Auditory Processing in Autism and Ultrasound-altered Hearing

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.

Advertisements

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/2008/2008SonofusionResearchScuttled.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?

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

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)…