This is a startling result and informs us that ultrasound does make
physical changes in the brain that if grossly over applied will actually
kill. The immediate take-home is that it
is unnecessary and needs to be avoided.
The second take home is that it is a prime candidate for the increase of
autism. All this is bad news for a much
loved service.
A better protocol needs to partially scan the fetus while specifically
avoiding the head. This provides ample
information to plan the pregnancy but avoids any damage.
This is likely more than most of us wanted to know but it is clearly
important and must inform all further work.
It reminds me of how naively we had small children stick their feet
inside a device to look at their x-rayed feet at the shoe shop no less. This was in the fifties before we woke up to
just how risky this might be. I was one
of those small children.
October 11, 2013
Heidi Stevenson
Ultrasound has become routine during
pregnancy over the last 3 decades. It is assumed to be safe, though safety was
never investigated. Research is now finally being done, and the results are
dismal, demonstrating clear and permanent brain damage, as shown in this study.
Nearly all babies have been damaged to varying degrees, resulting in abnormal
neurology becoming the norm.
That delightful ultrasound look
at a fetus months before birth is a huge thrill—but that’s the only benefit.
That thrill comes at a risk, one that it’s hard to imagine any parent would be
willing to take if the facts were presented. Ultrasound causes brain damage
and can even kill the fetus. This is not a supposition. It’s been clearly
documented, and exactly what it does to the developing brain is understood.
Manuel Casanova M.D., a neurologist who holds an endowed chair
at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, contends that Rakic’s mice
research helps confirm a disturbing hypothesis that he and his colleagues have
been testing for the last three years: that ultrasound exposure is an
environmental factor directly contributing to the exponential rise in autism.[1]
The
Study
Dr. Pasko Rakic is the lead researcher for the
study documenting that ultrasound damages mouse brains.[2] It
shows that the process of brain development is disturbed in mice. Though it’s
easy to suggest that this is “only” a study on mice, so doesn’t prove anything
about humans, that’s not true. The method of development in mouse brains is
exactly the same in all mammals. Therefore, if ultrasound has an adverse effect
on mouse brains, then it must also have the same effect on human brains.
The Brain’s Cellular
Organization
Brain cells are not arranged in a random
manner. The brain’s gray matter controls muscles, sensory perception, emotion,
and memory. Gray matter cells form columns, which can function as a unit.
The cells are also arranged in rows that are parallel to the surface of the
brain. You can think of the brain’s cells as being arranged in a grid, like a
graph. Each cell forms part of both a column and a row, though the row is
actually curved to match the surface of the brain.
If developing cells do not end up where they
should, behavioral problems and epilepsy can arise from the misarrangement.
It’s obvious that anything capable of causing such misarrangement can produce
disabilities. Therefore, Dr. Rakic’s study is particularly disturbing.
Brain Cell Migration
A fetus’s neurons are formed in the area just
above the cerebellum, sometimes called the “primitive brain”, and they progress
toward the outer surface of the brain. During the process, they are moved
outward, parallel to the brain’s surface. The study report goes into some
detail about how this process happens, but for our purposes, there’s no need to
address it.
How and when this process occurs is well
understood, though the means by which cells move radially, away from the column
in which they start, is not well understood. What is known, though, is that the
process is very sensitive and can be affected by many biological, physical, and
chemical agents. The authors state:
For example, repeated exposure of the rodent and primate
fetal brain to environmental
agents, such as alcohol (9), drugs (22), neurotrophic viruses (23), and ionizing irradiation (24, 25), causes misplacement of neurons and behavioral deficits.
agents, such as alcohol (9), drugs (22), neurotrophic viruses (23), and ionizing irradiation (24, 25), causes misplacement of neurons and behavioral deficits.
The numbers in parentheses identify study
references documenting things that can result in displacement of neurons and the results.
The study provides a graphic representation of
how this migration functions and malfunctions under ultrasound. The ovals
represent neurons. They’re produced at the bottom, where single neurons are
shown. The red ones have been labeled on day 16 of gestation. The top row (A-D)
shows normal migration. The bottom row (E-H) shows abnormal migration of red
(BrdU-labeled) neurons that were formed on day 16 of gestation,
when ultrasound was applied.
The left-hand images (A & E) show day 16
of gestation (E16). The next ones (B & F) show day 17 of gestation (E17).
