Replies

33) A Canadian doctor won a major vax case against the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. A long way to go, but a win nevertheless.
__________________________________________

I’m sorry to read about your illness, lj. Feel better soon!

I went to the link embedded in Larry Schweikart’s site but all that came up was this tweet about mammograms:

“SWITZERLAND IS THE FIRST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO BAN MAMOGRAPHY

Screening services are also suspended in parts of Canada, Italy, Scotland, and Australia”

However, I did my own search and it took a bit of time but I finally found the ruling regarding Dr. Hoffe and was pleasantly surprised that it referenced the Chevron/Loper ruling. I wouldn’t have thought that there’d ever be a link between Canadian covid cases and the overturning of Chevron, but here it is, in part:

“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 courts should rely on their own interpretations of ambiguous laws rather than having to accept the agency’s interpretations. 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 Loper 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.”

I spoke with Dr. Hoffe by telephone at the height of the covid insanity and he’s been treated harshly by both the Canadian government and his occupation’s provincial and national governing bodies. It’s so very good to see that governing bodies have taken notice of recent US Supreme Court rulings and are willing to apply what I think is very sound rationale by the USSC to cases here. More than anything, it could be a sign that some of the “hostages” in the medical community are setting themselves free of the covid hysteria and indoctrination and returning to sane and thoughtful practices.