Welcome to a forgotten corner of the ancient forest.
Look at these photos they are of a baby in the womb, produced by ultrasound. Ahh aren't they cute, so much better than the ones the doctor does. That is because the doctor is so scared of the potential damage that ultrasound might do to a fetus that he uses very low power ultrasound. These photos are by a shopping mall equivalent. They have no such qualms. They use high power ultrasound, the type that has proved efficacious in the heal of bone and soft tissue damage.
Doctors know that this high powered ultrasound alters the way bone behaves when it is repairing itself following an injury. They have no idea what it does to a developing fetus. Not to worry I am sure that the used-car salesman with a fetish for large pregnant women who is now providing this invaluable service at the mall knows exactly what he is doing. He must do, afterall he has just shelled out $100 000 for the machine.
Unfortunately those wowsers at the FDA (that's US Food and Drug Administration) are not so sure it is a good idea. Nor is the The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine which "strongly discourages the non-medical use of ultrasound for psychosocial or entertainment purposes." You see ultrasound is high energy radiation and any form of radiation at this level can be safely assumed to have an adverse affect on a fetus.
Yes I know it seems silly that those doctors waste all that time at university learning about the physiology of the human body and don't give you nearly as good pictures as the aforesaid used-car salesman. Let's just assume they have your baby's welfare at heart shall we.
You can read an analysis of the FDA report in the BMJ here or read the original FDA report here.
There are many jewels hidden amongst the leaves in this forgotten part of the ancient forest. Spend some time browsing and you are sure to find some. Click here or continue your search below
or read the most recent entries here.Scary stuff. It's hard to believe any parent would willingly subject their unborn child to that.
Posted by: Roger the Shrubber at April 19, 2004 05:53 AMYour information is completely false.
'They use high power ultrasound, the type that has proved efficacious in the heal of bone and soft tissue damage. "
You obviously know nothing about 3D/4D Ultrasound and should avoid making accusations that are incorrect. 3D/4D Ultrasound uses exactly the same type, intensity and frequency of ultrasound as in traditional or 2D ultrasound. Perhaps you should research a subject before you feel you are knowledgeable enough about it to make statements.
I concur with Roger...your information is completely false. And obviously you know nothing about Fetal Fotos because every customer coming in to receive this service has to receive permission from their doctor first or Fetal Fotos will not take them. You mention that doctors won't willingly use this type of ultrasound in their office but many of them now have this technology. And if they don't, they willingly send their patients to Fetal Fotos to get this done. Why would a doctor do that if it was harmful to the baby or the mother? I did receive this service at Fetal Fotos and my doctor is the person who told me about the service and encouraged me to go. He has been in practice for over 20 years and is part of a large 5 doctor practice. Sorry but you obviously have no clue what you are talking about and people who just believe you without finding out the facts are just gullible. And, one other thing, the thing about the FDA...Fetal Fotos follows all of the guidelines and regulations set forth by the FDA with regards to the equipment and business...I asked my doctor about this and he's the one who told me that they are a very responsible service. Once again, your scare tactics did not work...I know who to go to for the truth.
Posted by: Tracie at May 5, 2004 04:51 AMSorry, I thought it was Roger that had the brains when I posted my statement. It is actually Kelly that is the smart one that I agree with.
Posted by: Tracie at May 5, 2004 04:52 AMYes, the British Medical Journal, The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and the FDA are such light weight sources of information aren't they?
And what is this 4D rubbish, we are not talking about some silly science fiction novel here; we are talking about a powerful technology and the FDA has raised some serious concerns about its capricious use.
The practice is nothing more than vanity and curiousity, it serves no other purpose. If I were a pregnant woman I would want to know that the FDA is so concerned with the practice.
Tracie, I would imagine that Fetal Fotos is a franchise and as such, is largely unregulated. Your doctor may have assured himself that the practitioner in your case is acting responsibly. The fact remains that FDA has serious concerns and I felt that it was a valuable piece of information for women considering the service.
Posted by: GreenMan at May 5, 2004 08:07 AMIf the FDA is so concerned about this 4D technology, then why are doctors allowed to have this technology in their office and use it on a consistent basis on their patients? I have plenty of friends who receive 3D and 4D ultrasound right in their doctors' offices...and it is not for a medical purpose. And why hasn't the FDA shut Fetal Fotos down? You know, they have been open now for 10 years...and Fetal Fotos readily admits that the FDA has been into their stores...so why hasn't anything been done to stop them if what they are doing is so harmful? You say they are not regulated but are you so sure about that? How do you know about their business operations? If the FDA has not shut them down after visiting several of their stores, maybe there's something in how they conduct their business that you aren't aware of. You should probably be very careful before making such statements. And seeing my child had nothing to do with vanity or curiosity...it goes much deeper than that.
Posted by: Tracie at May 6, 2004 12:30 PMI am a soon to be father who, along with my wife, is contemplating having the 3D/4D US done. I have not seen references of facts from either Tracie or Greenman. Can you guys post any references to fact that you have? I would love to see them!
Posted by: brontos at September 20, 2005 03:22 AMBrontos: My daughter is only newly pregnant and I, like Greenman, am against not only 3D/4D but 2D ultrasounds and have been trying to ensure that my daughter doesn't subject her child to this technology.
Regardless of all the reassurances, ultrasounds are capable of affecting cells and the truth of the matter is we just don't know enough. Imagine if you will, a female foetus oocytes all ready and waiting ... do we really know what affect these utrasounds have on the 2nd generation. So many times throughout history we have been told "100% safe" ... only to regret our haste (DDT, X-Rays, Thalidomide, Vioxx need I go on).
