02/26/2020
Please read very concerning
via Gail GQ
Ultrasound Pregnancy Risks – Latest Research About The Dangers
For the past several decades, parents have been repeatedly told that prenatal ultrasound is “just sound waves” and therefore, “perfectly safe” for use during pregnancy.
Expectant mothers have been encouraged (and even pressured) by their care providers to undergo multiple ultrasound scans, as well as repeated exposure to Doppler fetal heart monitors, which are also ultrasound-based.
Many babies born today have been exposed to ultrasound numerous times, with some sources saying that a woman with a normal, low-risk pregnancy can be exposed to as many as 10-17 scans per pregnancy.
Moreover, some mothers and babies have been exposed to ultrasonic fetal heart monitoring for hours or even days during hospital birth, yet this type of extended exposure has been documented to cause fetal death and ultrasound is being repeatedly linked to fetal demise.
Ultrasound is Not Just Sound Waves
Ultrasound pregnancy risks are real. Despite medical assurances of safety, ultrasound is not just sound waves. In fact, it is non ionizing radiation, and many thousands of studies have confirmed that this type of radiation is harmful.
Children, and especially developing babies in the womb, are at great risk from exposure to non-ionizing technologies since children’s brains and bodies absorb more radiation, and the bone marrow in their head absorbs up to 10x as much radiation as does that of adults.
In truth, all living things are in danger from exposure to non-ionizing technologies and this includes radiation from cell towers, cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors, wifi devices, and 5G technology which is being introduced. Because these devices are now ubiquitous in our society—and because children are now being exposed 24/7 (even while in the womb)—it is important for parents to understand the facts about non-ionizing technologies so that they can protect themselves and their children from harm.
A Single Exposure to Ultrasound Causes DNA Damage Similar to 250 Chest X-Rays
Ultrasound is listed on the website of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a section entitled “Radiation Emitting Products.”4 There we are told that “ultrasound… is based on non-ionizing radiation, so it does not have the same risks as X rays…”
However, study after study has confirmed that ultrasound does, in fact, produce similar biological damage to that caused by X rays.
Scientists have known this for at least 100 years. In one study (Liebeskind, et al, 1981), researchers concluded that a single exposure to ultrasound produced cellular and DNA damage similar to 250 chest x rays. Damage was permanent and heritable for ten generations and beyond.
Other studies have documented DNA shearing, single and double strand breaks, chromosome rearrangements and DNA uncoiling, deformities and mutations in offspring, as well as the complete deactivation of genetic material within sonicated cells.
The damage being caused by ultrasound is very far reaching and is extensively documented in my book, “The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound and the Dangers of Non-Ionizing Radiation – Part 1.”
(Ultrasound should not be confused with CT scans or CAT scans. CT scan radiation is also dangerous.)
Ultrasound Causes Growth Restriction and Low Birth Weight
In both human and animal studies, ultrasound exposure in utero has been repeatedly shown to cause intrauterine growth restriction and low birth weight. Medical researchers at the FDA have known about this for decades, with an FDA spokesperson acknowledging in the early 1990s that:
“We’ve been looking at a population of children – about 2,000 children – about half of whom have been irradiated [with ultrasound] in the Denver, Colorado area. And the indication there is that these children who have been irradiated have a reduced birth weight.”26
Despite this knowledge, in 1991, the FDA decided to increase the maximum allowable output levels for obstetrical ultrasound machines at least eightfold, with some sources saying that output levels increased 10 to-15-fold over the next few years.
This FDA action ensured that babies born after 1991 would be exposed to even more radiation as compared to those born in the 1970s and 80s, hence these children have a greater risk of radiation-induced genetic and/or brain damage that can lead to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.
Ultrasound Scans and Fetal Heart Monitoring Have No Benefit in Terms of Neonatal Outcome
Significantly, both fetal heart monitoring and ultrasound scans have been repeatedly shown to have no benefit in terms of neonatal outcome.
On the contrary, they are causing harm. Babies exposed to these technologies have an increased chance of being forcibly ejected from the womb before they are ready to be born through the induction of labor, as well an increased chance of cesarean birth, and spending time in neonatal intensive care.
