Ultrasound Unsound? (Collection of info)

[Guest guest]

Thanks so much for all the great ultrasound info!

>

> OK to share........

> Sheri

>

> Here is a link to an interesting article entitled Ultrasound -

> weighing the propaganda against the facts. It was written by the

> author of Ultrasound Unsound?

>

> http://www.aims.org.uk/ultrasound.htm

>

> I have seen other studies identifying negative side effects of

> ultrasounds. One in particular found that as little as 1

ultrasound

> could delay a child's speech by as much as 9 months. This study

was

> done in Canada, not the US. Other findings have suggested that the

> increase in left-handedness among children who were scanned before

> birth is linked to the ultrasound, which would show that the scan

> does alter the brain in some way.

>

> In the US, keep in mind that medical equipment does not undergo the

> type of testing that a drug must go through to get on the market.

> The scans used today are more invasive than the earlier ones, so it

> will take a few more decades to really know the outcome. The

recent

> generations of children who have been scanned are in fact the

guinea

> pigs that will decide the safety of ultrasounds -- which have done

> nothing to lower childbirth death rates, but have sent the C-

section

> rate dangerously high in the US.

>

> The article above points out that the doppler, used to detect heart

> tones on every prenatal visit unless you have a midwife (who uses a

> fetalscope), may cause even more damage than the ultrasound.

>

> -

>

> *******

>

> This is straight from the journal " Epidemiology " (Dec 2001), and

> suggests that ultrasound is associated with mild brain damage.

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/19/ultrasound.htm

>

> My boss, Dr. Mark Ellisman, is a world-renowned research scientist

at UCSD

> who specializes in imaging technologies for the study of brain

structure

> at the cellular level; he has personally found evidence of something

> called " cavitation " , which is the " rapid formation and collapse of

vapor

> pockets " in fluid within tissue. When my wife and I became pregnant

> he warned me to keep the ultrasound as short as possible. He knows

what

> he's talking about.

>

> Here's a relevant quote:

>

> " Free radical production in amniotic fluid and blood plasma by

medical

> ultrasound, probably following gaseous cavitation, has been

detected

> by Crum et al (1987). This provides a likely mechanism for the

> origin of the DNA damage. Because of these confirmations and a

report

> by Ellisman et al (1987) that diagnostic levels of ultrasound

may disrupt

> myelination in neonatal rats, the need for regulation,

guidance, and

> properly controlled clinical studies is clear. "

>

> http://www.aimsusa.org/ultrasnd.htm

>

> Here's another useful link:

>

> http://www.alternamoms.com/ultrasound.html

>

> So please don't consider this a benign procedure or an opportunity

> to get some pretty pictures. and *please* don't get an extra

> 3D ultrasound, which is a very long scan, to get the 3D picture

> of your baby. There is a real risk, and it's just not worth it.

>

> Do a Google search on " +ultrasound +cavitation " or " +ultrasound

+Ellisman "

> and convince yourself.

>

> Just my .02

>

> Dave

>

>

> *******

> http://www.mothering.com/11-0-0/html/11-2-0/ultrasound-risk.shtml

>

> Weighing the Risks: What You Should Know about Ultrasound

> By Buckley

> Issue 102, September/October 2000

>

> Ultrasonography was originally developed during World War II to

detect

> enemy submarines. Its use in medicine was pioneered in Glasgow,

Scotland,

> by Dr. Ian , who first used ultrasound to look at abdominal

tumors,

> and later babies in utero in the mid-1950s.1 The use of ultrasound

in

> pregnancy spread quickly.

>

> In westernized healthcare systems, ultrasound, which may be offered

to a

> pregnant woman either to investigate a possible problem at any

stage of

> pregnancy or as a routine scan at around 18 weeks, has become almost

> universal in pregnancy. In Australia, where I live, 99 percent of

pregnant

> women have at least one scan, paid for in part by our federal

government,

> through Medicare. In fact, from 1997 to 1998 Medicare paid out AU$39

> million for obstetric scans, compared to AU$54 million for all other

> obstetric Medicare costs. In the US, the American College of

Obstetrics and

> Gynecology (ACOG) estimates that 60 to 70 percent of pregnant women

are

> scanned, despite an official statement from ACOG that recommends

against

> routine ultrasound.2 At a cost of roughly $300 per procedure, this

> represents a cost of approximately $70 to $80 million each year in

the US.

>

> Besides routine scans, ultrasound can be prescribed to investigate

problems

> such as bleeding in early pregnancy. Later in pregnancy, ultrasound

can be

> used when a baby is not growing, or when breech or twin births are

> suspected. In such cases, the information gained from ultrasound

can be

> very useful in decision-making, and generally most professionals

support

> the use of ultrasound in this context.

>

> It is such use of routine prenatal ultrasound (RPU) that is more

> controversial, as this practice involves scanning all pregnant

women in the

> hope of improving the outcome for some mothers and babies. RPU

seeks to

> gain four main types of information:

>

>

> Estimated due date. Dating a pregnancy is most accurate at early

stages,

> when babies vary the least in size. By contrast, at 18 to 20 weeks

the

> expected date of delivery is only accurate to within a week either

way.

> Some studies have suggested, however, that an early examination or a

> woman's own estimation of her due date can be as accurate as

RPU.3,4

> Unsuspected physical abnormalities. While many women are reassured

by a

> normal scan, in fact RPU detects only between 17 percent and 85

percent of

> the one in 50 babies that have major abnormalities at birth.5,6 A

recent

> study from Brisbane, Australia, showed that ultrasound at a major

women's

> hospital missed about 40 percent of abnormalities, many of which are

> difficult or impossible to detect.7 The major causes of intellectual

> disability, such as cerebral palsy and Down syndrome, or heart and

kidney

> abnormalities, are unlikely to be picked up on a routine scan.

>

> There is also a small chance that the diagnosis of an abnormality

is false

> positive. In some instances, normal babies have been aborted

because of

> false-positive diagnoses.8 A United Kingdom survey found that one

in 200

> babies aborted for major abnormalities were wrongly diagnosed.9

>

> In addition to false positives, there are also uncertain cases in

which the

> ultrasound image cannot be easily interpreted, and the outcome for

the baby

> is not known. In one study involving babies at higher risk of

> abnormalities, almost 10 percent of scans were uncertain.10 This

can create

> immense anxiety for the woman and her family that may not be

allayed by the

> birth of a normal baby: in the same study, mothers with questionable

> diagnoses still had associated anxiety three months after the

child's

> birth. Uncertain findings also lead to repeated and/or prolonged

scans,

> increasing the expense, inconvenience, and dosage of ultrasound.

