Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe and effective?

Canadian family and emergency physician Charles Hoffe is the subject of disciplinary proceedings by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (BC) for making public statements about SARS-COV-2, the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, and other alternative treatments, including ivermectin. The college has alleged that the doctor’s statements are misleading, inaccurate, or inflammatory and constitute professional misconduct. The college asked the disciplinary board to place the following facts on the record, thereby preventing the doctor from presenting rebuttal evidence in his defense:

1. The COVID-19 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 side effects, especially in children;

5. Infection and transmission of the COVID-19 virus are less likely among fully vaccinated individuals than among those who are unvaccinated;

6. Vaccines do not prevent infection, reinfection or transmission, but they do reduce the severity of symptoms and the risk of poor outcomes; Health Canada has approved COVID vaccines, and regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness;
7. Health Canada has not approved ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.
8. Health Canada recommends that Canadians do not consume the veterinary version of ivermectin.

In its decision of June 29, 2024, the Disciplinary Panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC declined to rule on counts 2-5, ruled on a revised version of counts 1 and 6, and ruled on counts 7-8 (the uncomplicated ivermectin allegations).

The Disciplinary Panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC thus declined to take a legal position on 6 of the 8 counts raised by the College.

The Canadian decision on legal certainty is consistent with the June 28, 2024, U.S. Supreme Court decision 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 known as the Chevron deference doctrine. Under this doctrine, federal agencies had the authority to interpret a law they administer when that law is vaguely worded, and courts were required to defer to the agency’s interpretation of a law. In Loper, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Chevron doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misconceived.” They argued that courts should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws rather than having to accept the agency’s interpretation.

Commentators have suggested that the doctrine of Chevron deference gave the powerful—the people who control agencies like the FDA, CDC, and FCC—a significant advantage in court and made them the ultimate decision-makers when it comes to interpreting ambiguous laws. Commentators have pointed out that many of these agencies have close ties, including financial ties, to the industries they are tasked with regulating, and therefore lack objectivity in their dealings with those industries. The Labor decision means that federal judges now have greater authority to interpret these laws.

The decision by the Disciplinary Panel of the College of Physicians of Surgeons of BC is in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and prevents regulators from saying “it is so because we say it is so.” They must prove the facts they assert, and those who disagree will be allowed to challenge those facts and present rebuttal evidence.