Conventional Med
Ultrasound Causes Brain Damage in Fetuses: Study
Ultrasound has become routine during pregnancy over the last 3 decades. It is assumed to be safe, though safety was never investigated. Research is now finally being done, and the results are dismal, demonstrating clear and permanent brain damage, as shown in this study. Nearly all babies have been damaged to varying degrees, resulting in abnormal neurology becoming the norm.
Sonigram with Caduceus-Death’s Head, by Rob Friesel (Death’s-head caduceus added)
by Heidi Stevenson
That delightful ultrasound look at a fetus months before birth is a huge thrill—but that’s the only benefit. That thrill comes at a risk, one that it’s hard to imagine any parent would be willing to take if the facts were presented. Ultrasound causes brain damage and can even kill the fetus. This is not a supposition. It’s been clearly documented, and exactly what it does to the developing brain is understood.
Dr. Jennifer Margulis points out in her brilliant new book, The Business of Baby:
Manuel Casanova M.D., a neurologist who holds an endowed chair at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, contends that Rakic’s mice research helps confirm a disturbing hypothesis that he and his colleagues have been testing for the last three years: that ultrasound exposure is an environmental factor directly contributing to the exponential rise in autism.[1]
The Study
Dr. Pasko Rakic is the lead researcher for the study documenting that ultrasound damages mouse brains.[2] It shows that the process of brain development is disturbed in mice. Though it’s easy to suggest that this is “only” a study on mice, so doesn’t prove anything about humans, that’s not true. The method of development in mouse brains is exactly the same in all mammals. Therefore, if ultrasound has an adverse effect on mouse brains, then it must also have the same effect on human brains.
The Brain’s Cellular Organization
Brain cells are not arranged in a random manner. The brain’s gray matter controls muscles, sensory perception, emotion, and memory. Gray matter cells form columns, which can function as a unit. The cells are also arranged in rows that are parallel to the surface of the brain. You can think of the brain’s cells as being arranged in a grid, like a graph. Each cell forms part of both a column and a row, though the row is actually curved to match the surface of the brain.
If developing cells do not end up where they should, behavioral problems and epilepsy can arise from the misarrangement. It’s obvious that anything capable of causing such misarrangement can produce disabilities. Therefore, Dr. Rakic’s study is particularly disturbing.
Brain Cell Migration
A fetus’s neurons are formed in the area just above the cerebellum, sometimes called the “primitive brain”, and they progress toward the outer surface of the brain. During the process, they are moved outward, parallel to the brain’s surface. The study report goes into some detail about how this process happens, but for our purposes, there’s no need to address it.
How and when this process occurs is well understood, though the means by which cells move radially, away from the column in which they start, is not well understood. What is known, though, is that the process is very sensitive and can be affected by many biological, physical, and chemical agents. The authors state:
For example, repeated exposure of the rodent and primate fetal brain to environmental
agents, such as alcohol (9), drugs (22), neurotrophic viruses (23), and ionizing irradiation (24, 25), causes misplacement of neurons and behavioral deficits.
The numbers in parentheses identify study references documenting things that can result in displacement of neurons and the results.
The study provides a graphic representation of how this migration functions and malfunctions under ultrasound. The ovals represent neurons. They’re produced at the bottom, where single neurons are shown. The red ones have been labeled on day 16 of gestation. The top row (A-D) shows normal migration. The bottom row (E-H) shows abnormal migration of red (BrdU-labeled) neurons that were formed on day 16 of gestation, when ultrasound was applied.
The left-hand images (A & E) show day 16 of gestation (E16). The next ones (B & F) show day 17 of gestation (E17). The last images (D & H) show the final placement of neurons at birth (P1).
Notice that all the red neurons on the top row move upward in a consistent manner and form a single row (A-D). However, neurons that have received ultrasound often move at slower rates (F). The next batch of neurons catches up with many of them (G). The result of the the neurons receiving ultrasound, shown in red, are often displaced, with some not even reaching the cortex of the brain on the day of birth (H).
Sound Waves Equivalent to Human Fetus Exposure
Pregnant mice were given doses of ultrasound for times ranging from 5 to 420 minutes. As shown in the image to the right, the pregnant mice were placed in glass tubes with cutouts to deliver ultrasound to their fetuses. An acoustic gel was applied to the posterior half of the mouse and a water bag was placed on the side opposite the ultrasound device to minimize any sound wave reflection or standing waves that could affect the ultrasound application.
An ultrasound device that had been used on humans. Extensive testing was done to avoid interference and assure that the exposure of fetuses to the ultrasound was minimal. The results of these tests are provided by the authors on the publisher’s site.
The label on the graphic reading “tsp” stands for tissue standoff pad. The head of the ultrasound device was placed a distance from the mouse’s skin to assure that the fetuses received sound waves equivalent to those that a human fetus receives.
Method
146 mice were treated with ultrasound and 141 controls were run through a exactly the same process, but without actually receiving ultrasound. Another 30 mice were also included as “normal” controls, but we’ll ignore them because they don’t affect the primary results.
On the 16th day of their pregnancies, the mice were injected with BrdU, which stained only the newly produced cells. The mice were treated with ultrasound on days 17-19, the 3 days following BrdU injection. All samples were processed by technicians blinded to their control-ultrasound status.
On day 10 after birth, the young mice were killed and brain slices were taken for analysis. These were stained and processed, then viewed under microscropes, photographed, and analyzed. Grids, which the researchers called bins, were drawn on top of images to aid in the analyses.
The results of a 60 minute exposure is shown in this graphic. The control is on the left, labeled A, C, D, and E. The results of the mouse that had received ultrasound is on the right, labeled B, F, G, and H. The top two images show the locations of the slices.
Neurons stained green with BrdU, which means they were newly formed on the 16th day after conception, and the others are stained red. The six images below A and B are photos of the slices.
Images C and F show only the red stained neurons, which pre-existed the green-stained BrdU neurons.
