In a previous article dealing with COVID-19, I took note that "controversies of more studies are in our future," especially regarding government behaviour. And so it has turned out. Let's start with Florida, where a grand jury has committed public resources to investigate the responses of authorities to COVID. Their interim report is somewhat in the vein of my article and it's fascinating to see what Florida is doing.In its first report, the Florida 22nd Statewide Grand Jury decided masks and lockdowns had been harmful and ineffective. However, their report also noted roadblocks in the Statewide Grand Jury’s investigative efforts, placed by the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) the Food & Drug Administration (FDA,) and the US Army, all of which refused to cooperate or provide representatives to testify before the jury. But of course, these entities all had a substantial hand in the contracting, approval and distribution process for the COVID-19 vaccines.Other highlights:1) On non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) the report asserts: “To be clear, scientific research into NPIs and their consequences did not begin with the outbreak of COVID-19. A wealth of contemporaneous scientific information already existed in major publications that could have informed a much more robust and meaningful response concerning NPIs, but much of it was ignored or even attacked by mainstream public health and media entities in the early months of the pandemic, for reasons that are not always clear. In short, this was not an ‘information’ problem, it was a ‘judgment’ problem.”2) On lockdowns: “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 targetted their protective efforts towards the highest-risk groups instead of mandating large-scale, extended periods of quarantine for everyone.”3) On safety and efficacy: “It should also be apparent that establishing the safety of a biological product necessitates a comprehensive, meaningful and accurate evaluation of the risk presented by the disease that product is designed to address.”4) On masking: “We have never had sound evidence of their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission” and “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 favour 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." "Well-financed federal agencies chose to fill the discourse with flawed observational and laboratory studies, hiding behind their conclusion of ‘no equipoise’ (research uncertainty) to avoid the potential embarrassment of the public health advice they championed being invalidated by evidence.”5) On hospitalization risk: “We know for a fact that this (patients admitted for non-COVID causes classified as COVID if they also happened to have it) happened because numerous federal and state health officials have publicly stated that they did not ask or require hospitals to distinguish cases where someone was admitted with incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection versus cases where someone was so sick with symptoms of COVID-19 disease that he or she required hospitalization." "Thus, it is highly likely that the CDC's number of total hospitalizations is inflated to some degree with asymptomatic or minor SARS-CoV-2 infections that were classified as 'hospitalizations' to financially benefit the hospital."6) On collateral consequences: “Somehow, because of panic, hubris, ineptitude or some unfortunate combination of the three, this widely rejected idea of mandates not only made its way back into scientific discourse in 2020, it became the law of the land in most of the United States between 2020 and 2022. It is clear to this Grand Jury that whatever benefits inured from these mandates, they were not worth the price.”The Florida report is based on their review of the evidence and cross-examination of experts. It is in line with a growing consensus, that mask mandates, lockdown mandates, social isolation rules, inventions with schools, etc., hurt more than helped and were not worth the cost to society.In retrospect, it is also disconcerting to realize how easily manipulated was the Canadian population. And it is frightening how certain governments were prepared to abuse citizens, override basic legal rights and persist with draconian discriminatory policies, regardless of the medical evidence. BC is one of the few provinces to maintain vaccine mandates for health workers in April 2024. Nearly 2,500 healthcare workers in hospitals have been fired for not being immunized against COVID-19. Almost half of them worked in the Interior and Northern health authorities, where there are dangerous staffing shortages, which has forced frequent closures of emergency rooms. It is unthinkable but real behaviour, that a government seemingly to save face and maybe to forestall lawsuits, will place the public at serious risk, merely to defend a flawed ideology over people’s lives.
In a previous article dealing with COVID-19, I took note that "controversies of more studies are in our future," especially regarding government behaviour. And so it has turned out. Let's start with Florida, where a grand jury has committed public resources to investigate the responses of authorities to COVID. Their interim report is somewhat in the vein of my article and it's fascinating to see what Florida is doing.In its first report, the Florida 22nd Statewide Grand Jury decided masks and lockdowns had been harmful and ineffective. However, their report also noted roadblocks in the Statewide Grand Jury’s investigative efforts, placed by the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) the Food & Drug Administration (FDA,) and the US Army, all of which refused to cooperate or provide representatives to testify before the jury. But of course, these entities all had a substantial hand in the contracting, approval and distribution process for the COVID-19 vaccines.Other highlights:1) On non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) the report asserts: “To be clear, scientific research into NPIs and their consequences did not begin with the outbreak of COVID-19. A wealth of contemporaneous scientific information already existed in major publications that could have informed a much more robust and meaningful response concerning NPIs, but much of it was ignored or even attacked by mainstream public health and media entities in the early months of the pandemic, for reasons that are not always clear. In short, this was not an ‘information’ problem, it was a ‘judgment’ problem.”2) On lockdowns: “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 targetted their protective efforts towards the highest-risk groups instead of mandating large-scale, extended periods of quarantine for everyone.”3) On safety and efficacy: “It should also be apparent that establishing the safety of a biological product necessitates a comprehensive, meaningful and accurate evaluation of the risk presented by the disease that product is designed to address.”4) On masking: “We have never had sound evidence of their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission” and “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 favour 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." "Well-financed federal agencies chose to fill the discourse with flawed observational and laboratory studies, hiding behind their conclusion of ‘no equipoise’ (research uncertainty) to avoid the potential embarrassment of the public health advice they championed being invalidated by evidence.”5) On hospitalization risk: “We know for a fact that this (patients admitted for non-COVID causes classified as COVID if they also happened to have it) happened because numerous federal and state health officials have publicly stated that they did not ask or require hospitals to distinguish cases where someone was admitted with incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection versus cases where someone was so sick with symptoms of COVID-19 disease that he or she required hospitalization." "Thus, it is highly likely that the CDC's number of total hospitalizations is inflated to some degree with asymptomatic or minor SARS-CoV-2 infections that were classified as 'hospitalizations' to financially benefit the hospital."6) On collateral consequences: “Somehow, because of panic, hubris, ineptitude or some unfortunate combination of the three, this widely rejected idea of mandates not only made its way back into scientific discourse in 2020, it became the law of the land in most of the United States between 2020 and 2022. It is clear to this Grand Jury that whatever benefits inured from these mandates, they were not worth the price.”The Florida report is based on their review of the evidence and cross-examination of experts. It is in line with a growing consensus, that mask mandates, lockdown mandates, social isolation rules, inventions with schools, etc., hurt more than helped and were not worth the cost to society.In retrospect, it is also disconcerting to realize how easily manipulated was the Canadian population. And it is frightening how certain governments were prepared to abuse citizens, override basic legal rights and persist with draconian discriminatory policies, regardless of the medical evidence. BC is one of the few provinces to maintain vaccine mandates for health workers in April 2024. Nearly 2,500 healthcare workers in hospitals have been fired for not being immunized against COVID-19. Almost half of them worked in the Interior and Northern health authorities, where there are dangerous staffing shortages, which has forced frequent closures of emergency rooms. It is unthinkable but real behaviour, that a government seemingly to save face and maybe to forestall lawsuits, will place the public at serious risk, merely to defend a flawed ideology over people’s lives.
