Ultrasound Uses that Prove it is unsafe for Pregnancy

This is a great guest Blog by Missie Strong.  Ultra Sounds are one of the most commonly used medical interventions during pregnancy with some women having as  many as 4-6 ultra sounds during their pregnancy. 

This is scary when you consider that Ultra sounds are an almost untested technology with vast differences between apparatus and technical training.  As I wrote in Are They Safe? The Risks of Prenatal Ultra Sounds

An editorial in Lancet, A British medical journal, stated: "There have been no randomized controlled trials of adequate size to assess whether there are adverse effects on growth and development of children exposed in utero to ultrasound. Indeed, the necessary studies to ascertain safety may never be done, because of lack of interest in such research".
On top of that, there are no national or international standards for the output characteristics of ultrasound equipment. The result is the shocking situation described in a commentary in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, in which ultrasound machines in use on pregnant women range in output power from extremely high to extremely low, all with equal effect. The commentary reads, "If the machines with the lowest powers have been shown to be diagnostically adequate, how can one possibly justify exposing the patient to a dose 5,000 times greater?". It goes on to urge government guidelines on the outut of ultrasound equipment and for legislation making it mandatory for equipment manufacturers to state the output characteristics. As far as is known, this has not yet been done in any country. Safety is also clearly related to the skill of the ultrasound operator. At present, there is no known training or certification for medical users of ultrasound apparatus in any country.

Another brilliant article that every pregnant mother should read before deciding to have a prenatal ultra sound is "Ultra Sounds: More harm than good?" by Dr. Marsden Wagner- former Director of Womens and Childrens Health for the World Health Organization.

Ultrasound Uses that Prove its unsafe for Pregnancy

by Missie Strong on Sunday, 31 October 2010 at 03:04

did you know they don't let pregnant women swim with dolphins because the untrasounds they emit aren't safe

did you know they use ultrasound to erase fine lines and wrinkles in cosmetic procedures?

did you know they use ultrasound to warm and melt away scar tissue and warm to treat arthritis?

did you know any midwife or OB that uses ultrasound will tell you those aren't the same machines?

did you know 'ultrasound' is labeled based on the frequency of the sound waves?

when asked for links I posted these:

(I had a midwife actually tell me that it was different when I was pregnant with my twins in 2006) I knew it was bullshit already.

http://www.chiisland.com/ultrasound_beauty/articles/ultrasound-therapy.shtml
New and current uses of ultrasound include facial and body skin rejuvenating treatments, reduction of stretch marks, treatment of contracture and scar tissue such as around breast implants, and the pre- and post-operative treatment of plastic surgery patients to accelerate healing and recovery after procedures such as face lifts, tummy tuck, and liposuction. Ultrasound applied over certain creams contributes to greater effectiveness through deeper and more thorough penetration of the products.

http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/joewoo3x.html

here is a link to an article about bones 'healing' faster.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8048527/Ultrasound-device-helps-bones-heal-faster-and-stronger.html

oh a new reason to say no to ultrasound:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/judithpotts/100054974/how-heat-helps-in-cancer-treatment/
How heat helps in cancer treatment – Telegraph BlogsSeptember 24 2010 | Judith Potts | NewsHeat – whether from a carefully created and controlled fever or from hyperthermia delivered by microwaves, radio frequency or ultrasound – is increasingly being used as a cancer treatment.

In Henrietta Callum’s case, the Evita Slimsonic (0844 7009975,www.slimsonic.co.uk), a small home lipo system that uses ultrasound waves called, has tackled her thighs.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wellbeing/7995126/Smoothe-away-your-spot-fat.html

However, new research shows that intensive ultrasound therapy matches the 92 per cent cure rate of traditional treatments - but dramatically reduces side effects.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/men_shealth/5713460/Prostate-cancer-treatment-more-successful-than-surgery-claim-British-scientists.html

http://askville.amazon.com/Pregnancy-swimming-dolphins-prohibited/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4508520
Furthermore, this blast is delivered through water, which is 60 times more efficient than air for sound transference, to a body that is three-quarters fluid. It is believed that ultrasound resonance within the cerebrospinal fluid is especially important due to the fluid’s key influence on the brain and spinal cord

A deep tissue heating modality reaching underlying tissues as deep as 1 to 5 centimeters, it is used to treat musculo-skeletal injuries, back and joint conditions, limited range of motion, soft tissue injuries, and chronic conditions.