>

> In some cases of uncertainty, further tests such as amniocentesis

are

> recommended. In such situations, there may be up to two weeks wait

for

> results, during which time a mother must consider whether or not

she will

> terminate the pregnancy if an abnormality is found. Even mothers who

> receive reassuring news have felt that this process has interfered

with

> their relationship with their babies.11

>

> Location of the placenta. A very low-lying placenta (placenta

previa) puts

> mother and baby at risk of severe bleeding, and usually

necessitates a

> cesarean section. However, 19 out of 20 women who have placenta

previa

> detected on RPU will be needlessly worried, as the placenta will

> effectively move upwards as the pregnancy progresses.12 Furthermore,

> detection of placenta previa by RPU has not been found to be safer

than

> detection in labor.13

>

> Multiple fetuses. Ultrasound can detect the presence of more than

one baby

> at an early stage of pregnancy, but this knowledge affords no

documented

> health advantages for mother or babies, and, without RPU, almost all

> multiple pregnancies are discovered before birth.14

>

> Why Are RPUs So Popular?

> Supporters of RPU argue that availability of ultrasonic information

leads

> to better outcomes for mother and baby. While this seems logical,

> researchers have not found evidence of significant benefit from

RPU, and

> the issue of the safety of ultrasound has not yet been resolved.

>

> From a research perspective, the most significant benefit of RPU is

a small

> reduction in perinatal mortality, that is the number of babies

dying around

> the time of birth. This is, however, merely a statistical reduction

since

> perinatal mortality rates do not include deaths that occur before

five to

> six months' gestation. Often when a baby is found to have a fatal

> abnormality on RPU, the pregnancy is terminated before this time,

excluding

> the baby from perinatal statistics.

>

> RPU proponents presume that early diagnosis and termination is

beneficial

> to women and their families. However, the discovery of a major

abnormality

> on RPU can lead to very difficult decision-making. Some women who

agree to

> have an ultrasound are unaware that they may get information about

their

> baby that they do not want, as they would not contemplate a

termination.

> Other women can feel pressured to have a termination, or at least

feel some

> emotional distancing from their " abnormal " baby.15

>

> Furthermore, there is no evidence that women who have chosen

termination

> are, in the long term, psychologically better off than women whose

babies

> have died at birth. In fact, there are suggestions that the reverse

may be

> true in some cases.16 In choosing a possible stillbirth over a

termination,

> women at least get social acknowledgment and support, and are able

to

> grieve openly. Where termination has been chosen, women are

unlikely to

> share their story with others and can experience considerable guilt

and

> pain from the knowledge that they themselves chose the loss.17

>

> Another purported benefit of RPU is a reduced risk of being induced

for

> being " overdue, " because RPU dating gives a more certain estimated

due

> date. However, there is no clear evidence that this is true, as the

> possibility of induction is more determined by hospital or doctor

policy

> than by the availability of RPU.19

>

> Many supporters of RPU claim that it's a pleasurable experience, and

> contributes to bonding between mother (and father, if he is

present) and

> baby. While it is true that it can be exciting to get a first

glimpse of

> one's baby in utero, there is no evidence that it helps attachment

or

> encourages healthier behavior toward the baby.20 For most women,

bonding

> occurs naturally when they begin to feel fetal movements at 16 to

20 weeks.

>

> Reasons for Concern

> Ultrasound waves are known to affect living tissues in at least two

ways.

> First, the sonar beam heats the highlighted area by about 1°C (2°

F). This

> is presumed to be insignificant, based on whole-body heating in

pregnancy,

> which seems to be safe up to 2.5°C (5°F).21 The second effect is

> cavitation, where the small pockets of gas that exist within

mammalian

> tissue vibrate and then collapse. In this

situation " ...temperatures of

> many thousands of degrees Celsius in the gas create a wide range of

> chemical products, some of which are potentially toxic. " 22 The

significance

> of cavitation in human tissue is unknown.

>

> A number of studies have suggested that these effects are of real

concern

> in living tissues. The first study indicating problems analyzed

cells grown

> in the lab. Cell abnormalities caused by exposure to ultrasound

were seen

> to persist for several generations.23 Another study showed that, in

newborn

> rats (who are at a similar stage of brain development as humans at

four to

> five months in utero), ultrasound can damage the myelin that covers

> nerves,24 indicating that the nervous system may be particularly

> susceptible to damage from this technology. In 1999, an animal

study by

> Brennan and colleagues, reported in New Scientist,25 showed that

exposing

> mice to dosages typical of obstetric ultrasound caused a 22 percent

> reduction in the rate of cell division, and a doubling of the rate

of cell

> death in the cells of the small intestine.

>

> Studies on humans exposed to ultrasound have shown possible adverse

> effects, including premature ovulation,26 preterm labor or

miscarriage,27,

> 28 low birthweight,29 poorer condition at birth,30, 31 dyslexia,32

delayed

> speech development,33 and less right-handedness,34, 35 a factor

which in

> some circumstances can be a marker of damage to the developing

brain. In

> addition, one Australian study showed that babies exposed to five

or more

> ultrasounds were 30 percent more likely to develop intrauterine

growth

> retardation (IUGR)--a condition that ultrasound is often used to

detect.36

>

> Two long-term randomized controlled trials, comparing exposed and

unexposed

> children's development at eight to nine years of age, found no

measurable

> effect from ultrasound.37, 38 However, as the authors note,

intensities

> used today are many times higher than in 1979 to 1981. A later

report of

> one of these trials39 indicated that scanning time was only three

minutes.

> More studies are obviously needed in this area, particularly in

Doppler

> ultrasound, where exposure levels are much higher, and in vaginal

> ultrasound, where there is less tissue shielding the baby from the

> transducer.

>

> A further problem with studying ultrasound's effect is the huge

range of

> output, or dose, possible from a single machine. Modern machines

can give

> comparable ultrasound pictures using either a lower or a 5,000

times higher

> dose,40 and there are no standards to ensure that the lowest dose

is used.

> Because of the complexity of machines, it is difficult to even

quantify the

> dose given in each examination.41 In the US, as in Australia,

training is

> voluntary (even for obstetricians), and the skill and experience of

> operators varies widely.

>

> In all the research done on ultrasound, there has been very little

interest

> in women's opinions of RPU, and the consequences of universal

scanning for

> women's experience of pregnancy. In her thoughtful book on prenatal

> diagnosis, The Tentative Pregnancy,42 Barbara Katz Rothman suggests

that

> the large numbers of screening tests currently being offered to

check for

> abnormalities makes every pregnancy tentative until reassuring

results come

> back.

>

> Ultrasound is not compulsory, and I suggest that each woman

consider the

> risks, benefits, and implications of scanning for her own particular

> situation. If you decide to have a scan, be clear about the

information

> that you do and do not want to be told. Have your scan done by an

operator

> with a high level of skill and experience (usually this means

performing at

> least 750 scans per year) and say that you want the shortest scan

possible.