The middle images, D and G, show the same information as C and F, but with the green BrdU-stained neurons added in. It’s easy to see that the control neurons are more clustered at the top of the cortex than those of the ultrasound-treated neurons in green.
Look at images E and H. Here, the difference between controls and ultrasound-treated neurons is even more obvious. Only the neurons that had been stained green with BrdU are shown. Notice that nearly all the control neurons made their way to level 3 or 4 of the 10 bins. Far fewer of the ultrasound-treated neurons reached levels 3 and 4. A large number reached only levels 5 and 6. Worse, though, a significant proportion hardly moved upward at all, remaining stuck at levels 1 and 2.
Finally, notice the arrow heads in H. One is in bin 7 and two are in bin 10. Bin 7 is located below the cortex. It’s in a deeper white matter area. These neurons did not even reach the cortex. Worse, though, are all these ultrasound-treated neurons still sitting in the bottom layer, a particularly worrisome situation. The study states that these neurons:
… formed a distinct band near the lateral cerebral ventricle that resemble periventricular ectopias. When these ectopic BrdU cells occurred, it was easy to distinguish the exposed brains from the control brains, even upon visual inspection of the immunostained sections.
Ectopias are abnormal positions of body parts or organs, especially at birth. These ectopias were so severe that they can be seen without a microscope—an indication of severe brain damage.
Quantitative Analysis
The example above is a single sample from the study, but there were 287 mice in it. The numbers for each of the exposure times were:
- 420 minutes: 7 controls, 7 received ultrasound
- 210 minutes: 14 controls, 14 received ultrasound
- 60 minutes: 32 controls, 29 received ultrasound
- 30 minutes: 35 controls, 35 received ultrasound
- 15 minutes: 33 controls, 39 received ultrasound
- 5 minutes: 20 controls, 22 received ultrasound
The image to the left graphs the results. USW stands for ultrasound wave and SHAM is for controls.
The graphs display the percent of neurons that remained in the bottom five bins, numbers 6-10, which means that they traveled less distance toward the brain’s surface.
Unfortunately, the 210 minute results are anomalous and the researchers offer no explanation. However, close examination shows some support for it. The percentage of 60-minute control mouse neurons that remained in bins 6-10 is less than for 30 minutes. It may be that something happens in the 30-210 minute exposure range that results in a variance.
The dispersion of neurons is similar for controls and ultrasound-exposed mice at 5 and 15 minutes, though there was a slightly higher dispersal amount in the ultrasound-exposed mice. At 30 minutes, though, the distinction starts to become significant:
- More than 30 minutes’ exposure: 4% more neurons in bottom 5 bins (5% & 9%)
- More than 60 minutes’ exposure: 6% more neurons in bottom 5 bins (5% & 11%)
- More than 210 minutes’ exposure: 4% more neurons in bottom 5 bins (5% & 9%)
- More than 420 minute’s exposure: 6% more neurons in bottom 5 bins (9% & 13%)
- Average of all results: 3% more neurons in bottom 5 bins (5% & 8%)
Clearly, longer ultrasound exposure results in more neurons getting left behind.
As the authors wrote:
At durations of 420 min, it is possible that the stress of this long exposure leads to increased cell dispersion above the normal control condition. However, it is difficult to
completely assess durations of 420 min and above because some pups from USW-exposed mothers were either resorbed or cannibalized at birth (Table 1). In fact, no pups survived to P10 [10 days after birth] in pregnant mice exposed to 600 min of USW, although the sham control mouse gave birth to a full litter that survived until P10.
Put simply, they were saying that when mouse pups were exposed to 420 minutes of ultrasound, some of them did not survive. They were either absorbed before birth or born dead or nonviable, and therefore cannibalized by their mothers. They also subjected some mouse fetuses to 600 minutes of ultrasound. None of the fetuses survived that much ultrasound exposure. All died by the 10th day after birth. However, none of the fetuses of the control group died.
Partial Conclusion
This study shows that ultrasound waves directed at a fetus interfere with brain development by causing displacement of neurons. Such displacement is known to result in behavioral problems and are either known or suspected of causing other neurological problems.
Dr. Rakic and his team have produced a powerful study that clearly demonstrates brain damage produced by ultrasound. This prenatal test has become so routine that some doctors do screenings at every visit. Though individual procedures don’t take 3½ to 7 hours (210-420 minutes), it’s easy to see that a baby could easily be exposed to an aggregate of that much. Such results need to be taken seriously.
There’s even more to know about ultrasound during pregnancy—such as the fact that it doesn’t even produce any benefits. This, and more about prenatal ultrasound are discussed in the next article, Ultrasound Causes Brain Damage in Fetuses: Implications.
I highly recommend Dr. Margulis’ book, The Business of Baby, which will soon be reviewed here on Gaia Health –Heidi Stevenson:
Sources:
- The Business of Baby; Dr. Jennifer Margulis; Scribner; page 25-44.
- Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science; Eugenius S. B. C,. Ang, Jr, Vicko Gluncic, Alvaro Duque, Mark E. Schafer, and Pasko Rakic.
Tagged brain cell migration, brain’s cellular organization, conventional medicine, jennifer margulis, modern medicine, pasko rakic, Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice, science, the business of baby, Ultrasound Causes Brain Damage
Related Posts
73 Comments
Ultrasound Causes Brain Damage in Fetuses: Study – Waking TimesOct 11, 2013 at 2:18 pm
[…] Heidi Stevenson is Allopathy’s Gadfly. She’s an iatrogenic survivor whose prior career in computer science, research, and writing was lost as a result. She has turned her skills towards exposing the modern medical scam and the politics surrounding it, along with providing information about the effectiveness of much alternative medicine, without which she would not be here today acting as Allopathy’s Gadfly. Find her work on GaiaHealth.com, where this article was originally featured. […]
Shanthi SairamOct 11, 2013 at 5:26 pm
This study needs to be interpreted with caution. Can anyone explain why there is a big variaton in the percentage of neurons that didnt migrate amongst the sham mice? One would expect this to be constant amongst the unexposed mice.
