Shocker: the dangers of Ultrasound

A book by the great researcher Jim West

by Jon Rappoport

January 21, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Every time Jim West (also here) releases a new finding, it is a revelation.

Some years ago, I wrote this about Jim:

“I always find it riveting to come across an independent investigator who is breaking new ground, against all odds. Jim West is such a person. His meticulous analysis of West Nile Disease [in fact caused by toxic pollution, not a virus] has turned the establishment on its head. We should all thank him for his work. If I were the king of Pulitzers, I would give him a dozen. He is what truly deep reporting is all about. In a sane world, his revelations would bring about the firing of scores of so-called medical journalists and disease researchers, and he would be sitting at the top of the heap — not in order to exercise arbitrary power, but simply because he has trumped the lazy and the incompetent and the lying professionals who are supposed to tell us what is going on.”

There are many other things I could say in praise of Jim’s work. Instead, I’ll present an excerpt from the notice of his new book. It’s a book you should have and read: “50 Human Studies, in Utero, Conducted in Modern China, Indicate Extreme Risk for Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography”.

It’s a book that should receive wide notice. It’s a book that should change standard medical practice. It’s a book that can save many lives.


Press Release: May 2015

Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography of Human Studies Conducted in Modern China

“50 Human Studies, in Utero, Conducted in Modern China, Indicate Extreme Risk for Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography”

Jim West has released his unprecedented Bibliography of critical ultrasound research, as a book, available at Amazon.com.

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.

(*) See: “Fetal Ultrasound”, John Hopkins Medicine Health Library.

Ultrasound appears to have set the human specie 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.

Technical History:

Ultrasound imaging technology for diagnostic examinations evolved from a type of echo-imaging, originally developed as SONAR, a technology invented to detect submarines by pinging sound waves off the submarine hull and electronically measuring the echo, the duration required to reflect ultrasound from the submarine hull back to the source of the ultrasound.

In the medical field, ultrasound has been in use for many decades, employed to generate “echo images” of the fetus. 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.

Ultrasound imaging technology has supplanted, to an extent, the earlier imaging technology, X-rays. That older technology is now known publicly to be hazardous, to be carcinogenic, however, it took decades for this knowledge to become public. The history of medical X-ray imaging may be a parallel for ultrasound history. X-rays were previously known to be a risk though continuously advocated as harmless by the medical profession.

Hazards Unconfirmed:

Ultrasound is 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 the FDA raising ultrasound intensity limits in 1991.

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.” — Sarah L. Cibull, BS, Gerald R. Harris, PhD, and Diane M. Nell, PhD. “Trends in Diagnostic Ultrasound Acoustic Output From Data Reported to the US Food and Drug Administration for Device Indications That Include Fetal Applications.” J Ultrasound Med 32 (2013): 1921–32.

Confirmed in China:

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.

From these human studies, Professor Ruo Feng, of Nanjing University, published guidelines in 2000:

“Commercial or educational fetal ultrasound imaging should be strictly eliminated. Ultrasound for the identification of fetal sex and fetal entertainment imaging should be strictly eliminated. For the best early pregnancy, avoid ultrasound.”

Feng is very clear. He is also gentle. He could have written bluntly, “For a lesser quality pregnancy, use ultrasound.” He could have written “fetus” or “child” instead of “pregnancy”.



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, which examine the results of in utero fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. They far 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 are 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, e.g., electron microscopy, flow cytometry, and various biochemical analysis (immuno- and histo-). 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 had previously found hazards via animal and cell studies, however, their findings were deemed inconclusive because they were not confirmed by human studies.

Human studies can be of two types: 1) epidemiological studies, i.e., population reviews, and, 2) in utero exposure studies, where abortive matter is evaluated in a laboratory following diagnostic ultrasound exposure to the fetus in the mother.

Western scientists have conducted only a few epidemiological studies, and virtually no human exposure studies. Epidemiological studies are complex, have many statistical variables, and are thus highly vulnerable to biased interpretation. They are often published as moot or statistically insignificant, despite finding patterns of ultrasound damage.

Due to abortion ethics, in utero exposure studies were virtually banned in the Western realm. Within the entire world population, the medical industry has not reported one case of human damage. Thereby, without certain proof, authorities continued on with the assumption that humans were resistant to ultrasound toxicity.