http://www.jointrehab.com/therapeutic-ultrasound.htm
Treatment is administered directly which penetrates the tissues, increases blood flow, relaxes muscle spasms, repairs damaged tissue, and dramatically speeds the healing process. It creates permanent, physical changes and repairs both hard and soft tissues problems.

all the following come from this one link:http://www.sportsinjuryclinic.net/cybertherapist/general/ultrasound.html

Contraindications For Use:

As ultrasound is thought to affect the tissue repair process and so it is also highly possible that it may affect diseased tissue tissue in an abnormal fashion. In addition the proposed increase in blood may also function in spreading malignancies around the body. Therefore a number of contraindications should be followed when using therapeutic ultrasound:

Do not use if the patient suffers from:

Malignant or cancerous tissue
Acute infections
Risk of haemorrhage
Severely ischeamic tissue
Recent history if venous thrombosis
Exposed neural tissue
Suspicion of a bone fracture
If the patient is pregnant
Do not use in the region of the gonads (sex organs), the active bone growth plates of children, or the eye.

that should be enough to get you started.. and maybe hungry enough to start playing with search terms =)

Conspiracy of Labour: Electronic Foetal Monitoring

Call it a moment of clarity. Call it an abrupt insight. Call it a grand conspiracy theory (of which I have many.... but that's another- many other- rants). It hit me all at once while I was in labour with Kael last month, though I forgot about it until this week.

Now I'm not a doctor or a scientist, so I don't have any insider information on this- but if there is a logical reason that I'm missing, please feel free to let me in on the secret.

WHY are Electronic Foetal Monitors (EFM) so ridiculously cumbersome and antiquated?

I was hooked up to one of those damn monitors when I was in labour almost 19 years ago with my eldest son- two palm sized clunky disks that have to be held against your pregnant contracting belly by two stretchy elastic belts and hooked up to a tangle of wires that lead to a metal box covered with dials and switches that pukes out a continuous strip of graph paper. (and possibly goes "ping"). I remember even back then thinking "this is ridiculous!!". Imagine my surprise when I went into the hospital last month while in labour with my youngest son only to discover that they had the same monitor!! I Swear!! It was exactly the same! Still ridiculously uncomfortable and stupidly designed...

Why?

No, really: WHY?!

Think about it:

-19 years ago Cellular phones were the size of tissue boxes. Now they are so small that they get lost in your pocket

-19 years ago Computers were monstrosities with 300MB of memory. Now we have cell phones that have 32GBs and still can get lost in your pocket. Hell! You can go to your corner electronics shop and buy a 1 TB external hard drive for less than you paid for a Sony Diskman back in 1991!!

-19 years ago if you got lost while out driving you had the choice of stopping and asking for directions or buying a map book the size of a small encyclopaedia. Now you have the choice of pressing the On Star button, or following the GPS on your dash board, punching the address into your GPS app. in your smartphone, or looking it up on Google maps on your laptop.

...Do you see where I'm going with this?

Technology in the last two decades has advanced in leaps and bounds in every industry known on this planet. So why has one of the most basic medical contraptions used in one of the busiest hospital departments has never even gotten a cosmetic make over, let alone a technological facelift? Even tongue depressors have been gussied up with flavours and colours!!

Here is where the conspiracy theory comes in. The only reason (that I can see) for the foetal monitoring system to of resisted any form of change is because.....

....Doctors and hospitals don't want it to change. Why would they? It completely works in their favour. Since science has already proven without a shadow of a doubt that EFM is not only NOT saving the lives of babies or mothers, and that it's actually causing more harm than good in 90% of labours, then we need to ask ourselves WHY it's still the regular procedure in every L&D ward in North America. Here are my thoughts on the subject.

Electronic Foetal Monitoring is used because:

- It keeps the labouring mother strapped to a bed. If she's tied up in a tangle of wires and straps, then she can't be wandering around the labour ward, can't be moving around to be comfortable and to assume positions that will ease her labour surges and facilitate an easier birth. No, it simply makes the lives of medical staff easier, by immobilizing the mother.

-If the mother is strapped to a bed and tied to this electronic monitor, then the hospital doesn't need to assign a nurse or birthing attendant to watch over her and take care of her and reassure her- why would they? They have the all powerful all omnipotent EFM there keeping track of every little bleep!

- If the mothers entire labour has been recorded on the EFM then the hospital and doctors have a permanent record of every second of the labour and something they can refer to in a court of law... that they can point to, to defend their need to interfere with medical interventions. The fact that these blips and bleeps can be interpreted anyway they want doesn't really matter... apparently.

