50 Human Studies: A New Bibliography
Reveals Extreme Risk for Prenatal Ultrasound
Jim West has released his unprecedented Bibliography of ultrasound research, as a book, available at harvoa.org.
“His meticulous analysis... has turned the establishment on its head...” writes Jon Rappoport.
Ultrasound is a highly controversial topic. It can now be said, without hyperbole, that an understanding of its mysteries are essential to the well-being of the individual and the human species.
The word “ultrasound” commonly refers to diagnostic ultrasound, an acoustic technology utilized to view images of the fetus in real time, its position within the mother, and to view the mother's reproductive organs. It is an economic boon to medical practitioners who advocate its routine use.
Diagnostic ultrasound is widely declared to be “harmless” to the fetus, despite some mothers describing, via online forums such as The Thinking Mother's Revolution, vaginal bleeding and pain, and others describing every detail related to ultrasound and pharmaceutical or vaccine associated damage to their child. Ultrasound is now being applied to most of the entire world population during its fetal stage. The health implications are vast in terms of physical and psychological health for the individual and society.
Ultrasound appears to have set the human species on a tragic path, due to the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of ultrasound exposure. Critics argue, for example, that the exponential rise in autism incidence is a product of fetal exposure to ultrasound. If they are correct, then it may take many generations to recover from this misguided application of medical technology.
Ultrasound imaging technology for diagnostic examinations evolved from a type of echo-imaging, originally developed as SONAR, an acoustic technology developed for underwater navigation by pinging sound waves off of ship and submarine hulls, electronically measuring the echo, the duration required to reflect ultrasound from an object back to the source of the ultrasound ping.
Since the 1930s, ultrasound was used in medicine carelessly, experimentally, and ignorantly, for therapeutic and surgical means.
Since the 1940s, diganostic ultrasound was experimental.
Since the early 1950s, ultrasound has been employed to generate "echo images" of organs, and the fetus, and in 1952 the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) was established.
In the medical field, ultrasound is not ordinary sound, however. It is a highly unusual form of sound when used for the purpose of prenatal or obstetric diagnostic examinations. Humans ordinarily are capable of hearing sounds in the range of 20 to 20,000 cycles per second (hertz). Ultrasound for fetal examination carries a frequency in the range of 3 to 9 megahertz, millions of cycles per second, above the EMF frequencies of the AM radio band. Acoustic wave pressures allowed by the FDA for diagnostic examinations are 200,000 times the human hearing pain threshold in terms of pounds per square inch (PSI).
Ultrasound imaging technology has supplanted, to a large extent, the earlier common imaging technology, X-rays. That earlier technology is now known publicly to be hazardous, to be carcinogenic, however, it took decades for this common medical knowledge to become public, despite continued use in medicine, including prenatal examinations. The history of medical X-ray imaging is a parallel for ultrasound history, according to Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn.
Ultrasound has long been known to have the potential to produce harmful biological effects in the fetus. This has been found via animal and cell studies. However, these hazards have supposedly not been confirmed by human studies. Funding for ultrasound studies has virtually disappeared since the late 1980s. despite, over the years, rising ultrasound machine intensity levels.Cibull et al (2013) provides definitive assurance.
“Although laboratory studies have shown that diagnostic levels of ultrasound can produce physical effects in tissue, there is no evidence from human studies of a causal relationship between diagnostic ultrasound exposure during pregnancy and adverse biological effects to the fetus.”
Confirmed in China
Now for the shocker. Unknown to Western scientists, the hazards of ultrasound have been confirmed in China since the late 1980s, where thousands of women, volunteering for abortion, thousands of maternal-fetal pairs, were exposed to carefully controlled diagnostic ultrasound and the abortive matter then analyzed via laboratory techniques.
Professor Ruo Feng, the highly esteemed world-class ultrasound scientist, of the Institute of Acoustics, Nanjing University, reviewed these studies and issued guidelines.
A New Bibliography
An unprecedented bibliography of Chinese ultrasound studies, by Jim West, is now available, published as a book with commentary, illustrative graphs and tables. This is a presentation of arcana, i.e., vitally important but unknown scientific studies. The title is, 50 Human Studies Indicate Extreme Risk for Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography.
