My Expert Testimony In The Defense of Dr. Mary Talley Bowden Against The Texas Medical Board
Despite all I have been through in Covid, the actions of Texas Huguley Hospital and the Texas Medical Board against Dr. Bowden left me apoplectic. Trigger warning: it's a traumatic case.
Dr. Mary Talley Bowden
As my subscribers know, I long ago committed myself to defend, pro bono, any doctor persecuted for early treatment with ivermectin in Covid. I have spent countless hours writing expert defenses and testifying in numerous depositions typically lasting 2 or more hours. So far I have been deposed by the medical boards of Maine (Dr. Meryl Nass), and twice in Washington State (Drs. Ryan Cole and Michael Turner). Soon to come is my defense of Dr. Charles Hoffe in Canada by the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons.
My four part series that I wrote for Dr. Hoffe was published earlier this year, defending his statements on the the safety of ivermectin and its efficacy in prevention, treatment, use of animal versions and on vaccine shedding. I also have written eleven defenses of myself against the Wisconsins’s Medical Board for complaints of me being a “misinformationist.” Most recently, me and Paul jointly defended ourselves in an appeal hearing with the American Board of Internal Medicine which had voted to revoke our Board certifications.
The attacks and persecutions have been relentless and has drained a significant amount of my time and spirit all while being immersed in the care of the vaccine injured and long haul patients at my tele-health clinic.
Anyway, Dr. Bowden’s case is a uniquely outrageous one. I have never been so angry at a set of accusations like they have lodged at her. Let’s start with the Texas Medical Board’s (TMB) official complaint below and then my defense will follow. Please do not make any judgements of Dr. Bowden until you read the “real story” detailed in my defense. Reading just the complaint will leave you with the impression that she is unhinged, irresponsible, and near criminal in her professional behavior. She is now a long-time colleague and friend of mine and I can assure you that she is anything but those things. As you will learn she is actually the exact opposite. In fact I think her behavior was beyond exemplary and wish the country was full of doctors like her.
The Texas Medical Board’s Complaint Against Dr. Bowden
My Expert Defense of Dr. Bowden
In the Texas Medical Board (TMB) complaint against Dr. Bowden, multiple accusations of misconduct were made concerning her care and conduct in the case of a patient critically ill with Covid. As a highly published and experienced expert on numerous aspects of Covid as well as in the frontline clinical care of COVID in all phases of the disease (e.g. early, hospital, ICU, and long Covid), I instead find that her care and conduct was not only appropriate and justified, but exemplary and admirable.
In order to properly understand the findings of my expert testimony in the defense of Dr. Bowden, it is imperative that the TMB first be made aware that during Covid, the medicine ivermectin was the target of a massive and successful disinformation campaign by the pharmaceutical industry using tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry as described in this article from 2017 by the Union of Concerned Scientists. If they read the article, the TMB might begin to understand that industries deploy such disinformation tactics when “science emerges that is inconvenient to their interests.”
Never has the science of a medicine’s efficacy in prevention and treatment of a disease more threatened the massive financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry than ivermectin (and hydroxychloroquine) did in Covid. That science would have devastated the profit potential of the global markets for mRNA vaccines, remdesivir, Paxlovid, molnupiravir, and monoclonal antibodies. The size of those global markets combined easily reach over $100 billion. The TMB should also be made aware of the long history of criminal behavior of this industry as evidenced in the highly referenced books by physicians and executives expert in the industry such as Dr. Peter Goetze’s book, “Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare” and the Pfizer executive whistleblower Peter Rost who wrote “The Whistleblower: Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman.”
As I detail in a similar but separate expert defense of a persecuted early treatment physician, as well as in my book titled “The War on Ivermectin”, during Covid, the pharmaceutical industry used their influence over research trialists, major medical journals, federal health agencies, and the worlds’ media to convince doctors and citizens the world over that ivermectin was a dangerous and ineffective medicine.
