50 (In Utero) Human Studies Identify High Risks of Prenatal Ultrasound

by Sarah Healthy Pregnancy, Baby & ChildComments: 48

prenatal ultrasound dangers confirmed by human studies

The practice of ultrasound during pregnancy is highly controversial with authorities acknowledging that there are clear hazards as found in animal and cell studies. Nevertheless, the routine practice continues with multiple scans encouraged in most prenatal settings even with low risk pregnancies because ultrasound hazards have supposedly not been confirmed by human studies. In addition, Western medical authorities claim that there isn’t a single official case of ultrasound damage.

The Catch-22 is that human studies on the effects of ultrasound in the United States and other Western nations are discouraged and virtually banned because such research is considered unethical.

Moreover, funding on the safety of ultrasound screening on the fetus virtually stopped since 1991, when, strangely enough, the FDA raised the limit for machine ultrasound intensity levels by a factor of eight.

Misleading statements of assurance such as this authoritative review, submitted to the Journal of Ultrasound, by the United States Marine Corp and the FDA, state:

Although laboratory studies have shown that diagnostic levels of ultrasound can produce physical effects in tissue, there is no evidence from human studies of a causal relationship between diagnostic ultrasound exposure during pregnancy and adverse biological effects to the fetus.

The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) works with industry, scientists, and government. It might be convenient to think that the AIUM overly influences the diagnostic ultrasound dilemma, however, many of its members are ethically concerned. AIUM issues guidelines to reduce exposure via ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable), and advocate for operator safety education. Unfortunately, those guidelines are often ignored, misunderstood, viewed as an inconvenience, or difficult to implement due to the competitive business aspect of medical practice.

The real truth of the ultrasound dilemma is revealed and all confusion ends, however, in the face of Chinese research conducted over the past two decades.

50 Human Studies Demonstrate Causal Damage from Prenatal Ultrasound

The dangers of ultrasound to the health of the human fetus has finally come to light with human studies from China that demonstrate irrefutable evidence that human babies are always harmed in some, possibly subtle way, at minimum a trauma, from prenatal scans. This could be argued also for the low intensity modes, given studies in 1987 by Professor Mark Ellisman, PhD, in San Diego, and more recently, studies by Chen Geffen with Eitan Kimmel, PhD, in Haifa, Israel.

The Chinese studies were not wanting in potential subjects, due to the one-child policy in China in recent decades that resulted in the genocide of millions of babies, mostly girls, who were selectively aborted after the parents learned the sex of the fetus via ultrasound. In addition, human studies are surprisingly considered ethical within the context of the Chinese culture. Economically speaking, such studies will likely not continue even in China as the country has since become a world exporter of ultrasound equipment.

Study Method: Women volunteers were selected for exposure studies, and were given controlled dosages of diagnostic ultrasound before a scheduled abortion. The abortive matter, such as, the brain, kidney, eye, or chorioamnion tissue, was then examined in the laboratory via biochemical analyses and/or electron microscopy.

These causation studies are now available for examination in the Western world due to the courageous efforts of Jim West, a medical critic and researcher, whose New Bibliography reveals that the suspected hazards of ultrasound scans are now confirmed by research in modern China via approximately 50 in utero exposure studies. These occurred during a virtual explosion of ultrasound research between 1988-2011.

His recently published book, Diagnostic Ultrasound: A New Bibliography, Human Studies Conducted in Modern Chinais a must read for anyone who wishes to know much more about routine diagnostic prenatal scans that are presumed and promoted to be safe for millions of babies born each and every year.

Summary of the Data

For the 50 studies, a total of over 2,700 pregnant women, volunteering for abortion, were exposed to carefully controlled diagnostic ultrasound, and their abortive matter analysed by a total of over 100 scientists using sophisticated technology, such as various biochemical analyses to reveal changes in tissue, flow cytometry to analyze and sort cell populations by their properties, and electrophoresis to visualize DNA fragmentation. Electrophoresis is a procedure where direct current is passed through a gel plate that contains samples of chemical mixtures such as DNA. The result is a graphic spread of various DNA molecular components, which are visualized and measured. Electron microscopes (“EM”) were used to visualize sub-cellular damage.

