Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

[Guest guest]

my family doctor said (almost 7 yrs ago) that they no longer recommend

ultrasounds because it can affect the baby's hearing. wonder what else they

know and don't tell us. I'm sure there has been alot more info in the past

7 years.

Kathy On,Can

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

> Wow! That's some heavy info about ultrasounds! I had no idea. I

> recieved 4 u/s's during my pregnancy. I almost lost the baby in my

> first trimester and the doc wanted to be sure all was wel. And because

> of my early probs, we needed to be sure that the baby was still growing

> properly. I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's

> amazing information. I really had no idea.

>

> --- cpeter8743@... wrote:

> > The ultra sound was taken at 19 weeks. At that time the head area,

> > glands,

> > teeth, ears, several different important neural connections, are all

> > forming.

> > Prolonged exposure to ultra sound has PROVEN to cause problems.

> > But, as

> > with vaccines, they have not investigated any further, independently

> > or

> > otherewise. There are a few independent studies out there, and if

> > you take

> > the time to read them and get through their gobbledy gook, these are

> > all

> > listed as adverse reactions. Although one ultra sound doesn't sound

> > like

> > much, when you apply the science to it, and add that I was " under " it

> > for an

> > hour (my doctor wanted to make absolutely sure that I was right on

> > the due

> > date, because his was a month later than mine), then remembering that

> > these

> > machines change things/tissue at a molecular level. It explains a

> > lot,

> > especially since I had a pregnancy without any incidents or even

> > close calls.

> > I was as healthy as a horse, and my son was as big as one (10lbs).

> > Add to

> > this his other problems: apraxia, which is a neuro disorder

> > involving the

> > speech area of the brain, some autistic behavior, teeth, immune

> > system, off

> > the charts continued growth (indicating some pituitary and thyroid

> > possibles), he had some ear infections, but because this was the one

> > thing I

> > expected because of the ultra sound, I took care of it at the very

> > instant

> > he'd tug at an ear, or whatever. I was overly paranoid, probably,

> > but in the

> > end I think it did end up being one less problem for us. So, all of

> > the

> > above probablems have been indicated in various studies (which didn't

> > go any

> > further than saying more research was needed), and with no other

> > indicators

> > including genetic, everyone was led back to the ultra sound. Two of

> > them (1

> > doctor, 1 dentist) have seen enough problems like ours to be

> > convinced that

> > ultra sounds should only be used under very extreme circumstances.

> > Carol

> >

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/8/01 9:36:24 PM Central Standard Time, jan.lips@...

writes:

<< >my 15 mo. old ds, sawyer, has some problems with his teeth--they are

>beginning to decay and this has been going on for about 6 weeks now

....

Again, homeopathy might be the solution for this problem. We have seen

genetically inherited problems disappear under homeopathic treatment.

Visit a classical homeopath... >>

There may be nothing you can do at this point. The baby teeth are already in

place waiting to sprout when kids are born. However, by seeing a homeopath

or a naturopathic doctor, you can go over everything that's available to

retard or stop the current problem, and prevent the adult teeth from

following suit. Our schedule was thus: bifodus and/or acidopholus after

every meal. Papaya and other digestive enzymes after dinner. Wiping with

gauze with a rinse to alkalize the mouth after every drink or snack.

Brushing with as close to baking soda as you can get. Using herbs (like

myrhh and echinacea) to strengthen the gums. Using White Oak/Black Walnut to

retard the decay, and eat the plaque. Once under control, we use it 2x

weekly. We took calc fluor and calc phos for over a year (I should still be

doing it, but it got lost in the melee last fall), to strengthen the incoming

teeth, as well as giving a good multi vitamin, and extra calcium/magnesium,

and stengthening the immune system is EXTREMELY important. The teeth reflect

that something is going on. I promoted only chewing gum that promoted good

saliva in the mouth -- the only we found to be beneficial without the junk

was Peelu. Our problem was traced back to my ultra sound by 3 doctors and 2

dentists. There just wasn't any other explanation. So at that point, I had

to give up saving the baby teeth and hope we could hang on to them long

enough for his adult teeth to come in. Decay is contagious, once you see the

first spot, it doesn't take long for it to spread, and sometimes dentists

don't get you in right away. We started with one spot, and by the time I

broke down and agreed to surgery, we had 6 crowns and 4 more fillings. Then

two non-fluoride/non-merc temps we had had put in to start fell out and that

was a nightmare. So far we've contained it, but I think only because I got

aggressive about researching everything and making sure I got 2nd and 3rd

opinions. But, his other problems began to fall away as well. So it was

mostly head stuff we were dealing with (teeth, immune system, speech). And

as we peeled everything away... it fell together. And if you see more than

one person, make sure you let them in on the circle. They need to know what

else you've done, and what you are doing, and who advised you to do it and

why. I kept notebook and just let everyone read it and add to it, that way

I wasn't rehashing every time I turned around.

Carol

[Guest guest]

>my 15 mo. old ds, sawyer, has some problems with his teeth--they are

>beginning to decay and this has been going on for about 6 weeks now

.....

Again, homeopathy might be the solution for this problem. We have seen

genetically inherited problems disappear under homeopathic treatment.

Visit a classical homeopath...

I just saw a program the other day that dentists in Texas are putting on

way to many steel caps (even on healthy teeth!) just to make lots of

money. It's ugly, unnecessary, traumatic, and I wouldn't be surprised if

it is unhealthy as well.

Jan

--

Jan F. Lips, DHOM, HMC

Calgary Centre for Homeopathy

Calgary, Alberta

Canada

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/8/01 10:52:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, cpeter8743@... writes:

Our problem was traced back to my ultra sound by 3 doctors and 2 dentists. There just wasn't any other explanation.

carol,

oh my god, somehow, i have had a gut instinct/feeling that SOMEHOW, my ultrasounds were behind this in someway--could you tell me what happened to make you and these dentists feel this way?

thanks so much!!

thanks to everyone for their support and suggetsions!!

also, there is no evidence of a genetic situation here--neither myself nor husbands family has had anything like this and our older son has beautiful teeth at a couple months shy of 7 years old.

brigit, in albany

[Guest guest]

The ultra sound was taken at 19 weeks. At that time the head area, glands,

teeth, ears, several different important neural connections, are all forming.

