Completely uneventful anatomy scan

Anyway, yesterday's procedure gave me a level of calm about this
pregnancy that I would not have otherwise had. A calm, happy,
stress-free mom is every bit as important as anything else.

Absolutely.


Sometimes medical procedures that are absolutely necessary are also
uncomfortable. Tough. If I could, I'd tell my baby: "Welcome to
the
world, Peanut. It only gets harder from here. I'm going to do
everything I can to protect you from unnecessary pain, but you're not
going to get out of this life without some amount of pain (and
remember
that the jury is still out concerning whether or not the ultrasound
actually causes any pain, in spite of what Crazy Todd says), so you
might as well start sucking it up now. Shots hurt, too. You're
getting those. Cope. Oh, and birth doesn't look like it's going to
be
all that comfortable for either of us, but you know what, we'll deal
with it. And then we'll be ok."

Excellently put.

snip
I find it very interesting that I'm the dozenth
woman to mention having an ultrasound in the last month, and yet I'm
the only one who's been Todded over it. I figure that you have some
kind of personal vendetta against me, and while I don't understand
why
(other than that you're a Froot Loop), I'm immeasurably glad that
you're safely 1000 miles away.

That was the first thing that went through my mind, too. We talk about
u/s all the time here, and it takes Amy mentioning ONE u/s, a standard
procedure that most of us have had done as a screening procedure, to
spark the Todd lecture. Why not aim it at, say, Brazilians, who have
something like 5 u/s on average per pregnancy, if they can afford it?
Or Americans who *do* want an u/s several times throughout the
pregnancy, often b/c they're trying to see the sex of an uncooperative
baby?

It's so sad and unnecessary to see someone attacked and put down when
they're in the middle of celebrating the new knowledge that their baby
looks healthy and normal.

My grandmother accidentally got pregnant at age 42, at a time when the
risks to the baby of a mother over 40 were understood, but no routine
testing was available. She spent 9 months terrified that she was going
to give birth to a sick or disabled infant. It turned out he was fine,
but whether it's coincidence or not, he grew up into a high-strung,
stressed kid and a high-strung, stressed adult. The availability of a
screening u/s would have given her peace of mind, helped her to prepare
if there *had* been something wrong, and (who knows?) might have
resulted in him being a more laid back, content human being.

Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)

You'll notice from the headers that this was meant to be a PRIVATE
e-mail. I figured that it was off-topic for the newsgroup. It is
really, really tacky to post private mails to a public newsgroup. Bad
form on top of bad form, Todd.

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: "Todd Gastaldo"
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 6:01 AM
Subject: U/S images are such fun but...

Listen, you freak. In case you haven't gotten the memo, I am not
interested in you or your opinions. I think that only a very
disturbed
man would enjoy berating pregnant women the way you do. I'm sure
that
Freud would have a frickin' field day if he could get ahold of your
addled, unstable brain.

You can rest assured that unless I say, "HEY TODD, WHAT DO YOU
THINK
ABOUT..." that I have less than NO interest in your opinions on
pregnancy, birth, child rearing, the weather, politics, conspiracy
theories, major league baseball, shoes or anything else. Capiche?

I resent the hell out of your implication that I hurt my baby -
especially considering the fact that I'm like the millionth person
to
mention that she's had an ultrasound in the last month, and none of
the
rest of them got "the Todd treatment" over it. You have some sick
obsession with pregnancy, you have some kind of sick obsession with
me,
and I want it to stop. NOW. Leave me the **** alone.



Amy,

You wrote: "I resent the hell out of your implication that I hurt my
baby."

You mistate my implication.

No, I'm reading it loud and clear. You're trying to make me feel like
a bad mother for doing something that is completely routine. You're a
jerk. It's real simple.

My post implied what the *medical literature* implies: ULTRASOUND
may harm
babies.

Bull****. Koolaid may cause club feet, too. Doesn't make it so.

The only reason I opened YOUR post about ultrasound was because you
put out
false information about immediate cord clamping (blind trust in OBs
is
appropriate) and false information about me.

BULL****. The two are completely unrelated issues. I didn't say a
single freaking word about cord clamping in the u/s post. You have
some kind of personal vendetta against me. You're a sick, twisted
pervert who gets his rocks off yelling at pregnant women.

When I recently pointed out your false information about me, you
FURTHER
falsely indicated that I oppose cord blood harvesting when in fact I
do not.
(Your indication that if a woman insists that her baby's cord not be
clamped
until it stops pulsating there will be "nothing left to harvest" - or
words
to that effect - supports my point that OBs are robbing babies of
blood.)

