🇺🇸🇨🇦🇬🇧🇮🇪🇦🇺🇳🇿🇿🇦 Pierre Kory is absolutely right that sunlight is directly beneficial to health. But in the right doses.

Those of us with fair skin should of course also be in the sun every day, but with limited exposure to direct sunlight.

And the best protection against sunlight is definitely not sunscreens, which both contain questionable substances and lead many people to believe they can sunbathe for far too long without staying indoors or protecting their skin with clothes and hats. And to pay close attention to burns (red skin that stings) and make sure it doesn't happen again. It doesn't get any weirder than that. ☀️

https://x.com/pierrekory/status/1808930465338056852?s=46&t=cPjjB6G4gZCQMsyuCkZMcQ

Please sign, support, share:
https://thehopeaccord.org

The accord explained:
(shorter)
https://x.com/draseemmalhotra/status/1809197823981916427?s=46&t=lzlbizUceL0BSj5HQRBBtQ

(longer)
https://youtu.be/Pz4QEP82e7s?si=wkzmM4_yGtuK2sm1

🇺🇸🇨🇦🇬🇧🇮🇪🇦🇺🇳🇿🇿🇦 There are legal developments both in the United States and most recently in Canada regarding government claims that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective.

Canadian family and emergency physician Charles Hoffe is the subject of disciplinary proceedings at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (BC) for making public statements about SARS-COV-2, the safety and effectiveness of the 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 put the following facts on the record, thereby preventing the doctor from presenting rebuttal 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 adverse 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;
6. vaccines do not prevent infection, re-infection 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 should 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 consider paragraphs 2-5, considered a revised version of paragraphs 1 and 6, and considered paragraphs 7-8 (the uncomplicated claims about ivermectin).

The Disciplinary Panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC thus refused to give legal consideration to 6 of the 8 points raised by the College.

The decision in Canada on judicial deference is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's June 28, 2024 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 power to interpret a statute they administer when that statute is vaguely written, and courts were required to give deference to the agency's interpretation of a statute. In Loper, the US Supreme Court overruled Chevron's doctrine, calling it "fundamentally misguided". They argued that courts should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous statutes 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 ones, to the industries they are charged with regulating and therefore lack objectivity in relation to those industries. The ruling in Labor means that federal judges now have greater authority to interpret these laws.

The decision of the Disciplinary Panel of the College of Physicians of Surgeons of BC is in line with the decision of the US Supreme Court and prevents regulatory bodies from saying "it is so because we say it is so". They must prove the facts they claim and those who disagree will be allowed to challenge those facts and present counter evidence.

https://open.substack.com/pub/jessicar/p/we-won-the-judicial-notice-decision?r=1e6da8&utm_medium=ios

ANNOUNCEMENT

CONNECT : Health Channel is launched

https://t.me/CTHealth

You can copy & download the resources.
You have direct access to the channel. It is currently an open channel