Tag: FDA

  • Ranbaxy ‘Sold Adulterated Drugs Liptor’, Admits

    Ranbaxy, the international Drug Manufacturer admitted in the United States to charges of making and distributing adulterated drugs at its two Indian plants of Paonta Sahib and Dewas and agreed to a $500 million settlement.

    Ranbaxy Laboratories, India
    Ranbaxy .

    Daiichi Sankyo believes certain former shareholders of Ranbaxy concealed and misrepresented critical information concerning the US Department of Justice and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigations,” Daiichi said in a statement.

    FDA warning to Ranbaxy.

    Drug Adulteration.
    Adulterated Drugs.

    Mr. Malvinder Mohan Singh
    CEO & Managing Director
    Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited
    Corporate Office
    Plot 90; Sector 32
    Gurgaon – 122001 (Haryana)
    India
    Dear Mr. Singh:
    The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has determined that Ranbaxy Laboratories
    Limited (Ranbaxy) submitted untrue statements of material fact in abbreviated and new
    drug applications filed with the Agency. These findings concern the submission of
    information, such as from stability test results in support of pending and approved drug
    applications, from the Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited site located at Paonta Sahib,
    Sirmour District, Himachal Pradesh, India, (herein referred to as the “Paonta Sahib site”).
    The following are examples of the observations that support our conclusion that Ranbaxy
    submitted untrue statements of material fact in drug applications filed with the Agency:
    1. Ranbaxy submitted stability information in numerous approved and pending
    applications that contain untrue statements of material fact, because Ranbaxy failed to
    include critical information about the storage and testing of the product. During a
    February 2006 inspection of the Paonta Sahib manufacturing facility, FDA found
    that hundreds of stability samples, many of which were being used for room
    temperature or accelerated stability studies, were being stored in refrigerators at
    approximately between the time they were removed from their stability
    chamber and the time they were tested. Among other things, FDA investigators
    found that the sample logbooks did not identify the samples that were being held in
    the refrigerators, their storage duration in the refrigerators, and the justification for
    this storage. FDA issued a June 15, 2006 warning letter to Ranbaxy based on its
    findings during this inspection, including the circumstances of these refrigerated
    stability samples.
    2. Ranbaxy submitted an August 26, 2006 warning letter response that included
    corrections to the stability data previously submitted to the agency in several
    abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). The corrected stability test reports for
    Fluconazole Tablets, Ciprofloxacin Tablets, and show instances
    where stability test dates that previously had been submitted to the applications were
    false. In some cases stability testing was conducted several months later than the
    dates reported in the applications. Additionally, the firm reported stability test results
    for a given batch as occurring at the required accelerated or long term (e.g., 3, 6, 9, 12
    (
    (b)
    (4)
    (b) (4) (b) (4)month ) time intervals, but actually conducted all of these tests on the same day, or
    within a period of days.”

    For Fluconazole Tablets and Ciprofloxacin Tablets, we found that even after Ranbaxy
    submitted its August 2006 warning letter response with the corrected stability test
    dates, the firm continued to submit the false stability test dates in annual report
    submissions to the respective applications.
    These submissions of false information about

    the stability testing of the products were
    material to FDA’s review of the applications.

    Sources:

    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/ucm118418.pdf

    http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Processing/Ranbaxy-inks-consent-decree-prepares-for-500m-penalty

    http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/

  • Why Johnson Johnson Baby Powder Licence Revoked,

    Excepting Pune Mirror,most of the English media were silent on the ‘process’ followed by Johnson & Johnson in the preparation of baby Powder.

    Media was coy of disclosing that the product, baby Powder contained Ethylene oxide,a cancer causing agent, a Carcinogen.

    This agent is used in baby Lotion,Baby Oil as well.

    As I understand it is a chemical used to prevent the product getting spoiled.

    This additive is used to increase the shelf life of the product.

    But it causes cancer.

    Many food and cosmetics contain this additive.

    Am posting a blog on the ingredients to avoid in Food Products.

    Check the product before you buy with this list.

