Silent Waves, Lasting Impact
On Ultrasounds - 30 Q&As - A Critical Examination of Ultrasound Safety and the Medicalization of Childbirth
It was Jennifer Margulis that first brought my attention to the harms of ultrasounds.
Interview with Jennifer Margulis - Lies are Unbekoming
7. Obstetric ultrasounds are a routine part of prenatal care. Based on your investigations, what should expecting parents be aware of regarding the use and implications of ultrasounds?
Wombs don’t come with a view for a reason. Unless a pregnant mama and her partner plan to abort, there’s no reason to do any routine ultrasounds in the absence of other clinical data indicating a problem.
I explain as much in this Substack post, which has generated a fascinating discussion. And I devote a chapter of my book, Your Baby, Your Way (which is the paperback and revised version of The Business of Baby) to obstetric ultrasounds.
I wrote this in March of this year.
Ultrasound - Lies are Unbekoming
In 2001, 67% of pregnant women had at least one ultrasound. In 2009, 99.8% of pregnant women in North America had at least one ultrasound, with an average of three ultrasounds per woman.
The ultrasounds done on pregnant women today use sound waves with eight times the intensity used before 1991, a time period that roughly coincides with the alarming increase in autism diagnoses.
Routine ultrasounds add more than $1 billion to the cost of caring for pregnant women in America each year.
Early sex identification before 14 weeks can be inaccurate nearly 20% of the time.
A study of over 15,000 women found no difference in fetal outcomes between those receiving two routine scans vs. those only scanned for specific medical indications.
Another study of 2,834 women found a significantly higher rate of intrauterine growth restriction in babies who received multiple ultrasounds.
Brains of autistic patients have a 10 to 12% higher number of minicolumns (overly connected neurons) as compared to non-autistic brains.
Women who receive multiple ultrasounds, like those with high-risk pregnancies, have higher rates of autistic children.
Non-medical fetal ultrasound sessions at commercial franchises often last 15-45 minutes to obtain an ideal image, significantly longer than a typical medical scan.
In one case, a fetus in apparent distress was scanned continuously for 1.5 hours during a commercial 4D ultrasound while the technician tried to get a clear picture.
I’m glad that AMD has tackled the subject with an excellent new article that I am reviewing, reproducing and amplifying here.
Waking up to the poisoning that is childhood vaccination is critical, although for many it’s a mental or personality bridge too far, but it’s not enough.
The higher plane of awareness necessary to survive a society designed by oligarchical cartels is understanding that cartels are inherently predatory. It's their nature.
Cartel Medicine is predatory. It’s its nature. A wolf cannot be blamed for its nature. It just is.
To the cattle herd, the farmer is the predator. It’s his nature.
The “lovely” doctor is an agent of that “nature.” Whether he knows it or not.
Understanding the “nature” of the system is critical to surviving it.
With thanks to A Midwestern Doctor.
The Forgotten Side of Medicine | A Midwestern Doctor | Substack
Analogy
Imagine you're building a house. The foundation stage is the most critical - any small crack, uneven surface, or structural weakness introduced during this phase will affect everything built upon it, potentially for generations of families living there. Even minor issues that seem insignificant during construction could lead to major problems years later.
Now imagine that the traditional master builders who spent generations perfecting foundation-laying techniques are replaced by a new construction company. This company introduces new "efficient" methods and tools that haven't been thoroughly tested for long-term effects. They're faster and more profitable, but nobody's waiting to see if these foundations hold up over time before continuing to use them. When experienced builders raise concerns, they're dismissed because the new methods are too profitable to question.
This mirrors how modern medicine has approached pregnancy and childbirth. The nine months of pregnancy are like that foundation stage - critical for everything that follows. Traditional practices have been replaced by technological interventions that generate profit but haven't been fully tested for long-term effects. When concerns are raised, they're often dismissed because the practices have become too commercially important to question, even though these early interventions might be creating "cracks in the foundation" that could affect generations to come.
12-point summary
1. Historical Shift in Childbirth Care: The transformation of childbirth from a natural process managed by midwives to a medical procedure controlled by physicians was initially driven by business interests, not medical necessity. This shift fundamentally changed how society approaches pregnancy and childbirth, leading to increased interventions and costs without necessarily improving outcomes.
