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 =)

Discovery Channel: Baby crying in uterio

Well, is this not the proof that babies are not happy being assaulted with Ultrasound waves?  Discovery Channel shows a video of a foetus crying in the womb during an Ultrasound exam.
Discovery Channel Video   (sorry, I can't figure out how to put the video here!)

  Honestly, it might just be that I'm struggling with the post-partum blues, but it made me cry to watch it.  Seeing that tiny baby silently crying in reaction to the horrifying noise of the ultrasound....

Yet, still ultrasounds are treated with a cavalier attitude.  No one warns new parents of the risks of ultrasound waves on their babies.  Hell, its a rare thing to even find a medical professional that will admit that there is any repercussions to ultrasounds even thought many medical organizations are now warning that unnecessary ultrasounds should be avoided.  I write further on this in my article  Are They Safe? The Risks of Prenatal Ultra Sounds

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 subway train coming into the station?!  Is it any wonder that the baby was crying?!

Yet regardless of FDA (and other major medical associations) cautions about the use of ultrasounds, hundreds of thousands of expecting parents are still flocking to clinics and private ultrasound "stores" to have 3D videos and pictures taken of their babies in the womb, sometimes for as long as 45 minutes to an hour. To add to the cautions, 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 output of ultrasound equipment and for legislation making it mandatory for equipment manufacturers to state the output characteristics.

...So we see a baby crying, but is anyone listening ?

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