Be a Supporter!

Corporate coverups, world danger?

  • 898 Views
  • 43 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Kytraal
Kytraal
  • Member since: Jan. 7, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Musician
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 04:46 PM Reply

Doesn't everyone get diagnosed with autism these days?

Gramiscus
Gramiscus
  • Member since: Aug. 7, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Melancholy
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 04:51 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 04:46 PM, Kytraal wrote: Doesn't everyone get diagnosed with autism these days?

It is much more common, but just because it's being diagnosed more on average doesn't mean that there isn't something seriously going on behind that. The evidence is too compelling for me to believe that it's just diagnostic changes.


I go to school to study how high frequency sound waves can heal, ...or KILL.

BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Melancholy
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 04:59 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 04:51 PM, Gramiscus wrote: It is much more common, but just because it's being diagnosed more on average doesn't mean that there isn't something seriously going on behind that. The evidence is too compelling for me to believe that it's just diagnostic changes.

No one used to take the diagnosis of autism seriously before which is why it was never diagnosed.

Jeff-Teh-Great
Jeff-Teh-Great
  • Member since: Mar. 26, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Movie Buff
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 05:03 PM Reply

If used improperly and frequently, yes ultrasounds could harm a baby because of the frequency of the sound waves used to produce the picture. That's why women only get ultrasounds once a month and last no more than 5 minutes. It's also why there are technical schools dedicated for ultrasound technicians because there's a lot that goes into working an ultrasound machine than people think.

Gramiscus
Gramiscus
  • Member since: Aug. 7, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Melancholy
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 05:19 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 05:03 PM, Jeff-Teh-Great wrote: If used improperly and frequently, yes ultrasounds could harm a baby because of the frequency of the sound waves used to produce the picture. That's why women only get ultrasounds once a month and last no more than 5 minutes. It's also why there are technical schools dedicated for ultrasound technicians because there's a lot that goes into working an ultrasound machine than people think.

That is an ideal situation that you bring up. Not all ultrasounds are that short. Because insurance companies will fund ultrasounds, some doctors who believe that ultrasounds are completely harmless will schedule many of them because of profit. Some women have scrapbook collections of ultrasounds.

Also, the frequency of ultrasound is not just once a month. It depends heavily on the practitioner, but some have up to hour(s) long sessions.

There are also no regulations that require a person go to a technical school to learn how to use an ultrasound device before using it. That is why vanity ultrasound boutiques pop up in shopping malls. The FDA even warns that these are unsafe.

Given that someone did go to a technical school and learned how to do everything correctly, there are currently no regulations requiring that ultrasound equipment is maintained and calibrated to standard. A majority of ultrasound devices in practice right now have not been calibrated for over a year.

Not that being calibrated would help much. The safety limits put in place for sonographers are completely arbitrary. The maximum intensity of sound allowed for fetal scanning was set because it gives good pictures, not because it is safe.


I go to school to study how high frequency sound waves can heal, ...or KILL.

Gimmick
Gimmick
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Game Developer
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 07:38 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 05:19 PM, Gramiscus wrote: That is an ideal situation that you bring up. Not all ultrasounds are that short. Because insurance companies will fund ultrasounds, some doctors who believe that ultrasounds are completely harmless will schedule many of them because of profit. Some women have scrapbook collections of ultrasounds.
[...]
Given that someone did go to a technical school and learned how to do everything correctly, there are currently no regulations requiring that ultrasound equipment is maintained and calibrated to standard. A majority of ultrasound devices in practice right now have not been calibrated for over a year.

Okay, I'll have to call bullshit on this. Ultrasound is not harmful. What was harmful, are X-rays. X-rays were shown to damage fetuses if they were taken more than a few times, and so doctors switched to ultrasound, because that's what is is, just high frequency sound. If high frequency sounds were bad for fetuses, then taking a pregnant woman to an opera house each day of the year would result in an autistic baby.

I mean, think about it. The links you gave, OP, were for rats and mice. Now there's a possibility that this may be true in rats and mice, or the thing was made up, or that correlation isn't causation.

A good test would be to have a bunch of cells (say unicellular organisms like Amoeba, or a few nerve cells) in a petri dish, and see what ultrasound does to them, with varying power output. If they vibrate, that's fine and dandy, but if they don't get impaired or killed in any way because of the ultrasound or the power output, then all this discussion means jack.


Slint approves of me! | "This is Newgrounds.com, not Disney.com" - WadeFulp
"Sit look rub panda" - Alan Davies

BBS Signature
Gramiscus
Gramiscus
  • Member since: Aug. 7, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Melancholy
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 11:26 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 07:38 PM, Gimmick wrote: Okay, I'll have to call bullshit on this. Ultrasound is not harmful. What was harmful, are X-rays. X-rays were shown to damage fetuses if they were taken more than a few times, and so doctors switched to ultrasound, because that's what is is, just high frequency sound. If high frequency sounds were bad for fetuses, then taking a pregnant woman to an opera house each day of the year would result in an autistic baby.

