Autism and ultrasounds.

[Anonymous]

http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2010/slides_caroline_rodgers_102210.pdf

It doesn't define autism. So Aspergers may or may not be included

[Anonymous]

A little frightening....I had 8 ultrasounds and no autism here.

[Anonymous]

Oh please. This sounds like a HS senior paper.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting. I'm not convinced, but it certainly looks like it is worth studying.

But my oldest son (who is not autistic, but was tested due to some peculiar behaviors that mirror some ASD symptoms) was my "most" ultra-sounded baby. Due to a bad quad test, we did an amnio (extra high resolution ultrasound) and he was also very very late (thus requiring several late term ultrasounds to monitor amniotic fluid.

[Anonymous]

This is interesting, but more studies are needed. This is a pretty good epidemiological study in terms of design, size etc. that shows no link: http://www.uscucedd.org/downloads/products_publications/parent_resources/Autism_Science_Briefs/2_Ultrasounds.pdf

The thing is, you have to be really careful about causation. Older women are considered more at risk for having a child with autism. Because of the concerns around pregnancy and AMA, older moms get more ultrasounds. That doesn't mean ultrasounds lead to autism, it could just mean that older moms are more prone to having a child with autism and they happen to be the population having more ultrasounds.

Either way, I'm glad that the focus on vaccines is starting to wane. That was a huge waste of resources.

[Anonymous]

Oh good lord. Because of major serious complications, I had ultrasounds done once to twice a week for seven weeks and my twins don't have autism. If this was to have any legitimacy, they would look at the rates of autism among those who had high exposure. Even then, you would need to rule out other factors (i.e. those issues that necessitated multiple ultrasounds).

I get that people are interested in understanding why this disorder happens so that we can work on prevention, but wild goose chases like this seem to me to be harmful to the cause. Just another vaccine type distraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is interesting, but more studies are needed. This is a pretty good epidemiological study in terms of design, size etc. that shows no link: http://www.uscucedd.org/downloads/products_publications/parent_resources/Autism_Science_Briefs/2_Ultrasounds.pdf

The thing is, you have to be really careful about causation. Older women are considered more at risk for having a child with autism. Because of the concerns around pregnancy and AMA, older moms get more ultrasounds. That doesn't mean ultrasounds lead to autism, it could just mean that older moms are more prone to having a child with autism and they happen to be the population having more ultrasounds.

Either way, I'm glad that the focus on vaccines is starting to wane. That was a huge waste of resources.

Thanks for posting this. The presentation OP posted sounds indeed scary (and is rhetorically designed to be), although it only notes the historical correlation and is not based on any particular study.

I can't even count the number of ultrasounds I had for my twins, so this is of course a bit frightening. So far no signs of anything, but only time will tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh good lord. Because of major serious complications, I had ultrasounds done once to twice a week for seven weeks and my twins don't have autism. If this was to have any legitimacy, they would look at the rates of autism among those who had high exposure. Even then, you would need to rule out other factors (i.e. those issues that necessitated multiple ultrasounds).

I get that people are interested in understanding why this disorder happens so that we can work on prevention, but wild goose chases like this seem to me to be harmful to the cause. Just another vaccine type distraction.

+1. I don't think anyone ever looked at groups that get high numbers of ultrasounds, such as multiple pregnancies. Is there a higher rate of autism among twins and triplets?

[Anonymous]

Well, I definitely don't think it proves anything, but can't see any harm into investigating any reasonably possible cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, I definitely don't think it proves anything, but can't see any harm into investigating any reasonably possible cause.

+1. I also think it isn't a bad thing to give people a reason to back off of the ultrasounds for sport. Of course certain types of and conditions in pregnancies warrant frequent ultrasounds, but ultrasounds at every appointment just because it is fun for mom to see the baby, or, worse yet, ultrasounds at a non-medical place to get some cool 3-D pictures or find out the sex of the baby early??? A little ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

I had over 15 u/s with DD. No issues.

[Anonymous]

Similar to the technicians themselves, I don't know the sound frequency or volume magnitudes of ultra sounds machines. However, pods of dolphins and whales become disoriented after being blasted with Navy sonar and they sometimes beach themselves usually resulting in death.

I can easily believe there could be damaging and even lethal magnitudes of sound volumes transmitted to fetuses which are surrounded by amnyotic fluid from ultrasound machines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I definitely don't think it proves anything, but can't see any harm into investigating any reasonably possible cause.

+1. I also think it isn't a bad thing to give people a reason to back off of the ultrasounds for sport. Of course certain types of and conditions in pregnancies warrant frequent ultrasounds, but ultrasounds at every appointment just because it is fun for mom to see the baby, or, worse yet, ultrasounds at a non-medical place to get some cool 3-D pictures or find out the sex of the baby early??? A little ridiculous.

The harm is that you discourage people from procedures that are actually fine, and cause stress and heartache over something that is harmless. Think, for example, about the AMA or multiples mom who is already worried about her pregnancy risks and now has to worry that her additional monitoring may cause harm as well. I agree with first PP that there is no harm in investigating, but there is harm in overstating your results and associating a risk without real evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Similar to the technicians themselves, I don't know the sound frequency or volume magnitudes of ultra sounds machines. However, pods of dolphins and whales become disoriented after being blasted with Navy sonar and they sometimes beach themselves usually resulting in death.

I can easily believe there could be damaging and even lethal magnitudes of sound volumes transmitted to fetuses which are surrounded by amnyotic fluid from ultrasound machines.

Lethal magnitudes of sound volumes from an ordinary u/s machine? Reality called for you, PP. It wants to get back in touch.

[Anonymous]

You also cause tremendous guilt in SN moms, who already feel enough guilt to stop a train.