> If an abnormality is found, ask for counseling and a second opinion

as soon

> as practical. And remember, it's your baby and your choice.

>

> Notes

> 1. Ann Oakley, " The History of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics, "

Birth 13,

> no. 1 (1986): 8-13.

>

> 2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, " Routine

Ultrasound

> in Low-Risk Pregnancy, ACOG Practice Patterns: Evidence-Based

Guidelines

> for Clinical Issues, " Obstetrics and Gynecology 5 (August 1997).

>

> 3. O. Olsen et al., " Routine Ultrasound Dating Has Not Been Shown

to Be

> More Accurate Than the Calendar Method, " Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104,

no. 11

> (1997): 1221-1222.

>

> 4. H. Kieler, O. Axelsson, S. Nilsson, and U.

Waldenstrom, " Comparison of

> Ultrasonic Measurement of Biparietal Diameter and Last Menstrual

Period as

> a Predictor of Day of Delivery in Women with Regular 28-Day Cycles, "

> Acta-Obstet-Gynecol-Scand 75, no. 5 (1993): 347-349.

>

> 5. B. G. Ewigman, J. P. Crane, F. D. Frigoletto et al., " Effect of

Prenatal

> Ultrasound Screening on Perinatal Outcome, " N Engl J Med 329, no. 12

> (1993): 821-827.

>

> 6. C. A. Luck, " Value of Routine Ultrasound Scanning at 19 Weeks: A

Four

> Year Study of 8849 Deliveries, " British Medical Journal 34, no. 6840

> (1992): 1474-1478.

>

> 7. F. Y. Chan, " Limitations of Ultrasound, " paper presented at

Perinatal

> Society of Australia and New Zealand 1st Annual Congress,

Freemantle, 1997.

>

> 8. AIMS UK, " Ultrasound Unsound?, " AIMS UK Journal 5, no. 1 (Spring

1993).

>

> 9. I. R. Brand, P. Kaminopetros, M. Cave et al., " Specificity of

Antenatal

> Ultrasound in the Yorkshire Region: A Prospective Study of 2261

Ultrasound

> Detected Anomalies, " Br J Obstet Gynaecal 101, no. 5 (1994): 392-

397.

>

> 10. J. W. Sparling, J. W. Seeds, and D. C. Farran, " The

Relationship of

> Obstetric Ultrasound to Parent and Infant Behavior, " Obstet Gynecol

72, no.

> 6 (1988): 902-907.

>

> 11. A. s, " Women's Experience of Routine Prenatal Ultrasound, "

> Healthsharing Women: The Newsletter of Healthsharing Women's Health

> Resource Service (Melbourne, Australia) 5, no.s 3, 4 (December 1994-

March

> 1995).

>

> 12. MIDIRS, Informed Choice for Professionals, Ultrasound Screening

in the

> First Half of Pregnancy: Is It Useful for Everyone? (UK: MIDIRS and

the NHS

> Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 1996).

>

> 13. A. Saari-Kemppainen, O. Karjalainen, P. Ylostalo et

al., " Ultrasound

> Screening and Perinatal Mortality: Controlled Trial of Systematic

One-stage

> Screening in Pregnancy, " The Lancet 336, no. 8712 (1990): 387-391.

>

> 14. See Note 12.

>

> 15. See Note 11.

>

> 16. D. Watkins, " An Alternative to Termination of Pregnancy, " The

> Practitioner 233, no. 1472 (1989): 990, 992.

>

> 17. See Note 12.

>

> 18. Ibid.

>

> 19. Ibid.

>

> 20. Ibid.

>

> 21. " American Institute of Ultrasound Medicine Bioeffects Report

1988, " J

> Ultrasound Med 7 (September 1988): S1-S38.

>

> 22. Ibid.

>

> 23. D. Liebeskind, R. Bases, F. Elequin et al., " Diagnostic

Ultrasound:

> Effects on the DNA and Growth Patterns of Animal Cells, " Radiology

131, no.

> 1 (1979): 177-184.

>

> 24. M. H. Ellisman, D. E. Palmer, and M. P. Andre, " Diagnostic

Levels of

> Ultrasound May Disrupt Myelination, " Experimental Neurology 98, no.

1

> (1987): 78-92.

>

> 25. Brennan et al., " Shadow of Doubt, " New Scientist 12 (June

1999): 23.

>

> 26. J. Testart, A. Thebalt, E. Souderis, and R. Frydman, " Premature

> Ovulation after Ovarian Ultrasonography, " Br J Obstet Gynaecol 89,

no. 9

> (1982): 694-700.

>

> 27. See Note 13.

>

> 28. R. P. Lorenz, C. H. Comstock, S. F. Bottoms, and S. R. Marx,

> " Randomised Prospective Trial Comparing Ultrasonography and Pelvic

> Examination for Preterm Labor Surveillance, " Am J Obstet Gynecol

162, no. 6

> (1990): 1603-1610.

>

> 29. J. Newnham, S. F. , C. A. et al., " Effects of

Frequent

> Ultrasound During Pregnancy: A Randomised Controlled Trial, " The

Lancet

> 342, no. 8876 (1993): 887-891.

>

> 30. S. B. Thacker, " The Case of Imaging Ultrasound in Obstetrics: A

> Review, " Br J Obstet Gynaecol 92, no. 5 (1985): 437-444.

>

> 31. J. P. Newnham et al., " Doppler Flow Velocity Wave Form Analysis

in High

> Risk Pregnancies: A Randomised Controlled Trial, " Br J Obstet

Gynaecol 98,

> no. 10 (1991): 956-963.

>

> 32. C. R. Stark, M. Orleans, A. D. Havercamp et al., " Short and

Long Term

> Risks after Exposure to Diagnostic Ultrasound in Utero, " Obstet

Gynecol 63

> (1984): 194-200.

>

> 33. J. D. et al., " Case-control Study of Prenatal

Ultrasonography

> in Children with Delayed Speech, " Can Med Ass J 149, no. 10 (1993):

1435-

> 1440.

>

> 34. K. A. Salvesen, L. J. Vatten, S. H. Eik-nes et al., " Routine

> Ultrasonography in Utero and Subsequent Handedness and Neurological

> Development, " British Medical Journal 307, no. 6897 (1993) 159-164.

>

> 35. H. Kieler, O. Axelsson, B. Haguland et al., " Routine Ultrasound

> Screening in Pregnancy and the Children's Subsequent Handedness, "

Early

> Human Development 50, no. 2 (1998): 233-245.

>

> 36. See Note 31.

>

> 37. K. A. Salvesen, L. S. Bakketeig, S. H. Eik-nes et al., " Routine

> Ultrasonography in Utero and School Performance at Age 8-9 Years, "

The

> Lancet 339, no. 8785 (1992):85-89.