As a result, the near entirety of the world’s advanced health economies all came to believe the false science and propaganda behind ivermectin. The minority of physicians in those countries who both knew of its actual clinical safety and efficacy felt responsible to adhere to their ethical and professional responsibilities to administer it to those ill with Covid. They did this at great risk given the politically charged and untenable legal and professional situations which that action placed them in. Their is no better example of this than the case of Dr. Bowden.
In each situation, their care, speech, and judgment were viciously attacked as being “unprofessional” and “violating standards.” Many physicians across the country and world have thus suffered the same fate as Dr. Bowden, with authorities consistently attempting to revoke their privileges or licenses. In many cases, the careers of these exemplary and courageous doctors have ended as a result. It is my hope that she does not suffer the same fate and is why I have agreed to write this defense pro bono.
The TMB’s complaint document attempts to assert that Dr. Bowden is a reckless physician who carelessly uses dangerous medicines while freely and readily violating policies without regard for patients or colleagues.
From my review of the events that transpired in the case of Mr. Sam Smith, I find that none of the accusations against Dr. Bowden are accurate. The TMB complaint either carelessly or willfully ignores the context and intent of her actions within a rapidly dynamic situation of a wife who consulted Dr. Bowden to save her husband’s life. Dr. Bowden responded to Mrs. Smith’s appeal by going above and beyond what most physicians would have done for a patient or a patient’s family. She clearly pursued every avenue open to her to provide a safe, life-saving medicine to a dying patient. I will address each complaint in order:
1) Accusation: Dr. Bowden attempted to treat a patient with a “dangerous” drug.
As an expert in the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin in Covid, this is an easily disprovable statement. None of the now 50 randomized controlled trials in Covid have ever shown an increased rate of side effects when compared to placebo. I performed an exhaustive and comprehensive review of the many studies both pre-and post Covid which reveal an unparallelled safety record of ivermectin throughout the history of medicines. It is a medicine that has been freely distributed by the WHO across continents for decades to over 4 billion men, women, and children, both healthy and sick. I compiled a report demonstrating this safety record for the expert defense of a physician in Canada and have posted it here. The report includes numerous hyperlinked citations which directly contradict the Texas Medical Board’s assertion that ivermectin is a “dangerous drug.” Lastly, compare its safety record to those of other Covid therapeutics. Note the duration of each record and the adverse events reported below (also note that a toxicology expert reviewed the 26 deaths associated with ivermectin and found that ivermectin was not causative in any case):
2) Accusation: Dr. Bowden treated a patient without first establishing a patient-physician relationship.
This assertion ignores the facts and unique context of her evolving professional relationship to Mr. Smith. Dr. Bowden was first consulted by the patient’s wife due to her known expertise and vast experience in treating Covid. Mrs. Smith’s husband was in a critically ill state with a high chance of dying. Dr. Bowden possessed the knowledge that ivermectin could drastically reduce his chance of dying. She first shared the large evidence base supporting its use with Mr. Smith’s wife and recommended to her that she ask Mr. Smith’s treatment team for them to initiate a treatment trial. Mrs. Smith immediately asked the treatment team given his deteriorating clinical state at a time when the team declined to offer any other treatments. She was denied this request by the treatment team.
The TMB first bases their accusation of the above lack of a physician-patient relationship by stating that Dr. Bowden wrote an outpatient prescription for Mr. Smith in October. The TMB willfully ignores the fact that Dr. Bowden knew full well that an outpatient prescription has no validity for a hospitalized inpatient where she does not have privileges. The prescription was instead written in preparation for legal action to obtain a court order for him to be treated with ivermectin. Dr. Bowden knew it would not be carried out or filled unless Mrs. Smith’s legal team, (Attorneys Ralph Lorigo and Beth Parlato of Buffalo), were successful in obtaining privileges for her. Dr. Bowden simply submitted the prescription to Mrs. Smith’s legal team as per their request because in the almost two hundred similar cases they had fought, the judge and hospital required that a willing physician in the community write such a prescription. I thus find her action completely defensible and appropriate given the circumstances. Further, since it was never filled and Mr. Smith was never treated with ivermectin, it is incorrect to say that she treated a patient without having established a physician-patient relationship.
