Excerpts from Jim West’s third book on childhood disease, published in
the April 2017 issue of Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patient
by Jim West www.harvoa.org
Ultrasound is a highly controversial topic. It can be said without hyperbole that an understanding of its mysteries is essential to the well-being of the individual and the human species.
The word “ultrasound” commonly refers to diagnostic ultrasound (DUS), an acoustic technology utilized for medical examinations, usually to view real-time images of the fetus and the mother's reproductive tract.
Ultrasound imaging technology for diagnostic examinations evolved from a type of echo-imaging, originally developed as SONAR, an acoustic technology developed for underwater navigation. Sound waves are pinged off ship and submarine hulls, and distances are electronically calculated from the echoes.
Ultrasound is commonly used by industry, e.g., to disintegrate and blend materials, and to weld steel. Since the 1950s, ultrasound has been employed to generate “echo images” of the fetus.
DUS is not natural sound. It is usually at a frequency of 3 to 9 megahertz, with harmonics and random sonic effects. Its fundamental frequencies are higher than the EMF carrier frequencies for the AM radio band. Human hearing range is much lower at 20 to 20,000 hertz. DUS wave pressures can be thousands of times greater than that of the hearing pain threshold.
The physics are dramatic. The World Health Organization’s “Criteria 22”, states that ultrasound cavitation can create powerful shockwaves far above the speed of sound and cavitational bubble collapse temperatures of thousands of degrees centigrade, approximating the surface of the sun. WHO (1982):
It seems reasonable to assume that effects on biological systems may be induced at least by the mechanical shock waves and high temperatures generated during the bubble collapse.
Ultrasound has largely supplanted the earlier common imaging technology, X-rays, a technology admitted to be hazardous even though it took decades for that knowledge to become public. Despite professional knowledge, X-ray practice continued in shoe stores, hospitals and doctors’ offices. The history of medical X-ray imaging serves as a parallel to ultrasound history.
Diagnostic ultrasound (DUS) may be an economic boon for medical practitioners who advocate its routine use. There is another economic: Women who avoid DUS should be able to command a $10,000,000 dowry.
Let me explain.
DUS is now being applied to most of the entire world population during its fetal stage, and applied to nearly all pregnant women in the United States. Fearing the process of birth, women are driven towards this invasive procedure, accepting it as a standard routine.
Ina May Gaskin, legendary midwife:
It’s easy to scare women, and it’s even profitable to scare women and girls about birth.
DUS is widely declared to be “harmless”, despite mothers describing on forums such as The Thinking Moms’ Revolution — fetal trauma, maternal pain, events preceding DUS-associated damage to their child. Other forums describe vaginal bleeding following DUS.
Coincidentally, Torrey (1976) describes vaginal bleeding during the second trimester as especially important as a possible marker for autism and childhood psychosis. Torrey’s study was conducted when DUS intensity was low compared to present-day.
To this day, clinicians claim that bleeding is an insignificant event.
Mid-trimester bleeding was especially prevalent. The bleeding was usually minor and was not considered to be clinically significant at the time of occurrence. The results tend to corroborate 12 previously published retrospective reports indicating more perinatal complications in children who develop autism and childhood psychosis.
Gao (2010) found maternal bleeding following transvaginal DUS. It also found DUS damage to the chorionic villi.
As usual, MM puts its hand back in the cookie jar. Transvaginal ultrasound is the method of evaluation abnormal uterine bleeding, and the treatment advised is surgery or birth control pills.
The negative health implications are vast for the individual and society. DUS appears to have set the human species on a tragic path due to its subtle and not-so-subtle biological effects. Critics argue that the exponential rise in autism incidence is largely the result of fetal exposure to ultrasound., If they are correct, then it may take many generations to recover from this misguided application of medical technology. DUS damages DNA.
While this may seem alarming, it bears a similarity to the afore-mentioned WHO document, “Criteria 22”. Many scientists world-wide signed the document, including Wesley Nyborg, PhD, of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Melvin Stratmeyer, PhD, of the FDA, and William O’Brien, Jr., PhD, of the Bioacoustics Research Laboratory, University of Illinois.
“…more than 35 published animal studies suggest that in utero ultrasound exposure can affect prenatal growth… A number of biological effects have been observed following ultrasound exposure in various experimental systems. These include reduction in immune response, change in sister chromatid exchange frequencies, cell death, change in cell membrane functions, degradation of macromolecules, free radical formation, and reduced cell reproductive potential… The data on clinical efficacy and safety do not allow a recommendation for routine screening…”
The WHO Criteria was published 34 years ago. Its concerns have never been refuted. These concerns are supported by most modern science, though, to date, that science has not been acknowledged by the dominant politic. What was described by WHO as an unacceptable risk three decades ago is now a much greater risk because the FDA has since raised allowed machine intensities by a factor of 8x-15x.
Newnham (1993) is a human exposure study published, with two followup studies published later focusing on child development. The studies concern children exposed in utero during the years 1989-1991. A total of 2,834 maternal-fetal pairs were exposed to DUS from early generation machines, low ultrasound intensity. Many sessions were at less than 5mW/cm2 SPTA, none more than 25mW/cm2 SPTA. Disease was found.
