In a case that has left the medical community stunned, Chinese doctors successfully extracted a fetus from the brain of a 1-year-old boy. This very rare condition, "fetus in fetu," is when one twin gets engulfed by the other early in fetal development. Most fetus-in-fetu cases are discovered in the abdomen, but this case, where absorption into the brain occurred, is almost unheard of.

The parents of the young girl obtained medical care after they observed that she was developing delayed motor skills and had an abnormally large head circumference. Physicians found an abnormal growth in her skull, which was subsequently diagnosed as a malformed twin. The condition is estimated to happen in only 1 in 500,000 live births, making it a rare occurrence in the history of medicine.

Fetus-in-fetu is a situation where one twin gets trapped within the other in early embryonic development. It happens when identical twins do not fully separate and one embryo gets enclosed within the other. Usually, the engulfed twin does not develop, but the host twin develops normally.

Here, the mass in the infant's brain was a "monochorionic diamniotic twin," which means that the two fetuses initially shared the same placenta but existed in distinct amniotic sacs. In most cases, identical twins completely separate from each other, but in exceptionally rare instances such as this, unseparated blastocysts (early-stage embryonic cells) can result in one twin being imprisoned within the other. As the host embryo grows, it can wrap around the captive twin, incorporating it into its body structure.

Physicians concluded that removal of the parasitic twin by surgery was mandatory to ensure the baby's well-being. Scans of the brain indicated that the deformed fetus had a vertebral column, leg bones, and even the embryonic beginnings of arms and fingers. It also showed spina bifida, where the spinal cord is exposed because of the insufficiency of growth of the tissue around it.

The fetus was about 10 centimeters long and was trapped in a fluid-filled sac inside the child's head. With the unprecedented nature of such a case, medical experts were confronted with an untested challenge of conducting the delicate operation. The operation was completed successfully, excising the fetal mass without any reported complications, although the child's post-operative status has not been made public.

What is Fetus-in-fetu Condition?

Fetus-in-fetu can be confused with a teratoma, another tumor type which also involves undifferentiated tissue such as hair, teeth, and bone. Fetus-in-fetu differs, however, in that it is the result of a real twin instead of abnormal cellular development. Fetus-in-fetu is identified most commonly based on the formation of a vertebral column and internal structures which imply fetal development.

The fact that the fetal twin was found within the brain indicates that the condition presumably occurred during a developmental stage of neural plate folding. This step is important to the development of the brain and spinal cord. If a parasitic twin were trapped at this time, then it could get integrated into the forming nervous system, as noted in this scenario.

Genome-wide sequencing verified that the fetal mass was genetically equivalent to the surviving twin, further establishing its status as a malformed identical twin instead of a tumor.

Although fetus-in-fetu has been previously reported, cases in which the brain is involved are rare. Perhaps one of the earliest recorded instances occurred in 1982 when a 6-week-old infant underwent surgery to have a parasitic twin removed from inside its skull. That fetus was 14 centimeters long and had formed limbs, a torso, and a head.

The rarity of such cases makes them highly significant for medical research. Understanding how and why fetus-in-fetu occurs can provide insights into early fetal development and the mechanisms that lead to identical twinning. Additionally, these cases highlight the importance of early medical intervention when developmental abnormalities are detected in infants.

These cases underscore the need for prenatal and postnatal medical examinations. Early diagnosis by the use of sophisticated imaging technologies like MRI and CT scans may identify such anomalies early enough to prevent them from causing life-threatening complications.

Though much is yet to be discovered about fetus-in-fetu, this case will remain a vital point of reference for all future medical research. It also makes one more aware of the intricacies of fetal development and the unusual conditions that can develop as a result of anomalies in early cell division.

The excision of a malformed twin from the brain of a 1-year-old is a milestone in pediatric neurosurgery. It highlights the wonders of contemporary medicine and the need for ongoing research to comprehend unusual congenital conditions. With advancing medical science, these findings will make early diagnosis and treatment options more effective for future cases of this nature.