- and of course the use of EFM makes lots of money for the medical machine!!! As the studies have shown for years, the more the EFM is routinely used, the more medical interventions are used, and the more interventions that are used, require the use of even further interventions to support and remedy the problems caused by the first interventions to begin with...which all costs money... lots and lots of money.

Apparently some knowledgeable people agree with me.

Margaret Lent wrote in her article entitled: The Medical and Legal Risks of the Electronic Fetal Monitor- Journal article, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 51, 1999

"The story of electronic foetal heart monitoring (EFM) reveals the problems posed to physicians and patients by the hasty acceptance of relatively unproven devices and techniques. When EFM was introduced in the 1960s, enthusiastic advocates promised that by enabling the continuous, electronic monitoring of the fetal heart rate during labor and delivery, EFM would enable physicians to detect dangerous heart rate patterns and to intervene more promptly than with intermittent auscultation, the long-employed technique of periodically monitoring fetal heart rate with an obstetrical stethoscope. Thus, announced EFM proponents, the device would reduce rates of neonatal illness and death. Based on these promises, EFM became the predominant form of fetal heart monitoring by the mid- to late 1970s.(1) However, experts now conclude that these promises remain unfulfilled and that EFM is, at best, a "disappointing story."(2) In the twenty-five years of its almost ubiquitous use, no randomized controlled trial has demonstrated that electronic monitoring does a better job of saving babies or improving infant health than intermittent auscultation.(3) Moreover, studies indicate that the inaccuracy of the technique prompts unnecessary interventions and contributes to the nation's excessively high rate of cesarean delivery, a major surgical procedure which places mother and infant at greater risk of injury and death than noncesarean delivery.(4) Despite the increased risks, the device remains employed in nearly all American delivery rooms. Continued high use of EFM is often attributed to physician concerns about medical malpractice liability and professional inertia. As one EFM critic has observed: "[Doctors] talk about [abandoning EFM] at conferences and at [medical] rounds and listen intently and all of that, but it's not measurable in terms of changes in behavior. Everybody's waiting for the next person to get brave."(5)""

And one of my personal heroes, Dr. Marsden Wagner- former Director of Women & Childrens Health for the World Health Organization (WHO) writes this in his article "Technology in Birth: First Do No Harm"

"There are other cascades of interventions during labour. For example, routine electronic foetal monitoring leads to more caesarean sections, which lead to babies with respiratory distress syndrome or prematurity, which leads to putting these babies into newborn intensive care units. Every one of these interventions carries risks for mother and baby! It is easy to see how the high-tec approach to birth actually creates many new problems. Rather than change their habits, however, doctors conclude that birth is quite risky, when in reality doctors have caused it to be risky....Doctors' fear of litigation is another non-medical motivation for using technology. Doctors are afraid both of having to go to court and of having to pay higher malpractice insurance premiums. Two prime examples of the unnecessary use of technology due to doctors' fear of litigation are routine electronic foetal monitoring during normal labour and caesarean section with little or no medical justification."

So, why would they change it? Why would they create a better, more reliable, less dangerous way of monitoring babies and labouring mothers? If they did, they'd loose. If they did, then maybe the public would realized that they have been duped for years and years and MAYBE the same public would demand an accounting of all the problems the medical machine has caused with their ridiculous toy. Better to stick to their guns and pretend that the problem doesn't exist. Besides.... who's going to question the all powerful all mighty medical machine? I mean, they only have our best interests at heart, right?

Are They Safe? The Risks of Prenatal Ultra Sounds

"The authors found that almost 1 in 5 of all pregnant women -- including those at low-risk of complications -- now receive 4 or more ultrasounds in the second and third trimesters."

While the article below seems to worry more about higher anxiety levels, invasive procedures such as amniocentesis and increasing health care costs - which is not to be poo poohed and definitely warrants some concern- they have left out the very real dangers of prenatal Ultra Sounds.

ARE THEY SAFE?

Ultra Sounds during pregnancy can not be assumed to be safe. Scientific work in Norway followed up on children at age eight or nine, born of mothers who had taken part in two controlled trials of routine ultrasound in pregnancy, they were able to show that routine ultrasonography was associated with a symptom of possible neurological problems.

An editorial in Lancet, A British medical journal, stated: "There have been no randomized controlled trials of adequate size to assess whether there are adverse effects on growth and development of children exposed in utero to ultrasound. Indeed, the necessary studies to ascertain safety may never be done, because of lack of interest in such research".

