Guest guest Posted February 9, 2001 Report Share Posted February 9, 2001 , I would love those ultrasound links.... in Calgary too!! VonSchoening wrote: Bridget, I would like to have those sites ... Thanks! in Calgary, Canada i have some links on ultrasounds, if anyone would like them, let me know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2001 Report Share Posted February 9, 2001 This is another good example...you said the doctor wanted to be sure you were still pregnant. That would have been obvious without ultrasound, and I am a firm believer that in some of these very instances, the disruptions of the ultrasounds can actually help terminate a pregnancy that might have otherwise survived. I believe that this may be what happened to me with my miscarriage. I started bleeding in my fifth week, rather heavily, and then it stopped. My doctor did an ultrasound, and said everything was fine. He then proceeded to schedule another ultrasound a few days later, and after that I started to bleed again. He did another ultrasound, and I lost the baby. Maybe I would have lost the baby anyway, I don't know. And I would have never questioned the ultrasounds being involved, until after 3 years later, when I learned all this info about them when I was pregnant with my son. I just know that I will not tolerate any ultrasounds in the future, unless the information that they could provide would not be known any other way... Sharon, Quakertown PA Re: Re: Phyllis, Jan???? Weak teeth > > > > > > Wow. I am just in amazement. My son is 10 mos old and from the time > > he > > > was 5 mos old, he has had practically non-stop ear infections. > > Between > > > the u/s and the vaxes, I don't know what the cause is! My brother > > had > > > many infections as a child as well and now has hearing loss. I > > worry > > > about that for Max. I worry alot for Max because he is predisposed > > to > > > lots of things. My family isn't in the best health. I hope to > > change > > > that with Max. We intend to treat homeopathically and do whatever > > else > > > we can to kepe him as healthy as possible. Thanks for the insight > > on > > > the ultrasounds and ear infections... I will forever wonder now, > > was > > > that why he gets ear infections? Or was it the vaxes? I am so glad > > to > > > have this email list. I have gotten ALOT of great info here. > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- cpeter8743@... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 2/9/01 10:30:43 AM Central Standard Time, > > > > carriebeary77@... writes: > > > > > > > > << I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's > > > > amazing information. I really had no idea. >> > > > > > > > > Here is the trade-off. In our case, my fear of his ear-aches due > > to > > > > the > > > > ultra sound was not as great as my fear of not getting the > > midwife I > > > > wanted > > > > and a home birth, which both hinged on the due date. Had I known > > > > that there > > > > was more to the story of ultra sounds, and had I known the > > chances > > > > of the > > > > midwife actually delivering were remote, I would never have done > > it. > > > > > > > > However, at the time, these things were not available to me to > > help > > > > me make a > > > > decision, and one which I thought about for over a week. Doctors > > who > > > > have > > > > delivered a lot of babies (ours at that point had over 1200) will > > > > tell you to > > > > the side that they absolutely see an increase in ear related > > > > problems, and > > > > speech problems, etc. in those babies exposed to ultrasound at > > the > > > > " normal " > > > > time which is about 18-21 weeks. However, the medical > > establishment > > > > will not > > > > put any serious thought into any of it, even though it comes up > > time > > > > and > > > > again in independent studies (think of the backlash). I believe, > > > > it's > > > > probably the same with vaccines. No noticeable side effects for > > a > > > > lot of > > > > people, ergo there must not be any side effects, and those that > > are > > > > able to > > > > correlate problems, are blown off as well, it MUST be something > > else, > > > > > > > > everyone else hasn't had these problems. But, as we know, the > > > > effects of > > > > vaccines can be long term. In my case (I had the measles shot at > > 8, > > > > and the > > > > measles at 23), I am left with arthritis in some very strange > > > > places... which > > > > wasn't diagnosed until I was 29, many years past the point of > > > > complaint, > > > > because they just didn't want to interpret my medical data. So, > > I'm > > > > happy > > > > that you don't have any of the residuals, I believe that is > > > > absolutely true. > > > > And also, in your case, with problems you were looking at, what > > other > > > > choice > > > > would you have made? You probably would have done what I did, > > and > > > > went ahead > > > > with the ultra-sound and prepared for the worse that you were > > aware > > > > of (our > > > > doctor had clued us into the ear problems with my first, so > > although > > > > I was > > > > carrying twins we absolutely refused the ultrasound). > > > > > > > > Remember - they used to think x-rays were harmless as well. Now > > > > people who > > > > had them in the 60s and 70s (for teeth, head injuries, etc) are > > > > getting > > > > cancer in their thyroids and lymph nodes. considering all the > > other > > > > toxins > > > > we heap on these organs (fluoride and mercury are known to have > > > > adverse > > > > effects, i.e. hypothyorid in women, etc.), it's a wonder there > > aren't > > > > more > > > > cases. And I suspect there are, we just don't hear about it, or > > it's > > > > > > > > misdiagnosed, as it was in my case. I'm slowly but surely > > becoming > > > > my > > > > mother. I don't like doctors, and I don't trust them. They are > > not > > > > educated > > > > enough to be making such important decisions for us, nor are they > > > > educated > > > > enough to understand the ramifications and how to fix them. They > > > > don't