Our findings suggested that [five or more ultrasound sessions] increase the proportion of growth-restricted fetuses by about one third. …it would seem prudent to limit ultrasound examinations of the fetus...12
These observations of growth restriction are important in that they were found despite attempts to dismiss data with statistical significance filters. Newnham hides data behind significance filters and jargon, and dismisses positive results.
The study compared children from two groups of women exposed to DUS, a “regular” exposure group, and an “intensive” exposure group. The intensive group had more DUS sessions and higher exposure per session. The study results would have been much stronger had the study used a no exposure group. Omitting a no exposure group dilutes any observations of DUS hazards.
Growth restriction makes sense, as growth restriction had been found in earlier animal and cell studies. Growth restriction is a big problem in itself, and it can imply a syndrome, e.g., malformations, neurological impairment, etc.
Eight years later, Newnham followed up on the same population and published a study claiming that by year one, the size of smaller children had caught up to the norm, employing statistical significance arguments.
20 years later, Newnham followed up on the same population, studying intraocular development. It played down “differences” with statistical significance arguments.
There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to ocular biometric or visual outcomes…
Most statisticians agree that it is bad practice to omit data and discussion because of “statistical significance”.
Schmidt & Hunter (2002), on statistical significance:
Significance testing almost invariably retards the search for knowledge by producing false conclusions about research literature… a disastrous method for testing hypotheses.
Newnham could not dismiss everything. It found a significant persistent disease. …except for slightly higher intraocular pressure...
That persisting ocular disease indicates that there is likely other unstudied diseases of unknown types, as the ocular disease is part of a larger DUS damage syndrome.
The defects observed by Newnham resulted after exposure to older machines, i.e., the defects resulted from low intensity DUS, ranging from less than 5mW/cm2 to 25mW/cm2. Newer machines, manufactured after 1991, range up to the 720mW/cm2 limit and sometimes higher.
This Swedish study reviews four population studies. It is categorized here as an early work (before FDA/1991) despite being published in 2008 because it reviews the records of large populations of children who had been exposed to prenatal DUS during the 1970s and 1980s, the era of low intensity machines. It admits a dilution of its results due to its economy of design.
Stalberg finds some increased risk for boys (not girls) in the following categories: Schizophrenia, lower intellectual ability, lower performance in school, lower performance in physical education, and a tendency towards left-handedness.
Stalberg concludes that the increased risks did not reach statistical significance, though with important exceptions, such as:
Boys exposed to ultrasound at any time during gestation had lower mean grades in physical education and a tendency towards lower school grades in general.
Stalberg suggests that DUS may contribute to a general stress-induced vulnerability to disease.
Ultrasound and other prenatal and environmental events may be the elements that ‘turn on’ susceptibility genes in predisposed individuals.
Thanks to Stalberg for their description of DUS-initiated fetal vulnerability, however, I argue later that it is not “turned-on” genes, but simple DUS damage that “predisposes” individuals to disease.
Stalberg provides a grim warning:
…these studies assessed ultrasound exposure in the 1970 and 1980s, with average intensity output levels for ultrasound machines of around 20 mW/cm2. This is very low compared to the maximum limit of 720 mW/cm2 set by the U.S. FDA… [clinical] outputs are probably ten times higher today... Further, the intensities for ultrasound machines are based on the manufacturer’s data and high discrepancies have been found...
Siegel (1979) observed increased cell detachment at low exposure. Cells normally attach to substrates and to each other. Their finding relates to embryo implantation problems and fetal growth restriction. Siegel was mentioned in WHO “Criteria 22” as a reason to deny routine DUS.
Cachon (1981) observed damage to cell microtubules with only 10 seconds exposure of pulsed ultrasound at a low intensity of 8mW/cm2. The study was cited in WHO “Criteria 22” as a reason to deny routine DUS.
Ellisman (1987) observed myelination disruption at the extremely low intensity of 0.135mW/cm2. This is a rat pup study emulating the human fetal scenario. No serious discussion followed this devastating study of DUS. Though initially given a high quality rating by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), it was later denied funding for continuation.
Beverley Beech, of AIMS-UK, characterizes the importance of animal studies.
Over the years there have been numerous studies on rats, mice and monkeys which have found reduced fetal weight in babies... in the monkey studies, the ultrasound babies sat or lay around the bottom of the cage, whereas the little control monkeys were climbing up the bars and were up to the usual monkey tricks... What happens when the monkeys grow up?... as Jean Robinson has pointed out, monkeys do not learn to read, write, multiply, sing opera, or play the violin.
This great historical event marks the huge increase in DUS intensities and various epidemics of childhood disease.
During 1991, FDA negotiations among “interested parties” resulted in an 8x-15x increase in allowable DUS machine intensities and with safety responsibility placed entirely on the operator.
Since 1976, negotiations have always had a proposition on the table for unlimited machine intensities. Ostensibly this is to facilitate industrial progress. DLMiller (2008): [T]o liberalize the upper limit categories in some way to avoid inhibiting the development of diagnostic ultrasound... 