Ultrasound is on the order of 1,000,000 Hz, whereas opera music would be under 20,000 Hz. Diagnostic ultrasound is a much higher frequency wave than audible noise, as opera singers would be able to generate. The effects would not be the same.

I mean, think about it. The links you gave, OP, were for rats and mice. Now there's a possibility that this may be true in rats and mice, or the thing was made up, or that correlation isn't causation.

So then let me ask you. If the World Health Organization is saying that the only safety research we have was performed on rats and mice, and the WHO is also saying that based on these models:
"There are many gaps in the data from human studies that
prevent a meaningful risk assessment of ultrasonic exposure.
It is therefore necessary to use the results of animal studies to
test the hypothesis that similar effects may also occur in human
subjects. Animal studies suggest that neurological, behavioural,
developmental, immunological, haematological changes and reduced
fetal weight can result from exposure to ultrasound."

Do you still think it's safe to use ultrasound on human fetuses without further research? I don't.

A good test would be to have a bunch of cells (say unicellular organisms like Amoeba, or a few nerve cells) in a petri dish, and see what ultrasound does to them, with varying power output. If they vibrate, that's fine and dandy, but if they don't get impaired or killed in any way because of the ultrasound or the power output, then all this discussion means jack.

Ultrasound promotes the growth of bacteria by forcing metabolism forward.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361254/

It forces the bacteria to grow in part by stimulating enzymes that breaks down sugars. These enzymes are at the center of metabolism. This effect is also seen in plants.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0041624X639 0057X

Similarly, ultrasound is used in physical therapy in order to increase human cell growth. In fact, an internationally famous autism researcher is claiming that because ultrasound alters the growth of cells, it could be a direct link to developmental disorders.
http://nancymullanmd.com/asd/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Pren atal-Ultrasound.-Its-not-just-a-photograph.pdf

Also, on the topic of how ultrasound affects nerve cells, Sony entertainment patented the use of ultrasound to induce virtual reality because it fucks with neural processing. Passing ultrasound through brain cells can force them to fire. So, if you targeted ultrasound on the cells that linked up to the smell of cake, you'd smell cake. It does a lot of weird stuff.


I go to school to study how high frequency sound waves can heal, ...or KILL.

Gramiscus
Gramiscus
  • Member since: Aug. 7, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Melancholy
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 11:39 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 07:38 PM, Gimmick wrote: Okay, I'll have to call bullshit on this. Ultrasound is not harmful. What was harmful, are X-rays. X-rays were shown to damage fetuses if they were taken more than a few times, and so doctors switched to ultrasound, because that's what is is, just high frequency sound.

Also, I would like to point out that X-ray was used in fetal scanning for around 40 years before one zealous physician stood up in the face of the world saying he was crock full of shit. It took twenty years to supply evidence that xray could cause prenatal harm.

Ultrasound does not cause cancer, it does other things that are more subtle. But they have been reported in scientific papers - I'm not making any of this shit up.


I go to school to study how high frequency sound waves can heal, ...or KILL.

VicariousE
VicariousE
  • Member since: Feb. 15, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 03:22 AM Reply

At 1/25/13 11:39 PM, Gramiscus wrote:

You've made some fair points, but tops of them all, would be how high frequency sound has on chemicals like this one and a fuck-ton of others. The chemicals that end up in our food through the assembly line process, are made by companies that have lobbyists and lawyers. They also take care to buy researchers to add to the junk-science that permeates academia, like spam.

I see no crack-pot theories here, only crack-pot Western civilization at it's finest.


Now building Vault 101, reverse engineered from yesterdays technology.

BBS Signature
Gramiscus
Gramiscus
  • Member since: Aug. 7, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Melancholy
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 11:52 AM Reply

At 1/26/13 03:22 AM, VicariousE wrote:
At 1/25/13 11:39 PM, Gramiscus wrote:
You've made some fair points, but tops of them all, would be how high frequency sound has on chemicals like this one and a fuck-ton of others. The chemicals that end up in our food through the assembly line process, are made by companies that have lobbyists and lawyers. They also take care to buy researchers to add to the junk-science that permeates academia, like spam.

I see no crack-pot theories here, only crack-pot Western civilization at it's finest.

I don't know if ultrasound would have a direct effect on those chemicals directly. However, when passing through a living organism it may affect the metabolism of those chemicals.

What ultrasound seems to do is charge enzymes and biomolecules with kinetic energy that seems to be transferred during catalysis. I wrote a paper about this.
http://uncw.edu/csurf/Explorations/documents/blakedavid.pdf

It's all very weird stuff.


I go to school to study how high frequency sound waves can heal, ...or KILL.

Gimmick
Gimmick
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Game Developer
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 11:56 AM Reply

At 1/26/13 11:52 AM, Gramiscus wrote: It's all very weird stuff.

