June 11, 2025 • 16 mins
This recap episode unpacks an extensive conversation between Joe Rogan and Dr. Mary Talley Bowden regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Bowden, an ENT physician, recounts her experiences and challenges treating patients, particularly her controversial use of ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies. The discussion critiques the official responses from health authorities and the medical establishment, questioning the efficacy and safety of mandated vaccines, especially for vulnerable populations, and highlighting perceived corruption and suppression of alternative treatments. Both Rogan and Dr. Bowden express disillusionment with traditional institutions and the media, citing examples of alleged misinformation and censorship. The conversation also touches upon the potential long-term effects of the vaccines and the lack of support for those who claim to be injured, advocating for greater transparency and accountability within the healthcare system.
---
We all love The Joe Rogan Experience and much prefer the real thing, but sometimes it's not possible to listen to an entire episode or you just want to recap an episode you've previously listened to. The Joe Rogan Recap uses Google's NotebookLM to create a conversational podcast that recaps episodes of JRE into a more manageable listen.
On that note, for those that would like it, here's the public access link to the Google Notebook to look at the mind map, timeline and briefing doc - https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c28b9cae-0a6c-4dc8-9938-374eafea73a3 - Please note, you must have a Google account to access.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. And before we get going, you can
now access the full Google notebook with a mind map,
timeline and briefing document by clicking the link in the
description. OK, let's unpack this deep dive
our surf material today. It's a really interesting
conversation. It's from a recent podcast
features a well prominent host and a Doctor Who kind of found
(00:21):
herself right in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic response
unexpectedly. Right.
And our mission here is really to pull out the key insights,
the Nuggets of knowledge from what they talked about.
We're looking at this one physician's personal story, you
know, her experience with early treatment and the big challenges
she says she ran into. Yeah, especially when her
clinical observations, how she saw things, clashed with the
(00:44):
established narratives and protocols that were coming down.
It's definitely a specific viewpoint on the pressures
doctors faced back then, and it touches on these complex forces.
The doctor in this chat believeswe're in play, maybe beyond just
patient care. So we're essentially tracing her
account, how her practice and even her whole worldview shifted
under all that pressure. Absolutely.
(01:05):
So the doctor we're talking about is Doctor Mary Tally
Bowden. Background is ENT, ear, nose and
throat. Ran her own solo private
practice. And the timing, like you said,
is pretty wild. She mentions opening this
practice just six months, basically before the pandemic
really hit. Talk about jumping straight into
the fire. Seriously, from setting up a,
you know, probably pretty routine ENT practice to suddenly
(01:29):
being on the front lines of thismassive global crisis almost
overnight, according to her story.
Right. And she talks about her initial
approach very early on, treatingpatients with these new
respiratory symptoms before there were really specific COVID
protocols. She describes it as just using
common sense medicine, treating symptoms, breathing treatments,
(01:49):
antibiotics if she thought therewas maybe a secondary bacterial
thing going on, steroids too. And based on the conversation,
she felt that worked pretty wellinitially, that symptom based
approach, which makes sense. You know, early days doctors
didn't have a playbook for this specific virus.
So many were falling back on their basic clinical training.
OK, so that initial success, shesays, brought in more patients,
(02:11):
but then came the bottleneck testing.
She mentions labs like LabCorp being backed up for what like 2
weeks at one point which was ages then.
Yeah, a huge delay, but she already had a relationship with
the lab called Microgen DX, apparently for testing related
to chronic sinusitis in this lab.
Microgen, according to the source, developed a saliva test
(02:32):
for COVID. And that, she says, was a total
game changer for her clinic. Much faster results, often the
next day. Plus her clinic was in a strip
mall. Easy access.
So she could do drive up testingcontact free.
Yeah, she says that really put her clinic on the map locally,
just because people could actually get tested quickly
there. It's a neat little detail of
adapting on the fly, nobly so Then monoclonal antibodies come
(02:55):
onto the scene. She starts using them and the
source really emphasizes how effective she found them.
