Ultrasound

On Creating Harm, Generating Fear and New Business

I am now firmly of the view, that if you are healthy (they call that “asymptomatic” nowadays) you should not volunteer for any type of checkup, screening or test.

All businesses need to “generate sales opportunities”.

---

---

Normal, non-psychopathic businesses, will do some marketing to generate interest, then maybe offer a free eBook or further information to “generate a lead” which hopefully begins a conversation that leads to a sale. That’s normal business.

Psychopathic business goes about its “lead generation” differently. It promotes a society wide paradigm and culture of “checks” to make sure you or your baby are “ok” or “on track.”

These checks (tests, screening etc.) will typically generate numbers, images, and other forms of data. That data is then referenced against “ranges”, that either tell you that “you are ok, for now” or “Houston, we have a problem.”

Far too often, it’s the latter, which generates anxiety, concern and fear, which is the fuel on which Industrial Medicine runs.

Checks generate data that generates fear, which generates new business.

Which brings us to Ultrasounds.

All medical interventions need to survive the NSE three-legged stool test.

Necessity, Safety and Effectiveness.

If one leg collapses, the whole stool collapses.

As you will see Ultrasounds almost always fail the NSE Test.

Obviously, if there is a problem, then the cost-benefit of an Ultrasound may change if there is no other way to solve the problem. But that should be the absolute exception, not the rule.

Let’s start with Dr Robert Mendelsohn, from his 1982 book Male Practice.

Some people think that “old” books don’t have the “latest science” in them. To which I say, there is far more truth and wisdom in old books than new.

Male Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women : Mendelsohn, Robert S

Each of the two types of monitors also poses some specific dangers that are uniquely its own. The external monitors, which use ultrasound to penetrate the mother’s body and produce sound waves that measure the condition of the fetus, may pose risks that have yet to be revealed. In 1978 the FDA estimated that they were being used on a million women a year, although the devices have not been declared safe through rigorous testing. Researchers at the FDA Bureau of Radiological Health, noting independent studies revealing harmful effects from ultrasound, said more study is needed before the safety of the procedure can be determined.

In 1973 a study revealed changes in amniotic fluid that had been exposed to ultrasound. Of 65 amniotic fluid specimens taken from patients who had been exposed to ultrasound, 35 (60 percent) failed to grow on culture media. Only 13 of 106 specimens (12 percent) obtained from patients who had not been exposed failed to grow. Investigators also have found delayed neurological development, altered emotional and behavioral effects, fetal abnormalities, and blood and vascular changes in animals exposed to ultrasound.

Next, let’s look at some statistics and Q&As sourced from these 3 sources. I am drawing heavily of the work of Jennifer Margulis. I’m a fan of her work!

The Dangers of Obstetric Ultrasounds - by Jennifer Margulis (substack.com)

Ultrasound More Harm Than Good? - (birthinternational.com)

The Business of Baby – Chapter 2 – The Downside of Ultrasound

Statistics

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Routine ultrasounds add more than $1 billion to the cost of caring for pregnant women in America each year.

4. Early sex identification before 14 weeks can be inaccurate nearly 20% of the time.

5. 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.

6. Another study of 2,834 women found a significantly higher rate of intrauterine growth restriction in babies who received multiple ultrasounds.

7. Brains of autistic patients have a 10 to 12% higher number of minicolumns (overly connected neurons) as compared to non-autistic brains.

8. Women who receive multiple ultrasounds, like those with high-risk pregnancies, have higher rates of autistic children.

9. 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.

10. 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.

21 Q&As

When was obstetric ultrasound first introduced and by whom?

Obstetric ultrasound was first used by Scottish doctor Ian Donald around 1957. By the late 1970s, ultrasounds had become a routine part of prenatal care in the United States.

How has the use of prenatal ultrasound evolved over time in terms of prevalence?

In 2001, 67 percent of pregnant women had at least one ultrasound. By 2009, evidence suggests that 99.8 percent of pregnant women in North America had at least one ultrasound, with an average of three ultrasounds per woman. Women with high-risk pregnancies may receive scans as often as once or twice every month, with some reporting as many as twenty-five ultrasounds per pregnancy.

What are some of the main reasons and justifications given for performing prenatal ultrasounds?