2. The Safety Paradox: Despite being the most expensive country for childbirth, the United States ranks behind more than 50 nations in infant survival rates and 65th in maternal death rates. This suggests that more medical intervention and higher costs don't necessarily translate to better outcomes for mothers and babies.
3. Understanding Early Development: The early stages of human development, particularly during pregnancy, are extremely sensitive to environmental influences. What happens during this period can have lasting effects not only on the individual but on future generations as well.
4. Ultrasound Evolution: Similar to the historical use of X-rays in pregnancy, ultrasound was widely adopted before its safety was thoroughly established. When safety concerns emerged, they were often overshadowed by the technology's commercial success and convenience.
5. Critical FDA Decision: In 1992, the FDA increased allowable ultrasound exposure levels by eight-fold or more, despite existing research showing tissue damage at lower levels. This timing coincidentally aligned with increases in certain childhood chronic conditions.
6. EMF Impact Research: Studies have shown that electromagnetic field exposure during pregnancy might have significant effects on child development. Research suggests EMF levels may be up to 20 times stronger inside the womb than outside, amplifying their impact on fetal development.
7. Market-Driven Medicine: The concept of "disease branding" has led to the medicalization of many natural processes, creating markets for treatments and interventions that might not be necessary. This pattern is particularly evident in pregnancy and childbirth care.
8. Professional Resistance: Medical practitioners often face significant professional pressure not to question established practices within their specialty, making it difficult to raise safety concerns or conduct research that might challenge current protocols.
9. Cultural Differences: Different cultures approach pregnancy and childbirth very differently. For example, Chinese culture shows remarkable respect and care for pregnant women, contrasting with the more medicalized Western approach.
10. Research Limitations: Commercial interests have significantly influenced medical research, particularly in the West. This has made it difficult to conduct studies that might challenge profitable established practices, as demonstrated by the difference between Western and Russian EMF research.
11. Early Life Programming: Experiences during early development, including those too early to be consciously remembered, can pattern an individual's entire life trajectory and affect future generations. This principle has been recognized and sometimes exploited by various industries.
12. Safety Consideration Cycles: There appears to be a recurring pattern in medical history where initial safety concerns about new technologies or procedures are gradually dismissed as these practices become commercially successful, compromising patient safety for profit.
30 Questions & Answers
1. What historical factors led to the transition from midwives to male physicians in childbirth, and what were the implications of this change?
The transition began prominently in 1820 with Harvard's first professor of obstetrics, Walter Channing, who initiated the push to replace female midwives with male physicians. His motivation was clearly stated in his belief that women would develop a lasting reliance on physicians who helped them through childbirth, ensuring "permanency and security of all their other business." This represented a calculated move to create a dependent patient base through the medicalization of a natural process.
This shift marked the beginning of childbirth's transformation from a natural process into what was increasingly viewed as a medical emergency requiring constant professional attention. This medicalization, while bringing some benefits, has created numerous complications for both mothers and children, leading some practitioners to now advocate for home birth when feasible.
2. How did the medical field's approach to prenatal imaging evolve from X-rays to ultrasound, and what were the implications of this change?
After X-ray use in pregnancy was introduced at a 1923 conference and published in 1924, it became widely adopted for routine obstetric assessments. Despite mounting evidence of serious risks, including increased rates of severe abnormalities, microcephaly, developmental delays, leukemia, and other malignancies, the practice continued for decades until around 1975. The shift away from X-rays was driven partly by the accumulating evidence of harm, but largely because ultrasound emerged as a viable alternative.
The transition to ultrasound was marked by its perceived safety and additional benefits, such as the ability to detect potential birth defects and the convenience of immediate in-office use by obstetricians. However, this shift paralleled the pattern seen with X-rays: initial concerns about safety were present throughout the medical profession, but as the lucrative market grew, these concerns were pushed aside, and government sanctification of the practice led to its proliferation.
3. What specific research has been conducted regarding ultrasound's effects on fetal tissue, particularly the studies in China?
Dozens of trials were conducted in China on mothers who were planning to have abortions, with ultrasound exposure occurring immediately prior to the procedures. These studies definitively demonstrated that ultrasound exposure damaged fetal tissues, even at levels far below the original safety threshold. This research provides some of the most direct evidence of ultrasound's harmful effects on developing fetuses.