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ULTRASOUND. You're just trying to re-open
the argument that I have repeatedly refused to re-engage in (because
you're a small minded, horrible little weasel).

From ultrasound to robbing babies of massive amounts of blood volume
to
robbing babies of massive amounts of pelvic outlet area...blind trust
in OBs
may be harming a LOT of babies.

Listening to you harms a lot more.

If you wish to remark on my usenet posts - please remark on the
usenet.

Here's a remark for you - **** off and die.

PS To any other pregnant women reading... Filter me or delete me -
or read
my posts for what they are - a usually lone voice questioning blind
trust in
OBs.

That sounds like a shrill, barking poodle, who is furious with his own
impotence...

I again quote Amy remarking on her baby's response to ultrasound...

Our baby is a ham. S/he covered her face with both arms, waved,
kicked, danced the can can, and bounced on my bladder the entire
time.
It was hilarious. The weirdest thing was feeling him/her move and
watching him/her move at the same time.


I replied...


Turn up a standard ultrasound too high and it HURTS.

Prove it.

How would one know that a baby is being funny (or just active) and
is not
being hurt by the ultrasound?

How do you know that the baby doesn't naturally pull his arms over his
face all day long? Unless you've got x-ray vision, you don't, idiot.

SOMETHING - maybe the ultrasound? - caused the third more
intrauterine
growth retardation in the 5 ultrasound group relative to the 1
ultrasound
group discussed by Marsden Wagner, MD...

We may be hurting babies with ultrasound.

You getting me this ****ed off is hurting my baby a hell of a lot more
than yesterday's ultrasound did, asshole. But you don't really care
about babies at all - you probably get some kind of sick sexual thrill
from bullying pregnant women. I would just love to figure out what
kind of deviant you really are, and expose you before the world...

Again, leave me the hell alone. I am not interested in you or your
opinions about what I'm doing with my kid. If you told me that OXYGEN
was good for babies at this point, I'd disagree. Go away. Crawl back
into the hole you crawled out of and leave me alone.

wrote:

Bull****. Koolaid may cause ...

Wow, was that a poor choice of words. Even being as ****ed as I was/am
is no excuse. Sorry to anyone who may have been offended or hurt by
what I said.

Amy

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
ink.net...
In 1999, Marsden Wagner, MD, a neonatologist and perinatal epidemiologist
responsible for maternal and child health in the European Regional
Office
of
the World Health Organization for fourteen years wrote:

"[W]e now have sufficient scientific data to be able to say that routine
prenatal ultrasound scanning has no effectiveness and may very well
carry
risks..."
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articl...p?q=ultrasound

Regarding a 1993 study, Dr. Wagner remarked:

From 2,834 pregnant women, 1,415 received ultrasound imaging at 18, 24,
28,
34 and 38 weeks gestation (intensive group) while the other 1,419
received
single ultrasound imaging at 18 weeks (regular group).

The only difference between the two groups was significantly higher
(one-third more) intrauterine growth retardation in the intensive group.

This important and serious finding prompted the authors to state: "It
would
seem prudent to limit ultrasound examinations of the fetus to those
cases
in
which the information is likely to be of clinical importance."

END Dr. Wagner's remark...


WHY did these families have more ultrasounds done? The reason I had frequent
U/S in my last pregnancy was because I had PE symptoms on and off and
hypertension from 22 weeks (and a history of early onset severe HELLP).
Hypertension can cause IUGR, and the sole reason for the U/S was to make
sure that the baby wasn't being compromised. Because the baby wasn't showing
signs of compromise, we were able to treat the PE less aggressively and
still make it to 35 weeks before delivery. And Alli was 6 lbs 11 oz at
birth, so she definitely wasn't growth restricted.

Insurance companies don't pay for multiple ultrasounds unless you're high
risk or there are already problems. Comparing a high-risk mother to one with
no prior risk factors is simply not indicative of anything.

wrote in message
oups.com...

You'll notice from the headers that this was meant to be a PRIVATE
e-mail. I figured that it was off-topic for the newsgroup. It is
really, really tacky to post private mails to a public newsgroup. Bad
form on top of bad form, Todd.


Amy,

I say again:

You wrote: "I resent the hell out of your implication that I hurt my baby."

You mistated my implication.

My post implied what the *medical literature* implies: ULTRASOUND may harm
babies.

