Speculative: The Hydroxychloriquine Scandal

Michael Shrimpton comments on the huge scandal surrounding the failure to use Hydroxychloriquine to treat Covid-19.


Warning: Hydroxychlorquine is totally useless against COVID 19 and is dangerous when used due to cardiac risk.  Shrimpton’s analysis here is based on totally fake information.

That said, enjoy reading…

We’ve had an effective treatment – hydroxychloriquine – right from the very beginning of this crisis. The way in which this treatment has been rubbished, with WHO backing, has been a scandal. It’s the beginning of the end for the corrupt WHO and may even bring down the United Nations Organisation, the bent, German-controlled body which has inflicted such misery on the world since its creation in 1945.

Successor to the equally useless League of Nations the real, disguised purpose of the UN was to reverse the result of both World Wars, give Germany effective control over the colonial empires of the Allies and crush Jewish ambitions for a homeland in the British Mandated Territory of Palestine. In the events which happened Jerry was unable to block the establishment of the State of Israel, but the UN has been trying to undermine it ever since.

Fittingly, for an organisation once run by an Austrian war criminal, the UN has overseen more than 70 million war dead since 1945. It’s also made sure that Germany’s genocide against the Jews was not the last such crime against humanity. Genocide did not end in 1945, sadly, just as flu-based pandemics did not end in 1920.

It’s not clear when WHO first learnt of the accidental release of Covid-19 at Wuhan in October, but it has to have been before the end of 2019. Their strategy throughout has clearly been coordinated with Peking. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost due to the failure to warn Western governments of the danger in time and the rubbishing of effective treatments.

Trcyclic therapy

I am not a physician. Medication should only be taken on the advice of a qualified medical practitioner, but I understand that a combination or trycyclic therapy of 200 mg Hydroxychloriquine twice daily, 500 mg Azithromycin once daily and 220 mg of zinc sulphate once daily has been shown to be effective, if administered in the early stages of the disease.

As was shown with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Remdesivir has been effective in saving the lives of those in extremis. These are not the only effective treatments, but they are probably the best.

Zinc seems to play a critical role in absorption. Hydroxychloriquine on its own is not nearly as effective. That much was made clear by New Jersey physician Dr Vladimir Zelenko, whose work I have praised on these pages. Trials which have not involved combination therapy should effectively be disregarded, as should the NHS trial in Britain, where patients were given lethal doses, as previously reported. I agree that on its own Hydroxychloriquine has not proved that effective against Covid-19.

Please don’t send me a postcard saying ‘ah but not all the patients on that trial died, so the dosages can’t have been lethal’. ‘Lethal dose’ doesn’t mean lethal for everybody. When dealing with WMDs we normally use LD50, the dosage at which 50% of victims will die. Similarly when medical regulators refer to a lethal dose they don’t mean a dosage which will kill everybody. They mean a dose that no medical practitioner has any business giving a patient.


There is no point writing in and saying ‘what about side-effects’? No one is saying that Hydroxychloriquine does not produce side-effects for some patients, not least those with coronary heart disease. That’s one of the reasons why treatment should only as prescribed by a physician. Penicillin has quite serious side-effects for some patients. That doesn’t mean that doctors shouldn’t prescribe it to those who are penicillin tolerant.

Metformin, the superb treatment for diabetes, can have quite nasty side-effects for a minority of patients, some of whom may have to stop taking it. That doesn’t mean that the drug should be withheld from the majority who are tolerant of it, or for whom the side-effects are minor. In any event there are now slow-release forms of the drug.

Circulatory problems can be one of the symptoms of diabetes, leading in some cases to the loss of a limb. Which would you rather have, or rather not have? Losing weight is a great way to combat diabetes (fat absorbs insulin like a sponge), but losing an arm or a leg seems a bit extreme.

A lot of nonsense is talked about side-effects. Most medications produce side-effects for a minority, sometimes a vanishingly small minority. That should not stop drugs being approved in the first place, or prescribed in appropriate cases. It’s a question of balance.

Similar nonsense is talked about drug companies. They’re entitled to make a fair profit. Given the huge risks of developing new drugs the profits ‘Big Pharma’ make are hardly extortionate. Gilead Sciences Inc., who developed Remdesivir, have been thoroughly responsible. Modern medicine has made the world a safer and better place.

Exaggerated death stats

My original estimates have proved a bit too optimistic, but we are a long way from the worst case scenarios being touted in February, when there was excited talk of hundreds of millions of dead. (Do the people who wrote this nonsense watch Armageddon and want the asteroid to hit?)

Official death stats continue to be hugely exaggerated. Poor old George Floyd continues to be a Covid-19 statistic. Deaths by drowning and road accidents are still being mixed in with genuine Covid-19 deaths. This is a nonsense. Instead of imposing further lockdown restrictions and lecturing us about washing our hands elected leaders should be telling everybody there’s a cure for this terrible disease and trying to introduce some intellectual rigor to official stats.

My rough rule of thumb is to divide the official death stats by two-thirds to get a reliable figure. There are legitimate arguments to be had about whether you count those where death has been accelerated by months rather than days or weeks. There is no argument for including people who have the misfortune to be run over by a bus after a positive test for Covid.

I would refine the stats into two separate groups – those where Covid-19 is the principal cause of death and those where it is a contributory factor. George Floyd might even end up in the latter category.