Chinese scientists have provided the evidence that at various intensities, even those considered low by Western standards, prenatal ultrasound is more than just a “risk”. Prenatal ultrasound might be better understood as a damaging form of medical radiation when applied at the levels of exposure not uncommonly found in clinical scenarios.

Used with the permission of Jim West

Health Impact of Ultrasounds on the Human Fetus 

Based on these 50 human studies, it can be persuasively argued that prenatal ultrasound is responsible for causation or initiation of the following conditions and disorders:

  • Autism Spectrum Disorder
  • ADHD
  • Genetic damage, inheritable by future generations.
  • Jaundice
  • Childhood cancers, e.g., leukemia, lymphoma, brain, etc.
  • Chorioamnionitis (inflammation of the maternal-fetal junction)
  • Personality anomalies
  • Ophthalmological diseases and various malformations
  • Skin diseases such as eczema
  • Allergies

In addition, West argues that prenatal ultrasound initiates severe vulnerabilities in the fetus to subsequent stressors such as vaccines or other pharmaceuticals which can then push the child “over the edge” so to speak.

Summary of Prenatal Ultrasound Human Studies

In the year 2000, Professor Ruo Feng, of the Institute of Acoustics, Nanjing University, summarized many of the human studies with regard to the devastating effects of prenatal ultrasound, suggesting the five points of protection below. Feng could be considered the world authority in the field of ultrasound, with his PhD in physics from the University of Leningrad in the former Soviet Republic, and his publishing of more than 186 scientific papers.

  1. Ultrasound should only be used for specific medical indications.
  2. Ultrasound, if used, should strictly adhere to the smallest dose principle, that is, the ultrasonic dose should be limited to that which achieves the necessary diagnostic information under the principle of using intensity as small as possible, the irradiation time as short as possible.
  3. Commercial or educational fetal ultrasound imaging should be strictly eliminated. Ultrasound for the identification of fetal sex and fetal entertainment imaging should be strictly eliminated (emphasis added).
  4. For the best early pregnancy [1st trimester], avoid ultrasound. If unavoidable, minimize ultrasound. Even later, during the 2nd or 3rd trimester, limit ultrasound to 3 to 5 minutes for sensitive areas, e.g., fetal brain, eyes, spinal cord, heart and other parts.
  5. For every physician engaged in clinical ultrasound training, their training should include information on the biological effects of ultrasound and ultrasound diagnostic dose safety knowledge.

My Experiences with Prenatal Ultrasound

I never consented to having an ultrasound with any of my pregnancies. I even declined an ultrasound under pressure from my midwife with my last pregnancy when I was over 40, as she suspected that the fetus might have stopped growing (the baby was fine as I suspected – she was just smaller compared with my previous two which were large boys).

At the time, there wasn’t too much data to go on when making this type of “crazy” decision.

I felt very strongly that ultrasound was a bad idea especially when I observed that my first baby kicked violently when a Doppler fetascope was used to measure his heartbeat (fetal heart monitoring with ultrasound can be used extensively, accumulating very high exposure. Most women have no idea about this as it is rarely if ever disclosed in prenatal examination rooms). I suspected from this experience that ultrasound waves were not something that was beneficial to my baby’s optimal development and so declined any and all ultrasound scans and opted for an old fashioned, non-electronic fetascope instead of a Doppler for future prenatal visits.

*Note that the words “fetascope” and “fetoscope” have apparently been co-opted, however, and some devices called fetascopes in prenatal exam rooms are actually Doppler, so be very careful of this word. I could not find a clearly differentiating word for fetascope.

Sometimes when you make a decision with Mother’s intuition, it is years later when the wisdom of that course of action becomes apparent. Many thanks to Jim West for bringing this critically important research to light and making it available to the public so that mothers can cite the actual, hard scientific evidence in prenatal exam rooms when declining ultrasound procedures that have been shown to be far more harmful than helpful to a developing fetus in all but the most extreme medical circumstances.  The cost seems clear. The actuality of pregnancy risks and the assumed benefits of ultrasound are an important area for in-depth discussion between prenatal care providers and mothers-to-be.

Conclusions: Should You Submit to Prenatal Ultrasound?