FDA provides guidelines and special limits regarding intensity and exposure duration. However, these are weak, as the 720mW/cm2 limit applies to nearly all prenatal applications, even for the very sensitive eye of the fetus. This represents an absurdly dangerous paradox: The FDA intensity limit for the adult eye is 50mW/cm2, yet the intensity limit for the fetal eye is 720mW/cm2. DLMiller:
The new [DUS] limits were essentially made uniform across [application] categories, except for [adult] opthalmological examinations, for which consideration of possible heating indicated exceptional risk to the [adult] eye lens. The obstetrical ultrasound limit... was elevated to the highest 720 mW/cm2… the actual increases have not been as dramatic as these numbers indicate...
My brackets and emphasis shouldn’t be necessary, i.e., DLMiller, if not under censure, would have been able to clearly discuss this paradox, but he conceals it from any naive readership. His language is self-neutering in that he minimally complies with the ethics of describing the dangerous contradiction.
controversial, displays from 1991 onward, rising machine intensities that correlate with rising autism
incidence. See the following graph.
As intensities and disease incidence increased, did the NIH step up, appropriately funding studies?
No. The opposite. Only a few studies were conducted after 1991. In general, these studies found ultrasound hazardous but were denied funding for continuance, played down, and ignored.
The IACC, a federal agency, directs U.S. tax dollars to autism research. Funds go almost entirely towards genetic studies, a few environmental studies, and no ultrasound studies. There resides industry’s great profit and low liability.
From 1950 to the mid-1980s, there were over 700 studies reporting ultrasound-induced bioeffects, yet without resolution of human risk.
Anderson and Barrett (1979)
The medical application of low-energy ultrasound as a diagnostic aid has developed in the absence of appropriate studies of its hazards.
Several reviews of the literature… reveal that most studies were inadequately designed or inconclusive for the human medical situation; information on exposure conditions was frequently incomplete, markedly different from diagnostic ultrasound or in some instances sample size and follow-up were less than optimal.
Worse than inappropriate science is no science.
for fetal imaging, the ISPTA was allowed to increase by a factor of almost 16 from 1976 and almost 8 from 1986 to 1992, yet… all epidemiological information available regarding fetal effects predates 1992. DLMiller:
[As of 1992] the allowable output for obstetrical ultrasound was increased [8x-15x]… There has been little or no subsequent research… to systematically assess potential risks to the fetus…
DLMiller is authoritative, funded by the NIH. With his humble admission of “little or no research”, he confirms the dismal state of ultrasound science. With his silence, however, he denies the dominant existence of science that indicts DUS. Most scientists do the same. They are listed with quotes in my DUS Book 1.
See the following table, “Science vs Policy”. Its exposure ratios provide a stunning measure of the disjunct between science and public policy.
The table contains three studies (Siegel, Cachon, and Ellisman) and two official policy statements (AIUM, FDA). The studies specify low intensities where damage was observed. The policies stated in the table specify intensities of official safety thresholds.
See “Exposure Ratios” in the table. With these ratios, I compare Science versus Policy. Ratios were calculated by dividing Policy Exposures by Science Exposures. Example: “50,000” divided by “90” equals “556”.
As can be seen, the ratios are huge, i.e., the difference between Science and Policy is huge.
The three studies were selected for their low exposures. They have never been properly discounted by MM. Example of impropriety: Del Cerro (1994) claims to have overturned Ellisman, but did not use Ellisman’s expert methods. It claims to have duplicated Ellisman, but it did not. Ellisman is a renowned neuroscientist. The lead author of Del Cerro (1994) is Morton W. Miller, a botanist, accused of incompetence and COI with the radiation industries, per the EMF epidemiologist, Dr. Milham, personal communication.
And there is Andrew Marino, PhD, who writes of Miller:
With reference to performing experiments, he [MWMiller] stated, “I follow the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.”
Marino’s quote is only one of his many such item. It appears the courts allowed Miller such statements without punishment or reprimand. Marino, as an expert environmental witness, often testifying against Miller, submitted papers to the court, sometimes forgetting to include the “t” in Miller’s first name, Morton.
In the mainstream, there is no critical discussion regarding Del Cerro or Ellisman. Del Cerro is cited only when implying that Ellisman is moot. Ellisman was kind enough to discuss this with me and to protect his privacy, I can only say that disgust does not fully describe his experience with the politics of EMF.
The usual mainstream defense is:
“It is unlikely that a fetus would be exposed to such long dwell times.”
But Cachon’s dwell time is only 10 seconds. Siegel only 30 seconds. Ellisman, a longer 30 minutes (1,800 seconds), however, when Ellisman’s extremely low intensity is extrapolated to the very high clinical intensities of present-day, some probable damage could be indicated within a few seconds.
In 2013, the disjunct between public perception and scientific reality was described by Jacques Abramowicz, MD, a highly respected authority, professor, consultant to ultrasound machine manufacturers, and prestigious member of the American Institute of
Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM).