    Johnson & Johnson range of products,
    Johnson & Johnson range of products,

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently cancelled Johnson & Johnson India’s licence to produce cosmetic products at their Mulund plant. FDA’s order will come into effect from June 24. According to FDA officials, the order was issued in a case dating back to 2007 when they found that 15 batches of Johnson & Johnson baby powder were sterilised by ethylene oxide, a known carcinogenic and irritant.

    “While ethylene oxide can be used for sterilisation, the company did not bother to carry out a test after the process to check the amount of residue in the product,” said FDA joint commissioner KB Shende, adding that the company can appeal to the State government before the order comes into effect.

    “The products are used for new born babies. It is must for the company to follow all measures,” said Shende adding that the traces of ethylene oxide, if any, should have been measured. The 15 batches in question consisted of 1,60,000 containers. When Mirror contacted Johnson & Johnson, the company spokesperson confirmed the FDA action.

    “Nothing is more important to us than the safety of our products and health of the consumers. We continue to manufacture non-cosmetic products at the same site,” the spokesperson said, adding that the matter in question related to a limited number of batches produced in 2007, shelf life of which ended in July 2010. “The FDA raised concern about following ethylene oxide treatment, which was not included as part of the manufacturing process submitted to the FDA.

    This method is widely used for medical devices around the world. This was followed as an exception and all internal safety protocols were followed to ensure that safety of the consumer was not compromised.

    Ethylene Oxide is very important material used in large-scale chemical production. It also produces ethylene glycol, one of the components used in plastics. Ethylene Oxide has been used globally to produce solvents, lubricants, paint thinners and detergents.

    How Dangerous Is It?

    At room temperature, ethylene oxide is very dangerous; the chemical is flammable, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and irritating. It is an anaesthetic gas with a misleading pleasant smell.

    What Effects Can It Do to Humans?

    Unprotected and constant exposure to ethylene oxide can cause genetic mutation or DNA alternation which leads to cancer. It can damage the lungs and the cardiovascular system. Physical manifestation after exposure includes headache, vomiting, dizziness, sleep disturbances, leg pain, weakness, stiffness, sweating, liver enlargement and suppression of antitoxic functions of the body.”

    http://www.punemirror.in/article/2/20130428201304281854263754732d5b0/JJ%E2%80%99s-licence-to-make-cosmetics-cancelled.html

    Additional Inputs from.

    http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/463154/20130501/cosmetic-brand-johnson-license-cancer-causing-baby.htm#.UZNcDqJTCXc

    Ethylene oxide is toxic by inhalation with an U.S. OSHA permissible exposure limit calculated as a TWA (time weighted average) over 8 hours of 1 ppm, and a short term exposure limit (excursion limit) calculated as a TWA over 15 minutes of 5 ppm. [29 CFR 19101.1048]. At concentrations in the air about 200 parts per million, ethylene oxide irritates mucous membranes of the nose and throat; higher contents cause damage to the trachea and bronchi, progressing into the partial collapse of the lungs. High concentrations can cause pulmonary edema and damage the cardiovascular system; the damaging effect of ethylene oxide may occur only after 72 hours after exposure.[17] The maximum content of ethylene oxide in the air according to the U.S. standards (ACGIH) is 1.8 mg/m3.[113] NIOSH has determined that the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health level (IDLH) is 800 ppm.[114]

    Because the odor threshold for ethylene oxide varies between 250 and 700 ppm, the gas will already be at toxic concentrations when it can be smelled. Even then, the odor of ethylene oxide is sweet, aromatic, and can easily be mistaken for the pleasant aroma of diethyl ether, a common laboratory solvent of very low toxicity. In view of these insidious warning properties, continuous electrochemical monitors are standard practice, and it is forbidden to use ethylene oxide to fumigate building interiors in the EU and some other jurisdictions.[115]

    Ethylene oxide causes acute poisoning, accompanied by the following symptoms: slight heartbeat, muscle twitching, flushing, headache, diminished hearing, acidosis, vomiting, dizziness, transient loss of consciousness and a sweet taste in the mouth. Acute intoxication is accompanied by a strong throbbing headache, dizziness, difficulty in speech and walking, sleep disturbance, pain in the legs, weakness, stiffness, sweating, increased muscular irritability, transient spasm of retinal vessels, enlargement of the liver and suppression of its antitoxic functions.[108]

