A few weeks ago I published a short essay, framed as a critique of Boris Johnson’s biography of Churchill, and titled The Johnson Factor: How one man Failed History.
In it I drew attention to a paragraph in the witness statement that Patrick Vallance submitted to the Hallett Inquiry. It reads as follows:
‘In any pandemic there will inevitably be pressure to introduce interventions that are not supported by proper clinical evidence (for example proposals to introduce Vitamin D for the whole population in the hope this would increase protection against Covid-19, or to use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin for treatment). It is vitally important that such pressure is resisted and that proposed pharmaceutical interventions are tested in well-designed clinical trials. History tells us that many interventions that appear useful in small trials or anecdotes turn out not to be effective or even to be harmful when tested in larger scale trials.’
My observations about that paragraph were:
‘. . . first glancing aside to wonder whether anybody has carried out proper clinical trials of Vitamin C as a preventative against scurvy and, presuming not, whether Vallance would argue on those grounds that it can’t be recommended for long sea voyages, I must be allowed to respond as a mere foot soldier, one of the poor bloody infantry. Firstly, the benefits of taking supplementary Vitamin D in winter – especially for some ethnic groups – are commonly agreed on. Does Vallance dispute them? In which case, wouldn’t it help if he made his position clear? Secondly, on 3 April 2020 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence issued guidelines which recommended the use of morphine and midazolam for those hospitalised with Covid. After that date their use spiked dramatically, as did mortality. Had I been so unfortunate as to become ill with Covid in April or May 2020, or any time since for that matter, I would rather a doctor had experimented on me with HCQ or ivermectin than eased my passing with an end of life cocktail. Thirdly, I do wonder how a nation’s healthcare system can be manipulated into vigorously endorsing an experimental vaccine while failing to advertise the benefits of Vitamin D, and refusing its clinicians permission to use therapeutic drugs with established safety records. Such may be how science advances. It may, or may not, be how medicine advances. It is certainly not how society advances.’
In that passage I referenced one of John Campbell’s videos. I make no apologies for attempting to understand what has recently been done in this country, and much of the ‘free’ world, partly through his videos. They are, doubtless, not the kind of perfect scientific or authoritative resource that Vallance would approve of. Their great advantage for me is that, even if there are occasions when some of Campbell’s medical terminology goes over my head, they are generally comprehensible. As a layman I can follow them. So, given that I had criticised Vallance’s observations about the possible misuse of ivermectin, HCQ and Vitamin D I paid particular attention to Campbell’s recent discussion with Robert Clancy. All three were mentioned. In particular, Clancy, it transpired, has been getting very encouraging results from treating a small number of patients who were suffering from either long-Covid or vaccine damage with ivermectin. What is more, he was able to explain the mechanism which apparently makes it an effective treatment.
On that, I won’t go into detail. There is no point, as any readers who are interested are far more likely to benefit from Campbell and Clancy’s discussion than any attempt I can make to summarise it. It was doubly ironic, however, to note Clancy’s comments about being prevented from prescribing HCQ by a health bureaucrat (about 38 minutes into the video). The man or woman in question was no doubt very properly motivated, rather like Vallance, by the vital importance of not authorising the use of established off-patent pharmaceuticals that hadn’t been approved for treating a new virus by first testing them, ‘in well-designed clinical trials’.
Again, as a mere foot soldier, just one of the poor bloody infantry, I will add that I would rather that my nation’s health regulations were guided by people who think like Campbell and Clancy, than by people who think like Vallance.
 UK Covid-19 inquiry. Witness Statement of Sir Patrick Vallance, 11 April 2023, p 34.
 Dr John Campell. YouTube, 14 February 2023.
 Dr John Campell. YouTube, 26 January 2024. Fortunately Campbell’s videos are now also available on Rumble, which appears to be free of the sort of corporate censorship which YouTube is occasionally subject to.