This is a freedom-of-speech case. As such, the law in Texas sets a very high standard. To prevail in a defamation case, Bowden needs to prove that the hospital acted with actual malice towards her, and that they lied with reckless disregard for the facts. Under the SLAPP law, she needs to present convincing evidence right at the outset of litigation, or risk dismissal. The judge gets to make the call.
But in this case, I think it's highly likely that the hospital spokespersons did know they were acting maliciously. The SLAPP statutes were enacted to protect individuals speaking out against big institutions and politicians; but giant corporations have turned the statute on its head, using it to get legitimate lawsuits dismissed before they can get to a jury.
Fortunately, there is a right to appeal, and Dr. Bowden has the funds to continue. She stated on her Twitter feed, that she intends to move forward. So it's not over yet.
I dont think so. 1A pertains to political speech. It does not protect speech that creates a public health hazard. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The same is true for licensed physicians. Consider this example: say a physician went onTV and using the power and authority of their credentials and license urged people not to treat meningococcal meningitis or refuse treatment for rabies exposure. Is that freedom of speech? No. its deadly misinformation and it is unprofessional conduct. There no question. A mountain of data has proven the mRNA vaccines are safe and effective while ivermectin is useless.
About the Bowden case, you've got it backwards. The hospital's lawyers argued that the hospital has a 1st amendment right to say they think Bowden is a quack. So far, the Court is siding with the hospital on the grounds of the SLAPP statute, whose purpose is to protect 1st amendment free speech rights.
The First Amendment says, "congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It's not restricted to political speech.
Falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a criminal act in many jurisdictions, because of the danger that it will create a panic and cause immediate and proximate injuries and deaths. The matter was clarified in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), in which the Supreme Court said that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
What you are saying, is more analogous to an argument that it should be illegal to ask whether a fire was caused by arson. Or to prohibit debate on whether fire extinguishers or sprinklers are more effective for fighting fires. Or to state that only persons with a Medical Degree and a board certification in Burn Victim Treatment, should be qualified to opine on the causes of a theater fire. Which is especially self-serving when the doctor stands accused of being the arsonist.
To your point about meningitis or rabies: I can't think of a single person, qualified or not, who would want to withhold treatment per the standard of care for those conditions. Perhaps some religious fundamentalist might say so, but I doubt it. Why? Because those treatments work, and there's no controversy.
Whereas in the case of Covid treatments, you might think: where there's smoke, there's fire. Not just Malone and McCullough, but literally hundreds of highly qualified doctors and scientists are smelling smoke and crying fire.
Maybe it's time to check if your building is burning down?
What a huge surprise that a compromised, corrupt to the core judicial system would wholly support a compromised, corrupt to the core medical industry. I'm completely shocked!
Right. The entire judicial system and medical profession are alligned in a giant conspiracy to silence a handful of unqualified and previously unheard of doctors who know more than the top infectious disease professors in the country. Sure. Yeah. That makes sense.
Yes, Dr. Patmas, the "top infectious disease doctors" have been bought off by Big Pharma and are totally corrupt. I watched some of the FDA VRBPAC hearing that you mentioned earlier, and read some of those resumes, and it couldn't be more obvious. These people are making enormous sums of money by working on government and Big Pharma grants. Soon they'll be going through the revolving door to work for Pfizer directly. They aren't going to risk their gravy train.
What sort of Stalinist regime yields a 100% vote on a controversial topic? If there are any honest ID docs left, they've been intimidated into silence under threat of losing their licenses.
Dr. Bowden says she's kept 4500 covid patients out of the hospital. Meanwhile, what are those top ID doctors doing? See Dr. Mercola's article today, "How COVID patients died for profit" at articles.mercola.com (read it soon, before it gets pulled behind their paywall):
"By May 2020, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence.... Data presented by attorney Thomas Renz in 2021 showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.
Meanwhile, doctors at UChicago Medicine reported6 getting "truly remarkable" results using high-flow nasal cannulas in lieu of ventilators...
Yet despite these early indications that mechanical ventilation was as unnecessary as it was disastrous, placing COVID patients on life support is standard of care to this day, more than three years later. How could that be? ...
In early April 2020, Minnesota family physician and state Sen. Scott Jensen explained:
'Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you'll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much.'"
As for the malicious intent, I dont that will prevail. This action is not unique to Dr. Bowden. No doubt others have been booted off staff too. Most hospitals boot a couple of docs every year. Further, since she never admits, she is not a competitive threat to other ENTS who do so a restarint of trade argument will fail. Its really very starightforward. Dr. Bowden is an ENT and likely a vert good one. That is her speciality. She isn't an IM or ID doc and should be practicing in clinial areas where she doesnt have the training. I don't do tympanostomies and she should not be doing Infectious Diseases.