    Ethylene oxide easily penetrates through the clothing and footwear, causing skin irritation and dermatitis with the formation of blisters, fever and leukocytosis.[108]

    The median lethal doses (LD50, or a dose required to kill half the members of a tested population after a certain time) for ethylene oxide are 72 mg/kg (rat, oral) and 187 mg/kg (rat, subcutaneousinjection).[116]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_oxide

    Conclusion
    The Committee notes that estimated current intakes of ethylene oxide from the few food
    additives containing it, conforming to present specifications, are very low. However, since
    ethylene oxide is both genotoxic and carcinogenic, intakes from food sources should be as
    low as possible. The Committee has been informed that the currently achievable limit of
    detection for ethylene oxide is well below the upper limits of 0.5 mg/kg proposed for EHEC
    or the 1.0 mg/kg currently specified for E431-436. The Committee therefore recommends that
    the specifications of additives manufactured using ethylene oxide should be revised to restrict
    ethylene oxide as an impurity to below its current limit of detection.
    The Committee will comment on 1,4-dioxane, ethylene chlorohydrin and mono- and
    diethylene glycol as impurities in additives in subsequent opinions.

    http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out127_en.pdf

  • Johnson Johnson Baby Powder Banned

    Couple of days ago, my daughter told me that Johnson and Johnson ‘ the makers of child care products’ like Baby Powder,Baby Soap,baby Oil was banned.

    Somehow I missed the news as it was not highlighted in the Media, such is the power of Advertiser finance to the Media.

    Of course there are exceptions.

    Baby Powder Licence revoked,India.
    Johnson and Johnson’s Licence canceled

    It is not merely Johnson and Johnson.

    We have Complan claiming that children will go twice Taller(?,

    Horlicks has ‘Brian Boosters”,’Is the Brain Dead? and what is this Booster?

    Bournvita,’Twice the Stamina’-who has defined Stamina and how does one measure it?

    Pepsodent sensitivity, ‘cures sensitivity twice as fast’

    I can go on.

    Johnson and Johnson was caught not for the misleading ads, or for the harmful effect of the products but for following a  different process.

    Easy to wriggle out in Court.

    May be they have not paid enough to the people, they got caught as a waning to ensure prompt payment.!

    Health officials have revoked Johnson & Johnson‘s license to make cosmetics at a plant outside Mumbai after they discovered the company had used an unauthorized process for sterilizing its baby powder.

    J&J said in a statement on Friday that it is in “ongoing discussions” with Indian regulators.

    “We understand their concerns and are diligently working with them to resolve the issue,” Peggy Ballman, a J&J spokeswoman, said in a statement, adding that there were no consumer complaints or adverse events reported due to its use of the process.

    An investigation by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration revealed that J&J, at its plant in Mulund, had used ethylene oxide – a substance used to produce industrial chemicals and to sterilize medical equipment – to kill bacteria in its baby powder and had not conducted mandatory tests to make sure there were no remaining traces in the powder.

    According to the U.S. Department of Labor, acute exposure to ethylene oxide can cause lung damage, nausea, vomiting and cancer.

    Ballman said the plant has not been shut down and the company is appealing the decision. She said the sterilization process in question was used on a one-time basis on a limited amount of baby powder. Baby powder is made from corn or talc and is usually sterilized using steam, she said.

    “For a brief time in 2007, we used an alternative sterilization process,” she said.

    Ballman was unable to explain why the alternative process was used but said it is a “widely accepted and safe practice of sterilization used

     http://www.financialexpress.com/news/johnson-johnsons-license-revoked-on-baby-powder-concerns/1111411

  • Full List Of Banned Drugs in India * November 2012 Update

    hphotos-prn1/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/530859_540882482593352_530047578_n.jpg
    Banned Drugs in India.

    The Ministry and the Pharma Companies are smart.Brand names may differ.Check out the different Brand names in different countries.

    Check the Composition of the Drug.

    Verify with FDA and EU whether the constituents of the Drug is banned.