She uses this phrase like patients would often turn around
the next day. Yeah, dramatic improvements and
it. Yeah, right.
Initially not that controversial.
And clinically, she felt they were working wonders.
(03:16):
But the conversation points out that access started getting
tricky. Once the government took over
distribution, things tightened up.
And the reason given, according to the source discussion, was
that the virus strain had changed, so the antibodies
weren't effective anymore. Which she found, well, let's
just say frustrating because as she points out in the chat, the
same vaccine targeting what theywere now calling an older strain
(03:40):
was still being pushed. That discrepancy really bothered
her. Yeah, from her perspective
shared in the source, it felt inconsistent.
And she expresses this belief, you know, that maybe restricting
the monoclonals was partly aboutnudging people towards the
vaccine. That's her take presented in the
discussion. And that whole situation, she
says, is what led her to look ativermectin.
(04:01):
When the monoclonals got harder to obtain, she felt her patients
still needed treatment options. And she wasn't just going to,
you know, send them away empty handed.
Right. And the Ivermectin controversy
as they discuss it in the sourcewas just massive.
Huge. But before she used it, she
describes doing her own digging into the safety looking at FDA
data, the LD 50, that lethal dose benchmark in animal
(04:24):
studies, searching medical literature for reports of harm
from overdoses in humans, intentional or accidental.
And what she says she found was,well, pretty compelling to her.
The LD 15 animals was way higherlike 10 to 80 milligrams per
kilogram compared to the tiny dose she planned for COVID like
.4 MG kilogram and she couldn't find studies showing significant
(04:45):
harm from human overdoses unlikesay Tylenol which was mentioned
as a comparison. So based on that research
described in the source, she felt confident it was safe for
humans at those intended doses. Then she started using it, and
this is where her clinical observations as she presents
them get really potent. She states she treated what over
6000 patients with early treatment protocols that
included ivermectin. And the headline claims she
(05:07):
makes from that experience. 0 hospitalizations.
Yeah, she states. None of those patients ended up
in the hospital. Grow out of over 6000 treated
early. It's a it's a remarkable claim
presented there. Definitely.
And she also talks about treating sicker patients later
in the illness, people who actually refuse to go to the
hospital. In those cases, she says she
(05:29):
used a combination approach. Kind of threw the kitchen sink
at them. She put in it, including high
dose ivermectin. And even with those really sick
patients, she claims she saw successful outcomes.
She contrasts that approach tailoring treatment, the art of
medicine she calls it, with whatshe saw as these rigid,
one-size-fits-all protocols being pushed.
And a huge part of the conversation revolves around
(05:51):
what she and the host call the propaganda campaign against
ivermectin. They really dive into this.
Oh. Yeah, they bring up the FDA's
horse tweet. You know, seriously y'all,
you're not a horse. Right.
And that Rolling Stone article? The source says it falsely
claimed Oklahoma hospitals were overflowing with ivermectin
overdoses, preventing gunshot victims from getting beds.
(06:11):
And they point out, it apparently used a stock photo of
people in winter coats for an article about Oklahoma in the
summer. And the CNN segment where they
apparently colored her face green.
Yeah, they frame all this as a really coordinated effort to
just brand it as horse dewormer.Despite, as they point out, its
history of use in humans, Billions of doses, they say, for
(06:31):
parasites. Nobel Prize connection.
It's on the WH OS list of essential medicines.
And they even mentioned a recentVanity Fair piece still using
that horse dewormer term, which they clearly find objectionable.
So this intense negative messaging around a drug she felt
was working clinically, that wasa major theme.
It LED both of them, the host and Doctor Bowden, to seriously
(06:52):
question the motives of the institutions involved.
And Speaking of the host Joe Rogan, his own pandemic
experience, as he lays it out inthe conversation, sort of
mirrored hers in terms of causing a big shift in
perspective for him. Yeah, he talks very openly about
how he used to trust traditionalmedicine, the FDA, big Pharma.