The significance of these studies is particularly concerning when considered alongside the FDA's 1992 decision to raise permissible ultrasound levels eight-fold or more. Given that the Chinese studies showed tissue damage at levels well below the original threshold, this substantial increase in permitted exposure levels raises serious questions about health impacts.
4. How did the FDA's 1992 decision change ultrasound exposure levels, and what concerns existed about this increase?
In 1992, despite widespread concerns about prenatal ultrasound safety (which were significant enough to prompt CNN to produce a program on the topic), the FDA made the decision to raise the permissible ultrasound levels by eight-fold, and in some cases even more. This dramatic increase was particularly concerning because studies showing the dangers of ultrasound were conducted at levels far below the original threshold.
This timing of this increase may be significant, as it correlates with the outbreak of chronic childhood illnesses that occurred around this period. The decision represents a crucial regulatory change that substantially increased fetal exposure to ultrasound energy, despite existing evidence suggesting risks even at lower levels.
5. What parallels exist between the adoption of routine ultrasound and childhood vaccination in medical practice?
Both ultrasound and vaccination practices share remarkable parallels in their adoption trajectory. In both cases, serious initial concerns about safety existed throughout the medical profession. However, as these practices became increasingly lucrative markets, those safety concerns were gradually pushed aside, and government sanctification of their safety led to their widespread proliferation.
Another parallel is that both practices affect the most vulnerable members of society who cannot speak for themselves. Additionally, both fields demonstrate a pattern where questioning the safety of these procedures often leads to professional reprisals, making it difficult for practitioners to raise concerns or conduct research that might challenge the established narrative.
6. How does early life exposure to various inputs affect long-term human development, according to the research presented?
The human body's remarkable adaptability has a significant drawback: the earlier in life an input enters one's system, the more profound and lasting its effect becomes on every aspect of being. This principle is demonstrated in psychological development, where early childhood experiences, including those too early to be consciously remembered, can pattern the rest of an individual's life and affect their descendants through transgenerational effects.
This principle extends to physical exposures as well, particularly during fetal development. Exposure to toxins or infections during fetal development, especially in the first two months of life, can have immense consequences for the rest of an individual's life, resulting in birth defects and other long-term health implications. This understanding highlights the critical importance of protecting developing fetuses from harmful exposures.
7. What evidence exists regarding EMF exposure during pregnancy and its effects on child development?
Research from Kaiser Permanente demonstrated that pregnant women whose EMF exposure exceeded 2.5 milliGauss had children who were six times more likely to be obese as teenagers compared to those with lower exposure levels. Additionally, Dr. Dietrich Klinghart conducted a study comparing prenatal EMF exposures between neurologically impaired children and controls, finding dramatically increased risks of neurological disabilities associated with high prenatal EMF exposures.
Further research by Wolfgang Maes suggested that EMF levels are 20 times stronger inside the womb than outside it. This finding, if accurate, would validate many ancient beliefs about pregnancy and suggest that ultrasound exposure might be particularly impactful on developing fetuses due to the womb's apparent amplification of electromagnetic fields.
8. How do United States birth outcomes compare internationally, and what factors contribute to these differences?
Despite being the most expensive place to give birth (excluding Japan), the United States demonstrates surprisingly poor birth outcomes compared to other nations. With an infant mortality rate of 0.56%, over 50 nations, including all affluent ones, have better infant survival rates than the United States. Additionally, the US ranks 65th globally in maternal death rates during childbirth, suggesting significant systemic issues with American birthing practices.
These poor outcomes persist despite, or possibly because of, the highly medicalized approach to childbirth in the United States. This suggests that the focus on medical interventions and liability protection may be misplaced, and that alternative approaches to childbirth care might be worth considering. The disparity between cost and outcomes raises serious questions about the effectiveness of current American obstetric practices.
9. What role does liability concern play in modern obstetric practices, and how does this affect care?
Many modern obstetric practices are primarily implemented to shield doctors from liability for any complications children might experience, rather than being based solely on optimal patient care. This defensive medicine approach has contributed to making the United States the most expensive place to give birth, while paradoxically not improving outcomes compared to other developed nations.
