IRONY ALERT - Ultrasound can affect brain development

[ck4829]

"Exposure to ultrasound can affect fetal brain development, a new study suggests. But researchers say the findings, in mice, should not discourage pregnant women from having ultrasound scans for medical reasons.

When pregnant mice were exposed to ultrasound, a small number of nerve cells in the developing brains of their fetuses failed to extend correctly in the cerebral cortex.

"Our study in mice does not mean that use of ultrasound on human fetuses for appropriate diagnostic and medical purposes should be abandoned," said lead researcher Pasko Rakic, chairman of the neurobiology department at Yale University School of Medicine.

However, he added in a telephone interview, women should avoid unnecessary ultrasound scans until more research has been done."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060808/ap_on_he_me/ultrasound_brains

This is ironic because the 'christian' Right, Focus on the Family in particular, likes using ultrasound to show that a woman's baby is alive and all about the so-called 'culture of life' and whatever. I bet that they didn't consider that it could be harmful to a baby's health.

[jilln]

1. Another example of useless animal studies

Why study pregnant mice if pregnant women are ALREADY getting ultrasounds?

What a waste of time and life.

[MrModerate]

4. Because pregnant humans are reluctant . . .

To have their fetuses dissected to detect any deleterious effects from ultrasound. So far, I suspect the mice haven't voiced any complaints.

[jilln]

9. I don't see the word "dissect" in the article anywhere...

But I suspect the "further study" they mention involves pregnant women.

[MrModerate]

13. I'm thinking that determining whether nerves had fully . . .

propagated during gestation probably can't be done via interview. You have to "dig a little deeper."

Just an assumption on my part.

[Why Syzygy]

20. Sometimes

I read a post and just have to click . make him my buddy .

[The2ndWheel]

11. Time for the MCLU to get involved

Maybe one day we'll genetically engineer mice to be able to speak English. Then we're going to have problems.

[MrModerate]

12. I'd think they'd be pretty pissed . . .

And since a mouse generation is, what, 40 days or so, plenty of history behind that anger.

We'd better watch our butts.

[TahitiNut]

14. Gestation: 19-21 days; Life span: 2 years; Litter size: 5-10 pups

Breeding lifespan: 8 months

[Why Syzygy]

22. They already do that.

You haven't heard them? They are so ashamed. They just want to eat and have a hump buddy and men and women in white coats keep punching needles in. That's when the ride starts.

Funny those RWers call us extremist. But then, look at 'ultra'. It exists.
I'm on a rant this morning. Sick of people thinking they are the 'norm'. Bell curve mean anything? jeeziz..

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Our midwife back in 1994 already knew of studies that

suggested that ultra sound could damage cell development.

She counseled against ultrasound unless there was a real medical necessity to do one.

[Ilsa]

25. I was hearing the same thing from our doula in 1998. But

she also understood that given my age, I was going to need a couple for amniocentesis, and then when we discovered a fluid buildup on my son's brain, I had to have another a couple of months later.

[woodsprite]

3. Great. When I was preg. w/ my 6yo I had gestational diabetes

and some other "high risk" issues. My docs did a high-res ultrasound every month, and a low-res stress test on Tues & Thur during the last 4 wks. We were told that we should have no problems. It was less invasive than other tests they could do, etc.

[Why Syzygy]

10. Human

is resilient. He's okay?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Please Don't Take This Study Seriously. Your Ultrasounds Did Not Cause

any harm to your child. This study and its findings aren't worth the paper they're written on. You have no reason whatsoever to worry about the fact that you had some frequent songorams done. There is still no scientific reason to believe whatsoever that ultrasounds cause any fetal harm. If it ever was determined that it could, I would wager that it would only be when exposed repeatedly for lengthy periods of time. I don't mean once a month, I'm talking daily or every few days for a half hour at a clip.

You have nothing to worry about. :)

[MrModerate]

5. The irony goes both ways . . .

I've heard of complaints (not just from rightwingers) about the use of ultrasound to detect birth defects and inform choices about terminating pregnancies.

