[Effect of oxytocin on uterine fibroids treated by ultrasound ablation]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21781579

OBJECTIVE:
To explore the effect of oxytocin on uterine fibroids treated by ultrasound ablation.

METHODS:
Eighty-two single points in 29 uterine fibroids from 26 patients were sonicated with magnetic resonance imaging guided by high intensity focused ultrasound before and after using oxytocin. The required total energy, sonication time required to reach 60°C and the acoustic energy for increasing 1°C of temperature at the single point before and after using oxytocin were compared.

RESULTS:
Before intravenous infusion of oxytocin, the average total sonication energy required to reach 60°C was (5320 ± 910) J and it took (21 ± 20) seconds for sonicating a single point, the energy required for increasing 1°C was (255 ± 302) J. In contrast, after intravenous infusion of oxytocin, the average total sonication energy required to reach 60°C was (2890 ± 325) J, and it took (12 ± 7) seconds for sonicating a single point, the energy required for increasing 1°C was (126 ± 94) J. Those three index all reached statistical difference (P = 0.002, P = 0.001, P = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION:
It seemed that Oxytocin could significantly decrease the energy required for ablating uterine fibroids, shorten treatment time and improve the treatment efficiency.
PMID: 21781579 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

FetalSonoSafety comments:
Oxytocin increases the receptiveness of cells to external stimuli. Thus, this may increase their reception to sonic energies through a variety of mechanisms.

Stop using ultrasound to determine sex of fetuses, urge doctors, radiologists

Stop using ultrasound to determine sex of fetuses, urge doctors, radiologists

“Canada’s pregnancy specialists and the nation’s radiologists are calling for a halt on using ultrasound for the sole purpose of determining the sex of an unborn fetus.

In a new joint policy statement, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the Canadian Association of Radiologists also say it could be considered unethical for private, commercial clinics to offer “entertainment” ultrasounds purely for the purpose of creating “keepsake” videos for expectant parents.

The position statement comes amid mounting concerns that in Canada, people are using ultrasound to determine the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy and to have it aborted if it is a girl.”

Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography exposure in children with delayed speech

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8221427

CMAJ. 1993 Nov 15;149(10):1435-40.
Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography exposure in children with delayed speech.
Campbell JD, Elford RW, Brant RF.
Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Alta.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To determine whether there is an association between prenatal ultrasound exposure and delayed speech in children.

DESIGN:
Case-control study.

SETTING:
Network of community physicians affiliated with the Primary Care Research Unit, University of Calgary.

SUBJECTS:
Thirty-four practitioners identified 72 children aged 24 to 100 months who had undergone a formal speech-language evaluation and were found to have delayed speech of unknown cause by a speech-language pathologist. For each case subject the practitioners found two control subjects matched for sex, date of birth, sibling birth order and associated health problems.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Rates of prenatal ultrasound exposure and delayed speech.

RESULTS:
The children with delayed speech had a higher rate of ultrasound exposure than the control subjects. The findings suggest that a child with delayed speech is about twice as likely as a child without delayed speech to have been exposed to prenatal ultrasound waves (odds ratio 2.8, 95% confidence limit 1.5 to 5.3; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION:
An association between prenatal ultrasonography exposure and delayed speech was found. If there is no obvious clinical indication for diagnostic in-utero ultrasonography, physicians might be wise to caution their patients about the vulnerability of the fetus to noxious agents.

Low-intensity focused ultrasound modulates monkey visuomotor behavior.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24239121

Curr Biol. 2013 Dec 2;23(23):2430-3. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.029. Epub 2013 Nov 14.
Deffieux T, Younan Y, Wattiez N, Tanter M, Pouget P, Aubry JF.
Institut Langevin Ondes et Images, ESPCI ParisTech, CNRS UMR 7587, INSERM U979, Paris 75005, France

Abstract
In vivo feasibility of using low-intensity focused ultrasound (FUS) to transiently modulate the function of regional brain tissue has been recently tested in anesthetized lagomorphs [1] and rodents [2-4]. Hypothetically, ultrasonic stimulation of the brain possesses several advantages [5]: it does not necessitate surgery or genetic alteration but could ultimately confer spatial resolutions superior to other noninvasive methods. Here, we gauged the ability of noninvasive FUS to causally modulate high-level cognitive behavior. Therefore, we examined how FUS might interfere with prefrontal activity in two awake macaque rhesus monkeys that had been trained to perform an antisaccade (AS) task. We show that ultrasound significantly modulated AS latencies. Such effects proved to be dependent on FUS hemifield of stimulation (relative latency increases most for ipsilateral AS). These results are interpreted in terms of a modulation of saccade inhibition to the contralateral visual field due to the disruption of processing across the frontal eye fields. Our study demonstrates for the first time the feasibility of using FUS stimulation to causally modulate behavior in the awake nonhuman primate brain. This result supports the use of this approach to study brain function. Neurostimulation with ultrasound could be used for exploratory and therapeutic purposes noninvasively, with potentially unprecedented spatial resolution.

Mouse models in assessing autism

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v11/n7/full/nrn2851.html
Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11, 490-502 (July 2010) | doi:10.1038/nrn2851
Behavioural phenotyping assays for mouse models of autism

Jill L. Silverman, Mu Yang, Catherine Lord & Jacqueline N. Crawley
Abstract

Autism is a heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorder of unknown aetiology that affects 1 in 100–150 individuals. Diagnosis is based on three categories of behavioural criteria: abnormal social interactions, communication deficits and repetitive behaviours. Strong evidence for a genetic basis has prompted the development of mouse models with targeted mutations in candidate genes for autism. As the diagnostic criteria for autism are behavioural, phenotyping these mouse models requires behavioural assays with high relevance to each category of the diagnostic symptoms. Behavioural neuroscientists are generating a comprehensive set of assays for social interaction, communication and repetitive behaviours to test hypotheses about the causes of austism. Robust phenotypes in mouse models hold great promise as translational tools for discovering effective treatments for components of autism spectrum disorders.

