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.

 

Pregnant for 60 years since 1948

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Pregnant for 60 years since 1948


www.thesun.co.uk

STUNNED doctors discovered a woman complaining of stomach ache had been carrying her unborn child for 60 YEARS.

Huang Yijun, 92, of Huangjiaotan, southern China, was told by medics in 1948 that her child had died in the womb.

Doctors demanded £100 to remove it, so she walked away.

She said: "It was a huge sum at the time - more than the whole family earned in several years so I did nothing and ignored it.”
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Woah. This is crazy! How could she ignore a dead fetus that's been sitting inside her womb for 60 years?! What could've been preserving the fetus for so long that it didn't decay?


Consultant Xu Xianming, director of the Obstetrics and Gynecology department at the hospital, said: "Normally a dead foetus would decay. It’s very rare that Huang can be so healthy."


www.thesun.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Hyzera]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Probably because of the fluids inside the womb. But something tells me this is a tabloid tale. I do not think its medically possible for a woman to carry around a dead fetus for 60 years and not have any serious health problems from it than just a stomach ache.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Probably because of the fluids inside the womb. But something tells me this is a tabloid tale. I do not think its medically possible for a woman to carry around a dead fetus for 60 years and not have any serious health problems from it than just a stomach ache.



Cheers!!!!



Actually, this is not the first case in history, although the condition-or what to call it- is quite rare. The child in the Womb become encapsuled by connective tissue, pretty much in the same way as siliconeimplants can be encapsuled by the body.

The fetus-when removed- therefor looks more like a white, hard statue than a real child.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I think, however, that most of the time the baby would be miscarried from the body itself and expelled the same way that tissues normally are. But since the baby is rather large by that time, and because the hormones would have returned to normal... I guess it's possible.

I'm not sure how ovulation and menstruation and all would occur normally after that.

I'll ask Super Midwife (mommy.)

I know that fetus in fetu cases can occur when a twin from the womb becomes encased in the other twin and that those are pretty common in the form of teeth/hair masses with tissue and sometimes bones, but that doesn't actually happen from a miscarried pregnancy.

Yeah I'll ask mom and let you guys know what she says, as she studied that stuff in college.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Look forward to the info! Should be interesting.

2nd line

Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Mom says sometimes when they're very small, they decompose and get absorbed. But when they're bigger, sometimes the body doesn't expel it and it gets mummified. Mom says it's in her obstetrics book and I can take a look later to check out the exact mechanism, because she doesn't remember off the top of her head how it gets mummified and doesn't rot. Want me to check out what the book says later, or is that good enough info? I don't mind looking through if you guys want, I've read that book like 4 times.

I'll go check it out anyway, I have nothing better to do right now.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Probably because of the fluids inside the womb. But something tells me this is a tabloid tale. I do not think its medically possible for a woman to carry around a dead fetus for 60 years and not have any serious health problems from it than just a stomach ache.



Cheers!!!!


This case, since it is coming from the sun seems to be a tabloid tale. Although there was a real life case similar to this one. If this isnt the case....

There was a lady who had a fetus die in the womb and couldnt afford to have it removed and went for (I think 30 years) with it. They finally removed it because it was making her sick. It was a big calcified block.

I saw the documentary on the discovery channel. It was somehow disturbing and intruiging at the same time.

Now I dont think this is the same case, but it could be... The fact that its coming from the sun ( a tabloid and nothing more) makes me think that this particular case is made up,perhaps even based on the real case.

EDIT: Here I found some sites that talk about the real case. She was pregnant for 46 years...

www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk...

english.pravda.ru...

and apparently there is a thread about it on ATS

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So it has happened but my impression is that the article is a hoax, perhaps based on the real life case.


[edit on 17-1-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   


Mom says sometimes when they're very small, they decompose and get absorbed.


By absorbed you mean the fetus merges with the mother, and the mother's body takes what ever nutrients may be present in the fetus?

If so, then


[edit on 1/17/2009 by Hyzera]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Lithopedion formation occurs when the dead fetus undergoes calcification rather than spontaneous resorption

rad.usuhs.mil...

nonviable chronic ectopic pregnancy can result in formation of a lithopedion (litho = stone; pedion = child or "stone baby").
Lithopedion formation typically occurs in 1:20,000 pregnancies with fewer than 300 cases reported in the medical literature over the past 400 years. The condition was first described in a treatise by Albucasis in the 10th century AD. While the etiology is related to demise of an ectopic pregnancy, a lithopedion is more commonly encountered with a larger ectopic pregnancy, as can be seen from abdominal pregnancies. When the fetus is too large to be reabsorbed by the body (usually gestational age > 14 weeks), the fetus and/or its covering membranes calcify, shielding the mother's body from the degenerating fetal tissue.

