The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) has dropped disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, originally scheduled for early 2024. Dr. Gill has been a vocal critic of lockdowns and COVID-19-related public health measures, expressing her concerns on social media since 2020. The Democracy Fund (TDF), a registered Canadian charity, has been assisting Dr. Gill in covering her legal costs.
Dr. Gill’s advocacy on social media resulted in constant investigations and disciplinary actions by the CPSO since August 2020. She became the target of an online campaign by other doctors, media, and members of the public, leading to seven non-patient complaints being filed against her. Additionally, a separate Registrar’s investigation was initiated. However, on February 3, 2021, all eight matters were considered by the CPSO’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).
Lisa Bidly, Dr. Gill’s lawyer, expressed concern over the CPSO’s investigation, stating that the imposition of a singular unquestionable narrative without room for evidence-based medicine and scientific debate damages both the credibility of doctors and the institutions that enforce such measures.
The Democracy Fund has been supporting Dr. Gill’s case by assisting with her legal expenses. As a registered Canadian charity, they are dedicated to advancing education and protecting constitutional rights. Their mission includes providing Canadians whose civil liberties have been violated by government and public policies with access to justice.
Rebel News, a media outlet, will be following up with Lisa Bidly to gather further insights into the outcome of the case.
Overall, the dropping of the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Gill by the CPSO is seen as a positive development in the ongoing debate surrounding COVID-19 measures. It highlights the importance of open scientific debate and the freedom of expression for healthcare professionals. The case also raises questions about the potential impact of top-down narratives and the need for robust discussion and consideration of differing perspectives in public health decision-making.