Ultrasound and Autism - a possible link?

Could the increased use of ultrasound during pregnancy be
implicated in autism?




That’s a question I discussed yesterday with University of Louisville
researcher Manny Casanova.




A few stories have raised this question in recent years, but
none have elaborated on the possible process, as he did for me yesterday.   Here’s what he said:




Ultrasonic energy is known to affect cellular membranes and cell
growth.  In fact, ultrasound is used as a
therapy to accelerate bone growth following certain traumatic injuries.  In stem cell research, ultrasound has been
shown to accelerate development of cells. 
Knowing that stems cells are developing into neurons early in the fetal
development, it’s quite possible that addition of ultrasound energy might shift
that balance.  




Those were questions that I’d not heard before, when it came to
ultrasound.  




When I got back to my hotel room, I discovered a number of
scientific papers supporting each of his points, but none really put the ideas
together in the context of autism. I found that fascinating, and somewhat
disturbing.




What I had heard were these questions:




Heating and vibration might also affect a fetus.  Ultrasound will heat water, and the operation
of ultrasonic cleaning systems is familiar to many of us.  Either of those processes might affect fetal
development adversely too.




Like many people, I took for granted the idea that whomever
approved ultrasound for clinical use made sure the power levels were low enough
that the developing baby wasn’t cooked by its operation, or disintegrated like
dirt on jewelry in the cleaning tank.




Not so fast, Manny cautioned me . . .




When ultrasound was developed, it was first used late in
pregnancy, when all these risk factors are minimized.  It was also used by trained staff and the
machines, being new, were likely well calibrated.  Most moms did not get ultrasound at all, and
those who did typically received one or two.




The situation today is totally different.  Many doctors do ultrasound much earlier in an
effort to spot other problems, like Down’s syndrome.  It’s common for moms to get three, four, or
more ultrasounds done.  Finally and most
disturbing, many states have “ultrasound boutiques” in malls where moms can get
ultrasounds as art; for the new baby scrapbook. 





When the goal is a pretty picture, power levels may be turned up
unwittingly.  Safety is assumed by
operators who are not always medical people, and who may have little knowledge
of the underlying processes.




So we have the confluence of more ultrasounds, done earlier, and
possibly with poorly calibrated equipment and inadequately trained people.  I always associated ultrasound with
professional staff in a hospital, but to hear Manny, it can be a lot more like
a tattoo parlor experience. 




In fact, several states have no regulation at all over the use of ultrasound imaging equipment.  Anyone can buy it and make pretty pictures of your innards, perhaps cooking or altering you in the process.  In the hands of the wrong operator, it's like taking your developing baby and stepping into the microwave oven.  That's something none of you would do, yet the mall ultrasound parlors reportedly do a brisk business.  




Ultrasound Zeke has a wall full of beautiful fetal art, but it may have come at a high cost.  




I hesitate to say that’s a frightening prospect, but it’s
certainly one I’d study more carefully. 
If I were pregnant today, I’d be thinking hard if my doctor advised ultrasound
early on, and I’d be reluctant to do it very often.




An energy process that makes broken femurs heal faster is not
the sort of thing you want to fire into the brain of a developing fetus.  His brain is developing fast enough, all on
its own.  We don’t need to amp up the
rate of neuron development.




Remember . . . outside of evolution and the natural appearance of autistic people throughout history, we may never find a single pathway into autism.  There may be a hundred other causative factors.  I'm not suggesting this is THE CAUSE and neither is Manny.  This may or may not be involved . . . I simply suggest it's worth exploring further.




This is the second interesting question from IMFAR 2012.  What are your thoughts?




John Elder Robison

Writing from IMFAR 2012

Toronto, Ontario, Canada(c) 2007-2011 John Elder Robison