Pretty standard viewpoint, you know.
(07:13):
But his own bout with COVID, plus just observing the overall
response, he says it completely changed his worldview.
He came to believe the system's compromised money ego.
Those were the words he used. He mentions getting COVID
himself, the delta variant, tookivermectin other stuff too and
says he recovered really fast like 3 days.
And the backlash he got for talking about that?
(07:35):
Immense. He mentions calls for Spotify to
drop him, even claims calls camefrom former presidents.
But interestingly, he felt that whole firestorm actually grew
his audience. People tuned in maybe expecting
something crazy. And found him, in his words,
really reasonable, just asking questions based on what happened
to him. He credits people like speaker
Robert Malone, who he identifiesas an mRNA tech inventor, and
(07:58):
Doctor Peter McCullough, described as highly published
people who also got negative labels for speaking out.
And his questioning went deep, right?
Even questioning the definition of vaccines, suggesting mRNA
shots or maybe closer to gene therapy.
And highlighting that huge issueof indemnity for the
manufacturers complete immunity from liability, they felt that
(08:19):
removed a key incentive for ensuring safety.
He also shared why he personallydecided against the shot,
mentioned AUFC allocation, getting pulled over, blood clot
concerns and hearing stories from friends, strokes,
pacemakers, even rapid cancer spread, according to his
accounts in the source. Those personal anecdotes, as
(08:39):
discussed, really cemented his skepticism.
So yeah, parallel journeys in some ways both ending up
questioning the mainstream narrative based on their
experiences. OK, let's circle back to Doctor
Baden's personal battles becauseof the source details some
really significant challenges she faced, which she feels show
what happened to doctors who didn't toe the line.
She talks about getting tangled up with Houston Methodist
(09:00):
Hospital. They were apparently one of the
first in the US to mandate the shots right.
And she says she questioned the vaccine data internally first,
felt like she was being gas lit,and then decided to speak out on
social media. And that's when, in her telling,
the real trouble started. Medical board complaints rolled
in. Yeah, from a pharmacist, the
mother of a transplant patient. But the big one, the one still
(09:22):
going on, involves a hospital inDallas and a sheriff's deputy
who died from COVID there. OK, so this situation as
presented in the source sounds incredibly complex.
The deputy's wife sued the hospital trying to get him
ivermectin. Dr. Bowden says she was asked to
get emergency privileges at thathospital to administer.
It but she claims the hospital just stalled made her jump
(09:43):
through hoops, lengthy application, surgical logs,
recommendation letters, all during a pandemic when doctors
were stretched thin. And ultimately, they denied her
privileges anyway. Then there was a court order
granting her temporary privileges.
But when she sent a nurse with acourt order, she says the nurse
was actually turned away by police at the hospital.
(10:04):
So the accusation that landed onher, according to the source,
was that she sent a nurse without privileges, caused a
disturbance and somehow harmed patients.
And this case is still dragging on. 3 1/2 years later, she says
summary judgement went against her, meaning found liable before
a full trial. Basically, she's waiting on the
punishment phase but plans to appeal.
(10:25):
And she mentioned having troublefinding an expert witness
willing to testify for her defense.
She feels that says a lot about the pressure other doctors are
under. Yeah, and she frames her
experience not as unique, but aspart of a wider effort, cites A
directive from the Federation ofState Medical Boards encouraging
state boards to discipline doctors like her.
Suggesting many others were effectively silenced by fear.
(10:48):
Fear of losing their license, facing similar battles.
So beyond the early treatment specifics, the conversation also
dug into some other really significant issues that came up
for them. Like vaccine injury for
instance, they point out what they see as a gap.
No official I CD10 code. You know, the standard
diagnostic code to specifically track vaccine injuries.
But there is one for vaccine hesitancy.
(11:10):
They know which they find telling.
They also talked about the CICP,that countermeasures Injury
Compensation program. The source claims it denies
something like 98% of applicants.