At a military parade in Beijing, an open-mic moment between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed an unusual exchange. The leaders were overheard discussing organ transplants and the possibility of dramatically extending human life. Putin even raised the prospect of “eternal life” through biotechnology, according to translated remarks aired on Chinese state TV. The conversation, captured as Xi, Putin, and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un walked through Tiananmen Square, has fueled fresh debate on the limits of science and longevity. Both Xi and Putin, in power for 13 and 25 years respectively, have shown no signs of stepping down.

The pageantry was meant to project strength, but a stray hot mic gave the world something unexpected: an intimate glimpse into how two of the most powerful men on Earth think about the human lifespan.

Putin’s interpreter was caught saying, “Biotechnology is continuously developing. Human organs can be continuously transplanted. The longer you live, the younger you become, and even achieve immortality.” Xi responded, almost casually: “Some predict that in this century humans may live to 150 years old.”

The microphones were quickly faded out, and the livestream camera cut away. But the brief exchange rippled far beyond the parade. Could 150 really be the ceiling for human life—or even a realistic milestone?

What is The Hot Mic Moment?

Both Xi and Putin later confirmed the conversation, with Putin remarking to Russian media that new medical advances, including organ replacement, could extend “active life” significantly. For leaders who have each been in power for more than a decade—and show no signs of stepping aside—the notion of extending life carries not just personal but political undertones.

This wasn’t idle speculation in a vacuum. Russia, China, and the United States are all investing heavily in biotechnology, regenerative medicine, and artificial intelligence as tools not only of economic growth but also of national prestige. Against that backdrop, Xi’s mention of 150 years sounded less like science fiction and more like a pointed acknowledgment of what researchers are seriously debating.

How Long Do Humans Live Now?

At present, global life expectancy hovers around 73 years, with wealthier countries averaging in the low 80s. The record for the oldest documented human belongs to Jeanne Calment, a Frenchwoman who lived to 122 before passing in 1997.

But it’s important to separate two concepts: average life expectancy (how long most people live, heavily influenced by disease, healthcare access, and environment) and maximum lifespan (the theoretical upper limit of human survival under ideal conditions). Average life expectancy has steadily climbed over the past century thanks to vaccines, antibiotics, improved sanitation, and better maternal care. Maximum lifespan, by contrast, has barely budged.

That’s why Xi’s remark matters. He wasn’t talking about incremental gains—he was floating the possibility of breaking through a biological barrier.

Can Humans Live As Long As 150 Years?

A team of scientists from Singapore, Russia, and the United States recently modeled human resilience using blood samples from more than 70,000 people aged up to 85. They tracked fluctuations in white and red blood cells to create a measure called the Dynamic Organism State Indicator (Dosi), which captures the body’s ability to recover from stress and illness.

Their conclusion was striking: resilience collapses completely around age 150, setting an upper bound for human lifespan. This wasn’t a forecast of what people will achieve anytime soon—it was a theoretical ceiling based on current biology.

Put simply, the study suggests that even if you dodge heart disease, cancer, infections, and accidents, your body will eventually lose its ability to recover. That’s the point at which life becomes unsustainable.

Is Living Till 150 Years Plausible Or Out of Reach?

From a biological standpoint, the 150-year limit makes sense. Organs age, stem cells lose regenerative capacity, and the body accumulates damage at the cellular level. At present, most human organs seem capable of functioning for 110 to 120 years under ideal conditions. Beyond that, decline accelerates.

Yet science is moving fast. Regenerative medicine, organ transplantation, and lab-grown tissues could shift the baseline. Already, researchers have extended the lives of worms tenfold and mice by 30–40%. Humans, with more complex biology, are harder to push, but the trajectory suggests improvement is possible.

Still, adding 25–30 years of healthy life is far more realistic in the near future than reaching 150. As one researcher quipped, “We might not see immortality, but 110 could become the new 90.”