>

> 38. H. Kieler, G. Ahlsten, B. Haguland et al., " Routine Ultrasound

> Screening in Pregnancy and the Children's Subsequent Neurological

> Development, " Obstet Gynecol 91, no. 5 (1998): 750-756.

>

> 39. See Note 37.

>

> 40. H. B. Meire, " The Safety of Diagnostic Ultrasound, " Br J Obstet

> Gynaecol 94 (1987): 1121-1122.

>

> 41. K. J. W. , " A Prudent Approach to Ultrasound Imaging of

the Fetus

> and Newborn, " Birth 17, no. 4 (1990): 218-223.

>

> 42. Barbara Katz Rothman, The Tentative Pregnancy: How Amniocentesis

> Changes the Experience of Motherhood (New York: W. W. Norton,

1993).

>

> For more information on ultrasound, see the following articles in

past

> issues of Mothering: " Ultrasound: More Harm Than Good? " no. 77; " The

> Trouble with Ultrasound, " no. 57; " How Sound Is Ultrasound? " no. 34;

> " Ultrasound, " no. 24; and " Diagnostic Ultrasound, " no. 19.

>

> Buckley (40) is a New Zealand-trained GP (family MD), and

still in

> training as partner to . Mother of Emma (9), Zoe (6), and

> (4), she is currently expecting her fourth baby and lives in

Brisbane,

> Australia, where she writes about pregnancy, birth, and parenting.

>

>

> ********

> Shadow of a doubt

>

> by Rob

>

> ULTRASOUND SCANS can stop cells from dividing and make them commit

suicide.

> A

> research team in Ireland say this is the first evidence that

routine scans,

> which have let doctors peek at fetuses and internal organs for the

past 40

> years, affect the normal cell cycle.

>

> A team led by Brennan of University College Dublin gave 12

mice an

> 8-megahertz scan lasting for 15 minutes. Hospital scans, which

reflect

> inaudible sound waves off soft tissue to produce images on a

monitor, use

> frequencies of between 3 and 10 megahertz and can last for up to an

hour

>

> The researchers detected two significant changes in the cells of

the small

> intestine in scanned mice compared to the mice that hadn't been

scanned.

> Four

> and a half hours after exposure, there was a 22 per cent reduction

in the

> rate of cell division, while the rate of programmed cell death or

> " apoptosis "

> had approximately doubled.

>

> Brennan believes there will be similar effects in humans. " It has

been

> assumed for a long time that ultrasound has no effect on cells, " he

says.

> " We

> now have grounds to question that assumption. "

>

> Brennan stresses, however, that the implications for human health

are

> uncertain. " There are changes happening, but we couldn't say

whether they

> are

> harmful or harmless, " he explains. The intestine is a very

adaptable organ

> that can compensate for alterations in the cell cycle, says Brennan.

>

> It is possible that the sound waves damage the DNA in cells,

delaying cell

> division and repair. Brennan suggests that ultrasound might be

switching on

> the p53 gene which controls cell deaths. This gene, dubbed " the

guardian of

> the genome " , produces a protein that helps cells recognise DNA

damage and

> then either self-destruct or stop dividing.

>

> Studies in the early 1990s by researchers at the University of

Rochester in

> New York and the Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Richland,

> Washington, showed that tissue heating due to ultrasound can cause

bleeding

> in mouse intestines. Ultrasonographers now tune the power of scans

to reduce

> such heating.

>

> But Brennan's work is the first evidence that scans create changes

in cells.

> " Our results are preliminary and need further investigation, " he

says. The

> team presented their results at the Radiology 1999 conference in

Birmingham

> last month and are now preparing them for submission to a peer-

reviewed

> journal.

>

> Elliott, a researcher in clinical physics at the University of

Glasgow,

> thinks that Brennan's results are important and should be followed

with

> further studies. " If the conditions of his experiments really

compare to the

> clinical use of ultrasound, " he says, " we may have to review the

current

> safety limits. "

>

>

> >From New Scientist, 12 June 1999

> *******

>

> Here are some excerpts about ultrasound from " What Doctors Don't

Tell You "

> by Lynne McTaggart. " No well controlled study has yet proved that

> routine scanning of prenatal patients will improve the outcome of

> pregnancy " - official statement from American College of Obstetrics

&

> Gynecology in 1984

>

> Some studies show that, with ultrasound, you are more likely to

lose your

> baby. A study from Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital in

London found

> that women having doppler ultrasound were more likely to lose their

babies

> than those who received only standard neonatal care (17 deaths to

7).

>

> A Norwegian study of 2,000 babies found that those subjected to

routine

> ultrasound scanning were 30% more likely to be left-handed than

those sho

> weren't scanned. An Australian study demonstraates that frequent

scans

> increased the proportion of growth-restricted babies by a third,

resulting

> in a higher number of small babies. Exposure to ultrasound also

caused

> delayed speech, according to Canadian researcher Professor

.

>

> The International Childbirth Education Association has maintained

that

> ultrasound is most likely to affect development (behavioral &

> neurological), blood cells, the immune system, & a child's genetic

makeup.

>

> Besides the safety issue, there are considerable questions about

accuracy.

> There is a significant chance that your scan will indicate a

problem when

> there isn't one, or fail to pick up aa problem actually there. One

study

> found a " high rate " of false positives, 17% of the pregnant women

scanned

> were shown to have small-for-dates babies, when only 6% actually

did - an

> error rate of nearly one out of three. Another study from Harvard

showed

> that among 3,100 scans, 18 babies were erroneously labeled

abnormal, and 17

> fetuses with problems were missed.

>

>

>

> ********

> this is from another list...

>

> <<<According to Anne Frye, midwife and author of " Understanding Lab

Work in

> the Childbearing Year " (4th Ed.)p. 405

> Doppler Devices: Many women do not realize that doppler fetoscopes

are

> ultrasound devices. (apparently, neither do many care providers.

Time

> after time, women are assured by doctors and even some nurse

midwives

> that a doppler is not an ultrasound device.) . . . .

>

> Not well publicized for obvious reasons, doppler devices expose the

fetus

> to more powerful ultrasound than real time (imaging) ultrasound

exams.

> One minute of doppler exposure is equal to 35 minutes of real time

> ultrasound. This is an important point for women to consider when

> deciding between an ultrasound exam and listening with a doppler to

> determine viability in early pregnancy. . . . .

>

> If you have a doppler, put it aside and make a concerted effort to

learn

> to listen yourself! Save your doppler for those rare occasions when

you

> cannot hear the heart rate late into pushing or to further

investigate

> suspected fetal death. " copyright l990, Anne Frye, B.H. Holistic

> Midwifery.

