Italy Covid-19 Possible Breakthrough, Heparin Drug

By Enza Ferreri

This article was published on Italy Travel Ideas


The mistake pretty much everywhere has been treating seriously-ill Covid-19 patients with ventilators, which requires a highly-invasive surgery for intubation, the insertion of a tube attached to artificial ventilation into the trachea, and didn’t achieve a good rate of success.

The hypothesis has now started to make headway that the main cause of death is not pneumonia, but a generalised venous thromboembolism.

Embolism is the obstruction of an artery or vein caused by a body foreign to normal blood flow, the most common of which is blood coagulation, i.e. clotting, in which case it is known as thromboembolism. The most frequent venous embolisms are pulmonary embolisms, in which a deep vein thrombosis gives rise to a thrombus, a blood clot, a part of which detaches and is transported by the bloodstream to obstruct a pulmonary artery, causing embolism.

Pulmonary embolism symptoms include breathing difficulties, and can even lead to death.

Treatment usually is by the administration of anticoagulant drugs, such as heparin and coumadin.

"Thrombosis Possible First Cause of Coronavirus Deaths"

Those above are the words of Dr Giampaolo Palma, expert in Echocardiography and Interventional Cardiology, who also said:

Gentlemen, Covid-19 first of all damages the vessels, the cardiovascular system, and only then does it reach the lungs. It is venous microthrombosis, not pneumonia that determines fatality.

He is one of the many Italian physicians who are using the anticoagulant medication heparin and exchanging information about it through a wide nationwide network.

One of the first was Professor Sandro Giannini of Bologna, who states:

Ventilation of the lung where the blood does not reach would be useless therapy; in other words, the cause of the lung damage is the development of a coagulopathy, disseminated intravascular coagulation.

This was discovered through autopsies and echocardiograms, following the disconcerting results of analysis of large samples of ventilated COVID-19 patients, which showed that mortality rates among them could be as high as two thirds.

The UK's Intensive Care National Audit and Research Center (ICNARC) published data of a study on the first 24 hours of 3,883 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (the illness from SARS-CoV-2) admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).

Among patients whose ICU outcome is known, 66.3% of the 1053 patients who required mechanical ventilated died, compared with 19.4% of the 444 patients who required basic respiratory support.

This mortality rate is much higher than for ventilated patients with different types of viral pneumonia, which is 35.1%.

These results are similar in the observation of smaller samples of patients in China and the USA.

Something was obviously wrong, and there have been recent claims of excessive use of ventilators and even risks of ventilator-induced lung injury.

Autopsies on patients who were ill from SARS-CoV-2 revealed signs of massive thrombosis.

In addition, from echocardiograms performed in Italy for Coronavirus patients it seemed that patients go to resuscitation for generalised venous thromboembolism, especially pulmonary.

The echocardiogram (or echo) is a type of ultrasound scan to look at the heart and neighbouring blood vessels.

In Lombardy, the region most affected by the novel coronavirus in Italy and one of the most hit in the world, cardiologists became convinced that a new approach was needed. The frontline Lombardy doctors announced:

The main problem is not so much the virus as the immune reaction that destroys the cells which the virus enters. Rheumatoid arthritis patients have never been hospitalised in our COVID-19 wards because they are under cortisone or an anti-inflammatory therapy. It has not been easy to understand this because the signs of microembolism are tenuous even through echocardiogram. By taking care of the infection at home, we could avoid not only hospitalisation but also the thrombotic risk. We have thus been able to ascertain that the most exposed hospitals are administering low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) to their patients, with good results.

The drug allows you to maintain the right fluidity of the blood, limiting the possibility of coagulation.

The Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) has already launched an efficacy study on the administration of heparin, recommending a case-by-case evaluation for the time being.

At the moment, some data confirm its effectiveness, because anticoagulants are proving able to reduce at least by 25% hospitalisations in Covid-19 wards in Tuscany.

In addition, enoxaparin sodium, another anticoagulant medication used to treat and prevent deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, seems to have a double effect: not only it prevents thrombus formation but also it makes the SARS-CoV-2 bind with the drug thus preventing the virus from entering our cells and reproducing.

I'll keep you posted.


