Replies

Following my previous post, I did a little research into these doctors.

It is as I thought. Paul Marik is associated with a charlatan group “FLCCC” that recommends anything but tested and accepted treatment protocols. For example, among its many questionable recommendations for early Covid treatment, it lists fluvoxamine, which is a psychoactive drug meant for treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (as well as the old charlatan standbys ivermectin (IM) and hydroxychloroquine (HC) and a bunch of supplements). Is Covid, then, a psychiatric disorder related to OCD? I don’t think so.

The FLCCC also recommends a “MATH+” protocol for hospitalized patients which actually does list antiviral medication (but not a specific antiviral) buried in the other questionable recommendations. Of note, Malik and two others published a case study on the MATH+ protocol in a reputable medical journal, but it was retracted. The sponsoring hospital reviewed the data from the study and found that Malik and colleagues had referenced 191 patients in the study, but only 73 were actually treated with the MATH+ protocol. And among those 73, the death rate from Covid was actually 28%—which is at the high end of mortality rates reported in the medical literature.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0885066620973585

The Texas Medical Board recently filed a complaint against Mary Bowden for ethical lapses including prescribing medications (notably, IM and HC) to patients she had never examined and who were under the care of another physician. Her admitting privileges at Houston Methodist hospital had previously been suspended because she had been telling patients that vaccines don’t work and that the hospital would not treat unvaccinated patients. (Which is ridiculous. There is a lot more profit in treating the unvaccinated because they get a lot sicker and require more staff and resources to treat. Ka-ching!)
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/health-science/2023/06/09/454104/texas-medical-board-complaint-mary-bowden-houston-doctor-prescription-patient-confidentiality-violations/ (Note: this page requires a free subscription to read.)

I could not find much on Robert Apter, other than about his involvement in the lawsuit filed back in Jun 2022.

Last, as for the lawsuit itself, I found this at the Boyden Gray website:
https://boydengray.com/complaint-in-apter-v-hhs-no-322-cv-184-s-d-tx-june-2-2022-2/
This page contains a non-functional link prefaced by “Setting up fake worker failed: “Cannot load script at [web address].” Presumably, this should link to the lawsuit filed Jun 2, 2022.

The fact that most of the lawsuit has already been dismissed and that only the part citing what the plaintiffs claim is language by the FDA overstepping its regulatory boundaries is going forward means that the plaintiffs have already lost the substantive issue of the lawsuit. The FDA actually *is* allowed to state the correct usage protocols of the drugs that it approves. This is not the FDA acting as a physician; this is the FDA providing the information to physicians and patients (because, otherwise, how would they know?).

Here is an entire FDA web page describing the use of the Pfizer vaccine:
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/coronavirus-covid-19-cber-regulated-biologics/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccines

This page also contains links to various approval documents granted to Pfizer by the FDA. While antivax charlatans love to claim that the FDA is keeping the data secret, it is all there if you care to read all the memoranda and follow all the links. The 45 page decision memorandum dated April 18, 2023 summarizes studies and provides links to detailed study reviews, such as this 74 page study description https://www.fda.gov/media/159393/download. The FDA does not provide the raw data, which would probably be meaningless to anyone who is not a professional involved in clinical studies, but Pfizer stores that data and the FDA reviewed it.