A calcified extrauterine fetus can have the following forms: (i) lithokelyphos (litho = rock, kelyphos = shell): only the ovular membrane is calcified and the fetus can be in different stages of decomposition; (ii) lithokelyphopedion: both are calcified, i.e. fetus and ovular membrane, as in this case; (iii) lithopedion: only the fetus is calcified. It is not unusual for a lithopedion to remain undiagnosed for decades. A patient with a calcified extrauterine pregnancy may present with abdominal pain, lower abdominal pressure, or constipation. Based on reported cases, the patient's age at the time of diagnosis ranges from 23 to 100 years; 67% of the patients are over the age 40 years. The estimated lead time to diagnosis ranges from 4 years to 60 years.

Fetal demise occurred between a gestational age of three to six months in 20% of the reported cases, between seven and eight months in 27%, and at full term in 43%. The earliest lithopedion found was in an archaeological excavation, dating to 1100 BC, antedating the first clinical description by 2100 years. Based on reported cases, the patient's age at the time of diagnosis varies widely, with 67% of patients over fourty years of age.


another case
jkms.kams.or.kr...

So it appears that the baby doesn't grow where it supposed to, so any pregnancy after that can appear to be normal?

Wow...something new everyday.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Very odd for sure, but it looked like huge tumor to me. Ill look forward to hearing what you find in the book.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
This is from William's Obstetrics:



In late abortions after the fetus has attained considerable size, several outcomes are possible. The retained fetus may undergo maceration. In some circumstances, the bonets of the skull collapse, the abdomen becomes distended with a blood-stained fluid, and the entire fetus takes on a dull reddish color. At the same time, the skin softens and peels off at the slightes touch, leaving behind the corium. The internal organs degenerate, becoming friable and losing their capacity for taking up the usual histologic stains. The amnionic fluid may be absorbed when the fetus becomes compressed upon itself and dessicated to form a fetus compressus. Occasionally, the fetus becomes so dry and compressed that it resembles parchment, the so-called fetus papyraceus.


It also says that most women with an aborted fetus will go into labor spontaneously, but not always.

It also says that one of the greatest risks for women who carry a dead fetus is severe coagulation changes.

Here's some more info:



Mummification and the formation of a lithopedion occasionally ensue, and the calcified product of conception may be carried for years without producing symptoms until it causes dystocia in a subsequent pregnancy or symptoms from pressure. There are instanes in which a period of 20 to 30 years elapsed before removal of a lithopedion at operation or autopsy. Much more rarely, the fetus is converted into a yellowish, greasy mass to which the term adipocere is applied.


A lithopedion is a dead, calcified fetus that is too large to be reabsorbed into the body.

Here is the MLA citation for the source, I typed the quotes in by hand:
Pritchard, Jack A, and Paul C MacDonald. Williams Obstetrics. 1930. 15th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1976.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Hyzera
 


Yeah, pretty much. But only in small fetuses.
To the ectopic information- the pregnancy doesn't need to be ectopic to become a lithopedion.
Just like a fetus doesn't need to be ectopic to be spontaneously aborted.
The information from Williams Obstetrics that I put in my post explains it perfectly, and mom says the sections that I included are what she had been referring to. Yay Midwives!



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Yeah, this info doesn't apply to the OP. The case that the thread is about is not extrauterine (in an ovary or fallopian tube or in the peritoneal cavity). It seems that the fetus was located in the uterus, which the article you cited doesn't talk about.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


not really
this was on discovery channel a few weeks ago
except it was an egyption woman i think
might be another middle eastern country



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Here's another similar story.

Woman Pregnant for 46 Years?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Keyhole]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Anyone else thinking how or if at all the husband might have reacted after finding out what he had been inserting his love instrument into for all those years?

[edit on 17-1-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


Hahaha. I bet he knew, I assume, because she kind of looked it...
And it's not like it was right... there... her cervix still contained it within her uterus.
Still kind of gross.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


not really
this was on discovery channel a few weeks ago
except it was an egyption woman i think
might be another middle eastern country


Not really what?

The documentary I saw was on years ago. not a few weeks ago. She was "pregnant" (if you can call it that) for 46 years and they removed it eventually and it was a calcified fetus... the case in the sun sounds similiar to what happened in real life and that is why I think they based there story on the real life case. There was a case where it did happen. IMO the suns articel is not that case...

The sun IS a tabloid.... Not very legit... if you doubt that perhaps check out there articles about a gnome that is roaming the streets scaring children....

There was a similiar case in real life and I provied the links....

So when you say not really, what exactly do you disagree with? Are you saying that the sun is legit? are you saying that it never happened? I must admit, I have no idea what you are getting at..... Help me out?

[edit on 17-1-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join