All emphases are added.

REFERENCES
Ventilators' Higher Mortality Rates
Cardiologi lombardi
Professor Sandro Giannini di Bologna
Il coronavirus danneggia i vasi sanguigni
Covid-19, la cura sperimentale con l'eparina in Toscana funziona
PHOTO CREDIT
Image by Sumanley xulx from Pixabay

The Two Popes Film: Much Fiction, Little Truth & History

This article has been published on the website Italy Travel Ideas .

During the Christmas holidays I watched the film The Two Popes, directed by Fernando Meirelles, recently released by Netflix.

It is based on the 2017 play The Pope by Anthony McCarten, in which he imagined conversations that never occurred between Pope Francis when he was still Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Pope Benedict XVI, and the screenplay is also by McCarten.

What is bad about this movie is not so much that fiction is vastly more abundant than the meagre quantity of reality as the fact that, if a viewer does not know the events already, he receives no clue from the film about what is truth and what is fantasy.

As if to help people in discerning that, in the infant 2020 year new serious conflicts have been widely reported in the media between the two real Popes, whose fictional cinematic counterparts in Meirelles's work are fundamentally on the exact same page. In reality there are many divergences of ideas between them.

As most people will probably know, we are now in that historically unique situation of actually having two Popes in the monarchic institution of the Church (the adjective, stemming from the Greek monos, meaning "one", and arché, "authority", should give a hint).

This is because Pope Benedict XVI, when he abdicated in 2013 (another near-unique event in 2,000 year's history, further sign of the exceptional times the Church is going through), declared he was not renouncing the spiritual role and duties deriving from the "munus Petrinum" (Peter's function) but only the active office of his ministry as Pontiff.

The Pope, successor of St Peter, is the visible head of the Catholic Church; the invisible head is Jesus Christ, Who founded it with these words:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build My church,
And the gates of hell will not prevail against it:
And I will give you the keys
To the kingdom of heaven.

Whatever you bind on earth
Will be bound also in heaven;
And whatever you release on earth
Will be released also in heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)

So Benedict XVI kept living in the Vatican, dressing in white, and more importantly maintained his title of Pope, with the addition of "Emeritus", a Latin adjective for a person who, no longer exercising a specific office, still keeps its title and honours. University professors are more common recipients of this name. In short he remained Pope too.

In that sense, "the two Popes" is an expression which never before could have been used in reference to the same period of time.

There have been only six other Popes to have abdicated in the Church's bimillenary history, but no Pope in renouncing the Throne of Peter assumed the title of "Emeritus" before Benedict XVI.

The Popes Upside Down

This is the context. Going back to the film, far from a portrayal of reality, the movie The Two Popes runs dangerously close to turning reality upside down, pandering to all falsities and prejudices spread by the media in all these recent years, driven by ideological and political motivations.

Therefore, we see or are led to believe that Joseph Ratzinger is the culprit in sexual abuse cover-ups whereas he is the one who, both as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before becoming Pope and after ascending the Chair of St Peter, made it possible to remove those who used the priesthood to assault mostly teenage boys and then removed hundreds of them, whereas in this area Francis left unanswered many accusations of protecting homosexual high-ranking prelates like former US Cardinal Theodore McCarrick preying on young men.

Francis is portrayed in the movie as the darling of the crowds, friendly and good-tempered, unlike Pope Ratzinger who is shown as rigid, harsh, austere, and even pronouncing that he is not liked. And again, the truth is entirely different: the number of people attending celebrations in St Peter's Square was higher for the latter than the former.

In conclusion, let's hear on First Things John Waters, who is a playwright himself:

Having tried it a couple of times, I understand the difficulties of converting a real-life story to fictional form, either for stage or screen. Life is too detailed and complex to translate unedited into drama. To marshal the energies of a real-life story, it is always necessary to nip and tuck, elide, compress, transpose, foreshorten, conflate. But in doing this, it is all the more vital that the essence of a story be protected and respected.