Prolonged exposure to ultra sound has PROVEN to cause problems. But, as

with vaccines, they have not investigated any further, independently or

otherewise. There are a few independent studies out there, and if you take

the time to read them and get through their gobbledy gook, these are all

listed as adverse reactions. Although one ultra sound doesn't sound like

much, when you apply the science to it, and add that I was " under " it for an

hour (my doctor wanted to make absolutely sure that I was right on the due

date, because his was a month later than mine), then remembering that these

machines change things/tissue at a molecular level. It explains a lot,

especially since I had a pregnancy without any incidents or even close calls.

I was as healthy as a horse, and my son was as big as one (10lbs). Add to

this his other problems: apraxia, which is a neuro disorder involving the

speech area of the brain, some autistic behavior, teeth, immune system, off

the charts continued growth (indicating some pituitary and thyroid

possibles), he had some ear infections, but because this was the one thing I

expected because of the ultra sound, I took care of it at the very instant

he'd tug at an ear, or whatever. I was overly paranoid, probably, but in the

end I think it did end up being one less problem for us. So, all of the

above probablems have been indicated in various studies (which didn't go any

further than saying more research was needed), and with no other indicators

including genetic, everyone was led back to the ultra sound. Two of them (1

doctor, 1 dentist) have seen enough problems like ours to be convinced that

ultra sounds should only be used under very extreme circumstances.

Carol

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/01 10:30:43 AM Central Standard Time,

carriebeary77@... writes:

<< I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's

amazing information. I really had no idea. >>

Here is the trade-off. In our case, my fear of his ear-aches due to the

ultra sound was not as great as my fear of not getting the midwife I wanted

and a home birth, which both hinged on the due date. Had I known that there

was more to the story of ultra sounds, and had I known the chances of the

midwife actually delivering were remote, I would never have done it.

However, at the time, these things were not available to me to help me make a

decision, and one which I thought about for over a week. Doctors who have

delivered a lot of babies (ours at that point had over 1200) will tell you to

the side that they absolutely see an increase in ear related problems, and

speech problems, etc. in those babies exposed to ultrasound at the " normal "

time which is about 18-21 weeks. However, the medical establishment will not

put any serious thought into any of it, even though it comes up time and

again in independent studies (think of the backlash). I believe, it's

probably the same with vaccines. No noticeable side effects for a lot of

people, ergo there must not be any side effects, and those that are able to

correlate problems, are blown off as well, it MUST be something else,

everyone else hasn't had these problems. But, as we know, the effects of

vaccines can be long term. In my case (I had the measles shot at 8, and the

measles at 23), I am left with arthritis in some very strange places... which

wasn't diagnosed until I was 29, many years past the point of complaint,

because they just didn't want to interpret my medical data. So, I'm happy

that you don't have any of the residuals, I believe that is absolutely true.

And also, in your case, with problems you were looking at, what other choice

would you have made? You probably would have done what I did, and went ahead

with the ultra-sound and prepared for the worse that you were aware of (our

doctor had clued us into the ear problems with my first, so although I was

carrying twins we absolutely refused the ultrasound).

Remember - they used to think x-rays were harmless as well. Now people who

had them in the 60s and 70s (for teeth, head injuries, etc) are getting

cancer in their thyroids and lymph nodes. considering all the other toxins

we heap on these organs (fluoride and mercury are known to have adverse

effects, i.e. hypothyorid in women, etc.), it's a wonder there aren't more

cases. And I suspect there are, we just don't hear about it, or it's

misdiagnosed, as it was in my case. I'm slowly but surely becoming my

mother. I don't like doctors, and I don't trust them. They are not educated

enough to be making such important decisions for us, nor are they educated

enough to understand the ramifications and how to fix them. They don't even

know or trust the body to begin with, and that should tell us something.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/01 10:30:43 AM Central Standard Time,

carriebeary77@... writes:

<< I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's

amazing information. I really had no idea. >>

Here is the trade-off. In our case, my fear of his ear-aches due to the

ultra sound was not as great as my fear of not getting the midwife I wanted

and a home birth, which both hinged on the due date. Had I known that there

was more to the story of ultra sounds, and had I known the chances of the

midwife actually delivering were remote, I would never have done it.

However, at the time, these things were not available to me to help me make a

decision, and one which I thought about for over a week. Doctors who have

delivered a lot of babies (ours at that point had over 1200) will tell you to

the side that they absolutely see an increase in ear related problems, and

speech problems, etc. in those babies exposed to ultrasound at the " normal "

time which is about 18-21 weeks. However, the medical establishment will not

put any serious thought into any of it, even though it comes up time and

again in independent studies (think of the backlash). I believe, it's

probably the same with vaccines. No noticeable side effects for a lot of

people, ergo there must not be any side effects, and those that are able to

correlate problems, are blown off as well, it MUST be something else,

everyone else hasn't had these problems. But, as we know, the effects of

vaccines can be long term. In my case (I had the measles shot at 8, and the

measles at 23), I am left with arthritis in some very strange places... which

wasn't diagnosed until I was 29, many years past the point of complaint,

because they just didn't want to interpret my medical data. So, I'm happy

that you don't have any of the residuals, I believe that is absolutely true.

And also, in your case, with problems you were looking at, what other choice

would you have made? You probably would have done what I did, and went ahead

with the ultra-sound and prepared for the worse that you were aware of (our

doctor had clued us into the ear problems with my first, so although I was

carrying twins we absolutely refused the ultrasound).

