I'm one of the increasing number of young people to have a stroke and was paralyzed at 19... how I made a comeback
In 2019, Gedgaudas had moved from Kenosha, Wisconsin, to San Francisco to become a pilot with dreams of also joining an NFL team as a cheerleader.
However, on February 5, two days after the Super Bowl, Gedgaudas and her family were at her home when she suffered a stroke.
According to Gedgaudas's mother Lily, her parents found her laying on the ground completely paralyzed with her mouth drooping.
Gedgaudas told DailyMail.com: 'My entire family had flown in to watch the game and spend the week together.'
The aspiring pilot was immediately rushed to the hospital where doctors told her that she had suffered a stroke due to extremely high cholesterol from a hereditary condition known as high lipoprotein (a).
Lipoproteins are protein molecules that transport fat in the body, including cholesterol and triglycerides. Elevated levels of these can pose a risk to cardiovascular health.
High Lipoprotein (a) is a genetic condition that creates a new form of cholesterol in the body that is similar to LDL (bad) cholesterol but has an additional protein.
This new kind of cholesterol causes a buildup of plaque in arteries, triggering inflammation and increased blood clotting, ultimately hindering blood flow to the heart.
As a result, people with this condition have a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes - even if they take precautionary measures such as eating health and not smoking.
About one in five Americans, or around 64 million people, suffer from high lipoprotein(a).
In Gedgaudas's case, her condition created a blood clot in her brain that resulted in a stroke.
According to the CDC, about 800,000 Americans experience a stroke each year while an estimated 138,000 Americans die from it.
While usually associated with older populations, recent data indicates a concerning increase in stroke rates among individuals aged between 18 and 44.
About 120,000 Americans under the age of 50 and 1.5 million young adults worldwide suffer a stroke each year.
Sedentary lifestyles, poor diet, substance abuse (including smoking and excessive alcohol consumption), and stress are increasingly recognized as major contributors to stroke in young adults.
She told the website: 'It was a complete shock. I've been an athlete my entire life—a state champion gymnast, a black belt in karate, and a competitive dancer and cheerleader. No one ever expected someone like me to have high cholesterol.
'But because of my genetics, my lipoprotein(a) level raised my cholesterol to dangerous levels and that's ultimately what caused my stroke.
'At the time, I was completely paralyzed and could only respond with one word: "yeah." That's all I could say.'
Gedgaudas's doctors initially prescribed her a tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) - a medication used to treat heart attacks by dissolving blood clots.
However, due to the large size of the clot, the medication failed to work and she was forced to undergo a thrombectomy, a procedure where doctors insert a catheter into an artery through the groin to remove the clot.
But while doctors were able to successfully remove the life-threatening clot, she was left partially deaf as the stroke damaged parts of her brain responsible for hearing.
The intensive surgery combined with the paralysis she suffered left Gedgaudas struggling to recover for three years, relearning how to walk, talk, eat and read.
During this time, she watched numerous wrestling matches and decided she wanted to pursue the sport rather than becoming a pilot and cheerleader.
The now 25-year-old said: 'My dad would sit with me in the ICU and put wrestling on the TV. My mom says the first time I smiled after the stroke was while watching wrestling.
'Later, my brother took me to a live show, and after we left, I said, "That's what I'm going to do."
'There were days I didn't want to get out of bed. I was angry, I was depressed. But watching wrestling made me believe I could do something again. It gave me hope and purpose.'
Once being given the green light by her entire medical team in 2022, she began training to be a professional wrestler.
In 2023, she made her debut and quickly became a standout.
Now, Gedgaudas is the reigning women's champion at Ohio Valley Wrestling (OVW) in Louisville, Kentucky - where wrestling legends John Cena, Dave Batista, Brock Lesnar and Randy Orton started their road to stardom.
She told DailyMail.com: 'Being part of OVW means everything to me. There's so much history here and amazing wrestlers that have come through, and I want to be one of the names. I want to show people a disability shouldn't stop anyone from reaching the top.'
