Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to make it clear about the dangers of prenatal ultrasound, because this technology is accepted by the antenatal teams all over the world as safe and effective, and the truth is that no long term studies have ever been done to determine the long term effects on the fetus in utero. Sadly, money is the winner over this technology, and not those precious babies in the womb. Babies are not guinea pigs. Autism came from somewhere.
Did you know that prenatal ultrasound delivers soundwaves to your baby, the volume of which is the sound of a subway train. It is not your sweet baby waving at you as they cover their ears in the womb, that baby is in extreme discomfort.
Dr Robert S Mendelsohn on Pregnancy and the Dangers of Ultrasound
I shared my sad news on Facebook Group, RHOGAM Rebellion, several days ago of our missed miscarriage, which was detected at our dating ultrasound on Monday 13 January 2025, of which I asked the sonographer to be as brief as possible and use the lowest possible setting.
I was meant to be 12+5, but the baby was only 8+1 with no heartbeat. I had absolutely no bleeding or cramping all of this five weeks, however, I suddenly see a little faint blood after the ultrasound, which took less than a minute. If the baby was gone, then my body wasn’t realising this and I didn’t want to experience an infection, so I got a second scan at the Early Pregnancy Unit on Friday 17 January 2025, and boy did she hold the transducer on that little one’s heart. Told me I was 8+2, no heartbeat.
I was booked in for a D&C Monday, but the bleeding began that night, and I passed lots of clots and pooled blood the following day. Just makes me wonder, and from a lot of what other pregnant women in this Facebook group were saying when they said they miscarried naturally at home after visiting the hospital. I believe those ultrasounds cause miscarriage. I can’t link my pregnancy loss to these recent ultrasounds, as the baby had already died five weeks earlier, but the sudden bleeding in me - where did that come from when I had had zero symptoms of a miscarriage. I have to wonder.
Jim West — 50 Chinese Human Studies on Extreme Risk Prenatal Ultrasound
Article copyright: harvoa | 50 Human Studies: A New Bibliography
Western authorities claim there are virtually no clinical human exposure studies on the hazards of diagnostic ultrasound (DUS). But actually, to the contrary, high-tech clinical studies dominate the modern era, clearly indicating hazards.
Jim West, a New York–based independent researcher of environmental medical issues, has assembled an unprecedented bibliography of about 50 Chinese Human Studies and 10 overviews from 1988 to 2011. These show fetal damage following in utero exposure to DUS within one minute or more of exposure. Intensity levels were low compared to those used in Western clinical practice. Women volunteers were exposed to DUS, and their terminated fetuses examined for biological effects. Damage was observed for neurons, DNA, cornea, chorionic villi, ovaries, testes, kidneys, glands and more. These studies are not readily available online. Only a few of these studies are listed (and crudely) in the PubMed database (U.S. NIH).
Few Western studies have been conducted since 1991 when the US FDA raised the machine intensity limit by a factor of eight. Ultrasound critics have long argued that the rising epidemic of childhood diseases since the early 1990s is due to the increasing intensities and sessions of routine ultrasound. Additionally, machines and operators have not been well regulated.
The Chinese Human Studies give considerable cause for concern. Jim’s book, A New Bibliography, has been commended by scientists, doctors, and environmentalists. Jim advocates for a major re-evaluation of the practice of diagnostic ultrasound.
READ MORE: harvoa | 50 Human Studies: A New Bibliography
DOWNLOAD PDF – 50 Human Studies in Utero
Human Studies Condemn Ultrasound
Article copyright: Human Studies Condemn Ultrasound | GreenMedInfo | Blog entry
When it comes to pregnancy, this intervention has slipped stealthily into the experience of nearly every pregnant woman alive today. But is it safe for expectant mothers or their babies?
We want to trust. We want, almost need, to believe that medical and pharmaceutical interventions have been vetted. When our doctors tell us not to worry, we want to take their word for it.
Unfortunately, history has shown us that every recalled drug, every banned intervention, from Vioxx to shoe-store foot x-rays bore government-approved claims for safety and efficacy before they were pulled from the market.
Ultrasound may be no different. Even the name seems gentle, doesn’t it? Ultrasound. It evokes the spa-like experience of the dark, quiet room, the painless glide of the wand over the skin.
When it comes to pregnancy, this intervention has slipped stealthily into the experience of nearly every pregnant woman alive today.