Despite clear evidence that fetal heart monitoring is not having any benefit and is only causing harm, as of 2002, more than 85% of birthing American women and their babies were forced to endure ultrasonic fetal heart monitoring during hospital birth.
Ultrasonic Heating
Medical professionals have known for decades that elevated maternal and/or fetal heating can lead to birth defects in human offspring. That is why pregnant women are often told to avoid getting into hot tubs or taking hot baths, especially during early pregnancy, for fear this might lead to heating of the amniotic fluid, resulting in birth defects, brain damage, neurological damage, etc.
Yet despite this common knowledge, the medical establishment is routinely and excessively exposing pregnant women to ultrasonic technology that emits both DNA-damaging radiation and is known to cause dangerous levels of heating (including heating of the amniotic fluid).
Both ultrasound scans and Doppler fetal heart monitors have been repeatedly documented to cause extreme localized temperatures, that can lead to neurological defects, spina bifida, deformations in the head and brain, microcephaly, heart irregularities and defects, and other serious harm.
Ultrasonically-induced fetal growth retardation (documented in literally dozens of studies as mentioned above) may be due, in part, to restrictions in bone growth caused by bones absorbing excess radiation heat.
“Bone is extremely sensitive to ultrasound heating: the skull of a third-trimester fetus heats up 50 times more quickly than brain tissue when exposed to ultrasound. This means that brain structures lying close to the skull, such as the pituitary and the hypothalamus, are especially at risk of secondary heating.”49
When fetal skull bones are heated by ultrasound, the brain matter closest to the bones is being heated as well. This heating can contribute to the myriad brain abnormalities we are seeing in children today, including children with autism.
Ultrasound Damage May Not Be Apparent at Birth
Prenatal life is a fragile time, especially during the first trimester when cells are rapidly dividing and multiplying. DNA-damaged cells can quickly replicate during this time, leaving babies susceptible to both mutated genetic development and/or the development of cancer, tumors, or other illnesses later on.
Damage from ultrasound may not be apparent at birth since an ultrasound beam can pe*****te deep into the body without leaving any sign of damage on the skin.
However, due to ultrasound’s extreme heating (and cavitation) effects, even though babies may appear normal and healthy at birth, the internal contents of their bodies (i.e., DNA, blood, bones, brain, heart, reproductive organs, etc.), are likely to have been cooked, scrambled and/or severely disturbed from exposure to ultrasound in utero.
As with all forms of radiation damage, the effects may not become apparent for many years.
Ultrasound Interferes with Fertility
Radiation-induced infertility is one of the many forms of ultrasonic damage that may not become apparent for years after exposure.
Nonetheless, ultrasound-induced reproductive damage is extremely well-documented, and the medical establishment has known, since at least 1955, that ultrasound can have deleterious effects on the menstrual cycle, decrease ovulation rates, cause problems with embryo implantation, and trigger structural alterations in ovarian and testicular tissue.
The latter may be contributing to the rising rates of ge***al defects we are seeing since the 1970s, when ultrasound was first mainstreamed in obstetrics.
“One of the most popular non-medical uses of ultrasound… is to determine the s*x of the baby. Could this have a connection to the increase in birth defects involving the ge***als and urinary tract? The March of Dimes says that these types of birth defects affect ‘as many as 1 in 10 babies,’ adding that ‘specific causes of most of these conditions is unknown.’”63
Ultrasound Stops S***m Production and “Cooks” the Vas Deferens of Adult Males
The medical establishment is well aware that ultrasound stops s***m production. This is why doctors are currently using it as a form of male contraception.
Two 15 minute blasts to the adult male sc***um ensures a minimum of six months infertility, and infertility can be permanent.
If infertility is temporary, the quality of new s***m is in question, since ultrasound can cause genetic defects in s***m (and eggs) and contribute to the myriad de novo mutations we are seeing in children today, including children with autism.
Moreover, ultrasonic irradiation is being used to induce vasectomies in adult men since it can heat the vas deferens to over 50C [122°F], killing cells, causing them to coagulate and thereby block the tubes that carry s***m to the p***s.
But if ultrasound can stop s***m production and cook the reproductive organs of adult men, shouldn’t we be concerned about what is happening to developing babies when they direct that beam at the ge***als to discover the s*x of the child?