Mice Exposed to Diagnostic Ultrasound Exhibit Autistic-Like Social Behaviors

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24249575
Mice Exposed to Diagnostic Ultrasound In Utero Are Less Social and More Active in Social Situations Relative to Controls.
McClintic AM, King BH, Webb SJ, Mourad PD.
Source

Department Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract

Clinical use of diagnostic ultrasound imaging during pregnancy has a long history of safety and diagnostic utility, as supported by numerous human case reports and epidemiological studies. However, there exist in vivo studies linking large but clinically relevant doses of ultrasound applied to mouse fetuses in utero to altered learning, memory, and neuroanatomy of those mice. Also, there exists a well-documented significant increase in the likelihood of non-right-handedness in boys exposed to diagnostic ultrasound in utero, potentially relevant given the increased prevalence of autism in males, and reports of excess non-right-handedness in this population. Motivated by these observations, we applied 30 minutes of diagnostic ultrasound to pregnant mice at embryonic day 14.5 and assayed the social behavior of their male pups 3 weeks after their birth. The ultrasound-exposed pups were significantly (P < 0.01) less interested in social interaction than sham-exposed pups in a three-chamber sociability test. In addition, they demonstrated significantly (P < 0.05) more activity relative to the sham-exposed pups, but only in the presence of an unfamiliar mouse. These results suggest that fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound applied in utero can alter typical social behaviors in young mice that may be relevant for autism. There exist meaningful differences between the exposure of diagnostic ultrasound to mice versus humans that require further exploration before this work can usefully inform clinical practice. Future work should address these differences as well as clarify the extent, mechanisms, and functional effects of diagnostic ultrasound's interaction with the developing brain. Autism Res 2013, ●●: ●●-●●. © 2013 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

*Note: Mouse models of autism rely on studying symptoms, and are infantile. http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v11/n7/full/nrn2851.html

Low Intensity Ultrasound Promotes the Sensitivity of Rat Brain Glioma to Doxorubicin by Down-Regulating the Expressions of P-Glucoprotein and Multidrug Resistance Protein 1 In Vitro and In Vivo

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0070685

This just goes to show that ultrasound will soon be used to enhance the treatment of a variety of diseases. Metabolic disorders and neuropathology, too.

Abstract
The overall prognosis for malignant glioma is extremely poor, and treatment options are limited in part because of multidrug resistant proteins. Our previous findings suggest low intensity ultrasound (LIUS) can induce apoptosis of glioma cells. Given this finding, we were interested in determining if LIUS could help treat glioma by inhibiting multidrug resistant proteins, and if so, which pathways are involved. In this study, the toxicity sensitivity and multidrug resistance proteins of glioma induced by LIUS were investigated using CCK-8, immunohistochemistry, immunofluorency, and RT-PCR in tissue samples and cultured cells. LIUS inhibited increase of C6 cells in an intensity- and time-dependent manner. The toxicity sensitivity of C6 cells increased significantly after LIUS sonication (intensity of 142.0 mW/cm2) or Doxorubicin (DOX) at different concentration, particularly by the combination of LIUS sonication and DOX. The expressions of P-gp and MRP1 decreased significantly post-sonication at intensity of 142.0 mW/cm2 both in vitro and in vivo. The expressions of p110 delta (PI3K), NF-κB-p65, Akt/PKB, and p-Akt/PKB were downregulated by LIUS sonication and DOX treatment separately or in combination at the same parameters in rat glioma. These results indicate that LIUS could increase the toxicity sensitivity of glioma by down-regulating the expressions of P-gp and MRP1, which might be mediated by the PI3K/Akt/NF-κB pathway.

Is Prenatal Sonography Safe? Ep. 3: Sonographer Education

A survey in 2006 found that only 3.8% of sonographers could correctly explain the safety readout on an ultrasound machine. This is unacceptable.

Watch this video to learn more about shortcomings in sonographer education worldwide. This is important if you plan on having children any time soon.

~40% of ultrasound units in use are defective. This is dangerous!

A few years ago, a 12 year old girl was admitted to a hospital for heart murmurs. A defective ultrasound transducer was used and they could not detect why the murmurs occurred. Repeating this procedure (nearly 2 years later) with a different machine showed dramatically different results.

This prompted a study in which 32 hospitals were censused for the efficacy of their ultrasound units. 39.8% of transducers were found defective.

Sonographers cannot tell when a transducer is defective intuitively, it just makes the picture worse. Oftentimes they will compensate by turning up the power to get a more clear image. Ob-Gyn ultrasound suffers the same problem, and this will expose our children to unnecessarily high intensities.

Watch the video to learn more –

Is Prenatal Sonography Safe? Ep.1: Shortcomings in Epidemiology

This video is a review of what science currently understands about the safety of prenatal ultrasonography.

The short version: medicine does not yet fully understand how ultrasound affects the body, and there has been little research into it. When a practitioner tells you that sonography is perfectly harmless/completely safe, that is not backed by scientific evidence.

Considering that almost every woman in the world gets an ultrasound (or more) during pregnancy, this is unacceptable.

Vaginal ultrasound is invasive- one woman sued, claiming it was like rape

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/09/12/woman-sues-hospital-claiming-vaginal-ultrasound-felt-like-rape/

Transvaginal ultrasound is when a sonographer inserts an ultrasound transducer into a woman’s vagina for internal imaging. They can detect a variety of conditions, including but not limiting to cancers or other growths, fluid deposits, bone damage, . . . it is useful for many valid diagnostic reasons.

There are, however, some risks associated with having the transducer closer to the fetus: One study detected damage in microvilli extracted from fetuses exposed to transabdominal ultrasound, but not transvaginal for the same duration:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11776185

[Influence of sonographic examination on embryo villi during early pregnancy].
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate the effects of sonographic examination on embryo villi during early pregnancy.
METHODS:
Eighty early pregnant women intended for artificial abortion were divided into 4 groups: group I served as control, the remaining 3 groups underwent pelvic sonographic examination transabdominally for 10 minutes (group II), transvaginally for 3 minutes (group III) or for 10 minutes (group IV) respectively. After 1 hour embryo villi were obtained through artificial abortion and examined by electronic microscopy, biochemical methods and sister chromatid exchanges (SCE).
RESULTS:
In group IV, but not group II, III, the embryo microvilli were found broken, lost and disarranged. The rough endoplasmic reticulum of trophoblasts expanded. Their malondial dehyde levels increased while the superoxide dismutase (SOD) decreased as compared with control (P < 0.01). There was no difference of SCE among these 4 groups.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that sonographic examination should be done through abdominal approach for shorter than 10 minutes during early stage of pregnancy.

Ultrasound induced sensations

Ultrasound induced sensations

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23226567

Around a decade and some change ago, SONY entertainment patented the use of ultrasound as a virtual reality inducer.  One would wear a helmet that sent ultrasonic waves through certain parts of the brain to illicit a certain emotion, or sensation.

Today, they are still studying how ultrasonic stimulation affects sensory input.  In the future, it is very likely that this stuff will be used for the treatment of various diseases and peripheral nervous disorders.  Excellent.  Medicine needs a boost like that.

Auditory Processing in Autism and Ultrasound-altered Hearing

I thought this correlation was concerning. While the ultrasound hearing study dismisses that ultrasound can cause damage to hearing as though it were nothing big, perhaps the improved hearing in infants is a red flag that ultrasound could be promoting auditory hypersensitivity.