>

> Personally, after 23 years of attending births, I would not permit

a

> doppler in my house if I were pregnant. You always know that

something

> is ultrasound because there will be " jelly " involved. If you want a

> cheap listening device for the baby's heart just save the core from

a

> roll of toilet paper. Put one end on the lower belly and the other

on

> hubby's ear. If you want to know your baby is doing well, count the

> fetal movements in a day. Starting at 9 a.m. count each time the

baby

> kicks. There should be l0 distinct movements by 3 p.m.

>

> I think it's sad that some people will do anything to make a buck

of the

> huge pregnant market in North America. Please feel free to forward

this

> post on to any other lists.

>

> Gloria Lemay, Vancouver BC

> Wise Woman Way of Birth Courses

> http://www.birthlove.com/pages/wise_woman.html>>>

>

> ********

>

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1751000/1751177.stm

>

> This made me wonder what ultrasound does to developing babies if it

> can have such a drastic effect on a testicle.

>

> ******

>

> http://www.mothering.com/11-0-0/html/11-2-0/prenatal-testing.shtml

> Prenatal Testing and Informed Consent: Base Your Choices on the

Evidence

> By Peggy O'Mara

> Issue 120, September/October 2003

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------

> Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

> Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

> Vaccines - http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm

>

[Guest guest]

OK to share........

Sheri

Here is a link to an interesting article entitled

Ultrasound - weighing the propaganda against the facts.

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasound.asp

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundwagner.asp

Ultrasound: More Harm than Good?

It was written by the

author of Ultrasound Unsound?

http://www.whale.to/a/ultrasound_unsound.html

I have seen other studies identifying negative side effects of

ultrasounds. One in particular found that as little as 1 ultrasound

could delay a child's speech by as much as 9 months. This study was

done in Canada, not the US. Other findings have suggested that the

increase in left-handedness among children who were scanned before

birth is linked to the ultrasound, which would show that the scan

does alter the brain in some way.

In the US, keep in mind that medical equipment does not undergo the

type of testing that a drug must go through to get on the market.

The scans used today are more invasive than the earlier ones, so it

will take a few more decades to really know the outcome. The recent

generations of children who have been scanned are in fact the guinea

pigs that will decide the safety of ultrasounds -- which have done

nothing to lower childbirth death rates, but have sent the C-section

rate dangerously high in the US.

The article above points out that the doppler, used to detect heart

tones on every prenatal visit unless you have a midwife (who uses a

fetalscope), may cause even more damage than the ultrasound.

-

*******

This is straight from the journal " Epidemiology " (Dec 2001),

and

suggests that ultrasound is associated with mild brain damage.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/12/19/ultrasound.aspx

Ultrasound Scans Linked to Brain Damage in Babies

My boss, Dr. Mark Ellisman, is a world-renowned research scientist at

UCSD who specializes in imaging technologies for the study of brain

structure at the cellular level; he has personally found evidence of

something called " cavitation " , which is the " rapid

formation and collapse of vapor pockets " in fluid within tissue.

When my wife and I became pregnant he warned me to keep the ultrasound as

short as possible. He knows what he's talking about.

Here's a relevant quote:

" Free radical production in amniotic fluid and blood plasma by

medical ultrasound, probably following gaseous cavitation, has been

detected by Crum et al (1987). This provides a likely mechanism for the

origin of the DNA damage. Because of these confirmations and a report by

Ellisman et al (1987) that diagnostic levels of ultrasound may disrupt

myelination in neonatal rats, the need for regulation, guidance, and

properly controlled clinical studies is clear. "

http://www.aimsusa.org/ultrasnd.htm

ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS: A QUESTION OF SAFETY

Here's another useful link:

http://www.alternamoms.com/ultrasound.html

Ultrasound may change baby's cell growth

So please don't consider this a benign procedure or an opportunity to get

some pretty pictures. and *please* don't get an extra 3D ultrasound,

which is a very long scan, to get the 3D picture of your baby. There is a

real risk, and it's just not worth it.

Do a Google search on " +ultrasound +cavitation " or

" +ultrasound +Ellisman " and convince yourself.

*******

http://www.mothering.com/11-0-0/html/11-2-0/ultrasound-risk.shtml

Weighing the Risks: What You Should Know about Ultrasound

By Buckley

Issue 102, September/October 2000

Ultrasonography was originally developed during World War II to detect

enemy submarines. Its use in medicine was pioneered in Glasgow, Scotland,

by Dr. Ian , who first used ultrasound to look at abdominal tumors,

and later babies in utero in the mid-1950s.1 The use of ultrasound in

pregnancy spread quickly.

In westernized healthcare systems, ultrasound, which may be offered to a

pregnant woman either to investigate a possible problem at any stage of

pregnancy or as a routine scan at around 18 weeks, has become almost

universal in pregnancy. In Australia, where I live, 99 percent of

pregnant women have at least one scan, paid for in part by our federal

government, through Medicare. In fact, from 1997 to 1998 Medicare paid

out AU$39 million for obstetric scans, compared to AU$54 million for all

other obstetric Medicare costs. In the US, the American College of

Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) estimates that 60 to 70 percent of

pregnant women are scanned, despite an official statement from ACOG that

recommends against routine ultrasound.2 At a cost of roughly $300 per

procedure, this represents a cost of approximately $70 to $80 million

each year in the US.

Besides routine scans, ultrasound can be prescribed to investigate

problems such as bleeding in early pregnancy. Later in pregnancy,

ultrasound can be used when a baby is not growing, or when breech or twin

births are suspected. In such cases, the information gained from

ultrasound can be very useful in decision-making, and generally most

professionals support the use of ultrasound in this context.

It is such use of routine prenatal ultrasound (RPU) that is more

controversial, as this practice involves scanning all pregnant women in

the hope of improving the outcome for some mothers and babies. RPU seeks

to gain four main types of information:

Estimated due date. Dating a pregnancy is most accurate at early stages,

when babies vary the least in size. By contrast, at 18 to 20 weeks the

expected date of delivery is only accurate to within a week either way.

Some studies have suggested, however, that an early examination or a

woman's own estimation of her due date can be as accurate as RPU.3,4

Unsuspected physical abnormalities. While many women are reassured by a

normal scan, in fact RPU detects only between 17 percent and 85 percent

of the one in 50 babies that have major abnormalities at birth.5,6 A

recent study from Brisbane, Australia, showed that ultrasound at a major

women's hospital missed about 40 percent of abnormalities, many of which

are difficult or impossible to detect.7 The major causes of intellectual

disability, such as cerebral palsy and Down syndrome, or heart and kidney

abnormalities, are unlikely to be picked up on a routine scan.