READ MORE: Human Studies Condemn Ultrasound | GreenMedInfo | Blog entry
DOWNLOAD PDF: Human Studies Condemn Ultrasound
Questions about Prenatal Ultrasound and the Alarming Increase in Autism
Article Copyright: Midwifery Today Questions about Prenatal Ultrasound and the Alarming Increase in Autism The heart and science of birth
In May 2006, figures from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed what too many parents and educators already knew: The incidence of autism is high, making it an “urgent public health issue,” according to Dr. José Cordero, director of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. Only 12 years ago autism spectrum disorder (ASD) was so rare that it occurred in just one in 10,000 births.(1) Today ASD, which is characterized by a range of learning and social impairments, now occurs in one in 166 children (2)—with no sign of leveling off.
The steep increase in autism goes beyond the US: It is a global phenomenon, occurring in industrialized nations around the world. In the UK, teachers report one in 86 primary school children has special needs related to ASD.(3)
The cause of autism has been pinned on everything from “emotionally remote” mothers (since discredited) to vaccines, genetics, immunological disorders, environmental toxins and maternal infections. Today most researchers theorize that autism is caused by a complex interplay of genetics and environmental triggers. A far simpler possibility worthy of investigation is the pervasive use of prenatal ultrasound, which can cause potentially dangerous thermal effects.
Health practitioners involved in prenatal care have reason to be concerned about the use of ultrasound. Although proponents point out that ultrasound has been used in obstetrics for 50 years and early studies indicated it was safe for both mother and child, enough research has implicated it in neurodevelopmental disorders to warrant serious attention.
DOWNLOAD PDF: Questions about Prenatal Ultrasound and the Alarming Increase in Autism
Ultrasound Exposure During Pregnancy – Links to Learning Disabilities, ADD and Behavior Disorders
Article Copyright: Causes of Learning Disabilities and Attention Deficit Disorder During Pregnancy
This report is the result of a 1997 Graduate Student Research Project conducted through the Special Education Department at the University of South Florida. The project involved extensive research of published peer reviewed medical journal articles which have shown environmental and chemical exposure factors can cause damage to the delicate brain growth processes in the unborn child during pregnancy, thereby demonstrating potential to cause Learning Disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorder, Hyperactivity and other child behavior anomalies.
This report generates serious concern as public exposure to identified chemical sources continues to grow due to increased use in homes, jobs and consumer products. The impact of the resulting decreased quality of offspring upon the families, schools and society is discussed.
READ MORE: Causes of Learning Disabilities and Attention Deficit Disorder During Pregnancy
DOWNLOAD PDF: Ultrasound Exposure During Pregnancy
Ultrasound: More Harm than Good?
Article Copyright: Midwifery Today Ultrasound: More Harm than Good? The heart and science of birth
The ultrasound story begins in July 1955 when an obstetrician in Scotland, Ian Donald, borrowed an industrial ultrasound machine used to detect flaws in metal and tried it out on some tumours, which he had removed previously, using a beefsteak as the control. He discovered that different tumours produced different echoes. Soon Donald was using ultrasound not only for abdominal tumours in women but also on pregnant women. Articles surfaced in the medical journals, and its use quickly spread throughout the world.
The dissemination of ultrasound into clinical obstetrics is reflected in inappropriate statements made in the obstetrical literature regarding its appropriate use: “One of the lessons of history is, of course, that it repeats itself. The development of obstetric ultrasound thus mirrors the application to human pregnancy of diagnostic X-rays. Both, within a few years of discovery, were being used to diagnose pregnancy and to measure the growth and normality of the fetus. In 1935 it was said that “antenatal work without the routine use of X-rays is no more justifiable than would be the treatment of fractures“ (Reece, 1935: 489). In 1978: “It can be stated without qualification that modern obstetrics and gynecology cannot be practiced without the use of diagnostic ultrasound“ (Hassani, 1978). Two years later, it was said that “ultrasound is now no longer a diagnostic test applied to a few pregnancies regarded on clinical grounds as being at risk. It can now be used to screen all pregnancies and should be regarded as an integral part of antenatal care“ (Campbell & Little, 1980). On neither of these dates did evidence qualify the speakers to make these assertions.