This would not have to be a big thing — ASD is a gradient, right? So, children who were near threshhold would be tipped over, while it may possibly help infants with worse hearing. There’s two sides to every coin, and every tool can harm or heal.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763411002065
Abstract
For individuals with autism spectrum disorder or ‘ASD’ the ability to accurately process and interpret auditory information is often difficult. Here we review behavioural, neurophysiological and imaging literature pertaining to this field with the aim of providing a comprehensive account of auditory processing in ASD, and thus an effective tool to aid further research. Literature was sourced from peer-reviewed journals published over the last two decades which best represent research conducted in these areas. Findings show substantial evidence for atypical processing of auditory information in ASD at behavioural and neural levels. Abnormalities are diverse, ranging from atypical perception of various low-level perceptual features (i.e. pitch, loudness) to processing of more complex auditory information such as prosody. Trends across studies suggest auditory processing impairments in ASD are most likely to present during processing of complex auditory information and are more severe for speech than for non-speech stimuli. The interpretation of these findings with respect to various cognitive accounts of ASD is discussed and suggestions offered for further research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23663515
OBJECTIVE:
Prenatal ultrasound exams have become increasingly frequent. Although no serious adverse effects are known, the public health implications would be enormous should adverse effects on auditory development be shown. This study looks to establish a possible correlation between hearing loss and increased prenatal ultrasound exposure.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our results show that there is no correlation between a higher level of prenatal ultrasound exposure and hearing loss. Indeed, infants who had more prenatal ultrasounds in the third trimester were more likely to pass their screening hearing exams. The finding that children receiving more prenatal ultrasounds have a higher likelihood of passing newborn hearing screens serves as an excellent reminder of the classic statistics rule that correlation does not imply causation.

The rise in autism is very steep, and is getting steeper

Autism began to exponentially grow circa the mid 1970’s. There are numerous reasons that caused this rise. Changes in diagnostic practices, awareness, and other ‘social factors’ have played a significant part.

There have been numerous scientific studies into this. Most all I have read claim that anywhere between 30-60% of the rise can be accounted for by social factors.

However, that still leaves a large portion of the rise up to an actual increase. How much of the rise is ‘real’ is uncertain to the scientific community, but I did some math this morning and came across something that really concerns me.

I put the data points in excel from the autism studies provided by the Center for Disease control.
The equation for the exponential growth curve is y=1E-106e^0.1193x with an R^2=0.9992
You can write this as (1*10^(-106))e^(.1193*x) in a scientific calculator
By plugging in the year where X is, you get how many kids have autism per year.

For example, the graph says that in 2001 it was reported 1 in 250 kids had autism
By plugging in 2001 where X is, we get 0.0047.
0.004 goes into 1 250 times, so that means 1 in 250 kids have autism in that year.

Let’s plug in other years and see what we get
2001: 0.004, or 1/250 kids
2005: 0.007, or 1 in 143 kids
2010: 0.013, or 1 in 77 kids
2020: 0.045, or 1 in 22 kids
2030: 0.150, or 1 in 6 kids
2040: 0.495, or 1 in 2 kids
2050: 1.633, or for every 1 neurotypical kid there will be 1.633 autistic
2060: 5.386, or for every 1 neurotypical kid there will be 5.386 autistic
2070: 17.76, or for every 1 neurotypical kid there will be 17.76 autistic
2080: 58.55, or for every 1 neurotypical kid there will be 58.55 autistic
2090: 193.05, or for every 1 neurotypical kid there will be 193.05 autistic
2100: 636.49, or for every 1 neurotypical kid there will be 636.49 autistic

How much of this is real? The increase is going up so fast. Something has to give, and soon.

In a worst case scenario – if these numbers arn’t lying – then in a matter of a single generation our species will change dramatically.

Since some of the side effects of ultrasound exposure are likened to symptoms seen in autism, is it possible that ultrasound could be a contributor?  There have been multiple studies bringing this up.

Too many US prescribed – numerous scans DO NOT improve outcome of pregnancy

http://chriskresser.com/natural-childbirth-iia-is-ultrasound-necessary-effective-in-pregnancy

“The routine use of ultrasound in pregnancy is the biggest uncontrolled experiment in history.”
Beverly Beech, birth activist

This page raises a critical debate about ultrasound, citing numerous sources that discuss the questionable safety of it. It really does speak for itself, so please give it a look.

Educate those you care for through social media, share this information about prenatal ultrasound risks to protect their future children

“As a CNM, I frequently have patients upset or disappointed that we don’t do frequent US. I try to explain that US has proven effects on fetus, but it makes little impression on them, since no one has ever heard of this. I agree more research is needed, as well as mainstream education.”
– Michelle Hughes – PFLUGERVILLE, TX

Quote from comments at: https://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-research-and-regulation

The past few months have done nothing but emphasize to anyone who is concerned about important issues that mainstream media is a soap opera. They cover what stirs up the most views, and rarely focus on things that matter.

What concerns me grievously about this whole mess with ultrasound is the lack of education. Many people do not even know ultrasound has side effects in the first place. Even practitioners often discount the idea that it can cause harm to a baby, even though scientific evidence offers much evidence to the contrary.

Practitioners are not scientists, they study practice. They are not physicists, although they do look at statistics. Admittedly, it is not their fault for not knowing everything, but now that information about serious safety concerns in their practice is evident, it is time for things to change.

Check out my blog to read about some of these issues, and be sure to sign the petition for better safety and regulation for prenatal sonography. A great number of our species are exposed to it, and our choices with how we handle that, and educate our communities, will directly affect their fate.

Related articles

• Prenatal sonography – the urgent need for more research and better regulation (fetalsonosafety.com)

Reckless overuse of ultrasound during pregnancy

Brenda Hinton GREY LYNN, NEW ZEALAND

Obstetric practices in NZ follow close on the heels of those in larger countries like the USA. Most women in NZ now have at least 4 ultrasound scans during their pregnancy with at least 2 of these being performed in the first trimester. In NZ most women access fully subsidized pregnancy/maternity care and those who pay privately for obstetric care still have their (usually much greater number of) scans publicly subsidized. The continuing increase in ultrasound scanning is greatly increasing the cost of maternity care to the NZ taxpayer with no commensurate improvement in outcomes. Like the rest of the developed world, where ultrasound is readily available, we are seeing an increase in autistic spectrum disorders and also things like tongue and lip tie. More regulation, research and consumer education is urgently needed. We hope the USA will lead the charge to ensure the safety of this overused technology.

A comment from the petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-research-and-regulation

I find it curious that the industry behind ultrasound promotes such overuse of the technology despite warnings whispered.  It either speaks of poor education, or grand, widespread incompetence.

It is costing taxpayer money in subsidized systems.  Tons of it.  For no reason.

I agree, Brenda.  There is a lot of work to do.

Pressured to ultrasound?

Svetlana Castillo MIAMI, FL

During my pregnancy I had more than 10 ultrasounds, especially at the last two months. When I had 7 months of pregnancy, my protein level was a little bit elevated, and my doctor decided that it’s necessary for me to stay at the hospital for some days. During three days at the hospital I had two ultrasounds! I was OK, and my baby was perfect. I don’t know if my baby was affected for many unnecessary ultrasounds, but I will be more cautious with my second baby. I believe that many doctors including mine make you believe that you have high risk pregnancy, and make you do a lot of unnecessary analysis. They care only about your money, not about your and your baby’s health.