Infertility Skyrocketing in the U.S. and Elsewhere
Male infertility is epidemic in the western world, with men now producing 60% less s***m than they did in 1975 (interesting timing indeed). The link between cell phone radiation and infertility cannot be ignored either.
Female fertility is also in steep decline and the U.S. is currently experiencing its lowest birth rate ever recorded since 1909 when the government first began tracking fertility.
Radiation exposure in utero is no doubt playing a huge role in this terminal decline. Exposure to cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors, etc., is also contributing to an existential fertility and genetic crisis, prompting British physicist, Barrie Trower, to predict that within 50-60 years, we are going to bear witness to a radiation-induced disaster that will leave only one in eight children healthy.
Ultrasound Pregnancy Risks—What Can We Do?
It is time for us to acknowledge the dangers of non-ionizing technologies, including ultrasound during pregnancy. Entire genetic bloodlines are at risk because of our addiction to radiation-emitting devices—and we are not the only species that is being harmed.
It is imperative for us to make changes in our lives now in order to minimize exposure. These changes should be made as quickly as possible but at a pace that is manageable without creating overwhelm. Below are some simple suggestions.
# Say NO to Harmful Medical Interventions like Prenatal Ultrasound
The first and most obvious thing we can do is say NO to harmful medical interventions like ultrasonography during preganancy and ultrasonic fetal heart monitoring. This is absolutely necessary if we are to protect the incoming children and the reproductive and genetic integrity of our bloodlines.
# Seek Guidance about Radiation Detox
For those concerned about how much radiation their child may have been exposed to, seek guidance regarding safe radiation detox.
One thing that is highly recommend is a radiation detox bath once or twice per week.
To help with the detox, add sea salt, baking soda, clay (I use this one), organic yellow dock root, and epsom salt. Bath should last approximately 20-30 minutes. Please do not add hot water once you and/or your child are in the tub. Simply make the water as warm as possible at the beginning of the bath and then soak. Rinse off in the shower afterward.
# Diet and Supplements – Please Do Your Own Research to Confirm Safety for Children
The consumption of sea vegetables (especially kelp), cilantro, and high-quality iodine is recommended. Certain supplements can help pull heavy metals and/or radiation out of the body including sacred clay, clean chlorella, modifilan, and zeolites. Non GMO Vitamin C and Amla are radioprotective. Vitamin D3, K2, E and Magnesium (transdermal and/or Magnesium L Threonate) are also recommended.
Dr. Robert Morse makes an herbal tincture called “No-Glo” that is very good. I also recommend his lymphatic system tonic, kidney/bladder tonic, blood tonic and chem/metal detox.
Essential Oils can also be helpful but never put oils directly on the skin as they can burn. Always use a carrier oil like organic coconut or olive oil and mix with a drop or two of essential oil before rubbing into the skin. Rosemary oil helps to repair radiation-damaged brain cells. Sacred Frankincense oil (bosweilla sacra) from Young Living has been documented to kill cancer cells in six weeks.
# Changes to the Home
One of the most important things we can do to protect ourselves from exposure to radiation is to create a clean environment in our home. Below are some suggestions about how to do this.
1. Turn off and unplug all wireless devices in your home at night and when not in use. This includes cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors, WiFi routers, smart TVs, etc. This one simple step is extremely important, especially during sleep, since our bodies will attempt to repair radiation damage while we sleep, but we must be in a clean environment in order for the healing to occur. If our bodies are chronically exposed to radiation 24/7, there is no chance of repair and illness will ensue in due time.
2. Purchase an EMF meter so that you can measure the radiation levels in your home and elsewhere. You need an EMF meter that is accurate, fairly inexpensive (beware there are some very cheap meters on the market which are of very poor quality and give misleading readings), and very easy to use.
3. Get rid of the WiFi in your house and use ethernet connected devices instead. This is actually very easy to do, especially if you are receiving your internet through a cable company.
4. Get rid of all cordless phones in your house and replace them with CORDED telephones. Corded phones are very inexpensive and available on Amazon and elsewhere. Keep in mind that cordless DECT phone radiation is very dangerous, with radiation levels in the red near the base. Never keep a cordless phone by your bed or near your head. Unplug all cordless phones at night until you can get them out of the house for good.
