The Justice Centre represents Dr. Charles Hoffe, a rural physician from Lytton, British Columbia, who is under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia and the Interior Health Authority for allegedly promoting “vaccine hesitancy.” Dr. Hoffe was also accused of spreading misinformation about Covid after his office assistant posted a one-page Justice Centre Covid statistics fact sheet on the Lytton Health Centre noticeboard, which, using only government data, showed that the overall recovery rate from Covid at 99.97% is better than the rate for the seasonal flu. Based on these allegations, IHA suspended Dr. Hoffe’s emergency room privileges, resulting in the loss of half his income.
The investigation and disciplinary actions against Dr. Hoffe for expressing his concerns about vaccine safety occur against the backdrop of the recently announced mandate for vaccine passports in BC.
Dr Hoffe is a graduate of the University of the Witwatersrand Medical School in South Africa. He came to Canada in 1990, and has been practising in Lytton for 28 years as a family physician and the community’s principal emergency room physician. The majority of Dr. Hoffe’s patients are members of First Nations.
The Covid vaccine rollout in Lytton began in January 2021 when 900 First Nations’ people under Dr. Hoffe’s care were inoculated with the Moderna vaccine. He then attracted worldwide attention when he reported to the medical authorities that many of his patients had suffered serious adverse effects: One patient dies, two patients suffered anaphylactic reactions, and numerous others suffered lasting neurological and pulmonary injuries. Dr. Hoffe now has ten patients in his medical practice who developed disabling long-term side-effects following their Covid shots.
In March 2021, when 12 European countries had suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine because it was associated with blood clots, Dr. Hoffe sent a letter to a group of his medical colleagues questioning the ethics of continuing to administer an experimental vaccine that was showing clear evidence of harm, and asked them whether they should be pausing their own vaccine rollout to investigate the risk of injury.
Dr Hoffe’s letter was sent to officials at IHA, who accused him of causing “vaccine hesitancy.” Subsequently, IHA officials told him that he was not allowed to say anything negative about the Covid vaccines in the Lytton health facility, and that he would be reported to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC. As well, he was instructed to direct his questions about vaccine safety to Dr. Carol Fenton, the medical health officer responsible for the vaccine rollout in his area.
As serious vaccine injuries among his own patients began to mount, Dr. Hoffe wrote to Dr. Fenton to inquire about the mechanism of injury, and what treatment he should be giving to his patients. Since he received no reply, he sent an open letter to the Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, asking the same questions. Dr. Henry referred Dr. Hoffe to Dr. Monika Naus, a vaccine safety specialist, who advised that the injuries were coincidences and that the vaccine was entirely safe.
In the weeks that followed, Dr. Hoffe continued to see more and more serious vaccine injuries among his patients and tried again to bring this to the attention of the authorities by writing to Dr. Fenton and by submitting vaccine injury reports. Again, he received no reply.
Dr. Hoffe’s investigations and research have now found strong evidence that the injuries were caused by microscopic blood clots in the linings of capillaries in various parts of the body. The evidence supports his concern that a given patient’s post-vaccination symptoms may reflect those parts of the body most affected by the microscopic clots.
Dr. Hoffe maintains that administering a medical treatment that appears to seriously injure otherwise healthy people is a violation of the basic tenet of the Hippocratic Oath (“Do No Harm”), as well as the Nuremberg Code, which was established by judicial pronouncement during the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. The Code states that no one can be subject to medical research or experimentation unless informed of the risks and benefits of treatment and the treatment proceeds based on the individual’s consent – this reservation on behalf of the individual became known as the right to informed consent.