The focus on liability protection appears to be misaligned with achieving optimal birth outcomes, as evidenced by the United States' poor international rankings in both infant and maternal mortality rates. This suggests that the current approach of practicing defensive medicine may be prioritizing legal protection over evidence-based care that would actually improve birth outcomes.
10. How has the "medicalization" of childbirth changed the fundamental approach to pregnancy and delivery?
The medicalization of childbirth represents a transformation where what was previously viewed as a natural process has been converted into a medical emergency requiring constant professional attention. This shift began with early efforts to replace female midwives with male physicians, explicitly motivated by the desire to create a permanent patient base, and has progressively expanded to encompass more aspects of the birthing process.
This transformation has created a massive number of highly consequential complications for both mothers and children, leading some practitioners to advocate for home birth when feasible. The process exemplifies a broader pattern in medicine where normal conditions are medicalized, creating markets out of natural processes and convincing populations they need to perpetually purchase products and services for these conditions, a process known as "disease branding."
11. What are the specific concerns about ultrasound safety that have been historically documented but forgotten?
Initially, the medical profession well recognized that ultrasound could harm tissues. This understanding existed in the early days of its implementation, but as the ultrasound industry grew and became more profitable, these safety concerns were increasingly pushed aside. The shift made it nearly impossible to conduct research in this area, effectively burying the historical documentation of risks.
These concerns have become especially relevant given that the harms of ultrasound are dose-dependent, and the FDA's decision to raise permissible levels occurred despite existing evidence of tissue damage at much lower levels. The parallel to X-ray use in pregnancy is particularly striking, as both technologies were widely adopted before their safety was thoroughly established, and both faced initial resistance that was eventually overcome by commercial interests.
12. How does the timing of SIDS cases correlate with other medical interventions, and what questions does this raise?
Medical students are taught that SIDS clusters around 2 to 4 months of age and always occurs by 6 months, yet they're simultaneously told that the cause remains unknown. This timing precisely correlates with when infants receive their largest doses of vaccines, creating a striking parallel that the medical establishment appears to deliberately ignore.
This correlation has been noticed by physicians and parents for over a century, who have pointed out connections between certain vaccines and SIDS. However, medical students are taught to dismiss any questioning of vaccine safety as being influenced solely by Andrew Wakefield's contested autism study, rather than acknowledging the century of documented concerns about neurologic injury.
13. What research exists from Russia regarding EMF effects, and why might this research differ from Western studies?
Russian research has produced a substantial body of evidence demonstrating adverse physiologic effects from EMF exposure. Their ability to conduct this research was largely due to their lack of commercial interests that would have censored such findings, unlike in Western nations where acknowledging EMF harm would damage both military and wireless industry interests.
This research stands in stark contrast to Western assertions that EMFs can only cause damage through ionizing radiation that breaks molecular bonds. The Russian studies helped demonstrate that many biological structures are incredibly sensitive to EMFs, and that fields far lower than common exposure levels can create physiologic effects, particularly in the case of microwave radiation which is uniquely suited to be absorbed by biological tissues.
14. How does professional bias influence medical practitioners' willingness to question practices within their specialty?
Doctors typically show more willingness to question the safety of drugs and procedures that fall outside their specialty rather than those they regularly prescribe or perform. For example, psychiatrists more readily acknowledge the dangers of Accutane compared to dermatologists, who prescribe it regularly. This bias extends to practitioners' reluctance to question practices that are fundamental to their specialty's daily operations.
This professional bias creates a significant barrier to critical evaluation of medical practices, as practitioners become invested in defending the tools and procedures that define their specialty. This dynamic helps explain why, while some doctors might be open to questioning vaccine safety, almost none are willing to question ultrasound safety, particularly if they rely on it in their practice.
[Unbekoming: Mortgages create beliefs.]
15. What role does market creation play in the medicalization of natural processes?
Industries create profits by establishing markets and monopolies where none previously existed. In medicine, this often manifests through "disease branding" – the process of medicalizing normal conditions and convincing populations they need ongoing medical products and interventions for these newly defined conditions. This pattern has repeated across various medical fields, from mental health to obstetrics.