5. If you use a smart TV, consider purchasing ethernet adapters for your particular model and turning off the WIFI. WIFI radiation is a growing problem with many routers now emiting at increasingly high power levels and many routers now emit at two frequencies.
6. Get rid of all wireless baby monitors immediately. Do not delay. These monitors are extremely dangerous. Children’s lives are at risk from exposure to these technologies as they pump out excessive levels of pulsed microwave radiation.
7. If you have a smart meter on your home, have it removed as quickly as possible. Be firm with your utility company and do not back down. Repeat over and over (if necessary) that you do not consent to having any radiation-emitting device on your home and you are prepared to hold them liable for every day they leave that device on your house. See www.InPowerMovement.com for info on how to hold them liable.
Use these tips to reduce your EMF exposures and think twice before consenting to ultrasound during pregnancy.
https://www.electricsense.com/14745/ultrasound-pregnancy-risks/
~~
***UPDATE**
Thanks to so many vocal opponents, I did a little more digging. This is what I found.
***
A new study out of the University of Washington found a correlation with autistic boys who had ultrasound scans in the first trimester and the severity of their symptoms.
Severity of ASD symptoms and their correlation with the presence of copy number variations and exposure to first trimester ultrasound -
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aur.1690
~~~
Randomised controlled trial of Doppler ultrasound screening of placental perfusion during pregnancy.
More perinatal deaths occurred in the doppler group (17 vs 7, relative risk 2.4, 95% Cl 1.00-5.76), but only 1 of 11 normally formed stillbirths and none of the 4 normally formed neonatal deaths after 24 weeks' gestation had an abnormal umbilical-artery doppler examination.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1360032
~~
Estimated fetal weight by ultrasound: a modifiable risk factor for cesarean delivery?
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether knowledge of ultrasound-obtained estimated fetal weight (US-EFW) is a risk factor for cesarean delivery (CD).
STUDY DESIGN:
Retrospective cohort from a single center in 2009-2010 of singleton, term live births. CD rates were compared for women with and without US-EFW within 1 month of delivery and adjusted for potential confounders.
RESULTS:
Of the 2329 women in our cohort, 50.2% had US-EFW within 1 month of delivery. CD was significantly more common for women with US-EFW (15.7% vs 10.2%; P < .001); after we controlled for confounders, US-EFW remained an independent risk factor for CD (odds ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.9). The risk increased when US-EFW was >3500 g (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.7).
CONCLUSION:
Knowledge of US-EFW, above and beyond the impact of fetal size itself, increases the risk of CD. Acquisition of US-EFW near term appears to be an independent and potentially modifiable risk factor for CD.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22902073
~~~
Avoid Fetal "Keepsake" Images, Heartbeat Monitors
Ultrasound imaging is the most widely used medical imaging method during pregnancy.
Fetal ultrasound imaging provides real-time images of the fetus. Doppler fetal ultrasound heartbeat monitors are hand-held ultrasound devices that let you listen to the heartbeat of the fetus. Both are prescription devices designed to be used by trained health care professionals. They are not intended for over-the-counter (OTC) sale or use, and the FDA strongly discourages their use for creating fetal keepsake images and videos.
"Although there is a lack of evidence of any harm due to ultrasound imaging and heartbeat monitors, prudent use of these devices by trained health care providers is important," says Shahram Vaezy, Ph.D., an FDA biomedical engineer. "Ultrasound can heat tissues slightly, and in some cases, it can also produce very small bubbles (cavitation) in some tissues."
The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation are not known. Therefore, ultrasound scans should be done only when there is a medical need, based on a prescription, and performed by appropriately-trained operators.
While FDA recognizes that fetal imaging can promote bonding between the parents and the developing fetus, such opportunities are routinely provided during prenatal care. In creating fetal keepsake videos, there is no control on how long a single imaging session will last, how many sessions will take place, or whether the ultrasound systems will be operated properly. By contrast, Veazy says, “Proper use of ultrasound equipment pursuant to a prescription ensures that a woman will receive professional care that contributes to her health and to the health of her fetus.”
