Posted on 07/27/2022 3:26:52 PM PDT by george76
A doctor in Texas is suing the health care institution that suspended her for allegedly purveying “dangerous misinformation.”
Dr. Mary Bowden, who now runs her own clinic, is seeking $25 million from Houston Methodist for alleged defamation.
Bowden became concerned that the COVID-19 vaccines were not preventing contraction of the virus that causes COVID-19, and spoke out against vaccine mandates and, later, the vaccines themselves, according to the 19-page lawsuit, which was slated to be filed in Harris County District Court.
After Bowden began sharing her opinions on social media, Houston Methodist and its CEO, Dr. Marc Boom, “retaliated” against her “in an unprecedented manner,” the filing states.
“Without notice, they published false and defamatory statements to the press and on social media, affording no due process, acting contrary to and with reckless disregard for both the letter and spirit of Methodist’s bylaw,” it says.
Statements.
On Nov. 12, 2021, Houston Methodist took to Twitter and released a five-part statement, saying Bowden, who had recently joined the hospital’s staff, “is using her social media accounts to express her personal and political opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments.”
“These opinions, which are harmful to the community, do not reflect reliable medical evidence or the values of Houston Methodist, where we have treated more than 25,000 COVID-19 inpatients, and where all our employees and physicians are vaccinated to protect our patients,” the hospital said.
“Dr. Bowden, who has never admitted a patient at Houston Methodist Hospital, is spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based in science,” it added.
Boom, meanwhile, told KHOU-TV that he and other hospital officials decided to suspend Bowden for “her inappropriate behavior, including spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.”
“As a physician, I am personally offended by her behavior and by her misleading comments about COVID-19 and our hospital system,” he said.
The statements triggered numerous articles, from both local and outside media outlets.
‘False and Defamatory’.
Bowden, who later resigned from Houston Methodist, says the statements were “materially false and defamatory.”
Bowden’s statements, including the promotion of ivermectin, were based on first-hand experience treating COVID-19, studies, and the published opinions of other medical professionals, including Dr. Peter McCullough. According to the suit, none of the patients who have received early treatment under her care have died, and many have been kept out of hospitals.
Because of the statements, Bowden lost patients and she and her business, BreatheMD, received negative reviews, the filing says.
Houston Methodist was served with a written notice demanding a retraction and/or correction but the notice was ignored.
Bowden is seeking $25 million in damages as well as other damages to be determined by a jury.
Houston Methodist declined to comment.
In a just world her case would be a slam dunk. As it is some judge is about to cash a check from Pfizer.
Doesn’t “spreading dangerous misinformation” have a ring to it, sort of like “counter-revolutionary activities”?
She should have asked for 50M.
So the hospital CEO said his personal feelings were the basis (at least in part) for the shabby treatment the plaintiff experienced?
Seems like Covid is the Trial Attorneys Full Employment and Retirement Program
25,000 x $15,000 = 375 million dollars.
Of course the hospital loves Covid
Godspeed, Dr Mary Bowden!
HoustonMethodist has been nothing but a non-stop advertisement arm, for BigPharma....especially since these horrid $hots were released.
24/7 ads....on TV/billboards. Now these evil creeps are advertising how they are the #1 hospital for CHILDREN’S CARDIO issues.
What sick timing.
Hope she wins. Fortunately for her it turns out she was right. We cannot let big businesses with lots of $$ shut down the scientific debate.
When I suggested to my doctor who was going full court press on the vax that I’d rather just treat symptoms with something like ivermectin and gain natural immunity, he changed the subject. He seemed so uncomfortable that I let it go.
A nurse friend later told me that if he prescribed ivermectin or any of the non-specified treatments that he’d at least be fired and maybe lose his license. That’s one reason that when I got Covid, I did not go to the hospital. I called the office and asked for something to treat the symptoms and the nurse repeated like a recording, “You have to go to the emergency room.” I’ve called in at other times for other problems and they always sent a prescription to treat the symptoms. Not this time.
“Bowden is seeking $25 million in damages.” Her case is 100% strong.
This is disappointing to me, personally. I had to do business with Houston Methodist, Sugar Land. It is a class operation. They hired good people and bought the latest equipment.
Not guilty. I believe her 100% .
They hired good people and bought the latest equipment.
Amazing what BigPharmaBucks can buy, isn’t it?
Look at MDA….all of their amazing, latest equipment.
I saw her press conference several months ago. I believe her and wish her the best. I bookmarked it and will revisit it in the near future.
I listened to her speak, along with many other brave and maligned doctors in DC in January. Let doctors be doctors.
Hope she wins big time!!,
My PCP is at Methodist downtown and she nags me endlessly about getting boosted, which I refuse to do.
We have family members who use both Methodist and Memorial.
One thing that has come to light, when we’ve gathered for a visit, is that the Memorial docs do NOT seem to push the shots, like the Methodist docs do.
Could just be the particular docs these family members are seen by.
Did you take the first shots? Hopefully, you’ve had/will not have, any adverse effects, if so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.