Ultrasounds are used to detect conditions that might be harmful to the fetus or the mother, confirm pregnancy, estimate the date of conception, assess the size of the fetus, determine the location of the placenta, and identify fetal abnormalities or fetal demise. They are also used in first-trimester genetic testing to assess the baby's risk for Down syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities.

How accurate are ultrasounds in estimating fetal weight and identifying potential issues?

Ultrasound is not always accurate. Estimated fetal weight at term can be off by as much as a pound either way, due to factors like amniotic fluid level, the mother's weight, the position of the baby, and the skill of the technician. Early gender identification before 14 weeks can be inaccurate nearly 20 percent of the time. Inaccurate ultrasound readings can cause unnecessary stress when no real issue exists, or falsely reassure parents when something is actually wrong.

What do studies show regarding the effectiveness of routine ultrasound in improving fetal and maternal outcomes in low-risk pregnancies?

Multiple studies have shown that routine prenatal ultrasound does not improve birth outcomes in low-risk pregnancies. 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 restriction¹ in babies who received multiple ultrasounds.

How much does the widespread use of prenatal ultrasound add to healthcare costs annually in the U.S.?

Routine ultrasounds add more than $1 billion to the cost of caring for pregnant women in America each year.

What financial incentives do doctors and medical practices have to perform more ultrasounds?

Doctors are able to bill insurance companies significantly more for prenatal appointments with ultrasounds than those without. Some offer elective 3D/4D ultrasounds that patients pay for out-of-pocket. Having an ultrasound machine but not using it also opens up liability risks if something goes wrong with the pregnancy. Billing codes for ultrasounds provide higher reimbursement than those for patient counseling.

What risks and potential negative effects of ultrasound exposure to the fetus have some researchers hypothesized?

Research suggests ultrasound waves may heat fetal tissue, produce cavitation (small pockets of gas in fluids/tissues), and affect the migration of neurons in the developing brain. Increased ultrasound exposure has been correlated with higher rates of intrauterine growth restriction and autism.

What parallels can be drawn between the widespread adoption of prenatal ultrasound today and the historical use of X-rays in obstetrics?

Like ultrasound today, X-rays were widely embraced and routinely used in obstetrics for decades before fetal harm was confirmed. Exposure was assumed to be safe because no extensive safety studies had been done proving harm. The lucrative X-ray industry assured the public they were harmless. We now know X-ray exposure in utero can lead to miscarriage, birth defects, and childhood cancer.

How do ultrasound waves interact with fetal tissue and what specific effects on fetal brain development are of concern?

Ultrasound waves are a form of energy known to deform cell membranes. Stem cells in the brain that are constantly dividing and migrating are especially sensitive. Animal studies have found changes in how neurons distribute themselves in the brain after ultrasound exposure, with a smaller percentage migrating to the upper cortical layers.

What is the hypothesis of researcher Manuel Casanova regarding a potential link between prenatal ultrasound exposure and rising autism rates?

Casanova hypothesizes that ultrasound exposure may trigger stem cells in the fetal brain to divide and migrate when they shouldn't, forming too many neural connections (minicolumns). Normally other inhibitory cells keep the minicolumns in check, but if they can't keep up, the overactive minicolumns could cause information overflow resulting in the sensory hypersensitivity seen in autism. He believes this theory helps explain the exponential rise in autism coinciding with the increased use of more powerful ultrasound machines.

What circumstantial evidence supports the possibility of a connection between ultrasound and autism?

Women who receive multiple ultrasounds, like those with high-risk pregnancies, have higher rates of autistic children. Autism is much more common among educated, upper-middle-class families with access to more prenatal testing. As Somali immigrants moved to developed countries and began receiving more ultrasounds, their autism rates skyrocketed relative to rates in Somalia. Groups like the Amish who don't do ultrasound have lower autism rates.

[Unbekoming Note: Childhood vaccination is the primary cause of autism. Let’s say it’s the 80% elephant in the room. But there are clearly other ways to damage a babies brain.]

How do the FDA and medical associations view "entertainment" ultrasounds done at commercial non-medical facilities?

The FDA and medical organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advise against "keepsake" ultrasounds done for non-medical reasons. Without a valid medical justification, they caution that prenatal ultrasound may pose more risks than benefits. Specific concerns include the unregulated ultrasound equipment, inadequately trained technicians, and the longer duration fetal exposure.