There is also a small chance that the diagnosis of an abnormality is

false positive. In some instances, normal babies have been aborted

because of false-positive diagnoses.8 A United Kingdom survey found that

one in 200 babies aborted for major abnormalities were wrongly

diagnosed.9

In addition to false positives, there are also uncertain cases in which

the ultrasound image cannot be easily interpreted, and the outcome for

the baby is not known. In one study involving babies at higher risk of

abnormalities, almost 10 percent of scans were uncertain.10 This can

create immense anxiety for the woman and her family that may not be

allayed by the birth of a normal baby: in the same study, mothers with

questionable diagnoses still had associated anxiety three months after

the child's birth. Uncertain findings also lead to repeated and/or

prolonged scans, increasing the expense, inconvenience, and dosage of

ultrasound.

In some cases of uncertainty, further tests such as amniocentesis are

recommended. In such situations, there may be up to two weeks wait for

results, during which time a mother must consider whether or not she will

terminate the pregnancy if an abnormality is found. Even mothers who

receive reassuring news have felt that this process has interfered with

their relationship with their babies.11

Location of the placenta. A very low-lying placenta (placenta previa)

puts mother and baby at risk of severe bleeding, and usually necessitates

a cesarean section. However, 19 out of 20 women who have placenta previa

detected on RPU will be needlessly worried, as the placenta will

effectively move upwards as the pregnancy progresses.12 Furthermore,

detection of placenta previa by RPU has not been found to be safer than

detection in labor.13

Multiple fetuses. Ultrasound can detect the presence of more than one

baby at an early stage of pregnancy, but this knowledge affords no

documented health advantages for mother or babies, and, without RPU,

almost all multiple pregnancies are discovered before birth.14

Why Are RPUs So Popular? Supporters of RPU argue that availability of

ultrasonic information leads to better outcomes for mother and baby.

While this seems logical, researchers have not found evidence of

significant benefit from RPU, and the issue of the safety of ultrasound

has not yet been resolved.

From a research perspective, the most significant benefit of RPU is a

small reduction in perinatal mortality, that is the number of babies

dying around the time of birth. This is, however, merely a statistical

reduction since perinatal mortality rates do not include deaths that

occur before five to six months' gestation. Often when a baby is found to

have a fatal abnormality on RPU, the pregnancy is terminated before this

time, excluding the baby from perinatal statistics.

RPU proponents presume that early diagnosis and termination is beneficial

to women and their families. However, the discovery of a major

abnormality on RPU can lead to very difficult decision-making. Some women

who agree to have an ultrasound are unaware that they may get information

about their baby that they do not want, as they would not contemplate a

termination. Other women can feel pressured to have a termination, or at

least feel some emotional distancing from their " abnormal "

baby.15

Furthermore, there is no evidence that women who have chosen termination

are, in the long term, psychologically better off than women whose babies

have died at birth. In fact, there are suggestions that the reverse may

be true in some cases.16 In choosing a possible stillbirth over a

termination, women at least get social acknowledgment and support, and

are able to grieve openly. Where termination has been chosen, women are

unlikely to share their story with others and can experience considerable

guilt and pain from the knowledge that they themselves chose the

loss.17

Another purported benefit of RPU is a reduced risk of being induced for

being " overdue, " because RPU dating gives a more certain

estimated due date. However, there is no clear evidence that this is

true, as the possibility of induction is more determined by hospital or

doctor policy than by the availability of RPU.19

Many supporters of RPU claim that it's a pleasurable experience, and

contributes to bonding between mother (and father, if he is present) and

baby. While it is true that it can be exciting to get a first glimpse of

one's baby in utero, there is no evidence that it helps attachment or

encourages healthier behavior toward the baby.20 For most women, bonding

occurs naturally when they begin to feel fetal movements at 16 to 20

weeks.

Reasons for Concern Ultrasound waves are known to affect living tissues

in at least two ways. First, the sonar beam heats the highlighted area by

about 1°C (2°F). This is presumed to be insignificant, based on

whole-body heating in pregnancy, which seems to be safe up to 2.5°C

(5°F).21 The second effect is cavitation, where the small pockets of gas

that exist within mammalian tissue vibrate and then collapse. In this

situation " ...temperatures of many thousands of degrees Celsius in

the gas create a wide range of chemical products, some of which are

potentially toxic. " 22 The significance of cavitation in human tissue

is unknown.

A number of studies have suggested that these effects are of real concern

in living tissues. The first study indicating problems analyzed cells

grown in the lab. Cell abnormalities caused by exposure to ultrasound

were seen to persist for several generations.23 Another study showed

that, in newborn rats (who are at a similar stage of brain development as

humans at four to five months in utero), ultrasound can damage the myelin

that covers nerves,24 indicating that the nervous system may be

particularly susceptible to damage from this technology. In 1999, an

animal study by Brennan and colleagues, reported in New Scientist,25

showed that exposing mice to dosages typical of obstetric ultrasound

caused a 22 percent reduction in the rate of cell division, and a

doubling of the rate of cell death in the cells of the small

intestine.

Studies on humans exposed to ultrasound have shown possible adverse

effects, including premature ovulation,26 preterm labor or

miscarriage,27, 28 low birthweight,29 poorer condition at birth,30, 31

dyslexia,32 delayed speech development,33 and less right-handedness,34,

35 a factor which in some circumstances can be a marker of damage to the

developing brain. In addition, one Australian study showed that babies

exposed to five or more ultrasounds were 30 percent more likely to

develop intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR)--a condition that

ultrasound is often used to detect.36

Two long-term randomized controlled trials, comparing exposed and

unexposed children's development at eight to nine years of age, found no

measurable effect from ultrasound.37, 38 However, as the authors note,

intensities used today are many times higher than in 1979 to 1981. A

later report of one of these trials39 indicated that scanning time was

only three minutes. More studies are obviously needed in this area,

particularly in Doppler ultrasound, where exposure levels are much

higher, and in vaginal ultrasound, where there is less tissue shielding

the baby from the transducer.

A further problem with studying ultrasound's effect is the huge range of

output, or dose, possible from a single machine. Modern machines can give

comparable ultrasound pictures using either a lower or a 5,000 times

higher dose,40 and there are no standards to ensure that the lowest dose

is used. Because of the complexity of machines, it is difficult to even

quantify the dose given in each examination.41 In the US, as in

Australia, training is voluntary (even for obstetricians), and the skill

and experience of operators varies widely.

In all the research done on ultrasound, there has been very little

interest in women's opinions of RPU, and the consequences of universal

scanning for women's experience of pregnancy. In her thoughtful book on

prenatal diagnosis, The Tentative Pregnancy,42 Barbara Katz Rothman

suggests that the large numbers of screening tests currently being

offered to check for abnormalities makes every pregnancy tentative until

reassuring results come back.

