It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would Osama Bin Laden already be dead from kidney disease?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I keep remembering reports that this man Osama Bin Laden was receiving kidney dialysis, and so has been sick for awhile, and then they whoever it is keeps dragging out these tapes of osama's greatest hits and misses. And, these tapes got me to pondering a question. How long can someone who is supposed to be receiving dialysis live on a normal basis?

Say your Aunt Fran or Betsey is having to receive dialysis, how long before you start making sure you go to see her on a regular basis to make sure you are in the will? LOL Just joking, but seriously how long would she live if she received her dialysis and did not have any complications? How long before the kidney disease alone killed her?

Ok, how long would your Aunt Fran or Betsey live if she was being hunted down in the desert with no electricity? Even though she was still hooked up to the dialysis machine dragging it along behind her, how long before you start collecting the loot via the will.

Now if you think of Afghanistan, it was already a war torn country before we invaded and probably had very few places with electricty even back when Bin laden was in charge. Now we have, pretty much destroyed that country looking for him (just a guess). So how do you think he is living in a cave with no electricty all this time?

Anyway just thought I would run all these questions by you guys, so you could tell me what you think or know about this.





[edit on 22-1-2006 by goose]




posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose


Now if you think of Afghanistan it was already a war torn country before we invaded and probably had very few places with electricty even back when Bin laden was in charge. Now we have, pretty much destroyed that country looking for him (just a guess). So how do you think he is living in a cave with no electricty all this time?

[edit on 22-1-2006 by goose]



My guess he isn't. If someone who requires dialysis doesn't get it - they have about a maximum of a week to live before they die of ureamia - basically the build up of waste products in the blood.

I've nursed quite a few renal patients in my day and well... I've seen one or two die from not being dialysed. Not pretty in any shape or form.

Even if the patient didn't require a machine to dialyse them - they were on the ambulatory d-i-y type of dialysis, then desert living would probably lead to massive infection (just from the dust) in short order.

He isn't in a desert - if he's still alive - and probably never has been .



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Thanks you Hands, at first I felt foolish even asking the question but I feel better now. The thing is there are a large number of people who knows these answers, so how is the US government still getting away with reporting this man is alive? And why do so many people believe it? The website below has lots more info but I quoted the doctor from CNN who I believe is also a neurosurgeon. Very good website.

I found this it is from
www.whatreallyhappened.com...


Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden would need help if on dialysis
Renal dialysis -- talking about hemodialysis -- is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down.

The most common cause of something like that would be something like diabetes and hypertension. Once that's happened, if you're separated from your dialysis machine -- and incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity, they're going to require clean water, they're going to require a sterile setting -- infection is a huge risk with that. If you don't have all those things and a functioning dialysis machine, it's unlikely that you'd survive beyond several days or a week at the most. [CNN] [quote/]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
Thanks you Hands, at first I felt foolish even asking the question but I feel better now. The thing is there are a large number of people who knows these answers, so how is the US government still getting away with reporting this man is alive? And why do so many people believe it?




Because ....most people want to believe the boogeyman is someone who would live in a cave rather than... well your guess is as good as mine!



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hands

Because ....most people want to believe the boogeyman is someone who would live in a cave rather than... well your guess is as good as mine!




It's true. The enemy has to be percieved as 'less human' than us in order to make any civilian deaths seem 'collatoral' rather than equal to those of 9/11.

Look at Abu Al-Zaraqwi, for some reason who ever authorised the photo of him to be the standard photo in western media actually added a fake brick wall to his photo to make it seem more 'cave-like', 'sub-human'.

Original video shows al-Zarqawi laughing and smiling and looking pretty relaxed - not really a scary moster trying to take over the world one suicide bomb at a time:









Now just add a twist of 'arab cliche', a fake brick wall and a frame where he isn't laughing and kind of looks serious and wollah!!
A terrorist mastermind:




Now Bin Laden went from healthy dark skin full featured to a deathly pale and skinny person right before 9/11 which all makes sense if he died in December 2001 as reported by Egypt and supported by Isreali intelliigence, the FBI and Afghanistans President.

Don't worry thou, we got a true leader on the hunt for these baddies who has obvious training in cave exploration:




posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I also found this which is very ineresting from the same website, apparently at that time even the Bush administration was actually addressing the fact that he was probably dead. But then it is hard to keep funding a war and looking for a terrorist who is dead and so now they keep dragging out these tapes and they keep saying it is him.



[A Bush administration official] said U.S. intelligence is that bin Laden needs dialysis every three days and "it is fairly obvious that that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout." [CNN] [quote/]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
People undergoing kidney dialysis can (assuming decent living conditions) live for years or even decades, depending how old they are. However, assuming Bin Laden is/was somewhere in the middle of Afghan wilderness, he would have a great deal of difficulty in obtaining his dialysis solution, which would be much more difficult to obtain than electricity. With batteries or generators, you can get electricity easily enough, and they probably have such things, but getting sterile dialysis solution while being the world's #1 wanted man isn't going to be easy. As Hands mentioned, if instead he were using peritoneal dialysis, Osama would likely have died of infection by now.

If he were some middle class person living in a first world country, he could go for quite a long time on dialysis, but in Osama's likely current living conditions, it would be extremely difficult to keep him going these past four years. Of course, he does have hundreds of fanatics that would literally die for him to help find him supplies, but it's still going to be really really tough to survive under such conditions.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
So I think it is safe to say that if Osama did not make it out of Afghanistan early within the first seven days, we went in to Afghanistan, he is probably dead. So why are we still blowing up Afghanistan? I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it, he is not there, and if he is; he is long since dead.

Now I know why Al-Qaida still wants everyone to believe he is alive and well, he is a great recruitment tool. But why is the American government still promoting this idea? One would think that they would want to say he is dead, and show one sucess in this war on terror but no they don't. I can only think it is to prolong the war on terror. To say the leader of the attack on 911 is dead would just make people wonder why we are still there?



new topics




 
0

log in

join