Couldn't find what you looking for?


First, it's not my intention to give anyone cruel false hopes, but the whole carrying a baby to term without ever showing any HCG in either blood or urine tests thing bothers me a little bit. It bothers me because I know that can happen, although rarely, and I know a lot of confused women wonder if they will be one of those unexplainable statistics. Most won't... but a couple will...

But why does this happen at all? How is it even possible? I don't ever see an answer for this! No doctor has tried to explain it, and even though it's proven that sometimes this does happen, people tend to pretend it doesn't happen.

Having said that, I hate how cold-hearted people can be when a woman asks 'I have symptoms, but my urine/blood tests are negative. can I still be pregnant?' and gets a cold-hearted 'No, you're imagining it.' Sometimes people need to be more gentle, and for those few women out there who are going to be another one of those statistics, they don't need to hear that and will need prenatal care.

I imagine no one here could disagree with me on that, and I am speaking out of sympathy straight from the heart.

So I hope a doctor or embryologist or nurse could look at my theory and tell me if this scenario is possible. Since the occurance of full-term pregnancies and no HCGs are rare in and of themselves, I would imagine the below would be just as rare as those pregnancies are:

Here goes:

A Corpus Luteum CYST (not related to PCOS) is caused when a normal Corpus Luteum failed to shrivel up after conception did not occur. It then fills with fluid and produces progesterone, which can cause pregnancy symptoms without there actually being a pregnancy. Within a couple months, that nasty little b****r eventually pops and may or may not cause pain and releif of very confusing symptoms, surgery/medicine sometimes being needed.

Sounds accurate so far? I think so.

Okay, here's my theory:

Let's say a woman just conceived. It's up to her corpus luteum to provide enough progesterone to keep a period from starting (and
thus losing her pregnancy) until the embryo can begin producing HCG. The role of HCG is to keep the corpus luteum going until the
placenta is well formed enough to keep the progesterone going without the corpus luteum. Pretty textbook.

Now, what if there's an error in the embryo where it doesn't produce enough (or any) HCG? Negative tests despite pregnancy! And no
HCG = corpus luteum shrivels up. Corpus lutem gone = drop in progesterone = miscarriage, which enforces the phrase "a pregnancy
cannot continue without the presence of HCG" I keep reading in those aggrivating, canned and cold-hearted responses.

But remember those obnoxious corpus luteum cysts that don't shrivel up when they're supposed to, that causes pregnancy symptoms
when there is no pregnancy? WHY can't a corpus luteum cyst SAVE a pregnancy from miscarriage that was lacking in HCG if a cyst formed randomly at the right place and right time? If some of these cysts can last for months (until the placenta is developed enough to provide its
own progesterone) wouldn't that explain why pregnancies manage to continue without the presence of HCG up until delivery?

Somebody tell me there's some logic to this thought of mine! I'm not a doctor, but I'd like to help people understand what's happening to them, tell them that No, you're not imagining it. either it's a cyst or you really are pregnant. But you are not, not, not, imagining your suffering.

I'd like a doctor to look at this and tell me if this sounds feasable?


Hm, well I got one thumb up and one thumb down. I guess someone reading agreed and someone else didn't! Heehe!