Gedgaudas continued: 'For a long time, I was embarrassed that I was partially deaf. I saw it as a weakness and didn't want anyone to think I was limited. But over time, I realized it's just part of who I am - and there's nothing to be ashamed of.
'Now, I embrace it. I've learned to adapt in ways that work for me. I've gotten good at reading lips, and in the ring, I naturally turn my good ear toward the sound so I can hear what I need to. Most importantly, I stay super focused.
'By staying locked in, I'm able to catch cues and respond without missing a beat. It's not always easy, but I've found ways to make it work - and even turn it into a strength.
'I have to read matches differently, and I rely on instincts and body language. It forces me to be completely in the moment, and I think it makes me a better performer.'
To stay healthy and prevent another stroke, Gedgaudas workouts and follows a special diet comprised of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean proteins including chicken and fish.
For the future, Gedgaudas has global ambitions and hopes to one day wrestle internationally. But for now, her mission is personal.
'I want to wrestle in the UK, Japan, anywhere. But more than that, I want to keep helping people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Using Generative AI for therapy might feel like a lifeline – but there's danger in seeking certainty in a chatbot
Tran* sat across from me, phone in hand, scrolling. 'I just wanted to make sure I didn't say the wrong thing,' he explained, referring to a recent disagreement with his partner. 'So I asked ChatGPT what I should say.' He read the chatbot-generated message aloud. It was articulate, logical and composed – almost too composed. It didn't sound like Tran. And it definitely didn't sound like someone in the middle of a complex, emotional conversation about the future of a long-term relationship. It also did not mention anywhere some of Tran's contributing behaviours to the relationship strain that Tran and I had been discussing. Like many others I've seen in therapy recently, Tran had turned to AI in a moment of crisis. Under immense pressure at work and facing uncertainty in his relationship, he'd downloaded ChatGPT on his phone 'just to try it out'. What began as a curiosity soon became a daily habit, asking questions, drafting texts, and even seeking reassurance about his own feelings. The more Tran used it, the more he began to second-guess himself in social situations, turning to the model for guidance before responding to colleagues or loved ones. He felt strangely comforted, like 'no one knew me better'. His partner, on the other hand, began to feel like she was talking to someone else entirely. ChatGPT and other generative AI models present a tempting accessory, or even alternative, to traditional therapy. They're often free, available 24/7 and can offer customised, detailed responses in real time. When you're overwhelmed, sleepless and desperate to make sense of a messy situation, typing a few sentences into a chatbot and getting back what feels like sage advice can be very appealing. But as a psychologist, I'm growing increasingly concerned about what I'm seeing in the clinic; a silent shift in how people are processing distress and a growing reliance on artificial intelligence in place of human connection and therapeutic support. AI might feel like a lifeline when services are overstretched – and make no mistake, services are overstretched. Globally, in 2019 one in eight people were living with a mental illness and we face a dire shortage of trained mental health professionals. In Australia, there has been a growing mental health workforce shortage that is impacting access to trained professionals. Clinician time is one of the scarcest resources in healthcare. It's understandable (even expected) that people are looking for alternatives. Turning to a chatbot for emotional support isn't without risk however, especially when the lines between advice, reassurance and emotional dependence become blurred. Many psychologists, myself included, now encourage clients to build boundaries around their use of ChatGPT and similar tools. Its seductive 'always-on' availability and friendly tone can unintentionally reinforce unhelpful behaviours, especially for people with anxiety, OCD or trauma-related issues. Reassurance-seeking, for example, is a key feature in OCD and ChatGPT, by design, provides reassurance in abundance. It never asks why you're asking again. It never challenges avoidance. It never says, 'let's sit with this feeling for a moment, and practice the skills we have been working on'. Tran often reworded prompts until the model gave him an answer that 'felt right'. But this constant tailoring meant he wasn't just seeking clarity; he was outsourcing emotional processing. Instead of learning to tolerate distress or explore nuance, he sought AI-generated certainty. Over time, that made it harder for him to trust his own instincts. Beyond psychological concerns, there are real ethical issues. Information shared with ChatGPT isn't protected by the same confidentiality standards as registered Ahpra professionals. Although OpenAI states that data from users is not used to train its models unless permission is given, the sheer volume of fine print in user agreements often goes unread. Users may not realise how their inputs can be