McCarten, speaking of writing versions of real-life figures, has said: “Whether they’re alive or dead, you still have to do justice to them. You can’t do injury to their character. You can’t have them doing terrible things when they didn’t do terrible things.” How, then, can he justify The Two Popes? It treats Benedict XVI as though he were not human, as though he were not alive, as though he were unbeloved, as though he had never existed. This is outrageous, yes, but it is also not good art. The propulsion of story is an insufficient justification for the levels of invention, prejudice, and partisanship on display here. The movie title is elaborated by the weasel words, “Inspired by true events.” Yes, but this inspiration has resulted in a farrago of falsehoods. McCarten owes Benedict an apology.

There are perhaps only two good things in this movie. One is the way the two main actors resemble the Popes, respectively Anthony Hopkins Benedict XVI and even more Jonathan Pryce Pope Francis. The other is the setting of some scenes, like the occasional glimpse of a reconstruction of the Sistine Chapel and the scenes filmed outside or near the Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo, the Papal summer residence in the lovely countryside close to Rome, simply stunning.

Coronavirus Lockdown Effectiveness, Other Doubts

One of the few certainties about this novel virus and the pandemic it is spreading is that, being new (or at least new to us, namely newly discovered), we don't know very much about it, and we are constantly learning about it all the time.

But, being human and not liking uncertainty in a similar way in which nature abhors vacuum, we try to jump to conclusions, any conclusion, in fact, just to avoid doubt, chaos and disorder (a very natural feeling). So we grab at many different explanatory theories, whether supported a lot, a little or not at all.

This is The Times of Israel reporting on the theory held by someone the newspaper describes as a top Israeli mathematician:

"I have no explanation but the numbers speak for themselves."

Top Israeli prof claims simple stats show virus plays itself out after 70 days.

Isaac Ben-Israel, who is not a medical expert, says analysis worldwide shows new cases peaking after about 40 days, slams economic closures; leading doctor dismisses his claims.

So, according to Professor Ben-Israel, head of the Security Studies program in Tel Aviv University and the chairman of the National Council for Research and Development, "simple statistical analysis demonstrates that the spread of COVID-19 peaks after about 40 days and declines to almost zero after 70 days — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it."

What is intriguing is that, minus the mathematical and statistical calculations, a similar view, at least in its practical conclusions, is supported by another person in the news, who has been accused of "anti-Semitism", ie David Icke:

On Wednesday night Icke shared his unsubstantiated views in an edited interview for London Real: COVID-19, and shared baseless claims on coronavirus including that mandatory vaccination for the virus would be 'fascism' and include 'nanotechnology microchips'.

… he appeared to justify attacks on 5G masts around the UK, adding 'human life as we know it is over' if the construction continued.

The 5G theory has been discredited by experts, with Public Health England stating that 'the overall exposure is expected to remain low relative to guidelines and, as such, there should be no consequences for public health.' The new coronavirus is also spreading in places without 5G networks, including in Iran.

Strange bedfellows as they may be, Icke shares with Professor Ben-Israel the hypothesis that the lockdown doesn't help to limit the spread of Covid-19, as shown on this tweet of his with a diagram comparing countries with and without lockdown measures:

Compare this image, though, with the one pictured above this post and you'll see how focusing only on deaths per million and removing cases per million gives a very different picture: this should provide an indication of the complexity of the issue, which doesn't lend itself to over-simplifications, much as we would love to rely on them.

Icke is not the only one to believe in the uselessness of lockdowns, there are many, especially among conservative and Right-oriented people, who are sceptical of their government's policies and think the same.

Now, I am in no position to categorically declare that this idea is right or wrong. As I said at the beginning, we don't have enough information.

I do have some doubts about using pure mathematics to arrive at conclusions like those of Ben-Israel on this. Correlation doesn't mean and doesn't necessarily involve causation. In Latin, this supremely logical and succinct language, it's better: post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.

For example, is it possible that countries with less contact with the rest of the world and therefore fewer opportunities for contagion (ah, the joys of globalisation! we have finally discovered them in their full glory) have had lower numbers of cases of Covid-19 and therefore had a comparable smaller need for lockdown than those with more international traffic and Coronavirus spread which as a consequence resorted more to lockdown, inverting the cause-effect direction?

Has this been considered as a contributing factor, anyway?