The Chinese studies were unknown in the Western realm and little known even in the East. These represent 23 years of critical research, from 1988 to 2011. Unfortunately, these studies were overwhelmed by a tremendous flood of studies that promote medical and therapeutic innovations for ultrasound.

The Chinese studies have remained disconnected from the Western realm, beyond discussion outside of China, being the casualty of cultural and language gaps, and lacking a benefit for industry.

These studies are not generally available through global search engines or medical databases. Even if a researcher knew the titles, the studies would not be found, however, they are available through internal links within the Chinese databases.

The Research Path:

As of 2013, Jim West began his research out of frustration. He had experienced the impossibilities of discussion whenever the topic of ultrasound hazards was attempted, even with his nearest friends. He always brought eloquent 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.

After several months of intensive research within the Western scientific realm, he, like others, realized there was little definitive evidence that would satisfy the strict industrial requirements, that is, there were few human studies of any kind. Human studies had been deemed by authorities to be essential for confirmation of hazards. He was aware of the hundreds of animal and cell studies, but they were known to be ill-designed and inconclusive. Excellent critical studies were contradicted by competing studies that declared ultrasound safe. Jim did find a few very strong animal studies that had not been contradicted, but they were ignored or rejected by mere authoritative assertion.

Electrophoresis:

As a working research theory, Jim hypothesized that the ideal modern ultrasound study would utilize a very sensitive type of chromatography, called “electrophoresis”, to detect cell damage caused by ultrasound exposure. Electrophoresis is a simple technology, the moving of electric current through a sample of biological matter in order to draw its various components through a gel-covered plate. The various components separate out through the gel, creating visual patterns for analysis. Electrophoresis is used to analyze biological complexes such as nucleic acid (DNA or RNA). It is employed, for example, in DNA fingerprinting, to identify people, their DNA, to detect their prior presence at a location, by examining samples of blood, hair, or tissue and matching those analytical results with suspects who had been similarly analyzed.

Jim’s focus on electrophoresis lead to a Chinese electrophoresis study of ultrasound causation for DNA fragmentation in abortive matter. The study is published in pristine scientific format and published in English. The study’s references lead to an expanding tree of studies located in Chinese online databases such as CNKI. Though these studies are primarily in Chinese language, many contained an Abstract, translated into English manually or by machine software.

Many studies were reviewed by professor Ruo Feng, of the Acoustic Institute at Nanjing University. He determined guidelines from the studies, stipulating that routine ultrasound be avoided. Only if there were exceptional medical indications should ultrasound be allowed, and at minimum intensity. Sessions should be very brief, no more than 3 minutes, 5 minutes at most. Multiple sessions should be avoided because hazards are cumulative. Sensitive organs were found damaged at 1 minute exposure.

The Chinese studies echo and confirm the earlier, ignored and rejected, 1984 “Consensus Statement”, written and published by the National Institute of Health and signed by the preeminent American scientists of that era. (See: NIH, “Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging in Pregnancy: NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement” (February 6, 1984))

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, this 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’s ultrasound causation model is fully compatible with the vaccine model, because it includes the concept of toxic synergy, and ultrasound is an effective synergist. Ultrasound is theoretically capable of initiating fetal vulnerabilities to subsequent toxic exposure. Thus the risk of subsequent exposure to vaccines, birth drugs, antibiotics and other environmental stressors would be raised by prenatal ultrasound, not in addition, but as a multiplier. (Emphasis added)


power outside the matrix


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

26 comments on “Shocker: the dangers of Ultrasound

  1. Nicole says:

    This is very informative and I will keep it in mind. I had always just been “meh” about fetal ultrasound – I thought it was probably not too bad, although you might not want to do it too often. I was comparing it to more well known dangers like x-rays. I’m curious to see what he says about it (didn’t read it yet, just skimmed).

  2. Pregnancy ultrasounds also have very few positives. Doctors pretend that those pictures are highly reliable, but in fact they are not. Many parents were told that they would get a handicapped baby, just to deliver a perfectly healthy one. Many pregnancies are aborted and many very much desired babies killed because ultrasounds say that baby will have very poor quality of life. But when those parents choose to keep the pregnancy going not rarely perfectly healthy babies are born. It also happens frequently the other way around. Parents are told that everything is fine and they get a handicapped baby.

    The only thing these ultrasounds do is create a lot of return business. And a lot of unncessary heartache. And a lot of perfectly healthy dead babies. No doubt ultrasounds can be useful in case of an emergency, but that’s it.

