Monday, May 24, 2010

Ultrasound, Strong Enough to Kill Sperm. Can it Harm a Fetus?

The NaturalNews.com reports that Bill Gates has founded new technology using ultrasound to destroy sperm in men as a temporary form of birth control (6 months). Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com, also known as the Health Ranger, has posed a very valid question and point that should give parents having normal & healthy pregnancies serious pause...."If ultrasound destroys sperm, why is it safe for a fetus?"

His article is strongly worded as is the tone of the article. He calls "yuppie" parents "conceited" for getting an (recreational) ultrasound just to see or get a picture of the fetus. While I understand his frustrations, I can't say I agree with his the tone or focus on parents.

We have raised a generation of parents to trust that doctors and the medical community have our best interest at heart. Of all of the ultrasounds I have been appointed, not once were the risks explained to me. The procedure of HOW a ultrasound works was never explained to me, verbally or by a fact sheet. The only thing I was told was that it was "routine". It wasn't until I did my own research that I understood the condition that the fetus was exposed to by an ultrasound. (Heat and sound)While I am proud to say I have not had an ultrasound since my 4th (healthy) pregnancy (currently in 7th pregnancy), "routine" ultrasound combined with a hush-hush practice of doctors and technicians alike promote a deception amongst patients that ultrasounds are risk free and harmless to the fetus.I was shocked to have found out otherwise.
You can read the full article below or @.... NaturalNews.com

-------------------start of article----------------------------
(NaturalNews) Ultrasound is extremely damaging to the health of any unborn child (fetus). The natural health community has been warning about ultrasound for years, but mainstream medicine, which consistently fails to recognize the harm it causes, insists ultrasound is perfectly safe and can't possibly harm the health of a fetus.

Now, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding a project that aims to temporarily sterilize men by blasting their scrotums with ultrasound. The burst of ultrasound energy, it turns out, disrupts the 
normal biological function of the testes , making the man infertile for six months .Ultrasound, in other words, contains enough energy to temporarily deaden the testes and basically destroy sperm function for half a year. So why is it considered "safe" to blast an unborn baby with the same frequencies?Ultrasound is loud . It no doubt causes tissue disruption and damage in a fetus, and it certainly creates stress and shock for the baby. And yet conceited yuppie parents just can't get enough of it! They want to SEE a picture of their little baby before it's even born, so they subject it to tissue damage and ultrasound trauma in order to get a snapshot they can show off to their yuppie friends. Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to medically necessary ultrasound that has a reasonable justification concerning the health of the mother of the baby. What I'm strongly 


opposed to is ultrasound used to take pictures of the fetus or to satisfy the curiosity of the parents. This "recreational" ultrasound is extremely selfish, conceited and may pose a very real danger to the 
health of the baby.It's so American, isn't it? Damage the baby so we can get a snapshot to post on Facebook. What a way to welcome a baby into the world: Blast it with piercing high-frequency energy in order to impress your friends! Don't forget to vaccinate them, too, as soon as they are born. (And yes, 

some parents-to-be seriously subject their babies to ultrasound just so they can take pictures. It's demented!)
Sound is very easily transmitted through fluids, by the way, and the fetus is floating in a sac of amniotic fluid that transmits the ultrasound energy right at them.


Ultrasound harms the fetus Here's what some other website have to say about how ultrasound harms the health of the fetus:From The Independent ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u... )Frequent ultrasound scans during pregnancy may result in growth restriction in the womb and the birth of smaller babies, according to a study of almost 3,000 Australian women, writes Liz Hunt.The findings, reported in the Lancet, have led to calls for more research into the effects of ultrasound, and a leading obstetrician warns that 'prenatal ultrasound by itself can no longer be assumed to be entirely harmless'.From Midwifery Today ( http://www.midwiferytoday.com/artic... )The safety issue is made more complicated by the problem of exposure conditions. Clearly, any bio-effects that might occur as a result of ultrasound would depend on the dose of ultrasound received by the fetus or woman. But 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. As far as is known, this has not yet been done in any country.

From NaturalNews ( http://www.naturalnews.com/019910_u... )...pregnant mice exposed to ultrasound gave birth to some offspring that suffered brain abnormalities. The mice exposed to ultrasound for 30 minutes or longer experienced a small but significant migration of brain neurons to improper places in the brain.

Sources for this story include:
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8...
-------------------end of article---------------------------

5 comments:

  1. i had 4d ultrasounds I don't this there are any harm with it

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quite naturally you don't see any harm with it seeing as how you sell 4D ultrasound pictures.

    I can't say you are a very impartial source of information, considering the truth can have an effect on your financial livelihood.

    My first inclination was to delete your comment, but I didn't think it was fair to others who read my posts. So let me give the you and others 411.

    Ultrasounds are based on sound waves and involves heat when it comes to viewing the baby. We're not talking about little whispers, but sounds as loud as a subway train. We're not talking about a little heat, but increases in temp. that the mother cannot feel.

    Sound and heat in ultrasounds IS common knowledge... to the medical society, but not in general society. I had no clue ultrasounds operated this way until my 4th pregnancy.

    Common sense asks if heat and sound can be damaging to the fetus and common sense tells us YES it is possible.

    How many times has your OBGYN made YOU feel bad about taking HOT showers or baths? Yet they are explicitly aware that ultrasounds operate with heat.

    Even WHO (World Health Organization) cautions AGAINST the routine uses of ultrasounds). PLEASE don't take my word for it, research it for yourself, while you're at it do independent research, in other words, don't ask your doctor or technician or someone who sells 4D ultrasounds, they cannot be partial to the truth as it affects their bottom dollar.

    http://theoliveparent.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultrasound-in-prenatal-testing-heated.html

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's another link worth reading and investigating...

    http://www.unhinderedliving.com/pultra.html (The Dangers of Prenatal Ultrasound)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I didn't know any of this until after I miscarried my first pregnancy (Nov 15). An acquaintance told me that she miscarried twice before having a healthy baby, and that both times the fetus was tested for genetic failures, but there was none. Both times had she had an ultrasound in her 8th and 9th week. She told me the ultrasounds harm the baby. When she got pregnant the third time, she didn't get one done until 36 weeks - she refused to.
    I had my ultrasound done at about 9 weeks. A little over a week later I miscarried. I had it done because I'd been spotting and was concerned. I will not ever go there again! Thank you for your article, it's quite insightful and strengthens the words of advice my acquaintance gave me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm so sorry you had to experience such horrible situations! Thank you much for sharing your story. Doctors may poo-poo a mom's instincts, but often times it can be a mom's (and baby) saving grace.

    ReplyDelete

Everyone is invited to comment in a thoughtful, respectful manner in relation to the post and blog.

Please Note: No links in comments are allowed.

submit to reddit Delicious Bookmark this on Delicious

Contact

Questions? Talk to Us.

Contact us to learn more about the Vitality program, 10 Day Vitality Challenge, Miessence's Certified Organic Skin and Bodycare products and our published articles. If you're interested in a consultation - please indicate business or products. All Miessence consulations are free. If you're interested in a non-Miessence product anaylsis, a fee of $15.00 per consultation will be assessed. If you'd like to sample a skin/body-care product, limited samples are available for $1.25 per satchet, plus shipping. Media/Marketing inquires should be submitted here.

To See the Full Range Go Here:

www.TheOliveParent.Miessence.com