If asked, the vast majority of end users (and patients) will respond that ultrasound is not X-rays and is completely safe. In reality, there is a marked lack of knowledge on effects of ultrasound in tissues being examined (bioeffects) among the majority of these end-users. 
Profit abhors “a marked lack of knowledge”.
Mainstream experts generally agree that ultrasound has the potential to produce harmful biological effects in the fetus. For example, the WHO Criteria 22 describes risks as determined by animal and cell studies. Because these risks have not been confirmed by human studies, the practice of DUS continues, as the FDA definitively declared, in 2013.
Although laboratory studies have shown that diagnostic levels of ultrasound can produce physical effects in tissue, there is no evidence from human studies of a causal relationship between diagnostic ultrasound exposure during pregnancy and adverse biological effects to the fetus.
Paradoxically, funding for animal and cell laboratory studies has virtually disappeared from the Euro-American realm since the allowed machine levels were raised 8x in 1991.
I found four such studies, and they all indicate ultrasound to be considerable risk: Stanton (2001), Ang (2006), Krasovitski (2011), and Hočevar (2012). Recently, there is Webb (2016), mentioned earlier.
Stanton (2001), a mouse study, found increased cell death in the intestine at medium intensity DUS. Funding was declined for continuation in order to find lower thresholds.
Ang (2006) caused public concern when it reported dysfunction of neuron migration in the brains of mice fetuses, caused by low intensity DUS. The lead author, Pasko Rakic is a prominent neuroscientist at Yale University. In articles and interviews, he played down his own study. Later, in 2010, it was stated that Rakic received funding for continuation in the form of a monkey study, which was then quietly discontinued, without an explanation. The funding was reported to be $3,000,000.
Hočevar (2012) is a high-tech rat study designed to approximate the human fetal scenario for DUS exposure. It studies cellular gene expression following low intensity DUS exposure. It unexpectedly found bioeffects similar to X-ray exposure, i.e., the gene GADD45a was several hundred times differentially expressed. Given that ultrasound radiation is not categorized as ionizing radiation (e.g., X-rays), this was previously thought to be impossible.
Hočevar supports the earlier research of Doreen Liebeskind, MD, at Columbia University, as follows.
Liebeskind (1981) is a cell study designed to be relevant to both clinical DUS and X-ray exposure. Ultrasound damage was similar to X-ray damage as observed under an electron microscope. When the results were extrapolated to a typical clinical session, they indicated an equivalent risk of 250 chest X-rays. A chest X-ray in 1981 was much higher intensity, i.e., much more destructive than present-day.
Liebeskind is thus even more relevant to present-day clinical sessions. Damage was permanent, heritable through cell division, demonstrating like Cachon (1981) that DUS exposure could conceivably affect many human generations. This is discussed in the WHO Criteria 22 as a reason not to endorse routine DUS.
Krasovitski (2011) presents a sensitive mathematical model for ultrasound damage. The model was developed from the results of many experiments including its own experiments. Cellular damage was found at intensities 38x less than the FDA guideline of 1.9 MI (Mechanical Index).
Looking for the industrial defense to Krasovitski, I found that immediately after Krasovitski was published, the NIH funded a paper by Charles Church, PhD. He attempts to defend the FDA position with a refutation of Krasovitski.
The professor overseeing Krasovitski is Eitan Kimmel, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at the prestigious Technion Institute in Haifa, Israel.
Church never contacted EKimmel to clear up any possible misunderstandings. Church’s paper consists largely of copy-pasted material with some old-school argument interspersed, and it ignores the import of EKimmel’s supporting studies. Church cites 6 references. EKimmel cites 39 references. An updated version of EKimmel’s study cites 45 references with several new experiments that provide additional support.
In early 2013, I began my research for undeniable documentation. My motivation was due to an inability to convince people of DUS hazards with the existing critical material.
There is a wide-spread frustration among critics.
Emma Ashworth of AIMS-UK relates a story of her mother, an experienced midwife who spoke to all of her clients about the hazards of DUS. All except one went on to choose DUS.
I found, as described by the FDA and DLMiller, that MM allows only human studies as definitive evidence. So, I then used a working theory: Somewhere there must be a study that employed a type of chromatography called “electrophoresis” to reveal ultrasound damage. This sensitive analytic technology uses a flow of mild electric current to enhance the separation of biochemical compounds during chromatography. Compounds visually separate. Electrophoresis is used, for example, to analyze DNA samples gathered from crime sites because DNA is unique to each person.
I wrote to ultrasound scientists, asking if they knew of an electrophoresis study, and I received no answer. I assumed there was no such study.
I persisted and eventually found JZhang (2002). Not only was this an electrophoresis study, but it was a human study. Bonanza!
Through JZhang’s references, and the references of his references, I was able to assemble a large number of arcane studies from the emerging online Chinese databases. I worked to gain an understanding of ultrasound science, to be able to evaluate and defend the studies from industry and plagiaristic corruption. I assembled my material as a book containing the new bibliography with extracts, commentary, illustrations, graphs and tables. I rewrote the book as a more formal version, keeping only the essentials with negligible speculation, shock and angst.