The only reason I opened YOUR post about ultrasound was because you put out
false information about immediate cord clamping (blind trust in OBs is
appropriate) and false information about me.

When I recently pointed out your false information about me, you FURTHER
falsely indicated that I oppose cord blood harvesting when in fact I do not.
(Your indication that if a woman insists that her baby's cord not be clamped
until it stops pulsating there will be "nothing left to harvest" - or words
to that effect - supports my point that OBs are robbing babies of blood.)

From ultrasound to robbing babies of massive amounts of blood volume to
robbing babies of massive amounts of pelvic outlet area...blind trust in OBs
may be harming a LOT of babies.

If you wish to remark on my usenet posts - please remark on the usenet.

Todd

PS To any other pregnant women reading... Filter me or delete me - or read
my posts for what they are - a usually lone voice questioning blind trust in
OBs.

I again quote Amy remarking on her baby's response to ultrasound...

Our baby is a ham. S/he covered her face with both arms, waved,
kicked, danced the can can, and bounced on my bladder the entire time.
It was hilarious. The weirdest thing was feeling him/her move and
watching him/her move at the same time.


I replied...


Turn up a standard ultrasound too high and it HURTS.

How would one know that a baby is being funny (or just active) and is not
being hurt by the ultrasound?

SOMETHING - maybe the ultrasound? - caused the third more intrauterine
growth retardation in the 5 ultrasound group relative to the 1 ultrasound
group discussed by Marsden Wagner, MD...


We may be hurting babies with ultrasound.

Todd

Yeah, Todd's a totally weird one, Amy, I agree. He's the reason that
Ididn't post Noah's birth story on here. I just didn't want it picked apart
and pasted into some crusade he might be on at the moment. He seems to see
posts as an opportunity to further his agenda without realizing that there
are real people with an emotional connection to these stories/posts who
might not appreciate having their lives hijacked into his "rant-du-jour. "

I'm sorry about your niece, Amy. I'm glad your ultrasound revealed a
healthy baby and you will be able to relax some. We knew that Noah would
have some problems as revealed on our ultrasound, and I'm glad we were able
to find these out early to prepare for a special needs child, should that be
the case. Right now he is developing normally, and we have high hopes that
his birth defect will not cause him any developmental problems. This is your
special time, Amy. Enjoy it, relax and ignore the bad energy, okay? :-)


--
lisa
micksmom
mick: 7-12-02
noah: 1-24-05
wrote in message
oups.com...

karlisa wrote:

We had a routine scan at 20 weeks and that was when it was discovered
that
our baby might have a problem. From there on out, we were scanned on
a
regular basis to see if the baby was developing hydrocephalus, as was
feared. Fortunately, Noah was born without hydrocephalus, but an
ultrasound
following his birth revealed a rare birth defect--agenesis of the
corpus
callosum with mild colpolcephaly. I'm glad we had the pregnancy
closely
monitored with ultrasound, as now we can keep a close eye on Noah's
development and get him early intervention services quickly should he
need
them. Since my oldest son has developmental delays, I know the
importance
of getting services as early as possible.

So perhaps those individuals in the study had many ultrasounds not
for *fun*
but because of a suspected problem with the baby?? The quoted
material
never stated that those participants in the study who had numerous
ultrasounds were experiencing normal pregnancies. Also, I know my
insurance
provider only pays for one routine scan at 18-20 weeks, and the only
way
they will pay for more is if there is a suspected problem with the
fetus.
So I have to also wonder how many people can afford to keep getting
scans
for *fun* if they have to pay out of pocket. They cost about $180
at the
perinatologist's office that I went to.

Thanks, Lisa, for saying what I wasn't calm enough to say. I think
there are men on this group who think that every woman in the world
should do pregnancy the natural, granola way (IOW, however MEN tell
them to do it!). To them, I say, "YOU do it and get back to me." I
think it's pretty screwed up for a man to be so obsessed with pregnancy
to begin with, but that's another thread entirely. I'm sure Freud
would have a field day...

Anyway, yesterday's procedure gave me a level of calm about this
pregnancy that I would not have otherwise had. A calm, happy,
stress-free mom is every bit as important as anything else.

Sometimes medical procedures that are absolutely necessary are also
uncomfortable. Tough. If I could, I'd tell my baby: "Welcome to the
world, Peanut. It only gets harder from here. I'm going to do
everything I can to protect you from unnecessary pain, but you're not
going to get out of this life without some amount of pain (and remember
that the jury is still out concerning whether or not the ultrasound
actually causes any pain, in spite of what Crazy Todd says), so you
might as well start sucking it up now. Shots hurt, too. You're
getting those. Cope. Oh, and birth doesn't look like it's going to be
all that comfortable for either of us, but you know what, we'll deal
with it. And then we'll be ok."