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/avoid-fetal-keepsake-images-heartbeat-
~~~~
Is Ultrasound Scanning During Pregnancy Worth the Risks?
While ultrasound scanning doesn't pose the same dangers to human and fetal health as ionizing radiation, it is a mistake to think that ultrasound is entirely safe for a baby growing in your womb.
Ultrasound scanning works by sending sound waves into your tissues. As these sound waves bounce off of your tissues, a picture is created.
These sound waves are capable of producing the following physiological effects:
Increase in blood flow and temperature in local tissues
Production of gas bubbles that can put pressure on local tissues
Mechanical effects like movement of the fluid that surrounds your cells, which can also put pressure on local tissues
The conventional view on ultrasound scanning during pregnancy is that the intensity and duration of sound waves that are used for scanning are not enough to produce these physiological effects at a level that is harmful to a fetus.
I believe that this conventional view is influenced by the number of dollars that are being made by this industry.
Before you allow ultrasound scanning to be performed during pregnancy, please consider the following points:
Ultrasound scanning of pregnant women has been shown to significantly increase the likelihood of miscarriage, preterm labour, and even infant mortality.
Pregnant physiotherapists who provided ultrasound treatments for more than 20 hours per week were found to have an increased risk for spontaneous abortions.
One of the reasons used to support ultrasound scanning for pregnant women is that it can help to diagnose a condition called placental praevia. This is a condition where the placenta is implanted in the lower part of a woman's uterus, which can cause bleeding in the third trimester and increase her chance of being encouraged to have a caesarean section. A study of 4000 women found that of 250 women who were scanned and diagnosed with placental praevia, only 4 actually had placental praevia upon delivery. Who knows how many unnecessary caesareans have been done and how much needless anxiety women have experienced due to incorrect diagnoses of placental praevia wiith ultrasound?
Using ultrasound scanning to detect serious problems before birth does not necessarily save lives or reduce illness. There is evidence to suggest that using ultrasound to attempt to detect problems while a baby is in the womb can do more harm than good.
There is evidence to support that children who have been exposed to ultrasound while in their mothers' bellies have a greater chance of suffering from dyslexia and other speech and learning problems than children who have not been exposed to ultrasound.
Ultimately, the two main reasons why I believe that it is best to avoid ultrasound scanning during pregnancy are:
No matter what intensity and duration of ultrasound waves are used, there is always a possibility of these waves creating unnecessary thermal and physical pressure to a growing baby. Why take this risk?
There is always a possibility of practitioner error and/or a defective machine that can result in a higher than intended dose of ultrasonic waves to your baby.
https://drbenkim.com/articles-ultrasound-pregnancy.html
~~~
Benefits and risks of ultrasound in pregnancy
Abstract
Ultrasound is, arguably, the most commonly used diagnostic procedure in obstetrics. It is convenient, painless, yields immediate, extensive results, and is widely considered to be safe. Some (but not all) benefits described in the literature have been validated by evidence-based analysis, such as pregnancy dating. Others are considered clinically useful, although objective evidence may be less strong. As is the case with almost any medical procedure, however, its performance carries some risks: misdiagnosis on the one hand and possible undesired effects on the other. The general belief exists that diagnostic ultrasound (DUS) does not pose any risk to the pregnant patient nor to her fetus. Nonetheless, ultrasound is a form of energy and, as such, demonstrates effects in biological tissues it traverses (bioeffects). The physical mechanisms responsible for these effects are thermal or non-thermal (mechanical). It is the role of science to show whether any of these bioeffects may be harmful. A risk–benefit analysis may also be important, as well as education of the end users to assure patients' safety.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0146000513000694
~~~
Safety Assurance in Obstetrical Ultrasound
Shadows of Doubt
The present use of diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics is expected to be essentially free of risk of ultrasound-induced bioeffects.
However, it is not possible to prove this expectation (logically, absence of evidence of harm is not evidence that no harm is possible). Scientifically, only the opposite can be shown; that is, continuing research could elucidate a significant harmful effect. In fact, there several observations which cast some doubt on the present safety assurance framework. While these issues should not intrude on clinical judgement (many are circumstantial or purely speculative), some are worthy of mention to help frame the appropriate safety assurance philosophy for obstetrical ultrasound.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2390856/