Secondly 420 minutes is 7 hours….how could they keep the mice in the same tube for 7 hours continuously??? did that contribute to any of the outcomes?
Heidi StevensonOct 11, 2013 at 6:26 pm
In fact, the answer is yes. The authors go into it. The sham treatments exposed the mice to all the same conditions. The only difference was the length of time – 210 and 420 minutes. This placed great stress on those mice, and stress is known to cause harm in fetuses.
Yes, 7 hours may seen like a lot, and it’s certainly rare … now. But it does happen, and more than you might think. Half hour and longer sessions are not unusual. When you add in the fact that we now have boutique ultrasounds – no medical reason other than wanting them – and that these can last for 60 minutes and be repeated, then 420 minutes is not unreasonable.
So, the fact is that the difference between the sham mouse results and the ones that received real ultrasound is distinct. Therefore, the ultrasound most assuredly did produce most of the harm.
JessOct 11, 2013 at 7:31 pm
A mouse is only pregnant for about three weeks. A human, 40 weeks. Thus, wouldn’t 10 hours of ultrasound in the mouse’s pregnancy be equivalent to much more time in a human pregnancy?
Also, was the amount of ultrasound frequencies adjusted in relation the size of the mouse compared to a human? It just seems like the potency of the ultrasound would be would be much more for a little mouse…
Heidi StevensonOct 11, 2013 at 7:41 pm
The potency was adjusted, as described in general in the article, but in more depth by the study. The two were roughly equivalent – and most newer ultrasound machines produce a higher intensity sonic beam than the one used in the experiment.
The authors do discuss the points of size and pregnancy length as potentially mitigating against the mouse scan equivalence, but they also point out that the larger size of the human brain, coupled with its significantly greater complexity, would tend to indicate a stronger effect on the human brain. They also point out that the human brain’s organization is more precise than a mouse’s, which also tends to indicate a stronger effect of ultrasound on a human fetus’ brain. (They go into significantly more detail, of course.)
Therefore, it would be unreasonable to assume anything other than that ultrasound has a harmful effect on developing brains.
Ultimately, I think the most salient point is that it’s unreasonable and immoral to do such scans without having looked into safety.
http://t.co/Eie7YC7jat http://t.co/8K7rN0DEHa | Café of Life, Port MoodyOct 11, 2013 at 10:56 pm
[…] gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013… fb.me/3n44XSTcL […]
DebbyBruckOct 12, 2013 at 12:56 am
Maybe OBGYN and parents will be more conservative in their desire for this procedure? If they only knew. blessings, Debby
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 7:09 am
We can only hope – but I can’t be very positive about it, since this study came out 7 years ago. However, the lead researcher has told me that he has some new research that should be very interesting. Maybe then?
Ted Edwards DCOct 12, 2013 at 1:13 am
Here’s a class action lawsuit in the making.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 7:08 am
I hate to say this, but I don’t think so. The doctors are untouchable because use of ultrasounds is the standard of practice. You cannot sue a doctor for doing something that’s the standard of practice. Interesting, isn’t it, that the doctors themselves determine what is and isn’t the standard of practice, and a lawsuit must prove that an individual doctor did not meet that standard. (Unfortunately, I had to learn this the hard way.)
As to the manufacturers, I also think it’s unlikely, because you’d have to show that they knew the harm existed.
The legal system is not set up for us. It has little to do with justice. There’s an exception now and then, of course – the one that proves the rule.
Vanessa WhittinghamOct 12, 2013 at 2:25 am
An ultra sound is used in neonatal wards to check a baby’s heart and brain if its that dangerous they wouldnt use them! This is just like some hippy drs digging in to xrays a few years back! Ultrasound saved my sons life! This lroves naff all other then 420 mins of exposure to a baby mouses brain (no bigger then the toe nail on my sons big toe!) Was effected easy DONT GIVE MICE ULTRASOUNDS!
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 7:11 am
In one go, no one. But there is more and more being done, more and more often. Add them up and you’ll start to see figures in the 3-1/2 hour range. It’s the total time that counts, not the time for a single scan.
TashaOct 12, 2013 at 6:22 pm
During my pregnancy my first ultrasound was about 30 min at 12weeks, the second at 20weeks was the diagnostic & took much longer a bit over an hour as she was having a hard time measuring, the third, 3d at 30wks took about 45min. Then 2 more in hospital at 34weeks when I began going into preterm. So I how the times add up quickly. A lot of my friends that use OB’s have one at every visit it seems. I do regret getting the extras because honestly I feel that unless necessary they should be avoided. What these scientists did was attempt to find answers NOT generate fear of our health system. We as a culture often abuse or technology for vein reasons. My midwife encouraged me to only do the 20week one for diagnostic purposes & next time I will heed her suggestions. Sorry so many people attacked you for writing about this topic.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 6:48 pm
Thank you for telling us about your experience.
You make quite clear that 3-1/2 hours in ultrasound scans isn’t unlikely. That’s very important to know
It’s interesting that reporting on a study about the harm of a medical procedure is attacked as fear mongering.
These attacks are not unusual. Sometimes I simply don’t approve such comments, but this time I decided to let them all come through – at least for awhile. But the fact is that these people offer nothing of value, and they tend to drive away honest commenters. They also take up too much of my time, so I’ll soon stop letting this nonsense continue. But I do think that it’s good for people to see how nasty and mean-spirited they can be … and most of all, how it becomes obvious that the last thing they want is open and honest discussion. Their goal seems to be to suppress anyone who disagrees with the medical system and its methods, especially when backed up with facts. If that’s necessary to support the current medical paradigm then it clearly needs examination.
Again, thank you for your comments and information.