even > > > > know or trust the body to begin with, and that should tell us > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2001 Report Share Posted February 9, 2001 I had 4 ultrasounds with my son (moved and changed doctors, had 2 with first one 2 with second and a 5th was recommended at 8mo because they thought they saw something... I didn't go.. asked OB what they could do for it, basically nothing, and it would have been checked at birth anyway..) Pregnant again and I've had 4 ultrasounds already (first was in- office because they couldn't detect heartbeat, nevermind that they ignored me when I told them I wasn't as far along as they figured because my cycles were 33-43 days long not 28 like their charts go by...) Last ultrasound was about 45min long. I had no idea they were anything but safe, in fact my mother is an x-ray tech and has done ultrasounds.. I guess she didn't/doesn't know either. My last ultrasound was in early November and I'm due early March... I believe they were only done to " view anatomy " ... they had trouble with the first two. I was told this baby " looked perfect " . If I have another baby later (not planning on it..) I won't be going with ultrasounds! Or doctors for that matter but that's another story... > > > > > In a message dated 2/9/01 10:30:43 AM Central Standard Time, > > > > > carriebeary77@y... writes: > > > > > > > > > > << I don't see any problems in Max from the u/s's. That's > > > > > amazing information. I really had no idea. >> > > > > > > > > > > Here is the trade-off. In our case, my fear of his ear- aches due > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > ultra sound was not as great as my fear of not getting the > > > midwife I > > > > > wanted > > > > > and a home birth, which both hinged on the due date. Had I known > > > > > that there > > > > > was more to the story of ultra sounds, and had I known the > > > chances > > > > > of the > > > > > midwife actually delivering were remote, I would never have done > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > However, at the time, these things were not available to me to > > > help > > > > > me make a > > > > > decision, and one which I thought about for over a week. Doctors > > > who > > > > > have > > > > > delivered a lot of babies (ours at that point had over 1200) will > > > > > tell you to > > > > > the side that they absolutely see an increase in ear related > > > > > problems, and > > > > > speech problems, etc. in those babies exposed to ultrasound at > > > the > > > > > " normal " > > > > > time which is about 18-21 weeks. However, the medical > > > establishment > > > > > will not > > > > > put any serious thought into any of it, even though it comes up > > > time > > > > > and > > > > > again in independent studies (think of the backlash). I believe, > > > > > it's > > > > > probably the same with vaccines. No noticeable side effects for > > > a > > > > > lot of > > > > > people, ergo there must not be any side effects, and those that > > > are > > > > > able to > > > > > correlate problems, are blown off as well, it MUST be something > > > else, > > > > > > > > > > everyone else hasn't had these problems. But, as we know, the > > > > > effects of > > > > > vaccines can be long term. In my case (I had the measles shot at > > > 8, > > > > > and the > > > > > measles at 23), I am left with arthritis in some very strange > > > > > places... which > > > > > wasn't diagnosed until I was 29, many years past the point of > > > > > complaint, > > > > > because they just didn't want to interpret my medical data. So, > > > I'm > > > > > happy > > > > > that you don't have any of the residuals, I believe that is > > > > > absolutely true. > > > > > And also, in your case, with problems you were looking at, what > > > other > > > > > choice > > > > > would you have made? You probably would have done what I did, > > > and > > > > > went ahead > > > > > with the ultra-sound and prepared for the worse that you were > > > aware > > > > > of (our > > > > > doctor had clued us into the ear problems with my first, so > > > although > > > > > I was > > > > > carrying twins we absolutely refused the ultrasound). > > > > > > > > > > Remember - they used to think x-rays were harmless as well. Now > > > > > people who > > > > > had them in the 60s and 70s (for teeth, head injuries, etc) are > > > > > getting > > > > > cancer in their thyroids and lymph nodes. considering all the > > > other > > > > > toxins > > > > > we heap on these organs (fluoride and mercury are known to have > > > > > adverse > > > > > effects, i.e. hypothyorid in women, etc.), it's a wonder there > > > aren't > > > > > more > > > > > cases. And I suspect there are, we just don't hear about it, or > > > it's > > > > > > > > > > misdiagnosed, as it was in my case. I'm slowly but surely > > > becoming > > > > > my > > > > > mother. I don't like doctors, and I don't trust them. They are > > > not > > > > > educated > > > > > enough to be making such important decisions for us, nor are they > > > > > educated > > > > > enough to understand the ramifications and how to fix them. They > > > > > don't even > > > > > know or trust the body to begin with, and that should tell us > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2001 Report Share Posted February 9, 2001 " I was also on bedrest for much of my 1st trimester and progesterone because I had a level of .03 and apparently it's supposed to be MUCH higher than that. " Yes, Progesterone is what helps you maintain a pregnancy. If your progesterone is too low and you are not on some type of progesterone support the chances of a miscarriage are very high. I have recent ly read a very good book called " Taking Charge Of YOur Fertility " by Toni Weshler. Very informative on pregnancy avoidance and acheivement the naural way. The one thing that I learned is the window to conceive is actully so small, I believe it truly is a miracle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2001 Report Share Posted February 9, 2001 >>Hi Brigit...there have been alot of studies that show that