According to the World Tribune, Sharon died today. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453741.9118055557.html
If the World Tribune says Sharon is dead, that means Sharon will compete in a triathelon next week. World Tribune is toilet-class journalism at it's worst.
there are two types of strokes: clotters and bleeders. A clotter is when a piece of plaque breaks off in your bloodstream and goes to your brain. Compared to a bleeder, a clotter has a lower probability of killing the person, but will cause long-term effects that are almost impossible to overcome. a bleeder is when a blood vessel in the brain breaks and bleeds inside your brain and head. Compared to a clotter, a bleeder has a higher probability of killing a person instantly, but has a better chance of recovery. If sharon is alive and has survived the bleeder, I hope he has a successful recovery. However, honestly, after reading that they had him on assisted breathing, I betcha he's dead and they just didn't want to announce it so suddenly.
Apparently he was on blood thinners because of the last stroke he had a while back. How would that affect the situation? Personally I think he's dead and they are holding off telling people.
Me too. Well, the blood vessel break is caused when the blood pressure is too great for the vessels that carry the blood. This happens with age - the blood vessels lose their strength. So, older people go on blood thinners to prevent strokes from occurring. Thinning the blood lowers blood pressure. As a side effect, lowering the blood pressure through blood thinning results in less frictional warmth and less warmth distribution, which is partly why old people are constantly cold (also, their beats-per-minute frequently decreases with age, making them even colder).
Yah, from the first minute this stroke didn't sound too good, I thought he was definitely going to die.
As an aside, I don't know really much about arteriosclerosis, but what I do has always been morbidly fascinating to me, so here it is. If anybody want's to correct my mistakes by all means do. Essentially to my understanding, what happens is an inflammatory response is initiated in the wall of an artery. Over long periods this can cause an infarct (a blockage) which is bad, but if it doesn't, a large series of them will raise blood pressure. One other thing this inflammatory response does is alter the characteristics of the arterial cell wall, making it harder and more brittle (less plastic). The stroke point in this case would be one of these places, where the pressure rose and the wall couldn't stretch. The thinner, I believe, is usually prescribed to prevent a potential infarct like the source of the earlier stroke from growing. Blood thinners don't really "thin the blood" but are clot preventatives. I believe the main problem blood thinners would be that for a rupture, the thinners would prevent the vein from sealing itself, allowing more blood to seep into the brain and damage it. The artificial coma would counter this by decreasing blood flow. The blood in the brain causes temporary cognitive issues by applying pressure to the brain (similar things can be seen in people with growing brain tumors), as well as more long lasting tissue damage/neuron death. The earlier infarct may have had a part in this one, by "stress testing” pressure a point that was already brittle. I also understand that one of the problems is that it is essentially impossible to examine the arterial cell walls in any practical way. The only way you can tell where one of these things occurs is when you see the blood isn't flowing, when you see the blood is leaking, or by secondary leakage problems (i.e. commonly stroke victims show up with neurological issues). In other words, you can only tell there's a problem when something goes wrong. If the effects of extremely localised brain trauma or problems are interesting to you, I'd suggest reading The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat by Oliver Sachs. It's written by the doctor from the movie Awakenings was based on, and it is written for non-professional readers.
Despite the party's low profile in the wake of the prime minister's hospitalization, Labor MKs are planning to try to bring Shimon Peres and other party figures who joined Kadima back to Labor. Some Labor members suggested Thursday that the developments may provide them with the opportunity to return to power. Party leaders refused to comment Thursday on the political implications of Sharon's illness, following Peretz's request that they refrain from speculating and commenting on the prime minister's condition. One MK said, however, that the sad circumstances have created a chance for Labor to return to power. "In a week or two, when the time is right ethically, we must call on Labor members who have joined Kadima to come home. Including Peres," he said. "Sharon was not just the leading figure, but the only glue joining Tzachi Hanegbi and Peres. I believe Kadima, even if it survives as a party, has been dealt a severe blow. People joined Kadima because they saw Sharon as a leader. I don't think they saw Olmert or Livni as leaders." haaretz
...this was very prescient. Well done. in the larger sense of things though, no need to do anything but mourn any departure, so R.I.P.