I have received so many comments like this on the petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-research-and-regulation …  It appears to be a huge issue shared by many women.

Many sonographers, complacent with ultrasound, see primarily benefit and little to no risk.  In their minds they believe that they are doing what is best for the mother.  They believe that when they order multiple ultrasounds that they are being extra-safe.  They also believe that for every ultrasound they order, they will get written a fat paycheck.  $1000~ for a procedure that costs only a little KY jelly to perform looks great.

So, when a mother requests as little intervention as possible, oftentimes practitioners will give resistance.  They often give odd looks, act concerned, and attempt to guilt trip the mother into changing her mind.

Personally, I believe that women deserve full control over their own pregnancy.  They should have the final say in all things, and doctors should fill the role of advisers and assistants, people to help nature progress as it will in the best way possible.

Prenatal sonography – the urgent need for more research and better regulation

Prenatal sonography – the urgent need for more research and better regulation

Despite ultrasound being utilized in nearly every modern pregnancy, its safety is highly questionable.  Many parents are told that ultrasound is completely safe, but this is not science fact.  The unfortunate truth is that no sonographer or doctor knows what ultrasound exposure will do to your baby — they can’t, no scientist fully understands yet.

This petition was written as an attempt to raise awareness of this issue and to gather people together.  Shortcomings in safety regulation are just one part of a greater combination of problems with obstetrical care.  It seems like women are losing control of their pregnancies more and more, and money seems to lead modern practice more than conservative methods to ensure patient safety.  Practitioners receive more pay in exchange for encouraging patients to receive more treatments than absolutely necessary.

Today was a landmark day for our petition.  We raised nearing 500 signatures in a single day.  Thank you, everybody.  If you have not, please sign and share:

https://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-research-and-regulation

Ultrasound in water can induce nuclear fusion, creating *4He?

Click to access 2008SonofusionResearchScuttled.pdf

Recently, I happened across an interesting branch of scientific research. To begin, I reiterate what acoustic cavitation is.

Acoustic cavitation is a phenomena where dissolved gases in water come out of solution. These gasses nucleate, creating a bubble.

Further ultrasonic stimulation leads to bubble growth, and then explosive collapse (as the picture shows). This collapse creates a huge amount of energy that is likened to temperatures at the surface of our sun itself.

Deuterium – several drops can be found in every quart of fresh water – is implicated to undergo fusion in this environment by the controversial research of Dr. Rusi Taleyarkhan.

There is much promise for harvesting energy from this process, and some vouch that there is great potential to use it for medical purposes.

Unfortunately, there was a huge debacle that involved media manipulation and a slew of false charges to suppress research into it.. This cascade was apparently started by a competing scientist, and spread throughout media networks. Without checking primary sources, news outlets called fraud. This destroyed a man’s career.

50-some-odd federal charges were filed, with only 2 charges sticking. The 2 counts had absolutely nothing to do with the scientific fraud and were administrative pedantism.  At the end of the day, I cannot say for certain if this is true or not for absolute certainty without testing it myself…  However, it drew my interest enough to mention here.

Why am I bringing this up on this blog?

As previously mentioned, it is possible that cavitation can occur at diagnostic intensities. Although not a very high risk given remotely moderate considerations of intensity exposure…

Still. How interesting. Ultrasound is powerful.

Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves: is there a risk?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.3983/full

Written as a retort to the Yale study by Ang, et all in 2006 which detected brain growth abnormalities after ultrasonic exposure…

These fellows discuss some of the dissimilarities between the Ang study using mice and actual prenatal conditions. Although it is true that the Ang study’s results are not perfectly linear, such can be expected from such a study.

Of note:
* Ang noted ultrasound to cause brain growth problems at intensities an order of magnitude or so lower than modern intensities. (meaning modern prenatal ultrasound is stronger, and may have more impact)

* The thermal and mechanical indices are not great guestimations, meaning that US scanners do not accurately report risks.

* Rats are not perfect models for human brains.

I have a comment about some of the response, too. In this paper they discuss later-trimester fetal skulls to be stronger — while it is true that they do become more developed, the fetal skull is pretty soft, still.

In fact, it has similar acoustic indices as water. Adult skulls that are well ossified are much better acoustic absorbers.

I also found it interesting that Republican Joe Pennacchio had attempted to introduce legislation into the investigation of ultrasound and autism.

These are not new concerns.

Transvaginal ultrasounds cause more cellular damage than transabdominal ultrasounds

I wanted to reiterate a point brought up in previous post of:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11776185

Transvaginal ultrasound is closer to the fetus, offers more direct exposure, and is more invasive than transabdominal scanning. As a male I am degrees separated from this, but I would expect at least dinner and a date before this kind of treatment.

The process of transvaginal scanning can be very intrusive, leading to stress. Stress while pregnant has been correlated with a variety of negative health outcomes.

So, aside from being more physically harmful to cellular environments, it is more harmful on a grand scale because of stress (unless the lady is just into that kind of thing with strangers in lab coats)…

Related articles

• Wisconsin Republicans impose non-medical* rape on rape victims (horsesass.org)
• A Conservative vision for America – ‘Scott Walker Endorses Mandating Transvaginal Ultrasounds And Shutting Down Abortion Clinics’ (thelastofthemillenniums.wordpress.com)
• Ultrasound bill tentatively OK’d by Senate (host.madison.com)
• WI GOP Endorse State-Santioned Rape (becauseican-2old2care.blogspot.com)
• Virginia Governor REALLY Wants To Be The GOP Vice President (ken_ashford.typepad.com)

Prenatal ultrasound exposure and association with postnatal hearing outcomes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3646553/

In this study, it was investigated whether prenatal ultrasound could lead to hearing loss. They actually found a correlation with successfully passing the hearing tests and number of ultrasound scans.

Although in this study it was found that number of ultrasound scans improved fetal hearing outcomes, that is not the only thing that needs to be considered. -Why- did it improve the outcome?

We need more research.

Effects of diagnostic ultrasound on villus ultrastructure of early pregnancy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8758789

Cells can be damaged by diagnostic ultrasound. While I may not know much about the brain, I do know that when building the house the foundation is the most important.

Similarly, early parts of fetal development are sensitive and disturbance could have long term consequences.

