Connect with us

COVID-19

Elon Musk-backed doctor critical of COVID response vows appeal after court sides with medical board

Published

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

One of Gill’s “controversial” posts read, “If you have not yet figured out that we don’t need a vaccine, you are not paying attention. ”  

A Canadian physician who challenged her medical regulator after it placed “cautions” against her for speaking out against draconian COVID mandates on social media has lost a court battle, but with the help of her Elon Musk-backed legal team she has vowed to appeal the ruling. 

The case concerns Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, an Ontario pediatrician who has been embroiled in a legal battle with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for her anti-COVID views posted on X (formerly Twitter) in 2020. As reported by LifeSiteNews, her case received the support of billionaire Tesla and X owner Elon Musk, who pledged in March to back her financially.  

One of Gill’s “controversial” posts read, “If you have not yet figured out that we don’t need a vaccine, you are not paying attention. #FactsNotFear.”  

The Divisional Court decision against Gill dated May 7, 2024, concluded, “When the College chose to draw the line at those tweets which it found contained misinformation, it did so in a way which reasonably balanced Dr. Gill’s free speech rights with her professional responsibilities.” 

“In other words, its response was proportionate,” noted the ruling. 

Gill’s lawyer, Lisa Bildy with Libertas Law, stated in a press release sent to LifeSiteNews that the “Court declined to quash the ‘cautions’ orders, finding that the ‘screening committee’ of the CPSO was sufficiently alert to the Charter infringement of Dr. Gill’s speech, such that its decisions were within the range of reasonable outcomes.” 

“Dr. Gill had argued, in two factums,” noted Bildy, which can be found here and here , and filed in the companion court applications, that “her statements were not ‘verifiably false.’” 

Bildy expressed that Gill had provided the College with “ample evidence in 2020 to support her position against lockdowns,” but was sanctioned “because they went against the College’s guidance that doctors should not express opinions contradicting government or its public health edicts.” 

Gill’s court challenge against the CPSO began last month, with Bildy writing at the time that the College’s “decisions were neither reasonable nor justified and they failed to engage with the central issues for which Dr. Gill was being cautioned.” 

“The decision starts with the premise that doctors have to comply,” said Bildy, warning that censoring doctors would have a “chilling effect” on free speech.    

Bildy noted that in its ruling, the court “disagreed” with Gill’s challenge, “stating that this invited a reweighing of the evidence.” 

The court also ordered that Gill pay the CPSO $6,000 in legal costs.  

Gill is a specialist practicing in the Greater Toronto area, and has extensive experience and training in “pediatrics, and allergy and clinical immunology, including scientific research in microbiology, virology and vaccinology.” 

Last September, disciplinary proceedings against her were withdrawn by the CPSO. However, last year, Gill was ordered to pay $1 million in legal costs after her libel suit was struck down. 

The CPSO began disciplinary investigations against Gill in August 2020.  

Gill to appeal recent court ruling with support from Musk’s X  

The court’s ruling asserted that the CPSO panel members consisted of “three physicians with highly relevant expertise that they were able to bring to bear when assessing the scientific and medical information before them, expertise that this court does not have.” 

Bildy noted that in fact, the CPSO panel consisted of “three surgeons and a general member of the public who had deferred to the ‘expertise’ of government’s public health arm.” 

The court ruling also dismissed Gill’s arguments that publishing the “cautions on her public register and disseminating a notice about the cautions to hospitals and regulators across the continent was punitive and had a chilling effect on one side of a debate.” 

“The Court opted to align with other Divisional Court decisions in stating that the cautions were not a finding of professional misconduct but were merely a remedial measure. This is despite the fact that cautions have, only in recent years, become a public rebuke rather than a private ‘correction’ of a professional by their peers. This significant change has not yet been grappled with by the Ontario Court of Appeal,” noted Bildy.  

Bildy said that Gill intends to “seek leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal with the support of X Corp., since her posts were made on the X platform which supports free expression and dialogue, even on contentious issues and particularly on matters of scientific and medical importance.”  

Gill noted on X Tuesday that her “notice of motion for leave to appeal will be filed” next week “to begin process.” 

She also thanked Musk and X for supporting her legal cause.  

Gill had said that she had “suddenly” found herself going “against the narrative,” and was then “seen as a black sheep and as someone who should be shunned.” 

Many Canadian doctors who spoke out against COVID mandates and the experimental mRNA injections have been censured by their medical boards. 

Earlier this month, Elon Musk’s X announced that it will fund the legal battle for another Canadian doctor critical of COVID lockdowns, Dr. Matthew Strauss, an Ontario critical care physician and professor, against his former employer Queen’s University after it forced him to resign. 