Evidence from real-world populations supports the idea that genetics and lifestyle can push lifespans well beyond the norm. The “Blue Zones”—regions like Okinawa in Japan and Sardinia in Italy—produce unusually high numbers of centenarians. Their secrets aren’t futuristic: plant-heavy diets, daily movement, strong community ties, and low chronic stress.

Even so, these populations rarely see people surpassing 110. Jeanne Calment remains an outlier, not a model. Which raises the question: are biology and environment already giving us the maximum return, or is medicine the only path to break through?

What Role Does Biotechnology Play?

This is where Putin’s remark about organ transplants comes in. Medicine has already normalized replacing failing hearts, kidneys, and joints. Stem cell therapies are being tested to repair damaged tissues. Artificial intelligence is accelerating drug discovery. CRISPR and gene editing open the possibility of correcting mutations that drive aging and disease.

Theoretically, if each organ could be replaced or rejuvenated before it fails, the body could remain younger for longer. The challenge is that aging is systemic. Replacing a heart doesn’t stop immune decline, nor does repairing a kidney fix memory loss. The body doesn’t age in silos; it ages all at once.

How Can Political Leaders Shape The Theory of Longevity?

It’s no accident that authoritarian leaders are voicing interest in radical life extension. Both Xi and Putin oversee nations that pour resources into biotechnologies, often with fewer ethical guardrails than in the West. Extending human lifespan is not just a health goal—it’s a geopolitical lever, a way to showcase scientific dominance.

At the same time, public health experts caution against letting these conversations distract from pressing needs. In countries where average life expectancy still lags below 70, access to vaccines, clean water, and chronic disease care would do far more for human survival than speculative anti-aging research.

For now, the 150-year limit is a provocative talking point, not a practical horizon. But Xi and Putin’s hot mic exchange underscores something deeper: longevity science has moved from the fringes to the geopolitical stage.

If history is any guide, the biggest gains won’t come from science fiction-style immortality but from steady, incremental progress—cutting smoking rates, controlling hypertension, managing diabetes, and ensuring equitable access to healthcare. These measures, not transplants or futuristic drugs, are what extend average life expectancy year after year.

The mic may have been unguarded, but the conversation it captured was anything but trivial. Leaders of two nuclear powers spoke openly about the possibility of living indefinitely. While the science points to 150 years as a theoretical ceiling, the more pressing challenge for humanity is not how long we can live, but how well.

As researchers continue probing the biology of aging, the lesson from Blue Zones and centenarians alike still rings true, a balanced diet, physical activity, meaningful social ties, and preventive healthcare remain the closest things we have to longevity secrets. The road to 150 may or may not be real, but the path to 100—healthy, independent, and vibrant—is already within reach.

India has seen a gradual overall improvement in life expectancy at birth over recent years, reflecting advances in healthcare, nutrition, and disease management. According to the latest official data, life expectancy at birth for the period 2019–23 is estimated at 70.3 years, up from 69.8 years in 2017–21. Even the 2018–22 period reported a slight rise to 69.9 years, indicating a consistent, if incremental, upward trend.

This gain is more than a figure; it is an indicator of a nation slowly emerging from past issues of infectious diseases, child and maternal mortality, and a lack of healthcare access in rural communities. However, despite the portrait of improvement painted by the national rate, a closer examination of the data shows regional and gender variations that are worth noting.

Are Women Outliving Men Now?

Perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of India's life expectancy statistics is the persistent disparity between women and men. In all three reporting periods, women not only survive longer at birth but also have a longevity advantage even at older ages.

In 2017–21, female life expectancy at birth was 71.6 years, compared to 68.2 years for men. By 2018–22, females reached 71.9 years, with males at 68.2 years. The 2019–23 data shows a more pronounced gap: females at 72.5 years, males at 68.5 years—nearly a four-year difference at birth.