The transformation of childbirth from a natural process to a medical emergency requiring constant professional attention exemplifies this market creation. This shift began with Harvard's first obstetrics professor explicitly stating that managing childbirth would ensure "permanency and security of all their other business," demonstrating how medical practices can be driven by market creation rather than medical necessity.
16. How do EMF exposure measurements inside the womb compare to external measurements, and what implications might this have?
According to research cited by Klinghart, studies conducted by Wolfgang Maes found that EMF levels are 20 times stronger inside the womb compared to external measurements. While the original study proving this claim needs verification, this finding would align with many ancient beliefs about the special protective environment of the womb and its unique properties.
If accurate, this amplification effect would have significant implications for understanding how various forms of electromagnetic energy, including ultrasound, might affect developing fetuses. The womb's apparent ability to magnify electromagnetic fields suggests that even relatively low external exposures could have amplified effects on fetal development, making safety thresholds based on external measurements inadequate.
17. What evidence exists regarding the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation?
Despite common assertions that only ionizing radiation can cause biological damage, evidence shows that many biological structures are incredibly sensitive to electromagnetic fields at non-ionizing levels. Microwaves, used in many modern wireless technologies, are particularly concerning as they are uniquely suited to be absorbed by biological tissues, making them toxic even at non-ionizing doses.
This understanding is supported by a large body of evidence, particularly from Russian research, demonstrating adverse physiologic effects from EMF exposure. The evidence challenges the simplistic view that electromagnetic radiation can only cause damage through ionizing effects that break molecular bonds, suggesting instead that biological systems can be affected by much lower energy levels than previously acknowledged.
18. How do different cultures approach pregnancy and childbirth, particularly comparing Chinese and Western practices?
A stark contrast exists between Western and Chinese approaches to pregnancy and childbirth. In China, pregnant women receive a notably high level of respect and care, reflecting a cultural understanding of pregnancy's significance that many Westerners find remarkable. This approach acknowledges the profound importance of the gestational period for long-term health outcomes.
The Western approach, particularly in the United States, has increasingly medicalized pregnancy and childbirth, focusing on medical interventions and liability protection rather than holistic support for the mother. This difference in approach may contribute to the disparate outcomes observed between nations, suggesting that cultural attitudes toward pregnancy and childbirth may play a significant role in maternal and infant health outcomes.
19. What factors contribute to the United States having higher childbirth costs yet poorer outcomes?
The United States has become the most expensive place to give birth while simultaneously ranking behind over 50 nations in infant mortality rates and placing 65th globally in maternal death rates. This paradox suggests that the extensive and expensive medical interventions commonly employed in American obstetrics may not be effectively addressing the fundamental needs of mothers and infants.
The focus on defensive medicine and liability protection, combined with the aggressive medicalization of natural processes, has created a system that prioritizes procedural intervention over optimal care. These practices have led to increased costs without corresponding improvements in outcomes, indicating that the current approach may be fundamentally misaligned with achieving the best possible birth outcomes.
20. How does early childhood programming affect long-term development and future generations?
Early life experiences, particularly those occurring during fetal development and early childhood, can pattern an individual's entire life trajectory. These effects extend beyond conscious memory, with experiences too early to be remembered still capable of creating lasting impacts on psychological and physical development. This programming effect is so powerful that it can influence not only the individual but also their descendants through transgenerational effects.
The principle of early life programming has been recognized and sometimes deliberately utilized throughout history, both positively and negatively. For example, the fast food industry's focus on marketing to children demonstrates an understanding of how early experiences can create lifelong patterns. This same principle explains why exposure to toxins or other harmful influences during fetal development can have such profound and lasting consequences for an individual's health and development.
21. What were Robert S. Mendelsohn's key concerns about medical practices affecting poor populations?
According to one of Mendelsohn's mentored doctors, his decision to become a medical dissident came during his role as Medical Director of Project Head Start's Medical Consultation Service in 1968. During private White House discussions, he witnessed concerning conversations about population control methods targeting the poor, including the promotion of infant formula, vaccinations, harsh hospital birthing practices, inadequate government schools, and neighborhood abortion clinics.
