Ultrasound, Strong Enough to Kill Sperm. Can it Harm 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: