Bulletin Boards
Home Page
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MembersMembers
 User Control PanelUser Control Panel   LoginLogin 

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 45
this is a web site wher I found really scary stuff on ultrasound:

http://www.alternamoms.com/ultrasound.html

just a fragment of the article:

Ultrasound scans, routinely used to look at internal organs and to monitor the growth of a developing fetus, can stop cells from dividing normally, Irish scientists said Wednesday.

Researchers at University College in Dublin told New Scientist magazine it is too early to tell if the changes they found in the cells of mice are harmless or what the implications of the findings could be for humans.

"It has been assumed for a long time that ultrasound has no effect on cells," said Patrick Brennan, who led the research team. "We now have grounds to question that assumption."

During the study, the rate of cell division in mice that were given an 8 megahertz scan lasting 15 minutes was 22 percent lower than normal, and the rate of cell death doubled.

Routine hospital scans use frequencies between 3 and 10 megahertz and can last up to 60 minutes.

Brennan said the sound waves of the scans could be damaging the DNA in cells, which could delay cell division and repair, or it might be switching on p53, a tumor suppressor gene that controls cell death.



for more reffer to the website, there is more info about this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 45
does anybody have any newer reserch results about ultrasounds safety, if yes please reply and post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 10:21 pm
Posts: 302
No sorry, I'm not too concerned about them. I'm all for them. For me a sonogram could mean the difference between life or death.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 45
yes, defenetely there are situtation that the ultrasound is justified, but this is like with byepass surgery 99% of them are done to benefit doctor's pocket and 1% of them is done for justified reasons and actually are saving lives.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 45
"Ultrasound Scans- Cause for Concern
First published in Nexus magazine, vol9, no 6, Oct-Nov 2002, Copyright Dr Sarah Buckley. For ultrasound links, go here.

When I was pregnant with my first baby in 1990, I decided against having a scan. This was a rather unusual decision, as my partner and I are both doctors and had even done pregnancy scans ourselves- rather ineptly, but sometimes usefully- while training in GP Obstetrics a few years earlier.

What influenced me the most was my feeling that I would lose something important as a mother if I allowed someone to test my baby. I knew that if a minor or uncertain problem showed up (this is not uncommon), that I would be obliged to return again and again, and that after a while, it would feel as if my baby belonged to the system, and not to me.

In the years since then I have had three more unscanned babies, and have read many articles and research papers about ultrasound. Nothing I have read has made me reconsider my decision. 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."

there is more and hard to stop reading:
http://www.birthlove.com/free/ultrasound.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 45
the more you read... the scarrier it gets:

"Studies on humans exposed to ultrasound have shown that possible adverse effects include premature ovulation (Testart 1982), preterm labour or miscarriage (Lorenz, 1990; Saari-Kemppainen 1990), low birth weight (Newnham, 1993, Geerts 1996), poorer condition at birth (Thacker 1985; Newnham, 1991), perinatal death (Davies 1992) dyslexia (Stark 1984), delayed speech development (Campbell, 1993) and less right-handedness (Salvesen 1993: Kieler 1998a, Salvesen 1999, Kieler 2001). Non right-handedness is, in other circumstances, seen as a marker of damage to the developing brain (see Odent 1998, Keiler 2001). One Australian study showed that babies exposed to 5 or more doppler ultrasounds were 30% more likely to develop intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR)- a condition that ultrasound is often used to detect. (Newnham, 1993)"

source:

http://www.birthlove.com/free/ultrasound.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:30 pm
Posts: 599
Location: Toronto
Cypay-

Where I live alot of healthcare (including everything having to do with pregnancy ie bloodwork, appointments, ultrasounds, delivery/hospital stay, immunizations for mother AND child at any time in their life) is completely covered by the government! In other words we don't have to pay a single cent. So explain to me how ultrasounds are only done for doctors to make money when here we go to approx. 2 ultrasounds during our pregnancies and the doctors dont make any money off them at all? Wether we go to them or not dosn't change the doctor's or lab tech's salary. THAT just proves that ultrasounds are done to ensure the baby is developing properly and there are no problems, NOT to make doctors more money!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:35 am
Posts: 39
Location: Minnesota
Hannahs mommy is right! In my drs office they use it as needed and 2 routines are in the general swing of things one for EDD and one at 20 weeks ! In my clinic they have an ultrasound machine right there for all sorts of reasons , the least of which is for money!
Imagine if for a second there was not this technology and something happened to your baby in utero and you had no ability to see if it was solvable and worse case scenario you lose the baby due to no technology capable of helping or detecting the problem before it becomes more serious. Would you not then wish that you had the ability to see and possibly fix the problem before it caused your childs death?
I say don't only look at the negitives there are plenty more positives in this case as far as I am concerned!
Your choices are your own, as for Dr.s choosing not to have Usounds. think about it , they have more of a clue as to anything with their babies and bodies than i'm sure most of us have and if they suspected anything was wrong i'm sure they would use it!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 45
If there is such a high rate of wrong interpretations of ultarsound and diagnosis of something being wrong with babies which actually are born normal and perfect what are the criteria when you would trust your results anyway?

Besides it is proven that psychologically once mother is told that there is something wrong with the baby, she can not get over it even she is told that everything is okay and there was a problem with readings. She keeps thinking that there musth have or can be something wrong.

How about that for help?

Besides I really don't see that much what you can do to change once you get diagnosis. Basically this is to diagnose. but than once diagnosed you can not do nothing but worry. Of course maby there is like 1% cases that this actually help. But what with the rest of people?

IT is like with mammogram testing. It used to be such a hot thing
till they proven more harm than good and being them more harmfull to healthy people than help to those with problems as the problems were missdiagnosed so many times anyway.