    Drugs Prohibited from the date of Notification

    1. Amidopyrine.
    2. Fixed dose combinations of vitamins with anti–inflammatory agents and tranquilizers.
    3. Fixed dose combinations of Atropine in Analgesics and Antipyretics.
    4. Fixed dose combinations of Strychnine and Caffeine in tonics.
    5. Fixed dose combinations of Yohimbine and Strychnine with Testosterone and Vitamins.
    6. Fixed dose combinations of Iron with Strychnine, Arsenic and Yohimbine.
    7. Fixed dose combinations of Sodium Bromide/chloral hydrate with other drugs.
    8. Phenacetin.
    9. Fixed dose combinations of antihistaminic with anti-diarrhoeals.
    10. Fixed dose combinations of Penicillin with Sulphonamides.
    11. Fixed dose combinations of Vitamins with Analgesics.
    12. Fixed dose combinations of any other Tetracycline with Vitamin C.
    13. Fixed dose combinations of Hydroxyquinoline group of drugs with any other drug except for preparations meant for external use.
    14. Fixed dose combinations of Corticosteroids with any other drug for internal use.
    15. Fixed dose combinations of Chloramphenicol with any other drug for internal use.
    16. Fixed dose combinations of crude Ergot preparations except those containing Ergotamine, Caffeine, analgesics, antihistamines for the treatment of migraine, headaches.
    17. Fixed dose combinations of Vitamins with Anti TB drugs except combination of Isoniazid with Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6).
    18. Penicillin skin/eye Ointment.
    19. Tetracycline Liquid Oral preparations.
    20. Nialamide.
    21. Practolol.
    22. Methapyrilene, its salts.
    23. Methaqualone.
    24. Oxytetracycline Liquid Oral preparations.
    25. Demeclocycline Liquid Oral preparations.
    26. Combination of anabolic Steroids with other drugs.
    27. Fixed dose combination of Oestrogen and Progestin (other than oral contraceptive) containing per tablet estrogen content of more than 50 mcg (equivalent to Ethinyl Estradiol) and progestin content of more than 3 mg (equivalent to Norethisterone Acetate) and all fixed dose combination injectable preparations containing synthetic Oestrogen and Progesterone. (Subs. By Noti. No. 743 (E) dt 10-08-1989)
    28. Fixed dose combination of Sedatives/ hypnotics/anxiolytics with analgesics-antipyretics.
    29. Fixed dose combination of Rifanpicin, isoniazid and Pyrazinamide, except those which provide daily adult dose given below:
      Drugs Minimum Maximum
      Rifampicin 450 mg 600 mg
      Isoniazid 300 mg 400 mg
      Pyrazinamide 1000mg 1500 mg
    30. Fixed dose combination of Histamine H-2 receptor antagonists with antacidsexcept for those combinations approved by Drugs Controller, India.
    31. The patent and proprietary medicines of fixed dose combinations of essential oils with alcohol having percentage higher than 20% proof except preparations given in the Indian Pharmacopoeia.
    32. All Pharmaceutical preparations containing Chloroform exceeding 0.5% w/w or v/v whichever is appropriate.
    33. Fixed dose combination of Ethambutol with INH other than the following: INH Ethambutol 200 mg. 600 mg. 300 mg. 800 mg.
    34. Fixed dose combination containing more than one antihistamine.
    35. Fixed dose combination of any anthelmintic with cathartic/purgative except for piperazine/Santonim.
