Dr Charles Hoffe, a former emergency room physician in British Columbia, is facing disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. His "crimes"? He questioned the alleged safety and efficacy of the Covid vaxxes, and supported alternative treatments, such as the use of ivermectin. The College sought to have the disciplinary panel make judicial notice made of certain alleged "facts," so that these would not be challenged in any proceedings. These are listed below, but of our interest relates to claims about the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vax.
It was interesting to see, perhaps unexpected, that while judicial notice was taken of a revised version of his statement: "Health Canada has approved COVID vaccines, and regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness," these statements were not: "Vaccines work"; "Vaccines are generally safe and have a low risk of harmful effects, especially in children."
The disciplinary panel held that an earlier Court of Appeal decision had held that the question of the safety and effectiveness of a drug was relative, and cannot be asserted as being categorically safe or not-safe. The issue thus needs to be heard in court, and subject to cross-examination, rather than judicial notice being made.This is of significance since it is showing that the judicial system is at the first stages of thinking critically and openly about the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vax. As well, it gives Dr Hoffe a fighting chance.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/british-columbia-royal-college-of
"Dr. Charles Hoffe is a family and (former) emergency room physician in British Columbia who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia for making public statements about SARS-CoV-2, the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, and other alternative treatments including ivermectin, has successfully defeated an application made by the College seeking judicial notice of the truth of facts alleged by the College concerning these issues. In its efforts to discipline the physician, the College has alleged that the statements made by the physician are misleading, incorrect or inflammatory and constitute professional misconduct. The College asked the discipline panel to take judicial notice of the following facts and thereby prevent the doctor from presenting any contrary evidence in his defence:
1.The Covid virus kills or causes other serious effects;
2.The virus does not discriminate;
3.Vaccines work;
4.Vaccines are generally safe and have a low risk of harmful effects, especially in children;
5.Infection and transmission of the COVID-19 virus is less likely to occur among fully vaccinated individuals than for those who are unvaccinated; vaccines do not prevent infection, reinfection or transmission, but they reduce the severity of symptoms and the risk of bad outcomes;
6.Health Canada has approved COVID vaccines, and regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness;
7.Health Canada has not approved ivermectin to treat COVID-19; and
8.Health Canada advises that Canadians should not consume the veterinary version of ivermectin.
In its June 29, 2024 decision, the disciplinary panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia declined to take judicial notice of items 2-5, did take judicial notice of items 7-8 (the straightforward ivermectin claims), and took judicial notice of a revised version of items 1 and 6.
The panel was prepared to take judicial notice of item 1 that reads: "COVID-19 can kill or cause other serious effects".
The College explained their rationale for taking judicial notice of a revised version of item 1 by referencing evidence presented by the doctor in his defence that included the following:
- risk of severe disease and death from COVID-19 is extremely skewed to those above 70 years of age, especially those with multiple comorbidities. The average age of persons that died from COVID-19 in Canada was approximately 84 years old;
- very low proportion of COVID-19 related deaths in Canada occurred in those under 50 years of age-the data shows very high (although not 100%) survival rates for those under 70;
- average rate of lethality from COVID-19 for Canadians is much lower than estimates given by public health officials; and
- reported hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, because many hospitalizations and deaths "with, and not from" COVID-19 were wrongly attributed to COVID-19
With respect to item 6, the panel endorsed findings of an earlier provincial Court of Appeal decision that held the safety and efficacy of any drug is always relative and as a rule the safety and efficacy of a pharmaceutical product cannot be discussed in such blunt fashion as to say that it "is" or "is not" safe and effective. The panel held that the issues raised in the citation should be determined based upon the evidence that is tested through cross-examination rather than by taking judicial notice of one party's assertion of the facts, and in this case, based upon statements made by public health officials or public health agencies. The panel held that it was prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that Health Canada had approved the COVID -19 vaccines, but declined to take judicial notice that Health Canada's approval was a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness.
This decision on the issue of judicial notice, is consistent with the June 28, 2024 decision of the US Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo Secretary of Commerce et. al. which overturned the landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The Chevron decision had given rise to what is commonly referred to as the Chevron deference doctrine. Under this doctrine, federal agencies had the power to interpret a law that they administer when that law is vaguely written, and courts were required to defer to the agency's interpretation of a statute. In Loper, the US Supreme Court rejected the Chevron deference doctrine calling it "fundamentally misguided." They said court should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws rather than having to accept the agency's interpretation. Commentators have suggested that the Chevron deference doctrine gave the powerful - the people who control the agencies like the FDA, CDC and FCC - a significant advantage in court making them essentially the ultimate decision-makers in interpreting ambiguous laws. Commentators have pointed out that many of these agencies are captive agencies with close ties, including financial ties, to the industries that they are charged with regulating and therefore they lack objectivity with respect to those industries. The ruling in Labor means that federal judges now have more authority to interpret these laws. The decision by the British Columbia Disciplinary Panel of the College of Physicians of Surgeons of British Columbia prevents regulatory bodies from saying "it is so because we say it is so". They have to prove the facts they assert and those who disagree will be allowed to challenge those facts and present contrary evidence.
The case against Dr. Hoffe is far from over. This development is significant in that a government agency cannot make the rules, interpret them, and claim they hold the truth on an evolving scientific or medical issue."