[gatorboy]

6. Ugh. We're suppose to go for one tomorrow. n/t

[havocmom]

7. My pet theory: might there be a connection with ultrasounds

and increased incidence of autism. I know, better diagnoses has much to do with the rising numbers, and environmental toxins may well have an impact, but the developing nervous system is more delicate than a finished one and perhaps the ultrasound is harming many.

I put the question to several doctors I respect as honest and not people who lean toward fudging data to support their pet oxen: Do we know that ultrasound does no harm to a fetus?

They all looked down and sadly said No. No we don't know that at all.

So this is done routinely, probably at the behest of insurance companies wanting to avoid law suits? Why? I sure as hell wouldn't have one unless there was ample evidence there was a problem that had to be investigated.

[elehhhhna]

15. Ins. co's would rather you abort a less-than-perfect fetus so

the don't have to pay for their expensive care.

[havocmom]

17. And they want to have a lot of evidence in case of malpractice suits

But, yes, the biggie is the avoidence of costs relating to less than perfect children.

[Ilsa]

24. It's an interesting thought, but since these extra ultrasounds are

vanity healthcare, and autism is on the increase across the board with respect to financial standing, I have my doubts. Also, alot of cities and towns don'thave facilities that offer these extra tests.

I just wish parents would spend more time admiring and getting to know their babies after they get out the womb. Too many are too anxious to turn over the baby to someone else, as if it were a new pet they'd lost interest in. (No, I'm not talking about working mothers.)

[havocmom]

27. I live 85 miles from the nearest MD and can think of no pregnant woman

around here who doesn't get an ultrasound. Vanity health care? Most women I have talked to in the past 10 years (large city with great medical facilities and rural community with almost none) on the subject were told they 'had to have one done' by their doctors. That's a lot of pregnant women I've chatted up on the issue. ALL were ordered by their doctors to have it done, or find a different doctor.

It would seem it is the insurance companies who are insisting on the vanity procedure.

[Ilsa]

28. I was talking about the extra ultrasounds, not the routine ones.

In some states there are mall clinics that do nothing but vanity ultrasounds. It has nothing to do with health screening, but letting mom and dad look and listen again, and getting another video, or another pic for the scrapbook.

I believe I used the term "extra" in my post, but my apologies for not making it clearer that I wasn't talking about sonography for the purpose of baby's health screening.

[havocmom]

29. 'sorry bout the confusion at my end too.

but I have qualms about the 'routine' ones doing harm. Big Insurance & Big Medicine probably do not share our conserns.

[Ilsa]

34. I'm more concerned about someone

getting one every month, and perhaps the equipment in these places isn't always properly calibrated, causing excessive stimulation or vibration or worse.

I think it is possible that some fetuses might be more susceptible to some sort of harm from routine ones, but there propbably isn't any way of knowing which and how many per 1,000. :shrug:

[Why Syzygy]

8. Lessee ..

If mice prove what we want them to, believe it. If it puts money, power and prestige in the balance, negative column, disregard at will. Sounds like science? Or politics.

Of course they have an effect. What do they think the human being is made up of? Energy, dude.
Hello. Bounce a few invisible frequencies around and observe.

Preservation of life isn't even the issue here. Please be advised that the 'right to life' movement is nothing more than a control issue. Sexual repression. See Wilhelm Reich. Sexual repression is a necessary ingredient of fascism. One religious teacher years ago was writing that to repress your sexual desires, even when married, meant your juices could gain a greater flow to other creative endeavors. I tried to wrap my mind around that one. But it is like, no. I need my Wheaties.

I wonder (wonder wonder who wrote the book of love) . skip . what would life on this planet be like if we were all sexually healthy? Not everyone even breathes 'correctly' according to published literature. Too shallow.

I am willing to wager that if this one area was sorted out and left alone to function as nature designed, we would be a peaceful planet. With smiles.