Even at 70 years of age, women still have a survival advantage of over one year over men. This continuing disparity highlights biological, social, and behavioral mechanisms that are more conducive to women's survival. Women are less likely to be exposed to lifestyle risk factors like smoking and heavy drinking, and investigations also identify protective hormonal effects and more robust immune reactions as being causative.

The broadening gap also mirrors gains in the health of mothers, disease avoidance, and medical care coverage for women in India. As women keep surviving longer than men, public health efforts need to evolve in response to their needs in terms of, among others, the care of the elderly, chronic disease care, and social support networks.

Urban-Rural and State-Level Disparities

The gains in life expectancy are not even across India. Recent data underscore significant regional disparities:

Chhattisgarh has the lowest life expectancy consistently: males 62.4–62.8 years, females 66.4–67.1 years.

Delhi and Kerala continue to lead, with females achieving 78.4 years in Kerala and males 73.0 years in Delhi.

Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and Kerala also show high male and female life expectancy compared to the national average.

Urban-rural differentials continue but have weakened considerably over the decades. For example:

During 2017–21, urban populations averaged 72.9 years, rural populations 68.5 years—a 4.4-year disparity.

By 2019–23, the disparity decreased slightly: urban life expectancy at 73.1 years, rural at 69.1 years, a 4-year difference.

At the age of 70, urban-rural disparities are narrower, averaging 1.5–1.9 years, an indication of increased rural healthcare and preventive services access.

Even with the decrease in the gap, rural communities still lag behind in terms of lesser access to quality care, greater infectious disease prevalence, and lesser awareness of preventive health practices. The disparities underscore the requirement for policies directed towards bridging the urban-rural divide.

Life Expectancy After Birth: Trends by Age

Life expectancy is more than a birth rate; it also reflects survival chances at various ages. The data reveal:

Life expectancy at age one (having survived infancy) has risen steadily: males from 69.5 years (2017–21) to 69.5 years (2019–23), females from 73.1 years to 73.6 years.

Life expectancy at age 60 is 18.4 years across the country (17.3 years for males, 19.6 years for females), so Indian adults can realistically hope to live well into their late 70s and early 80s if they survive to older age stages.

These age-specific trends mirror the effect of reduced infant mortality, enhanced disease control, and enhanced nutrition and sanitation. They also demonstrate women's resilience in living longer than men even at later ages, furthering the gendered character of longevity benefits.

Public Health Implications

The life expectancy trends throw up the imperative implications for India's social and healthcare planning. With women living longer than men and the population fast ageing, increasing needs of geriatric health care services, chronic diseases care, and social support systems are emerging exponentially. States like Chhattisgarh, with low performance, require special intervention to redress regional gaps in terms of maternal and child health, sanitation, and rural health infrastructure.

The female longevity edge also necessitates gender-appropriate measures that focus on preventive care, mental health interventions, and supportive care to provide a quality life for older women. Rural populations, even though they are gradually improving, continue to be prone to avoidable disease, and therefore, there is a need to consolidate healthcare access, encourage preventive testing, and spread health education in villages and small towns.

What Factors Are Driving the Improvements?

A number of factors have led to the steady increase in India's life expectancy:

Increased access to healthcare: Government initiatives such as Ayushman Bharat and state-level health programs have enhanced coverage, particularly for maternal and child health.

Vaccination: Declines in infectious diseases like measles, polio, and diphtheria have helped bring down mortality among children.

Better nutrition and sanitation: Increased dietary awareness and provision of clean water have improved health outcomes overall.

Lifestyle transitions and awareness: Better awareness of smoking cessation, physical activity, and management of chronic conditions has affected survival among adults.

Nonetheless, there are challenges. Chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease are on the increase, jeopardizing future increases in life expectancy. Managing these chronic health costs is necessary to maintain and augment longevity.

What Women's Longevity Advantage Means for The Society?