To further understand Dr. Bowden’s actions as appropriate, I cite my exhaustive review of the immense evidence base for ivermectin’s efficacy in Covid. The most important part of that review is the explanation for the reasons why this knowledge base has been systematically distorted, dismissed, and suppressed in the medical literature and world’s media, i.e the Disinformation Campaign. Dr. Bowden, as an affiliated member of my non-profit at the time (the FLCCC Alliance) was well-aware of the coordinated campaign that attacked and denigrated ivermectin to the medical community and thus knew it was, in reality, a life-saving medicine in Covid. For the purposes of brevity, I will simply cite just one large trial which found that in the most severely ill Covid hospital patients, ivermectin reduced the chances of dying by 70%. That trial was performed in Broward County, Florida and was published in 2020 in Chest, one of the top two journals in pulmonary and critical care medicine. Further, in my review, I also cite numerous other trials, epidemiologic studies, and meta-analyses which found similar efficacy in reducing the chances of dying.
When a doctor is placed in the situation of being informed of a patient dying with a disease and they possess the knowledge of an intervention to offer that patient a high chance of surviving, as per the Hippocratic oath (the ethical foundation of our field), she must place that patient as her primary consideration. She appropriately felt compelled to help save Mr. Smith.
Although initially Mr. Smith was not technically her patient, in my opinion and as I will detail below, she and Mr. Smith’s wife did eventually succeed in establishing a physician-patient relationship prior to her attempting to treat Mr. Smith with ivermectin. The admirable and extraordinary lengths to which Dr. Bowden and Mr. Smith’s wife tried to save Mr. Smith’s life first began with Dr. Bowden appropriately and legally exploring options to transfer his care to a hospital and physician who could legally treat Mr. Smith with ivermectin. When that proved unachievable, she and Mrs. Smith then undertook numerous legal efforts to establish a physician patient relationship as follows:
1) Mrs. Smith visited her husband daily, and she was very familiar with his medical condition. She was able to obtain all the required medical information Dr. Bowden requested to formulate a treatment plan with ivermectin. This is a form of “tele-health by proxy,” noting first that tele-health does not require a physical examination or presence at the bedside to treat a patient. In fact, in the hospital setting in Covid, it was common practice initially for many non-ICU specialists to consult and treat ICU patients without entering the room or examining the patients due to concerns for their own safety. Further, for the TMB complaint to repeatedly admonish Dr. Bowden for not performing a physical examination belies either a willful or negligent ignoring of this fact about tele-health. Lastly, Mr. Smith could not consult Dr. Bowden directly given he was unconscious on a ventilator and thus his health care surrogate was appropriately making these consult decisions for him. Although the normal statutes on telemedicine would not allow a formal tele-health “proxy” relationship to a patient, it should be noted that those statutes were suspended during Covid. Again, I find her actions to be entirely appropriate given the circumstances.
2) Dr. Bowden felt morally and ethically compelled to help Mr. Smith in this manner because, despite the treatment team being provided the extensive evidence supporting ivermectin ,the treatment team refused to review the evidence and refused to treat him with ivermectin. They did this despite the pleading of Mrs. Smith that they at least try the treatment in the context of his high risk of dying. The TMB must also recognize that at the time of Mr. Smith’s illness, the NIH treatment guidelines for Covid stated that in regard to ivermectin, their recommendation was that “there is insufficient evidence to recommend or not recommend.” This clearly indicates that the “official” stance of the Federal government agency in charge of guiding Covid treatments was neutral or uncertain, but not clearly or definitively against. In a life-threatening situation, to initiate a treatment trial of a safe medicine that could, per the NIH, “potentially work”, would strike the average citizen as rational and ethical. Thus, their refusal to do so, to me and the average citizen, is indefensible.