    36. Fixed dose combination of Salbutamol or any other bronchodilator with centrally acting anti-tussive and/or antihistamine.
    37. Fixed dose combination of laxatives and/or anti-spasmodic drugs in enzyme preparations.
    38. Fixed dose combination of Metoclopramide with systemically absorbed drugs except fixed dose combination of metoclopramide with aspirin/paracetamol
    39. Fixed dose combination of centrally acting, antitussive with antihistamine, having high atropine like activity in expectorants.
    40. Preparations claiming to combat cough associated with asthma containing centrally acting antitussive and/ or an antihistamine.
    41. Liquid oral tonic preparations containing glycerophosphates and/or otherphosphates and / or central nervous system stimulant and such preparations containing alcohol more than 20% proof.
    42. Fixed dose combination containing Pectin and/or Kaolin with any drug which is systemically absorbed from GI tract except for combinations of Pectin and/or Kaolin with drugs not systemically absorbed.
    43. Chloral Hydrate as a drug.
    44. Dovers Powder I.P.
    45. Dover’s Powder Tablets I.P.
    46. Antidiarrhoeal formulations containing Kaolin or Pectin or Attapulgite or Activated Charcoal.
    47. Antidiarrhoeal formulations containing Phthalyl Sulphathiazole or Sulphaguanidine or Succinyl Sulphathiazole.
    48. Antidiarrhoeal formulations containing Neomycin or Streptomycin or Dihydrostreptomycin including their respective salts or esters.
    49. Liquid Oral antidiarrhoeals or any other dosage form for pediatric use containing Diphenoxylate Lorloperamide or Atropine or Belladona including their salts or esters or metabolites Hyoscyamine or their extracts or their alkaloids.
    50. Liquid Oral antidiarrhoeals or any other dosage form for pediatric use containing halogenated hydroxyquinolines.
    51. Fixed dose combination of antidiarrhoeals with electrolytes.
    52. Patent and Proprietary Oral Rehydration Salts other than those conforming to the
    53. Fixed dose combination of Oxyphenbutazone or Phenylbutazone with any other drug.
    54. Fixed dose combination of Analgin with any other drug.
    55. Fixed dose combination of dextropropoxyphene with any other drug other than anti-spasmodics and/or non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS).
    56. Fixed dose combination of a drug, standards of which are prescribed in the Second Schedule to the said Act with an Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug.
    57. Mepacrine Hydrochloride (Quinacrine and its salts) in any dosage form for use for female sterilization or contraception.
    58. Fenfluramine and Dexfenfluramine.
    59. Fixed dose combination of Diazepam and Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride.
    60. Rimonabant.
    61. Rosiglitazone
    62. Nimesulide formulations for human use in children below 12 years of age.
    63. Cisapride and its formulations for human use.
    64. Phenylpropanolamine and its formulation for human use.
    65. Human Placental Extract and its formulations for human use.
    66. Sibutramine and its formulations for human use, and
    67. R-Sibutramine and its formulations for human use.
    68. Gatifloxacin formulation for systemic use in human by any route including oral and injectable
    69. Tegaserod and its formulation for human use.