Please, don’t take this single article as the whole story. But do try to make your own decision based on facts as best you can obtain them, not only on the opinions of others, no matter how authoritative. That authority is all too often a direct result of support from a profit-making part of the medical industry.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 7:15 am
My credentials are irrelevant. What matters is the study on which I reported.
If you have a problem with the study – something beyond a rant or unsupported claims – then go ahead and discuss it. Attacking me is an irrelevant approach. It’s an ad hominem attack – and in this case, it’s even more inappropriate than usual, because I am not the author of the study. You missed your target!
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 7:18 am
Your commentary is off-base. Where are the attempts to replicate it? It’s meaningless to say that a study hasn’t been replicated when no one has attempted to do so.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 7:27 am
Ultrasound has not proven to provide any benefit. Individual cases don’t count. What counts is the overall results – and ultrasound has failed. It even causes one of the primary conditions it’s supposed to discover – intrauterine growth restriction.
Research done by the manufacturers of a product really don’t count – nor does research done by others who profit from it. Nearly all that “extensive” research you’re referring to was financed by those who profit from it.
I believe strongly that everyone has the right to full and open information before having any medical procedure. That has not been the case with fetal ultrasounds.
NoahOct 12, 2013 at 9:16 am
Not really worldwide the leading cause of death for women tends to do with pregnancy and childbirth, been like that since the dawn of time.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 9:42 am
I think, though, that you need to factor in the number of pregnancies and births before you can make that blanket statement. Women died because of being poor, ill-nourished, and so forth, plus delivering children one after another without a chance for recovery, resulting in depletion of their resources.
Throughout history, this has been the reality for most women, so you cannot make such a comparison.
LaurieOct 12, 2013 at 11:13 am
This study is not good enough to indict ultrasound as harmful to humans. But since over 73% of women who see their babies on ultrasound choose not to abort them, I can see why thinking ultrasound is a dangerous thing would be a myth worth perpetuating. The abortion industry loses millions when ultrasounds are provided to women planning to abort. And babies are SAVED when the ultrasounds reveal them. Seems to me that there may be a pro-abort effort to discredit ultrasounds. This inflammatory article proves nothing!
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 3:14 pm
You have offered nothing of value here. You call the article inflammatory, apparently because you don’t like what it says. You state that the study isn’t “good enough” – but offer no evidence or idea of why you believe that.
Whatever one’s views on abortion, it’s irrelevant. There is no possible way that the nonexistent “abortion industry” has a fraction of the money needed to have any influence in any way on the genuine industry of ultrasound fetal scanning, either pro or con.
Ultrasound Causes Brain Damage in Fetuses: Study |Oct 12, 2013 at 11:49 am
[…] GAIA – by Heidi Stevenson […]
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Yes, an opinion is stated. Somehow, you seem to think that expressing an opinion in an article is wrong – and I do not accept that concept. If you don’t like it, then move along.
There is no constructive intent in your comment. That’s obvious. Yet you try to put me in a defensive mode. Your opinion of my mode is irrelevant – just as irrelevant as your opinion of whether I should or should not present my viewpoint on the topic.
So run along and find someone who’s interested in playing with a bully. This is the wrong playing field for that.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 4:34 pm
I just love it when people strut around with an “I’m smarter/more knowledgeable/better educated/whatever than you are, ” attitude.
The fact is that ultrasonic scans performed today are of a higher intensity than they were years ago. I referred only to the intensity of ultrasound delivered in prenatal scans. Such intensity is measured in watts/centimeter squared – and that most assuredly has increased.
Whatever your point is, it seems to go off on a tangent entirely unrelated to the topic. (Transducers???)
Go ahead and strut your stuff … but do it someplace else. Your purpose in commenting has obviously not been to further the discussion or offer a point of view about the topic. Your comment has no valid purpose, but is clearly intended to demean me, the author of the article. And that is simply a back door attempt to launch an ad hominem attack, which is a big no-no.
Bye bye.
insignisOct 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm
The definition of a transducer is actually in the link you just posted, Heidi. Look for the “What is Ultrasound” section and find: “In diagnostic ultrasound, also known as sonography, the physician or technician places the transducer, or ultrasound probe, in or on the patient’s body.” So that wasn’t off topic at all.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 5:18 pm
As I’ve implied, the definition of a transducer isn’t of concern here. What’s of concern is what ultrasounds do and how they’re applied in this particular trial, not how they function. Period.
insignisOct 14, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Unless Sandra responded back to you and you deleted her response, then your second response to her makes no sense. In it, you seem to express ignorance of how US works–which very much is relevant to what US does–and accuse her of deliberately derailing the conversation and demeaning you–neither of which is true–unless, as I said, part of the conversation is missing. Your first sentence beginning “I just love it when” is sarcastic, sarcasm is thinly veiled mockery, and mockery is the worst excuse for debate. If you hold real debate in the high regards you say you do, you would not be making comments like these.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Nothing is missing. It isn’t possible to go into someone else’s comment and change it.
Now you are attempting to bring my character into the conversation.
Yep, my first sentence most assuredly is demeaning.
I’ve made it clear that it does not matter whether I know how ultrasound works. What matters is knowing the results of the study and verifying things, such as the reality that ultrasound scanners produce much more intense energy than they once did – at least 8 times more.
That’s what matters – not how the machine creates that effect.
insignisOct 14, 2013 at 5:47 pm
I’m not familiar with Disqus so I didn’t know this; I know other blog platforms let you delete comments. I wasn’t trying to imply anything about your character, I just felt like a piece of the puzzle must be missing to go from a calm, rational response backed up by a source, to a seemingly unprovoked response that attacks and belittles the same comment.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Again, you’re trying to bring the issue back to the author – this time with an attack on the nature of my response.
You have not yet written a comment that is on topic – the commentary in the article. You’ve wasted my time, and I’m quite sorry for that.