My niece was born with a hole in her diaphragm (I understand that
they've made amazing strides in diagnosing and treating this condition
in utero, but when she had it a few years ago it wasn't something they
could fix). Because they had a routine scan, they were able to
identify the problem, assemble a team of experts, and they were able to
make every possible attempt at saving her life. Unfortunately, they
were unsuccessful, and we lost her after a month of fighting. However,
they are now able to treat such a condition prior to birth, helping the
lungs to develop properly, and allowing these babies to live - when
just a few short years ago they would've had a .000001% chance of
living. But without routine scans, they'd never be able to identify
and treat these rare, life threatening conditions. So, Todd, how many
babies are you going to let die because there's a minute chance that
the ultrasound might hurt them or make them uncomforable? Ultrasound
has been used for 40 years. FORTY YEARS. Routinely. I maintain that
it would've become obvious by now if it were hurting anyone.

As I said in my private mail to you, Todd. When I want your opinion, I
will expressly ask for it. Until then, you can safely assume that I
don't give a rat's ass what you think about pregnancy, childbirth,
child rearing, the weather, politics, religion, Major League Baseball,
low carb diets, Terri Schiavo, the Pope, or any other thing, large or
small, under the sun. I find it very interesting that I'm the dozenth
woman to mention having an ultrasound in the last month, and yet I'm
the only one who's been Todded over it. I figure that you have some
kind of personal vendetta against me, and while I don't understand why
(other than that you're a Froot Loop), I'm immeasurably glad that
you're safely 1000 miles away.

The thing I hate about Usenet is that it gives voice to people like
Todd - the fact is that if he started his rant (which would certainly
sound like a shrill, barking poodle) with any of us in person, we'd run
screaming in the other direction. Or mace him. Whichever your
approach, none of us would suffer his foolishness in real life.

Again, Lisa, thanks. I've been ****ed off since I read the first few
lines of his diatribe last night. This is as calm as I'm likely to get
about it.

Amy

SPARKING TODD LECTURES...

See below...

"Melania" wrote in message
oups.com...


Anyway, yesterday's procedure gave me a level of calm about this
pregnancy that I would not have otherwise had. A calm, happy,
stress-free mom is every bit as important as anything else.

Absolutely.

Sometimes medical procedures that are absolutely necessary are also
uncomfortable. Tough. If I could, I'd tell my baby: "Welcome to
the
world, Peanut. It only gets harder from here. I'm going to do
everything I can to protect you from unnecessary pain, but you're not
going to get out of this life without some amount of pain (and
remember
that the jury is still out concerning whether or not the ultrasound
actually causes any pain, in spite of what Crazy Todd says), so you
might as well start sucking it up now. Shots hurt, too. You're
getting those. Cope. Oh, and birth doesn't look like it's going to
be
all that comfortable for either of us, but you know what, we'll deal
with it. And then we'll be ok."

Excellently put.

snip
I find it very interesting that I'm the dozenth
woman to mention having an ultrasound in the last month, and yet I'm
the only one who's been Todded over it. I figure that you have some
kind of personal vendetta against me, and while I don't understand
why
(other than that you're a Froot Loop), I'm immeasurably glad that
you're safely 1000 miles away.

Amy,

I say again:

You wrote: "I resent the hell out of your implication that I hurt my baby."

You mistated my implication.

My post implied what the *medical literature* implies: ULTRASOUND may harm
babies.

The only reason I opened YOUR post about ultrasound was because you put out
false information about immediate cord clamping (blind trust in OBs is
appropriate) and false information about me.

When I recently pointed out your false information about me, you FURTHER
falsely indicated that I oppose cord blood harvesting when in fact I do not.
(Your indication that if a woman insists that her baby's cord not be clamped
until it stops pulsating there will be "nothing left to harvest" - or words
to that effect - supports my point that OBs are robbing babies of blood.)

From ultrasound to robbing babies of massive amounts of blood volume to
robbing babies of massive amounts of pelvic outlet area...blind trust in OBs
may be harming a LOT of babies.

If you wish to remark on my usenet posts - please remark on the usenet.

Todd

PS To any other pregnant women reading... Filter me or delete me - or read
my posts for what they are - a usually lone voice questioning blind trust in
OBs.

I again quote Amy remarking on her baby's response to ultrasound...

