Prenatal ultrasound much worse than X-rays

[bookshelf]

I don't disagree with Dr Peat at all. And I agree that ionizing radiation is worse than non-ionizing radiation because the harm caused by non-ionizing radiation is dose-dependent. I did think the title of this thread through. Unless there is actual DNA or some other physical damage, I don't think microwaves and ultrasound cause harm. It's important to note that the difference in this instance is the delicateness of unborn babies and the dose of the radiation. Even if ionizing radiation is harmful at any dose, you can live a long life having been exposed to small doses of it, yet can be killed by a sufficiently high dose of non-ionizing radiation.

I realise my first post was perhaps too long for everyone to go through all the specifics, so I'd like to quote a few places relevant to the points raised:





I believe one of the things that made Dr Peat so amazing was his capability of looking at empirical evidence and instead of resisting what didn't seem to fit what he knew, he could find a way to combine that new knowledge with what he already knew and create an even more coherent picture without contradicting himself. And although I can't speak for him, I don't think he would disagree with the evidence I've presented here.

From 11:17 at: Ionizing Radiation In Context 2, Politics And Science, 2009

You've done an excellent job bringing this to our attention and I really appreciate the awareness it has brought about. Thank you for your thoughtful efforts. It is duly noted and will certainly bring great pause before utilizing any type of ultrasound, regardless of the application.

 

[tokimaturi]

You've done an excellent job bringing this to our attention and I really appreciate the awareness it has brought about. Thank you for your thoughtful efforts. It is duly noted and will certainly bring great pause before utilizing any type of ultrasound, regardless of the application.

Thank you for the kind words. This forum has been an excellent resource to dig more deeply into Dr Peat's research and bring up related issues. So after learning about the dangers of prenatal ultrasound I did a search here and found little discussion on it and thought it was important bring it up.

It never occurred to me to question ultrasound with our children although I questioned pretty much everything else—gestational diabetes screening, dietary and supplementation advice, antibiotics for GBS, oxytocin injection, vitamin K shot, vaccines. I research each problem and made an informed decision. The problem with these things is that they aren't even presented as a choice and most people don't think to question them. First reading about this topic made me feel sick in the stomach realising I hadn't even given it a thought when it mattered.

 

[bookshelf]

Thank you for the kind words. This forum has been an excellent resource to dig more deeply into Dr Peat's research and bring up related issues. So after learning about the dangers of prenatal ultrasound I did a search here and found little discussion on it and thought it was important bring it up.

It never occurred to me to question ultrasound with our children although I questioned pretty much everything else—gestational diabetes screening, dietary and supplementation advice, antibiotics for GBS, oxytocin injection, vitamin K shot, vaccines. I research each problem and made an informed decision. The problem with these things is that they aren't even presented as a choice and most people don't think to question them. First reading about this topic made me feel sick in the stomach realising I hadn't even given it a thought when it mattered.

This is a great platform most of the time (sometimes people can be a little harsh, IMHO). RPs work is a gift as was his way of getting people to think (or re-think).

It is all quite sickening and it is hard not to feel bad about it. I do. I feel horrible that I subjected - my children, and myself, and blindly, ignorantly, naively went along when others have done the same - to all sorts of things because I simply didn't know or know to question or, when I did, I was reassured by reputable professionals and upstanding people in the community (most of whom, themselves, had no idea, either). We didn't know and, many times, even now we don't have many other choices - even if we are fully informed. In fact, being informed and still not having a choice is sheer agony. Anyone that says we do have a choice hasn't had a relative with a life threatening disease. We can't undo what was done to put any of us in the situations we are in now but doing what you're doing, in the most charitable and thoughtful way, is helping those who wish to hear and you will hopefully play a pivotal role (even if in some small way) of changing the paradigm. I pray the narrative changes soon and that the poisonings stop, the lies end, the truth is revealed, and we all have access to suppressed cures and the hope of a future life lived the way God intended will give us our health back until it's time to go "home".

 

[RealNeat]

Quite the claim that literally no one here has double checked unless you have paid to access the papers.

"According to the author of one of the recent ultrasound critiques, the technology causes far-reaching damage. Describing a series of studies published in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the author notes that “a single exposure to ultrasound produced cellular and DNA damage similar to 250 chest x rays”—and “[d]amage was permanent and heritable for ten generations and beyond.” Forms of damage included “DNA shearing, single and double strand breaks, chromosome rearrangements and DNA uncoiling, deformities and mutations in offspring, as well as the complete deactivation of genetic material within sonicated cells.”

The 1970s one (Diagnostic ultrasound: effects on the DNA and growth patterns of animal cells - PubMed) used ultrasound exposed human cells and then injected them into mice.
the 1980s one (Morphological changes in the surface characteristics of cultured cells after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound - PubMed) also used cultured cells but of mice.

From what i have read so far, this is not quality or realistic evidence to make these claims, im sure the full papers contain the quote but there is so much more we need to know. Im no expert but it seems there are some issues with the cell lines used along with the type of modified mice the cells were injected into. The processes of culturing and injecting cells is also very issue ridden and full of artifacts and confounding variables. The conclusions in this article are premature at best.

My personal opinion is imaging should be avoided unless totally necessary regardless of evidence of harm considering our bodies dont have proper defenses to such out of the ordinary exposures, xray, mri, ultrasound etc

 

[Nick]

Quite the claim that literally no one here has double checked unless you have paid to access the papers.

Here they are:
Sci-Hub | Diagnostic Ultrasound: Effects on the DNA and Growth Patterns of Animal Cells. Radiology, 131(1), 177–184 | 10.1148/131.1.177
Sci-Hub | Morphological changes in the surface characteristics of cultured cells after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. Radiology, 138(2), 419–423 | 10.1148/radiology.138.2.7455124

 

[RealNeat]

Here they are:
Sci-Hub | Diagnostic Ultrasound: Effects on the DNA and Growth Patterns of Animal Cells. Radiology, 131(1), 177–184 | 10.1148/131.1.177
Sci-Hub | Morphological changes in the surface characteristics of cultured cells after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. Radiology, 138(2), 419–423 | 10.1148/radiology.138.2.7455124

Thanks I'll take a look