Fetal Ultrasound is A Lie: It's Like Taking 250 Chest X-rays of the Fetus
In 1923, they were doing harmful fetal x-rays that didn't stop until 1973, only toe be replaced by non-ionizing radiation in the form of the fetal ultrasound. And now we have yet another mistake that is being repeated, for decades.
We previously brought you the fact that "BRAIN" target="_blank">https://x.com/TheRebelPatient/status/1910413670242541915">"BRAIN DEATH" IS A LIE TO PROCURE ORGANS.
Now let’s look at the explanation of yet another lie in a 1985 CNN video and transcript, to be sure we understand just what a fetal ultrasound is, what the FDA did with early safety information on it, and the possible adverse events.
You can read the transcript, and/or watch the 11+ minute video.
FETAL EFFECTS OF ULTRASOUND: A GROWING CONTROVERSY
Cable News Network for Educational Use Only
The Transcript
Few pregnant women think twice today about getting an ultrasound scan.
It is an instant, moving picture of the fetus, made by high-frequency sound waves. You can see the baby’s heart beat, spinal column, skull, even the tiny valves of the heart.
Doctors call ultrasound a “new medical wonder”, a way to spot birth defects, improper growth, and problems that may interfere with birth.
Ultrasound is a type of radiation. But unlike x-rays, ultrasound is called, “non-ionizing”. That’s what makes doctors almost universally believe it’s absolutely safe, that unlike x-rays, it causes no damage to the fetus.
Physician Interview
But CNN Investigation reveals there is growing evidence that ultrasound is not entirely harmless. Some scientists and government officials are concerned that it may be dangerous over the long term. They feel ultrasound is grossly overused on pregnant women, they harm the fetus, and should be limited until they find out whether their suspicions are true.
Here's what they say may be the problem:
- Genetic damage to the fetus, that could persist for generations.
- Possibly cancer.
- And subtle birth defects that might not show up for years.
"But potentially, it can produce damage to the genetic material, and some of these early studies are suggesting that there is, in fact, damage induced by diagnostic levels of ultrasound in human and rodent cells."
“So our concern is growing.”
Dr. Arthur Bloom is a renowned geneticist at Columbia University, and an expert at radiation.
"If it becomes established that ultrasound is, in fact, a mutagen, then it will also, and most importantly perhaps, or at least equally as important, raise the question as to whether or not it is cancer-causing agent. Because a very high percentage of agents that are mutagenic are also carcinogenic."
I’m not suggesting, on the basis of the evidence, that it is a major effect of ultrasound, in terms of doubling the rate of birth defects, or anything of the sort.”
“But I’m simply saying that there may be a low-level effect there, of increasing the rate of congenital malformations that we will never be able to detect on medical grounds.”
Dr. Bloom and other experts stress that so far, they have no evidence ultrasound radiation causes harm in human fetuses. But they say we should avoid routine ultrasound examination, because we’re beginning to see signs of danger.
… warning sighs that in the past, led to disaster.
"One early warning sign is genetic damage to cells in test tubes."
We're now seeing this for the first time, from low levels of ultrasound.
Next, harm to laboratory animals.
This, too, is showing up. Another clue is evidence in humans, that something may be wrong. Now, a new government study, not yet released, does indicate that the unborn exposed to ultrasound weigh less at birth, a significant signal, experts say, that ultrasound may interfere with normal development.
The one thing scientists do not suggest they are finding is blatant deformities of a type caused by potent drugs like thalidomide.
Doctor: “We do not detect any congenital malformations after ultrasound, so whatever we’re doing, we’re doing something extremely subtle, if anything at all.”
Commentator: “What you’re saying is that you detect no overt signs of malformations…”
Doctor: “Right.”
Commentator: "…the way that we think of them as deformed limbs or a missing foot or..."
Doctor: “… a missing organ.”
Commentator: The main researcher who has triggered main concerns about ultrasound is Dr. Doreen Levaskeind, a radiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
She exposes animal and human cells to ultrasound waves. She finds abnormal changes in the way the cells look and behave. She won’t say the cells are genetically damaged, but she does say the changes look the same as damage caused to cells off 29 Rads of ionizing radiation, or x-rays.
That’s the equivalent of about 250 chest x-rays.