Even so, do you think it actually does anything to humans? Or is the correlation simply coincidental, and due to genetics / regions? Here I'm pretty sure 99% of people's mothers I know got an ultrasound and their kids are just normal like any other person and not autistic.


Slint approves of me! | "This is Newgrounds.com, not Disney.com" - WadeFulp
"Sit look rub panda" - Alan Davies

BBS Signature
Ragnarokia
Ragnarokia
  • Member since: Sep. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 22
Writer
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 12:38 PM Reply

If you are going to take anything from such 'mental health problems' in a conspiracy setting, then instead of looking for issues within such things as ultrasounds you should instead look at the very 'mental health problems' themselves. As these are made by the government.

For example during the slave trade years there were 2 'mental health problems' one of which consisted of "Slaves wanting to run away" which was seen as a 'mental health problem' and was told to be cured by beating the slave and giving them more work. The second was 'The refusal to perform slave labour' which again was seen as such a problem and was told to be cured by taking away their social interactions between other slaves and taking more freedom from them.

In more recent years the Chinese government had a 'mental health problem' which consisted of "Taking an interest in politics and desiring to discuss political parties with co-workers" which was again seen as a bad thing and a problem that should be cured.

These were completely accepted by the countries as being 'mental health problems' during the said times they were active. All three of those examples clearly not being any sort of mental health problem but instead seeking freedom and change which the governments denied. If you are going to argue about conspiracies etc. then why not look at these and then enjoy yourself with going "oh look at this which clearly isn't a mental health problem!" etc. whichever floats your boat. They likely don't do this in our countries anymore though it did used to happen in America as mentioned, but who knows, it is up to you conspiracy nuts to have fun and examine them, and in the process give us some free time to not have to listen to more bullshit while you examine it.

At 1/25/13 04:46 PM, Kytraal wrote: Doesn't everyone get diagnosed with autism these days?

It's because it is the "new thing" countless people suffered the same problem back before the clarification was made and those people were simply ignored or laughed at etc. and given other diagnosises. It is similar to behaviour mental problems with how in the previous generation such people were beat in school for being a nuisance and being aggressive etc. like such behaviours deserved but it was only with this generation that they began to diagnose it as a mental problem. For example Stephen Fry had such a problem and instead of being given Ritalin (or whichever drug it was) to cope with it, he was beat for being annoying by teachers. It is the way the world develops with diagnosises.

Autism was obviously just seen as children being stupid and not learning or paying attention etc. in the past, and likely got beat for such things as a result. Now it is a mental health problem which is identified and as such is treated completely differently.


When this post hits 88 mph, you're going to see some serious friendship.
Let's Player, Artist, Pony writer, Cuteness!

BBS Signature
Gramiscus
Gramiscus
  • Member since: Aug. 7, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Melancholy
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 01:08 PM Reply

At 1/26/13 11:56 AM, Gimmick wrote:
At 1/26/13 11:52 AM, Gramiscus wrote: It's all very weird stuff.
Even so, do you think it actually does anything to humans? Or is the correlation simply coincidental, and due to genetics / regions? Here I'm pretty sure 99% of people's mothers I know got an ultrasound and their kids are just normal like any other person and not autistic.

Well, see -- that's my point. We don't know "for sure" that it doesn't, but we know -about- these effects. The thing is medicine does not know how ultrasound affects fetal development. There have not been studies to look into this. Doesn't it seem really, really weird to you that a medical tool used on nearly the entire world's population has not had research into how it affects the development of the children it's used on?

So, since we don't know for sure, here's what I -do- know for sure.

I know that prior to 1992, the maximum ultrasound allowed for fetal scans was 92 mW/cm^2. However, because of the chance to make money, they upgraded it to 740 mW/cm^2 for better pictures.]

I know that ultrasound that is used in physical therapy is above 500 mW/cm^2. So, diagnostic ultrasound is now in the power range of therapeutic ultrasound, which is used to break apart scar tissue and DOES affect growth directly.

I also know that ultrasound in obgyn medicine started within a one-two year span that the autism rates began to rise. ie. Japan and US' autism rates started to increase at different times (10 years from eachother or so) and it mirrors their acceptance of ultrasound into obgyn medicine.

Could there be a link? Yes.

Is there? I don't know. More research needs to be performed.

Sign this if you agree: http://www.change.org/petitions/re-health-risks-of-prenatal-
ultrasound-we-need-better-regulation-more-research

At the end of the day more research will need to be performed to either prove or disprove that ultrasound is linked to autism.


I go to school to study how high frequency sound waves can heal, ...or KILL.

Gramiscus
Gramiscus
  • Member since: Aug. 7, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Melancholy
Response to Corporate coverups, world danger? Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 01:11 PM Reply

At 1/26/13 12:38 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: If you are going to take anything from such 'mental health problems' in a conspiracy setting, then instead of looking for issues within such things as ultrasounds you should instead look at the very 'mental health problems' themselves. As these are made by the government.

That's a strawman argument, I think.


I go to school to study how high frequency sound waves can heal, ...or KILL.