Ontario pediatrician Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Elon Musk has said he would help Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill financially in her fight against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Ontario pediatrician Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, who is embroiled in a legal battle with a medical regulator for her anti-COVID jab and mandate views on social media, is looking to take her case to Canada’s Supreme Court with financial help from Elon Musk and a leading freedom-fighting lawyer.

Libertas Law, which is representing Gill, said in a press release sent to LifeSiteNews on Monday the canceled doctor “filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada” her case against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

“The growing overreach of regulators into monitoring the speech of professionals on social media has become a matter of national concern to the public, which loses the benefit of hearing a variety of opinions when professionals’ speech is chilled out of fear of punishment,” Libertas Law attorney Lisa Bildy said. “We hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will use Dr. Gill’s case to restore the historic role of the courts as guardians of the constitution.”

The application follows Gill’s unsuccessful judicial review of the “cautions-in-person ordered against her in 2021” by a CPSO committee concerning her Twitter comments in August 2020 that criticized multiple levels of governments COVID mandates and policies.

The orders against Gill were made despite her “providing the College with ample evidence in 2020 to support her position against catastrophic lockdowns,” Libertas Law noted.

Musk, the billionaire Tesla and X owner, pledged in March to back Gill financially.

The application to Canada’s highest court comes after her application for leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) “was denied” on October 3.

“The infringement of Dr. Gill’s freedom of expression and conscience, guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was barely mentioned by the committee when it issued the orders for cautions in-person (which Dr. Gill has not yet received),” Libertas stated in its press release.

Libertas noted that a brief comment about the committee having “no interest in shutting down free speech” was made “before proceeding to do exactly that.”

According to Libertas, the CPSO had placed on its website in 2020 a warning to doctors to provide “an opinion that does not align with information coming from public health or government.”

“Yet the Divisional Court declined to quash the orders, finding that the committee was sufficiently alert to the Charter infringement of Dr. Gill’s speech, such that its decisions were within the range of reasonable outcomes,” the legal firm said.

Last May, LifeSiteNews reported that Gill had vowed to fight with appeals with the help of her Musk-backed legal team after she lost a court battle.

One of Gill’s “controversial” posts she made in 2020 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 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,” the ruling stated.

In Monday’s press release, Libertas Law noted that due to an unrelated recent court ruling relating to Charter Rights, Gill will argue the same reasonings to fight her censorship in her appeal to the Supreme Court.

Canceled doc’s legal battles against medical regulator ongoing for months

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

She argued that Gill had a “reasonable scientific basis” for her posts, noting that the previous decision made against Gill targeted her for opposing the mainstream COVID narrative.

Gill is a specialist practicing in the 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, Gill was ordered last year to pay $1 million in legal costs after her libel suit was struck down.

The CPSO began disciplinary investigations against Gill in August 2020.

COVID vaccine mandates, which came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

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.

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

“the federal government supported dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without adequate transparency or oversight, and that former White House COVID adviser and National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci “played semantics with the definition of gain-of-function research” to deny it

The U.S. House Oversight & Accountability Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has released its long-awaited After Action Review on COVID-19 and the government response, which affirms the verdict that COVID most likely originated in a lab through gain-of-function research and broadly condemns the lockdowns of personal freedom and economic activity but attempts to walk a far finer and sometimes contradictory line on the COVID vaccines.

Worked on for almost two years, the 520-page report is billed as the “single most thorough review of the pandemic conducted to date,” according to a press release from the committee.

“This work will help the United States, and the world, predict the next pandemic, prepare for the next pandemic, protect ourselves from the next pandemic, and hopefully prevent the next pandemic. Members of the 119th Congress should continue and build off this work, there is more information to find and honest actions to be taken,” said Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee. “The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a distrust in leadership. Trust is earned. Accountability, transparency, honesty, and integrity will regain this trust. A future pandemic requires a whole of America response managed by those without personal benefit or bias. We can always do better, and for the sake of future generations of Americans, we must. It can be done.”

The report concludes that COVID most likely “emerged as the result of a laboratory or research related accident,” that the federal government supported dangerous gain-of-function research (that entails intentionally strengthening viruses to better study their potential effects) in Wuhan, China without adequate transparency or oversight, and that former White House COVID adviser and National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci “played semantics with the definition of gain-of-function research” to deny it, as well as prompting creation of the controversial “Proximal Origins” paper to attempt to discredit the lab-leak theory.

It further found that officials within NIAID actively attempted to flout Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documents on the matter, such as by intentionally misspelling various names and terms so they would be harder to find in word searches.

The report goes on to conclude that the enormous sums of money the government doled out in the name of COVID relief was rife with waste and abuse, including more than $191 billion in unemployment fraud, $64 billion worth of fraud in the Paycheck Protection Program, and the loss of $200 billion due to the Small Business Administration failing to implement proper oversight and controls.

Meanwhile, the infamous “social distancing” guidance for people to stand at least six feet apart was based on “no scientific trials or studies,” but despite admitting as much, Fauci declined to push back because, in his words, it was “not appropriate to be publicly challenging a sister organization.” Face masks were similarly unsupported by the science and ultimately proven to be ineffective at limiting COVID’s spread, and widespread lockdowns of businesses and public gatherings caused significant harm to the economy, to physical and mental health, and to children’s education and social development far outweighing whatever good they may have done.

On the subject of the controversial COVID vaccines, however, the report is far more deferential. It acknowledges that the shots “had adverse events that must be thoroughly investigated,” and discusses various shortcomings in the government’s reporting systems for adverse vaccine events but still concludes that, overall, the vaccines were “largely safe and effective,” and credits them with saving “millions” of lives.

Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration initiative to develop vaccines for COVID in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take, “was a tremendous success,” the subcommittee says, and the resulting vaccines “undoubtedly saved millions of lives by diminishing likelihood of severe disease and death.” It even faults President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, who were running against Donald Trump for the White House at the time, for “question(ing) the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations” before they were released.

At the same time, the report faults the following Biden administration for mandating the shots and rushing approval of vaccine booster doses, downplaying natural immunity, failing to properly adjudicate vaccine injuries, and exaggerating the vaccines’ value.

“COVID-19 vaccines were tremendously important in reducing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and were extremely effective in doing so,” the report claims. “However, the Biden Administration oversold the power of these vaccines. On more than one occasion, President Biden himself overstated the vaccine’s ability to prevent infection and transmission. These false statements likely contributed to Americans’ confusion about COVID-19 vaccines and reduced overall vaccine confidence.”

The subcommittee report largely reiterates and aligns with a wealth of previous findings on the failures of lockdowns and forced masking, as well as the origins of COVID-19. On the subject of the vaccines, however, it neglects a large body of evidence of far more widespread harm.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 38,068 deaths, 218,646 hospitalizations, 22,002 heart attacks, and 28,706 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of October 25, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID vaccines, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and offered several theories for a causal link.

In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the vaccines’ manufacturers is slated to release a report on the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of misrepresentation for calling the shots “safe and effective.” The findings of both efforts are highly anticipated.

All eyes are currently on returning President Trump, and whose health team, which will be helmed by prominent vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as his nominee for Secretary of Health & Human Services, has given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which he has long taken credit, and has nominated both critics and defenders of establishment COVID measures for a number of administration roles.