READ MORE: Midwifery Today Ultrasound: More Harm than Good? The heart and science of birth
DOWNLOAD PDF: Ultrasound More Harm than Good
Ultrasound: Prematurity and Potential Risks
Article Copyright: Midwifery Today Ultrasound: Prematurity and Potential Risks The heart and science of birth
Over 50 years ago, Ian Donald experimented with using ultrasound to investigate babies in the womb. In 1980 he warned, “Sonar is not a new medical religion…nor an end in itself. A tool exploited for its own sake is no better than a saw given to a small boy for cutting wood, who must presently look around the house for suitable objects of furniture inviting amputation … the possibility of hazard should be kept under constant review” (Donald 1980, 1). Sadly, that has not happened. In 1982, AIMS (Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services) wrote to the Minister of Health, Gerard Vaughan, expressing our concern about the widespread use of ultrasound before it had been evaluated. To our astonishment we were told that the issue had been discussed by the Medical Research Council and they concluded, “The use of ultrasonic techniques have become so widespread that a controlled trial along the lines originally proposed would no longer be ethically possible” (Beech and Robinson 1994). The ethics of exposing every fetus to an unevaluated technology was not considered important. It took over 30 years to identify the risks of diethylstilbestrol and 65 years to recognise the dangers of X-rays; one can only speculate how long it is going to take before the risks of ultrasound are properly evaluated. In the meantime we no longer have an unexposed population with which to make comparisons. Ian Donald said he would not use antenatal ultrasound before three months gestation, but now all embryos are routinely scanned and there is no data on safety, including possible effects on miscarriage rates.
READ MORE: Midwifery Today Ultrasound: Prematurity and Potential Risks The heart and science of birth
DOWNLOAD PDF: Ultrasound Prematurity and Potential Risk
Ultrasound
Quotes
“PARENTS, think about this ~~ Ultrasound is used to open the Blood brain barrier in brain cancer treatment. Now listen up, PREGNANT women often get ultrasounds AND are encouraged to get vaccines during pregnancy. This means that Baby’s BBB is being put at serious risk, even before birth. Solution: Ultrasound is not as safe as we are led to believe, and vaccines during pregnancy are never safe. Avoid both.” ~ Donna Voetee”Ultrasound is used to break down tumors so what do we think might be happening to the cells of our children when they blast these frequencies at them while their in the womb? Ultrasound is used to open the blood brain barrier. It is used as a form of male contraception and it works extremely well. The heating of the scrotum causes infertility – sometimes permanent and sometimes temporary. So what do we think is happening to the developing ovaries and testes of babies when they point those transducers right at their genitals to discover the sex?
What do we think is happening to babies’ brains when the tissue is heated up and when cavitation is an absolute guarantee? Ultrasound is known to cause intrauterine growth retardation. The more exposure, the more likely this retardation is to occur. It has been linked to autism and other forms of brain damage and neurological problems in children. It is known to cause genetic alterations in chromosomes, changes in DNA (which can lead to cancer and other illnesses and birth defects), disruption of the spleen’s ability to produce antibodies with which to fight disease, damage to the immune system and central nervous system, birth defects (especially genital and urinary tract defects due to blasts to the genitals to find out the sex), damage to the heart (250% increase in heart defects between 1989 and 1996), microcephaly, preterm labor, miscarriage, liver cell damage, brain enzyme damage, decreased blood clotting ability, low birth weight, delayed speech, left-handedness, malformed bones in the legs, a shorter leg, eye problems – cataracts – corneal damage from free radicals, dyslexia and much more.
DOWNLOAD PDF: ULTRASOUND
Ultrasound
Article Copyright: Ultrasound | AIMS
In the last issue, AIMS Chair Beverley Beech reported on ultrasound advertising. We report back on the response of the Advertising Standards Authority.
Women are urged to have a series of ultrasound examinations during their pregnancies to ‘check’ that their babies are okay. They are not told that ultrasound can only detect some abnormalities, or that there can be false alarms which can turn a happy pregnancy into a rollercoaster of anxiety, or that ultrasound is not risk free. The attractive idea of seeing the baby in the uterus has led commercial companies to advertise 3D and 4D ultrasound pictures that really do show realistic close-ups. AIMS wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to complain about the false and misleading claims in: the Babybond’s advertisements in the National Childbirth Trust’s magazine; the Baby Beats advert in Tatler magazine, and quotes from Professor Stuart Campbell in The Times (see AIMS Journal Vol 16, No4). AIMS complained about the false and misleading claims for 3D and 4D ultrasound. In our letter to the ASA we said that the advertisements contravened the ASA standards. To our surprise, we were told that the ASA could do nothing about advertisements on the web. The magazine ads cleverly refer the reader to the web where their claims are made and thereby avoid ASA sanctions. ‘[The] ASA believes that applying the Code to all online claims would go too far into regulating the ‘relationship’ and would, moreover, prove impossible to enforce effectively’. They suggested we take up our complaint with our local Citizens Advice Bureau or Trading Standards Department.
READ MORE: Ultrasound | AIMS
DOWNLOAD PDF: ULTRASOUND – AIMS