Hugo Chávez suffers renal failure; said to be in grave condition

I've been following Hugo Chávez' health in recent postings, and it appears to have taken a turn for the worse. He was allegedly taken to the Military Hospital in Caracas on Tuesday (Sept. 27), suffering from renal insufficiency. Chávez just returned from Havana a week ago, after undergoing his fourth round of chemotherapy for an undisclosed form of cancer diagnosed in June. He said on arrival in Venezuela that he anticipated no further treatments and that his prognosis was excellent.

But as I reported a week ago, U.S. diplomat Roger Noriega, a former ambassador to the Organization of American States, says that reliable "inside sources" have told him that Chávez, 57, is "in very serious condition and did not react well" to the latest round of treatment. Noriega supposedly told U.S. officials that they should prepare for "a world without Hugo Chávez," or at least one with a greatly reduced Chávez presence. It appears that Noriega may be correct.

I'll post again on Chávez' condition when more details are available. Click here for the article about Roger Noreiga's predictions: http://mexicogulfreporter.blogspot.com/2011/09/venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez-in.html.

Update Thursday, Sept. 29, 2:00 a.m. My above post is based upon a story in El Nuevo Herald, a very reliable Spanish language newspaper based in Miami. After the story was published late Wednesday evening, the Venezuelan Minister of Communications issued a Twitter message denying that Chávez had been hospitalized. The Tweet said that "the people who should be hospitalized are those at El Nuevo Herald who circulated these [false] claims -- and in a mental hospital."

Update Thursday, Sept. 29, 8:00 a.m. El Nuevo Herald has not retracted its original story, but is now carrying a follow-up which quotes Chávez himself saying that he is improving each day and that the rumors of an emergency are false. Chávez supposedly made the comments in a telephone call to Venezuelan state television today. The Herald said in its original story that it was relying upon "well-placed sources," but of course did not identify them.