And the few who do get compensation, the average payout
is tiny, like $4000, according to their discussion.
There were also anecdotal observations shared about
(11:30):
potentially high spike protein antibody levels lingering years
later, possibly correlating withinjury and this idea.
Maybe spike protein production doesn't always stop when it's
supposed to. Hospital practices during COVID
were another huge point of discussion in the source.
Mention the suppression of monoclonals again, but for
hospitalized patients this time.And claims about ventilator use
(11:51):
being driven rigidly by oxygen saturation numbers, maybe not
always by looking at the whole patient clinically.
Plus this really striking claim about breathing treatments like
inhaled bootsinide. They claim hospitals forbade
them, fearing they'd spread the virus aerosols.
Even though doctors like RichardBartlett were apparently seeing
good results in advocating for them, only to be smeared,
(12:12):
according to the. Source And then there were those
really disturbing claims the host brought up.
Source to charts Doctor Bowden apparently reviewed allegations
of possible euthanasia in hospitals.
Yeah, those were heavy claims alleging patients given high
doses of morphine, insulin even with no pain or normal blood
sugar leading to death and DNR order is being put in place
(12:33):
without consent. Really serious allegations
presented in their conversation.Definitely serious and they
touched on legal hurdles too. The PRP act making it hard to
sue hospitals or doctors relatedto COVID care.
Though they did express some hope from specific lawsuits
challenging hospital protocols or the whistleblower case
against Pfizer involving Brooke Jackson, where there are claims
(12:55):
of DOJ interference reported in the source.
And underlying a lot of this, intheir view, money and power.
Yeah, the idea that money distorts medicine companies
funding studies can very inconvenient data.
They suggest that the whole system, media organizations can
be compromised. They also briefly touched on
some other related controversiesthat came up organically in
their chat. Things like questions about
(13:17):
fluoride and IQ. Right and re examining vaccine
timelines against sanitation improvements, the whole polio
DDT discussion came up. Also the obesity crisis, linking
it to processed foods, seed oils, questioning healthy at any
weight messages. And even future worries about
AI, manipulation of information,zero click surveillance, eroding
privacy, sort of broader societal trust issues
(13:40):
intertwined with health. Looking back at Doctor Bowden's
personal journey as she shared it, it sounds like a profound
transformation. She describes herself as
naturally shy, hated public speaking, but her experiences
basically forced her into becoming a public voice.
And she found a community. She says other doctors, other
outsiders who are also speaking out, found support there.
But the toll sounds immense. Exhaustion, fear, the constant
(14:04):
legal and professional stress. Yet she also talks about a sense
of freedom from speaking her truth and feeling she's grown
immensely as a doctor because ofit all.
But the flip side, as they discuss, is this undeniable
erosion of trust for many people.
Trust in the medical profession,trust in hospitals.
That's a clear theme emerging from their perspective.
And looking forward, there's definite concern voiced in the
(14:25):
conversation about new mRNA shots in development, including
some they called terrifying, like self amplifying ones
designed to potentially replicate longer.
But not all doom and gloom. They do see hope.
Hope in lawsuit potentially bringing accountability.
Hope in politicians, albeit slowly starting to speak out.
(14:47):
They mentioned an organization, Americans for Health Freedom,
tracking politicians willing to say the shot should be pulled.
So the fight continues. Is the message keeping the
conversation alive, pushing for accountability?
They really highlight this splitthey saw during the pandemic
compliant doctors versus non compliant doctors and how that
dictated who faced these kinds of pressures.
(15:07):
Well, this deep dive really tookus through one specific detailed
account from this conversation, one doctor's intense journey
through the pandemic years. It highlights this complex mix.
She described clinical practice versus institutional rules,
media narratives, and the background hum of money and
power and influencing things. Yeah, we heard about the
challenges as she saw them, whenwhat you observe in your
(15:28):
patients seems to contradict theofficial guidance, the personal
cost of choosing to speak out about that, and the ripple
effects they discussed for public trust in medicine.
