While his case continues, the College has attempted to have the disciplinary panel take judicial notice of certain ‘facts’.

Of the eight points they have sought judicial notice of:

  1. the panel has declined those referencing vaccines ‘generally’ being safe, viruses not discriminating, and the belief that Covid-19 is more likely to occur in, or become more serious for, those who are not vaccinated.

2. They have supported two points referencing the position of Health Canada on the use of ivermectin.

3. They have also approved the final two points with modifications: one implying Covid-19 can kill or cause serious side effects, and a second stating Health Canada had approved the Covid-19 vaccines, while refusing to support the addition that this approval constituted a ‘strong indicator of safety and effectiveness’. The panel held that the safety and efficacy of any drug is relative and can only be determined by evidence and cross examination, rather than one party’s assertions.

The College is claiming that, because public health officials declared something to be true, it is therefore an irrefutable fact. We are pleased to know that the disciplinary panel has acknowledged this falsehood, expressing the need to ‘prove the facts they assert,’ and allow others ‘to challenge those facts and present contrary evidence.’

https://policeonguard.ca/dr-hoffe-defeats-bc-college-of-physicians-surgeons-on-a-portion-of-judicial-notice/

AND

British Columbia Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Defeated on Judicial Notice – Dr. Peter McCullough

Case of Dr. Charles Hoffe Kills Deferral to Government Offices as Agents of “Truth”

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.

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/british-columbia-royal-college-of?