Ultrasounds and autism. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Caroline Rogers? What are her credentials?

That is a good question. According to her, she is a writer and "researcher" with no documentation on what her actual credentials are. She posted this article in 2006 on "Midwifery Today," with the description that she specializes in "Caroline Rodgers is a writer/researcher who has a special interest in the impact medical diagnostic imaging has on human biology."

It sounds like she likes to pull "facts" together to make a hypothesis. See here on dental x-rays and dementia:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/napa/Comments/cmtach34.pdf

OP, please don't post moronic stuff like this. I love the way she glosses over pesticides and pollution by cherry picking vague facts.

How did this end up on the HHS website?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Caroline Rogers? What are her credentials?

That is a good question. According to her, she is a writer and "researcher" with no documentation on what her actual credentials are. She posted this article in 2006 on "Midwifery Today," with the description that she specializes in "Caroline Rodgers is a writer/researcher who has a special interest in the impact medical diagnostic imaging has on human biology."

It sounds like she likes to pull "facts" together to make a hypothesis. See here on dental x-rays and dementia:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/napa/Comments/cmtach34.pdf

OP, please don't post moronic stuff like this. I love the way she glosses over pesticides and pollution by cherry picking vague facts.

How did this end up on the HHS website?

It's right there in the URL: "events/2010." She spoke at an event hosted by the IACC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Caroline Rogers? What are her credentials?

That is a good question. According to her, she is a writer and "researcher" with no documentation on what her actual credentials are. She posted this article in 2006 on "Midwifery Today," with the description that she specializes in "Caroline Rodgers is a writer/researcher who has a special interest in the impact medical diagnostic imaging has on human biology."

It sounds like she likes to pull "facts" together to make a hypothesis. See here on dental x-rays and dementia:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/napa/Comments/cmtach34.pdf

OP, please don't post moronic stuff like this. I love the way she glosses over pesticides and pollution by cherry picking vague facts.

How did this end up on the HHS website?

It's right there in the URL: "events/2010." She spoke at an event hosted by the IACC.

She didn't actually "speak." Her slides are listed under "public comment."

http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2010/full-committee-mtg-slides-Oct22.shtml

OP, please ask in Website Feedback to take down your post with misleading info.

[Anonymous]

OP, stop cross posting this shit.

[Anonymous]

I hate this post because I have no idea what to do with this information. Am I supposed to reject the ultrasounds from now on? Worry constantly that my 1st ultrasound already gave my child autism? As if there is not enough to worry about while being pregnant.

[Anonymous]

I have four kids, and had numerous ultrasounds with each due to various complications. Healthy kids, no issues.

At the risk of starting a firestorm, every kid I know on the spectrum has a relative who is quirky/spectrum-y....and many also have an older father. Just an observation on the dozen or so kids with I autism I personally know.

[Anonymous]

It seems very plausible that ultrasounds could be damaging to fetuses especially in their earliest stages of development. During the early days and weeks of development the fetus is about the size of a bottle cap and has no hard tissue. It is surrounded by an ocean of amniotic fluid which may amply sound waves. How can sound waves concetrated enough to create an image be beneficial to the fetus which is so fragile at that point in its early development?

Common sense dictates a moratorium on sonograms until standard practices and sound amplitudes can be reviewed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems very plausible that ultrasounds could be damaging to fetuses especially in their earliest stages of development. During the early days and weeks of development the fetus is about the size of a bottle cap and has no hard tissue. It is surrounded by an ocean of amniotic fluid which may amply sound waves. How can sound waves concetrated enough to create an image be beneficial to the fetus which is so fragile at that point in its early development?

Common sense dictates a moratorium on sonograms until standard practices and sound amplitudes can be reviewed.

You are clearly competent to talk about this...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems very plausible that ultrasounds could be damaging to fetuses especially in their earliest stages of development. During the early days and weeks of development the fetus is about the size of a bottle cap and has no hard tissue. It is surrounded by an ocean of amniotic fluid which may amply sound waves. How can sound waves concetrated enough to create an image be beneficial to the fetus which is so fragile at that point in its early development?

Common sense dictates a moratorium on sonograms until standard practices and sound amplitudes can be reviewed.

You are clearly competent to talk about this...

Yes, thank you very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems very plausible that ultrasounds could be damaging to fetuses especially in their earliest stages of development. During the early days and weeks of development the fetus is about the size of a bottle cap and has no hard tissue. It is surrounded by an ocean of amniotic fluid which may amply sound waves. How can sound waves concetrated enough to create an image be beneficial to the fetus which is so fragile at that point in its early development?

Common sense dictates a moratorium on sonograms until standard practices and sound amplitudes can be reviewed.

I disagree with the moratorium. I think ultrasounds can be pretty amazing things. I think, personally, they were intended to help with things like this:

http://www.childrenscolorado.org/news/inthenews/2013-news/life-saving-procedure-at-fetal-care-center.aspx

However, there is a HUGE difference between critical necessity, useful information (dating, size) and other instances where an ultrasound might be indicated. I had many, many ultrasounds with my first. Only planning to allow one with my second, unless something life-threatening appears to develop. The FDA and CDC already advice judicious use of ultrasound technology, even when being used in a diagnostic manner.

to the PP unsure of what to do with this information; it's just information. It's not conclusive. But there are concerns, by legitimate sources, that ultrasounds, despite their apparent safety, have not been exhaustively tested for safety, and again, should be used sparingly. Ultimately, some doctors conclude that the benefits of offeirng ultrasound (dating, monitoring, and some treatments) outweighs the risk, which is only a theoretical risk at this point. Most women are very comfortable with this. Because we do know that ultrasound has effects, however, and the exact impact of these effects are unknown, I prefer to err on the side of caution, with just the one ultrasound. It seems like the issue is with all of the ultrasounds people do. I mean, are they necessary with every visit, for a low-risk pregnancy? Do all women really need FOUR now?

[jsteele]

This is a duplicate thread. Please continue this discussion in this thread:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/313781.page