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.”

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.

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

The rise in autism -- the quietest apocalypse?

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.