That first ultrasound book (DUS Book 1) was published May 2017 under the title,
Unknown to Western scientists and the public, the hazards of ultrasound to the human fetus have been confirmed in China since the late 1980s. This involved approximately 50 human studies, over 100 scientists, and 2,700 pregnant women (maternal-fetal pairs). Before abortion, they were exposed to carefully controlled DUS exposure levels, relevant to the clinical scenario. The studies were conducted over a period of 23 years, with the last, found so far, published in year 2011. These studies analyze abortive matter via electron-microscopy and biochemical assays.
That first DUS book is an unprecedented East-West bridge, bringing essential arcana, the unknown Chinese Human Studies (CHS).
The CHS now allow us to say the previously unthinkable.
In this context, with the CHS and other appropriately designed studies, it would seem impossible that the practice of DUS could continue without major adjustments to protocols and machine settings.
The CHS began in 1988 with the presentation of a study of DUS bioeffects on human embryos. This occurred at a convention in Washington D.C. sponsored by the World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (WFUMB). With reference to the human studies, several Chinese scientists were presented an award during a special ceremony, Xin-Fang Wang, Yong-Chang Chou, Wang-Xue Guo, Zhi-Zhang Xu and Ruo Feng.
The CHS continued with the encouragement of, arguably, the most influential ultrasound scientist in the United States at the time, Floyd Dunn, PhD. In 1989, Dunn wrote a key letter to the most influential ultrasound scientist in China, Professor Ruo Feng, PhD, of Nanjing University. Feng was editor of the Chinese Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, a member of editorial boards for journals internationally, and well-known at ultrasound conventions throughout the world. See photos.
In 1990, Feng published an overview of the hazards of DUS where he stresses the importance of the ongoing CHS. With an understanding of the political importance of Dunn’s letter, Feng documented the letter in Chinese and English language. See letter extract, with my highlight.
With Dunn’s encouragement, the Chinese continued the human studies project over the next two and a half decades. These studies cite and support the observations of several earlier studies in the Western realm.
Despite their success, the CHS were not acknowledged. Dunn apparently remained silent. He is deceased as of January 24, 2015. Ruo Feng is presently retired and not in good health.
JZhang (2002) is the amazing electrophoresis study, a human in utero exposure study. The study is unknown and never discussed, like nearly all of the CHS, despite being published in pristine English and in modern scientific format. The study finds DNA fragmentation in the chorionic villi caused by low intensity DUS at only 10 minutes exposure.
The study’s results are so strong that we could assume possible damage at less than 10 minutes. Given that clinical sessions are conducted at much higher intensities, a simple extrapolation to the clinical scenario could indicate damage within seconds, not minutes. The chorionic villi comprise the essential nutrientwaste exchange apparatus between mother and fetus.
See the image, rendered from JZhang that represents DNA fragmentation caused by DUS exposure at four different time durations.
At the end of 2014, I brought JZhang (2002) to the attention of the prominent scientist, William O’Brien, Jr., PhD. With input from his colleague, Jacques Abramowicz, MD, O’Brien immediately wrote an article for publication, describing JZhang as an important study requiring serious attention. A review of JZhang was also expected from the AIUM Bioeffects Committee.
O’Brien’s publication date and a
Committee review has only
been recently announced, with publication possibly imminent. I will monitor this if and when possible. Despite O’Brien’s strong reputation, progress has been slow. Since 2002, JZhang’s publication date, it has now been 14 years for this possibility of mainstream recognition.
JZhang is supported by many similar CHS, as described in DUS Book 1. DNA fragmentation would also relate to the fetus, as the fetus is intimate to the chorionic villi.
JZhang has huge implications for the present epidemic of chorioamnionitis, an inflammation of the chorion and amnion membranes in pregnant women. Causation for this disease has been declared to be infection despite a frequent failure to associate germs with this disease.
JZhang has huge implications for many childhood diseases, for example, the presentday emergence of childhood cancers and leukemia. DNA fragmentation happens to be the foremost theory for cancer causation. The epidemic of neonatal jaundice should be considered because the CHS confirm the older Euro-American studies that found dysfunction of immune systems caused by DUS. Those studies were discussed in the WHO Criteria 22.
The CHS are human studies of in utero fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. These generally exceed the legacy of Western science in terms of technical sophistication, era relevancy, volume of work, and number of subjects. They bring empirical human evidence for ultrasound hazards.
The CHS are simple. Pregnant women, volunteering for abortion, were carefully selected and then exposed to controlled ultrasound sessions, using standard clinical devices at various intensity settings and exposure durations. Abortive matter was then examined via state-of-the-art technology, e.g., electron microscopy, flow cytometry, and various biochemical analyses (immuno- and histo-). The observations were compared against the observations of sham-exposed pregnant women (the no dose control group).
The CHS measure DUS damage to the fetal brain, kidney, cornea, chorionic villi, and immune system. They determined that low exposure is able to damage the human fetus, ovum, and embryo.
What could be a more clear and undeniable damnation of DUS?
Why are clinicians instructed to expose the fetus to this controversial form of radiation during early gestation, during a period of rapid cellular division, of well-known vulnerability to ultrasound?