These revelations deeply conflicted with Mendelsohn's Jewish faith and his Hippocratic oath, compelling him to take the challenging path of becoming a medical dissident. His experience revealed a systematic approach to controlling poor populations through medical interventions, leading him to speak out against these practices and mentor others to challenge medical orthodoxy.
22. How has the concept of "disease branding" influenced modern medical practice?
Disease branding represents a fundamental strategy where industries create markets by transforming normal conditions into medical issues requiring perpetual treatment or intervention. This process involves convincing populations they need to continuously purchase products or services for conditions that were previously considered natural states. An example provided in the text shows how this was effectively done with "depression" and has been applied to many childhood vaccines that may not be necessary.
In obstetrics, this branding process transformed childbirth from a natural occurrence into a medical emergency requiring constant professional monitoring. The shift began with explicit intentions to create a dependent patient base and has expanded to encompass increasingly more aspects of pregnancy and childbirth, leading to a highly medicalized approach that may not actually improve outcomes.
Uninformed Consent - Lies are Unbekoming
“DISEASE BRANDING” OR SELLING CERVICAL CANCER
Although the FDA approved Gardasil in June 2006, less than two years after Vioxx came off the market, Merck’s aggressive direct-to-consumer marketing started in September 2005, seven months ahead of FDA approval. In a marketing effort that CEO Richard Clark dubbed “flawlessly” executed, Merck sold fear of cervical cancer, not the vaccine itself, to consumers. Scholar Carl Elliott explains that “disease branding” is the marketing buzzword for promoting a disease that a new drug can treat. Merck has perfected this reverse engineering over decades. As far back as the 1960s, Merck’s strategy for marketing a new antidepressant drug, amitriptyline, was to “sell clinical depression.”
While Merck could sell clinical depression—and thus amitriptyline—only to doctors at the time, since the mid-1990s, the FDA has allowed direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical marketing. The United States is an outlier on this. New Zealand, with only four million people, is the only other country allowing DTC prescription drug advertising. The overwhelming majority of countries do not accept that advertising prescription medical products to consumers is in the public interest. Even the American Medical Association, the US voice of mainstream medicine, has called for a halt to DTC marketing for prescription drugs and medical devices. It expressed concern in 2015 that commercial drug promotion drives demand for expensive treatments when less expensive and more effective alternatives exist. Overall, DTC advertising contributes substantially to the ultimate cost for drugs and medical care, with advertising at $4.5 billion per year. With billions invested in consumer outreach, you can bet Merck and other pharmaceutical giants are factoring that expenditure into their pricing models.
Recognizing that most girls and women were ignorant of any relationship between HPV and cervical cancer, Merck first drew attention to the issue in two widespread ad campaigns that did not even mention “Gardasil.” Following Edward Bernays’s advice in the classic 1928 book Propaganda, Merck understood that “it is not enough to sell a product. Instead, you need to sell the vision that will lead to desire for the product, with the consumer believing that it is their [sic] own idea.”
First, Merck funded a group called Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, “a drug industry funded group wrapped in non-profit clothing,” to run a campaign called “Make the Connection.” Merck urged women to link HPV with cervical cancer; a bracelet-making component of the campaign symbolized making a connection. Then it launched the “Tell Someone” ad campaign, urging women to tell their loved ones about the connection between the virus and cancer.
Finally, having primed the market, Merck launched an advertising blitz aimed at preteen girls urging each to “Be One Less” victim of cervical cancer in her lifetime. Merck saturated print and broadcast media with ads for Gardasil as the only solution to the omnipresent threat of cervical cancer. Such an ad campaign would have been illegal in almost every other country in the world, but not the US.
23. What specific safety thresholds existed for ultrasound before and after the 1992 FDA decision?
It's documented that the FDA's 1992 decision resulted in an eight-fold increase in permissible ultrasound levels, with some cases allowing even higher exposures. This change was implemented despite existing research showing tissue damage at levels far below the original threshold, raising significant concerns about safety.
The timing of this dramatic increase in permissible exposure levels coincided with rising rates of chronic childhood illnesses, suggesting a correlation. The decision to raise these thresholds came despite widespread concerns about prenatal ultrasound safety, which were significant enough to warrant coverage by CNN at the time.
