Forum Conversation: Dr. Mary Talley Bowden

On The Hijacking of Medical Freedom

The following interview with Dr. Mary Talley Bowden continues the Forum Conversation, an ongoing series within this substack where influential leaders and broad-minded thinkers of our times, share their experience and knowledge.

---

In any other era, if over five thousand patients with flu symptoms had benefitted from a doctor’s innovative treatment — and none of them were hospitalized or died — nor experienced detrimental side effects — the medical world would be congratulatory and anxious to adopt the protocol. Yet in our contemporary upside-down world of corporate-driven medical care, with excessive government interference, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden is threatened with losing her license for her success in preventing severe symptoms of the COVID virus.

Her experience reveals how the pandemic has only exacerbated the flaws and excesses of the healthcare system.

Dr. Bowden’s courage in standing up to authorities is noble and honorable, particularly when compared with doctors who have succumbed to pressure and failed their patients during the pandemic. She is not only continuing to help people with COVID and vaccine injuries; she has initiated a lawsuit with the FDA on the grounds that they have exceeded their authority in a harmful way by limiting the availability of effective drugs and interfering with the doctor-patient relationship.

Before the pandemic, Dr. Bowden recognized the growing failings of corporate medicine. She opened a private Ear, Nose, and Throat practice in Houston, Texas, where her methods and protocols are not regulated by insurance or industry standards. Within six months of her new clinic opening, she was treating patients with the COVID-19 flu.

Rather than adopting the government-advised practice of isolating and waiting to see if symptoms worsened, Dr. Bowden applied effective therapies and drugs to help her patients. Initially, she used breathing treatments, then she prescribed monoclonal antibodies. Later she used ivermectin along with vitamins C and D, quercetin, zinc, and black seed oil. Her approach is not complicated; reducing viral load and then limiting inflammation.

The drugs she prescribed were readily available until the government rationed the distribution of monoclonal antibodies and leveraged pharmacies to refuse their use for COVID. With an FDA campaign also scorning ivermectin, the most powerful means of preventing severe symptoms from COVID were withheld from the public.

State governments, including Texas, continue to harass doctors for their use of a drug that is completely safe and very effective. Dr. Bowden gave this interview shortly after her first hearing with the Texas Medical Board, in their ongoing attempt to reprimand her — and curtail the good and important work she does.

---

Forum: Thanks for taking the time to speak with us. The protocols you’ve used and the drugs you’ve prescribed have kept your patients from being hospitalized or dying, with minimal or no side effects. Not only have you done no harm, but your clinical results also prove dramatically that early intervention is the safest and most effective method of treating this new version of the flu. Yet you are being attacked by medical authorities.

Bowden: It’s very bizarre. If the drugs I prescribed were dangerous the situation would be different.

Forum: The Texas Medical Board (TMB) is threatening to take away your license. There's absolutely no part of their charges that claim you have hurt or wronged anyone. Have they ever pursued a case like this before?

Bowden: I didn't harm anybody. I went through and looked at the type of medical cases where the TMB typically brings charges. They usually take action for things like sexual relationships with patients, improper prescribing of narcotics, coming to work under the influence, or having a felony conviction. These are clear-cut egregious circumstances where doctors have violated the law — or risked or harmed patients. So it does seem like my case is unique.

Forum: Are patients still coming to you with COVID symptoms?

Bowden: I saw three people today that needed steroids. They were in the second week of illness and they were wheezing and had shortness of breath. They weren't in any danger and didn’t need hospitalization. It kind of surprised me because I haven't seen that in a while. Most people have symptoms similar to a bad cold.

Forum: As you continue to help patients, the Texas Medical Board is pressing its case against you. What is it based on?

Bowden: There are three separate complaints. One was launched by Houston Methodist Hospital following their suspension of my privileges after they refused to treat an unvaccinated patient and I spoke up. They say that I spread dangerous misinformation and put patients at risk. There is no evidence of either of those claims.

Another was based on a telemedicine consult on a minor where I spoke with a stepmother about her stepson who had COVID symptoms. Later, his actual mother reported me for prescribing ivermectin. He never even took it, and got better, so the board's willingness to hear the case is based on a technicality — that I consulted with his stepmother rather than his actual mother. That’s true, although I didn’t know it at the time, and certainly did no harm, so they are pressing this without good cause.

The third is about my involvement with the case of Deputy Sheriff Jason Jones, who contracted COVID-19 in 2021. He had been admitted to Huguley Hospital in Fort Worth where he was on a respirator and placed in a medically induced coma because his symptoms were so severe. When his life was in danger, his wife Erin asked for ivermectin to be administered, but the hospital denied her request. She decided to take a legal route and in that process, I was contacted and asked to give a second opinion. That’s when I prescribed ivermectin. A court order was issued, and the hospital filed an appeal. The police blocked a nurse and Erin from giving her husband the ivermectin.