If diagnostic ultrasound is capable of causing cellular damage, then the downstream effects of this definitely deserve further investigation.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the effects of diagnostic ultrasound on villus ultrastructure of early pregnancy.
METHODS:

Using the electron microscopy, the effect of B-mode ultrasound and color Doppler flow image on villus of early pregnancy were studied. 46 cases of early pregnancy women were divided into five groups: Groups 1 : control group; Group II and III: 24 +/- 1 hours after exposure to B mode and color Doppler ultrasound for 30 minutes respectively; Group IV and V: 72 +/- 1 hours after exposure to B mode and color Doppler ultrasound for 30 minutes respectively.
RESULTS:

Expansion of perinuclear space in cytotrophoblasts and syncytiotrophoblasts, enlargement of rough endoplasmic reticulum, and vacuolization in the cytoplasm were found in Group II and III.
CONCLUSIONS:

The present study showed that the main injured sites after exposure to ultrasound were the plasma membrane and suborganelles. These changes disappeared within 3 days.

Influence of sonographic examination on embryo villi during early pregnancy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11776185

This study reports that transvaginal ultrasound for 10 minutes was detected to disrupt some cellular structures. As well, it was detected that superoxide dismutase(SOD) levels decreased. SOD is an enzyme responsible to getting rid of free radicals.

The conclusion of the paper reads: It is recommended that sonographic examination should be done through abdominal approach for shorter than 10 minutes during early stage of pregnancy.

They surmise transabdominal ultrasound may be safer than transvaginal with this conclusion. This is possible because transvaginal ultrasound is closer to the fetus, offers more direct exposure, and is more invasive than transabdominal scanning. That in itself can be stressful for the lady.

Here’s hoping Scott Walker reads this.

Related articles

• A Conservative vision for America – ‘Scott Walker Endorses Mandating Transvaginal Ultrasounds And Shutting Down Abortion Clinics’ (thelastofthemillenniums.wordpress.com)

Biological effects of diagnostic ultrasound on embryo in first trimester of pregnancy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8001420

When ultrasound passes through certain types of enzymes, depending on the mechanism of reaction involved, it can impart energy.  This energy leads to altered chemical reaction rates (increase/decrease in how many chemical reactions occur given in a certain timeframe).

This has been noted in alpha-amylase and other glycoside hydrolase class enzymes, and also some enzymes involved in transesterification.

Diagnostic ultrasound — which is used for fetal imaging — can alter enzyme activity, too.

In plants, the way ultrasound affects enzymes can change the plant’s lifelong development. Exposure to ultrasound at seed super charges enzymes involved in breaking down starch into nutrients, which is important for the first developing seedling.

It has not been studied how ultrasound’s impact on enzymes affects human development. It should be. We need more research to ensure that routine fetal scanning is not causing unintended harm.

Ultrasound safety inconsistency: why are adult eyes treated with more care than fetal eyes during sonograms?

http://www.fetalultrasoundsafety.net/pulse-intensity.htm

Dr. David Toms, radiologist, discusses on his website an inconsistency found in the regulations of ultrasound power output for fetal scanning. The eye is a fluid filled sac with very delicate anatomy — there is a hard cap on the maximum power of ultrasound exposure allowed to pass through it for safety reasons.

However, this max amount is different for adults and the fetus. Strangely, the fetal eye is not protected as much as the adult eye. By quite a large margin, too.

Further strange, ultrasound devices do not accurately report the amount of ultrasound exposure in the lower regimes of power. Most all concerns about the limits for fetal scanning extend from known mechanisms of damage such as hemorrhaging and cavitation, but scientific evidence suggests the existence of other dangers.

It is almost as if regulatory authorities wish to remain absolutely ignorant of their own ignorance. There has even been talk of removing the upper power limit to allow practitioners to use as much ultrasound as desired with little to no baseline.

Dr. Toms says it best –
“Exposure limits are somewhat arbitrary, given the paltry amount of clinical and experimental data, but prudence would seem an important underlying principle. In view of this, a debate about removing all upper limits strikes me as being of questionable social responsibility.”

Ultrasound and Autism: Association, Link, or Coincidence?

http://www.jultrasoundmed.org/content/31/8/1261.abstract

“Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) affect an estimated 1% of children in the United States. The etiology is probably multifactorial, including genetic components and exposure to infections, toxins, and other environmental factors, particularly unfavorable perinatal and neonatal conditions.

There has been an increase in the frequency of diagnosis of ASDs over the last 20 years with a parallel increase in the use of obstetric diagnostic ultrasound, with prenatal ultrasound exposure mentioned as the possible main etiology for autism “epidemics.”

Central nervous system alterations have been described in ASDs, and certain similar changes have been described in animals after exposure to ultrasound. However, analysis of in utero exposure in humans has failed to show harmful effects in neonates or children, particularly in school performance, attention disorders, and behavioral changes.

There is no independently confirmed peer-reviewed published evidence that a cause-effect relationship exists between in utero exposure to clinical ultrasound and development of ASDs in childhood.

Ultrasound is a form of energy with effects in the tissues it traverses, and its use should be restricted to medical indications, by trained professionals, for as short a period and as low an intensity as compatible with accurate diagnosis.”

Practitioners do not record dose during sonograms. This precludes studies the possibility of directly connecting ultrasound and autism. If there is truly a connection, then it will not be found with epidemiology unless it is unforgivably strong.

It worries me a lot. There are too many links between ultrasound and autism for this to be a passing coincidence.

At the very least, more research is urgently needed.

Prenatal ultrasound causes brain damage in mice

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/34/12903/F2.expansion.html

According to this study, mouse brains exposed to diagnostic ultrasound grew incorrectly. This is brain damage during development.

Developing brain cells have to migrate from a starting location to a distant one, where they link up to other cells. This study suggests that ultrasonic exposure can disrupt this, knocking cells around and leading to mis-connections.

Coincidentally, the brains of autistic individuals can display issues with interconnectivity and other such similar phenotypes – http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0049172

Side effects like this need further study. Please support the petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-research-and-regulation so further research can be performed on how this affects the health of people.

Dr. Diana Mason, RN, PhD, FAAN, DHL, “Ultrasound is not just a photograph!”

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/nursing/repository/files/diana-mason/Mason%20Biosketch%20PDF.pdf
Emeritus editor in chief of the American Journal of Nursing, and now Director of the Bellevue School of Nursing’s Center for Health, Media, and Policy had this to say about prenatal ultrasound –

“I’m concerned about the proliferation of the perspective that fetal ultrasound is like a regular photo, when it’s not. We must change public perceptions about the potential dangers of fetal ultrasound and call for more research immediately. First Do No Harm should be the mantra that we all adopt.”

I could not have said it better myself.

It worries me that so many people believe that prenatal sonography is completely harmless, so many doctors claim that it is perfectly safe, and questioning it earns the odd eye.

But where is the proof that it is safe?

So far, all science has done is show the opposite. It has a powerful effect on the growth and development of plants, bacteria, and human tissue (if the other two were not close to home enough).

Sounds great when used for healing, but does not sound great when you consider fetal growth and development should not be altered AT ALL by outside means.

Then you have the papers that discuss side effects like ultrasound disturbs neuronal migration in mice… That is a -picture- of ultrasound causing brain damage. It is something that Joe Layperson can see, and it doesn’t take a genius to realize that shouldn’t happen.