Sarah Buckley MD summarizes perhaps the best course of action for any pregnant mother considering this information on the dangers of ultrasound combined with the sometimes intense pressure in the prenatal exam room to submit to these diagnostic scans against her own better judgment:

Sarah Buckley MD:

Although ultrasound may sometimes be useful when specific problems are suspected, my conclusion is that it is at best ineffective and at worse dangerous when used as a ‘screening tool’ for every pregnant woman and her baby. […] Treating the baby as a separate being, ultrasound artificially splits mother from baby well before this is a physiological or psychic reality. This further… sets the scene for possible but to my mind artificial conflicts of interest between mother and baby in pregnancy, birth and parenting.

Also, see Dr. Robert Mendelsohn’s authoritative video below about medical misrepresentation of ultrasound hazards and the hidden sources of prenatal ultrasound in any clinical setting:

Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist


Source and More Information

Diagnostic Ultrasound: A New Bibliography, Human Studies Conducted in Modern ChinaJim West

Prenatal Ultrasounds: A Risky Proposition

Comments (48)

  • Dr M. Yaqoob

    I am a sonologist and daily see more than 100 patients in two shifts.
    I do agree theoretically that any thing which interfere with human body should have its effect on it (now here is some proof). The main thing in our setup here in the developing country is that our clinical doctors don’t take proper history or apply clinical methods to reach the diagnoses (they say they are overburden ) thats why they prescribe them various lab tests and radiological examinations to reach there diagnoses. which cost the patients physically, mentally and economically

    July 14th, 2016 11:56 am Reply
  • Carla

    I honestly think this site is fear mongering a bit & have a problem with that. I do believe that excessive use of ultrasound and doppler can be damaging to the fetus, but I also believe the benefits outweigh the risks for the 20 week ultrasound. There are MANY, MANY things that can be screened for in advance that could save both the mother and baby’s life. With my first child, we used the fetal stethoscope in all prenatal appointments, submitted to a VERY QUICK 15 minute anatomy scan at 20 weeks (the tech was well seasoned & had been doing ultrasounds for 20 years. She checked for everything very quickly and we were done.) We only agreed to a doppler while I was in labor. I wouldn’t do it any other way with my second child whom I am now pregnant with. We researched both forms of ultrasound (including doppler) heavily when pregnant with our first and i feel that the choices we made were smart. I couldn’t have forgiven myself if we missed something huge by not doing that quick scan at 20 weeks.

    July 13th, 2016 10:38 am Reply
    • Sarah

      Not sure how you can call 50 *causal* human studies that indicate without a doubt that ultrasounds damage the fetus to be “fear mongering”. Every ultrasound is a risk … even a quick scan at 20 weeks. Glad it worked out for you though!

      July 13th, 2016 4:51 pm Reply
  • Allison Curtis

    Omg I’m pregnant now and i have had soooo many ultrasounds because of a subchorionic hematoma that caused bleeding around 13 weeks. I’ve had at least two a month since then! I’m 29 weeks now. Do you think if i stop using all ultrasounds now it could help or reverse any damage?

    July 7th, 2016 12:09 am Reply
  • Jordana Kalenchuk

    I’m 31 weeks pregnant and haven’t had an ultrasound. My midwives used a Doppler twice, but I noticed I felt a stomach ache in that spot after and I also felt intuitively my baby was upset by it. God gave us women intuition for a reason. When it comes to being pregnant, us when have to raise our game and become in tune with our babies and not rely on machines! Talk to your baby, have a telepathic relationship. Be gentle with yourself. I’m a bit of a conspiracy theorist, and there’s something bigger going on. Beside big pharma and big money, Trauma leads to the ability to mind control. dumb down the population and control them.
    Not my child. I will do what I can to make him as powerful as possible. I dream about him, and he shows me he is OK. I don’t need machines, I just need to access my true divine spiritual self.
    Thank you for the evidence in this article.
    Peace xo

    April 9th, 2016 1:38 am Reply
  • Rachxl

    Thank you so much for the article! I am 34 weeks pregnant and have already had 4 ultrasounds. I have a “marginal low lying placenta” that was still present at 31 weeks.Do you think this merits another ultrasound?

    January 25th, 2016 9:30 am Reply
  • Lisa M

    I think it’s a bit of a stretch to blame autism and other problems on an ultrasound, when the study test was done on aborted fetuses in a petri dish. How can you extrapolate to a live child when you study biochemical data on dead tissue? It’s a stretch. Plus, they didn’t say HOW the children were aborted. Using drugs? Physical methods? Those could also affect the tissues. I guess I would question this a lot. good info, but a little questionable.

    November 4th, 2015 10:51 am Reply
  • Lynn Bakeman

    How frightening. I lost my amniotic fluid at 24 weeks gestation and was hospitalized for over two months while the docs monitored my daughter’s progress with I can’t even tell you how many ultrasounds. She was taken via c-section at 34 weeks and weighed 3# 3oz. She is now 19 and aside from lingering orthopedic issues (knee was dislocated when amniotic sack broke and her leg was held at a bad angle for two months) she is intelligent and happy. I’m always looking over my shoulder, however, as my son has an autoimmune disease, and I would have thought she’d be more vulnerable to that!

    October 27th, 2015 11:20 am Reply
  • Esther

    Hi! Thank you for including my utube video with Dr. Mendelsohn on the dangers of ultrasound in pregnancy. Dr. Mendelsohn would be very happy knowing you were sharing this important video. I am so grateful that his decades old work is still relevant and shared today.
    I enjoy your FB page very much, HHE!

    October 26th, 2015 10:30 pm Reply
  • Eileen

    33 years ago my midwife advised against having an ultrasound as there were studies showing that ultrasound affected hearing. She also was able to tell the length and weight of both my children (within 1 and 2 ounces) without an ultrasound.

    October 5th, 2015 1:41 pm Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      Yes, that is about all I had to go on when I was pregnant also 17 years ago. Now here is so much more hard evidence that ultrasounds damage much more than just hearing. Have you noticed how many kids lisp and have speech delay issues today? I’ve wondered if it has to do with so many needless ultrasounds occurring and the mothers are rarely told about the risks.

      October 5th, 2015 1:53 pm Reply
  • Gigi

    I wish I had these info when I was pregnant with my son. I had so many ultra sound as my water broke at 28 weeks. My son was born premature and now autistic.

    October 2nd, 2015 1:19 am Reply
  • Dierdre Beard

    My dad is a physicist and used ultrasound experimentally with rats in the late 1970s. Growing up, he was adamant that the way the rats responded was evidence enough that we should not be using them on unborn babies. I actually switched medical providers in the middle of my pregnancy for this very reason. Midwives and doctors that are worth anything at all should be able to use a fetoscope to listen to baby and accurately measure the size of baby based on feeling alone. The midwife I finally picked used only a fetoscope to track my baby’s heart rate and was almost spot-on in her estimate of his final weight. I think we have come to rely way to heavily on technology when we should be listening more to our own intuition.

    October 1st, 2015 7:32 pm Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      Some prenatal providers will get testy with you if you ask for a fetascope because they are more inconvenient to use.

      October 1st, 2015 9:34 pm Reply
  • Kim

    Thank you for this article. I had 3 ultrasounds with my first pregnancy due to a cyst that was discovered and fear of it bursting if too big, possibly needing surgery. Thank GOD my sweet boy shows no signs and hoping nothing affected him. I am sure that at the very least a sonogram is extremely alarming to that little tiny being, and possibly even more damaging things can occur… But what concerns me about these findings is that they were conducted on aborted fetuses… what kind of trauma and damage occurred from the abortion itself that they will discover and how do you differentiate between that and possible sonogram damage? Who knows…

    October 1st, 2015 5:47 pm Reply
    • Jim West

      The studies are reliable and simple. They separated the pregnant women into groups with each group receiving different ultrasound exposure minutes. One group was exposed to “sham” ultrasound sessions, where the machine was actually off. After abortion, they compare the fetuses of the exposed groups against the zero-exposure group (the “control group”). They examine the aborted fetal tissue with electro-microscopes and hormonal tests, etc., to determine damage in the fetal tissue.