On top of that, there are no national or international standards for the output characteristics of ultrasound equipment. The result is the shocking situation described in a commentary in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, in which ultrasound machines in use on pregnant women range in output power from extremely high to extremely low, all with equal effect. The commentary reads, "If the machines with the lowest powers have been shown to be diagnostically adequate, how can one possibly justify exposing the patient to a dose 5,000 times greater?". It goes on to urge government guidelines on the outut of ultrasound equipment and for legislation making it mandatory for equipment manufacturers to state the output characteristics. As far as is known, this has not yet been done in any country. Safety is also clearly related to the skill of the ultrasound operator. At present, there is no known training or certification for medical users of ultrasound apparatus in any country.

As the FDA warned in 2004, "ultrasound is a form of energy, and even at low levels, laboratory studies have shown it can produce physical effect in tissue, such as jarring vibrations and a rise in temperature." This is consistent with research conducted in 2001 in which an ultrasound transducer aimed directly at a miniature hydrophone placed in a woman's uterus recorded sound "as loud as a subway train coming into the station."

A rise in temperature of fetal tissue might not seem alarming, but temperature increases can cause significant damage to a developing fetus's central nervous system, according to research. Across mammalian species, elevated maternal or fetal body temperatures have been shown to result in birth defects in offspring. An extensive review of literature on maternal hyperthermia in a range of mammals found that "central nervous system (CNS) defects appear to be the most common consequence of hyperthermia in all species, and cell death is believed to be one major explanation for these effects."

In fact, the FDA and professional medical associations know that prenatal ultrasound can be dangerous to humans, which is why they have consistently warned against the non-medical or "keepsake" ultrasound portrait studios that have cropped up in malls throughout the country.

The risks to the baby are potentially higher in commercial enterprises due to the higher acoustic output required for high-definition images, a potentially long session—as technicians hunt for suitable images—and the employment of ultrasound operators who may have no medical background or appropriate training. Meanwhile across North America 3 & 4D ultrasounds have become the "rage", with parents paying hundreds of dollars to have a videos and fancy 3 dimensional images of their unborn baby. Some parents gush that it helps them to bond to their babies before they are born...... But is this "bonding" really worth the risks?

When you combine the unknown factors of prenatal ultra sounds on the growing fetus and the fact that the known risks are making many professionals questions the risk/benefit ratios, with the facts that more and more studies are showing that most U/S's are not changing neonatal outcomes.... maybe we need to question the reason we are having them. I have always had an early first trimester U/S with all of my pregnancies. I convinced my self that these were necessary because of my history of early first trimester miscarriages... I "needed" to know that the pregnancy was viable, that my baby had a heart beat and was thriving. Then of course there was the second trimester Ultra Sound to test for various chromosomal and birth defects. Then the doctor wants to do another one in the third trimester to measure the baby, oh and another one the moment you go past 40 weeks gestation to measure the baby again and the amniotic fluid levels ...and perhaps a 5th after 41 weeks gestation.... you know... just to check everything again.....

All of a sudden what began as a low risk, totally normal pregnancy has been turned into cascade of medical interventions before labour even begins. Never mind the three ring circus of Labour & Delivery in the average hospital that your baby will be put through before it even gasps it's first breath. Where do we draw the line? Making decisions for our childrens health and best interests are the most difficult choices a parent will ever make. As parents we need to educate our selves because only an educated choice is an informed choice. And some choices are too important to leave up to others.


Further reading on Ultra Sounds
http://www.birthinternational.com/articles/wagner02.html

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

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

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_1709159.htm

Prenatal Ultrasonography Has Increased 55 Percent for Pregnant Women, Even in Low-Risk Pregnancies

ScienceDaily (Jan. 5, 2010) — Current use of prenatal ultrasounds in women with singleton pregnancies is 55% greater than in 1996, even in low-risk pregnancies. More than one-third (37%) of pregnant women now receive 3 or more ultrasound tests in the second and third trimesters of a given pregnancy, according to an article in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal). The increase in the use of multiple ultrasound scans per pregnancy has been more pronounced in low-risk than high-risk pregnancies, suggesting a need to review current practices.

Current guidelines recommend two ultrasounds in an uncomplicated pregnancy -- one in the first trimester and one in the second to screen for fetal and genetic anomalies.

The study included almost 1.4 million singleton pregnancies between 1996 and 2006 in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. It included both low-risk and high-risk pregnancies, the latter defined by the presence of a maternal comorbidity, need for genetics counselling or a prior complicated pregnancy. The study accounted for the recent introduction of first trimester nuchal translucency scanning.