What's really presented here is how personal conviction, backed
by what she saw as positive clinical results in her own
research, LED her into direct conflict with some very powerful
forces. So connecting this back to the
(15:49):
bigger picture that emerged fromtheir talk, it really leaves you
with a question, doesn't it? Given all the challenges
discussed in this one conversation, the information
battles, the conflicting incentives they perceived, the
doubts raised about institutionswe used to just trust, how do
you, the listener, navigate thisincredibly complex landscape of
health information today? Where do you even begin to
(16:11):
decide where to place your trust?
Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. And before we get going, you can
now access the full Google notebook with a mind map,
timeline and briefing document by clicking the link in the
description. OK, let's unpack this deep dive
our surf material today. It's a really interesting
conversation. It's from a recent podcast
features a well prominent host and a Doctor Who kind of found
(00:21):
herself right in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic response
unexpectedly. Right.
And our mission here is really to pull out the key insights,
the Nuggets of knowledge from what they talked about.
We're looking at this one physician's personal story, you
know, her experience with early treatment and the big challenges
she says she ran into. Yeah, especially when her
clinical observations, how she saw things, clashed with the
(00:44):
established narratives and protocols that were coming down.
It's definitely a specific viewpoint on the pressures
doctors faced back then, and it touches on these complex forces.
The doctor in this chat believeswe're in play, maybe beyond just
patient care. So we're essentially tracing her
account, how her practice and even her whole worldview shifted
under all that pressure. Absolutely.
(01:05):
So the doctor we're talking about is Doctor Mary Tally
Bowden. Background is ENT, ear, nose and
throat. Ran her own solo private
practice. And the timing, like you said,
is pretty wild. She mentions opening this
practice just six months, basically before the pandemic
really hit. Talk about jumping straight into
the fire. Seriously, from setting up a,
you know, probably pretty routine ENT practice to suddenly
(01:29):
being on the front lines of thismassive global crisis almost
overnight, according to her story.
Right. And she talks about her initial
approach very early on, treatingpatients with these new
respiratory symptoms before there were really specific COVID
protocols. She describes it as just using
common sense medicine, treating symptoms, breathing treatments,
(01:49):
antibiotics if she thought therewas maybe a secondary bacterial
thing going on, steroids too. And based on the conversation,
she felt that worked pretty wellinitially, that symptom based
approach, which makes sense. You know, early days doctors
didn't have a playbook for this specific virus.
So many were falling back on their basic clinical training.
OK, so that initial success, shesays, brought in more patients,
(02:11):
but then came the bottleneck testing.
She mentions labs like LabCorp being backed up for what like 2
weeks at one point which was ages then.
Yeah, a huge delay, but she already had a relationship with
the lab called Microgen DX, apparently for testing related
to chronic sinusitis in this lab.
Microgen, according to the source, developed a saliva test
(02:32):
for COVID. And that, she says, was a total
game changer for her clinic. Much faster results, often the
next day. Plus her clinic was in a strip
mall. Easy access.
So she could do drive up testingcontact free.
Yeah, she says that really put her clinic on the map locally,
just because people could actually get tested quickly
there. It's a neat little detail of
adapting on the fly, nobly so Then monoclonal antibodies come
(02:55):
onto the scene. She starts using them and the
source really emphasizes how effective she found them.
She uses this phrase like patients would often turn around
the next day. Yeah, dramatic improvements and
it. Yeah, right.
Initially not that controversial.
And clinically, she felt they were working wonders.
(03:16):
But the conversation points out that access started getting
tricky. Once the government took over
distribution, things tightened up.
And the reason given, according to the source discussion, was
that the virus strain had changed, so the antibodies
weren't effective anymore. Which she found, well, let's
just say frustrating because as she points out in the chat, the
same vaccine targeting what theywere now calling an older strain
(03:40):
was still being pushed. That discrepancy really bothered
her. Yeah, from her perspective
shared in the source, it felt inconsistent.