      February 25th, 2016 11:01 pm Reply
  • Danielle

    Thank you for sharing this. People think I’m crazy when I suggest that ultrasounds impact babies. My daughter was always very quiet in utero (not super active). I experienced spotting in month 5 and went in for monitoring and she immediately began kicking directly on the monitor. It was so unsettling and I made them remove the monitor stating that she clearly was doing fine. Her first ultrasound image was also unnerving. Her fists were up near her ears and her mouth open…it looked a lot like the painting ‘The Scream’ and it was then that I knew for certain that ultrasounds were not without impact. She was a very sensitive infant and toddler (especially to light and sound) and I have no doubt that she truly did feel some effect of the ultrasound in utero.

    October 1st, 2015 2:02 pm Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      Microphones placed in the womb of a pregnant woman receiving an ultrasound have measured a decibel level of 100-120 (the waves bounce off the walls of the uterus and are indeed audible within that small space) .. a power mower, a motorcycle 25 feet away from you or a jet flyover at only 1000 feet is about similar in sound intensity. This is also louder than a rock concert. An ultrasound would scare the living daylights out of a fetus at the very least and possibly damage the hearing in some way depending on when the ultrasound occurred during fetal development.

      October 1st, 2015 2:12 pm Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      Thank you for sharing that graphic image. I’ve always found it very disturbing that some parents seem more interested in figuring out what color to paint the nursery walls than how the ultrasound might negatively impact their baby.

      October 1st, 2015 2:14 pm Reply
  • Sara

    Thank you for sharing this information. I wish I had know when I had my two kids, I didn’t even realise how recent ultrasounds were until after I had my kids.

    There are so many scare tactics used by health professions during pregnancy. I was seen as a monster for not getting a second c section and refusing continuous monitoring during labour, intravenous antibiotics (I was gbs positive) and vitamin k for the Bub. I had a completely natural birth for my second child and got to hold her straight away – it was amazing.

    Health professionals need to stop trying to covering their own butts so much and stop seeing pregnancy and labour as a pathology!

    September 30th, 2015 5:23 pm Reply
  • Leanne

    Thanks for the info… on the flip side, I am super thankful for ultrasounds as my first son passed away at 38 weeks due to the umbilical cord being wrapped seven times. My second was checked regularly and my third once in my 2nd and again in my 3rd trimester (her cord was wrapped twice). Due to this discovery we delivered her at a larger hospital instead of the one in our small town, in case there were complications. I realize your study did mention that they should be used minimally and for specific reasons (as mine was, I suspect), I just do think that there are definitely some good to them and people shouldn’t just write them off completely :)

    September 29th, 2015 10:52 pm Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      I am so very sorry Leanne for your loss.

      September 30th, 2015 5:16 am Reply
  • Christine

    Very interesting article, definitely food for thought…I guess my only concern is what if the mom has a condition like placenta previa, which I think can only be diagnosed via ultrasound? Not sure how common that condition is or if there are other symptoms…I had ultrasounds with my 19mth old, I’m praying it hasn’t caused long term damage :( Thanks for this article, it really is sickening how much stuff is out there that is purported to be ‘safe’ by government institutions, big pharma etc and maybe really isn’t safe at all…you really have to do your own research it seems.

    September 29th, 2015 8:45 pm Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      In that situation, the pros and cons of using ultrasound must be weighed very carefully. At least now you are fully informed on both sides of the issue!

      September 30th, 2015 5:19 am Reply
  • tricia

    my daughter, who is 25 and healthy, had an ultrasound at almost every prenatal visit, though not sure why. Besides not exposing the baby to vaccines and antibiotics, it there anything that can be done to repair some of the possible damage to the baby, who is now 8 months old?

    September 29th, 2015 11:02 am Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      I think that frequent ultrasounds is another way of making easy money for prenatal care providers and increasing the profit per office visit. At this time, I do not know of any protocol that might be helpful since this research is so new and most practitioners still think ultrasound is benign.