The last images (D & H) show the final placement of neurons at birth (P1).
Notice that all the red neurons on the top row
move upward in a consistent manner and form a single row (A-D). However,
neurons that have received ultrasound often move at slower rates (F). The next
batch of neurons catches up with many of them (G). The result of the the
neurons receiving ultrasound, shown in red, are often displaced, with some
not even reaching the cortex of the brain on the day of birth (H).
Sound Waves Equivalent to Human Fetus Exposure
Pregnant mice were given doses of ultrasound
for times ranging from 5 to 420 minutes. As shown in the image to the right,
the pregnant mice were placed in glass tubes with cutouts to deliver ultrasound
to their fetuses. An acoustic gel was applied to the posterior half of the
mouse and a water bag was placed on the side opposite the ultrasound device to
minimize any sound wave reflection or standing waves that could affect the
ultrasound application.
An ultrasound device that had been used on
humans. Extensive testing was done to avoid interference and assure that the
exposure of fetuses to the ultrasound was minimal. The results of these tests
are provided by the authors on the publisher’s site.
The label on the graphic reading “tsp” stands
for tissue standoff pad. The head of the ultrasound device was placed a distance
from the mouse’s skin to assure that the fetuses received sound waves
equivalent to those that a human fetus receives.
Method
146 mice were treated with ultrasound and 141
controls were run through a exactly the same process, but without actually
receiving ultrasound. Another 30 mice were also included as “normal” controls,
but we’ll ignore them because they don’t affect the primary results.
On the 16th day of their
pregnancies, the mice were injected with BrdU, which stained only the
newly produced cells. The mice were treated with ultrasound on days 17-19,
the 3 days following BrdU injection. All samples were processed by
technicians blinded to their control-ultrasound status.
On day 10 after birth, the young mice were
killed and brain slices were taken for analysis. These were stained and
processed, then viewed under microscropes, photographed, and analyzed. Grids,
which the researchers called bins, were drawn on top of images to aid in the
analyses.
The results of a 60 minute exposure is shown
in this graphic. The control is on the left, labeled A, C, D, and E. The
results of the mouse that had received ultrasound is on the right, labeled B,
F, G, and H. The top two images show the locations of the slices.
Neurons stained green with BrdU, which means
they were newly formed on the 16th day after conception, and
the others are stained red. The six images below A and B are photos of the
slices.
Images C and F show only the red stained
neurons, which pre-existed the green-stained BrdU neurons.
The middle images, D and G, show the same
information as C and F, but with the green BrdU-stained neurons added in. It’s
easy to see that the control neurons are more clustered at the top of the
cortex than those of the ultrasound-treated neurons in green.
Look at images E and H. Here, the difference
between controls and ultrasound-treated neurons is even more obvious. Only the
neurons that had been stained green with BrdU are shown. Notice that nearly all
the control neurons made their way to level 3 or 4 of the 10 bins. Far fewer of
the ultrasound-treated neurons reached levels 3 and 4. A large number reached
only levels 5 and 6. Worse, though, a significant proportion hardly moved
upward at all, remaining stuck at levels 1 and 2.
Finally, notice the arrow heads in H. One is
in bin 7 and two are in bin 10. Bin 7 is located below the cortex. It’s in a
deeper white matter area. These neurons did not even reach the cortex. Worse,
though, are all these ultrasound-treated neurons still sitting in the bottom
layer, a particularly worrisome situation. The study states that these neurons:
… formed a distinct band near the lateral cerebral
ventricle that resemble periventricular ectopias. When these ectopic
BrdU cells occurred, it was easy to distinguish the exposed brains
from the control brains, even upon visual inspection of the immunostained
sections.
Ectopias are abnormal positions of body parts
or organs, especially at birth. These ectopias were so severe that they can be
seen without a microscope—an indication of severe brain damage.
Quantitative Analysis
The example above is a single sample from the
study, but there were 287 mice in it. The numbers for each of the exposure
times were:
·
420 minutes: 7 controls, 7 received ultrasound
·
210 minutes: 14 controls, 14 received
ultrasound
·
60 minutes: 32 controls, 29 received
ultrasound
·
30 minutes: 35 controls, 35 received
ultrasound
·
15 minutes: 33 controls, 39 received
ultrasound
·
5 minutes: 20 controls, 22 received ultrasound
The image to the left graphs the results. USW
stands for ultrasound wave and SHAM is for controls.