Ultrasound is not compulsory, and I suggest that each woman consider the

risks, benefits, and implications of scanning for her own particular

situation. If you decide to have a scan, be clear about the information

that you do and do not want to be told. Have your scan done by an

operator with a high level of skill and experience (usually this means

performing at least 750 scans per year) and say that you want the

shortest scan possible. If an abnormality is found, ask for counseling

and a second opinion as soon as practical. And remember, it's your baby

and your choice.

Notes 1. Ann Oakley, " The History of Ultrasonography in

Obstetrics, " Birth 13, no. 1 (1986): 8-13.

2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, " Routine

Ultrasound in Low-Risk Pregnancy, ACOG Practice Patterns: Evidence-Based

Guidelines for Clinical Issues, " Obstetrics and Gynecology 5 (August

1997).

3. O. Olsen et al., " Routine Ultrasound Dating Has Not Been Shown to

Be More Accurate Than the Calendar Method, " Br J Obstet Gynaecol

104, no. 11 (1997): 1221-1222.

4. H. Kieler, O. Axelsson, S. Nilsson, and U. Waldenstrom,

" Comparison of Ultrasonic Measurement of Biparietal Diameter and

Last Menstrual Period as a Predictor of Day of Delivery in Women with

Regular 28-Day Cycles, " Acta-Obstet-Gynecol-Scand 75, no. 5 (1993):

347-349.

5. B. G. Ewigman, J. P. Crane, F. D. Frigoletto et al., " Effect of

Prenatal Ultrasound Screening on Perinatal Outcome, " N Engl J Med

329, no. 12 (1993): 821-827.

6. C. A. Luck, " Value of Routine Ultrasound Scanning at 19 Weeks: A

Four Year Study of 8849 Deliveries, " British Medical Journal 34, no.

6840 (1992): 1474-1478.

7. F. Y. Chan, " Limitations of Ultrasound, " paper presented at

Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand 1st Annual Congress,

Freemantle, 1997.

8. AIMS UK, " Ultrasound Unsound?, " AIMS UK Journal 5, no. 1

(Spring 1993).

9. I. R. Brand, P. Kaminopetros, M. Cave et al., " Specificity of

Antenatal Ultrasound in the Yorkshire Region: A Prospective Study of 2261

Ultrasound Detected Anomalies, " Br J Obstet Gynaecal 101, no. 5

(1994): 392-397.

10. J. W. Sparling, J. W. Seeds, and D. C. Farran, " The Relationship

of Obstetric Ultrasound to Parent and Infant Behavior, " Obstet

Gynecol 72, no. 6 (1988): 902-907.

11. A. s, " Women's Experience of Routine Prenatal

Ultrasound, " Healthsharing Women: The Newsletter of Healthsharing

Women's Health Resource Service (Melbourne, Australia) 5, no.s 3, 4

(December 1994-March 1995).

12. MIDIRS, Informed Choice for Professionals, Ultrasound Screening in

the First Half of Pregnancy: Is It Useful for Everyone? (UK: MIDIRS and

the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 1996).

13. A. Saari-Kemppainen, O. Karjalainen, P. Ylostalo et al.,

" Ultrasound Screening and Perinatal Mortality: Controlled Trial of

Systematic One-stage Screening in Pregnancy, " The Lancet 336, no.

8712 (1990): 387-391.

14. See Note 12.

15. See Note 11.

16. D. Watkins, " An Alternative to Termination of Pregnancy, "

The Practitioner 233, no. 1472 (1989): 990, 992.

17. See Note 12.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. " American Institute of Ultrasound Medicine Bioeffects Report

1988, " J Ultrasound Med 7 (September 1988): S1-S38.

22. Ibid.

23. D. Liebeskind, R. Bases, F. Elequin et al., " Diagnostic

Ultrasound: Effects on the DNA and Growth Patterns of Animal Cells, "

Radiology 131, no. 1 (1979): 177-184.

24. M. H. Ellisman, D. E. Palmer, and M. P. Andre, " Diagnostic

Levels of Ultrasound May Disrupt Myelination, " Experimental

Neurology 98, no. 1 (1987): 78-92.

25. Brennan et al., " Shadow of Doubt, " New Scientist 12 (June

1999): 23.

26. J. Testart, A. Thebalt, E. Souderis, and R. Frydman, " Premature

Ovulation after Ovarian Ultrasonography, " Br J Obstet Gynaecol 89,

no. 9 (1982): 694-700.

27. See Note 13.

28. R. P. Lorenz, C. H. Comstock, S. F. Bottoms, and S. R. Marx,

" Randomised Prospective Trial Comparing Ultrasonography and Pelvic

Examination for Preterm Labor Surveillance, " Am J Obstet Gynecol

162, no. 6 (1990): 1603-1610.

29. J. Newnham, S. F. , C. A. et al., " Effects of

Frequent Ultrasound During Pregnancy: A Randomised Controlled

Trial, " The Lancet 342, no. 8876 (1993): 887-891.

30. S. B. Thacker, " The Case of Imaging Ultrasound in Obstetrics: A

Review, " Br J Obstet Gynaecol 92, no. 5 (1985): 437-444.

31. J. P. Newnham et al., " Doppler Flow Velocity Wave Form Analysis

in High Risk Pregnancies: A Randomised Controlled Trial, " Br J

Obstet Gynaecol 98, no. 10 (1991): 956-963.

32. C. R. Stark, M. Orleans, A. D. Havercamp et al., " Short and Long

Term Risks after Exposure to Diagnostic Ultrasound in Utero, " Obstet

Gynecol 63 (1984): 194-200.

33. J. D. et al., " Case-control Study of Prenatal

Ultrasonography in Children with Delayed Speech, " Can Med Ass J 149,

no. 10 (1993): 1435- 1440.

34. K. A. Salvesen, L. J. Vatten, S. H. Eik-nes et al., " Routine

Ultrasonography in Utero and Subsequent Handedness and Neurological

Development, " British Medical Journal 307, no. 6897 (1993)

159-164.

35. H. Kieler, O. Axelsson, B. Haguland et al., " Routine Ultrasound

Screening in Pregnancy and the Children's Subsequent Handedness, "

Early Human Development 50, no. 2 (1998): 233-245.

36. See Note 31.

37. K. A. Salvesen, L. S. Bakketeig, S. H. Eik-nes et al., " Routine

Ultrasonography in Utero and School Performance at Age 8-9 Years, "

The Lancet 339, no. 8785 (1992):85-89.

38. H. Kieler, G. Ahlsten, B. Haguland et al., " Routine Ultrasound

Screening in Pregnancy and the Children's Subsequent Neurological

Development, " Obstet Gynecol 91, no. 5 (1998): 750-756.

39. See Note 37.

40. H. B. Meire, " The Safety of Diagnostic Ultrasound, " Br J

Obstet Gynaecol 94 (1987): 1121-1122.