At least we have a glimmer of hope, though: it's the prediction on the progress of the disease in Israel made by Professor Ben-Israel on last 12 April on Facebook, which I have to reproduce in its online translation:

It turns out that the expansion of the expansion [meaning, I presume, the peak] has been behind us for about a week, and apparently it will fade almost completely in about two weeks.

Assuming the translation is accurate, we can wait about two weeks to see if his prediction for Israel materialises and test whether his theory might be correct.

Walkers, Joggers, Cyclists Coronavirus Risks Study

I've noticed that in and around London pedestrians, joggers and cyclists don't always respect the minimum 2 metres' distance of social distancing recommended to limit the spread of Coronavirus.

The Guardian, helpfully, points out another anti-social behaviour in the streets which is more dangerous now: spitting.

But new research has uncovered that the 2 metres' distance deemed sufficient for people standing still, for example when queueing outside a shop, is not enough in times of COVID-19 when someone is exercising.

These are the conclusion of a Belgian-Dutch study.

There is some confusion among the public on this question, in view of the widespread notion, supported by the WHO (World Health Organisation), that the new virus is not spread via the air but by contact with people or surfaces. This is because the aerosols - minuscule particles floating in the air - containing the virus don't remain in the atmosphere long enough to cause a risk.

However, in a situation in which a person is walking, running or cycling after another, the droplets may still be in the air before they settle down on a surface.

Civil Engineering and Sports Aerodynamics researchers at Belgium's University of Leuven and the Netherlands' University of Eindhoven created simulations to investigate these risks.

Professor Bert Blocken, Study Coordinator of the white paper just published, in an interview to The Brussels Times explained why the measures for people standing still are "ineffective" for those walking, running or cycling:

When people speak, exhale, cough or sneeze they generate droplets, and while the largest droplets tend to fall to the ground first, the smaller ones can remain in the air a bit longer, so it is important that a person who is behind another does not walk into this cloud of droplets.

The Urban Physics, Wind Engineering, Sports Aerodynamics expert has extensively studied the aerodynamic advantages of slipstreaming in cycling, which is the act of a cyclist riding behind a team-mate or rival to save energy and thus gain a benefit: in sport terminology this is usually called "drafting".

But in the Coronavirus pandemic the disadvantages and dangers of this behaviour are remarkable.

The simulations show that the respiratory droplets of someone potentially infected with the virus could come into contact with anyone located behind him by travelling through a slipstream or wake, the area that a person in movement creates behind him.

From Blocken's simulations it appears that social distancing requirement may be smaller for two people running or walking beside each other, as the droplets land behind them. When they are positioned diagonally behind each other the risk to catch the droplets of the lead runner is also smaller. The risk of contamination is the biggest when people are just behind each other, in each other’s slipstream.

The researcher compared slipstreams to a vacuum or drag effect which occurs when the regular airflow is disturbed by someone who is in motion.

Luckily, although slipstreams can even be as long as 10-15 metres, Blocken observed that they remained quite narrow and that respiratory droplets tended to evaporate quite quickly.

Based on this study's results, the scientist advises greater social distances for people on the move:

• those who walk in the same direction in one line should maintain a distance of at least 4–5 metres
• for running and slow cycling the distance should be 10 metres
• for hard, fast cycling it should be at least 20 metres
• for overtaking, cyclists should be in a different lane at a considerable distance, e.g. 20 metres.

I don't wish to unnecessarily worry anyone, but we all should be cautious in these times of pandemic for the sake of others as well as ourselves.


PHOTO CREDIT
Image by Maciej Cieslak from Pixabay

Chinese Communist Regime Caused Coronavirus Pandemic, Says Asian Catholic Church Head

This is, in its bare truth, what communism, in spite of all its edulcorations, wishful-thinking illusions of a better world, lying promises, and deceiving claims of self-alleged philanthropism, really is.

Cardinal Charles Bo, president of the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences, said in an official public statement on 1 April:

The Chinese regime led by the all-powerful Xi [Jinping] and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) – not its people – owes us all an apology, and compensation for the destruction it has caused. At a minimum it should write off the debts of other countries, to cover the cost of Covid-19. For the sake of our common humanity, we must not be afraid to hold this regime to account. Christians believe, in the words of the Apostle, Paul, that “the truth will set you free” [in reality it is the Gospel of the Apostle John 8:32]. Truth and freedom are the twin pillars on which all of our nations must build surer and stronger foundations.