The reality that women currently live for almost four years longer than men at birth and well over one year even up to age 70 has profound implications in society:

• Healthcare systems have to be modified to provide for increasingly larger numbers of older women who might outnumber old men.
• Economic planning needs to factor in increased retirement lengths and possible dependency ratios, particularly for widows or sole living women.
• Preventive health attention must address age-related conditions for women, such as osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, and dementia.

Women's longer life expectancy is a success indicator of general health enhancement, but it also demands gender-sensitive health planning to guarantee women not only live longer but have quality and independence in old age.

India's trends in life expectancy reveal a story of slow and steady progress, powered by expansion of healthcare, control of diseases, and social development. However, the continued existence of regional inequalities, urban-rural differentials, and gendered health disparities ensures that policy focus needs to remain laser-sharp. Strategies in the future must consist of:

• Scaling up preventive care in rural and low-performing states
• Gender-sensitive healthcare service promotion
• Intensifying chronic disease control programs
• Age-specific life expectancy trend monitoring to detect emerging health threats

By targeting these priorities, India can continue to raise life expectancy, narrow inequalities, and make sure men and women do not just live longer but also healthier and more productive lives.

The most recent Indian life expectancy figures show encouraging improvements and remaining disparities. Women still outlive men by a significant margin, a pattern that holds both in urban and rural areas, with regional gaps continuing to be a serious problem. The incremental increase in life expectancy at birth is encouraging, but the path to universal coverage, equitable, high-quality healthcare continues to be a long way off.

As India makes its way through the next decade of public health priorities, attention needs to be given to maintaining these gains, meeting the needs of older persons especially women and closing disparities that push behind rural and performing states. Only then can India unlock the full potential of longer, healthier lives for its people.

Joe Biden was recently seen leaving a Delaware church with a visible scar on his forehead. Soon after, his office confirmed he had undergone Mohs surgery, a widely used procedure to remove skin cancer. The surgery, performed quietly, marks yet another chapter in the former president’s long history with cancer.

This comes just months after Biden revealed a far more serious health challenge, an aggressive form of prostate cancer that had spread to his bones. While his spokesperson reassured the public that he is recovering well, the combination of two cancers in less than a year has reignited questions about cancer risk, genetics, and what it means when an individual faces multiple cancer diagnoses.

Prostate cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer death in men, with about 1 in 8 men diagnosed in their lifetime. African American men face the highest risk.

Skin cancer, particularly basal cell carcinoma, is the most common cancer in the United States, with millions of cases diagnosed each year. Most are not deadly, but repeated exposure and recurrence are common.

Also Read: RFK Jr., at vaccine hearings, claims ‘We Were Lied To About Everything Around COVID.’

Medical experts emphasize that both cancers are highly influenced by early detection. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood tests, regular skin checks, and prompt evaluation of symptoms like urinary changes or new skin lesions remain essential.

According to his team, Biden’s procedure was Mohs micrographic surgery, often used for basal cell carcinoma, the most common type of skin cancer. The technique removes thin layers of cancerous tissue until only healthy cells remain. It is effective and carries a high cure rate when the cancer is detected early.

Biden has had skin cancer treated before. In 2023, during a routine physical, doctors removed a lesion from his chest that was also identified as basal cell carcinoma. At that time, his physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor confirmed that “all cancerous tissue was successfully removed” and that no further treatment was required.

While skin cancer is common and generally treatable, its recurrence underscores the need for ongoing surveillance. For someone in Biden’s position—82 years old and already facing another major cancer diagnosis—the surgery is more than routine maintenance; it is a reminder of his heightened vulnerability.

Prostate Cancer Spread to the Bones

In May, Biden disclosed that he had been diagnosed with a metastatic form of prostate cancer. His team explained that the cancer was “hormone-sensitive,” meaning it could respond to treatment that suppresses or blocks testosterone, which fuels prostate cancer growth.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide, and its aggressiveness varies. Many men live for years with slow-growing forms. But when it spreads to bones, as in Biden’s case, it becomes significantly harder to control. Treatment focuses on slowing progression, relieving symptoms, and maintaining quality of life.