What could this do to the baby’s health long term??

We need more research…

Global Monsanto protests media blackout, patents on life, and government conspiracies questionably tied to autism — oh my!

Did you know that the same organization that made Agent Orange puts a little of their company’s magic inside the food you eat? Depending on your news source, you might (not) have learned about the worldwide protests against Monsanto.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/monsanto-protesters-globe-rally-firm-genetically-modified-food-products-article-1.1355457?localLinksEnabled=false

There are 400-some-odd cities across the world right now protesting against Monsanto – one of the world’s largest purveyors of GMO foods. Personally, I can’t stand those tasteless grapefruits the size of soccer balls.

Genetically modified foods (known commonly as GMO) are foodstuffs modified to be bigger, longer lasting, seedless, etc etc.. the pollen of GMO food cross-pollinates with other farmer’s foods, leading to a majority of the food we have access to today to be, in part, GMO.

Monsanto owns patents on these foods’ DNA, and has sued farmers for seed keeping and counter-engineering the environment in ways that hinder their crops.
1. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx
2. http://www.southmilwaukeenow.com/blogs/communityblogs/209038121.html
In this story, you have a bee-keeper who had his Monsanto-pesticide resistant bee hive destroyed.

There was a law passed referred to as the Monsanto Protection Act that makes Monsanto immune to such litigation themselves. You can read a note on this topic here: http://jezebel.com/5993018/whats-the-monsanto-protection-act-and-why-is-it-all-over-facebook

What caused this global unrest?

There have been concerns that GMO could be leading to cases of autism and other such disorders for one.. http://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-risks/

In fact, there was a strange situation in which Facebook banned the account of a group of Autistic children holding up signs in a picture protesting GMO (see picture). http://www.naturalnews.com/040484_Facebook_censorship_children_Monsanto_rally.html

There has also been an alarming disturbance in the world’s bee population.. Since pollinators are responsible for a great deal of the world’s food supply, this is serious. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/decline-of-honey-bees-now-a-global-phenomenon-says-united-nations-2237541.html

This situation reminds me very much of how things are in the world of studying prenatal ultrasound side effects. The same battle is being fought with different words.

Some company has a viral market that exposes humans to possibly harmful conditions, regulations change to add fuel to the fire, evidence arises later that it can cause harm, business ignores the science, mainstream media does not report on the subject…

Is that what it takes to get science heard? 2 million people+?

Thanks to alternative media and the internet it’s possible. I genuinely believe in the strength of good people to stand up against bad things, no matter how much money is involved.

 

Related articles

• Corporate Media Blackout of Anti-Monsanto Protests Exposed (thedailysheeple.com)
• Hundreds March Against Monsanto (minnesota.cbslocal.com)
• Total Blackout by Corporate Media on the March Against Monsanto (intellihub.com)
• Photos Monsanto Doesn’t Want You To See (dprogram.net)
• New Yorkers protest to have GMO foods labeled (pix11.com)
• March Against Monsanto: Photos of Protest In Austin, Texas that Monsanto Doesn’t Want You to See (thedailysheeple.com)
• The Photos MONSANTO DOESN’T WANT YOU TO SEE (secretsofthefed.com)
• Dylan Charles ~ Hey Monsanto, Did You Hear That? (shiftfrequency.com)
• Media Coverage Blackout Over Anti-Monsanto Protests (thedestructionist.wordpress.com)
• Monsanto website downed as Anonymous claims hack (rt.com)

Antenatal ultrasound and risk of autism spectrum disorders

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19728066

In this study, two groups — one with ASD and one without — are studied for possible links between number of ultrasound scans and developmental disorders. No connection is found.

Problem: The article relies on the number of scans to represent dose. This is a fallacy. As mentioned in a previous post, 5 scans for 5 minutes each and 1 scan for an hour are dramatically different in duration alone. There are many other variables involved.

I conclude that this paper does not confidently prove that antenatal ultrasound is not a possible trigger of autism, and the search continues . . .

We need more research.

Dr. Sarah Buckley, safety concerns about prenatal sonography, published in 2005

http://www.sarahbuckley.com/ultrasound-scans-cause-for-concern/

Dr. Sarah Buckley, MD, created this website back in 2005. To summarize: studies estimate 99% of Australians, 70% of North American pregnancies involve prenatal ultrasound…why? It is very risky. Using it as a screening tool for abnormalities is exposing a majority of the population and this is dangerous.

I agree.. it’s a problem that is mostly propagated because of business success. Every individual mother is going to want baby pictures, making it a viral market. With the advent of social media pictures are self advertising treasures.

Yet, not enough research has been done to prove that they are safe yet. Research takes a lot of time, especially when there is no fountain of money just waiting.

There have been many side effects discovered in animal models, but ethics issues preclude human studies. So the safety assessments released have concluded safety based on lack of evidence.

The side effects discovered already urgently demand further attention… more research is required. Consider reblogging this message because more people need to know about these risks. Apparently the message didn’t get out in 2005.

Our future generation’s health is seriously called to question here.

SpikeTV show Manswers features ultrasound for male contraception, good laughs for me.

Transcript
00:00:03 To find out how to dilute a man’s knock-up sauce without permanent damage, we asked the doctor.
00:00:09 – If men are engaging in unprotected sex, they might want to be temporarily infertile.
00:00:15 announcer: SO How can they do that?
00:00:17 A man could try blasting his sack with an ultrasound machine.
00:00:21 According to the university of north carolina, zapping a bro’s crotch with ultrasound waves for just ten minutes could kill his sperm for up to six months!
00:00:31 But there’s a catch.
00:00:32 Hitting some high notes on his tweeter can close his sperm tube permanently.
00:00:37 both: AH!

http://livedash.ark.com/transcript/manswers/7038/SPIKEP/Thursday_March_03_2011/566461/

http://www.spike.com/episodes/zpkozq/manswers-helicopter-love-and-dog-remains-season-4-ep-410

I saw this recently on SpikeTV and it had me cracking up hard enough that I had to share it.

I visited the ultrasound labs at UNC Chapel Hill personally and met several people who worked there.  I am concerned that ultrasound use on gonads would change hormone levels in adults.  In the literature, there is evidence that ultrasound exposure to rat gonads alters their testosterone levels … reference: http://revistas.um.es/hh/article/viewFile/130341/121361

Reassessment of teratogenic risk from prenatal ultrasound

http://link.springer.com/article/10.2478%2Fs13380-013-0112-7

In this paper, Dr. Manuel F. Casanova (referenced in an earlier post) and Emily Williams review side effects and shortcomings in ultrasound safety regulation.

It’s pretty point on.

For those just joining us – a teratogen is something, like a chemical or environmental exposure that can affect fetal development. You know, like alcohol use during pregnancy.

Historically, the FDA has allowed several things through the nets into widespread circulation that had serious side effects. Thalidomide, X-Ray for fetal scanning, among other things.