Why do clinicians expose the fetus to radiation knowing it is a hazard?
Why is DUS routinely advocated for determination of pregnancy, thereby ensuring higher risk?
These questions, posed long ago by the history of X-rays on pregnant women, remain unresolved.
Many professionals recognize DUS hazards, but they claim the greater hazard is birth without DUS. This brings an innate contradiction, as their views are often determined from assessments of data gathered from DUS examinations. Such assessments seem bizarre, given the evidence that DUS itself is teratogenic. The mainstream inability to mention the obvious brings suspicion.
The Euro-American realm generally declares,
• Only human studies can resolve the DUS controversy. Few human studies exist.
• For ethical reasons, human studies should not exist. We can deconstruct this institutional gridlock...
Human studies are two types:
• Epidemiological reviews, i.e., population studies.
• in utero or in vivo exposure studies, such as the CHS, where abortive matter is evaluated in a laboratory following carefully controlled DUS exposure to the mother’s ova, embryo, or fetus.
Epidemiological studies that exonerate DUS should be approached skeptically. They are complex and thus vulnerable to political bias and exploitation. Epidemiologists have stated that tweaking studies down is common and acceptable practice in order to gain publication.
There is already mainstream agreement that animal and cell studies demonstrate that ultrasound has the potential to damage the human fetus. Scientists claim they are waiting for confirmation from human studies, for example,
The potential for ultrasound to cause adverse effects in experimental animals is well established, but whether similar effects also occur with humans in susceptible tissue (e.g., neural) requires further investigation…
No human investigations conducted to date have documented major physiologic consequences of ultrasound exposed during imaging… The relative safety of ultrasound has been well established based on its use… over several decades…
One could postulate that humans are resistant to ultrasound-related biologic effects…
Shankar describes the present-day absurd mainstream consensus. DUS safety is “based on its use” with the medical industry in COI and science in unresolved contradiction. Humans in the clinical scenario are assumed to be “resistant” to bioeffects observed in cell and animal studies. Stasis is maintained with the Catch-22.
The ethical concern over human studies is false because abortion has long been legal, ethical and ubiquitous in the Western realm. Placental pathology is a well-established discipline. Appropriate science could have begun decades ago by merely including the toxicology of DUS into placental pathology.
There is a lot more to say. A New Bibliography presents a strong authoritative challenge to the industrial establishment. This should bring a serious reconsideration of the risk/ benefit of ultrasound practice. That DUS book 1,
• Introduces the Chinese Human Studies, and reviews the prior status quo.
• Supports Western critics who have long argued that ultrasound contributes to child disease epidemics.
• Revives Western cell and animal studies that indicate ultrasound hazards.
• Enables toxicological arguments for childhood disease causation, e.g., GI tract dysfunction, immune dysfunction, rashes, cancer, leukemia, and a wide variety of diseases related to wide-spectrum hormone and cell dysfunction.
• Describes how to minimize unavoidable DUS.
• Presents an Ultrasound Toxic Synergy Model: This resolves contradictions within the anti-vax position.
 Boris Krasovitski et al., “Intramembrane Cavitation as a Unifying Mechanism for Ultrasound-Induced Bioeffects,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 8 (February 22, 2011): 3258–63, doi:10.1073/pnas.1015771108.
 WHO: International Program On Chemical Safety, “Environmental Health Criteria 22: Ultrasound,” 1982, http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc22.htm.
 “Dr Robert Mendelsohn on Pregnancy and the Dangers of Ultrasound with Introduction by Esther Thaler,” Video, 1983, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkHrE2hUygU.
 TMR, “How I Gave My Son Autism,” August 29, 2014, http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/how-igave-my-son-autism/.
 “Spotting, Bleeding, Passing Clots after Transvaginal Ultrasound - February 2016 Babies,” What To Expect, accessed March 6, 2016, http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/february-2016-babies/topic/spotting-bleeding-passing-clots-after-transvaginal-ultrasound.html.
 E. F. Torrey, S. P. Hersh, and K. D. McCabe, “Early Childhood Psychosis and Bleeding during Pregnancy. A Prospective Study of Gravid Women and Their Offspring,” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 5, no. 4 (January 1, 1976): 287–97.
 Su Fang Gao and Zuo Li, “Apoptosis And Restoration Of Human Villi During First Trimester Pregnancy After Exposure To Transvaginal Ultrasound” (Clinical Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, 2010), http://www.globethesis.com.
 Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, “Abnormal Uterine Bleeding,” August 19, 2015, http://www.uptodate.com/contents/abnormal-uterine-bleeding-beyond-the-basics.
 Caroline Rodgers, “Questions about Prenatal Ultrasound and the Alarming Increase in Autism,” Midwifery Today, no. 80 (Winter 2006), http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundrodgers.asp.
 Jack Rabin, MD, Ultrasound and Autism: What Every Pregnant Woman Should Know, 1st edition (Medical Discourse, 2015).