Remember - they used to think x-rays were harmless as well. Now people who

had them in the 60s and 70s (for teeth, head injuries, etc) are getting

cancer in their thyroids and lymph nodes. considering all the other toxins

we heap on these organs (fluoride and mercury are known to have adverse

effects, i.e. hypothyorid in women, etc.), it's a wonder there aren't more

cases. And I suspect there are, we just don't hear about it, or it's

misdiagnosed, as it was in my case. I'm slowly but surely becoming my

mother. I don't like doctors, and I don't trust them. They are not educated

enough to be making such important decisions for us, nor are they educated

enough to understand the ramifications and how to fix them. They don't even

know or trust the body to begin with, and that should tell us something.

[Guest guest]

Wow! That's some heavy info about ultrasounds! I had no idea. I

recieved 4 u/s's during my pregnancy. I almost lost the baby in my

first trimester and the doc wanted to be sure all was wel. And because

of my early probs, we needed to be sure that the baby was still growing

properly. I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's

amazing information. I really had no idea.

--- cpeter8743@... wrote:

> The ultra sound was taken at 19 weeks. At that time the head area,

> glands,

> teeth, ears, several different important neural connections, are all

> forming.

> Prolonged exposure to ultra sound has PROVEN to cause problems.

> But, as

> with vaccines, they have not investigated any further, independently

> or

> otherewise. There are a few independent studies out there, and if

> you take

> the time to read them and get through their gobbledy gook, these are

> all

> listed as adverse reactions. Although one ultra sound doesn't sound

> like

> much, when you apply the science to it, and add that I was " under " it

> for an

> hour (my doctor wanted to make absolutely sure that I was right on

> the due

> date, because his was a month later than mine), then remembering that

> these

> machines change things/tissue at a molecular level. It explains a

> lot,

> especially since I had a pregnancy without any incidents or even

> close calls.

> I was as healthy as a horse, and my son was as big as one (10lbs).

> Add to

> this his other problems: apraxia, which is a neuro disorder

> involving the

> speech area of the brain, some autistic behavior, teeth, immune

> system, off

> the charts continued growth (indicating some pituitary and thyroid

> possibles), he had some ear infections, but because this was the one

> thing I

> expected because of the ultra sound, I took care of it at the very

> instant

> he'd tug at an ear, or whatever. I was overly paranoid, probably,

> but in the

> end I think it did end up being one less problem for us. So, all of

> the

> above probablems have been indicated in various studies (which didn't

> go any

> further than saying more research was needed), and with no other

> indicators

> including genetic, everyone was led back to the ultra sound. Two of

> them (1

> doctor, 1 dentist) have seen enough problems like ours to be

> convinced that

> ultra sounds should only be used under very extreme circumstances.

> Carol

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/01 12:51:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, kcumming@... writes:

my family doctor said (almost 7 yrs ago) that they no longer recommend

ultrasounds because it can affect the baby's hearing

not recommending them???? now they perform at least 3 of them on every "normal" pregnancy, as a matter of course.

i knew i shouldn't have allowed it, but i let myself be pushed by my ob and now i really regret it--i really can't put my finger on why it has bothered me sooo much, but deep down, i knew that they weren't a good idea (guess i always get my guard up when any one in the medical industry tries to assure me that something is "perfectly safe"--yeah, just like thalidomide, right??!!

i have some links on ultrasounds, if anyone would like them, let me know...keep in mind that the way ultrasonic waves work are by sound waves--these can cause cell disruption and when you are talking about a fetus, forming cells at such a great rate, any cell disruption can be devastating. maybe we cannot always see the damage done, but it may be there...

brigit, in albany

[Guest guest]

I had 4 ultrasounds with my sweet Chaela I had placenta previa and they were

done to check placement of Placenta to make sure it moves. So that i didnt go

into labor with a placenta covering my cervix(very dangerous) but everything

was fine. Thank goodness

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/01 3:38:02 PM Central Standard Time,

Sherri@... writes:

<< In normal pregnancy there is no

need for more than 1 ultrasound for anatomy, and sometimes, that's

debatable. >>

jimo - that's NOT debatable. In a normal pregnancy, there is NO need for an

ultrasound. You're talking strictly NEEDS, emotional or otherwise, of the

parents here. That is, if they are aware that they have a normally

progressing pregnancy.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/01 4:20:58 PM Central Standard Time,

Sherri@... writes:

<< Pregnancy problems such as gestational diabetes >>

How does US help in this case?

[Guest guest]

Just to let you know how long the lag time can be before info gets to the

public and/or docs. When I was pregnant with my second child in 1986 I was

concerned about ultrasounds and hearing!!!!!!!!!

What else is there to say? Sandy from Alaska

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED

HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED

AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO

BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION

WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE

AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR

HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

>

>

> > Wow! That's some heavy info about ultrasounds! I had no idea. I

> > recieved 4 u/s's during my pregnancy. I almost lost the baby in my

> > first trimester and the doc wanted to be sure all was wel. And because

> > of my early probs, we needed to be sure that the baby was still growing

> > properly. I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's

> > amazing information. I really had no idea.

> >

> > --- cpeter8743@... wrote:

> > > The ultra sound was taken at 19 weeks. At that time the head area,

> > > glands,

> > > teeth, ears, several different important neural connections, are all

> > > forming.

> > > Prolonged exposure to ultra sound has PROVEN to cause problems.

> > > But, as

> > > with vaccines, they have not investigated any further, independently

> > > or

> > > otherewise. There are a few independent studies out there, and if

> > > you take

> > > the time to read them and get through their gobbledy gook, these are

> > > all

> > > listed as adverse reactions. Although one ultra sound doesn't sound

> > > like

> > > much, when you apply the science to it, and add that I was " under " it

> > > for an

> > > hour (my doctor wanted to make absolutely sure that I was right on

> > > the due

> > > date, because his was a month later than mine), then remembering that

> > > these

> > > machines change things/tissue at a molecular level. It explains a

> > > lot,

> > > especially since I had a pregnancy without any incidents or even

> > > close calls.

> > > I was as healthy as a horse, and my son was as big as one (10lbs).