ultrasounds during pregnancy can be dangerous to the babies for several reasons. The one that I remember most, was that they cause the cells that are forming to " go crazy " and malfunction while the ultrasound is happening, and for some time afterward. The authors of the studies showed genetic " faults " in the DNA in rats after only one ultrasound, and genetic mutations were found in subsequent generations of rat babies. Also, it helps to know that ultrasounds ARE a form of radiation. Did you ever notice that when you are having an ultrasound, that your baby suddenly (in most cases), becomes very " active " ? My belief is that it is because the forming fetus feels these changes and is discomfited by them. The doppler is also an ultrasound device. Ultrasounds can be beneficial when needed in extreme cases, but they are greatly overused. I came by this information when I was pregnant with my son, and attending a Bradley birthing class. If you like, I can dig up this info, and send it to you...<< Something I never even clued into was that the fetal monitor they strap to you in the hospital during labour works by ultrasound. So here I was worrying about one ultrasound and a doppler ultrasound once and I was strapped to an ultrasound machine for hours when I was in labour and never even realized that is how it works! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2001 Report Share Posted February 10, 2001 In a message dated 2/9/2001 5:31:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, thagerty@... writes: So here I was worrying about one ultrasound and a doppler ultrasound once and I was strapped to an ultrasound machine for hours when I was in labour and never even realized that is how it works! and we wonder how women had babies for millions of years w/o these machimes??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Some WAPF leaders have stated that they believe the frequency of ultrasound use on pregnant women has resulted in delayed speech development and ear / hearing issues in their offspring.  Okay, I'm taking Bee's approach, no more ultrasound for me. BTW I followed Father Neal's and Bee's advice have been off all meds and taking electrolyte drink and blood pressure is still a little elevated, but lower than when I was taking my drugs!! I feel slightly weak, but painfree and am losing weight! YAY!!   XXOO VICKI * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/ancient_dietary_wisdom.html http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtnutrition.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 > > Bee, > > Are ultrasounds for pregnancy safe? > > I ask this because of my past history the doctor told me to tell him as soon as I was pregnant so we can see if it's attached in the right place. (I've had an ectopic before). It turns out that I had twins and the ultrasound technician did not catch it, but I was bleeding because I was losing one twin -- which happens quite frequently from the research I've conducted. However, the other baby was developing normally in an egg sac, but when I went back again, there were complications. > > Many years ago I went to a bradley coach and she told me of her trials and errors of getting pregnant and I remembered everything. I think I was meant to cross paths with her because of my situations now. She absolutely refused to have an ultrasound for any of her pregnancies. > > I am still bleeding and I am not sure it's still the twin or the one I saw that was healthy. Do I get an ultrasound or am I jeopardizing my developing munchkin? Is there a natural way of monitoring a pregnancy? I use the Natural Family Planning method of basal temperature monitoring. +++I don't recommend ultrasound for anything. Doctors used to monitor pregnancy with their hands, but now they are not trained well enough in it, or are too lazy, and instead rely on ultrasound which damages you and your baby. Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 I had ultrasounds frequently............they looked at not only my bile duct, and liver but my esophageal varices, and my gallbladder. I had this done every time I went for my checkups.I also had a couple CT scans and a few MRIs at later stage. Joanne Ultrasound imaging of the liver is recommended for patients whose blood tests show cholestasis. Cholestatic blood tests feature a disproportionately elevated alkaline phosphatase and ggt, compared to the ALT and AST. The purpose of the ultrasound exam is to visualize the bile ducts to exclude mechanical blockage (obstruction) of larger bile ducts as the cause of the cholestasis. Gallstones or tumors, for example, may cause mechanical obstruction of bile ducts. The blockage can cause increased pressure in the bile ducts that leads to dilation (widening) of the upstream bile ducts. Dilated bile ducts caused by mechanical obstruction can usually be visualized on the ultrasonogram. The dilated bile ducts can also be seen using other imaging techniques such as computerized tomographic (CT) scanning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), or an endoscopic procedure called ERCP. On the other hand, in PBC, the ducts that are being destroyed are so small that any dilation of upstream ducts cannot be seen with any of the imaging techniques. For the diagnosis of PBC in patients with cholestatic liver tests, a positive AMA and a normal ultrasound examination usually is sufficient. In this situation, other imaging studies of the bile ducts are usually not required. ____________________________________________________________ Compare Cell Phone rs- Click Now. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYbhAQ8mzc7M3NQmtOR5JzrK6Pox\ f0MiRbTtFRi2sCY8cN2l6ZEp9m/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 If one's blood tests no longer feature a disproportionately elevated alkaline phosphatase and ggt, compared to the ALT and AST, presumably due to being on urso for several years, then is there any need for further ultrasounds or any imaging of the liver, all else being equal? Kay_TX, AIH/PBC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.