      September 29th, 2015 11:38 am Reply
  • Marla Svihl

    With my last child 23 years ago, I would not let them use anything but a stethascope. Having learned the origin for ultrasounds, which were to deter sharks in the military; it just didn’t sound like something I wanted for my developing baby. Especially, after our second daughter had a “congenital’ hip disorder. Which I was told could happened because of a sneeze during pregnancy. Wasn’t going to take any chances. Just so they can clear their butts! I do believe it was a polio vaccine that “disordered” her leg. We Dr’ed much with her, one told me it looked like a touch of polio. My mom, who birthed 15 children; I’m #11, always insisted she was pregnant, not sick! With the latter of her babies they wanted to induce her. She never would let them. At 37 years and having my 5th child, they tried every fearful tactic in the book; for me to submit to a test every time I came near. I chose to sit on the positive bench, like my mom; it’s the way to go if you are healthy! I loved the excitement of not knowing the sex of the children and just accepting whatever may be, that God was in control of this blessing from Him!

    September 29th, 2015 10:23 am Reply
  • Beth

    Both my children were born in the late 80’s. At that time most doctors were recommending ultrasounds for all kinds of reasons. My old Japanese Doctor did not recommend it then citing that they did not know enough about potential side effects. reading this now I am so glad that I listened to him. This is a valuable article that I will pass along to my children so they will have this information to make a informed decision when they are pregnant! Thank you so much for researching and writing this!

    September 29th, 2015 9:01 am Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      Modern mothers must get very comfortable with the word “no” in the doctor’s office these days if raising healthy children is the goal. And yes, we must teach our daughters to question and say no if they are in any way uncomfortable with something being pushed on them be it a drug or test that the doctors claim up and down is “safe”. My mother taught me this .. told me stories of when she said no to the doctors who wanted to xray her pelvis, knock her out during labor/delivery with very strong narcotics which were both common procedures not so long ago etc. Thank you Mom!

      September 29th, 2015 10:04 am Reply
  • Kristinista

    Is it hard to find the non-electronic fetascope in a midwife’s or doctor’s office?

    September 29th, 2015 7:52 am Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      Not at all. Just ask :) They look pretty much like a regular stethoscope. The only drawback is that you cannot hear the baby’s heartbeat with an old fashioned fetascope until about 20-22 weeks. This really drove me nuts, I can tell you when I could have heard the heartbeat at 7 weeks with a doppler! But, just remember why you are are doing what you are doing and this gives you the patience you need to wait :)

      September 29th, 2015 8:14 am Reply
      • Kristinista

        Thanks, this helpful. It seems in general patience is required from the typical American way, but I am really glad you wrote this article. I will definitely remember this information!

        October 2nd, 2015 10:55 pm Reply
  • Kelly the Kitchen Kop

    I can’t decide if it’s sick, sad, ironic or WHAT that Chinese moms are given the option to have their babies that they are forced to have killed used in studies to help children in the future. HUMAN studies on dead babies, it sounds like Nazi Germany to me. God help us all.

    September 29th, 2015 6:41 am Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      Yes, the horrible irony of it all really got to me while writing this article too. In fact, I hesitated even writing it because of that, but ultimately decided that we need to get this info out there as it is irrefutable and proves once and for all that these routine ultrasounds are not safe and that prenatal providers need to stop pushing them on pregnant women.

      September 29th, 2015 7:47 am Reply
      • Kelly the Kitchen Kop

        Yes, I agree Sarah, people need to know this stuff.

        This reminds of the fact that tissue from aborted babies is used in several vaccines — so many don’t know this horrific fact either!


        September 29th, 2015 9:57 am Reply
      • Nikki

        If you hadn’t shared this article, those babies would have died in vain. It’s sick and wrong what was done to them. I’m so saddened and disgusted. But I’m glad you are reporting the findings to educate us. My doctor always insisted ultrasounds were safe and completely harmless – no risks of any kind whatsoever. I’m pretty sure as ultrasounds get more advanced, more routine and more frequent, they get more dangerous as well.

        September 29th, 2015 7:01 pm Reply
        • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

          It always seemed so incredibly counterintuitive to me the arguments that ultrasounds are safe … it seemed completely preposterous in fact that they could in any way be safe for a developing and fast growing fetus. I felt sure one day they would be proven dangerous. It’s tragic that the way they have been finally, once and for all proven as unsafe is via the the one child policy in China that facilitated the process with the termination of so many pregnancies.

