pippop
pc 
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Dec 23, 2012 23:32:33 GMT
I know someone who has asthma (don't we all?) so when nick talked about there being a link with that and the ultrasound I hoped he could give links. Is that a problem or why the sarky comments, there's no need for it. I thought youd jacked all that in. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 24, 2012 10:29:37 GMT
Here's the deleted quote Because ultrasound is now almost universally used, it has become almost impossible to assemble a control group of completely unexposed children. Only degrees of exposure can now be compared. www.greenhealthwatch.com/newsstories/newschildren/ultrasound-is-it-safe.htmlwww.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/ultrasound-anomaly-baby-scans-pregnant.aspxThe claim that medical research has found no known side effects of ultrasound is untrue.
Research by Lorenz showed that preterm labour was more than doubled in the ultrasound group; Saari-Kemppainen's research revealed 20 miscarriages after 16-20 weeks in the screened group and none in the controls; Davies research had 16 perinatal deaths of normally formed infants in the Doppler group compared with 4 in the standard care group; Taskinen's research found that if the physiotherapist was pregnant, handling ultrasound equipment for at least 20 hours a week significantly increased her risk of spontaneous abortion and the risk of spontaneous abortions occurring after the tenth week was significantly increased for deep heat therapies given for more than 5 hours a week, and ultrasound more than 10 hours a week.
The above are just a few of the side effects of ultrasound, I could list more, such as the Australian study that found that ultrasound reduced the baby’s weight (rather crucial in a baby considered to be small for dates!)
Beverley A Lawrence Beech
Hon Chair
Asociation for Improvements in the Maternity Services see also "Ultrasound: Weighing the Propaganda Against the Facts" in Midwifery Today Issue 51, Autumn 1999by Beverley Lawrence Beech www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasound.asp |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 24, 2012 10:41:14 GMT
Your repetitive demanding of links from others instead of participating in a discussion with your own links, pippop, is tedious. We all know what the demand for links means. It is code for "I do not believe you". Or it is plain needling.
Why don't you participate in good faith if you need to be here at all, pippop? You should know by now that neither Nick nor I make statements that we cannot back up. You on the other hand, play safe by never making statements that amount to anything substantive at all.
So why not do a little cyber research yourself and then you may be able to tell us, as well as your asthmatic friend, something useful, interesting or enlightening?
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 24, 2012 11:23:01 GMT
You should know by now that neither Nick nor I make statements that we cannot back up. True originality of thought does not require backing up by anything anyone else has thought before. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 24, 2012 12:22:25 GMT
No-one is claiming originality, jean, and I know that YOU would be the very last to lay such a claim for yourself. So let's remain in the realm of normal message-boarding, eh?
Why should the board have to pander to the level of the lowest common denominator? It is always the same person demanding "links" (or spoonfeeding) and the same person who makes little other contribution apart from needling. Admittedly, this frequent demand for corroboration allows others to shine in expounding further the matter in question but the repetitive demand is still tedious. I'm surprised it has not been seen by admin as a ground for deletion, myself. It demonstrates bad faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 24, 2012 19:52:04 GMT
Why should the board have to pander to the level of the lowest common denominator? It is always the same person demanding "links" (or spoonfeeding)... Providing evidence that someone once really did say what you claim they said isn't spoonfeeding, marchesa. Nor does asking for it demonstrate bad faith.I'm surprised you think so, since so many of your own posts consist of lengthy (and acknowledged) quotations from the same old anti-AGW blogs. |
|
