Indian-Origin Doctor Needs Rs 2 Crore For Legal Fees. Elon Musk Responds

Original source (on modern site) | Article images: [1]

The Indian-origin doctor is a vocal critic against vaccination.

New Delhi:

In the summer of 2020, when the world came to a standstill because of the coronavirus pandemic, Indian-origin doctor Kulvinder Kaur Gill spoke out against government-imposed lockdowns and vaccination mandates. But her stance was met with lawsuits by medical bodies and censorship by X/Twitter's previous management. 

Dr Gill, a physician in Canada specialising in immunology and paediatrics, is now embroiled in a legal battle stemming from her Covid-related tweets. Facing a daunting CAD 300,000 (Rs 1,83,75,078) in legal fees, she received support from X, which has pledged to cover her expenses.

"Because she spoke out publicly on Twitter (now X) in opposition to the Canadian and Ontario governments' COVID lockdown efforts and vaccination mandates, she was harassed by the legacy media, censored by prior Twitter management, and subjected to investigations and disciplinary proceedings by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that resulted in "cautions" being placed on her permanent public record," X said in a statement.

In support of your right to speak https://t.co/qWCOYYALPf

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 24, 2024

"When Elon Musk learned earlier this week about her crowdfunding campaign to pay the judgment (https://givesendgo.com/kulvinder), he pledged to help. X will now fund the rest of Dr. Gill's campaign so that she can pay her $300,000 judgment and her legal bills," it added.

The ensuing legal proceedings drained Dr Gill's life savings, leaving her with a substantial debt. 

The Indian-origin doctor is a vocal critic against vaccination. "If you have not yet figured out that we don't need a vaccine, you are not paying attention. #FactsNotFear," she posted on X in August, 2020. 

Her posts were heavily criticised by the medical community and also by many in the mainstream media. Dr Gill sued 23 doctors, journalists, and news outlets, claiming that they were part of a defamation campaign against her. 

The lawsuit was thrown out by a judge citing anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, stating that Dr Gill's intention was to stifle her critics' speech on a public platform. Dr Gill was instructed to cover the defendants' legal expenses.

Waiting for response to load...