Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

‘Safe’ Levels of Ultrasound

Almost all of the ultrasound research showed its toxicity was dose-dependent. By the late 1970s, leading ultrasound researchers were explicitly warning against giving US to fetuses and that it was imperative to be very cautious of the dose.

Note: Much of this was based on the recognition that ultrasound could heat tissues (especially those close to dense bones like the brain) to levels known to be harmful to fetuses. This heating (along with the cavitation bubbles and mechanical stress ultrasound causes) is thought to be the primary mechanism of harm, although other explanations have also been proposed (e.g., ultrasound permanently muting many of the core frequencies of the body⁹).

Unfortunately, as the technology evolved, higher doses were needed to get the higher quality images customers wanted, so in 1992, the FDA made the controversial decision to raise the permitted ultrasound limits massively.

This limit (720 mW/cm²), however this vastly exceeded the standard accepted ultrasound dose¹⁰ which had already been demonstrated to damage tissues (and sadly, due to poor FDA oversight, many machines often use far higher intensities).

At the time, the change was justified by better training in ultrasound operators being a viable way to prevent fetal damage, but unfortunately, this never happened. Rather, ultrasound became declared “safe and effective,” the existing research was forgotten, funding for future safety research was blocked, medical guidelines gradually eliminated their cautions on ultrasound, and ultrasound operators lost almost any awareness they needed to be concerned about fetal safety.

Most importantly, this 1992 change coincided with the explosion of chronic illnesses that emerged in our children.¹¹

While the proliferation of vaccines is the most likely explanation for this epidemic, one study found¹² ultrasound increased the risk of autism in genetically susceptible children, suggesting ultrasound may have served a contributing role (which may relate¹³ to its ability to potentiate the cytotoxicity of antibiotics and other pharmaceutical drugs).

Likewise, many others found¹⁴ prenatal ultrasound significantly reduced fetal growth, impaired neuronal migration, and in children, increased:

Note: We also periodically come across cases of parents who used home ultrasound throughout their pregnancy to observe their developing child (e.g., Tom Cruise attracted national controversy for this¹⁵) and noticed that their babies tended to be smaller and more sickly.

Fetal Reactivity

One of the first things that made me suspicious of ultrasound was noticing that once ultrasound was applied, fetuses would react to it, and often seem as though they were trying to get away from it as the probe was directed towards them — which suggested, contrary to what we were told, ultrasound was not inert. After some digging, I discovered:

• Most midwives (and a few physicians) I’d spoken to had made similar observations and also hence questioned its safety.
• Scientific research showed that ultrasound caused increased fetal movement.¹⁶
• A hydrophone inside the uterus¹⁷ determined that ultrasound registers at 100 to 120¹⁸ decibels there (which is equivalent to a subway entering a train station¹⁹) — whereas OSHA limits workplace ultrasound exposure to between 105 to 115 decibels.²⁰

Fetal Demise

Another pivotal moment came when I saw a despondent mother in the emergency room having a miscarriage who kept saying, “I don’t understand what happened. We saw our gynecologist earlier today, she looked at my baby, and said he was in great health.” As I looked into this, I began to find many similar reports like this one (which includes many other instances she came across):

Likewise, numerous large studies have shown ultrasound can cause miscarriages or premature labor,^21,22,23,24 and since I began this series, many readers have shared similar tragic experiences.

Evidence of Harm

Over the last century, hundreds of studies have demonstrated the dangers of ultrasound, over 200 of which I summarized here. Collectively they all show dose-dependent biological damage occurs (at levels that were frequently less than 1% of the FDA’s 720 mW/cm² limit). In cell studies, ultrasound has been repeatedly observed to:

In animal studies, ultrasound has been shown to:

Note: Many of these defects, particularly those of the heart increased in tandem with the widespread adoption of ultrasound.

For ethical reasons, similar studies cannot be conducted in humans. However, in the early 1980s, dozens of studies (e.g., I summarized 41 of them here) were conducted in China on pregnant women immediately prior to abortion, with half of them receiving abortions and the fetuses then being dissected (some of which can be found in PubMed). Collectively, they observed similar damage in each organ that was examined and that ultrasound caused:

Additionally, they found specific damage to the placenta, pituitary gland, eyes, immune system, kidneys, liver, ovaries, testicles (and sperm), and the brain’s neurons and glial cells.