3) Their obstinate and inexplicable refusal to do so created a truly unique and desperate situation for Mr. Smith’s wife, a situation akin to a wife on a boat watching their husband falling overboard and in the process of drowning, not being thrown a life preserver because the crew members were ignorant of the safety and efficacy of life preservers. When, in her knowledge, she asked them to attempt to throw him one, they instead refused, nor did they suggest or attempt any other intervention to save him. After reading the facts of this case, I feel deeply for Mrs. Smith and the trauma she suffered by the actions and indifference of her husband’s treatment team and hospital. The lack of empathy and understanding by the TMB for what she and Dr. Bowden were attempting to do is disturbing to me. The now well documented loss of trust in public health institutions should be unsurprising based on the TMB’s current actions against Dr. Bowden.
4) When the treatment team and hospital refused to follow Dr. Bowden’s expert and appropriate treatment advice, that of using one of history’s safest and most effective treatments for Covid, Mrs. Smith felt compelled to obtain legal counsel to file a lawsuit to compel the hospital to treat her husband with ivermectin. On November 2, 2021, Dr. Bowden testified as an expert in the case along with Senator Bob Hall from Senate District 2.
5) In the hearing, the judge was first informed of the desperate situation of Mr. Smith and the fact there were no more treatments being offered. He then was provided extensive expert evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of ivermectin in Covid in an affidavit that I submitted to the Court (also pro bono - we take care of our own). After reviewing the facts presented, the judge issued an order to the hospital to grant Dr. Bowden temporary emergency privileges with the stipulation that she was only allowed to administer ivermectin to Mr. Smith. Further, given the gravity of Mr. Smith’s clinical condition, the judge’s order stipulated that Dr. Bowden’s emergency privileges be granted within 24 hours. This action therefore led Dr. Bowden to believe she would have a rapid establishment of a formal and legal physician-patient relationship.
6) However, instead of rapidly granting Dr. Bowden privileges, the hospital instead made an unprecedented and impossible request of Dr. Bowden, that of needing to provide two years of surgical case logs to be granted emergency privileges. Even in normal privileging processes for surgeons, it is nearly unheard of to have to provide such extensive documentation. Such a request had never occurred in Dr. Bowden’s career. Further, it had no relevance to the purpose of the privileges as she was not intending to perform surgery on Mr. Smith. This was clearly a malevolent and blocking tactic intended to try to defy a judge’s order. What makes this action even more unconscionable is that during the Covid pandemic, the traditional credentialing process for physicians was streamlined by hospitals to have efficient access to physicians given ubiquitous staffing shortages. Texas Huguley instead clearly obstructed Dr. Bowden’s ability to obtain privileges in a timely manner as per the judge’s order. This further put Mr. Smith’s life at risk.
7) After Dr. Bowden completed an online application over twenty pages long, she sent them proof of her malpractice insurance, her DEA license information, her driver’s license, list of surgeries, and two letters of reference. Note she did this by the following day, despite the heavy demands of her clinical practice given it was during a large surge of some of the most difficult Covid patients, that of the late-phase Delta variant.
8) Texas Huguley then informed Mrs. Smith’s lawyer that they were inclined to deny granting Dr. Bowden’s privileges. This greatly concerned Dr. Bowden given the fact that if an application for privileges is denied to a physician, this action is then reported to the National Practitioner’s Data Base and becomes a permanent mark on their record. This is why Dr. Bowden then asked for her application to be withdrawn as it was clearly futile to do so based on the hospital’s brazen and illegal defiance of a judge’s order.
9) Sure enough, the next day, on November 5, 2021, Texas Hugely informed Dr. Bowden through Mrs. Smith’s lawyer that they decided to deny her temporary privileges. They did this despite knowing the critical and time-sensitive medical needs of Mr. Smith, and in defiance of the judge’s order that privileges be granted within 24 hours. The fact that the TMB is using the above events to characterize Dr. Bowden’s actions as unprofessional instead of Texas Huguley’s is, in my expert opinion, unconscionable.