  3. Nicole says:

    You know what? This is just another example of how people overuse diagnostics when they have some kind of medical insurance. When people have medical insurance they tend to think they can go to the doctor really frequently for non-urgent purposes and have things done “for free” or for a low cost because their insurance is paying for it. An uninsured person might actually be better off because they won’t go to the doctor 200 times for trivial things throughout the pregnancy. Sometimes less medical attention gives better results.

    • Jacqueline says:

      @Nicole, You are right, people run to the doctor for every little thing these days. But it’s not just because their medical services are covered by insurance or government; ALL have been ‘programmed’ to seek the advice of a doctor versus trusting in their own ability to handle even the most innocuous medical situation (and this ingrained mistrust of self extends to nearly all areas of our lives).

      The progressive tentacles: 1) 1980 A The pediatricians’ advice for my baby’s 104.5 degree fever was to wait for 48 hours, as the body creates a temperature high enough to kill off a virus, which it did. No visit, no meds. 2) 1988 Commercials on the TV began announcing “when your child has a runny nose (or cold) and you take him/her to the doctor…) Yes, for a cold – where previously one simply let a cold run its course without medical intervention. 3) A TV commercial 3 days ago portrayed two parents at 2 AM checking a baby’s diaper – ooh, is it supposed to look this way? No problem, just whip out your cell phone and contact ‘doctor on call’ or some such service. 4) Recently proposed Oregon state legislation making it mandatory that all newborns receive a home visit from child services to evaluate the home situation and parents, under the guise of staunching abuse. The message is clear: you know nothing and must constantly be told what to do within the context of your own life. And… never question the ‘experts.’

      • Birgit Sjölander says:

        Jacqueline,you are så right about this. I live in sweden and they praktise this homekontroll since the 80´s.Its´only controll, because if something really is abnormal nothing happens.

  4. Sue says:

    Dr. Robert Mendelsohn was saying this about ultrasound several decades ago.

    Also, this is just one more example of how animal experiments (aside from being horrifically immoral and unethical) are only used to “prove” what the people funding the experiments want to “prove.” If the experiment gives them the result they want, they’ll market the product regardless of how it might, or might not, affect people. If the animal experiment doesn’t give them the result they want, they’ll either move on to a a species that may give them a better result, or ignore it altogether. And they’re using OUR money to do this, and then charging us again to use their shady final outcome on people.

    • Jacqueline says:

      @Sue, I view the research as more of a dog and pony show. Animal studies are done, harm is identified, but it’s then noted that just because it occurs in animals is no indication that the same will occur in humans – which is nothing less than the researchers invalidating their own study results. So why do animal studies then at all? It does create a nice illusion of something being done in the name of safety. And, of course, more studies are always recommended. Further human studies may be deemed ‘unethical’ and therefore not do-able. Or perhaps human studies aren’t deemed so important since the FDA eliminated Phase IV human studies to fast track drugs to market. Why? Because the new and increasingly harmful drugs could never be approved – the market itself is now Phase IV. (Who in one’s right mind would request from a doctor a drug to prevent bone fractures when three of the side effects divulged are ‘unusual’ bone fractures?) So we’re back to where we began at ‘study and shrug’ and ‘I don’t know’ but just sell it anyway. The circus is in full swing with a blatant disregard for human life at its heart.

  5. Nick WEECH says:

    Jim talking on Crazz Radio: http://crazzfiles.com/?s=ultrasound
    Thanks Jon

  6. Nick WEECH says:


    Background to vacccines very clearly explained via subtitles. You’ll appreciate it I believe Jon

  7. Xeno says:

    I’ve had several ulrasounds, one for over 15 minutes and I assumed it was totally safe. Darn. What about MRI?

    • Jacqueline says:

      MRI originated from a chemical analysis known as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance used to identify a compound’s individual elements. Radio waves are run through a magnetic field to provide the unique resonance signature of each element of the compound. Medical applications were not available until the early 1980’s, when a large enough magnet was created to accommodate the size of the human body. The name was changed to MRI to eliminate any negative connotation associated with the word ‘nuclear’ (reference to atomic level).