[LostinVA]

16. Wonder if Tom Cruise has heard this...

[ChickMagic]

32. That's what I was wondering

Maybe he wanted limited brain development so
Scientology wouldn't seem so bizarre. Evil
Genius? :evilgrin:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Normal Physician Use Of Ultrasound Is 100% Safe. I'm Convinced Of That.

This article does nothing to refute that and is just an excercise in alarmism in my opinion. The results are so not indicitave of there being a danger it isn't even funny. Firstly, they are talking about only a few cells of how many? Secondly, like stated in the article, the difference in anatomy while undergoing the ultrasound process are monumental and that fact alone negates the ENTIRE study. If they wanted it to have even the slightest significance they should've reduced the intensity of the ultrasound to match that of the intensity that would actually reach a human fetus. Since they didn't adjust to scale, and used full force waves on the mice fetuses, the study is completely worthless.

Furthermore, though they noted some of the cells were displaced, so what? What did it mean? Did the mice then suffer from developmental problems or other social issues? If so what were they? At what frequency? At what severity?

There is so much wrong with this article/study I'm amazed it was even allowed to be published.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Have you read the complete study? Or just the article about the

study?

What in your background gives you the experience to evaluate the usefulness of the study?

You sound awfully quick to condemn it.

The article's author says ultrasound is a useful diagnostic tool but that perhaps it should be limited to need instead of to want.

Is that over the top in your opinion?

Are you suggesting people should get an ultrasound for the fun of it, don't worry be happy?

Do you believe displaced cells are beneficial?

The authors of the study said;

The study of 335 mice concluded that in those whose mothers were exposed to a total of 30 minutes or more, "a small but statistically significant number" of brain cells failed to grow into their proper position and remained scattered in incorrect parts of the brain. The number of affected cells increased with longer exposures.

If you consider that not worth noting and care to expose you offspring to needless ultrasound, go for it.

In my case, I believe I would not do an ultrasound on my children unless there was a medical reason that required it.

[lonestarnot]

21. I'll bet they don't care.

[Sgent]

23. Ultrasounds / sonograms

have been around (and in common use) for a LONG time, and this is the first serious research I've seen suggesting a problem with repeated useage -- although its always been known that its theorhetically possible.

This study should effect only 1 group of people -- those who use "baby picture" kiosks in malls to take pictures of the fetus when there is no medical indication. They should have never been approved in the first place (and they weren't covered by insurance), but ...

Same reason applies to why a 64 slice CT or a "full body MRI" may not be a good idea unless there is a medical indication.

[moc]

30. I have it on very good authority that this researcher and his

research are crap.

[BuhByeChimp]

31. What is Ironic is that.

the ad on the bottom of this thread when I clicked on it was for 4d ultrasound.

[AspenRose]

33. When my choice was between an extra ultrasound and an amnio

I chose the ultrasound (nuchal transdermal screening) and I don't regret it....I was over 35 and didn't want even the tiny sliver of the risk of a miscarriage that an amnio brought.

[conflictgirl]

35. Ultrasound has also been linked to speech delays

With my first child, I had been on fertility treatment so I had a ton of ultrasounds through the whole first semester. I probably had at least 5 before most people even know they're pregnant. And he had pretty severe verbal delays - he couldn't speak in sentences until he was four years old. My second child, I had fewer ultrasounds because I didn't use fertility treatment, but still had quite a few because I'd had an early miscarriage before that pregnancy and the doctor was worried there could be problems. He also had some verbal delays, almost as severe as my oldest child.

I would think it was just something hereditary, except for the fact that I only had one ultrasound with my third pregnancy. He was very unplanned (my husband had a vasectomy!) so I didn't even find out I was pregnant until I was like 10 weeks along. He's had perfectly normal verbal development. It almost seemed like he was a genius because he was speaking in full sentences by age two, LOL. But he was actually just normal. My older two are very bright kids and speaking normally now, but I'm pretty convinced that the ultrasound did have something to do with their fairly extreme verbal delays.

I'm not entirely against ultrasounds altogether (though I've become more of a supporter of midwife-assisted and natural types of birth and pregnancy). But like so many other things, it's fine in moderation, but it can cause problems when done to excess.