alternative explanations, and now it is impossible for anyone to review what happened.

Because privacy.

All we know for sure is the FDA never challenged any of Pfizer’s or Moderna’s conclusions. The report vexedly noted, “This Grand Jury is fairly certain that at least some of the answers to these questions are inside the millions of pages of documents Pfizer and Modema provided in discovery. Unfortunately, we have neither the time nor the expertise at our disposal to meaningfully evaluate them.”

The Grand Jury was especially frustrated at all the allegedly ‘resolved’ safety signals:

What were the rest of these validated signals? On what basis were they refuted? How long and how thoroughly were they investigated? Only the FDA and the sponsors know. We asked Moderna’s representative, a friendly and qualified scientist, whether his company informed the public about validated safety signals prior to confirmation. This was his answer:

“No, it’s irrelevant for them. There’s no reason to. And the reason is that, these are issues that are unknown …. [a]nd if we were to advise the public of every theoretical safety concern, I think that would be a disservice to the public.”

We emphatically disagree. In fact, we believe it perfectly illustrates the larger paternalistic attitude on the part of both government health agencies and the pharmaceutical industry towards the public.

Hiding the details, methodology and results of scores of safety investigations from public view does not build public confidence; it undermines it.

Warming to its theme, the Grand Jury continued unloading about the invisible, “other-caused” safety signals, and concluded the FDA-approved process should be criminal:

It is frustrating to this Grand Jury, as it should be frustrating to everyone who reads this report, to know that these sponsors have taken in billions of taxpayer dollars for creating and selling their vaccines; they cannot be sued if something goes wrong with them; they have access to critical information about deaths related to a side effect of their products; and the public does not have access to that information. Instead, we are left to speculate, and the research community is left to draw inferences as one-off or two-off histopathological reports detailing the events of this death or that death that trickle into scientific journals slowly, year after year. Somehow, withholding this valuable safety information is not a crime. It certainly should be.

One last issue from the Report deserves mention before I make a few final comments. The Grand Jury was particularly distressed that the original trials were rendered useless when the placebo groups were offered vaccines, destroying any chance of tracking medium- or long-term adverse events.

The manufacturers justified this convenient “unblinding” of the placebo groups by saying they just couldn’t bring themselves to withhold a “lifesaving treatment” from placebo trial members. “Interestingly,” the Jurors said, meaning infuriatingly, “both Pfizer’s and Modema’s representatives —independently of one another— became emotional as they described the risks faced by the placebo groups and the unblinding process. Most of us found these displays disingenuous.”

But at the end of the day, once again, we find it was the FDA that rubber-stamped the unblinding, putting the manufacturers in the clear. They asked for permission and got it. Deceptive, yes. Unethical, yes. But not criminal, since they followed the FDA’s rules. The Grand Jury was furious:

We are not sure whether it was a lack of will, a lack of imagination or a lack of competence that led our federal public health agencies to ultimately sanction the “open label” model, but it was a disaster from a public health perspective, casting a cloud of scientific doubt and undermining public confidence for years to come. We wish we could say that the unblinding and vaccinating of the placebo groups was the first and last major public health blunder we would see in the COVID-19 pandemic. The reality, however, was that the real mess was just beginning.

I ‘decorated’ today’s posts with various images of vaccine injuries taken from published case studies and vaccine studies, all attributed to the Pfizer or Moderna shots by qualified experts, but none of which are currently officially recognized by the FDA (hence nor by the Grand Jury’s experts) as vaccine-related types of injuries.

The Grand Jurors were given a solemn duty precluding them from speculating.

But I can speculate a little.

From my near-daily study over the last four years, my view is that these shots with their bioweapons-lab-designed spike protein have dozens and dozens of mechanisms of rare injury, as the various pictures included in today’s post show.

Myocarditis may be officially recognized but is only one ‘rare’ injury type of many.

As far as I know, the wide variety of rare injuries is unique to mRNA vaccines.

The FDA has never considered the cumulative risk of all the rare adverse events, when you add up them up. While the risk of encountering a particular rare adverse event is low, is the combined risk of encountering any of the various adverse events still rare? I think not. I think the combined risk of encountering some kind of adverse event sooner or later is around 20%—25%.

So what are we to make of this Grand Jury Report? Most people who’d hoped for a fiery fusillade of criminal charges will be disappointed. But past that inital shock, the courageous Jurors performed a great public service of understanding, documenting, and simplifying a deliberately vague and intentionally fogged ocean of deception.

Media must not be allowed to hijack the narrative and claim the report exonerated anyone. Hopefully today’s overlong post provides some ammunition to fight back.