> > > Add to

> > > this his other problems: apraxia, which is a neuro disorder

> > > involving the

> > > speech area of the brain, some autistic behavior, teeth, immune

> > > system, off

> > > the charts continued growth (indicating some pituitary and thyroid

> > > possibles), he had some ear infections, but because this was the one

> > > thing I

> > > expected because of the ultra sound, I took care of it at the very

> > > instant

> > > he'd tug at an ear, or whatever. I was overly paranoid, probably,

> > > but in the

> > > end I think it did end up being one less problem for us. So, all of

> > > the

> > > above probablems have been indicated in various studies (which didn't

> > > go any

> > > further than saying more research was needed), and with no other

> > > indicators

> > > including genetic, everyone was led back to the ultra sound. Two of

> > > them (1

> > > doctor, 1 dentist) have seen enough problems like ours to be

> > > convinced that

> > > ultra sounds should only be used under very extreme circumstances.

> > > Carol

> > >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/01 5:34:40 PM Central Standard Time,

Sherri@... writes:

<< Most moms with GD have larger than average babies. Docs will do u/s in

those cases to measure the babies size. >>

Ick. My doctor just measured basically from head to butt. Using his hands.

They were cold. The alternative was not an option. And it usually illicited

a response. Also, ... I had my period until 3-1/2 months. No clue I

was pregnant. Until the craving for jalapenos hit. The first time around

you're just so clueless...

carol peterson

[Guest guest]

Wow. I am just in amazement. My son is 10 mos old and from the time he

was 5 mos old, he has had practically non-stop ear infections. Between

the u/s and the vaxes, I don't know what the cause is! My brother had

many infections as a child as well and now has hearing loss. I worry

about that for Max. I worry alot for Max because he is predisposed to

lots of things. My family isn't in the best health. I hope to change

that with Max. We intend to treat homeopathically and do whatever else

we can to kepe him as healthy as possible. Thanks for the insight on

the ultrasounds and ear infections... I will forever wonder now, was

that why he gets ear infections? Or was it the vaxes? I am so glad to

have this email list. I have gotten ALOT of great info here.

~

--- cpeter8743@... wrote:

> In a message dated 2/9/01 10:30:43 AM Central Standard Time,

> carriebeary77@... writes:

>

> << I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's

> amazing information. I really had no idea. >>

>

> Here is the trade-off. In our case, my fear of his ear-aches due to

> the

> ultra sound was not as great as my fear of not getting the midwife I

> wanted

> and a home birth, which both hinged on the due date. Had I known

> that there

> was more to the story of ultra sounds, and had I known the chances

> of the

> midwife actually delivering were remote, I would never have done it.

>

> However, at the time, these things were not available to me to help

> me make a

> decision, and one which I thought about for over a week. Doctors who

> have

> delivered a lot of babies (ours at that point had over 1200) will

> tell you to

> the side that they absolutely see an increase in ear related

> problems, and

> speech problems, etc. in those babies exposed to ultrasound at the

> " normal "

> time which is about 18-21 weeks. However, the medical establishment

> will not

> put any serious thought into any of it, even though it comes up time

> and

> again in independent studies (think of the backlash). I believe,

> it's

> probably the same with vaccines. No noticeable side effects for a

> lot of

> people, ergo there must not be any side effects, and those that are

> able to

> correlate problems, are blown off as well, it MUST be something else,

>

> everyone else hasn't had these problems. But, as we know, the

> effects of

> vaccines can be long term. In my case (I had the measles shot at 8,

> and the

> measles at 23), I am left with arthritis in some very strange

> places... which

> wasn't diagnosed until I was 29, many years past the point of

> complaint,

> because they just didn't want to interpret my medical data. So, I'm

> happy

> that you don't have any of the residuals, I believe that is

> absolutely true.

> And also, in your case, with problems you were looking at, what other

> choice

> would you have made? You probably would have done what I did, and

> went ahead

> with the ultra-sound and prepared for the worse that you were aware

> of (our

> doctor had clued us into the ear problems with my first, so although

> I was

> carrying twins we absolutely refused the ultrasound).

>

> Remember - they used to think x-rays were harmless as well. Now

> people who

> had them in the 60s and 70s (for teeth, head injuries, etc) are

> getting

> cancer in their thyroids and lymph nodes. considering all the other

> toxins

> we heap on these organs (fluoride and mercury are known to have

> adverse

> effects, i.e. hypothyorid in women, etc.), it's a wonder there aren't

> more

> cases. And I suspect there are, we just don't hear about it, or it's

>

> misdiagnosed, as it was in my case. I'm slowly but surely becoming

> my

> mother. I don't like doctors, and I don't trust them. They are not

> educated

> enough to be making such important decisions for us, nor are they

> educated

> enough to understand the ramifications and how to fix them. They

> don't even

> know or trust the body to begin with, and that should tell us

> something.

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/01 7:06:57 PM Central Standard Time,

mianne@... writes:

<< After that we moved and they did two more ultra sounds. One was done by a

specialist for multi gestational pregnancies. >>

This was my first. But I didn't do the ultrasound. when it was brought up,

I said, so with this info or confirmation I get toooooo..... give one back?

no he said. I get toooooooooo uh, give one to you? no he said. You leave

immediately following the kid's feet exiting, so you'd like to know if

there's more coming, otherwise you might be gone? Uh, no. he said.

Actually, he said, i see a much higher rate of incidence of ear problems in

children of mothers who have had ultra sounds. And I confirm that because I

also see hmong mothers who don't do any fancy stuff, and ear infections are

unheard of in their community (in his practice). ooooookey-dokey, I said.

Pretty much cuts out any reason I need for one, whaddya say hon? And DH said

no. Now because of her birth and the subsequent hassles and problems and

emergencies caused by the hospital, I demanded homebirth with my son, which

dictated a confirmed due date by an MD, which I couldn't get without an ultra

sound because of course, doctors use the " I'm from Venus " way of figuring out

when you're pregnant. Of course it doesn't matter to them that I knew the

day I got pregnant and all you have to do is add 273 days and joila... no.

They need to get their little slide ruler out and count in a manly sort of

way. So his date was over 30 days later than mine (better than with Stormy

though, he had me delivering in March (jan due date) eegads.) He said he

won't argue with me any more... too late I said. That last one pretty much

convinced me I've experienced enough.