24. How do hospital birth practices differ from home birth approaches, and what are the implications?
While specific details about home birth practices aren't extensively detailed in the text, it's noted that the increasing medicalization of childbirth has created numerous complications for both mothers and children, leading some practitioners to advise home birth whenever feasible. This recommendation suggests that home birth environments may avoid many of the interventionist complications associated with hospital births.
The text indicates that hospital birth practices are often driven by liability concerns rather than optimal care, contributing to the United States' poor ranking in both infant and maternal mortality rates despite having the highest costs. This suggests that the highly medicalized approach of hospital births may not provide the benefits often claimed and might actually contribute to poorer outcomes.
The Midwife - Lies are Unbekoming
25. What role does electromagnetic sensitivity play in fetal development according to the research presented?
Research demonstrates that biological structures exhibit remarkable sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, with effects possible at exposure levels far below what's commonly considered safe. This sensitivity appears particularly significant during fetal development, as evidenced by the Kaiser Permanente study showing that maternal EMF exposure above 2.5 milliGauss correlated with a six-fold increase in teenage obesity rates.
The impact is further amplified by findings suggesting that EMF levels are 20 times stronger inside the womb than outside. This amplification effect, combined with the fetus's heightened sensitivity to environmental factors, suggests that EMF exposure during pregnancy could have far more significant implications than previously recognized, particularly given that early developmental periods have the most lasting effects on human health.
26. How has the medical profession historically responded to practitioners who question established practices?
The medical establishment typically responds to questioning of established practices with professional reprisals, making it difficult for practitioners to raise concerns or conduct research that might challenge accepted narratives. This is particularly evident in areas with significant financial interests, where questioning established practices can lead to strict professional consequences from peers.
The text illustrates this through examples of how questioning vaccine safety or ultrasound practices often leads to professional isolation or repercussions. This creates an environment where practitioners become hesitant to challenge established practices, even when they have legitimate concerns, effectively suppressing safety investigations and maintaining the status quo.
27. What evidence exists regarding transgenerational effects of early life experiences?
Early life experiences, including those occurring during fetal development, can have impacts that extend beyond the individual to affect their descendants. This transgenerational effect has been documented in various contexts, from psychological trauma to environmental exposures, suggesting that early life programming can influence multiple generations.
The text particularly emphasizes how early childhood experiences, even those too early to be consciously remembered, can pattern not only the rest of an individual's life but also impact their descendants. This understanding adds another layer of importance to protecting developing fetuses and young children from harmful exposures or experiences.
28. How do modern obstetric practices shield doctors from liability while possibly compromising care?
Modern obstetric practices often prioritize protecting practitioners from liability over optimizing patient care, leading to a defensive medicine approach that may actually compromise overall outcomes. This focus on liability protection has contributed to making the United States the most expensive place to give birth while failing to improve mortality rates for either mothers or infants.
The emphasis on defensive medicine has led to an increase in interventions and procedures that may not be necessary or beneficial but serve primarily to protect practitioners from legal consequences. This approach appears to be misaligned with achieving optimal birth outcomes, as evidenced by the United States' poor international rankings in both infant and maternal mortality rates despite having the highest costs.
29. What research exists regarding the relationship between EMF exposure and obesity in teenagers?
Researchers at Kaiser Permanente conducted a study where pregnant women wore EMF meters for 24 hours to measure their exposure levels. The results showed that children whose mothers were exposed to EMF levels exceeding 2.5 milliGauss during pregnancy were more than six times as likely to develop obesity as teenagers compared to children whose mothers had lower exposure levels.
This research provides a concrete example of how environmental exposures during pregnancy can have long-term health implications for offspring, manifesting years after the initial exposure. The finding suggests that the period of fetal development represents a critical window where environmental factors can program long-term health outcomes.
30. How have commercial interests influenced medical research and practice guidelines?
Commercial interests have played a significant role in shaping both medical research and practice guidelines, often pushing aside safety concerns in favor of market expansion. This pattern is evident in the history of both ultrasound and vaccination, where initial safety concerns were present throughout the medical profession but were gradually marginalized as these practices became increasingly lucrative markets.
