On January 8, 2025, a Florida grand jury released its final report concerning potential “criminal or wrongful activity” surrounding the creation, promotion, and approval of the Covid-19 vaccines, following an extensive investigation initiated by Governor Ron DeSantis. The report, which brought to light several controversial findings, has garnered significant attention due to its critique of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Moderna, and the broader public health framework that oversaw the pandemic response.

The Background of the Investigation

The investigation, authorized by the Florida Supreme Court in December 2022, was tasked with determining whether entities-including pharmaceutical manufacturers, government health agencies, and medical associations-had violated state laws regarding the development, clinical testing, and marketing of mRNA-based vaccines. Governor DeSantis, who has been vocal in his skepticism about certain aspects of the pandemic response, called for the grand jury’s formation. This move came after the release of interim reports by the jury in February and May 2024, which highlighted contradictions in government guidance on issues like mask mandates, lockdowns, and natural immunity.

The grand jury’s final report, however, revealed a complex and nuanced conclusion. While no criminal charges were filed against any individuals or organizations involved in the development of the vaccines, the report raised serious ethical concerns about the decision-making processes, lack of transparency, and public health communications that accompanied the approval and distribution of the vaccines.

Major Findings of the Report

Premature Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

One of the most significant findings in the report pertains to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) granted to Pfizer and Moderna for their Covid-19 vaccines. The grand jury concluded that while it was understandable to expedite the approval process in response to a global pandemic, the EUA should have been limited to high-risk populations, such as the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. The jury expressed doubts about the broad application of the EUA to the general population, especially given the lack of evidence at the time showing that the vaccines were effective at preventing transmission........

© Blitz