Carol

[Guest guest]

Hi Brigit...there have been alot of studies that show that ultrasounds during pregnancy can be dangerous to the babies for several reasons. The one that I remember most, was that they cause the cells that are forming to "go crazy" and malfunction while the ultrasound is happening, and for some time afterward. The authors of the studies showed genetic "faults" in the DNA in rats after only one ultrasound, and genetic mutations were found in subsequent generations of rat babies. Also, it helps to know that ultrasounds ARE a form of radiation. Did you ever notice that when you are having an ultrasound, that your baby suddenly (in most cases), becomes very "active"? My belief is that it is because the forming fetus feels these changes and is discomfited by them. The doppler is also an ultrasound device. Ultrasounds can be beneficial when needed in extreme cases, but they are greatly overused. I came by this information when I was pregnant with my son, and attending a Bradley birthing class. If you like, I can dig up this info, and send it to you...

Sharon, Quakertown PA

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

In a message dated 2/8/01 10:52:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, cpeter8743@... writes:

Our problem was traced back to my ultra sound by 3 doctors and 2 dentists. There just wasn't any other explanation. carol, oh my god, somehow, i have had a gut instinct/feeling that SOMEHOW, my ultrasounds were behind this in someway--could you tell me what happened to make you and these dentists feel this way? thanks so much!! thanks to everyone for their support and suggetsions!! also, there is no evidence of a genetic situation here--neither myself nor husbands family has had anything like this and our older son has beautiful teeth at a couple months shy of 7 years old. brigit, in albany

[Guest guest]

I think I missed the post on u/s. I had 3 with , the first one because

I had a tubal reversal and was at greater risk of ectopic. The second was

to determine heartbeat at 7 weeks, and the last was at 20, the typical

anatomy u/s. Having worked in high risk OB, I know a lot of women who have

u/s twice a week due to pregnancy problems. In normal pregnancy there is no

need for more than 1 ultrasound for anatomy, and sometimes, that's

debatable.

Sherri Garrett

TR 2/17/00

1st TR baby born 11/29/00

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

Wow. I am just in amazement. My son is 10 mos old and from the time he

was 5 mos old, he has had practically non-stop ear infections. Between

the u/s and the vaxes, I don't know what the cause is! My brother had

many infections as a child as well and now has hearing loss. I worry

about that for Max. I worry alot for Max because he is predisposed to

lots of things. My family isn't in the best health. I hope to change

that with Max. We intend to treat homeopathically and do whatever else

we can to kepe him as healthy as possible. Thanks for the insight on

the ultrasounds and ear infections... I will forever wonder now, was

that why he gets ear infections? Or was it the vaxes? I am so glad to

have this email list. I have gotten ALOT of great info here.

~

--- cpeter8743@... wrote:

> In a message dated 2/9/01 10:30:43 AM Central Standard Time,

> carriebeary77@... writes:

>

> << I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's

> amazing information. I really had no idea. >>

>

> Here is the trade-off. In our case, my fear of his ear-aches due to

> the

> ultra sound was not as great as my fear of not getting the midwife I

> wanted

> and a home birth, which both hinged on the due date. Had I known

> that there

> was more to the story of ultra sounds, and had I known the chances

> of the

> midwife actually delivering were remote, I would never have done it.

>

> However, at the time, these things were not available to me to help

> me make a

> decision, and one which I thought about for over a week. Doctors who

> have

> delivered a lot of babies (ours at that point had over 1200) will

> tell you to

> the side that they absolutely see an increase in ear related

> problems, and

> speech problems, etc. in those babies exposed to ultrasound at the

> " normal "

> time which is about 18-21 weeks. However, the medical establishment

> will not

> put any serious thought into any of it, even though it comes up time

> and

> again in independent studies (think of the backlash). I believe,

> it's

> probably the same with vaccines. No noticeable side effects for a

> lot of

> people, ergo there must not be any side effects, and those that are

> able to

> correlate problems, are blown off as well, it MUST be something else,

>

> everyone else hasn't had these problems. But, as we know, the

> effects of

> vaccines can be long term. In my case (I had the measles shot at 8,

> and the

> measles at 23), I am left with arthritis in some very strange

> places... which

> wasn't diagnosed until I was 29, many years past the point of

> complaint,

> because they just didn't want to interpret my medical data. So, I'm

> happy

> that you don't have any of the residuals, I believe that is

> absolutely true.

> And also, in your case, with problems you were looking at, what other

> choice

> would you have made? You probably would have done what I did, and

> went ahead

> with the ultra-sound and prepared for the worse that you were aware

> of (our

> doctor had clued us into the ear problems with my first, so although

> I was

> carrying twins we absolutely refused the ultrasound).

>

> Remember - they used to think x-rays were harmless as well. Now

> people who

> had them in the 60s and 70s (for teeth, head injuries, etc) are

> getting

> cancer in their thyroids and lymph nodes. considering all the other

> toxins

> we heap on these organs (fluoride and mercury are known to have

> adverse

> effects, i.e. hypothyorid in women, etc.), it's a wonder there aren't

> more

> cases. And I suspect there are, we just don't hear about it, or it's

>

> misdiagnosed, as it was in my case. I'm slowly but surely becoming

> my

> mother. I don't like doctors, and I don't trust them. They are not

> educated

> enough to be making such important decisions for us, nor are they

> educated

> enough to understand the ramifications and how to fix them. They

> don't even

> know or trust the body to begin with, and that should tell us

> something.

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Ultrasounds can be beneficial when needed in extreme cases, but they are greatly overused.

Just a comment on the above statement I made...it can be very hard to realize when an ultrasound might be beneficial, and those cases are SO RARE. Most of the time when an ultrasound is used for a medical reason (not routine) it can actually contribute to the problem. I had a miscarriage several years ago, and I question whether or not I would have lost the baby had it not been for the ultrasounds I recieved. Also, most OB/GYN's would never dream of admitting that there can be problems with ultrasounds...most if not all of their practices use ultrasounds as a routine part of pregnancy, most if not all use dopplers (for convenience) and after buying that extremely expensive equipment, they have to use it to make their money back...