Cardinal Bo, the Archbishop of Yangon, in Myanmar, added: "[T}he Chinese people were the first victims of this virus and have long been the primary victims of their repressive regime".

The Cardinal recalled how the Chinese authorities silenced doctors, journalists and intellectuals who raised the alarm as early as December, and waited until 23 January to isolate Wuhan and Hubei:

When the virus first emerged, the authorities in China suppressed the news. Instead of protecting the public and supporting doctors, the CCP silenced the whistleblowers. Worse than that, doctors who tried to raise the alarm – like Dr. Li Wenliang in Wuhan Central Hospital who issued a warning to fellow medics on 30 December – were ordered by the police to “stop making false comments”. Dr. Li, a 34 year-old ophthalmologist, was told he would be investigated for “spreading rumors” and was forced by the police to sign a confession. He later died after contracting coronavirus.

Young citizen journalists who tried to report on the virus then disappeared. Li Zehua, Chen Qiushi and Fang Bin are among those believed to have been arrested simply for telling the truth. Legal scholar Xu Zhiyong has also been detained after publishing an open letter criticizing the Chinese regime’s response.

Moreover, he cited a damning study from an English university:

An epidemiological model at the University of Southampton found that had China acted responsibly just one, two or three weeks more quickly, the number affected by virus would have been cut by 66 percent, 86 percent and 95 percent respectively. Its failure has unleased a global contagion killing thousands.

The Chinese Communist Party is a "threat to the world" were the words of the Yangon Archbishop, and Xi’s regime "is responsible, through its criminal negligence and repression, for the pandemic".

And even now, the subterfuge continues:

On top of all this, there is deep concern that the Chinese regime’s official statistics significantly downplay the scale of infection within China.

The British newspaper The Telegraph on 29 March reported the UK's Health Minister accusing China of hiding the true scale of Covid-19 and shockingly exposing China's reopening of the "wet" markets which were identified as the cause of the spread of Coronavirus.

China's communist government oppresses religious freedom, destroys thousands of churches, imprisons Muslims in forced labour camps, practice the removal of organs from prisoners of conscience, suppress the freedoms of lawyers, dissidents, intellectuals.

[All emphases are mine.]


SOURCE and PHOTO CREIDIT
Catholic Archdiocese of Yangon

Media Italiani Hanno Sbagliato il Tiro sul Coronavirus Inglese

Questo post si trova anche nella versione italiana di questo blog:

I Media Italiani Hanno Sbagliato il Tiro sul Coronavirus Inglese

---

Capisco che questi tempi di coronavirus rendono proni a sprofondare nel panico, specialmente quando le informazioni, e persino i provvedimenti e decreti, si contraddicono a rotazione.

Quando un nuovo virus e' scoperto, chiaramente anche i dati scientifici non hanno alle spalle una lunga storia di prove ed errori da cui farsi guidare.

Ma non ho potuto fare a meno di riprendere in mano questo blog, dopo due anni di lontananza, quando ho visto quello che e' accaduto in alcuni media italiani riguardo a notizie provenienti dal Regno Unito.

La Repubblica e Il Fatto Quotidiano, per esempio, hanno riportato che emergeva da un documento segreto che in Gran Bretagna l’epidemia di coronavirus sarebbe durata fino alla primavera 2021 con 8 milioni di persone ricoverate.

La loro fonte, purtroppo, e' l'inattendibile, socialista, Guardian, ma parte della responsabilita' va anche al governo inglese, che non e' stato un modello di chiarezza di comunicazione e subito dopo ha fatto retromarcia.