In an interview with LifeSiteNews at its annual general meeting in July 2023 near Toronto, canceled doctors Mary O’Connor, Mark Trozzi, Chris Shoemaker, and Byram Bridle were asked to state their messages to the medical community regarding how they have had to fight censure because they have opinions contrary to the COVID mainstream narrative. 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Emails Show Gates Foundation Introduced NIH Official to BioNTech CEO Before Pandemic Was Even Declared

Published on

News release from the Informed Consent Action Network

As ICAN supporters will recall, Dr. Barney Graham was formerly the Deputy Director of NIH’s Vaccine Research Center (VRC) and chief of the Viral Pathogenesis Laboratory. Back in 2020, ICAN sued NIH to get access to his emails during the pandemic and won. We’ve been reviewing the emails as batches come in and you can read previous reports herehere, and here.

Lead Counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq., lays out the details here:

The latest batch contains a very interesting email in which a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation official introduces Graham at NIH to Ugur Sahin, CEO of BioNTech on February 2, 2020, stating, “I wanted to take a moment to introduce you to each other regarding 2019-nCoV.” In response, Graham says, “Thank you for your interest in our antigen design effort for CoV vaccines,” and the two immediately set up a phone call.

We know that the Gates Foundation bought shares in BioNTech back in September 2019 and so it is interesting to see it actively making connections for BioNTech so quickly. These emails occurred just 13 days after the first case of SARS-CoV-2 was found in the U.S. and over a month before the WHO declared a pandemic. In a follow-up email just three weeks later, BioNTech tells Graham that its “vaccine efforts are well under way” and that it is ready to discuss a “corresponding license agreement.”

In another email on March 13, 2020, a market research company reached out to Graham saying that stock markets were plunging and asking him to answer some questions to help them “understand the market sentiment of the vaccines industry towards COVID-19 vaccines.” Graham forwarded the email to the VRC Director and said, “FYI. I never answer inquiries like this, but do you think it might be appropriate for people like us to speak to the investor world and try to calm things down?

Both these incidences show how the NIH acts just like a for-profit corporation with a vested interest in forming partnerships and worrying about financial markets—perhaps because the agency and many of its employees stand to profit from the success of the vaccines they develop, just like Graham did from the Moderna vaccine.

ICAN will continue to report on the Graham emails as more batches come in.

To support future legal actions like this, click here to donate!

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Federal bill would require US colleges to compensate students injured by COVID shots

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

Congressman Matt Rosendale’s new bill would make colleges that mandated the experimental,  COVID shots financially liable for injuries caused by them, such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

Universities that required students to take COVID-19 shots would be held liable for the medical suffering caused by them, under proposed federal legislation.

Republican congressman Matt Rosendale introduced the “University Forced Vaccination Student Injury Mitigation Act of 2024” recently, along with Reps. Eli Crane and Bill Posey.

Universities would be required to pay the medical costs for students who suffered at least one jab injury, specifically listing myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and “[a]ny other disease with a positive association with the COVID–19 vaccine which the Secretary of Education determines to be warranted.”

The abortion-tainted COVID jabs have been linked to a variety of medical consequences, including those listed in the legislation.

“If you are not prepared to face the consequences, you should have never committed the act,” Rosendale stated in a news release. “Colleges and universities forced students to inject themselves with an experimental vaccine knowing it was not going to prevent COVID-19 while potentially simultaneously causing life-threatening health defects like Guillian-Barre Syndrome and myocarditis.

“It is now time for schools to be held accountable for their brazen disregard for students’ health and pay for the issues they are responsible for causing,” he stated.

The legislation could impact hundreds of colleges – the New York Times reported in 2021 that more than 400 higher education institutions had COVID jab mandates.

Only 17 colleges still require the COVID jab, according to No College Mandates, which supports the legislation.

The group is “grateful” for the legislation and said it will “hold colleges accountable for the injuries their unnecessary, unethical and unscientific policies have caused for without such legislation, these students and their families would have no other recourse.”

The problems with the COVID shots have been extensively documented by LifeSiteNews and elsewhere. Documented adverse reactions include deathstrokemyocarditis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, among others.

The documented problems with the COVID shots and myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart, led a vaccine advisor for the Food and Drug Administration to warn against young men taking the jabs.

Dr. Doran Fink convinced the agency in June 2021 to add a warning about myocarditis and pericarditis to the Pfizer and Moderna shots. Fink reiterated his concerns during a September 17, 2021, FDA meeting on the safety of the jabs. He said that adults 40 years old and younger are at a greater risk of severe reactions from the jabs than they are from COVID itself.

College students specifically have been harmed by the COVID-19 shots, including one who died after the injection.

“If it wasn’t for the vaccine … He wouldn’t have, he wouldn’t more than likely have passed away now,” Bradford County Coroner Timothy Cahill concluded in 2021, based on his autopsy of George Watts. The 24-year-old male student took the jab as required by Corning Community College in the state of New York.

Northwestern University student Simone Scott also appeared to have died due to heart inflammation linked to the COVID jab, though she received it prior to the school’s mandate.

A Johns Hopkins University medical school professor also endorsed the legislation.

“I had to make efforts to prevent my own high school and college age children from receiving COVID-19 booster shots that they did not want or need,” Dr. Joseph Marine stated. “It seems reasonable to me that institutions that implemented such policies without a sound medical or scientific rationale should take responsibility for any proven medical harm that they caused.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X