And she expresses this belief, you know, that maybe restricting
the monoclonals was partly aboutnudging people towards the
vaccine. That's her take presented in the
discussion. And that whole situation, she
says, is what led her to look ativermectin.
(04:01):
When the monoclonals got harder to obtain, she felt her patients
still needed treatment options. And she wasn't just going to,
you know, send them away empty handed.
Right. And the Ivermectin controversy
as they discuss it in the sourcewas just massive.
Huge. But before she used it, she
describes doing her own digging into the safety looking at FDA
data, the LD 50, that lethal dose benchmark in animal
(04:24):
studies, searching medical literature for reports of harm
from overdoses in humans, intentional or accidental.
And what she says she found was,well, pretty compelling to her.
The LD 15 animals was way higherlike 10 to 80 milligrams per
kilogram compared to the tiny dose she planned for COVID like
.4 MG kilogram and she couldn't find studies showing significant
(04:45):
harm from human overdoses unlikesay Tylenol which was mentioned
as a comparison. So based on that research
described in the source, she felt confident it was safe for
humans at those intended doses. Then she started using it, and
this is where her clinical observations as she presents
them get really potent. She states she treated what over
6000 patients with early treatment protocols that
included ivermectin. And the headline claims she
(05:07):
makes from that experience. 0 hospitalizations.
Yeah, she states. None of those patients ended up
in the hospital. Grow out of over 6000 treated
early. It's a it's a remarkable claim
presented there. Definitely.
And she also talks about treating sicker patients later
in the illness, people who actually refuse to go to the
hospital. In those cases, she says she
(05:29):
used a combination approach. Kind of threw the kitchen sink
at them. She put in it, including high
dose ivermectin. And even with those really sick
patients, she claims she saw successful outcomes.
She contrasts that approach tailoring treatment, the art of
medicine she calls it, with whatshe saw as these rigid,
one-size-fits-all protocols being pushed.
And a huge part of the conversation revolves around
(05:51):
what she and the host call the propaganda campaign against
ivermectin. They really dive into this.
Oh. Yeah, they bring up the FDA's
horse tweet. You know, seriously y'all,
you're not a horse. Right.
And that Rolling Stone article? The source says it falsely
claimed Oklahoma hospitals were overflowing with ivermectin
overdoses, preventing gunshot victims from getting beds.
(06:11):
And they point out, it apparently used a stock photo of
people in winter coats for an article about Oklahoma in the
summer. And the CNN segment where they
apparently colored her face green.
Yeah, they frame all this as a really coordinated effort to
just brand it as horse dewormer.Despite, as they point out, its
history of use in humans, Billions of doses, they say, for
(06:31):
parasites. Nobel Prize connection.
It's on the WH OS list of essential medicines.
And they even mentioned a recentVanity Fair piece still using
that horse dewormer term, which they clearly find objectionable.
So this intense negative messaging around a drug she felt
was working clinically, that wasa major theme.
It LED both of them, the host and Doctor Bowden, to seriously
(06:52):
question the motives of the institutions involved.
And Speaking of the host Joe Rogan, his own pandemic
experience, as he lays it out inthe conversation, sort of
mirrored hers in terms of causing a big shift in
perspective for him. Yeah, he talks very openly about
how he used to trust traditionalmedicine, the FDA, big Pharma.
Pretty standard viewpoint, you know.
(07:13):
But his own bout with COVID, plus just observing the overall
response, he says it completely changed his worldview.
He came to believe the system's compromised money ego.
Those were the words he used. He mentions getting COVID
himself, the delta variant, tookivermectin other stuff too and
says he recovered really fast like 3 days.
And the backlash he got for talking about that?
(07:35):
Immense. He mentions calls for Spotify to
drop him, even claims calls camefrom former presidents.