The influence of commercial interests has also affected research itself, making it nearly impossible to conduct studies that might challenge profitable established practices. This is particularly evident in EMF research, where Western studies have been limited by commercial and military interests, while Russian researchers, lacking these constraints, were able to produce more comprehensive studies on harmful effects.
I appreciate you being here.
If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Please make full use of the Free Libraries.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
Stories
I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
For COVID vaccine injury
Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
Unbekoming: you know I am your biggest fan. I submit this critique with utmost respect. I know you are a reporter here, and not the author of these ideas.
This article is filled with circumstantial data and ideas about ultrasound dangers that are loosely related but unpersuasive. I have not reviewed the AMD article. Notably:
Ultrasound is not an electromagnetic field (EMF), nor is it a microwave. Bringing these in are straw-man arguments.
Medicalization of the birth process is unfortunate, but there is no evidence of ultrasound damage.
The midwife-physician divide has nothing to do with this issue. No midwife can claim a mid-double-digit decrease in patient and maternal mortality. Physician obstetricians did this in the 1950s.
The Chinese studies were on fetuses to be aborted and showed no evidence of damage that was later evident on birth.
You showed me the Control Group Study. Given its proof that all chronic illnesses were primarily determined by vaccination status, I refuse to believe that ultrasounds are anything but window dressing on the overall autism disaster. Ditto SIDS. Articles like this one distract from the primary issue. We should be beating the drums about THAT.
Home birth gives up the double-digit mortality advantage of physician-supervised birth.
This is the same sort of “evidence” that inhabits this article, but I find it hard to believe that with all the focus on ultrasounds, the hardest evidence of harm we have is “tissue damage” reported in Chinese studies without any reported fetal outcome issue.
I could say lots more nasty things about OB-GYNs, but I will leave it at: I have little sympathy for them. Their high C-section and hysterectomy rates alone convict them as one of the most careless specialties. However, they are no match for pediatricians, dentists, oncologists, psychiatrists, or even cardiac surgeons or cardiologists.
Your series on woman and babies is so important! I was born in 1974. They did an x-ray on me. :-( Who knows what that did to me. I also had tongue tie, which no one diagnosed and so as an adult I have a narrow jaw, TMJ and breathing problems. Due to undiagnosed tongue tie, breast feeding "was weird" and my mother gave up. She wanted me to be healthy (70s version) so she gave me *soy* formula. We now know giving soy as baby food is like giving 5x dose of the birth control pill to a baby. Not surprisingly, my periods started at 11 and they were horrific floods. I went to one gynecologist, who said "everything is normal" so I just suffered.
I don't think I ever could have gotten pregnant. Bleeding off and on. With the blood type diet and homeopathy, my periods stablized. Then, something was wrong. I was diagnosed with uterine cancer at age 40, stage 3B. I submitted to surgery, which was brutal because they took my healthy ovaries, "just in case". I had enough experience not to do chemo or radiation. I spend a lot of money on hormone replacement, which is not the same as my ovaries.
Back when I thought I could have a baby, a friend had a c-section because the baby was breech. That really upset me, that a baby could die because it did not turn. So I started reading mid wife journals. Over 10 years, I read mid wife journals monthly.
I found out that babies can sucessfully be born - head first, bum first and foot first. The female body is designed for birth. Pretty much everything a doctor does, with a pregnant woman, interferes with the birthing process. It is no wonder liability rates are so high and outcomes are so low.
Eventually, I saw that mid wifery have been taken over my the medical system. From my experience and readings, I have come full circle. I am no longer terified of birth, like I was years ago. Instead, I am in awe of how wonderful the body is. I came to this understanding by reading and watching Yolanda Norris-Clark. Bauhauswife on Instagram.. Her book is "Portal" is on Amazon. She does "free birth". The more a person learns about the medical system and how destructive it is, the more free birth makes sense. Of course, I no longer have the parts and I do not have a baby, but I think knowledge and truth are essential.
And ultra sounds... of babies?? Of course it is wrong! Just like everything else they do. For those who argue that the medical system "saves" babies, you don't know what you are saying. It is only due to interferance that they need saving. Like pouring gasoline on your house and lighting a match, and then bringing a fire truck to save you. Wow, maybe just don't burn things? Don't destroy the birthing process, risking the health and life of both mother and child, just to justify your existance.