Sharon, Quakertown PA

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

In a message dated 2/8/01 10:52:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, cpeter8743@... writes:

Our problem was traced back to my ultra sound by 3 doctors and 2 dentists. There just wasn't any other explanation. carol, oh my god, somehow, i have had a gut instinct/feeling that SOMEHOW, my ultrasounds were behind this in someway--could you tell me what happened to make you and these dentists feel this way? thanks so much!! thanks to everyone for their support and suggetsions!! also, there is no evidence of a genetic situation here--neither myself nor husbands family has had anything like this and our older son has beautiful teeth at a couple months shy of 7 years old. brigit, in albany

[Guest guest]

Having worked in high risk OB, I know a lot of women who have

> u/s twice a week due to pregnancy problems. In normal pregnancy there is

no

> need for more than 1 ultrasound for anatomy, and sometimes, that's

> debatable.

Hi Sherri...nothing against you...this is just a great example of what I

meant in my last post. Depending on the problem during pregnancy, having an

ultrasound provides nothing beneficial to the patient or doctor, for even

with the information provided from an ultrasound, the doctor often cannot

offer any medical intervention. Most of the time, if not almost always, an

ultrasound can only offer information about the fetus that would help in a

decision of whether or not the parents wanted to abort it. Give me some

examples of the high risk patients, and I can explain what I mean. Also,

there is no need for an ultrasound even at the typical 18 -20 weeks for

anatomy...if the liver or heart or legs, etc. are not growing at the

expected rate, what are the doctors going to do? There is nothing they can

do, except tell the parent, which leads to worry and stress on their part.

You stated that you had a tubal reversal...that was probably a good reason

to have an ultrasound, as an ectopic pregnancy can be deadly (I know, I had

one and came within 5 hours of dying). The second, to determine heartbeat,

was useless..if there was no heartbeat, you would have lost the baby, if

there was a heartbeat, then your baby is there. I am not knocking you...I

had these same ultrasounds when I was pregnant. After I learned of the

dangers of ultrasound, I asked my midwife to use a fetascope instead to

detect heartbeat (rate) at my monthly checkups, and during labor. They

bucked me a little, because it requires greater time and concentration, but

in the end, my son was exposed to far less radio waves, which I would hope

was beneficial to him. Anyway, thanks for letting me spew...

Sharon, Quakertown PA

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

>

> Wow. I am just in amazement. My son is 10 mos old and from the time he

> was 5 mos old, he has had practically non-stop ear infections. Between

> the u/s and the vaxes, I don't know what the cause is! My brother had

> many infections as a child as well and now has hearing loss. I worry

> about that for Max. I worry alot for Max because he is predisposed to

> lots of things. My family isn't in the best health. I hope to change

> that with Max. We intend to treat homeopathically and do whatever else

> we can to kepe him as healthy as possible. Thanks for the insight on

> the ultrasounds and ear infections... I will forever wonder now, was

> that why he gets ear infections? Or was it the vaxes? I am so glad to

> have this email list. I have gotten ALOT of great info here.

>

> ~

>

>

>

>

>

> --- cpeter8743@... wrote:

> > In a message dated 2/9/01 10:30:43 AM Central Standard Time,

> > carriebeary77@... writes:

> >

> > << I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's

> > amazing information. I really had no idea. >>

> >

> > Here is the trade-off. In our case, my fear of his ear-aches due to

> > the

> > ultra sound was not as great as my fear of not getting the midwife I

> > wanted

> > and a home birth, which both hinged on the due date. Had I known

> > that there

> > was more to the story of ultra sounds, and had I known the chances

> > of the

> > midwife actually delivering were remote, I would never have done it.

> >

> > However, at the time, these things were not available to me to help

> > me make a

> > decision, and one which I thought about for over a week. Doctors who

> > have

> > delivered a lot of babies (ours at that point had over 1200) will

> > tell you to

> > the side that they absolutely see an increase in ear related

> > problems, and

> > speech problems, etc. in those babies exposed to ultrasound at the

> > " normal "

> > time which is about 18-21 weeks. However, the medical establishment

> > will not

> > put any serious thought into any of it, even though it comes up time

> > and

> > again in independent studies (think of the backlash). I believe,

> > it's

> > probably the same with vaccines. No noticeable side effects for a

> > lot of

> > people, ergo there must not be any side effects, and those that are

> > able to

> > correlate problems, are blown off as well, it MUST be something else,

> >

> > everyone else hasn't had these problems. But, as we know, the

> > effects of

> > vaccines can be long term. In my case (I had the measles shot at 8,

> > and the

> > measles at 23), I am left with arthritis in some very strange

> > places... which

> > wasn't diagnosed until I was 29, many years past the point of

> > complaint,

> > because they just didn't want to interpret my medical data. So, I'm

> > happy

> > that you don't have any of the residuals, I believe that is

> > absolutely true.

> > And also, in your case, with problems you were looking at, what other

> > choice

> > would you have made? You probably would have done what I did, and

> > went ahead

> > with the ultra-sound and prepared for the worse that you were aware

> > of (our

> > doctor had clued us into the ear problems with my first, so although

> > I was

> > carrying twins we absolutely refused the ultrasound).

> >

> > Remember - they used to think x-rays were harmless as well. Now

> > people who

> > had them in the 60s and 70s (for teeth, head injuries, etc) are

> > getting

> > cancer in their thyroids and lymph nodes. considering all the other

> > toxins

> > we heap on these organs (fluoride and mercury are known to have

> > adverse

> > effects, i.e. hypothyorid in women, etc.), it's a wonder there aren't

> > more

> > cases. And I suspect there are, we just don't hear about it, or it's

> >

> > misdiagnosed, as it was in my case. I'm slowly but surely becoming

> > my

> > mother. I don't like doctors, and I don't trust them. They are not

> > educated

> > enough to be making such important decisions for us, nor are they

> > educated

> > enough to understand the ramifications and how to fix them. They

> > don't even

> > know or trust the body to begin with, and that should tell us

> > something.