The authors found that almost 1 in 5 of all pregnant women -- including those at low-risk of complications -- now receive 4 or more ultrasounds in the second and third trimesters.

"Our findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that some health interventions most beneficial to high-risk individuals are frequently directed at apparently low-risk populations," write Dr. John You of McMaster University and coauthors.

Obstetricians practice in the highest medical-legal risk environment and may feel the need to reassure patients with a safe and relatively cost-effective ultrasound test.

"While the benefits of prenatal ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies may be more clear, the value of repeat ultrasounds in low-risk patients is not," write the authors. Since the detection of minor benign findings is increasingly more common with technological advances such as pregnancy ultrasound, they can cause anxiety and lead to invasive procedures such as amniocentesis. Increasing screening in low-risk women may also be contributing to increasing health care costs.

The authors conclude that more judicious use of prenatal ultrasounds in low-risk women is required, but there should be careful discussion over the best approach to balance frequency and medical need.

READ the original article HERE

Having posted that horrifying video this morning of an over sized barbie giving birth..... *shudder*.... I've been thinking on the topic of how medicalize birth has endangered women and babies. and thinking about the horrible truth: that it has become so mainstream, so "Normal", so Accepted, that women and their partners don't even question it any more.

Not a week, not a day goes by that I don't read comments on birthing/pregnancy forums about scheduled inductions and caesarean sections or about women planning their epidurals in advance. Birth stories of women told the most outrageous lies by the medical machine to validate the doctors opinion of why all these interventions are necessary.

I have days when I literally rant at the computer screen (these days apparently happen often enough that my kids no longer even take note, lol), and I want to scream, to tell these women that NO! They don't need to labour on their backs strapped to a plethora of monitors, with an IV and epidural in place. ...... ARGH!!!!

I tell people and try to educate people all the time- both in real life and online- I try to make people aware that THEY need to do the research and find out for themselves. And I post articles and studies to try to open the eyes of those that are blinded by faith in a medical machine that plays to a different drum.

This is one of my most favorite articles ever written on the topic of Birth and the dangers and risks of interventions. I have lost count of how many times I've posted this article on Forums, blogs, chats, web sites, Facebook...... If every pregnant woman and her partner read this article, I'm SURE that at least some of them would wake up from their stupor and see the reality of modern child birth.

Technology in Birth: First Do No Harm

By Marsden Wagner, MD

© 2000 Midwifery Today, Inc. All rights reserved.

A woman in Iowa was recently referred to a university hospital during her labor because of possible complications. There, it was decided that a cesarean section should be done. After the surgery was completed and the woman was resting post-operatively in her hospital room, she went into shock and died. An autopsy showed that during the cesarean section the surgeon had accidentally nicked the woman's aorta, the biggest artery in the body, leading to internal hemorrhage, shock and death.

Cesarean section can save the life of the mother or her baby. Cesarean section can also kill a mother or her baby. How can this be? Because every single procedure or technology used during pregnancy and birth carries risks, both for mother and baby. The decision to use technology is a judgment call—it may make things either better or worse.

We are living in the age of technology. Ever since we succeeded in going to the moon, we have believed that technology can do everything to solve all of our problems. So it should come as no surprise that doctors and hospitals are using more and more technology on pregnant and birthing women. Has it solved all the problems that can arise during birth? Hardly. Let's look at the recent track record.

Has the recent increasing use of technology during pregnancy and birth resulted in fewer damaged or dead babies? In the United States there has been no decrease in the past 30 years in the number of babies with cerebral palsy. The biggest killer of newborn babies is a birth weight that is too low, but the number of too-small babies born has not decreased the past 20 years. The number of babies who die while still in the womb has not decreased in more than a decade. While the past 10 years has seen a slight drop in the number of babies who die during their first week after birth, the scientific data suggest an increase in the number of babies who survive the first week but have permanent brain damage.

Is the increasing use of technology saving the lives of more pregnant and birthing women? In the United States the scientific data show no decrease during the past 10 years in the number of women who die around the time of birth (maternal mortality). In fact, recent data suggest a frightening increase in the number of women dying during pregnancy and birth in the United States. So it may be that the increase in the use of birth technologies is not only not saving more women's lives but it is also killing more women. This possibility has a reasonable scientific explanation: cesarean section and epidural anesthesia have both been used more and more in this country and we know that both cesarean section and epidural block can result in death....

HERE to read the complete article on Midwifery Today