Professor Harvey Risch

My attention has been drawn to a serious article by Professor Harvey Risch in the American Journal of Epidemiology, published on May 27th, Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis. Professor Risch is an epidemiologist and with respect knows what he’s talking about. I totally agree with him, with respect, that the harassment of doctors for prescribing Hydroychloriquine should stop. It’s unscientific.

Since the publication of his article there have been large-scale trials with Hydroxychloriquine, not least in Brazil. The death rate dropped significantly. On the same day the article was published the Swiss government, crazily, banned the outpatient use of Hydroxychloriquine. The death rate jumped. Go figure, as they say at NASA.

Instead of listening to scientists like Harvey Risch, to whom I am copying this article as a courtesy, governments have listened to health bureaucrats like Dr Death, sorry Fauci. Once we have a vaccine as well we’re going to kick this disease into touch. And no, I’m not an anti-vaxxer. I treat each vaccine on its merits. Most work, some don’t.

Science by the way works a little bit like intelligence. Firstly you need some of your own in order to be able to do the job. You then approach the problem you are trying to solve with intellectual rigor. You don’t reject a conclusion because you don’t like it. If a hypothesis, like the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, doesn’t fit the facts, you try another one. Above all, you don’t let politicians dictate your conclusions to you.

The latest peerages

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has bestowed a peerage upon the great England cricketer Sir Ian Botham. I can only think of two other cricketers who have been made peers on the basis mainly of their achievements on the field, although of course each made contributions in other walks of life: Colin Cowdrey, whom I had the privilege of meeting at Arundel many years ago, and the great pre-war West Indian all-rounder Learie Constantine. Sir Ian, if I may say so, is a worthy addition to these two fine human beings. The Earl of Home, whom I met, played first-class cricket, but his peerage was hereditary. (As well as playing cricket he also became Prime Minister, but he is remembered chiefly for his achievements on the cricket field.)

Lord Botham, as we may now call him, was viciously targeted by Germany’s GO2 in the 1980s. A national hero, he lifted national morale with his heroic achievements in the 1981 Ashes Test series against Australia. (That will be a tautology for my readers in Britain and the Commonwealth, I know, but most of my readers are American). There was a silly prosecution, pursued in bad faith on the orders of the Cabinet Office (arguably another tautology, since the Cabinet Office has never been known to act in good faith). There were media set-ups as well.

The media attacks were a classic example of Tall Poppy Syndrome. Ian Botham was a great man and a great cricketer, so they had to bring him down. They’d have had a go at Nelson, given half a chance. Lord Nelson of course was another great national hero, even though he never scored a century against the Australians. (He couldn’t bowl either, although he fired in a few yorkers against the French.) (A yorker pitches just in front of the batsman or French flagship, as the case may be.)

Philip Johnstone, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, normally a reliable sort of chap, queried the widely-rumored elevation of Ian Botham. He thought that Ken Clarke and Philip Hammond, each of whom has also been elevated, were more deserving. He opined that they would bring expertise to the House of Lords, although he didn’t specify exactly what expertise he thought they possessed. Since each of them was a Chancellor of the Exchequer it can hardly have been economic expertise. Neither has played a Test Match.

I should explain that Chancellors of the Exchequers are carefully chosen for their inability to manage the economy. In particular it is essential, so far as the Cabinet Office is concerned, that they do not understand the Laffer Curve and think that the way to raise more taxes is to increase tax rates. They also need to obsess on the onshore economy and ignore the huge piles of cash offshore, much of which is owed to the British Treasury.

Mail-in fraud

Poor old President Trump has come in for some stick over his tweet re postponing the election. I suspect that the President knew what he was doing, with respect. He must have known that Congress would never agree to postpone.

I think he was putting down a marker. Mail-in ballots carry with them a huge risk of fraud. Since the Democratic Party is far more corrupt than the Republican Party, no offense intended, they are going to be the largest beneficiaries.

The President’s tweet fired a shot across the Democrats’ bows. They face the same problem every corrupt political party trying to rig an election has always faced – the lack of legitimacy should they win. The answer is extremely careful vetting of the vote come November. It’s probably too late to restrict mail-in voting. That ship has sailed, sadly.

The murdered German operative Jeffrey Epstein

Clinton and Epstein

I’m not paying too much attention to the claims by the former prostitute Virginia Roberts about President Clinton. This is the same lady, if that is not too strong a word with respect, who claims to have slept with HRH the Duke of York. That claim, supported by a forged photo, has now been exposed for the sham it always was.

I’m well aware that Virginia Roberts styles herself a former sex-slave, not a prostitute, but I’m not buying that either, with every respect. Holding an adolescent against their will for three years is not a simple task, as any parent will confirm.

The FBI of course have known for years that the Roberts/Duke of York photo is a fake. It’s time they said so and stopped acting in bad faith. It’s also high time that they started a serious investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s murder last year. They won’t of course – the FBI have no problem with murder, provided that the Correa/COREA Group have sanctioned the hit.

I suspect the claims against Bill Clinton will fall away, in much the same way that the claims against Prince Andrew have. Only the MSM are taking the latter seriously, and they believe in global warming!


It’s August and I’m off on a staycation, so no column next week! Time for some seaside fun!

Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. When did WHO first learn of the accidental release of Covid-19 at Wuhan? Well, WHO’s website initially said that China had reported the accidental release to them on Dec. 31. But recently, WHO has changed/clarified that. They now say that WHO picked up traffic among the Chinese, and WHO reported to the world on their own. I suspect neither version is quite true.

Comments are closed.