> >

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Pregnancy problems such as gestational diabetes, the baby having a condition

where the intestines are on the outside of the body, etc... Remember this

though. Doctors, OB and Perinatologists charge a lot of money for these

ultrasounds. I went from being a nurse in their office to doing their

billing. You wouldn't believe how many unnecessary ultrasounds came across

my desk. I was alos responsible for getting precertifications from the

insurance companies for these procedures. Most gave it willingly. A few

wouldn't pay unless it was ABSOLUTELY medically necessary.

Sherri Garrett

TR 2/17/00

1st TR baby born 11/29/00

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

Having worked in high risk OB, I know a lot of women who have

> u/s twice a week due to pregnancy problems. In normal pregnancy there is

no

> need for more than 1 ultrasound for anatomy, and sometimes, that's

> debatable.

Hi Sherri...nothing against you...this is just a great example of what I

meant in my last post. Depending on the problem during pregnancy, having an

ultrasound provides nothing beneficial to the patient or doctor, for even

with the information provided from an ultrasound, the doctor often cannot

offer any medical intervention. Most of the time, if not almost always, an

ultrasound can only offer information about the fetus that would help in a

decision of whether or not the parents wanted to abort it. Give me some

examples of the high risk patients, and I can explain what I mean. Also,

there is no need for an ultrasound even at the typical 18 -20 weeks for

anatomy...if the liver or heart or legs, etc. are not growing at the

expected rate, what are the doctors going to do? There is nothing they can

do, except tell the parent, which leads to worry and stress on their part.

You stated that you had a tubal reversal...that was probably a good reason

to have an ultrasound, as an ectopic pregnancy can be deadly (I know, I had

one and came within 5 hours of dying). The second, to determine heartbeat,

was useless..if there was no heartbeat, you would have lost the baby, if

there was a heartbeat, then your baby is there. I am not knocking you...I

had these same ultrasounds when I was pregnant. After I learned of the

dangers of ultrasound, I asked my midwife to use a fetascope instead to

detect heartbeat (rate) at my monthly checkups, and during labor. They

bucked me a little, because it requires greater time and concentration, but

in the end, my son was exposed to far less radio waves, which I would hope

was beneficial to him. Anyway, thanks for letting me spew...

Sharon, Quakertown PA

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

>

> Wow. I am just in amazement. My son is 10 mos old and from the time he

> was 5 mos old, he has had practically non-stop ear infections. Between

> the u/s and the vaxes, I don't know what the cause is! My brother had

> many infections as a child as well and now has hearing loss. I worry

> about that for Max. I worry alot for Max because he is predisposed to

> lots of things. My family isn't in the best health. I hope to change

> that with Max. We intend to treat homeopathically and do whatever else

> we can to kepe him as healthy as possible. Thanks for the insight on

> the ultrasounds and ear infections... I will forever wonder now, was

> that why he gets ear infections? Or was it the vaxes? I am so glad to

> have this email list. I have gotten ALOT of great info here.

>

> ~

>

>

>

>

>

> --- cpeter8743@... wrote:

> > In a message dated 2/9/01 10:30:43 AM Central Standard Time,

> > carriebeary77@... writes:

> >

> > << I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's

> > amazing information. I really had no idea. >>

> >

> > Here is the trade-off. In our case, my fear of his ear-aches due to

> > the

> > ultra sound was not as great as my fear of not getting the midwife I

> > wanted

> > and a home birth, which both hinged on the due date. Had I known

> > that there

> > was more to the story of ultra sounds, and had I known the chances

> > of the

> > midwife actually delivering were remote, I would never have done it.

> >

> > However, at the time, these things were not available to me to help

> > me make a

> > decision, and one which I thought about for over a week. Doctors who

> > have

> > delivered a lot of babies (ours at that point had over 1200) will

> > tell you to

> > the side that they absolutely see an increase in ear related

> > problems, and

> > speech problems, etc. in those babies exposed to ultrasound at the

> > " normal "

> > time which is about 18-21 weeks. However, the medical establishment

> > will not

> > put any serious thought into any of it, even though it comes up time

> > and

> > again in independent studies (think of the backlash). I believe,

> > it's

> > probably the same with vaccines. No noticeable side effects for a

> > lot of

> > people, ergo there must not be any side effects, and those that are

> > able to

> > correlate problems, are blown off as well, it MUST be something else,

> >

> > everyone else hasn't had these problems. But, as we know, the

> > effects of

> > vaccines can be long term. In my case (I had the measles shot at 8,

> > and the

> > measles at 23), I am left with arthritis in some very strange

> > places... which

> > wasn't diagnosed until I was 29, many years past the point of

> > complaint,

> > because they just didn't want to interpret my medical data. So, I'm

> > happy

> > that you don't have any of the residuals, I believe that is

> > absolutely true.

> > And also, in your case, with problems you were looking at, what other

> > choice

> > would you have made? You probably would have done what I did, and

> > went ahead

> > with the ultra-sound and prepared for the worse that you were aware

> > of (our

> > doctor had clued us into the ear problems with my first, so although

> > I was

> > carrying twins we absolutely refused the ultrasound).

> >

> > Remember - they used to think x-rays were harmless as well. Now

> > people who

> > had them in the 60s and 70s (for teeth, head injuries, etc) are

> > getting

> > cancer in their thyroids and lymph nodes. considering all the other

> > toxins

> > we heap on these organs (fluoride and mercury are known to have

> > adverse

> > effects, i.e. hypothyorid in women, etc.), it's a wonder there aren't

> > more

> > cases. And I suspect there are, we just don't hear about it, or it's

> >

> > misdiagnosed, as it was in my case. I'm slowly but surely becoming

> > my

> > mother. I don't like doctors, and I don't trust them. They are not

> > educated

> > enough to be making such important decisions for us, nor are they

> > educated

> > enough to understand the ramifications and how to fix them. They

> > don't even

> > know or trust the body to begin with, and that should tell us

> > something.