 SPTA, acronym for Spatial Peak Temporal Average. This is the standard intensity parameter for transducer output. There are many possible parameters. SPTA is defined as the maximum temporal average intensity for radiation. After 1991, SPTA was replaced in the machine display with two risk parameters, MI (Mechanical Index) and TI (Thermal Index). SPTA is generally considered better for discussion related to clinical exposure, and is used throughout this article. 12 Newnham et al., “Effects of Frequent Ultrasound during Pregnancy.”
 Most toxicology studies compare groups at various dosages against a group that goes through the experimental process with no dose. The no dose group is the “control group”. Sometimes the control group is a minimal dose group, but no dose is much preferred.
 W. D. O’Brien, Jr. and M. E. Stratmeyer, “Ultrasonically Induced Weight Reduction In Mice ,” Congen Anomal 15, no. 260 (1975).
 This finding of growth restriction does not exclude the possibility that DUS could also cause the opposite, i.e., macrosomia.
 H. Forward et al., “Multiple Prenatal Ultrasound Scans and Ocular Development: 20-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 44, no. 2 (August 2014): 166–70, doi:10.1002/uog.13399.
 K. Stalberg et al., “Prenatal Ultrasound Exposure and School Achievement in Teenagers; Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 32, no. 3 (2008): 306–306, doi:10.1002/uog.5602.
 E. Siegel et al., “Cellular Attachment as a Sensitive Indicator of the Effects of Diagnostic Ultrasound on Cultured Human Cells,” no. 133 (1979): 175–79.
 J. Cachon, M. Cachon, and J.N. Bruneston, “An Ultrastructural Study of the Effects of Very High Frequency Ultrasounds on a Microtubular System (Axopods of a Heliozoan).,” Biol. Cell 40, no. 69 (1981).
 Estimated SPTA from 2.5mW/cm2 SATA
 Mark H Ellisman, Darryl Erik Palmer, and Michael P André, “Diagnostic Levels of Ultrasound May Disrupt Myelination,” Experimental Neurology 98, no. 1 (October 1987): 78–92, doi:10.1016/00144886(87)90073-2.
 Beverley Lawrence Beech, “Ultrasound - the Mythology of a Safe and Painless Technology,” A Paper Presented to the Royal Society of Medicine. Acknowledgement to Jean Robinson, October 3, 1995, http://www.aims.org.uk/OccasionalPapers/ultrasoundTheMyth.pdf.
 Susan Katz Miller, “Summary: Exposure Criteria for Medical Diagnostic Ultrasound: II. Criteria Based on All Known Mechanisms” (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2003)
 Douglas L Miller, “Safety Assurance in Obstetrical Ultrasound,” Seminars in Ultrasound, CT, and MR 29, no. 2 (2008): 156–64, doi:10.1053/j.sult.2007.12.003.
 Kevin Martin, “The Acoustic Safety of New Ultrasound Technologies,” Ultrasound 18, no. 3 (August 1, 2010): 110–18, doi:10.1258/ult.2010.010024.
 AutismSpeaks.org, “Autism Prevalence on the Rise,” 2009, https://www.autismspeaks.org/docs/Prevalence_Graph_12_18_2009.pdf.
 The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) was originally established under the Children's Health Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-310).
 IACC, “2010 IACC Autism Spectrum Disorder Research Portfolio Analysis Report,” 2010, http://iacc.hhs.gov/portfolio-analysis/2010/index.shtml#q3.
 Morton W. Miller and Victor Ciaravino, “Letters: Diagnostic Ultrasound, Miller, Caravino,” Science 228, no. 4700 (May 10, 1985): 650, doi:10.1126/science.3857706.
 D W Anderson and J T Barrett, “Ultrasound: A New Immunosuppressant,” Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology 14, no. 1 (September 1979): 18–29.
 Ellisman, Palmer, and André, “Diagnostic Levels of Ultrasound May Disrupt Myelination.”
 Jacques S. Abramowicz, MD, “Bioeffects of Obstetric Ultrasound for the Clinician: How to Keep It Safe,” Institute For Advanced Medical Education, February 2013.
 Douglas L. Miller et al., “Overview of Therapeutic Ultrasound Applications and Safety Considerations,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 31, no. 4 (April 1, 2012): 623–34.
 Manuel Del Cerro et al., “A Test of the Hypothesis That Diagnostic Ultrasound Disrupts Myelination in Neonatal Rats,” Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 20, no. 9 (1994): 981–86, doi:10.1016/03015629(94)90057-4.
 Andrew Marino, PhD, “Point 12: The Testimony of Applicants’ Witness Sol Michaelson Regarding the Health Hazards of High Voltage Transmission Lines Is Without Merit,” March 6, 1976, http://andrewamarino.com/Testimonies/testimonymarino_4d.html.
 Personal communication with scientists, and my research of literature.
 AIUM, “American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine”, a multidisciplinary medical association of more than 9000 physicians, sonographers, scientists, students, and other health care providers. Established in 1952, AIUM interfaces with industry, is a member of WFUMB, “The World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine”, a WHO organization.
 Jacques S. Abramowicz, MD, “Bioeffects of Obstetric Ultrasound for the Clinician: How to Keep It Safe.”