Yes they have found that the frequencies that break-up kidney stones encourage bone growth and this may well be a treatment for arthritic hips (and other areas where bone growth is needed) ... but hips are not foetal cells. You will find many references to ultrasounds being used for 30-40 years, I would suggest these are upper limits, especially when it wasn't that long ago that they had to change the Hz as they were found to cause foetal bleeding, but even worse now is the length of exposure.
Study a little physics and you wouldn't go near them with a barge pole, unless the benefit out weighed the risk. So Tracie and Kelli don't go trouncing Greenman so blithely, he has a valid point ... don't assume you know, research is still being conducted. Arrogance is the ultimate stupidity and always be weary when money is the bottom line. These units are expensive and how else can one cover the cost unless one increases output.
Perhaps Greenman's concerns may have originated from somewhere like here: http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/14/ultrasound_risk.htm (I haven't read but will). The following are the latest obstetric guidelines: http://www.sogc.org/JOGC/documents/SenikasEffects-june05.pdf
If you reply, I'll come back in a day or two with some other links.
Posted by: zeitgeist at September 25, 2005 01:10 AMIn my readings and discussions with doctors I have found no evidence 3D/4D USs cause harm to an unborn baby. However, I have found no evidence 3D/4D USs do not cause harm. I have a friend who was about to have a 3D/4D US but decided not to because of the disclaimer required. I am not ready to subject my unborn child to that yet. I need evidence of time.
Posted by: brontos at September 29, 2005 12:45 AMBrontos: This is interesting, thoughtful and well written. States simply, what is known & what is not.
http://www.ncrponline.org/Ultrasound%20Summary--NCRP.pdf
It would seem criteria for safety (?) is dependant upon several factors, including but not limited to: Operator skill, duration, frequency (Hz), Max. output (mW/cm2) limitations have been raised = exposing the foetus to higher temperatures = operator skill, judgement & ethics. And the number of occasions one is exposed, this would also include ultrasonic foetal heart monitoring. Type of ultrasound used = 4 main types.
I wouldn't rely too heavily on doctors, a little outside their sphere, besides some still injected RhoGam containing thimerosal into Rh- women in the US until 2003, positively criminal. The list goes on, and on, and on. You alone are the only person you can trust when it comes to your child.
Thinking ahead, here is a site about SIDS/Crib/Cot death prevention you might like to peruse, read it carefully and understand the point, it is very important, then do a little research and work it out for yourself.
http://www.babysake.com/
Posted by: zeitgeist at October 2, 2005 02:33 AMThanks for the info zeitgeist. I haven't even thought about looking into that stuff yet (SIDs etc...). We still have several months but want to get as much info as possible!
Posted by: brontos at October 3, 2005 12:04 PMMy pleasure, you seem like minded, just wanting apply informed decisions rather than follow blinkered belief. Downside: one suffers information overload, cross-referencing over and over ad nauseam.
I communicated with Dr Sprott last week and shall send some attachments I received from him to your email (if you don't mind), for your own reference and judgement (from the horse's mouth, as it were).
Am a little obsessive I know, only because there is so much vested interest in marketplace (since my children), some of which, is not only unnecessary but positively deleterious.
Low power is used by all sonographers performing any obstetric ultrasound whether 2D or 3D - the system limits the power as prescribed by FDA for diagnostic use in the mid 90s. So, to say that doctors don't do these images because they only use low power is incorrect. Most doctors don't have the skills required to produce clear obstetric images, which is a specialty and requires much training, 4 years usually. Therapeutic ultrasound is used to heal bone and tissue and uses completely different power. Ultrasound imaging systems are not capable of generating that power. Scan time is limited to reduce exposure. There is no evidence (during 35 yrs of research)of any effect on mamalian tissue at diagnostic levels. Please get your facts right before posting misleading information.
Leanne RMS, DMU, BCOM
Not my facts, Leanne, those of the British Medical Journal, one of the most prestigous medical publications in the world.
I understand that voodoo shamans in Jamaica spend at least 4 years in study before practicing their dark arts. Length of study and a few initials, by themselves, do not a medical professional make.
Posted by: Greenman at January 29, 2007 02:04 PMGreenman, i really think you should look into facts more. Have you acctually looked at more than one journal artical? Can you post the article up?
just because one research says that ultrasounds can be bad for the baby does not necessarily mean it is entirely correct. To get your article in a journal you have to go through a process of having your research read by ethics committees, and ordinary people, the journal itself does NOT read every article and say "oh i think that one would be a correct and accurate piece of work, we will put this in". No they rely on other people to say that yes, its well written, yes, it passses an ethics test, no, they have not plagerised. I am sure that that particular journal has posted pieces of work that have been proved wrong before, and i am not saying that they are wrong, i am just saying that their research may be old, and outdated and they may have been a bit biased as well. To convince me i would need more then one article to agree, and i would need to see a literature review as well.
Now to the real point, i am looking at getting a 4D scan as well, but we are a tad bit worried about the price, we live in SA is their anyone who knows any places that do 4D scanning??
I am not too worried about the effects of ultrasound, as i, unlike greenman, have read up on it and found that ultrasounds have not been proven to have any risks. Instead they have been a great breakthrough in medical technology as they can help find anything that may be wrong with your baby and then in turn help mother and baby survive .
The following are some website in which i found useful, and accurate, they are written by educated people and have indeed done their research.
http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/pregnancy/prenatalhealth/329.html#7
http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=genus&bhcp=1#part_nine
plus heaps more.
my advise to everyone is to talk to your doctor, because he/she will know, then do some proper research on the topic, do not look at these forums because they are not accurate, anyone could come on here and say "all my pregnancys have been terminated because i used ultrasound" and it simply is not true, your doctor would not put you or your baby through anything that would potentially harm.
Posted by: Kate at February 3, 2007 09:36 AM
Stumble It!