But this is the end of it.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm
This article is NOT intended to frighten or to push an agenda. It’s intended to provide information about a specific study on fetal ultrasound – and yes, it also expresses a viewpoint.
Why on earth would anyone expect a sonographer to have an unbiased point of view? It is, of course, how that person produces an income.
To suggest that the article is not based on science, when it’s discussing a scientific study, is rather bizarre. What’s even more obvious, though, is that nothing of value related to this article has been offered. It’s just an attack on it – and offers absolutely nothing to support it.
Umm HavvaOct 12, 2013 at 4:52 pm
Has this study been submitted to any ‘reputable’ journals. If so, has it been accepted? Why or why not?
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Your presumption is astounding! The information is available by clicking the link to the study.
Yes, it has been accepted. It has been published.
And … well, I hate to disappoint you too much, but the journal is Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Here’s a bit more to weigh your hopes down even further: At the time of publication, all of the authors were with the Department of Neurobiology and Kavli Institute for Neuroscience at Yale Medical School.
Do you really want your question, “Why or why not?” to be answered?
Before launching on a sarcastic attack based on an assumption that the study must be poor, it might be wise to check it out first. Just a suggestion.
——————————————————————————–
This is in response to what Umm Havva wrote:
“Has this study been submitted to any ‘reputable’ journals. If so, has it been accepted? Why or why not?”
This is the total of Umm Havva’s comment, included here in case he/she removes it.
Umm HavvaOct 12, 2013 at 5:29 pm
I actually wasn’t being sarcastic at all. I thought that’d be understood as I placed reputable in parentheses to indicate my sentiment that major journals might not always have an interest in publishing things that are true (we are communicating via an alternative news site, afterall). I did make the incorrect assumption that the study was published in an alternative journal, and my followup question stemmed from my curiousity as to what sort of excuses might be made to avoid publishing it.
That being said, many of the comments here have been outright rude so I can see how mine was intepreted as more of the same. Excellent article!
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 5:42 pm
I’m glad to know that you weren’t being sarcastic. Yes, I often come under attack like this and it does become tiresome. I am sorry to have misinterpreted your comment.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 7:22 pm
You can go on all you want about how ultrasound intensity has decreased, but it simply is not true.
Intensity has increased by more than 8 times since 1991, as documented by the National Council and Radiation Protection and Measurements: http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/Reports/Misc_PDFs/Ultrasound%20Summary–NCRP.pdf
This is not a secret. It’s well-known and frequently referenced.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 7:28 pm
Whose theory? What theory? Who ever said that every child would be affected in the same way? In fact, it’s obvious that the time at which a scan is given will affect the results, just as the differences in each child will also have an effect.
The fact that one child has no apparent ill effects proves nothing – just that one child appears to have been unharmed. You presume no harm – but will never actually know, because you do not know what changes might have happened.
You’re certainly aware that an adverse effect happening to one does not mean it will happen to another, and that if something bad happens to one, it certainly doesn’t mean it will happen to all others who experience the same thing. Yet that is what your comment implies.
Your sarcasm doesn’t add anything to the discussion. It merely makes it clear that you aren’t interested in the truth or discussion, only in making a point.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Thank you, Ted!
Jamie leighOct 12, 2013 at 7:54 pm
a REAL sonographer who is trained in the field uses 25% power. I first heard about this study 7 years ago. Ultrasound is a diagnostic test indicated for the use to rule out anomalies in the fetus and the mother. Personally I have SAVED LIVES doing prenatal scans. I’ll list them and you can google them if you’d like. The reality is this is why mandates exist that REGISTERED techs do the scan. We know how to operate our equipment. I do a 15 minute OB exam it is not fun and games. Let me explain what 15 minutes means. It means i scan for 20 seconds find what i’m looking for and take the probe off the patient. I then label my picture, store the picture and then move on to the next part of the fetus or maternal anatomy. It literally takes longer to label our pictures and do our measurements than it does to scan the fetus! Any GOOD tech submits a fetus to 10 minutes of ultrasound waves or less at 25% output. This study is just simply not realistic. It may be true that it affects mice and i certainly don’t support gender checks and “entertainment ultrasound.” Reality check honey, no real tech or physician is subjecting a human fetus to a continuous non-moving beam of ultrasound for more than 30 seconds at a time let alone 30 minutes. And for all that are asking for her credentials as she continues to dodge the question. Heidi Stevenson has a bachelor’s of science in computer science obtained 1983-1986. So no she’s not a physicist or anything remarkably close. Again i’ll note this study was submitted for review in august of 2005 *cough* (8 years ago) and published 7 years ago. You should be ashamed to scare people away from a potentially life saving exam. The benefits absolutely outweigh the risks. You should study and understand what ultrasound does before assuming it’s just some frilly thrilling experience with no purpose. we DIAGNOSE we don’t put on a show for fun! You could potentially have the blood of mothers and babies on your hands spouting off about tests you know nothing about!
Here’s that list i promised you and these are only conditions relating to maternal hemorrhage or risk of death to mom or fetus that ultrasound can detect and aid in treating.
– ectopic pregnancy ( requires immediate removal or hemorrhage or death can occur) maternal mortality rates have dropped over 50% in developed countries over the past 2 decades in regards to ectopic pregnancies thanks to ultrasound.
-placenta accreta (c- section necessary hemorrhage with death can occur)
-placenta previa ( c-section necessary hemorrhage with death can occur)
-molar pregnancy or trophoblastic disease involving genetic tissue(may be cancerous and invasive can result in death)
-velamentous insertion ( c-section necessary)
-ttts (requiring in utero surgery)
-congenital heart defects requiring surgery immediately after birth
-congential kidney and bladder defects requiring surgery immediately after birth
-skull deformities requiring immediate surgery after birth
-placental abruption ( causing death to mom and fetus this can result in massive internal bleeding)
-incompetent cervix ( horrible way to lose a perfectly healthy baby) you guessed it ultrasound to the rescue! saved a TON of babies to this one! requires cervical cerclage.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 8:23 pm
You can list all the times you’ve done wonderful things with sonography. But as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, that’s only part of the picture, not the whole picture. The fact is that there’s far more to this than the individuals you believe you’ve saved. You ignore the false positives and the false negatives. You ignore the potential for harm.