stored, analysed and potentially reused. There's also the risk of harmful or false information. These large language models are autoregressive; they predict the next word based on previous patterns. This probabilistic process can lead to 'hallucinations', confident, polished answers that are completely untrue. AI also reflects the biases embedded in its training data. Research shows that generative models can perpetuate and even amplify gender, racial and disability-based stereotypes – not intentionally, but unavoidably. Human therapists also possess clinical skills; we notice when a client's voice trembles, or when their silence might say more than words. This isn't to say AI can't have a place. Like many technological advancements before it, generative AI is here to stay. It may offer useful summaries, psycho-educational content or even support in regions where access to mental health professionals is severely limited. But it must be used carefully, and never as a replacement for relational, regulated care. Tran wasn't wrong to seek help. His instincts to make sense of distress and to communicate more thoughtfully were logical. However, leaning so heavily on to AI meant that his skill development suffered. His partner began noticing a strange detachment in his messages. 'It just didn't sound like you', she later told him. It turned out: it wasn't. She also became frustrated about the lack of accountability in his correspondence to her and this caused more relational friction and communication issues between them. As Tran and I worked together in therapy, we explored what led him to seek certainty in a chatbot. We unpacked his fears of disappointing others, his discomfort with emotional conflict and his belief that perfect words might prevent pain. Over time, he began writing his own responses, sometimes messy, sometimes unsure, but authentically his. Good therapy is relational. It thrives on imperfection, nuance and slow discovery. It involves pattern recognition, accountability and the kind of discomfort that leads to lasting change. A therapist doesn't just answer; they ask and they challenge. They hold space, offer reflection and walk with you, while also offering up an uncomfortable mirror. For Tran, the shift wasn't just about limiting his use of ChatGPT; it was about reclaiming his own voice. In the end, he didn't need a perfect response. He needed to believe that he could navigate life's messiness with curiosity, courage and care – not perfect scripts. Name and identifying details changed to protect client confidentiality Carly Dober is a psychologist living and working in Naarm/Melbourne In Australia, support is available at Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636, Lifeline on 13 11 14, and at MensLine on 1300 789 978. In the UK, the charity Mind is available on 0300 123 3393 and Childline on 0800 1111. In the US, call or text Mental Health America at 988 or chat
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Harvard study casts new light on why some couples conceive all girls or boys
Harvard study casts new light on why some couples conceive all girls or boys A Harvard study has revealed a link between a woman's age and the likelihood of giving birth to multiple children of the same sex. Siwen Wang, a PhD student in nutritional epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, began researching the topic after noticing a trend in her own family. Her mother was one of three sisters and a younger brother, while her father had two brothers and no sisters. 'I was wondering whether it's just pure chance or if there was some special biology underlying this phenomenon,' she told the Boston Globe. Her questions led to a study published July 18 in Science Advances by her and seven others. The researchers analyzed 146,064 pregnancies from 58,000 US nurses across nearly six decades and discovered that in some families the odds are not so random. The NIH-funded Nurses' Health Study studied the subjects between 1956 and 2015 and found that some families were more likely to have children of the same sex. Researchers found that maternal age played a key role in the sex of the baby. A Harvard study has revealed a link between a woman's age and the likelihood of giving birth to children of the same sex Siwen Wang (pictured), a PhD student at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, began researching the topic after noticing a trend in her own family. Her mother was one of three sisters and a younger brother, while her father had two brothers and no sisters The research found that women who had their first child at age 29 or older were significantly more likely to have multiple children of the same sex. 'It's like moving the needle from 50 to 60 percent,' Dr. Bernard Rosner, a co-author of the study told the outlet. 'I don't think you could use any of this information to definitively predict whether a specific person will have a male or female offspring, but ... it's not necessarily random probability.' The findings also showed that women who already had three children of the same sex were more likely to have a fourth of the same gender. The study showed a 61 percent likelihood for boys and 58 percent for girls. 