donshafi911@SARS-CoV-2🔻

 

We won the Judicial Notice Decision for Dr. Charles Hoffe

This is an important result and sets a precedent!

Jessica Rose

Making progress. The disciplinary panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia refused to take judicial notice of 6 of 8 points that the College asked the disciplinary panel to judicial notice of. In your face College. 

Truth beats out lies and decepticons, every time.

Background on this case can be found here, care of the National Citizen’s Inquiry.

More background: 

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.

Judicial notice is a method used by a court when it declares a fact presented as evidence as true without a formal presentation of evidence.

The College asked the [disciplinary] panel to take judicial notice of the following facts and thereby prevent [a valiant Canadian] doctor from presenting any contrary evidence in his defense. 

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.

We are definitely making progress. The fact that the disciplinary panel would not blindly accept that: 

1. The virus does not discriminate (yes it does - it hits old people and not kids); 

2. Vaccines work (prove it with a vaxxed:unvaxxed double-blind placebo-controlled study); 

3. Vaccines are generally safe and have a low risk of harmful effects, especially in children (see VAERS); and 

4. 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 (no it isn’t, no they don’t and no they don’t... the COVID-19 modified mRNA-LNP-based shots actually have been shown to increase susceptibility of infection due to an IgG antibody class switch to induce tolerance), 

is an excellent precedent. 

This is the first decision of its kind in Canada that I am aware of in a disciplinary hearing context that provides such thorough and clear reasons as to why judicial notice should not be taken of these disputed facts. It should be of use to all other health professionals who are facing a similar situation and likely will be of assistance in other civil cases within the court system.

Well done my friends and colleagues and to our righteous Canadian attorneys for being stalwarts! 

1

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judicial_notice