There are many side effects of ultrasound that appear harmful on a small scale, but how they affect development has not been rigorously studied.  There are, however, a great many deficits in safety regulations surrounding ultrasound that need to be addressed.  For example…

1. Ultrasound machines are not required by law to be upkept.  Old equipment becomes defective, leading to worse pictures.  Worse pictures means more ultrasound must be used for a good image.

2. There are no limits to the number of scans allowed to be prescribed.  This, in essence, rewards practitioners to believe ultrasound is not risky because of high healthcare costs.  Each scan can be a $1000~ payout, for only a few cents of KY Jelly.  …and a nurse can do it, since it is legal for unspecialized people to perform ultrasounds.

3. Practitioners do not record how much ultrasound is used, so proper dose-based risk assessment cannot be performed using modern intensities.

And many more …

*note: the calf in the picture is not two headed because of ultrasound.

Brain cancer? Mental illness? Ultrasound offers hope for new, better cures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3563154/

We can only use 5% of all the types of medicine available for treating brain diseases. Psychiatric problems, brain cancers, etc. .. all notoriously difficult to treat because medicine can’t even get to the brain in the first place.

A structure called the blood brain barrier protects it.

A few decades ago, it was first discovered that when ultrasound is used following injection of tiny silica bubbles into the blood stream, that the bubbles jiggle around just right to cut tiny holes in the barrier.

The holes are microns in diameter. They are small enough to not cause serious damage, and heal up in 48 hours.

Not large enough to cause harm, but large enough to get medicine through …

They recently dusted off the old books and started optimizing this technique to make it available for human use.

Sounds like a great start!!

UK guidelines for safe diagnostic ultrasound use

http://ult.sagepub.com/content/18/2/52.full

I appreciate the ideal guidelines for ultrasound use promoted in UK medicine. I find it concerning that many practitioners in North America diverge so heavily from safety guidelines.

I get the feeling that practitioners are inundated with new techniques and are cautioned against so many possible problems.. It must be taxing to be worried that so many things can happen, know that it’s possible to catch a life threatening problem at a second’s notice, but never know exactly where to look.

Ultrasound gives reassurance because it actually lets you see what’s going on (at least a little). When I stand in a dark room, knowing I could trip over anything, it’s really hard to not be nagged by instinct to be over cautious.

The difference is that using ultrasound to see could hurt the baby.  Compelling scientific evidence suggests this, and more research is needed to know what is truly safe.

I hope that things change and people become more aware of this kind of stuff. We are both responsible for the well-being of, and also setting examples for all future generations.

I feel like we should take their best interests to heart. Our species depends on it.

Sex selective abortions. I bring this up because ultrasound.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/05/female-feticide-ethical-issues-ultrasound-india-china.html

Ultrasound is cost effective and is not restricted to the most advanced hospitals in the world. Because of this, all cultures have access to it.

In some cultures it is very prominent to push for male offspring rather than female. It is a common practice to abort female fetuses…

I have no right to judge people based on this action because I am so many degrees separated from the circumstances. I’m not a mother, I’m not from these countries, and I’ve never considered aborting my child based on sex.

It does sound rather ghastly to an outsider, though..

Ultrasonic cavitation can also be used to destroy fat, pit metal, and may be dangerous to fetal development

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/22263167/ultrasound-procedure-destroys-fat

Or try the primary literature: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19360448

When focused with sufficient intensity, ultrasound causes powerful upwellings inside fluid mediums. These upwellings can cause gases to nucleate, further creating small microbubbles, called cavitation bubbles.

With continued exposure, these bubbles will gather gas until they reach a critical level where their structure cannot support the amount of pressure around them and so they implode.

The implosion creates a superheated jet of gas reaching 10,000 degrees Celsius and a shockwave of 300 times atmospheric pressure. It destroys fat if aimed at fat.

It also occurs in submarine propellers from them spinning under water. The picture shown is of cavitation damage to metal. Very destructive force.

This can also be used to treat cancers. The possibility exists also to create lesions in beneficial places, such as in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease with US (which will have to wait for another post). Kind of like internal acupuncture.

Cavitation is not a very common event in the fetus at lower levels of ultrasound exposure but the threat has been noted in literature. Keeping ultrasound as low as possible would prevent against it. However, higher intensities allowed in fetal imaging are potentially cavitating.

A short history of ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/history.html

Very cool resource for the history of ultrasound. Something I noticed was that Japan really pushed ultrasound for prenatal scanning a lot harder when it first came out in ObGyn. If memory serves me correct, I think Japan used ultrasound for ten years or so more than other countries.

Coincidentally, they also have significantly more autism.

I’ll probably go into those statistics more in another post.

Dr. David Toms, Md FRCPC, radiologist, created a website to express his concerns about shortcomings of safety in prenatal sonography practice

http://www.fetalultrasoundsafety.net/

I had the pleasure to exchange discussion with Dr. Toms recently. To business, I do find his webpage self evident. Have a look yourself.

In his website he gives a thorough and well rounded description of ultrasound, but also discusses shortcomings in the research.  He does not believe that ultrasound is very harmful, but earnestly raises concern that safety is not science fact.

I personally believe that ultrasound is a very promising tool that has great potential for good.  Conservative use of it is the safest way to handle it until at least epidemiology can be performed.  Until then, it is really a coin flip as to how ultrasound affects human development.

There are plenty of studies that suggest ultrasound of levels well below the intensity allowed in fetal scanning have potentially harmful bioeffects.  Especially those that have been seen to directly alter the development of plants and bacteria …

True, it might not be autism or other mental illnesses known right now.  Maybe ultrasound makes people smarter.  I don’t know.

But it does something, and it’s definitely worth investigating further.  Cures for diseases could be found, new applications, …ultrasound will harken a new era of medicine, I believe.  I’ve read plenty of good things about ultrasound, too.

Dr. John You, clinical epidemiologist, raises concern that the number of prenatal sonograms prescribed is excessive

It would be very difficult for me to make this point any better than the summary for the paper does.

For primary article visit:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/182/2/143.abstract?keytype2=tf_ipsecsha&ijkey=7e03bd7bcf37a47333e31d94d8916a8950655198

For lay summary visit:
http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/main/news/news_2010/rise_in_ultrasounds_for_low-risk_pregnancy.html

So.. in a decade, prenatal ultrasounds are up 55 percent. This is not right. There are supposed to be things in place like ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) and othersuch principles that insist that radiologists perform as few ultrasounds as possible to get the image they need.

Why is the number going up? …probably a mix between misinformation, a lack of public awareness, and tangible profit vs unknown patient risks.

Since ultrasounds are highly profitable procedures requiring very little reagents (pennies worth of KY jelly) and have little known risk, it is easy to coerce many patients into receiving numerous ones. It’s also easy to sleep at night if you are on the side that believes ultrasound to be safe because of a lack of absolutely irrefutable evidence (not evidence of absence, mind you).