      It is all resonance. An understanding of the impacts of frequency upon the human body relies on a comprehensive understanding of electro-magnetic physics. It is known that blood creates a type of static electricity to move itself through the vascular system. The application of wi-fi to blood cells causes the cells to ‘stick together.’ Is this what raises the propensity for heart attack when exposed to strong wi-fi? The oxygen molecule carries a unique frequency signature; the ‘internet of things’ frequency includes that of oxygen and is known to interfere with the bonding of oxygen to red blood cells. Frequency further alters water, i.e. loss of hydrogen atom from the molecule, increased solubility propensity, and more. Your body is 70 percent water; this should be of major concern to the medical and scientific communities.

      The medical field must get educated in physics – and do so quickly – to be able to properly identify and remediate symptoms associated with EMF’s, or doctors will end up killing even more people than they currently do as they erroneously attempt to treat with chemicals an issue that is purely one of ‘energy.’

      • Xeno says:

        Thank you for this detail. I had a 3 Tesla full body MRI about three years ago and wonder if it changed me forever, perhaps on a subatomic level. I think it may have swapped with a me in an alternate universe. Now I have to wait until they invent a reverse MRI to get back to my natural universe. 😐

  8. Eliza Ayres says:

    Reblogged this on Blue Dragon Journal.

  9. Terry Adams says:

    I would think that all the nano-aluminum, strontium, and barium fro the aerosols contribute to the harmful effects on the unborn. As a sufferer of the bio-weapon called “morgellons” I am all too aware of what they have done to our air. One IS going to be exposed, no matter what precautions that may take.. What happened to the country I love?

  10. Dan says:

    After I watched our 5 month old fetus violently jerk away from the ultrasound beam when my wife was pregnant, it became obvious that ultrasound was not harmless. It’s known to cause heating of tissue, and we also use it specifically to fragment nucleic acids (DNA/RNA) in the lab for sample preparation.

  11. Mooeing says:

    I’m lucky to be anti vaccine before i had my first. We also read about the harm of ultrasound and were forced to do only 1 ultra sound. I told the tech to use minimal exposure and she took stills and examined them. Also prenatal heart monitors use the same technology as ultra sound so we only allowed prenatal stethoscopes

  12. Satanists Rule The World says:

    Research from Russia makes it even worse:

    “After I’d exposed a DNA molecule to ultrasound, I noticed something that stupefied me.

    “You see normally in aqueous solution, DNA molecules produce a continuous sound. They create a complex melody with recurrent musical phrases.

    “So I irradiate it with the ultrasound waves of the same frequency, as in diagnostic ultrasound. And what do I hear? Not a complex melody, but only one monotonous note.

    “This means that by utilizing ultrasound, we’ve erased a massive amount of information from this DNA molecule, which could have been materialized through sound.

    “Then I thought to myself, ‘Oh my God, we don’t have any healthy kids left.’ I mean literally, worldwide, there are no healthy kids now, because all of them, apart from those born in wild tribes, are exposed to medical ultrasoundography.

    “The work of DNA could be seen as that of the computer. But if you strike a computer with a hammer, then quite probably, it’ll start producing only one response to all of your queries.

    “Pretty much the same happens in the human body, when it’s being deafened with ultrasound. Its wave matrices become deformed to such an extent that one frequency becomes prevalent.

    But that doesn’t happen momentarily. At first, a DNA molecule undergoes a severe shock after being exposed to ultrasound. Then it comes round for a while, and finally it generates a wave phantom of pain and fear.

    The mainstream media line:

    “The [ultrasound units] designed for scanning are designed in such a way that it does not cause any harm… In addition, says Liu, ultrasound scans have been used for around 20 years with no ill effects.”

    Some people get them done all the time for their photo albums.
    “[P]rivate clinics have developed a lucrative sideline in non-medical scans for parents to keep mementoes of their child before birth.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jun/23/thisweekssciencequestions2

    As they are harmless, some doctors do an ultrasound a week for medical “checking”. Exactly what they would do if they found something wrong is not clear, but it is “mind settling” for the mother each time.