'If you've had two girls or three girls and you're trying for a boy, you should know your odds are not 50-50,' Jorge Chavarro, professor of nutrition and epidemiology and author of the study, told the Washington Post. The research found that women who had their first child at age 29 or older were significantly more likely to have multiple children of the same sex 'You're more likely than not to have another girl.' 'We don't know why these genes would be associated with sex at birth, but they are, and that opens up new questions,' Chavarro added. Paternal influences on the child's sex were not entirely explored in the study. Researchers did not include detailed data on fathers so they couldn't analyze how paternal factors might influence the sex of children. Despite, the lack of research on the paternal side, Wang did mention that older maternal age is most highly correlated with older paternal age.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump dubbed himself the ‘father of IVF' on the campaign trail. But his pledge to mandate insurance cover has disappeared
Donald Trump's vow to expand in vitro fertilization (IVF) access to millions of Americans is on hold, with White House officials backing away from plans to require Obamacare health plans to include the service as an essential health benefit, the Washington Post reported on Sunday. The Post reported that White House officials have privately moved away from the prospect of pushing for legislation to address the issue despite it being one of Trump's signature campaign promises, citing two persons with knowledge of internal discussions in Trumpworld. A senior administration official also acknowledged to the newspaper that changing Obamacare to force insurers to cover new services would require congressional action, not an executive order. The president has governed largely by executive fiat in his second term as he grapples with a closely-divded Congress and an unruly GOP majority in the House of Representatives. He's used those executive orders to dismantle whole parts of the federal government, including USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The president even tried to take an axe to the Department of Education, though that battle is still being waged in the courts. The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for Trump to cut roughly a quarter of the agency's staff. But many of Trump's campaign promises lie outside of his ability to influence via the hiring or firing of people and redirection of agency resources or agendas. In 2024, he laid out no direct path for his goal to expand IVF access, only telling voters that insurance companies would be forced to cover it. Still, he proclaimed himself the 'father of IVF' at at Fox News town hall, and promised during an NBC News interview: 'We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment. We're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.' At the time, there was little to no acknowledgment of the fact that many if not most conservatives still oppose the Affordable Care Act and the same healthcare exchanges which Trump was now promising to utilize as he sought to use the power of the federal government to expand healthcare coverage. Now, with the passage of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' without any provisions expanding IVF access, and with the prospect of further policy gains before the midterms growing dimmer, it's unclear when the White House would have another chance to press the issue in Congress. In February, the president signed an executive order directing his advisers to 'submit to the President a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' It's been crickets on the issue since then. In 2024, many of Trump's critics and the media pointed out that the policy would essentially amount to a reversal or at the very least coming in sharp contrast to the first Trump administration's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which ended in failure, and a contradiction of the conservative view that government should not exercise that level of control over Americans' health care decisions. The president's promise thrilled his party's natalists, embodied by Vice President JD Vance and an army of right-wing immigration hawks who fear the changing American demographics brought on as a result of falling birth rates and high levels of migration. It also wowed some of his Democratic and left-leaning critics, who see the policy as a means of furthering their goal of expanding access to healthcare for poorer Americans. For Vance, the issue of declining U.S. birth rates predates his MAGA heel-turn. In 2019, he told a gathering of conservatives in Washington: 'Our people aren't having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.' 'We want babies not just because they are economically useful. We want more babies because children are good. And we believe children are good, because we are not sociopaths,' the future vice president added at the time. Two years later, he'd tell a right-leaning podcast: 'I think we have to go to war against the anti-child ideology that exists in our country.' During the 2024 campaign, those views emerged again as Vance attacked Democrats as 'childless cat ladies' and leaned heavily into attacking the left for supposedly being anti-family. Progressives fought back, pointing to efforts to expand the child tax credit and other benefits that aid young families under Joe Biden and other Democratic administrations, including the passage of Barack Obama's signature law: the Affordable Care Act.