The graphs display the percent of neurons that
remained in the bottom five bins, numbers 6-10, which means that they traveled
less distance toward the brain’s surface.
Unfortunately, the 210 minute results are
anomalous and the researchers offer no explanation. However, close examination
shows some support for it. The percentage of 60-minute control mouse neurons
that remained in bins 6-10 is less than for 30 minutes. It may be that
something happens in the 30-210 minute exposure range that results in a
variance.
The dispersion of neurons is similar for
controls and ultrasound-exposed mice at 5 and 15 minutes, though there was a
slightly higher dispersal amount in the ultrasound-exposed mice. At 30 minutes,
though, the distinction starts to become significant:
·
More than 30 minutes’ exposure: 4% more
neurons in bottom 5 bins (5% & 9%)
·
More than 60 minutes’ exposure: 6% more
neurons in bottom 5 bins (5% & 11%)
·
More than 210 minutes’ exposure: 4% more
neurons in bottom 5 bins (5% & 9%)
·
More than 420 minute’s exposure: 6% more
neurons in bottom 5 bins (9% & 13%)
·
Average of all results: 3% more neurons in
bottom 5 bins (5% & 8%)
Clearly, longer ultrasound exposure results in
more neurons getting left behind.
As the authors wrote:
At durations of 420 min, it is possible that the stress of
this long exposure leads to increased cell dispersion above the normal
control condition. However, it is difficult to
completely assess durations of 420 min and above because some pups from USW-exposed mothers were either resorbed or cannibalized at birth (Table 1). In fact, no pups survived to P10 [10 days after birth] in pregnant mice exposed to 600 min of USW, although the sham control mouse gave birth to a full litter that survived until P10.
completely assess durations of 420 min and above because some pups from USW-exposed mothers were either resorbed or cannibalized at birth (Table 1). In fact, no pups survived to P10 [10 days after birth] in pregnant mice exposed to 600 min of USW, although the sham control mouse gave birth to a full litter that survived until P10.
Put simply, they were saying that when
mouse pups were exposed to 420 minutes of ultrasound, some of them did not
survive. They were either absorbed before birth or born dead or nonviable,
and therefore cannibalized by their mothers. They also subjected some mouse
fetuses to 600 minutes of ultrasound. None of the fetuses survived that
much ultrasound exposure. All died by the 10th day after
birth. However, none of the fetuses of the control group died.
Partial Conclusion
This study shows that ultrasound waves
directed at a fetus interfere with brain development by causing displacement of
neurons. Such displacement is known to result in behavioral problems and are
either known or suspected of causing other neurological problems.
Dr. Rakic and his team have produced a
powerful study that clearly demonstrates brain damage produced by ultrasound.
This prenatal test has become so routine that some doctors do screenings at
every visit. Though individual procedures don’t take 3½ to 7 hours (210-420
minutes), it’s easy to see that a baby could easily be exposed to an aggregate
of that much. Such results need to be taken seriously.
There’s even more to know about ultrasound
during pregnancy—such as the fact that it doesn’t even produce any
benefits. This, and more about prenatal ultrasound are discussed in the
next article, Ultrasound Causes Brain Damage in Fetuses: Implications.
About
the Author
Heidi Stevenson is Allopathy’s Gadfly.
She’s an iatrogenic survivor whose prior career in computer science, research,
and writing was lost as a result. She has turned her skills towards exposing
the modern medical scam and
the politics surrounding it, along with providing information about the
effectiveness of much alternative medicine,
without which she would not be here today acting as Allopathy’s Gadfly. Find
her work on GaiaHealth.com, where
this article was originally featured.
I highly recommend Dr.
Margulis’ book, The
Business of Baby,
which will soon be reviewed here on Gaia Health –Heidi Stevenson:
Sources:
2.
Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves
impacts neuronal migration in mice; Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science; Eugenius S. B. C,. Ang, Jr, Vicko Gluncic, Alvaro Duque,
Mark E. Schafer, and Pasko Rakic.
Disclaimer: This article is
not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed
here do not necessarily reflect those of WakingTimes or its staff.
No comments:
Post a Comment