Biden’s diagnosis brought bipartisan responses: sympathy and calls for resilience from both Democrats and Republicans, mixed with political scrutiny over whether the timing of his disclosure was delayed. For the public, it highlighted not only the seriousness of prostate cancer but also the importance of regular screenings and early detection.

History Of Cancer in the Biden Family

Cancer is not new to the Biden family. Jill Biden, the former first lady, had two basal cell carcinomas removed in 2023. Their son Beau Biden died of brain cancer in 2015, a loss that has profoundly shaped Biden’s public and private life.

In a post following his prostate cancer announcement, Biden wrote, “Cancer touches us all. Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places.”

The frequency of cancer diagnoses within his family adds weight to a question many readers have: does family history of cancer increase the risk of other cancers?

Are Skin and Prostate Cancer Linked?

Medically, basal cell carcinoma and prostate cancer are not directly connected. One develops with too much sun exposure and DNA damage to skin cells; the other occurs in the prostate gland, based on age, hormones, and occasionally genetics. However, a previous history of one cancer does increase general alertness for others. Physicians point out that:

Age is the single best predictor. At age 82, Biden's immune system is less capable of fixing DNA damage that can set up cancers.

Family history might contribute to clustering of cancers, but usually of different kinds.

Lifestyle and environmental exposure—tanning and diet, for instance—are cumulative risks that can add up over a lifetime.

In short, although Biden's skin and prostate cancers are not medically related, his age, genetic makeup, and past history of cancers individually put him in a high-risk group.

Multiple Cancers in One Lifetime

Joe Biden's case represents a reality more and more people live with: surviving a first cancer does not erase the possibility of a second. As life expectancy rises and treatments improve, it is becoming increasingly normal for patients to experience two, even three separate cancers in a lifetime.

Family history counts: A robust history of any kind of cancer can increase risk for several kinds.

Screening saves lives: Prostate exams and dermatology checks can identify cancers in their earliest stages, when they are simplest to treat.

Prevention is key: Sunscreen, healthy foods, exercise, and not using tobacco and alcohol all reduce overall cancer risk.

Can Having One Cancer Increase Your Risk of Another?

Most people ask if beating one kind of cancer makes them more susceptible to others. The reply is: having had cancer can raise overall risk, but it varies with genetics, treatment, age, and lifestyle.

1. Genetic Predisposition

Some cancers have inherited mutations that target several organs. Examples include:

• BRCA1/BRCA2: Raise risk for breast, ovarian, prostate cancers.
• Lynch syndrome: Increases risk of colorectal, endometrial, and other cancers.
• Li-Fraumeni syndrome (TP53 mutations): Substantially increases the risk for a variety of cancers at an early age.

Here, one mutation can cause an individual to develop more than one form of cancer in his/her lifetime.

2. Effects of Previous Cancer or Treatment

Some cancer therapies, such as chemotherapy and radiation, will modestly increase the risk of developing a subsequent cancer years down the road. This is typically balanced against the cure for the initial cancer.

3. Shared Risk Factors

Aside from a genetic connection, age, lifestyle, and environmental exposures can increase the risk for more than one cancer:

• Smoking and alcohol consumption
• Sunlight exposure and skin damage
• Obesity or diet
• Chronic inflammation or compromised immune system

4. Surveillance Matters

Patients who have already had one cancer are usually followed more closely, which results in the detection of another cancer at an early stage. Routine checkups, screenings, and self-exams are essential.

Having survived one cancer does not mean one is safe from others, but prevention, awareness, and early detection drastically lower risk. Such instances as Joe Biden's, where prostate cancer preceded skin cancer, underscore how a lifetime of vigilance and a doctor's guidance is necessary for a cancer survivor.