A Link Between Prenatal Ultrasound and Autism?
July 22nd, 2009 | 
Author: The cause of autism has been pinned on everything from “emotionally remote” mothers (since discredited) to vaccines, genetics, immunological disorders, environmental toxins and maternal infections. Today most researchers theorize that autism is caused by a complex interplay of genetics and environmental triggers. A far simpler possibility worthy of investigation is the pervasive use of prenatal ultrasound, which can cause potentially dangerous thermal effects.
Health practitioners involved in prenatal care have reason to be concerned about the use of ultrasound. Although proponents point out that ultrasound has been used in obstetrics for 50 years and early studies indicated it was safe for both mother and child, enough research has implicated it in neurodevelopmental disorders to warrant serious attention.
At a 1982 World Health Organization (WHO) meeting sponsored by the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) and other organizations, an international group of experts reported that “[t]here are several frequently quoted studies that claim to show that exposure to ultrasound in utero does not cause any significant abnormalities in the offspring. … However, these studies can be criticized on several grounds, including the lack of a control population and/or inadequate sample size, and exposure after the period of major organogenesis; this invalidates their conclusions….”
Early studies showed that subtle effects of neurological damage linked to ultrasound were implicated by an increased incidence in left-handedness in boys (a marker for brain problems when not hereditary) and speech delays. Then in August 2006, Pasko Rakic, chair of Yale School of Medicine’s Department of Neurobiology, announced the results of a study in which pregnant mice underwent various durations of ultrasound. The brains of the offspring showed damage consistent with that found in the brains of people with autism. The research, funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, also implicated ultrasound in neurodevelopmental problems in children, such as dyslexia, epilepsy, mental retardation and schizophrenia, and showed that damage to brain cells increased with longer exposures.
Dr. Rakic’s study, which expanded on prior research with similar results in 2004, is just one of many animal experiments and human studies conducted over the years indicating that prenatal ultrasound can be harmful to babies. While some questions remain unanswered, based on available information, health practitioners must seriously consider the possible consequences of both routine and diagnostic use of ultrasound, as well as electronic fetal heart monitors, which may be neither non-invasive nor safe. If pregnant women knew all the facts, would they choose to expose their unborn children to a technology that—despite its increasingly entrenched position in modern obstetrics—has little or no proven benefit?
— Caroline Rodgers
Excerpted from “Questions about Prenatal Ultrasound and the Alarming Increase in Autism,” Midwifery Today, Issue 80
View table of contents / Order the back issue
Read the full article on our Web site at: Midwifery Today
What are your thoughts – is it something you have heard of or thought about, does it make you reconsider scans or at least how many scans you have? Have we in true human fashion started using to our detriment a medical tool which was created to be used in emergencies or only when necessary and made it the norm for their convenience and our ‘fun’? Why do we have scans every visit here in SA and do we have a choice in how the obstetricians examine us (not should we but DO we)?
I had 2-3 scans both pregnancies (the visits I was at the gynae) – it was what he did and I did not question it. It was nice I suppose in some superficial ways but I never really got a thrill from seeing that little blur on the screen – now the first time i heard their heart beat at the midwife it all became real — there is no better sound than that amazing gallop of your babies heart beat.
I don’t see scans as necessary on a routine basis, in general the scan could tell me no more about my baby than what my midwife could through more hands on examination. (I never wanted to find out my babies gender pre-birth. That was their special secret and surprise to keep till they arrived).
I never really thought of the dangers of the scans to our babies at the time and I did appreciate the last scans before the birth which in the one indicated a few minor complications and the second set my mind at ease that all was perfect for going weeks longer -but I did feel it made the examination rather impersonal and rushed in comparison to those I had with our midwife. Not sure what I would have done had I known of these concerns prior to my pregnancies – maybe I would have still gone the same route … I dont know.
Posted in 
Tags: 
More reading if interested provided by Petro on facebook
http://www.unhinderedliving.com/pultra.html
I have actually read about the dangers of ultrasound before although it wasn’t so much with regards to autism. I looked into it when I fell pregnant with my son and a result we only had 2 or 3 scans.