But interestingly, he felt that whole firestorm actually grew
his audience. People tuned in maybe expecting
something crazy. And found him, in his words,
really reasonable, just asking questions based on what happened
to him. He credits people like speaker
Robert Malone, who he identifiesas an mRNA tech inventor, and
(07:58):
Doctor Peter McCullough, described as highly published
people who also got negative labels for speaking out.
And his questioning went deep, right?
Even questioning the definition of vaccines, suggesting mRNA
shots or maybe closer to gene therapy.
And highlighting that huge issueof indemnity for the
manufacturers complete immunity from liability, they felt that
(08:19):
removed a key incentive for ensuring safety.
He also shared why he personallydecided against the shot,
mentioned AUFC allocation, getting pulled over, blood clot
concerns and hearing stories from friends, strokes,
pacemakers, even rapid cancer spread, according to his
accounts in the source. Those personal anecdotes, as
(08:39):
discussed, really cemented his skepticism.
So yeah, parallel journeys in some ways both ending up
questioning the mainstream narrative based on their
experiences. OK, let's circle back to Doctor
Baden's personal battles becauseof the source details some
really significant challenges she faced, which she feels show
what happened to doctors who didn't toe the line.
She talks about getting tangled up with Houston Methodist
(09:00):
Hospital. They were apparently one of the
first in the US to mandate the shots right.
And she says she questioned the vaccine data internally first,
felt like she was being gas lit,and then decided to speak out on
social media. And that's when, in her telling,
the real trouble started. Medical board complaints rolled
in. Yeah, from a pharmacist, the
mother of a transplant patient. But the big one, the one still
(09:22):
going on, involves a hospital inDallas and a sheriff's deputy
who died from COVID there. OK, so this situation as
presented in the source sounds incredibly complex.
The deputy's wife sued the hospital trying to get him
ivermectin. Dr. Bowden says she was asked to
get emergency privileges at thathospital to administer.
It but she claims the hospital just stalled made her jump
(09:43):
through hoops, lengthy application, surgical logs,
recommendation letters, all during a pandemic when doctors
were stretched thin. And ultimately, they denied her
privileges anyway. Then there was a court order
granting her temporary privileges.
But when she sent a nurse with acourt order, she says the nurse
was actually turned away by police at the hospital.
(10:04):
So the accusation that landed onher, according to the source,
was that she sent a nurse without privileges, caused a
disturbance and somehow harmed patients.
And this case is still dragging on. 3 1/2 years later, she says
summary judgement went against her, meaning found liable before
a full trial. Basically, she's waiting on the
punishment phase but plans to appeal.
(10:25):
And she mentioned having troublefinding an expert witness
willing to testify for her defense.
She feels that says a lot about the pressure other doctors are
under. Yeah, and she frames her
experience not as unique, but aspart of a wider effort, cites A
directive from the Federation ofState Medical Boards encouraging
state boards to discipline doctors like her.
Suggesting many others were effectively silenced by fear.
(10:48):
Fear of losing their license, facing similar battles.
So beyond the early treatment specifics, the conversation also
dug into some other really significant issues that came up
for them. Like vaccine injury for
instance, they point out what they see as a gap.
No official I CD10 code. You know, the standard
diagnostic code to specifically track vaccine injuries.
But there is one for vaccine hesitancy.
(11:10):
They know which they find telling.
They also talked about the CICP,that countermeasures Injury
Compensation program. The source claims it denies
something like 98% of applicants.
And the few who do get compensation, the average payout
is tiny, like $4000, according to their discussion.
There were also anecdotal observations shared about
(11:30):
potentially high spike protein antibody levels lingering years
later, possibly correlating withinjury and this idea.
Maybe spike protein production doesn't always stop when it's
supposed to. Hospital practices during COVID
were another huge point of discussion in the source.
Mention the suppression of monoclonals again, but for
hospitalized patients this time.And claims about ventilator use
(11:51):
being driven rigidly by oxygen saturation numbers, maybe not
always by looking at the whole patient clinically.