Here's how normal cells look without ultrasound, growing apart from each other in neat rows (Below):
Here's how they look after ultrasound (Below), a tangled mass growing wildly all over each other.
Here are other normal cells in motion, with smooth edges moving in a clear direction:
After ultrasound, 100% of them become phonetic and distorted (see below):
Dr. Doreen Levaskeind: “Things are happening. They’re happening to the DNA of these cells, they’re happening to the behavior. They’re beginning to grow in a funny way, behaving in an abherrant fashion. And in some cases, they are becoming tumor cells.
Dr. Doreen Levaskeind: “There are some long leukocytes on the DNA of the cells, and the behavior and on the cell growth persist on many generations after a single exposure.”
Commentator: In fact, as I recall, in your papers, you were showing that affects up to 10 generations.
Dr. Doreen Levaskeind: “Yes, and even longer than that."
Dr. Bloom says it looks as if ultrasound causes genetic mutations.
Dr. Bloom: "If a chemical were doing that, we call that a mutagen."
Commentator: Government officials are well aware of, and also concerned of, Dr. Levaskeind's findings.
Food and Drug Administration officials candidly admit they cannot say diagnostic ultrasound during pregnancy is safe.
FDA OFFICIAL: "I don't think that anyone can say that ultrasound is absolutely safe."
Commentator: In fact, the FDA has been saying for several years that they are worried about the effects of ultrasound, and done much research on it.
In these tanks (above), they exposed pregnant mice to low levels of ultrasound. They find the offspring of mice who got ultrasound weigh less when born. More important, CNN has learned FDA has just finished a new study on pregnant women monitored by ultrasound.
FDA Official: “We’ve been looking at a population of children, about 2,000 children, half of whom have been irradiated in the Denver, Colorado area. And the indication there, in those children who have been irradiated, have a reduced birth weight.”
Commentator: ‘Low birth weight’ may not sound very serious. But in some cases, it’s another word for, “premature”. And premature babies more commonly suffer brain damage and mental retardation, and are much less likely to survive.
Dr. Bloom says confirmed evidence that ultrasound produces low-weight babies is serious cause for alarm.
Dr. Bloom: “It could represent the effect of ultrasound slowing down the rate of cellular growth and maturation. And if that’s the case, clearly that’s a very undesirable effect.
Dr. Bloom, Continued: “If that were proven to be the case in humans, I think it would really put the brakes on the use of this procedure for routine monitoring.
Commentator: You do.
Dr. Bloom. “Yes, I do. I definitely do.”
Commentator: Dr. Harold Fox, an Obstetrician also at Columbia University, says there’s no need for restrictions on ultrasound.
He believes warnings about the technique would scare the public unnecessarily.
Dr. Harold Fox: “The public often becomes very scared. Worried. Anxious. Petrified, in one sense or another. And I think it’s absolutely inappropriate to apply that kind of a warning to diagnostic ultrasound.”
Commentator: None of the experts we talked to wanted to abolish ultrasound for pregnant women. But they believe it’s overused, often frivously, for example, “just to see the baby”.
Dr. Bloom: “Our general feeling is that the use of ultrasound-monitored pregnancies that have a clear risk, some kind of birth defect, some kind of pregnancy problem, that that sort of use is appropriate. In other words, when a pregnancy is at so-called “high-risk pregnancy”. The danger that I see is that ultrasound is now being used for the routing monitoring of many pregnancies that have no particular risks and no particular problems.”
Commentator: Dr. Bloom says 20% of the women are high risk and need ultrasound. More than 50% now get it.
(To Dr. Bloom:) “That’s quite a dramatic overuse.”
Dr. Bloom: “Yes. YES. I think it is. I think it is.”
Commentator: We would have certainly, more than a million women getting it, who probably don’t need it right now.
Dr. Bloom: “That’s correct.”
Commentator: What scientists and officials are saying is they really don’t know whether ultrasound is dangerous to human fetuses. But they have new clues that we should go easy on its use until we know more, because overuse today is not worth the risk of long-term, terrible genetic defects in the future.
Dr. Doreen Levaskeind: “When a female fetus is born, all her ova, in other words, all the eggs for the next generation, are present at the time of birth. And therefore, when you subject a femal fetus, near-term, you have not only subjected her cells to ultrasound, but also all her eggs for the next generation.”
Commentator: Jean Carper, CNN, Atlanta.