I would do none if I could get away with it, but a gynae won’t see you without doing a scan it seems…
That is the tool of examination they are trained and most comfortable in I think which is why they resort to it. It is also the most time-saving for them manner in which to do the monthly check-up. If you think about it you spend about 10 minutes with the gynae of actual talking and examination whereas a midwife visit is 30 minutes.
Prenatal ultrasound is an amazing and valuable diagnostic tool. It is the doctor’s only way of ‘looking’ at your baby before he or she is born. In case of major problem, it is very important (sometimes life-saving) to know before delivery. In case of a minor defect (e.g. cleft lip), the parents can be conselled so they and their pediatrician are ready when baby arrives. For medical professionals, like myself, prenatal ultrasound is a challenging test during which we pay close attention to approximately 100 fetal anatomical structures where problems could occur. To the parents, it’s often the first opportunity to ‘meet the baby’. Of all the imaging tests today, ultrasound is the only one with a perfectly clean safety track record. There is not one case of the patient, fetus, operator or obsever being in any way harmed by exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. There are also no independently confirmed studies which link ultrasound to any fetal harm at all. To date, hundreds of millions of ultrasound examinations have been performed world-wide. Even a small negative effect would be very easy to detect amounst such an enormous population of exposed individuals. Whenever there is an apparent rise in the incidence of a condition in children (such as autism), it is easy to speculate and try to find scape-goats. Could it be ultrasound? How about food additives? Synthetic plastics in our environment? Paints and solvents? Latex from automobile tires? Sonic boom of supersonic jets? Electron bombardment from watching too much TV? Overly sterile environments and lack of exposure to certain microorganisms? The list goes on and on. It is so easy to sit back and speculate. Unfortunately ’speculation’ is too often confused with ‘information’. It is exceedinly unlikely that a link between autism and ultrasound could exist at the exposure levels that are used in diagnostic ultrasound today. If a problem with ’sound’ really does exist, then I would recommend that evey pregnant woman turn off the music at home too. After all, ultrasound and the sound coming from your radio speakers are one and the same physical property. The only difference is that the pitch of ultrasound is beyond your range of hearing. The real danger of ultrasound lies not in the patient’s exposure to the technology, but in 1) poorly trained operators performing scans beyond their level of competence and 2) mothers not taking up the opportunity to have an ultrasound and then suffering some catastrophy at birth which could have been prevented.
~Martin
Thanks for the reply Martin and I wont argue any of your points – scans ARE a valuable diagnostic tool and definitely have their place and benefits I just wonder if they really are needed to be used in EVERY prenatal visit – is it not possibly being abused in the name of convenience? I am sometimes concerned at how the information gained from the scans is passed over to the mother as fact rather than an estimate or possibility.
I also wont argue that the article in question is speculative (it actually comes across very clearly they dont try pass it as fact but simply as something being considered!). Without speculation and discussion no-one would ever come up with true information though (all proven-information starts off as speculation even if only amongst in a case like this the doctors and scientists). I appreciate speculation it gives me a chance to think about things, question them, learn and come to my own decisions on what I want rather than following blindly. You can find a link between practically anything BUT that does not mean that the links should simply be dismissed.
I see you pointed out the “mothers not taking up the opportunity to have an ultrasound and then suffering some catastrophy at birth” but did not mention the times that due to scans parents have been led to believe that their child has some form of defect, and after all the soul searching turn down the option of abortion, prepare to parent a handicapped child to find they have a perfectly health baby? Maybe both types of cases are rare enough that they dont warrant mentioning??
I agree on the problem of poorly trained operators, though I dont think we have that problem in South Africa!? as scans are generally done by obstetricians and of course the 3 or 4d ones done in the hospitals so I would hope and assume they are properly trained – it is not as if you can have them done for novelty at the mall.
Barb,
Congenital abnormalities are not a rare occurrence. Of all pregnancies in the population, at least 2% will have an abnormality. In some at risk populations (such as moms with diabetes), the rate is double that. Of the abnormalities detected before the baby is born, about half are minor and nohing to worry about. This leaves, in a low risk population, about 1% of babies with signifant malformations. Therein lies the value of antenatal screening.
~Martin Necas