This is a freedom-of-speech case. As such, the law in Texas sets a very high standard. To prevail in a defamation case, Bowden needs to prove that the hospital acted with actual malice towards her, and that they lied with reckless disregard for the facts. Under the SLAPP law, she needs to present convincing evidence right at the outset of litigation, or risk dismissal. The judge gets to make the call.
But in this case, I think it's highly likely that the hospital spokespersons did know they were acting maliciously. The SLAPP statutes were enacted to protect individuals speaking out against big institutions and politicians; but giant corporations have turned the statute on its head, using it to get legitimate lawsuits dismissed before they can get to a jury.
Fortunately, there is a right to appeal, and Dr. Bowden has the funds to continue. She stated on her Twitter feed, that she intends to move forward. So it's not over yet.
I dont think so. 1A pertains to political speech. It does not protect speech that creates a public health hazard. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The same is true for licensed physicians. Consider this example: say a physician went onTV and using the power and authority of their credentials and license urged people not to treat meningococcal meningitis or refuse treatment for rabies exposure. Is that freedom of speech? No. its deadly misinformation and it is unprofessional conduct. There no question. A mountain of data has proven the mRNA vaccines are safe and effective while ivermectin is useless.
About the Bowden case, you've got it backwards. The hospital's lawyers argued that the hospital has a 1st amendment right to say they think Bowden is a quack. So far, the Court is siding with the hospital on the grounds of the SLAPP statute, whose purpose is to protect 1st amendment free speech rights.
The First Amendment says, "congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It's not restricted to political speech.
Falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a criminal act in many jurisdictions, because of the danger that it will create a panic and cause immediate and proximate injuries and deaths. The matter was clarified in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), in which the Supreme Court said that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
What you are saying, is more analogous to an argument that it should be illegal to ask whether a fire was caused by arson. Or to prohibit debate on whether fire extinguishers or sprinklers are more effective for fighting fires. Or to state that only persons with a Medical Degree and a board certification in Burn Victim Treatment, should be qualified to opine on the causes of a theater fire. Which is especially self-serving when the doctor stands accused of being the arsonist.
To your point about meningitis or rabies: I can't think of a single person, qualified or not, who would want to withhold treatment per the standard of care for those conditions. Perhaps some religious fundamentalist might say so, but I doubt it. Why? Because those treatments work, and there's no controversy.
Whereas in the case of Covid treatments, you might think: where there's smoke, there's fire. Not just Malone and McCullough, but literally hundreds of highly qualified doctors and scientists are smelling smoke and crying fire.
Maybe it's time to check if your building is burning down?
What a huge surprise that a compromised, corrupt to the core judicial system would wholly support a compromised, corrupt to the core medical industry. I'm completely shocked!
Right. The entire judicial system and medical profession are alligned in a giant conspiracy to silence a handful of unqualified and previously unheard of doctors who know more than the top infectious disease professors in the country. Sure. Yeah. That makes sense.
Yes, Dr. Patmas, the "top infectious disease doctors" have been bought off by Big Pharma and are totally corrupt. I watched some of the FDA VRBPAC hearing that you mentioned earlier, and read some of those resumes, and it couldn't be more obvious. These people are making enormous sums of money by working on government and Big Pharma grants. Soon they'll be going through the revolving door to work for Pfizer directly. They aren't going to risk their gravy train.
What sort of Stalinist regime yields a 100% vote on a controversial topic? If there are any honest ID docs left, they've been intimidated into silence under threat of losing their licenses.
Dr. Bowden says she's kept 4500 covid patients out of the hospital. Meanwhile, what are those top ID doctors doing? See Dr. Mercola's article today, "How COVID patients died for profit" at articles.mercola.com (read it soon, before it gets pulled behind their paywall):
"By May 2020, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence.... Data presented by attorney Thomas Renz in 2021 showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.
Meanwhile, doctors at UChicago Medicine reported6 getting "truly remarkable" results using high-flow nasal cannulas in lieu of ventilators...
Yet despite these early indications that mechanical ventilation was as unnecessary as it was disastrous, placing COVID patients on life support is standard of care to this day, more than three years later. How could that be? ...
In early April 2020, Minnesota family physician and state Sen. Scott Jensen explained:
'Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you'll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much.'"
As for the malicious intent, I dont that will prevail. This action is not unique to Dr. Bowden. No doubt others have been booted off staff too. Most hospitals boot a couple of docs every year. Further, since she never admits, she is not a competitive threat to other ENTS who do so a restarint of trade argument will fail. Its really very starightforward. Dr. Bowden is an ENT and likely a vert good one. That is her speciality. She isn't an IM or ID doc and should be practicing in clinial areas where she doesnt have the training. I don't do tympanostomies and she should not be doing Infectious Diseases.