I believe that the advent of 3D and first trimester scans have trespassed into a risky territory. They encourage people to look at the baby for longer. First trimester scanning is also risky because that is when the foundations of the brain and other such organs are being built. Early times in fetal development are the most sensitive to disruption.

Since there have been so many studies that raise question about the side effects of ultrasound, why — at the very least — is not more research being funded?

I realize that ultrasound must be a hugely profitable business, but still… I guess that it is truly difficult to force innovation. Money is only paper and people can’t just wish for discoveries to appear using it…

But I also believe in evidence based care, and there is not sufficient evidence to prove to me that even routine ultrasound scans are benign.

In a previous post I discuss the difficulties of epidemiology. There is no proof that ultrasound is safe for fetal development even at modern intensities because no dose data is collected by practitioners. Therefore no study can say for certain that ultrasound is not linked to effects like autism, ADHD, or what have you.

Considering how ultrasound affects the development of plants, bacteria, and the various organism models such as mouse brains/gonads etc as noted in earlier posts, …it really makes me wonder.

Ultrasound can be used to stimulate bone growth in humans

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17946836

According to this study, ultrasound can be used to stimulate the growth of bones in vitro. This is really cool and has some implications.

Physical therapy may be able to help a wider range of injuries in the future (such as fractures and the like) with ultrasound accelerated healing. However, too much ultrasound can be damaging.

More research needs to be performed on this because a new era of medicine lies beyond this door.

At the same time, stuff like this concerns me about how ultrasound could affect the ossification of fetal bones and otherwise affect fetal development.

Autism researcher Dr. Manuel F. Casanova and ultrasound

http://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/

This year I was fortunate to meet another scientist studying the side effects of prenatal ultrasounds named Dr. Casanova from the University of Louisville. He is awesome.

Louisville was beautiful (except for that one jerk who definitely did not yield for pedestrians, but every city has that guy) and I really enjoyed my stay.

Onto business, however: Dr. Casanova is also concerned that the proliferation of prenatal sonography could possibly play a part in promoting autism.

Widespread misinformation, poor epidemiology, bad safety regulations, and a terrible lack of valid research makes this possible. Most drugs pass through several phases of trials to screen for side effects before being introduced to the public, however the side effects of ultrasound are more subtle and not enough research was done before making it so widespread.

Subtle the side effects may be, they have long term impacts. Whether it can promote autism or not remains to be proven, however -something- is happening… and it is similar to autism, symptom wise.

Who knows, maybe it could be a good thing in the long run. Still, we should do more research into this to ensure that it is safe.

Follow this fellow’s blog to learn more from his side of things.

Mothers, please take this survey- especially if you HAVE NOT received ultrasounds during pregnancy

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VVJLZBN

Dr. Linda Gilililand is performing a preliminary study into investigating health outcomes after/or no exposure to ultrasound.

If you are a mother (especially those who have not had ultrasounds during pregnancy, …those are really hard to find) please help research by filling out this survey.

Thank you for your help!

Ultrasound enhances bacterial cell growth

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361254/

In this article, ultrasound has been shown to significantly increase the rate of bacterial cell growth. This proliferation of cells is not just found in bacteria or plants, but also human tissue from exposure to ultrasound. That’s why physical therapists use ultrasound on athletic injuries – it makes them heal back faster in part by increasing cell growth rate.

Coincidentally, one of the symptoms of autism is an increased amount of neuronal proliferation in the prefrontal cortex.  http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104609

Could there be a link between ultrasound and the rise in autism?  What with the advent of 3D imaging, encouraging parents and practitioners to get longer duration face-shots with intensity optimized for imaging rather than as little exposure as necessary, …

More research is required for us to know for certain…

Please sign this petition to call for more research into the safety of prenatal sonography: https://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-research-and-regulation

Ultrasound alters plant growth and development

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301562901004124

In this article, it has been shown that ultrasound alters the growth of Panax ginseng. The intensity used is much less than that used in diagnostic Ob-Gyn for fetal imaging.

Although very cool for agriculture, as ultrasound can be used to stimulate crop growth and mayhaps can be used to promote increased production of important chemicals, … what does this say for what ultrasound might do to a human?

Fetal development is very delicate. That’s why mothers are required to not smoke, not drink, not do pretty much anything that changes the internal chemical environment.

We need more research to make sure ultrasound is safe.

Please sign this petition to call for more research: https://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-research-and-regulation

(Un)safety assurances for fetal sonography

(Un)safety assurances for fetal sonography

This article discusses why doctors think that ultrasound is safe to use for fetal imaging.

Key points –

1. In 1992, the intensity of ultrasound was increased dramatically without any subsequent follow up research.  Thus, modern assurances of safety are based on obsolete, inconclusive, and disorganized information.

2. The Output Display Standard are numbers on an ultrasound monitor that practitioners read to guestimate relative risks.  It is not very accurate.

3. How safe a session is depends on the skill of the practitioner.  Sonographers with more training are less likely to hold the ultrasound beam in one place for long, and maybe the really good ones will know important and delicate areas to keep it away from.  In reality, many untrained personnel (nurses or lay-people) perform sonograms so this is not the case always.

Please be careful with the amount of ultrasound you expose your child to.  Less is better, and we don’t know what it does yet.

AIMS questions the safety of prenatal ultrasound

AIMS questions the safety of prenatal ultrasound

This website was prepared in 2000, citing many of the safety issues regarding prenatal ultrasound that are still present today.

A combination of misleading information, state and federal regulations not touching the matter, and that ultrasound side effects are an esoteric field of study which leads to this problem.

Unknowing parents love seeing their children, and unknowing practitioners do not have conclusive evidence that profiteering can cause harm.  Not that all practitioners put money before safety, but many do in the case of fetal sonography.  Some practitioners go so far as to intimidate people into getting more ultrasounds, which goes against the notion of informed consent.

One person who signed the petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-research-and-regulation left in the comments, “I have two children, and although my pregnancies were both high risk for various reasons (generally my health during pregnancy), I feel that the number of ultrasounds scheduled was excessive.  I probably had close to 10 in my first pregnancy, and had at least two per week for the last two months of my second pregnancy.  Scare tactics were used by my doctor any time I questioned the need for so many, including the claim that he needed to be “prepared” in case my babies were born with conditions that required immediate treatment.  They were not.  I genuinely believe that some OB’s see high risk pregnancies as a cash cow.  Certainly mine did.”

Have you heard of www.ultrasound-autism.org?

Have you heard of www.ultrasound-autism.org?

Independent researcher, Duke alumni, and career engineer Mrs. Parrish Hirasaki has been investigating the connection between ultrasound and the rise in autism for years, now.

Her website is meticulously organized, very readable, and clearly presents scientific evidence supporting the possibility that ultrasound could be linked to negative health effects.

Because epidemiology is untenable, this is possible.  More research is needed.