This is the most important bibliography and commentary ever compiled for the field of ultrasound criticism, though for legal reasons, its conclusions and implications should be suspended, pending trustworthy authoritative review.
The book presents human studies conducted in modern China that examine the results of in utero fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. They exceed Western science in terms of technical sophistication, era relevancy, volume of work, and number of subjects. They bring empirical evidence for ultrasound hazards.
These studies involve the exposure of over 2,700 maternal-fetal pairs to diagnostic ultrasound. The number of scientists involved is approximately 100. Pregnant women were carefully selected and then exposed to controlled ultrasound sessions. Ethical concerns were carefully observed. Abortive matter was examined via state-of-the-art technology. The results were compared against the results of sham-exposed pregnant women (exposed at zero intensity).
Chinese scientists measured damage to the brain, kidney, cornea, chorionic villi, and the immune system. They determined the amount of ultrasound exposure required to produce damage to the human fetus, and that amount was found to be very low. Ultrasound hazards to the human fetus were confirmed without doubt.
Western scientists have conducted only a few epidemiological studies, and virtually no human exposure studies. Epidemiological studies are complex and thus more vulnerable to bias. They are often published with moot or statistically insignificant observations, despite finding patterns of ultrasound damage.
The Chinese studies have remained disconnected from the Western realm, beyond discussion outside of China, being the casualty of cultural and language gaps, lacking a benefit for industry, and its scientists being outsiders.
The Research Path
As of 2013, Jim West had experienced the impossibilities of discussion whenever the topic of ultrasound hazards was attempted, even with his nearest friends. He always brought fine documentation, though to no avail. He was met with reflexive blocks. These were passive and aggressive, apparently out of fear of the birth process and a belief that ultrasound would provide assurance.
Realizing that people require authoritative statements, Jim searched for a simple statement of empirical evidence that could not be denied.
As a working research theory, Jim hypothesized that the ideal modern ultrasound study would utilize a very sensitive type of chromatography, to detect cell damage caused by ultrasound exposure.
Jim's focus lead to a pristine study of ultrasound causation for DNA fragmentation in abortive matter. The study's references lead to an expanding tree of studies located in Chinese online databases.
The Chinese studies echo and confirm the earlier, ignored and rejected, 1984 “Consensus Statement”, published by the National Institute of Health and signed by the preeminent American scientists of that era.
Currently, the medical industry loudly claims that ultrasound is “harmless” while it advocates routine ultrasound for pregnant women and even prepubescent girls. It is not uncommon for ultrasound sessions to use intensities and durations far above those used in the Chinese studies.
Jim has done the math and graphically illustrates the evidence, for example, the following graphic comparison of Western critical studies and Chinese studies in terms of durations to damage, when subjected to the average device intensity for a common diagnostic ultrasound session in B-mode. These durations are approximated extrapolations.
Jim introduces an ultrasound disease causation model that is fully compatible with the vaccine model.
Ultrasound is a powerful synergist.
Bibliography with Commentary1) Supports Western critics who have long argued that ultrasound contributes to various neonatal and childhood diseases, and neurological epidemics such as ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) and eye diseases.
2) Supports and revives earlier Western animal studies that are critical of ultrasound, yet had been rejected or ignored.
3) Enables arguments for novel disease causation models, for example, chorioamnionitis, neonatal jaundice, bone and tissue malformation, immune dysfunction, childhood cancers, leukemia, and a wide variety of diseases related to broad-spectrum hormonal dysfunction.
Jim West is known for his original research published June 2000 in The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, where he introduced the pesticide/polio paradigm and unearthed relevant research arcana. His work found its way into several professional books, journals, and websites. It has been used as a powerful argument against vaccine paradigms. In 2001, ABC News journalist and producer, Nicholas Regush, extensively reviewed Jim's research into environmental causation for West Nile epidemics, gaining a strong readership response. Jim resides in New York City, where he is a member of the NoSpray Coalition which litigated against NYC helicopter pesticide spraying programs. He is a member of Toastmasters.
Those seeking medical advice should consult medical professionals without delay. Consult trusted professionals to clarify and verify related issues. The author is not an authority. He is a critic of authority. His research addresses apparent contradictions and is designed to cultivate discussion.