    Source Pharma Tutor.

    http://www.pharmatutor.org/pharmapedia/banned-drugs-in-india-manufacture-sale

    Check out the following site as well.

    http://cdsco.nic.in/html/Drugsbanned.html  This is  Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, Dte.GHS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

    http://bharat-swabhiman.com/en/world-banned-medicines-sold-in-india/http://cdsco.nic.in/html/Drugsbanned.html

    http://ramanisblog.in/2013/07/02/beware-of-johnson-johnson-ranbaxy-products/

  • Ultra Sound Scan Unsafe For Babies,Scientific Study

    There is a fad going on Ultra Sound Scan.

    Ultrasound scan. Provided as-is. Please feel f...
    Ultrasound scan. Provided as-is. Please feel free to categorise, add description, crop or rename. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Doctors suggest Ultra Sound Scan the moment you go to check your pregnancy.

    Immediately thereafter, they( at least in India), they ask you to do a Scan on the 45 th /90 th Day.

    In between they tell you to do it a couple of times more, ostensibly  to check whether the Foetus is developing normally.

    Some times they tell you they could not get the image clearly as the Foetus was turnng its head the otherside!

    Beware of these 15% Commission Doctors.

    Because the Foetus can not express its thoughts, do not harm it.

    Is ultrasound safe … or worth it?
    Although women are now routinely offered several ultrasound scans during a pregnancy, costing health services worldwide millions of pounds every year, its safety has never been tested. This assumption of safety has led to:

    • researchers who are studying foetal behaviour reassuring women volunteering to take part in their trials that exposures of up to an hour and a half are safe
    • commercial companies offering parents lengthy ‘videos’ of their baby moving inside the womb. (The US Food and Drink Administration (FDA) warns that ultrasound cannot be considered harmless, even at low levels, and is considering regulatory action against these companies)
    • companies being granted safety licenses to offer parents- to-be hand-held Doppler ultrasound devices with which, theoretically, they could expose their babies to hours of ultrasound every day

    Several trials suggest that Governments should be more concerned, e.g.:

    • When women at risk of giving birth preterm were examined once a week to determine the state of their cervix, just over half (52%) of those who were examined using ultrasound went on to have a preterm birth compared to a quarter (25%) of those given a manual pelvic examination.
      Ultrasound scanning gave no benefit over manual examination [1]
    • When 1,246 UK women were given a monthly Doppler ultrasound scan of their umbilical and uterine arteries from the 19th to the 32nd week of pregnancy, seventeen of their babies died at or around the time of birth, as opposed to only seven in the 1,229-strong unDopplered control group. The Doppler scanning had only identified a possible problem in one of the babies [2]

    Ed.- (i) AIMS Journal’s Jean Robinson is concerned that no research has ever been done on the effects of:

    • exposing even younger foetuses to ultrasound, an increasingly common practice
    • submitting foetuses to exposures of an hour or more, as in the commercial applications described above

    She also points out that:

    • 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
    • the claim that ultrasound encourages bonding between mother and child has also never been demonstrated scientifically

    (ii) Other studies, however, suggest that ultrasound is more efficient than manual pelvic examination at detecting major malformations and twins early. [3]

    [1] Lorenz,RP et al. American Journal of Obstetric Gynaecology 1990;162(6):1603-607
    [2] Davies,JL et al. Lancet 1992;ii:1299-303
    [3] Saari-Kemppainen,A et al. Lancet 1990;336(8712):387-91

    (11453) Beverley Beech. AIMS Journal

     

    Yes, just looking can hurt

    Having one or more ultrasound scan to see your baby in the womb has become almost the norm. Although there has never been any significant research to prove it, the practice is assumed totally safe by doctors and parents-to-be alike. In fact, the opposite is true.

    Three randomised controlled trials of Doppler Sound, the powerful form of ultrasound now used in most hospitals, have found an up to fourfold increase in perinatal (just before or after birth) deaths. [1] One large study found 20 miscarriages in the group given ultrasound scans, but none in the group which was not. [2] Another reported a doubling of pre-term labour in the scanned group. [3] Another linked ultrasound scanning to retardation of the baby’s growth in the womb. [4]

    Animal-based studies suggest that there may be subtler effects which have, to date, not been measured in humans. Monkeys repeatedly exposed to ultrasound showed clear behavioural problems, such as social withdrawal. Another study using monkeys found evidence of low body weight and poor muscle tone.

    Experiments with guinea pigs showed that it could raise the temperature of brain tissue near bone by as much as 5.1°C. [5] If the same occurs in human babies at the time the developing brain is at its most vulnerable (16 weeks old, when ultrasound scanning tends to be carried out), it is possible that vital cells could be damaged or destroyed with little possibility of replacement. This could lead to long-term neurological damage. [6] Changes in brain development sometimes lead to lefthandedness. [7] Not a problem in itself, but lefthandedness is linked to an increased risk of dyslexia, [8] learning difficulties[9] and speech delay. [10]

    The argument for ultrasound scanning revolves around its ability to detect abnormalities early enough to abort. Firstly, several studies have shown that ultrasound does not improve outcomes for babies overall, and that there is no medical reason to propose a scan in 80% of cases. Secondly, ultrasound can only detect a handful of the 5000+ potential chromosomal abnormalities. It is most successful at detecting Down’s syndrome, picking up 80% of cases, but even here can diagnose Down’s syndrome when it isn’t actually present. Scanning can pick up `things that shouldn’t be there’ – resulting, again, in the abortion of healthy foetuses – when that `thing’ often disappears during the pregnancy. Parents who decide not to abort are put through months of unnecessary worry. In one instance at a hospital in Cardiff (Wales), scans detected `dead’ babies which were subsequently found to be alive just before the induced miscarriage was to be performed.

    Finally, scans can pick up abnormalities about which nothing can be done.