 Sarah L. Cibull, BS, Gerald R. Harris, PhD, and Diane M. Nell, PhD, “Trends in Diagnostic Ultrasound Acoustic Output From Data Reported to the US Food and Drug Administration for Device Indications That Include Fetal Applications,” J Ultrasound Med 32 (2013): 1921–32.
 MT Stanton et al., “Diagnostic Ultrasound Induces Change within Numbers of Cryptal Mitotic and Apoptotic Cells in Small Intestine,” Life Sciences 68, no. 13 (February 16, 2001): 1471–75, doi:10.1016/S0024-3205(01)00940-7.
 Eugenius S. B. C. Ang et al., “Prenatal Exposure to Ultrasound Waves Impacts Neuronal Migration in Mice,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, no. 34 (August 22, 2006): 12903–10, doi:10.1073/pnas.0605294103.
 Krasovitski et al., “Intramembrane Cavitation as a Unifying Mechanism for Ultrasound-Induced Bioeffects.”
 Zvonko Hočevar et al., “Gene Expression Profiling of Rat Fetuses Exposed to 2-Dimensional Ultrasound,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 31, no. 6 (June 1, 2012): 923–32.
 Stanton et al., “Diagnostic Ultrasound Induces Change within Numbers of Cryptal Mitotic and Apoptotic Cells in Small Intestine.”
 Personal communications with Marie Stanton.
 IACC, “Strategic Plan Question 3: What Caused This To Happen and Can This Be Prevented? Responses.,” U.S. Dept Of Health And Human Services, 2010, http://iacc.hhs.gov/public-comment/2010/rfi_comments/q3/index.shtml.
 Jim Giles, “Ultrasound Scans Accused of Disrupting Brain Development,” Nature 431, no. 7012 (October 28, 2004): 1026–1026, doi:10.1038/4311026a.
 Doreen Liebeskind, MD et al., “Morphological Changes in the Surface Characteristics of Cultured Cells After Exposure to Diagnostic Ultrasound,” Radiology 138 (February 1981): 419-23.
 Krasovitski et al., “Intramembrane Cavitation as a Unifying Mechanism for Ultrasound-Induced Bioeffects.”
 Charles C. Church, “Theoretical Cavitation Thresholds in Vivo and Their Relationship to the Mechanical Index,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131, no. 4 (April 1, 2012): 3385–3385, doi:10.1121/1.4708768.
 Chen Geffen and Eitan Kimmel, “The Effect of Low Intensity Ultrasound on Adhesion Molecules, Actin Monomers and Membrane Permeability in Endothelial Cells,” Micro-Acoustics in Marine and Medical Research, 2011.
 AIMS-UK stands for “Advancement for Improvements in Maternity Services”, based in the United
Kingdom. Much information about DUS can be found at www.aims.org.uk
 JiaYin Zhang et al., “Long Dwell-Time Exposure of Human Chorionic Villi to Transvaginal Ultrasound in the First Trimester of Pregnancy Induces Activation of Caspase-3 and Cytochrome C Release,” Biology of Reproduction 67, no. 2 (August 1, 2002): 580–83, doi:10.1095/biolreprod67.2.580.
 Xin-Fang Wang, “History of the Development of Ultrasound in China” http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/historychina.html.
 William D. O’Brien, Edwin L. Carstensen, and Wesley L. Nyborg, “Gold Medal Award 1998: Floyd Dunn,” accessed December 22, 2013, http://acousticalsociety.org/about/awards/gold/12_10_10_dunn.
 Jim West, “Harvoa | Prof. Ruo Feng, Biography,” Internet html, accessed March 11, 2016, http://harvoa.org/chs/rf.
 Ruo Feng, “Ultrasonic Diagnostic Dose Intrauterine Fetal Embryos Security,” Chinese Journal of Ultrasound 6, no. 3 (1990): 210–11.
 JiaYin Zhang et al., “Long Dwell-Time Exposure of Human Chorionic Villi to Transvaginal Ultrasound in the First Trimester of Pregnancy Induces Activation of Caspase-3 and Cytochrome C Release.”
 Elzbieta Pawlowska and Janusz Blasiak, “DNA Repair—A Double-Edged Sword in the Genomic Stability of Cancer Cells—The Case of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 16, no. 11 (November 18, 2015): 27535–49, doi:10.3390/ijms161126049.
 Teratogenic: Able to disturb the development of an embryo or fetus.
 This is my general overview as determined from my review of many statements by ultrasound scientists. A few of these are quoted in this article and many are quoted in my book. These are generalizations and there are exceptions such as Newnham (1993).
 Jorn Olsen, Shah Ebrahim, and Chitr Sitthi-amorn, “Scientific Fraud and Epidemiology IEA,” June 2013, http://ieaweb.org/2006/01/scientific-fraud-and-epidemiology/.
 Hariharan Shankar and Paul S. Pagel, “Potential Adverse Ultrasound-Related Biological Effects: A Critical Review,” Anesthesiology 115, no. 5 (November 2011): 1109–24, doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e31822fd1f1.