I’m sure you want to believe that everything you do works only for positive results. That’s human. But it doesn’t mean that you’re presenting or seeing the whole picture, nor does it mean that you’re knowledgeable about the science, such as a study like the one presented here.
It does sound like you favor the technology for real benefits, and I do support you in that. I’m sure that ultrasound can do good things, but the fact is that it’s being used more and more often for very little legitimate reason.
Pointing out potential harm from a procedure does not translate into believing that it should never be used. But the fact is that women are not provided with the full picture and they are pushed into routine scanning. They’re presented with a rosy image that would have them believe there is absolutely no risk – and that’s no better than a lie. That’s the issue here – not legitimate use of sonography when it’s called for.
NicoleOct 15, 2013 at 1:57 pm
As someone with high risk pregnancies (including my current with an incompetent cervix – I almost lost my son at 27 weeks due to my cervix- and placentia previa) I have had plenty of ultrasounds both external and internal and that is exactly right. As soon as the baby is in the right position for measure, snap a pic – remove the probe. Though my ultrasounds do tend to take a bit longer than the average – it is a few minutes total that the ultrasound is actually in effect. And on a side note – I have one smart little man now. Ahead of the curve on just about everything even though he was born premature!
Heidi StevensonOct 15, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Please understand that the use of ultrasound to accomplish something specific that can provide a benefit can certainly be worthwhile, if balanced against potential risks of the procedure. It’s the routine nature of ultrasounds that’s at issue, and the fact that women are not informed that there are risks.
An incompetent cervix was usually followed with x-rays before, and ultrasound may provide a safer approach than that sort of scan.
It’s the lack of being honestly informed of the risks, along with the routine nature of them. that’s at issue, not that ultrasound exists. When it’s appropriate, ultrasound may be a blessing.
Heidi StevensonOct 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm
There are risks beyond thermal damage and cavitation from ultrasound, risks that are little understood – and that is the sort of thing this particular study was addressing. Heating and cavitation do not explain the displacement of neurons so that they end up in the wrong location in the brain.
Actually, there have been studies tying ultrascans to adverse effects. No many – but you never do see much research against a profitable product. Nearly all the research money comes from the corporations that profit from the products, directly or indirectly.
The fact is that there are almost NO studies on ultrasound safety. And I would think that trusting the tests as safe based on precisely nothing but an assumption would make you, or anyone, nervous.
After all, before ultrasound, they did the equivalent with x-rays. Yes, doctors routinely x-rayed pregnant women’s stomachs in the 40s and 50s with exactly the same presumption of safety. Now doctors warn women away from all forms of ionizing radiation.
The fact is that there is no basis whatsoever for any assumption of ultrasound safety.
SCIENCE: Study Indicates Ultrasound Causes Brain Damage in Fetuses | Why Fry?Oct 14, 2013 at 6:50 am
[…] Stevenson, Gaia-Health Waking […]
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 7:09 am
I’m afraid your curiosity will remain unsated. It’s neither your business nor relevant.
Johnathan ClaybornOct 14, 2013 at 1:42 pm
I fail to see how establishing a person’s credibility is not relevant. “Hey, I’m going to post things in my comment that are contrary to what the article states.” Okay, either your flat-out lying because you want people to believe you instead and you have to make up stuff to look credible, you’re delusional and suffering from confirmation bias, or you really have some legitimate information. But, in any event, I wasn’t even talking to you, Heidi.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 2:15 pm
You are either missing the point or intentionally ignoring it.
No, I am not refusing to post things contrary to what the article states – which is obviously true from your posts. Making such an accusation does not make it true.
You weren’t talking to me? Don’t be ridiculous. I really don’t believe that you’re so lacking in intelligence that you aimed it at everyone who reads it. So it’s quite clear that you think you’re quite clever.
Apparently you’re hoping to upset me; that was why you stated, “Angry much?” You’re hoping to get under my skin, but you aren’t worth the trouble.
It’s obvious that’s what you want, since you have said nothing, not one single word, about the article’s topic.
You are doing nothing but attempting to make the author the issue, rather than what’s in the article. That’s the purpose of an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you’ve had some fun, but you have accomplished nothing.
In fact, you’ve not stated a single thing about what’s in the article in your rather wearying attempt at sidetracking. The issue is the study itself, not me. That should be obvious. Not only are you one step removed from the issue, but you’re two levels removed. You’re trying to make me the issue of an article about a study in which I had no role whatsoever.
The only manner in which the author of a study would be of interest would be to demonstrate that the author has ties to the manufacturer. After that, to make an issue of the author of a report about the study is simply ridiculous.
Johnathan ClaybornOct 14, 2013 at 2:57 pm
So you are angry. Got it. You’re writing 7 paragraphs about a comment THAT WAS NOT EVEN DIRECTED AT YOU.
Apparently you don’t speak English as a first language. Let me be very clear for you:
Jamie said, and I quote: “I first heard about this study 7 years ago.” The Article says, and I quote: “…he and his colleagues have been testing for the last three years.” So, my question which was directed at Jamie (that’s why the internet has this wonderful nested reply function, so I can leave a comment directed to that person and not the whole of the internet), is how can she have possibly heard about this study 4 years before it started?
My issue isn’t with either the ARTICLE, or the AUTHOR, so quit being defensive. My issue is with the COMMENT POSTER, JAMIE. And for the record, I am quite clever, but that’s not the issue.