    [1] Lancet 1992;340:1229-303
    [2] Lancet 1990;336:387-91
    [3] American Journal of Obstetric Gynaecology 1990;162:1603-10
    [4] Lancet 1993;342:887-91
    [5] Horder,MM et al. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 1998;24(5):697-704
    [6] Birth 1986;13:29-37
    [7] Kieler,H et al. Epidemiology 2001;12(6):618-23
    [8] Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1984;63:194-200
    [9] Neurotox. Teratol. 1995;17:179-88
    [10] Canadian Med. Assoc. Jnl. 1993;14 9:1435-40

    (6698) Pat Thomas. Natural Parent 1.5.00 p26

    Left handedness in ultrasound babies

    New research suggests that ultrasound tests may affect babies’ brains. Looking back at 2161 babies born 1979-81 Norwegian researchers found that those who had been exposed to ultrasound were 30% more likely to be left-handed. This could have happened by chance but they believe it may indicate “a sensitive index of subtle changes in the development of the brain”.
    (5135) Salvesen,KA et al. British Medical Journal 1993;307(6897):159-64

    Ultrasound scans linked to brain damage in babies
    A third study has linked lefthandedness to ultrasound scanning, suggesting that it has caused genetic damage in the brain. In this case 7000 men whose mothers had ultrasound scans in the ’70s were compared to 170,000 men whose mothers did not. There was a significant increased rate of lefthandedness in the 7,000 men who had been scanned when in the womb and, critically, an even higher increase in those born after 1975, when doctors introduced a routine second scan. Lefthandedness is linked to an increased risk of a range of conditions, e.g.learning difficulties, dyslexia and epilepsy. The study was conducted on men because male babies’ brains continue to develop later than female babies’ brains, making them more susceptible to damage from external factors.

    In Britain, lefthanded people now form 11% of the population, compared to just 5% in the 1920s. The researchers have estimated that only a fifth of this doubling can be accounted for by a relaxation on the old practice of suppressing lefthandedness.

    (8663) Kieler,H et al. Epidemiology 2001;12(6):618-23
    Courtesy of Robert Matthews. Sunday Telegraph 9.12.2001

    No link with childhood leukaemia
    A large case-controlled study from Sweden was unable to show any link between the use of ultrasound examination of babies in the womb and childhood leukaemia. In the preamble to the research description, however, the authors remind us that other studies have shown that ultrasound can cause membrane changes which might affect the embryo’s development as well as postnatal development, and that ultrasound has been associated with lefthandedness.

    (6146) Naumburg,E et al. British Medical Journal 29.1.00 p282

    Ultrasound – small babies catch up
    In 1993 Australian research [1] found some evidence that foetuses exposed to five sessions of ultrasound imaging and continuous-wave Doppler flow studies between the eighteenth and thirty-eighth week of pregnancy tended to be born smaller and shorter than babies given a single ultrasound scan in the eighteenth week.

    Some good news
    The team followed the babies’ progress for the next eight years. By the time the babies were a year old, there were no significant differences in size. When the children underwent standard tests of childhood speech, language, behaviour and neurological development at ages two, three, five and eight, it suggested that the children’s neurological development had been normal as well.

    Ed.- (i) These findings come as a relief, but the fact that the repeated ultrasound or Doppler scans reduced the foetus’ growth is still cause for alarm. Doppler scans are not the same as ultrasound scans. They are used to measure blood flow in the foetus’s arteries and expose the foetus to larger doses of ultrasound.

    AIMS Journal’s Jean Robinson commented as follows:

    The Doppler and ultrasound imaging machines used in the original 1993 trial were weaker than those used these days. No research on the safety of today’s machinery has been carried out

    The researchers are still concerned by the apparent link between boy’s exposure to ultrasound and an increased likelihood of being left-handed.{2] They intended to examine this issue when the children were ten

    [1] Newnham,JP et al. Lancet 1993;342:887-91
    [2] Salvesen,KA and Eik-Ness,SH. Ultrasound Obstetrical Gynaecology 1999;13:241-46

    (11454) Newnham,JP et al. Lancet 2004;364(9450):2038-44

    http://www.greenhealthwatch.com/newsstories/newschildren/ultrasound-is-it-safe.html