          September 29th, 2015 7:44 pm Reply
    • chris

      Absolutely correct with one little error Kelly. If you scratch below the surface you’ll find these things never happened in “Nazi Germany”. Someone just wants to to think that way.

      September 29th, 2015 2:14 pm Reply
  • Joan Smith

    We didn’t have insurance for our third pregnancy so I was being seen at the county health dept. I was fired before she was born, however, because I didn’t want to stress her by having a GTT (I was a nine lb baby, so why did having large babies myself mean I had gestational diabetes?), I took prenatal vitamins from the health food store that we’re far superior to what they offered, and I was unwilling to risk her health with unproven technology like routine ultrasound.

    Sarah was, and still is, very healthy, born in 1981, my smallest baby at 8#, 12 oz. My first and last we’re ten pounders. My midwives did say listening to their hearts with Doppler was safe, although I was skeptical of that, too.

    September 29th, 2015 5:38 am Reply
  • Rebecca

    That’s really eye-opening. Ultrasounds are used so frequently now throughout pregnancy. I wonder about the cumulative effect. I have had numerous ultrasounds to keep a watch on a uterine fibroid and ovarian cyst. Have you ever heard of any problems in regards to non-pregnant women having ultrasounds?

    September 29th, 2015 4:31 am Reply
    • Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

      Ultrasound while not pregnant is not a problem. I have not found any negative research on that so rest easy :)

      September 29th, 2015 7:43 am Reply
    • Kim

      If ultrasound is damaging fetal cells and DNA, I can guarantee it’s damaging adult cells/DNA too. I’m not trying to worry you, since I think the risks of ultrasound are being overstated in this article, but for consistency sake.

      September 29th, 2015 10:51 pm Reply
  • Tamie

    They made me get one every single time I want in because I was over 35. My son is on the autism spectrum, has ODD, and various issues with his body, allergies, eczema, most things on that list. I pray that he does not get cancer!!! What can I do? Who do I sue and how?

    September 29th, 2015 2:20 am Reply
    • Melissa

      I have a son who is not on the autism spectrum, but he has ODD. You might look into the Fiengold diet. For my son his defiant behaviors (which were horrific, as you well know) were caused by food sensitivities — specifically a salicylate sensitivity. We eat whole foods diet, but his triggers were apples and strawberries. I’m a nutritionist now, and I cannot tell you how much of a blessing such a diet can be to children with behavioral problems. My son went from violent lashing out, to being a lamb. He is such an easy boy now, I wish I had known it sooner. Gluten and casein (milk protein) intolerances are also well known to cause ODD behaviors in children.

      October 26th, 2015 2:04 pm Reply
  • Kierstan

    I opted out of ultrasounds with both of my children who are now 3 years and 18 months old. I was fortunate enough to be able to research as much as possible before getting pregnant and discovered this world of unnecessary “interventions” and choosing a home birth option to prevent being another mom on the hospital conveyor belt- thank you for posting this, even a lot of women in my natural community don’t think twice about having multiple scans done when there is no medical need for it. Scary!

    September 28th, 2015 11:20 pm Reply
  • Angela

    Hi Sarah, Just wanted to warn you that there is an advertisement for Zostavax (shingles vaccine) at the bottom of this page.

    September 28th, 2015 11:15 pm Reply
    • Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

      Thank you Angela. I am opted out of all pharmaceutical ads, but that industry purposely miscategorizes their ads to slip through the filters and get on sites that don’t want them. If I can get the exact URL I can block it specifically. Can you email it to me? Thanks.

      September 29th, 2015 7:51 am Reply
  • Stephanie

    “Treating the baby as a separate being, ultrasound artificially splits mother from baby well before this is a physiological or psychic reality. This further… sets the scene for possible but to my mind artificial conflicts of interest between mother and baby in pregnancy, birth and parenting.”

    I don’t understand this quote. The baby is a separate being.

    Thank you for sharing the rest of this information. I too limited ultrasounds when I was pregnant 9 and 5 years ago. I wish I had had this information then to back up my feelings. Perhaps I would have thought harder about having any ultrasounds.

    September 28th, 2015 10:46 pm Reply

Leave a Comment