I think some people just trust that just because everybody does something it must be right.

Do you guys know that in the 30's and later smoking cigarets was actually believed so healthy that it was recommended to the sportsman of all kinds to improve the performance?

And of ocurse doctors used to smoke no end themselves.

How is that for following doctor order and doc being always right?
they are just people like us.

It is already so much noise on the itnernet and books against routine ultrasound that just give it few more years.

It is somehow harmful to the baby. That is a fact. HOw much this is different story. But let me ask you this, lets say that it is okay to put your baby to the microvawe oven for 2 minutes. Would you do this?
I don't think so.

So the same goes to the ultrasound I guess, even if it is only a bit harmful or potentially harmful why people are so driven to do it anyway?
Beacuse they see immediate benefits - like seeing the baby and having fun seeing the sex of him or her but hey don't totally care about the fact that the kid may actually end up dislexic, def or have ADD or other neurological problem.

It is difficult to go against the grain but something it is just worth it to stop and smell the facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 45
as far as the question who is benefiting on doing ultrasounds in countries where everything is covered by the goverment?

I would think that technically you are right there is no simple connection between doctors salaries and profit of doing sonnograms...

but than again, what exactly does it mean that it is covered by the goverment? It means that the procedure is performed and there are some cost involved. They have to be covered so the money is changing hands from goverment to the facility that actually performs the tests and acutally might influence the total of doctors salary right?

In my country the scans are paid by my insurance so ... technically I don't pay anything. but it would be naive to think that they are perform bona fide. the more scans docs will do the more money the group makes the more goes to their pocket directly or not.

Still.. I think that it would be okay to do the scann when you need one but than again who is to judge when it is? and it is different to do one to monitor how the baby is located during the birth but different to make it at 12 weeks or 18 and so on just for sheare pleasure.

Ultrasounds are not free, never. It is a baby that pays for it after all.
And the fact that it might be in the far future does not make me feel better now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:30 pm
Posts: 599
Location: Toronto
Ok. My doctor does not preform my ultrasounds. I have to make an appointment at a radiology (sp?) lab for them. So even if it were benefiting anyones salary why would my doc want to help a lab tech to make more money? My doc does not benefit in any way from ultrasounds! Like another post said in your other u/s thread: I would rather be warned that there is somthing wrong and find out at birth that it was a mistake and my baby is fine, than to be surprised with oh sorry your baby has ______. Also put your baby in a microwave oven? Come on isn't that a little much? Sorry but that has to be one of the most rediculous things I have heard yet! Ultrasounds are not done for "sheer pleasure"! I have not once requested to have an ultrasound done! They are standard procedure to ensure the health of the baby! How do you know what is going through a new mother's mind, who just found out that contrary to what she was told her baby is fine? And do you think that ANY mother would just say" Oh well I don't care if my child ends up having problems I want to know the sex."??????

Come on lady, your arguments are so irrational, not to mention fanatical!

Anyway, this is getting silly, we've all made our points, and we all have our own veiws. If you don't want to get a stupid ultrasound FINE! Good for you!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:20 pm
Posts: 21
Cypay is right all the way!

I would never get an ultrasound except in absolute emergency. It is enough to do a little bit of research on the issue to know how unreliable ultrasound is and that it contributes more to the problem than to solution.

There are thousands and thousands of cases everywhere to prove that people who interpret ultrasound are often mistaken (the sex of the baby is just one harmless example) other than that the many diagnosis that there is a major problem with the baby is usually followed up by more ultrasound that can very much cause the very problem that is suspected and which was not there in the first place :shock: yep, shocking but true.
In addition to that, there is still little to know about what is the lowest safe rate of ultrasound so if you go there don't count on it that you willl get it that way. The stronger the dose the better image, hence nobody cares about the dose, they just want to see better. In the old days the ulrasound machines were much less harmfull so we don't know what will be the harm done to the kids scanned today till many yrears to come.

Also.. as far about the money issue ... yep. I agree. There is always somebody who is financially benefiting from every procedure. It would be really naive to think otherwise. Each country has different system but within the health care there is always somebody who depend on the amount of the carried tests so it is good to be smart about this instead of believing that it is all done for the patient's sake. Trully.


Best to you all
Babette


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 11:05 pm 
Cypay wrote:

Besides it is proven that psychologically once mother is told that there is something wrong with the baby, she can not get over it even she is told that everything is okay and there was a problem with readings. She keeps thinking that there musth have or can be something wrong.



After my routine ultrasound, on my next visit the doctor had to do another because they had missed something. The doctor took a long time looking and was silent and then told me that he was pretty sure my daughter had dextocardia, which is where the heart and in some cases all the organs are basically reversed. I ofcourse was devistated, and spent the whole week crying and wondering what I did to cause this. I was referred to a specialist who did another ultrasound and found her to be perfectly normal. I ofcourse was relieved. I had no problem "getting over it". Why would someone continue to be upset when they find out that their baby was perfectly fine. Maybe it was just me but I don't think so. Just putting in my 2 cents. Looking back I am glad the situation worked the way it did. Better safe than sorry. And if my daughter had actually had the condition, the ultrasound would have allowed me to know in advance so that I could prepare for what the future would be like.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: caution is needed here
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:38 am
Posts: 53
Ladies,

This thread has gone far enough I think. I'm going to close it to further posts because I can see a fight coming from a mile away. I appreciate that everyone has kept a civil tone till now. Just call me cautious. So, let's all keep the opinions we have and close this subject. No one is going to change anyone else's mind.

The Moderator


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

phpBB SEO