My involvement in the case was very open. In Texas Law, the next of kin — in this case, Jason’s wife, was the automatic legal surrogate. So because he was unconscious, with Erin’s consent, I gave my opinion that ivermectin could help — with her attorney involved for presentation to the court. The Texas Medical Board decided that I should be punished for prescribing a drug to a dying man in an ICU because I didn’t do a full evaluation.

They added the claim that I violated Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by going public with his name, something his wife gave me permission to do. Actually, it was the hospital that violated HIPAA by not retracting his name on all of their public court documents.

Forum: And these cases were presented in a closed hearing?

Bowden: It was supposed to happen last July and at the last minute, they postponed it until this February. I think they had trouble finding an expert witness — that was the reason for the delay.

Forum: And what did the expert eventually provide?

Bowden: The board presented a long, detailed written explanation from an anonymous critical care doctor, and a family practitioner basically seconded his opinion. They weren’t there, so they couldn’t be challenged. The statements said that I was outside of the standard of care, that I had no business treating a patient in an ICU as an ENT physician — and that I didn't obtain informed consent. Although all of this was untrue and unsubstantiated, the TMB asked me to plead guilty and take their punishment. I refused.

Forum: Erin Jones was fighting for her husband’s life and the Texas Medical Board is harassing you over technicalities. At the time did you feel like you were doing anything illegal? Did you think that it was somehow out of bounds?

Bowden: It was not done under normal circumstances. It's not typical for me to prescribe medications to somebody that's in an ICU. Erin Jone’s lawyer was guiding the process. They were already involved in suing the hospital to give her husband the ivermectin and I was on a list of doctors in Texas who was successfully using it to help patients with COVID. And they said, if you feel it’s appropriate, you can write a prescription for ivermectin and we will attach it to the court filing. This isn’t some legal ploy, it’s a protocol that has been used repeatedly by attorneys who are patient advocates. So I felt this was the right decision, considering that he was likely to die without some intervention.

Forum: How is Deputy Jones doing? Is he okay now?

Bowden: I didn’t know this until later, but Erin managed to give him topical ivermectin and he slowly improved and was released from the hospital last May. He’s still weak and recovering — and hanging in there with physical therapy.

Forum: And for your attempt to do the right thing the state of Texas is trying to take your license away.

Bowden: I don't know where it's going to end because I'm not going to admit guilt and I'm not going to give in to these ludicrous accusations. I'm certainly not paying a fine or going to do any continuing education — or take a jurisprudence exam as punishment. The next step is a public hearing and if that fails I can appeal again and it can go to a full district court. I'm not succumbing without a big fight.

Forum: Can the TMB decide to just drop the case with your appeal?

Bowden: I assume they could decide to give up at any time.

Forum: It’s interesting that nowhere are they accusing you of specifically using ivermectin inappropriately. What is the law about using a drug off-label?

Bowden: There are no legal restrictions on off-label use. It's done all the time. A conservative estimate would be 30% of all prescriptions are off-label; it could be much higher than that.

Forum: So all that could be done was a PR campaign to frame ivermectin as a veterinary drug. The attempt to stop ivermectin from being used has no actual precedent.

Bowden: No, not that I'm aware of — and they claimed it was dangerous — we haven’t seen any serious side effects, even at higher dosages.

Forum: The use of ivermectin was belittled when it is clearly one of the most powerful means of limiting viral symptoms. Clinical results and some studies are confirming this. The government is no longer calling it a horse dewormer, although not retracting that earlier claim. Are you having a hard time finding it for patients?

Bowden: I have to use special pharmacies. I don't go to any of the big chains as they still are under pressure. I have a pretty good list of independents, so it is accessible and for the most part, I can get it for my patients. Insurance companies won't pay for it, so it's costly.

Forum: Ivermectin was dismissed inappropriately and there is also very little public information on how it works. Is there evidence of how it interrupts the course of viral infections?

Bowden: There are multiple pathways in which ivermectin has been shown to inhibit viral entry into the cell. And if a virus does enter the cell, ivermectin inhibits replication. So it's not just a single modality. One thing that's interesting about COVID, it acts like a Trojan horse. It sneaks into the cell, and inhibits the signals that normally alert the immune system that there is an attacker — it dampens that SOS response. So the body gets a late start on fighting the virus. Ivermectin actually limits that Trojan horse effect, along with reducing many of the enzymes that are crucial for viral replication. If that wasn’t enough, it also stimulates genes that produce interferon, a key component that sends signals to the body to produce defenses against an intruding virus.

Forum: What was ivermectin initially used for?

Bowden: It was originally developed to treat river blindness by disrupting parasitic blood chemistry. I believe it has great promise with other infections — it could be effective with the common cold. Even looking at the minimal current research, we might assume that it could diminish symptoms from all sorts of viruses, not just COVID.

Forum: I’d like to return to your case with the TMB. Do you have a sense of how many of the thousands of patients that you have helped would come to an open hearing?

Bowden: Many people have reached out with support and it encourages me. I think a large number of people would show up in my defense.

Forum: That could be the most dramatic and effective way to turn this around. Powerful bureaucrats don’t like scrutiny, so as soon as it becomes public and they feel the heat, their minds start changing. You also have also initiated some legal cases. What’s happening with Houston Methodist Hospital?

Bowden: I actually have two lawsuits against them. One is to get information about how their pandemic policy was influenced financially and the other is for defamation; their unfounded description of my work as dangerous. Both were dismissed and are under appeal.

Forum: And what were the reasons for dismissals?

Bowden: It's like a shell game, a public non-profit should have to disclose its financial information. We suspect they have something to hide regarding COVID payments to them. Apparently, they are claiming money collected under the foundation associated with the hospital is not subject to public scrutiny.

I don't think the judge clarified his ruling on the defamation case; it was dismissed without a full explanation.

Forum: You also have sued the FDA?

Bowden: Yes, along with two other doctors. We claimed the FDA launched a PR campaign against ivermectin and falsely portrayed it as being dangerous and only suitable for animals. They widely distributed a photo of a healthcare worker nuzzling a horse implying it was only a veterinary drug. The media followed their lead. This created unnecessary hurdles for us to treat patients. It has led to our reputations being damaged. And it gave the licensing boards grounds for coming after us.

The case against the FDA was dismissed based on sovereign immunity — that they were working within the confines of their role. Our argument is that they exceeded that authority. The FDA functions to evaluate drugs and once approved, they're not allowed to dictate how physicians use them. Acting in a doctor’s role is outside of their bounds.

Forum: You have spoken publicly about how medical freedom has been hijacked. Is that your central concern — about medical autonomy and the freedom of physicians to do their work independently, without political or financial pressure?

Bowden: I was not at all a political person before all this began. I started my independent practice before the pandemic to have freedom from the restrictions of corporate medical care and to give my patients more autonomy. I called my practice third-party free — I'm not contracted with hospitals, insurance companies, or the government. The only people I work for are my patients.

When third parties intervene and create protocol-driven medicine, government protocol-driven medicine, or pharmaceutical protocol-driven medicine — it blurs the individuality of every patient and takes away the ability of a doctor to be flexible. And each patient is unique. You can't just apply one treatment protocol to everybody with similar symptoms. That’s what leads to harming people. Doctors should have the freedom to use their critical thinking skills. Studies are important, although clinical experience gives understanding. By combining science and clinical observation you develop a unique treatment approach. It's just not a one size fits all solution for every patient. With this third-party pressure to conform, we will come to the point where we don't really don't even need doctors. We will just use a computer to enter a list of symptoms and Amazon will dictate and fill our healthcare needs.

So yes, the pandemic cemented the views I already had.

Forum: You had already responded to decades of medicine moving in that direction. Now doctors are having to fight court battles to maintain their integrity and practices. How is healthcare going to get better?

Bowden: It’s not just about the system. The most common question people ask me is — who should I go see for a particular condition? I have a list of people that are like-minded — there’s a growing movement of conscientious practitioners. A parallel system is developing based on caring and proficient doctors. We need hospitals that people can go to where independent physicians can practice freely rather than just as employees of a corporate structure. When doctors are employees of a hospital, they follow whatever the administrators tell them to do. A parallel system is the only thing that will change this, as patients want their doctors to be more human.

Forum: You have been dealing with immense pressure from a medical paradigm that has attempted to change how you help your patients. Isn’t that battle distracting from your primary work?

Bowden: I’m being forced to fight for my license. Some people close to me see the energy it takes and they’ve suggested that I stop battling the system, but I know too much and couldn’t live with myself if I gave up. I did nothing wrong and will fight for what’s right and continue to care for patients in the best way I know how. 

Forum: If you were in charge and could change the structure of the entire healthcare system, how would you start?

Bowden: The pharmaceutical companies have way too much impact, with overt conflicts of interest. We need to reign them in. We still require innovation and improved drugs; however, the tentacles of Big Pharma are wrapped around our healthcare system. They certainly shouldn't be advertising to the public. And the revolving door of government officials going on to serve on the boards of these companies just invites trouble. There should be guardrails in place.

We need leaders with the highest integrity overseeing and running the part of our government that affects medicine and healthcare.

---

Your donations, small or large, make ongoing articles and interviews possible.