> >

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Most moms with GD have larger than average babies. Docs will do u/s in

those cases to measure the babies size. Forget the fact that you can

measure the tummy and get an idea if the baby is larger than average. For

those babies, they will either induce early or schedule a c-section. I, for

one, was determined to get away from medical interventions during my

pregnancy with and when I was around 28 weeks, I found a maternity

center. I had a completely natural delivery that was NOT induced this time

and no pain meds. After watching the docs I worked for scare the life out

of patients time and time again with everything that can go wrong (and

around 98% of the time, there were no problems) I was determined to get away

from it.

Sherri Garrett

TR 2/17/00

1st TR baby born 11/29/00

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

In a message dated 2/9/01 4:20:58 PM Central Standard Time,

Sherri@... writes:

<< Pregnancy problems such as gestational diabetes >>

How does US help in this case?

[Guest guest]

HI,

Could we please all go back to signing off with our names and locations?

Thanks,

in Calgary, Canada

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

In a message dated 2/9/01 4:20:58 PM Central Standard Time,

Sherri@... writes:

<< Pregnancy problems such as gestational diabetes >>

How does US help in this case?

[Guest guest]

In gestational diabetes, what benefits does an ultrasound provide? And in

cases where the intestines are outside of the body, etc., what benefits does

an ultrasound provide? Are the doctors then able to operate on the babies

more effectively after birth? Or can these conditions be acted upon with

different modalities or tests? I know that they do alot of unnecessary

ultrasounds, and I know its about money...same as so many other things...

Sharon, Quakertown PA

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

> >

> > Wow. I am just in amazement. My son is 10 mos old and from the time he

> > was 5 mos old, he has had practically non-stop ear infections. Between

> > the u/s and the vaxes, I don't know what the cause is! My brother had

> > many infections as a child as well and now has hearing loss. I worry

> > about that for Max. I worry alot for Max because he is predisposed to

> > lots of things. My family isn't in the best health. I hope to change

> > that with Max. We intend to treat homeopathically and do whatever else

> > we can to kepe him as healthy as possible. Thanks for the insight on

> > the ultrasounds and ear infections... I will forever wonder now, was

> > that why he gets ear infections? Or was it the vaxes? I am so glad to

> > have this email list. I have gotten ALOT of great info here.

> >

> > ~

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- cpeter8743@... wrote:

> > > In a message dated 2/9/01 10:30:43 AM Central Standard Time,

> > > carriebeary77@... writes:

> > >

> > > << I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's

> > > amazing information. I really had no idea. >>

> > >

> > > Here is the trade-off. In our case, my fear of his ear-aches due to

> > > the

> > > ultra sound was not as great as my fear of not getting the midwife I

> > > wanted

> > > and a home birth, which both hinged on the due date. Had I known

> > > that there

> > > was more to the story of ultra sounds, and had I known the chances

> > > of the

> > > midwife actually delivering were remote, I would never have done it.

> > >

> > > However, at the time, these things were not available to me to help

> > > me make a

> > > decision, and one which I thought about for over a week. Doctors who

> > > have

> > > delivered a lot of babies (ours at that point had over 1200) will

> > > tell you to

> > > the side that they absolutely see an increase in ear related

> > > problems, and

> > > speech problems, etc. in those babies exposed to ultrasound at the

> > > " normal "

> > > time which is about 18-21 weeks. However, the medical establishment

> > > will not

> > > put any serious thought into any of it, even though it comes up time

> > > and

> > > again in independent studies (think of the backlash). I believe,

> > > it's

> > > probably the same with vaccines. No noticeable side effects for a

> > > lot of

> > > people, ergo there must not be any side effects, and those that are

> > > able to

> > > correlate problems, are blown off as well, it MUST be something else,

> > >

> > > everyone else hasn't had these problems. But, as we know, the

> > > effects of

> > > vaccines can be long term. In my case (I had the measles shot at 8,

> > > and the

> > > measles at 23), I am left with arthritis in some very strange

> > > places... which

> > > wasn't diagnosed until I was 29, many years past the point of

> > > complaint,

> > > because they just didn't want to interpret my medical data. So, I'm

> > > happy

> > > that you don't have any of the residuals, I believe that is

> > > absolutely true.

> > > And also, in your case, with problems you were looking at, what other

> > > choice

> > > would you have made? You probably would have done what I did, and

> > > went ahead

> > > with the ultra-sound and prepared for the worse that you were aware

> > > of (our

> > > doctor had clued us into the ear problems with my first, so although

> > > I was

> > > carrying twins we absolutely refused the ultrasound).

> > >

> > > Remember - they used to think x-rays were harmless as well. Now

> > > people who

> > > had them in the 60s and 70s (for teeth, head injuries, etc) are

> > > getting

> > > cancer in their thyroids and lymph nodes. considering all the other

> > > toxins

> > > we heap on these organs (fluoride and mercury are known to have

> > > adverse

> > > effects, i.e. hypothyorid in women, etc.), it's a wonder there aren't

> > > more

> > > cases. And I suspect there are, we just don't hear about it, or it's

> > >

> > > misdiagnosed, as it was in my case. I'm slowly but surely becoming

> > > my

> > > mother. I don't like doctors, and I don't trust them. They are not

> > > educated

> > > enough to be making such important decisions for us, nor are they

> > > educated

> > > enough to understand the ramifications and how to fix them. They

> > > don't even

> > > know or trust the body to begin with, and that should tell us

> > > something.

> > >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

This is a good example...one ultrasound at the end of your pregnancy, before

birth, would have given them the same information. If the placenta had NOT

moved, they could not have moved it, regardless. Most times, the placenta

does move to higher in the uterus. Glad to hear that you had no problems...

Sharon, Quakertown PA

Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth

> I had 4 ultrasounds with my sweet Chaela I had placenta previa and they

were

> done to check placement of Placenta to make sure it moves. So that i didnt

go

> into labor with a placenta covering my cervix(very dangerous) but

everything

> was fine. Thank goodness

>

>

>

>