Page 1, 2, 3, 4
J. Zhang (2002)
J. Zhang (2002) is the amazing electrophoresis study, a human in utero exposure study. The study is unknown and never discussed, like nearly all of the CHS, despite being published in pristine English and in modern scientific format.56 The study finds DNA fragmentation in the chorionic villi caused by low intensity DUS at only 10 minutes exposure.
The study's results are so strong that we could assume possible damage at less than 10 minutes. Given that clinical sessions are conducted at much higher intensities, a simple extrapolation to the clinical scenario could indicate damage within seconds, not minutes. The chorionic villi comprise the essential nutrient-waste exchange apparatus between mother and fetus.
 See image, rendered from J. Zhang (2002) that represents DNA fragmentation caused by DUS exposure at four different time durations.
At the end of 2014, I brought J. Zhang (2002) to the attention of the prominent scientist, William O'Brien, Jr., PhD. With input from his colleague, Jacques Abramowicz, MD, O'Brien immediately wrote an article for publication, describing J. Zhang (2002) as an important study requiring serious attention. A review of J. Zhang (2002) was also expected from the AIUM Bioeffects Committee.
O'Brien's publication date and a Committee review has only been recently announced, with publication imminent. I will review when possible. Despite O'Brien's strong reputation, progress has been slow. Since 2002, J. Zhang's publication date, it has now been 14 years for this mainstream recognition.
J. Zhang (2002) is supported by many other CHS, as described and/or listed in my book. DNA fragmentation would also relate to the fetus, as the fetus is intimate to the chorionic villi.
J. Zhang (2002) has huge implications for the present epidemic of chorioamnionitis (inflammation of the chorion and amnion membranes in pregnant women). This disease has been declared to be caused by infection despite a frequent failure to associate germs with this disease.
J. Zhang (2002) has huge implications for many childhood diseases, for example, the present-day emergence of childhood cancers and leukemia. DNA fragmentation happens to be the foremost theory for cancer causation.57 The epidemic of neonatal jaundice should be considered because the CHS confirm the older Euro-American studies that found dysfunction of immune systems caused by DUS. Those studies were discussed in the WHO Criteria.
Conclusion
What could be a more clear and undeniable damnation of DUS? Why are clinicians instructed to expose the fetus to this controversial form of radiation during early gestation, during a period of rapid cellular division, of well-known vulnerability to ultrasound? Why is DUS routinely advocated for determination of pregnancy, thereby ensuring exposure to any existing zygote? These questions, posed long ago by the history of Xrays on pregnant women, remain unresolved.
Many professionals recognize DUS hazards, but they claim that the greater hazard is birth without DUS. This brings an innate contradiction, as their views are often determined from assessments of data gathered from DUS examinations. Such assessments seem bizarre, given the evidence that DUS itself is teratogenic.58 The mainstream inability to mention the obvious brings suspicion.
Catch-22
The Western realm generally claims the following: 1) Only human studies can resolve the DUS controversy. 2) Few human studies exist. 3) For ethical reasons, human studies should not exist.59
Human studies are basically two types: a) epidemiological reviews, and, b) in utero or in vivo exposure studies, such as the CHS, where abortive matter is evaluated in a laboratory following DUS exposure to the mother and conceptus.
Epidemiological studies that exonerate DUS should be approached skeptically. They are complex and, thus, vulnerable to political bias. Epidemiologists have stated that tweaking studies down is common in order to ensure publication, that this is common and acceptable practice.60
Animal and cell studies already indicate that ultrasound has the potential to damage the human fetus. Scientists claim they are waiting for confirmation from human studies. For example, Shankar and Pagel (2011) write:
The potential for ultrasound to cause adverse effects in experimental animals is well established, but whether similar effects also occur with humans in susceptible tissue (e.g., neural) requires further investigation…
No human investigations conducted to date have documented major physiologic consequences of ultrasound exposed during imaging… The relative safety of ultrasound has been well established based on its use… over several decades…
One could postulate that humans are resistant to ultrasound-related biologic effects…61
That is the absurd mainstream consensus. Safety is "based on its use" with the medical industry in conflict of interest and science in unresolved contradiction. Humans in the clinical scenario are assumed to be "resistant" to bioeffects known to occur via laboratory studies. The mainstream maintains stasis with the Catch-22.
The ethical concern over human studies is false because abortion has long been legal, ethical, and ubiquitous in the Western realm. Placental pathology is a well-established discipline. Appropriate science could have begun decades ago by merely including the toxicology of DUS into that pathology.
But all that could be the past. There is a lot more to say. With my book, New Bibliography, there is a strong authoritative challenge to the industrial establishment. This, I argue, should bring a serious reconsideration of the risk/benefit of ultrasound practice. The book offers the following:
- Introduces the Chinese Human Studies, and includes a review of the prior status quo;
- Supports Western critics who have long argued that ultrasound contributes to child disease epidemics;
- Revives Western cell and animal studies that indicate ultrasound hazards;
- Enables toxicological arguments for childhood disease causation, for example, GI tract dysfunction, immune dysfunction, rashes, cancer, leukemia, and a wide variety of diseases related to wide-spectrum hormone and cell dysfunction;
- Describes how to minimize unavoidable ultrasound exposure; and,
- Presents an Ultrasound Toxic Synergy Model: This resolves contradictions within the vaccine argument for autism causation. For example, the Cuban history includes full vaccine compliance among the Cuban population and yet there is virtually no autism. This is resolved: There were few functional ultrasound machines in Cuba due to poverty, and now with international trade opening up, there is rising autism.
The Synergy Model supports parents who witness vaccine causation: More often they are actually witnessing an increase in child vulnerability to vaccines and antibiotics via a prior DUS initiation of fetal vulnerabilities. Note this parallel: "Ultrasound potentiation of drug delivery" is already an established medical procedure.62
Page 1, 2, 3, 4
 Disclaimer: Jim West is not an authority. If the reader has medical concerns or wishes to confirm the information herein, then without delay, consult a doctor or other appropriate professional. The intent of this article is to educate and bring important issues into discussion.
For further information, see harvoa.org.
Acknowledgement
Nexus Magazine, Greenmedinfo, Emma Ashworth (AIMS-UK), Jean Robinson (AIMS-UK), Gloria Lemay, Mitchel Cohen (NoSpray Coalition), Dr. Kelly Brogan, Jennifer Margulis, Sarah Couture, John Wantling, Claus Jensen, Anthony Brink, Chris Dawson, Jon Rappoport, Gary Krasner (CFIC), Bud Weiss, Eileen Dannemann, Barbara Kovacs, Jeanne-Marie Lawson, Sinead McCarthy, David Crowe (The Infectious Myth), Sally Elkordy, Global Freedom Movement, Amy Worthington, Ingri Cassel (Vaclib), Adam Crabb, and others.
References .pdf |