What issues exist with the lack of regulation and oversight of ultrasound equipment and technician training?

There are no national standards for the output characteristics of ultrasound equipment or mandatory requirements for manufacturers to disclose these specifications. Some machines may output much higher power than what has been determined diagnostically necessary. No country has developed standardized training and certification for ultrasound technicians.

How long are fetuses often exposed to ultrasound waves during "entertainment" scans compared to medical scans?

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. During one account of a 36-week 4D ultrasound, a fetus in apparent distress was scanned continuously for 1.5 hours while the technician tried to get a clear picture.

What reasons do some low-risk pregnant women give for declining prenatal ultrasounds?

Some women feel the potential risks of ultrasound aren't justified without a specific medical need. They are skeptical of the "routine" designation of the technology despite the lack of proved benefits for low-risk pregnancy. Often they believe a skilled midwife or doctor can adequately assess the pregnancy's progress without it. Some also object to the false sense of security ultrasounds provide, preferring to accept uncertainty.

How do doctors and medical staff often respond when a low-risk pregnant patient declines ultrasounds?

Many react with surprise and pressure the woman to reconsider, emphasizing the importance of ultrasound for an "accurate due date" and "checking on the baby." They may scoff at a patient's concerns as unfounded, citing their own healthy children born after receiving ultrasounds. Some have never had a patient decline before. Doctors take great exception to low-risk women refusing, making statements that imply they are being negligent parents.

What role does the fear of malpractice suits play in the overuse of ultrasounds and other prenatal tests?

Obstetricians practice defensive medicine, feeling compelled to utilize all available diagnostic technology, even if not evidence-based, in order to avoid lawsuits. Having an advanced ultrasound machine but not deploying it for every patient opens them up to liability if a poor outcome occurs and the patient argues the technology could have caught the problem earlier. Malpractice workshops advise prenatal providers to "scan as often as possible" for legal protection.

How does the attitude that "there's no evidence ultrasound causes harm" parallel historical attitudes regarding other prenatal interventions later found to be harmful?

DES, a synthetic estrogen, was widely prescribed to pregnant women for decades and promoted as harmless before being linked to cancer and infertility in the children exposed in utero. X-rays were also routinely used in obstetrics for years until fetal damage was confirmed. The prevailing medical attitude that "there's no evidence of harm" really just meant safety studies hadn't been prioritized, not that actual safety was established.

What are the key take-aways from the stories of Karen Bridges' son Brock and Manuel Casanova's grandson Bertrand who both developed autism after prenatal ultrasound exposure?

Both Karen Bridges and Manuel Casanova's daughters received multiple prenatal ultrasounds, which was typical of their generation. Karen Bridges' son Brock is severely developmentally disabled with autism and an IQ of 61. Casanova's grandson Bertrand is non-verbal, unaware of his surroundings, and plagued by seizures. Although anecdotal, these cases align with Casanova's research suggesting prenatal ultrasounds, especially when numerous, may be a contributing factor for autism. More study is urgently needed.

Weighing risks and benefits, what do many of the experts cited argue should be the approach to prenatal ultrasound going forward, especially for low-risk pregnancies?

Several experts and medical bodies argue for a major reduction in the use of prenatal ultrasound, reserving it only for cases of clear medical necessity rather than routine screening of low-risk pregnancies. Ultrasound sessions should be as brief as possible, with the lowest exposure settings. Non-medical "entertainment" scans should be avoided entirely. Much more research is needed on safety. The "assume safe until proved otherwise" mentality is what allowed X-rays and DES to harm a generation before being abandoned. A precautionary approach is warranted.

---

Thank You for Being Part of Our Community

Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content interesting and useful, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. Please make full use of our Free Libraries.

Discover Our Free Libraries:

Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.

Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.

Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:

I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.

Resources for the Community:

For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.

Books as Tools: Consider recommending 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.

Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.

1. Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR): This term refers to a condition where a baby grows more slowly than expected in the mother's womb during pregnancy. The standard measure for this is the baby's weight being lower than the 10th percentile for its gestational age, meaning it is smaller than 90% of all other babies at the same stage of pregnancy. IUGR can lead to various health issues for the baby, both before and after birth, including difficulties in handling the stress of childbirth, decreased oxygen levels, low blood sugar levels after birth, a lower resistance to infection, and potentially, long-term growth issues.