Islamabad - The claims regarding Osama bin Laden's death began almost immediately after Sept. 11, 2001 American invasion of Afghanistan.

In 2010 a website released photo of the body of Osama bin Laden and claimed that he was killed several years ago. But what is more surprising is that the very same photo was being circulated Monday after U.S. forces reported that Osama bin Laden was killed early Monday.

It was not clear why the same photo of "dead Osama" which was available with several regional agencies were released Monday once again to the media.

This led to speculations that "Osama's body might have been brought in to be later 'discovered' from the scene of clash with other Al-Qaeda militants.

The discovery of Osama's body from Bilal Town, Abbottabad has increased pressure on Pakistani security forces.

Killing Osama bin Laden was a big victory for the U.S., but how exactly the raid went down is another story - and another, and another.

Over two days, the White House has offered contradictory versions of events, including misidentifying which of bin Laden's sons was killed and wrongly saying bin Laden's wife died in gunfire, as it tries to sort through what the president's press secretary called the "fog of combat" and produce an accurate account.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that officials were trying to get information out as quickly as possible about the complex event witnessed by just a handful of people, and the story line was being corrected.

"We provided a great deal of information with great haste in order to inform you. ... And obviously some of the information was, came in piece by piece and is being reviewed and updated and elaborated on," Carney said.

The circumstances surrounding Osama bin Laden's reported death raise urgent questions over how the US is so sure it got its man.

US officials have said DNA testing has proved the al Qaeda leader was killed in a villa in Pakistan.

They have also identified him by facial recognition.

But photographs of Bin Laden after his reported death have not been released.

The fact his body was buried at sea has so far only added to the speculation, although as a Muslim, he had to be laid to rest as quickly as possible.

Under Islamic law, people can only be buried at sea if they died there, or if there is a risk their body will be exhumed or dug up if buried in the ground.

If today were April 1 and not May 2, we could dismiss as an April fool's joke this morning's headline that Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight in Pakistan and quickly buried at sea. As it is, we must take it as more evidence that the US government has unlimited belief in the gullibility of Americans.

Think about it. What are the chances that a person allegedly suffering from kidney disease and requiring dialysis and, in addition, afflicted with diabetes and low blood pressure, survived in mountain hideaways for a decade? If bin Laden was able to acquire dialysis equipment and medical care that his condition required, would not the shipment of dialysis equipment point to his location? Why did it take ten years to find him?

Consider also the claims, repeated by a triumphalist US media celebrating bin Laden's death, that "bin Laden used his millions to bankroll terrorist training camps in Sudan, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, sending 'holy warriors' to foment revolution and fight with fundamentalist Muslim forces across North Africa, in Chechnya, Tajikistan and Bosnia." That's a lot of activity for mere millions to bankroll (perhaps the US should have put him in charge of the Pentagon), but the main question is: how was bin Laden able to move his money about? What banking system was helping him? The US government succeeds in seizing the assets of people and of entire countries, Libya being the most recent. Why not bin Laden's? Was he carrying around with him $100 million dollars in gold coins and sending emissaries to distribute payments to his far-flung operations?

Local residents dispute circumstances of Osama bin Laden's death:

The last time we heard a squeak from him was on June 3 this year.

The world's most notorious terrorist outsmarted America by releasing a menacing message as Air Force One touched down on Saudi Arabian soil at the start of Barack Obama's first and much vaunted Middle East tour.

Even before the new President alighted at Riyadh airport to shake hands with Prince Abdullah, Bin Laden's words were being aired on TV, radio and the internet across every continent.

It was yet another propaganda coup for the 52-year-old Al Qaeda leader. In the audiotape delivered to the Arab news network Al Jazeera, Bin Laden said that America and her Western allies were sowing seeds of hatred in the Muslim world and deserved dire consequences.

It was the kind of rant we have heard from him before, and the response from British and U.S. intelligence services was equally predictable.

They insisted that the details on the tape, of the President's visit and other contemporary events, proved that the mastermind of 9/11, America's worst ever terrorist atrocity, was still alive - and that the hunt for him must go on.

The next time the CIA comes up with another Osama bin Laden videotape, you might want to compare their images of the alleged al-Qaeda leader to the photograph I've provided here.If he looks any healthier than that, then you're probably looking at an imposter.Yeah, Osama has definitely seen better days. But give the guy a break, huh? You wouldn't look much better if you'd been dead for nine years.

Oh, by the way, in case you've just joined us? Osama bin Laden is dead.

He died in the Tora Bora Mountains of Afghanistan on December 13, 2001. He was buried in an unmarked grave within 24 hours of his death. Case closed.

But don't just take my word for it. Top terror experts, intelligence analysts, academics, government officials, and even major political figures around the globe tend to agree that, "All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama Bin Laden."

In an interview given to David Frost in November 2007, Benazir Bhutto states that Osama bin Laden was killed by Omar Sheikh.

Your doctors think they make decisions based on medical evidence.

But they don't!

In fact, half of medical evidence is hidden from your doctors. And the half that's hidden is the half that shows drugs don't work.

The bad news is that drug companies are not policed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the way they should be. A drug should be proven both effective and safe BEFORE it is prescribed to millions of people.

Sadly, that often isn't the case.

Let me share with you two recent examples that highlight the dangerous collusion between drug companies and our government agency. They show why the FDA should really stand for "Federal Drug Aid."

First, we now know that the cholesterol-lowering drug Zetia actually causes harm and leads to faster progression of heart disease DESPITE lowering cholesterol 58 percent when combined with Zocor.

This challenges the belief that high cholesterol causes heart attacks and shakes the $40 billion dollar cholesterol drug industry at its foundation.

Second, it's come to light that nearly all the negative studies on antidepressants - that's more than half of all studies on these drugs - were never published, giving a false sense of effectiveness of antidepressants to treat depression.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm not telling you to blame your doctor.

Instead, blame deceptive scientific practices and industry-protective government polices. Let's talk a closer look at these findings and their implications.

Chemicals and additives found in the food supply and other consumer products are making headlines regularly as more and more groups raise concern over the safety of these substances. In a statement released this week, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked for reform to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. The group is particularly concerned about the effects these substances have on children and babies.

Last month, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) held hearings on the safety of food dyes but failed to make a definitive ruling. The most recent study on Bisphenol-A (BPA) added to growing doubts about its safety; but the FDA's stance on it remains ambiguous. Meanwhile, in 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported [PDF] that the FDA is not ensuring the safety of many chemicals.

Yet while the FDA stalls and hedges on the safety of these substances, Americans are exposed to untested combinations of food additives, dyes, preservatives, and chemicals on a daily basis. Indeed, for the vast majority of Americans consuming industrial foods, a veritable chemical cocktail enters their bodies every day and according to the GAO report, "FDA is not systematically ensuring the continued safety of current GRAS substances."