I think Fox News causes autism. Check out the dates of THAT.

OP, I don;t know what your point is with this but the post is total BS and does a great disservice to those of us with kids who have ASDs who would love to see more actual science. I really hate the way everyone seems to feel there is an open invitation to pile on with their baseless theories. There is some actual science going on and while it is in its earliest stages it points far away from these kinds of theories.

This is absurd, and it is clear exactly here in the presentation:

Autism surveys and studies have found the following groups of women are at higher risk of bearing children with autism:
? Mothers who receive first-trimester care
? Mothers with higher educations
? Mothers with private health insurance
? Older mothers
Only increased exposure to prenatal ultrasound can explain all of the above

What?? I can rattle off dozens of reasons why the incidence of autism in those groups would be higher, primarily because they are all correlated to SES.

These slides are listed under "public comment" from a meeting and have no valid scientific value.

http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2010/full-committee-mtg-slides-Oct22.shtml The "author" of these slides 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 cherry pick "facts" together to support her hypothesis. See here on dental x-rays and dementia: http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/napa/Comments/cmtach34.pdf

OP, is a pot-stirring cross-posting bitch. She already posted in expectant mothers forum. So pregnant ladies, keep getting your ultrasounds.

I had ODS in Korea. They do an ultrasound at every appointment (most of them 3D). Seems like this would make a good test case -- is there a higher incidence of autism in Korea? ODS is not autistic, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Speaking of a reality check, this is DCUM not the New England Journal of Medicine. So why the hostility? This is just a conversation. People of normal intellect would attack a statement not another person.

At any rate in the early stages of pregnancies when a heart beat is first present the fetus is tiny. There many instances when a woman has had one ultrasound and there was a heartbeat present only to return for a second ultrasound sometime later only to find there is no longer a heartbeat and the fetus has perished. When this type of early development miscarriage occurs doctors usually have no explanation.

Following the context of this dialog, is it possible that excessive sound magnitude could cause developmental damage or death to a tiny and unquestionably fragile fetus which is only weeks old.

I'm the PP you quoted, and your bolded statement is hilarious. Rarely do DCUM posters capture unintentional irony so poignantly.

But to the larger issue, the statement was completely out of touch with any reality. We don't know the exact cause of many early miscarriages. True. But we do know that there is no increased incidence of early miscarriage among women who have ultrasounds compared to women who do not--colorful speculation about sea animals, notwithstanding. Let's apply some of that "normal intellect."

+1.

Over 20 ultrasounds with my high-risk twins. No autism thankfully (they are now 6).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Speaking of a reality check, this is DCUM not the New England Journal of Medicine. So why the hostility? This is just a conversation. People of normal intellect would attack a statement not another person.

At any rate in the early stages of pregnancies when a heart beat is first present the fetus is tiny. There many instances when a woman has had one ultrasound and there was a heartbeat present only to return for a second ultrasound sometime later only to find there is no longer a heartbeat and the fetus has perished. When this type of early development miscarriage occurs doctors usually have no explanation.

Following the context of this dialog, is it possible that excessive sound magnitude could cause developmental damage or death to a tiny and unquestionably fragile fetus which is only weeks old.

I'm the PP you quoted, and your bolded statement is hilarious. Rarely do DCUM posters capture unintentional irony so poignantly.

But to the larger issue, the statement was completely out of touch with any reality. We don't know the exact cause of many early miscarriages. True. But we do know that there is no increased incidence of early miscarriage among women who have ultrasounds compared to women who do not--colorful speculation about sea animals, notwithstanding. Let's apply some of that "normal intellect."

Ultasounds have never been proven safe (or harmful). There is just so much in prenatal medicine that is folklore, that makes intuitive sense so doctors do it despite no scientific research behind it (bedrest). So I am cautious. I had three ultasounds with with first but declined one that they were going to do JUST because they couldn't see his feet at the anatomy scan (we can't rule out club feet - so what. There is nothing you an do about club feet before he is born, so why do I need to know?). I also said no to the vaginal dating scan because I know exactly when I conceived. The truth is doctors just don't know so unless there is a compelling reason for the intervention, I say no.

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.

+1

I agree with this. Something worth researching for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Speaking of a reality check, this is DCUM not the New England Journal of Medicine. So why the hostility? This is just a conversation. People of normal intellect would attack a statement not another person.

At any rate in the early stages of pregnancies when a heart beat is first present the fetus is tiny. There many instances when a woman has had one ultrasound and there was a heartbeat present only to return for a second ultrasound sometime later only to find there is no longer a heartbeat and the fetus has perished. When this type of early development miscarriage occurs doctors usually have no explanation.

Following the context of this dialog, is it possible that excessive sound magnitude could cause developmental damage or death to a tiny and unquestionably fragile fetus which is only weeks old.

Anonymous wrote:We have autism and bottom line is no one knows where or why it happens. I think it is a combination of things and I don't think all autism is autism. I think there is a huge over diagnosis (including our diagnosis) and medically, they don't know as medicine is not nearly as advanced as we'd like feel it is. It is far from an exact science. Why the increase? There was no diagnosis for it way back when and people were just diagnosed with something different.

I agree. Autism describes a lot of very different things these days. I think they're going to have a hard time proving anything in terms of causation.

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.

+1.
The quoted study was pretty good but would be better if they had matched the controls on maternal age as well. Also, not only was the focus on vaccines a huge waste of resources but also a cause of unnecessary deaths

I had so many ultra sounds, and no autism with my dd's. For my second dd, I was on bedrest from week 26 or so, and had at least 4 of the major ultra sounds. In addition to those, I had smaller peeks at almost every appointment.

We have autism and bottom line is no one knows where or why it happens. I think it is a combination of things and I don't think all autism is autism. I think there is a huge over diagnosis (including our diagnosis) and medically, they don't know as medicine is not nearly as advanced as we'd like feel it is. It is far from an exact science. Why the increase? There was no diagnosis for it way back when and people were just diagnosed with something different.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000