Our baby is a ham. S/he covered her face with both arms, waved,
kicked, danced the can can, and bounced on my bladder the entire time.
It was hilarious. The weirdest thing was feeling him/her move and
watching him/her move at the same time.


I replied...


Turn up a standard ultrasound too high and it HURTS.

How would one know that a baby is being funny (or just active) and is not
being hurt by the ultrasound?

SOMETHING - maybe the ultrasound? - caused the third more intrauterine
growth retardation in the 5 ultrasound group relative to the 1 ultrasound
group discussed by Marsden Wagner, MD...


We may be hurting babies with ultrasound.

Todd

END Todd's reply to Amy...

Melania wrote:


That was the first thing that went through my mind, too. We talk about
u/s all the time here, and it takes Amy mentioning ONE u/s, a standard
procedure that most of us have had done as a screening procedure, to
spark the Todd lecture. Why not aim it at, say, Brazilians, who have
something like 5 u/s on average per pregnancy, if they can afford it?
Or Americans who *do* want an u/s several times throughout the
pregnancy, often b/c they're trying to see the sex of an uncooperative
baby?


I believe ultrasound may harm babies...

I again quote Amy remarking on her baby's response to ultrasound...

Our baby is a ham. S/he covered her face with both arms, waved,
kicked, danced the can can, and bounced on my bladder the entire time.
It was hilarious. The weirdest thing was feeling him/her move and
watching him/her move at the same time.


I replied...


Turn up a standard ultrasound too high and it HURTS.

How would one know that a baby is being funny (or just active) and is not
being hurt by the ultrasound?

SOMETHING - maybe the ultrasound? - caused the third more intrauterine
growth retardation in the 5 ultrasound group relative to the 1 ultrasound
group discussed by Marsden Wagner, MD...


We may be hurting babies with ultrasound.

Melania continued...

It's so sad and unnecessary to see someone attacked and put down when
they're in the middle of celebrating the new knowledge that their baby
looks healthy and normal.


I did not attack Amy. As I said, we may be harming babies with ultrasound.

This needs to be stated right along with all the happiness.

My grandmother accidentally got pregnant at age 42, at a time when the
risks to the baby of a mother over 40 were understood, but no routine
testing was available. She spent 9 months terrified that she was going
to give birth to a sick or disabled infant.

False positive ultrasounds very likely have the same effect.

It turned out he was fine,
but whether it's coincidence or not, he grew up into a high-strung,
stressed kid and a high-strung, stressed adult. The availability of a
screening u/s would have given her peace of mind, helped her to prepare
if there *had* been something wrong, and (who knows?) might have
resulted in him being a more laid back, content human being.


I think it is wonderful that we have all this technology - but I do not
agree that it should be blithely promoted as harmless.

Ultrasound may harm babies.

Todd

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
.net...
ULTRASOUND MAY HURT BABIES

Todd:

Re-posting private emails to a newsgroup is considered harrassment and
abuse, and even *I* will turn you in to your service provider if I ever see
you do it again. Now's a real, real good time to drop it and leave Amy
alone. Harrassment via email is illegal. And don't think for a moment that
the rest of us don't know it, and don't care.

--angela

"Melania" wrote in message
Okay, that makes sense. So, it was indicated when I had a scan at 9
weeks, but they still told me at 18 (#1), 22 (#2), and 35 (#1) weeks to
do the water thing, even though presumably the amniotic fluid would be
doing the job by then.

They probably wanted you to drink at those stages if the baby was cephalic
(head down). The bladder will push the baby's head up so the tech can get a
good look at all parts of the brain and head. If the baby is not cephalic,
then the tech won't need the bladder filled and the amniotic fluid will do
the job.

Just following policy for pregnant women? Regardless, when you're
further into the pregnancy it doesn't take a full litre of water to
make your bladder feel like it's going to pop!

LOL, that's for sure.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

Thanks, Lisa, for saying what I wasn't calm enough to say. I think
there are men on this group who think that every woman in the world
should do pregnancy the natural, granola way (IOW, however MEN tell
them to do it!). To them, I say, "YOU do it and get back to me." I
think it's pretty screwed up for a man to be so obsessed with pregnancy
to begin with, but that's another thread entirely. I'm sure Freud
would have a field day...

That's why I have killfiled him. I am so over him and his 30%. I gave birth
the way I wanted and was extremely happy with my births. No problems for me
or the baby. Hang in there Amy. I am behind you 100%. )
--
Sue (mom to three girls)