Note: Ultrasound has been extensively explored as a male birth control method²⁵ and has been found to induce premature ovulation.²⁶ Additionally, a large 2012 study found that 1.25% of children who had an ultrasound as a fetus had urologic disorders (e.g., a urinary obstruction), whereas in those who did not get a prenatal ultrasound, only 0.66% did.²⁷

A few large randomized control trials (RCTs) published in premier medical journals have also demonstrated dangers with ultrasound:

Sadly, rather than changing the standard of care, each of these were ignored.

Is Ultrasound Effective?

Numerous studies show ultrasound provides minimal overall benefit, especially if used early in pregnancy when the fetus is most vulnerable to its damaging effect. For example:

Note: Another use of ultrasound is to monitor a fetus’s heart rate continually through the labor process. Unfortunately, there is no evidence this practice improves neonatal outcomes. Rather it just increases the rate of C-sections (e.g., in 1970 when it began, 5.5% of deliveries were C-sections,³⁶ while in 2023, 32.3% of them were³⁷).

This lack of efficacy is largely because the primary “benefit” of ultrasound is that it can inform the parents if the baby has a severe defect and hence should be aborted. This is problematic as:

Many of the other benefits of ultrasound are either unnecessary (e.g., getting a picture of their face), possible to determine with other methods (e.g., their age, if there are twins, or if they have a genetic defect), or possible to determine around the time of labor (e.g., if a C-section is necessary).

Rather, the primary benefit is to inform you if the baby has a high-risk condition that requires intrauterine surgery (which applies to roughly 1 in 2000 pregnancies)⁴¹ or requires specialized surgical care immediately following childbirth (which can typically be determined with a physical examination).

Note: A 1997 study of 36 children with congenital defects only detected 19% to 36% of them. In those whose defects were detected (and the management of their labor was thus altered), 77% survived, whereas for those whose defects were missed, 96% survived (and had better Apgar scores and birth weights and spent less time on the ventilator). Additionally, while it took 3 times as long for those who needed surgeries to get one, no difference in mortality resulted.⁴²

As such, I believe rather than being routine, prenatal ultrasounds should only be done when there is a specific medical necessity for them (e.g., in high-risk pregnancies where the results of the scan would change its management following unexplained bleeding or to clarify uncertainties during labor), and that when done, care should be taken to minimize fetal ultrasound exposure.

Conclusion

For medical specialties to be financially viable, they need to routinely perform profitable procedures on the patients they see (which are often referred to as the specialty’s “bread and butter” and are funded as a result of aggressive lobbying by the American Medical Association).⁴³

Unfortunately, many of these procedures provide minimal value to the patients and, in many cases, are actually harmful (e.g., pediatricians depend upon vaccine sales to keep their practices afloat). Sadder still, in many cases, the doctors don’t even understand the evidence for or against the practice (e.g., I’ve found this is the case for pediatricians who routinely perform circumcisions).

In my eyes, one of the greatest upsides to the tragedy of COVID-19 is that it’s made it possible to expose the abhorrent tactics the medical industry has used for decades to exploit us for profit. As such, the public is beginning to question many of the longstanding medical practices they’ve reflexively trusted, and similarly, leaders like RFK Jr. have begun proposing removing the AMA’s ability to set the exorbitant reimbursement rates for medical procedures.⁴⁴

As children are both the most vulnerable to medical injury and cannot speak out for themselves when these injuries occur (although as any judicious observer can tell you — they do try to tell us), it is my sincere hope the new era we are walking into will at last allow us to protect them from these predatory medical practices. Our children are our future and it is vital that we protect them.

Author’s note: This is an abridged version of a longer article that goes into much greater detail on the data mention here, safe alternatives to ultrasound, effective strategies we’ve found for preventing miscarriages and having a happy, healthy and alert child, and methods to prevent common complications of pregnancy (e.g., back pain, preeclampsia, edema). That article and its additional references can be read here.

A Note from Dr. Mercola About the Author

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician from the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate AMD’s exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and am grateful to share it. I also respect AMD’s desire to remain anonymous since AMD is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack or follow AMD on Twitter (𝕏).