    “I’m a high risk and I get one every week. I see a specialist every 2 weeks and my ob every two weeks so I see a dr every week. Although I’m high risk for many reason one reason is my body rejects foreign things so they have to constantly check for signs of my body rejecting the pregnancy. I’m 11 weeks and 5 days and I have one today at my OB office and I’ve been getting them since I was 5 weeks. My drs both told me there is no harm to the baby with the ultrasounds. Doesn’t hurt to ask your Dr if you can. It is very mind settling esp since I had a miscarriage earlier this year.”

    https://community.whattoexpect.com/forums/july-2015-babies/topic/too-many-ultrasounds-bad-for-you.html

    Just like X-raying the womb caused no harm to a baby, and was once a standard procedure before ultrasound became the “safe alternative”. See the book, “The Woman Who Knew Too Much” for what happened to the doctor who found out that it doubled the risk of childhood cancers and tried to stop it. It took them about 20 years to finally admit that she was right.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Woman-Who-Knew-Much/dp/0472087835

    Courage and Integrity in Science: A Precious Rarety

    Dr. Stewart is a British physician and epidemiologist (born in 1906 into a large family of physicians) who revolutionized the concept of radiation risk. In the 1950s, while surveying childhood mortalities in the British Isles, she finds that then quite common X-ray examinations during pregnancy doubled the risk for childhood cancer. Fueled by the wrath of radiologists, her work has been viciously derided among the medical establishment for more than two decades. In the 1970s, she finds that some workers at nuclear weapons production sites, such as Hanford, WA or Oakridge, TN are dying of radiation induced cancers, showing that presumed “safe” levels of occupational exposures put these workers at a twenty times higher risk than officially admitted. With that finding she places herself on the “enemy list” of an immensely powerful nuclear weapons establishment, including its scientific elite, and at the center of an international controversy over radiation risks. Stewart’s fascinating story, a collaborative memoir told by herself and Greene with verve and humor, is one of a woman scientist’s ingenuity, independence, perseverance, compassion, and integrity, a fascinating tale in the checkered history of a mostly male-dominated science. Rudi H. Nussbaum, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Environmental Science.

  13. Neo-Paradigm says:

    Dr. Kelly Brogan is an advocate for women’s and children’s health.

    https://kellybroganmd.com/human-studies-condemn-ultrasound/

  14. TPR says:

    I didn’t realize Jim Webb (nor Dr. Robert Mendelsohn) were the originators of Ultrasound warnings in the USA (even though I had read a few of Mendelsohn’s books in the 1980s, loved them!)

    The Jim Webb text sounded so familiar so I’m thinking I may have read it previously at Jeanice Barcelo’s site, Radiation Dangers: http://www.radiationdangers.com/ultrasound/

    She had already written one book, Birth Trauma, which can be found at her other site, Birth of a New Earth. And for the last several years she has been working on her second book, The Dark Side of Pre-Natal Ultrasound (maybe she first learned about that from Jim Webb(?), but due to her family, herself, & her parents becoming very ill from Smart Meters & CellTowers/EMFs (in NY), she is struggling to finish her Ultrasound book (she has said it’s been the hardest thing she has ever tried to do).

    A few weeks ago Jeanice sent out an email saying she didn’t know if she’ll ever be able to finish the Ultrasound book so she was offering to release the first half of it if enough people were interested. (Not to detract from your article & Jim Webb’s book! but just to let you know there is another person/author out there also very interested in the subject.)

    Lastly & as always, excellent comments from your readers! Educational, Historical, & with some humor thrown in. Always a pleasure. 😉

    • TPR says:

      How embarrassing! I really DID read your article. But it’s Jim WEST not Webb. Sorry about that. (I must have too much evil Democrat news stuck in the brain, Dem Senator Jim Webb.)

    • Sue says:

      Dr. Mendelssohn passed away in 1988 – this video shows him discussing ultrasound. I don’t recall if he mentioned it in his books (I was more interested in the vaccine issue), but he did in The People’s Choice newsletters.

      Dr. Robert Mendelsohn on Pregnancy and the Dangers of …

  15. Jon

    I have said it before (somewhat endorsing the comment above) and I’ll say it again, evidence (i.e. DNA interference) seems to point to a radiation cause emitted by technologies that deliver ultrasound.

    However, there is much we don’t understand about the physics of the body and how it relates to nature. A “supposedly” extra-terrestrial group of beings have reported that our bodies are a vibrational “extension” of our atmosphere, Under those terms, planes (in the way they cut through the atmosphere) play havoc with our nervous systems.

    Best
    OT

  16. Tim says:

    Put this in your search engine: ‘US has highest rate of infant mortality in developed world’.

  17. Dipesh says:

    Can this be applied to ghoda too?

    Dr Dipesh Bhalani Ghoda Doctor, Rajkot

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.