Someone (you) is overly defensive. I fail to see how asking a COMMENT POSTER to reconcile a discrepancy in THEIR COMMENT constitutes an ad hominem attack on you. I haven’t said anything about the article itself because the article seems well written and concise. My background is in psychology and neuroscience, which is what brought me to this link in the first place. I don’t have anything to add the discussion, so I didn’t say anything. There’s no rule of the internet that says that I have to comment about the article.
Would my line of questioning have revealed a link between the poster and the author? Sure. But, as I said the first time that you butted in; I’m simply trying to ascertain as to whether or not the original posters comments are credible and should be believed, even marginally, or not. It has NOTHING to do with the ARTICLE or the AUTHOR. So, please, take your soapbox to people who are actually attacking you.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Okay, I made one mistake in thinking that you were writing to someone else. But frankly, that does not justify your response to it. As it happens Disqus present the comment to me as a stand-alone. So I thank you for bringing to my attention and won’t make that mistake again. However, I would likely have refused to post it, because it is an ad hominem attack, an attempt to make the author of the comment the issue, rather than responding to the issue itself. That’s a cheap trick, and as I’ve stated, isn’t an acceptable method of debate.
In fact, the definition given by Wikipedia makes that clear:
“An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument that attempts to undermine an argument based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the argument (or of another person who agrees with the argument), for example by attacking their character or motives. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.”
It’s completely obvious that you have made an ad hominem attack.
You must be kidding! You’re talking about internet rules? How farcical. This is my site. I make the rules – and base the rules for commenting on debate. In fact, most sites censor, some before and some after. Although you have tried to indicate that negative comments are not posted, they obviously are – though that is not an unlimited privilege.
This is like any other site with comments: Anyone can respond to any comment. To suggest otherwise is rather silly. If you wanted to start a private discusssion, comments are obviously not the place for it.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 7:14 am
The fact is that ultrasounds have never been demonstrated as safe, and this study gives us more than enough reason not to take the risk to our babies. They have already been shown to cause damage and change to human brains.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 7:16 am
If you would be willing to risk your baby knowing the results of this study … well, I do not have the words.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Unbelievable! Someone actually flagged this comment as objectionable!
I suppose it should have been slightly more moderate, so I’ll repeat it with the moderation:
“If you would be willing to risk your baby on a routine ultrasound scan, knowing the results of this study … well, I do not have the words.”
rogacz25Oct 14, 2013 at 5:32 pm
It was a legitimate question. Even though the sham treatment isn’t as harmful as the ultrasound, it still has a significant effect, and it is worth asking the question. Your comment probably got flagged because you accuse someone of wanting to harm babies just because they asked a question about the data.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 5:42 pm
It was sarcasm. I’m not going to apologize for that. If a woman is unaware, then that’s a different issue. But if she’s aware the there is potential for serious harm to her baby, why would she be willing to take that risk in a routine ultrasound test?
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 7:22 am
You are not educated on the topic if you’re relying on what you were taught as a trainee in the field or as part of your continuing education.
You have attacked me, someone who reported on the study, not the study itself – and that clarifies how much interest you have in ongoing research.
Obviously, you believe it’s better not to know about potential harms so no one can make a rational decision beforehand – and that is … well, it’s beyond my comprehension.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 8:05 am
I don’t follow any protocol. I don’t do ultrasounds, nor do I see patients.
Most assuredly, palpation can produce much information, such as size and weight, which can be more accurate. Sadly, though, this reliance on mechanical and computerized methods has resulted in doctors ceasing to be doctors, but little more than technicians of a craft. The art of medicine has virtually disappeared from our world, and I believe that’s a dangerous and tragic loss.
It’s gotten so that pregnancy is more like putting a woman inside some sort of assembly-line process.
Jennifer ValenciaOct 15, 2013 at 5:26 am
It really has and that’s a shame. I view it as a pop culture paradigm that is in much need of reform. Women don’t take responsibility for their births as they should, rather rely on the assembly-line medical care, much of which is not evidence based or even if it was, each woman, each pregnancy is unique and should be treated as such. That is why I do the work I do, to remind women they have a voice and that this is their birth, to provide balance as well as support, because birth matters and mothers matter just as much as a healthy baby.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 8:06 am
Very good point!
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 8:24 am
Not true. The 30-minute exposures were done in 2 15-minute sessions. The 60-minutes exposures were done in 2 30-minute sessions. The 210-minute exposures were done in 8 3-minute sessions. The 420-minutes exposures were done in 12 35-minute sessions.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 8:42 am
You use condescending and irrelevant comments. Being a sonographer does not make you particularly well-qualified to comment on this topic. It makes you well-qualified to promote the stuff on which you were trained, which is obviously one-sided.
This is a scientific study. You call me a cult leader, but what I did was read a study and write about it. To call me unqualified and defensive in the face of comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the study displays a complete lack of understanding about what legitimate comments on such a study are. You apply a technology. You don’t study its effects.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Obviously, you are not aware of the meaning of an ad hominem attack. I don’t care what you are, as it’s not relevant. What you have to say is, not who you are – as I’ve clarified.
I clarified that I’d made an error in assuming whose argument was under attack. Nonetheless, it makes not one whit of difference to whom you addressed your ad hominem attack. You made it, and that’s all that matters.
I have already apologized and accepted that I’d made an error. Why you’re so hung up on it, I really do not comprehend.
So, for the love of God, stop making such an attack. It was made. That it wasn’t aimed at me is irrelevant.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 5:24 pm
Read the definition. Yes, it is an ad hominem attack, as clarified above in this thread. It is, in fact, the essense of what he’s tried to say. Here it is, repeated:
“An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument that attempts to undermine an argument based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the argument (or of another person who agrees with the argument), for example by attacking their character or motives. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.”