Plus this really striking claim about breathing treatments like
inhaled bootsinide. They claim hospitals forbade
them, fearing they'd spread the virus aerosols.
Even though doctors like RichardBartlett were apparently seeing
good results in advocating for them, only to be smeared,
(12:12):
according to the. Source And then there were those
really disturbing claims the host brought up.
Source to charts Doctor Bowden apparently reviewed allegations
of possible euthanasia in hospitals.
Yeah, those were heavy claims alleging patients given high
doses of morphine, insulin even with no pain or normal blood
sugar leading to death and DNR order is being put in place
(12:33):
without consent. Really serious allegations
presented in their conversation.Definitely serious and they
touched on legal hurdles too. The PRP act making it hard to
sue hospitals or doctors relatedto COVID care.
Though they did express some hope from specific lawsuits
challenging hospital protocols or the whistleblower case
against Pfizer involving Brooke Jackson, where there are claims
(12:55):
of DOJ interference reported in the source.
And underlying a lot of this, intheir view, money and power.
Yeah, the idea that money distorts medicine companies
funding studies can very inconvenient data.
They suggest that the whole system, media organizations can
be compromised. They also briefly touched on
some other related controversiesthat came up organically in
their chat. Things like questions about
(13:17):
fluoride and IQ. Right and re examining vaccine
timelines against sanitation improvements, the whole polio
DDT discussion came up. Also the obesity crisis, linking
it to processed foods, seed oils, questioning healthy at any
weight messages. And even future worries about
AI, manipulation of information,zero click surveillance, eroding
privacy, sort of broader societal trust issues
(13:40):
intertwined with health. Looking back at Doctor Bowden's
personal journey as she shared it, it sounds like a profound
transformation. She describes herself as
naturally shy, hated public speaking, but her experiences
basically forced her into becoming a public voice.
And she found a community. She says other doctors, other
outsiders who are also speaking out, found support there.
But the toll sounds immense. Exhaustion, fear, the constant
(14:04):
legal and professional stress. Yet she also talks about a sense
of freedom from speaking her truth and feeling she's grown
immensely as a doctor because ofit all.
But the flip side, as they discuss, is this undeniable
erosion of trust for many people.
Trust in the medical profession,trust in hospitals.
That's a clear theme emerging from their perspective.
And looking forward, there's definite concern voiced in the
(14:25):
conversation about new mRNA shots in development, including
some they called terrifying, like self amplifying ones
designed to potentially replicate longer.
But not all doom and gloom. They do see hope.
Hope in lawsuit potentially bringing accountability.
Hope in politicians, albeit slowly starting to speak out.
(14:47):
They mentioned an organization, Americans for Health Freedom,
tracking politicians willing to say the shot should be pulled.
So the fight continues. Is the message keeping the
conversation alive, pushing for accountability?
They really highlight this splitthey saw during the pandemic
compliant doctors versus non compliant doctors and how that
dictated who faced these kinds of pressures.
(15:07):
Well, this deep dive really tookus through one specific detailed
account from this conversation, one doctor's intense journey
through the pandemic years. It highlights this complex mix.
She described clinical practice versus institutional rules,
media narratives, and the background hum of money and
power and influencing things. Yeah, we heard about the
challenges as she saw them, whenwhat you observe in your
(15:28):
patients seems to contradict theofficial guidance, the personal
cost of choosing to speak out about that, and the ripple
effects they discussed for public trust in medicine.
What's really presented here is how personal conviction, backed
by what she saw as positive clinical results in her own
research, LED her into direct conflict with some very powerful
forces. So connecting this back to the
(15:49):
bigger picture that emerged fromtheir talk, it really leaves you
with a question, doesn't it? Given all the challenges
discussed in this one conversation, the information
battles, the conflicting incentives they perceived, the
doubts raised about institutionswe used to just trust, how do
you, the listener, navigate thisincredibly complex landscape of
health information today? Where do you even begin to
(16:11):
decide where to place your trust?
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.