10) Mrs. Smith’s legal team then requested an emergency hearing to inform the judge of the hospital’s actions. After hearing of the actions above, the judge issued another order to the hospital to grant Dr. Bowden privileges. He did this on November 8th at 4:45pm. The hospital appealed within thirty minutes of the judge signing the order, but they were not issued a temporary stay of the order. Thus, it was Dr. Bowden’s correct impression that she would be legally permitted to treat Mr. Smith the next day.
11) The next day, on November 9, 2021, Dr. Bowden was instructed by the hospital to reapply for privileges after informing her they would not accept her previous fully completed application. Further, they imposed a deadline of the same day and informed her that they would consider it that evening and that a “final decision” would be made by Board of Directors… two days later. This again defied the judge’s order. As a critical care physician who has devoted his career to saving actively dying patients, the malevolence of these petty obstructive actions are unimaginable and unforgivable. (Ed: note I am running out of adjectives to describe the hospital’s actions).
12) Further, the hospital also claimed that no nurse on their staff was willing to administer the ivermectin, thus they required Dr. Bowden to find a nurse in the community to administer the medication. In record time, via social media, Dr. Bowden not only found a willing nurse, but she also fulfilled the requirements of submitting an entirely new application and was assured by Mrs. Smith’s attorney that she was allowed to proceed with treatment.
13) On November 10, after being instructed by Mrs. Smith’s lawyer that she was legally allowed to treat Mr. Smith with ivermectin, she informed the hospital that she was sending her nurse to administer the ivermectin.
14) However, unbeknownst to Dr. Bowden, in the interim, the hospital appealed the 2nd order of the judge, and had somehow been granted a stay. Unfortunately, this information was sent to Jerri Lynn Ward, an associate attorney for Mrs. Smith’s legal team and she did not see the email in time and thus did not inform Dr. Bowden of the change in her legal status as a prescribing physician for Mr. Smith. To characterize Dr. Bowden as “treating without privileges” ignores the fact that, what I can only characterize as an escalating and unjustified legal battle against Mrs. Smith and Dr. Bowden, the hospitals actions caused this misunderstanding to happen. I find no evidence that Dr. Bowden was aware that the hospital was granted a stay (as Attorney Ward can testify to), and thus feel the TMB is willfully mischaracterizing Dr. Bowden’s actions and intent. Any doctor trying to save a patient’s life in this situation would have done the same.
In summary, based on the facts, context, and numerous unconscionable actions by Texas Huguley Hospital which violated court orders, the hospital created a highly stressful and dynamic situation for Dr. Bowden, Mrs. Smith, and her legal team, all while a patient and husband to one of the parties was dying. I find that Dr. Bowden made every attempt to be faithful to her professional, moral, and ethical responsibilities while doing her best to comply with the processes and laws as she understood them.
She sacrificed both extensive family and professional time to assist in every conceivable and legal action to save a patient’s life based on her knowledge and expertise. I find her actions should be celebrated and admired and I wish every licensed physician would have the same courage and moral capacity to strive in similar ways to help a patient who is dying but still salvageable. I want to believe that I myself would have done the same in the challenging situations which Dr. Bowden was placed in with the numerous and unforgivable obstacles put before her.
I condemn with every ounce of my being the reprehensible, deplorable and depraved actions of the leadership and lawyers of Texas Huguely hospital. I recommend that any of the leadership involved that were licensed physicians should be investigated and sanctioned given the facts outlined above.
To my readers: know that Mrs. Smith covertly and repeatedly administered ivermectin transdermally and on April 22, 2022 he was allowed outside to celebrate his son Jacob’s eighteenth birthday - the first time outside in seven months. He was finally released on May 18, 2022, nearly six months after being admitted. He had lost half his body weight, starting at 240lbs and leaving at 120lbs. Unfortunately in December of 2022 his health deteriorated, he was re-hospitalized and eventually passed on April 11, 2023
*If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, Op-Ed’s, and doctor defenses, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated (support has never been more needed since I recently left my employment with the FLCCC to focus on other efforts such as this Substack).
P.S For anyone suffering from Long Covid or Covid vaccine injury syndrome, my partner Scott Marsland and I offer care via tele-health at the Leading Edge Clinic.