An ad hominem attack is an attempt to undermine an point by focusing on the author. It’s a fallacy because it’s irrelevant. Whether you like the author, or her/his character, or method of putting an argument forth, or considering his credentials inadequate, or anything that tries to focus on the author instead of the topic at issue is an ad hominem attack.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Both of them made ad hominem attacks. But Jamie Leigh also made other arguments, to which I responded. However, Johnathan Clayburn’s comment have been nothing but ad hominem attacks and trying to justify them.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 5:58 pm
No, it is not. The authors dealt with the issue. If they had not, then your point would have some validity – but it wasn’t hidden. They are quite clear about the fact that there is work that makes that determination. In fact, they point out where their work helps make that point – and that it’s at a time over 210 minutes and under 420 minutes for the mice.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 6:04 pm
Are you trying to suggest that being 6 years old (studies are usually dated from the time they were documented in journals, though there’s certainly no rule about it, just that it’s convenient) are somehow invalid?
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 6:36 pm
I do not care. The fact is that it’s an ad hominem attack to bring the author’s personal info to give the impression that the study or article is not valid. That is not legitimate and is not tolerated here.
In another context, it may be of interest – but not in terms of debate. It is not legitimate debate.
insignis2Oct 14, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Ad hominem — https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem — attempts to avoid engaging in debate by sweeping away the arguments along with the person presenting them. Sandra did the opposite, engaging your argument instead of your character, the very nature of true debate.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 8:02 pm
Apparently Sandra did remove a comment. I agree your statement. I was not responding to an hominem attack. Her second message most assuredly did include an ad hominem attack. It was, in fact, one of the most vicious. Unfortunately, I cannot pull it up, because Disqus apparently deletes such comments from the stream. But I now do recall it.
So, yes, something is missing – her comment.
Heidi StevensonOct 14, 2013 at 8:09 pm
“constructive criticism”? Yet again, another ad hominem attack has been made. It has nothing to do with the study.
Your comment indicates that you believe that 7 years is too old to be taken seriously. And you clearly have not tried to state what it is you meant, though you’ve tried to imply something negative about my character.
I asked you a straight-forward question: “Are you trying to suggest that being 6 years old (studies are usually dated from the time they were documented in journals, though there’s certainly no rule about it, just that it’s convenient) are somehow invalid?” Nothing else
Ultrasound Causes Brain Damage in Fetuses: StudyOct 15, 2013 at 5:50 am
[…] Put simply, they were saying that when mouse pups were exposed to 420 minutes of ultrasound, some of them did not survive. They were either absorbed before birth or born dead or nonviable, and therefore cannibalized by their mothers. They also subjected some mouse fetuses to 600 minutes of ultrasound. None of the fetuses survived that much ultrasound exposure. All died by the 10th day after birth. However, none of the fetuses of the control group died. Partial Conclusion This study shows that ultrasound waves directed at a fetus interfere with brain development by causing displacement of neurons. Such displacement is known to result in behavioral problems and are either known or suspected of causing other neurological problems. Dr. Rakic and his team have produced a powerful study that clearly demonstrates brain damage produced by ultrasound. This prenatal test has become so routine that some doctors do screenings at every visit. Though individual procedures don’t take 3½ to 7 hours (210-420 minutes), it’s easy to see that a baby could easily be exposed to an aggregate of that much. Such results need to be taken seriously. There’s even more to know about ultrasound during pregnancy—such as the fact that it doesn’t even produce any benefits. This, and more about prenatal ultrasound are discussed in the next article, Ultrasound Causes Brain Damage in Fetuses: Implications. Source: gaia-health.com […]
Heidi StevensonOct 15, 2013 at 10:15 am
As of now, ad hominem attacks or any others that are clearly not intended to be honest critiques of the study will not be approved. These people have taken a huge amount of my time, have completely ignored the definition of ad hominem, and serve no purpose, other than an attempt to tie me – the author of a report on the study – to the study itself.
If they genuinely had something to say about the study, they could have written about it – but they didn’t. They chose to imply or outright state things like:
– “So you are angry. Got it. ”
– “Clearly you are not getting the message. I’m going to repeat myself one last time, and then I’m not getting sucked into your pointless dribble any further: my comments were not directed at you.”
Let me clarify: An ad hominem is an attempt to make a person – whether the author of an article (though that’s the usual case) or someone else is irrelevant – the topic of debate, instead of the topic itself. It is never a legitimate form of debate, because an author’s official titles, training, character, or anything else, is relevant to the issue being discussed. In this case, the issue is the article above and/or the study it discusses. Discussion of this article’s author or the study’s researchers does not provide information about the study.
Likewise, discussion about where a study has been published or whether it’s been published is not relevant – unless there’s a strong indication that it’s been fraudulently produced – is irrelevant. It’s a side-door means of making the author the issue instead of the work.
– “Heidi, what are your credentials? How dare you perpetuate this alarmist and extremely harmful misinformation? How ridiculous you sound when you state that “a delightful look” is the ONLY benefit of ultrasound! Do you know anything about ultrasound physics, or AIUM guidelines, or the medical indications for ultrasound, and what is actually evaluated during this procedure? … I’ll bet you and your cohorts can diagnose these with your psychic powers, rendering ultrasound obsolete? … you are Ridiculous, and whoever published this laughable research that shouldn’t even line a litter box, has no credibility.”
– “It’s like you are a cult leader.”
These people have accomplished their goal. They have managed to drive away those who wished to discuss, rather than go through countless messages from those who have nothing to say, but are upset about the article. So, they’ve attacked the author. They destroy genuine discussion with their incessant irrelevant interjections. This is the last time that will happen.
Amanda McConaghyOct 15, 2013 at 2:48 pm
People who have multiple scans throughout pregnancy, could very easily reach the upper limits of the number of minutes. On average the “routine” 20 week gender and anatomy scan lasts 40-90 minutes alone.
Heidi StevensonOct 15, 2013 at 3:24 pm
That’s right, neuron development in humans occurs at a very different pace. The study chose that period in a mouse fetus so that it could make a comparison with human neural development later in pregnancy.
Your thinking here is correct, but it’s not the time of gestation. Rather, neuron development would also be during the latter part of a human pregnancy.