41. K. J. W. , " A Prudent Approach to Ultrasound Imaging of

the Fetus and Newborn, " Birth 17, no. 4 (1990): 218-223.

42. Barbara Katz Rothman, The Tentative Pregnancy: How Amniocentesis

Changes the Experience of Motherhood (New York: W. W. Norton,

1993).

For more information on ultrasound, see the following articles in past

issues of Mothering: " Ultrasound: More Harm Than Good? " no. 77;

" The Trouble with Ultrasound, " no. 57; " How Sound Is

Ultrasound? " no. 34; " Ultrasound, " no. 24; and

" Diagnostic Ultrasound, " no. 19.

Buckley (40) is a New Zealand-trained GP (family MD), and still in

training as partner to . Mother of Emma (9), Zoe (6), and

(4), she is currently expecting her fourth baby and lives in Brisbane,

Australia, where she writes about pregnancy, birth, and

parenting.

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/ultrasound.htm

another collection of articles

********

http://www.faeriefaith.net/NaturalBirth/handouts/class3-ultrasound.pdf

Shadow of a doubt

by Rob

ULTRASOUND SCANS can stop cells from dividing and make them commit

suicide. A research team in Ireland say this is the first evidence that

routine scans, which have let doctors peek at fetuses and internal organs

for the past 40 years, affect the normal cell cycle.

A team led by Brennan of University College Dublin gave 12 mice

an 8-megahertz scan lasting for 15 minutes. Hospital scans, which reflect

inaudible sound waves off soft tissue to produce images on a monitor, use

frequencies of between 3 and 10 megahertz and can last for up to an

hour

The researchers detected two significant changes in the cells of the

small intestine in scanned mice compared to the mice that hadn't been

scanned. Four and a half hours after exposure, there was a 22 per cent

reduction in the rate of cell division, while the rate of programmed cell

death or " apoptosis " had approximately doubled.

Brennan believes there will be similar effects in humans. " It has

been assumed for a long time that ultrasound has no effect on

cells, " he says. " We now have grounds to question that

assumption. "

Brennan stresses, however, that the implications for human health are

uncertain. " There are changes happening, but we couldn't say whether

they are harmful or harmless, " he explains. The intestine is a very

adaptable organ that can compensate for alterations in the cell cycle,

says Brennan.

It is possible that the sound waves damage the DNA in cells, delaying

cell division and repair. Brennan suggests that ultrasound might be

switching on the p53 gene which controls cell deaths. This gene, dubbed

" the guardian of the genome " , produces a protein that helps

cells recognise DNA damage and then either self-destruct or stop

dividing.

Studies in the early 1990s by researchers at the University of Rochester

in New York and the Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Richland,

Washington, showed that tissue heating due to ultrasound can cause

bleeding in mouse intestines. Ultrasonographers now tune the power of

scans to reduce such heating.

But Brennan's work is the first evidence that scans create changes in

cells. " Our results are preliminary and need further

investigation, " he says. The team presented their results at the

Radiology 1999 conference in Birmingham last month and are now preparing

them for submission to a peer-reviewed journal.

Elliott, a researcher in clinical physics at the University of

Glasgow, thinks that Brennan's results are important and should be

followed with further studies. " If the conditions of his experiments

really compare to the clinical use of ultrasound, " he says, " we

may have to review the current safety limits. "

>From New Scientist, 12 June 1999 *******

Here are some excerpts about ultrasound from " What Doctors Don't

Tell You " by Lynne McTaggart. " No well

controlled study has yet proved that routine scanning of prenatal

patients will improve the outcome of pregnancy " - official statement

from American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology in 1984

Some studies show that, with ultrasound, you are more likely to lose your

baby. A study from Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital in London

found that women having doppler ultrasound were more likely to lose their

babies than those who received only standard neonatal care (17 deaths to

7).

A Norwegian study of 2,000 babies found that those subjected to routine

ultrasound scanning were 30% more likely to be left-handed than those sho

weren't scanned. An Australian study demonstraates that frequent

scans increased the proportion of growth-restricted babies by a third,

resulting in a higher number of small babies. Exposure to

ultrasound also caused delayed speech, according to Canadian researcher

Professor .

The International Childbirth Education Association has maintained that

ultrasound is most likely to affect development (behavioral &

neurological), blood cells, the immune system, & a child's genetic

makeup.

Besides the safety issue, there are considerable questions about

accuracy. There is a significant chance that your scan will indicate a

problem when there isn't one, or fail to pick up aa problem actually

there. One study found a " high rate " of false positives,

17% of the pregnant women scanned were shown to have small-for-dates

babies, when only 6% actually did - an error rate of nearly one out of

three. Another study from Harvard showed that among 3,100 scans, 18

babies were erroneously labeled abnormal, and 17 fetuses with problems

were missed.

******** this is from another list...

<<<According to Anne Frye, midwife and author of

" Understanding Lab Work in the Childbearing Year " (4th Ed.)p.

405 Doppler Devices: Many women do not realize that doppler fetoscopes

are ultrasound devices. (apparently, neither do many care providers. Time

after time, women are assured by doctors and even some nurse midwives

that a doppler is not an ultrasound device.) . . . .

Not well publicized for obvious reasons, doppler devices expose the fetus

to more powerful ultrasound than real time (imaging) ultrasound exams.

One minute of doppler exposure is equal to 35 minutes of real time

ultrasound. This is an important point for women to consider when

deciding between an ultrasound exam and listening with a doppler to

determine viability in early pregnancy. . . . .

If you have a doppler, put it aside and make a concerted effort to learn

to listen yourself! Save your doppler for those rare occasions when you

cannot hear the heart rate late into pushing or to further investigate

suspected fetal death. " copyright l990, Anne Frye, B.H. Holistic

Midwifery.

Personally, after 23 years of attending births, I would not permit a

doppler in my house if I were pregnant. You always know that something is

ultrasound because there will be " jelly " involved. If you want

a cheap listening device for the baby's heart just save the core from a

roll of toilet paper. Put one end on the lower belly and the other on

hubby's ear. If you want to know your baby is doing well, count the fetal

movements in a day. Starting at 9 a.m. count each time the baby kicks.

There should be l0 distinct movements by 3 p.m.

I think it's sad that some people will do anything to make a buck of the

huge pregnant market in North America. Please feel free to forward this

post on to any other lists.

Gloria Lemay, Vancouver BC

Wise Woman Way of Birth Courses

http://www.birthlove.com/pages/wise_woman.html

********

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1751000/1751177.stm

This made me wonder what ultrasound does to developing babies if it

can have such a drastic effect on a testicle.

******

http://www.mothering.com/11-0-0/html/11-2-0/prenatal-testing.shtml

Prenatal Testing and Informed Consent: Base Your Choices on the

Evidence

By Peggy O'Mara

Issue 120, September/October 2003