In un primo momento, per l'esattezza giovedi' 12 marzo, il Primo Ministro Boris Johnson aveva annunciato, nel corso di una conferenza stampa, una tattica unica in Europa (un po' come la Brexit) e strabiliante: lasciare che il virus infettasse il 60 per cento della popolazione britannica - mai, comunque, l'80% come hanno scritto Repubblica e Fatto Quotidiano - sulla base della teoria della "immunita' di gregge" che sta dietro le vaccinazioni di massa: quando un alto numero di persone e' portatore di un patogeno, una popolazione e' protetta. Come spiego' a suo tempo l'Express:

Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance warned COVID-19 is likely to become a "seasonal virus" [sic: in realta' COVID-19 e' la malattia, il nome del virus e' Sars-CoV-2] as he said the UK will only benefit from indirect protection, the so-called herd immunity, from the coronavirus if 60 percent of the population becomes infected. Asked how many Britons will need to get coronavirus before herd immunity comes into play, Sir Patrick said: "Probably about 60 percent or so."

Cioe': "Il principale consulente scientifico Sir Patrick Vallance ha avvertito che COVID-19 diventerà probabilmente un "virus stagionale", dicendo che il Regno Unito beneficerà della protezione indiretta, la cosiddetta immunità di gregge, dal coronavirus se il 60% della popolazione viene infettata. Alla domanda su quanti britannici dovranno venire contagiati dal coronavirus prima che subentrasse l'immunità di gregge, Sir Patrick ha dichiarato: 'Probabilmente circa il 60 percento'."

Ma, come dicevamo, il governo britannico ha subito dopo rivisto questa strategia che ha un aspetto eutanasico al suo interno. Basti pensare che, nell'introdurre questo piano, il leader conservatore aveva aggiunto una frase forte: "Molte famiglie perderanno i loro cari".

Johnson sembra che affronti molte questioni, non solo la Brexit, come una schiacciasassi.

Il suo piano, pero', e' stato duramente criticato da medici e ministri della Sanita' passati e presenti, in quanto non teneva conto del fatto che, cosi' facendo, la curva del numero dei casi di contagio sarebbe salita troppo velocemente, oberando il sistema sanitario e mettendo cosi' a rischio di morte persone che, con le cure adeguate, si sarebbero potute salvare.

Un conto e' la vaccinazione, dove l'immunità di massa ha un senso, perche' l'agente patogeno e' somministrato in dosi minime e controllate.

"Non si fa affidamento sull'agente infettivo in dosi altamente letali per creare una popolazione immunitaria", afferma Akiko Iwasaki, un virologo della Yale School of Medicine.

"Vallance e altri hanno dato l'impressione che il governo stesse deliberatamente mirando a far ammalare il 60% della popolazione", sostiene l'Atlantic. Ma cosi' non e'.

E' vero che La Repubblica ha pubblicato il dietrofront di Johnson, ma ho la sensazione che sia sfuggito a qualcuno.


FONTI:
La Repubblica
Il Fatto Quotidiano
Daily Express
The Atlantic
PHOTO CREDIT
Vox

The Antichrist Looks a Lot Like Something We've Seen

Rings a bell?

The Antichrist:

1) will come disguised as the Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity, and plenty, not as means to lead us to God, but as ends in themselves. 

2) He will write books on the new idea of God to suit the way people live.

3) He will induce faith in astrology so as to make not the will but the stars responsible for our sins.

4) He will explain guilt away psychologically as repressed sex, make men shrink in shame if their fellowmen say they are not broadminded and liberal.

5) He will identify tolerance with indifference to right and wrong.

6) He will foster more divorces under the disguise that another partner is “vital.”

7) He will increase love for love and decrease love for persons.

8) He will invoke religion to destroy religion.

9) He will even speak of Christ and say that he was the greatest man who ever lived.

10) His mission, he will say, will be to liberate men from the servitudes of superstition and Fascism, which he will never define.

11) In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one; he will not believe in God. And because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect.

12) He will set up a counter-Church, which will be the ape of the Church because, he the devil, is the ape of God. It will be the mystical body of the anti-Christ that will in all externals resemble the Church as the mystical body of Christ. In desperate need for God, he will induce modern man, in his loneliness and frustration, to hunger more and more for membership in his community that will give man enlargement of purpose, without any need of personal amendment and without the admission of personal guilt. These are days in which the devil has been given a particularly long rope.

Thanks to https://churchpop.com/2018/05/21/the-12-tricks-of-the-anti-christ-to-steal-souls-according-to-the-ven-archbishop-fulton-sheen/