00:00
00:00
View Profile Gramiscus
Hey. I just kind of do my own thing. I'm pretty forward and honest, and prefer to keep things real. On forums I really don't give a crap so don't take anything personal I say (unless you are a weak-bellied baby man). Good times.

33, Male

braaaaaaiiiiiinss ss

Location not disclosed

Joined on 8/7/01

Level:
9
Exp Points:
840 / 900
Exp Rank:
57,620
Vote Power:
5.14 votes
Rank:
Town Watch
Global Rank:
67,077
Blams:
83
Saves:
21
B/P Bonus:
2%
Whistle:
Normal
Medals:
765

Posted by Gramiscus - May 3rd, 2013


So, apparently one needs to organize a petition that can collect 100,000 signatures within a month to get attention at the Federal level. This seems like an arbitrary number, but challenge accepted, sir.

So, let's begin.

BACKGROUND:
Right now ultrasound is not heavily regulated. Practitioners have complete judgment over how much ultrasound is safe. Yet, the ONLY scientific data available that practitioners can study to base safety calls on are inconclusive, obsolete, and questionably clinically relevant.. There is a central problem that, if addressed, will answer all issues surrounding this.

THE PROBLEM:
Today, sonographers do not collect detailed information about sonogram sessions. The only data available to scientists studying ultrasound's effects on the population are the number of scans performed. The number of scans is NOT an accurate representation of dose.

To explain this: 2 mothers have 5 scans a piece. Mother A's scans each last 5 mins, totalling 25min exposure. Mother B's scans each last 60 mins, totalling 300min exposure. The epidemiologist only knows that both mothers received 5 scans -- thus, any potential consequences of ultrasound could NOT be determined by judgments based on number of scans alone.

Yet, a meta-analysis on the safety of ultrasound released by the World Health Organization makes this correlation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19291813). In their conclusion, they state- "According to the available evidence, exposure to diagnostic ultrasonography during pregnancy appears to be safe." Little do they mention that there is a near complete absence of evidence. This is misleading, and many people have become indignant about safety issues because of it.

THE SOLUTION:
There needs to be Federal or State intervention advocating that sonographers collect more detailed information about scan sessions. This includes duration and intensity amounts over time. US machines already estimate exposure risks in the form of Mechanical and Thermal indices on the display screen. These numbers could be easily recorded over the duration of a scan and uploaded to a database.

Accurate data collection, of course, would necessitate ultrasound machines be calibrated. Right now a huge number of ultrasound machines in practice are malfunctioning (http://ehjcimaging.oxfordjournals.org/content/1 0/3/389.full.pdf). There are currently no Federal or State requirements to keep them calibrated so businesses often opt to not do so. This means that even if a practitioner is trying to be conservative, because of common machine errors they may unknowingly expose a child to more ultrasound than they think is safe.

Requiring that machines be calibrated would promote STEM jobs for engineers and technicians because of how many ultrasound machines are currently in circulation.

All of you physicists looking for relevant work in your field should definitely support this.

All of you parents, practitioners, and scientists who believe in evidence-based care should support this.

Sign a petition that aims to fix this:
http://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-
prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-res earch-and-regulation

You can learn more about this issue from others.

Read the blog of internationally renowned baby-brainologist, Dr. MF Casanova -
http://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/

Read the independent research website of engineer Mrs. Parrish Hirasaki -
www.ultrasound-autism.org

Read the website of radiologist Dr. David A Toms (who does not believe ultrasound is harmful, but still is aware of these huge safety issues):
http://www.fetalultrasoundsafety.net/

Stay tuned for updates to an upcoming YouTube channel. It'll be awesome, promise.


Posted by Gramiscus - January 24th, 2013


Long story short: excessive prenatal ultrasounds could be contributing to the worldwide increase in autism and developmental disorders. There are tons of scientific papers that discuss side effects of ultrasound that can cause brain damage. You can read more about it on the websites below.

The reason why doctors believe ultrasound is safe is because there is no evidence that it hurts people in epidemiology. However, it is impossible to perform valid epidemiological studies. Practitioners do not collect detailed information about scan sessions. So, no dose data is available to researchers.

I believe in evidence based care and First Do No Harm.

Sign a petition that aims to fix this:
http://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-
prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-res earch-and-regulation

You can learn more about this issue from others.

Read the blog of internationally renowned baby-brainologist, Dr. MF Casanova -
http://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/

Read the independent research website of engineer Mrs. Parrish Hirasaki -
www.ultrasound-autism.org

Read the website of radiologist Dr. David A Toms (who does not believe ultrasound is harmful, but still is aware of these huge safety issues):
http://www.fetalultrasoundsafety.net/