Utility earth current and radiation

 by Jim West (please share and cite)

Utility earth current is real, dangerous and ubiquitous, yet it is rarely mentioned by the mainstream. It is the return current, running from consumers back to the utility electric generators through the earth. This is a sub-topic of the industrial EMF (electromagnetic fields) disaster.

Few can afford to even an attempted litigation against public funded utilities, but some have and won, as this table from Iowa State University shows:

The reality is worse. This current kills and tortures humans, wild animals, bugs, farm animals and microorganisms, everywhere in the USA and most any industrial region (more or less). The global ecology is destroyed, yet I don't see many biologists discussing this with any import. An example of human tragedy is the Desert Rose story. Certainly, many street people have been destroyed when they sleep on sidewalks over this current, over underground power cable systems. Stray voltage must be driving many into alcoholism, drugs, and iatrogenic exploitation.

The electric fields, magnetic fields, and neutral/returning ground/earth currents occur at frequencies [that] range from 50-60 Hertz... all the way up into the radiofrequencies (RF)... [Karow (2007)]

Earth EMR Discovered

Given: All fluctuating EMF produces electromagnetic radiation (EMR). 

Thus -- industrial earth current emits EMR, as a type of ground surface electrosmog. 

Characteristics of this EMR type are apparently not yet measured by meters, however...

Symptoms are obvious, as perceived through years of experience, testing utility earth current EMR scenarios.

My experiments, listed below, have demonstrate that there is no escape. Pollution from air, food, water and wireless EMF can be escaped, however, not readily, this EMR.

If there is a place where this current and its EMR does not exist, I would like to know, so I could move there. Maybe certain seashores or remote areas. Possibly, if one could map power plants, substations, and consumers, one could determine safe areas. Some say that the problem is related only to the WYE electric grid system, and not the DELTA system.

Pending an escape route, I am trying to determine the safe distance above ground level, which could be comfortably tolerable. There is hope.

Restless leg syndrome (RLS)

Utility earth current is recognized as a hazard, however, the related EMR seems to be a new concept. I have not found substantial documentation the topic. Thus this study is essential.

Generally, a primary symptom for EMR exposure is RLS. The Medical industry declares RLS to be caused by nutritional deficiency and describes it as a neurological condition. As usual, this lie faults the victim.

WHO forbids doctors from considering any type of EMF/EMR causation for disease.

Treatment... should focus... not on the person's 

perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF...

Here is a real-life example, out of many, re the Medical misdiagnostic protocol: 

An acquaintance, age 45, did not heed my EMR advice re RLS. He went to see a doctor. He was referred to a "sleep disorder specialist", where he was then anesthetized and his brain analyzed under MRI to "find his dysfunctional sleep center, in order to design his drug treatment", which he accepted and began. He was content, sleeping well, until six weeks later, when he had a stroke. He continued on pharma drugs and a month later fell onto the floor of a supermarket unconscious. He continued to ignore my warnings. His prognosis doesn't look good for iatrogenic disease.

Test method

The best test for EMR symptoms is to consider RLS at the moment one falls asleep. The transition into sleep is a subtle biological activity which reveals and triggers nervous symptoms (RLS and cramps). The second best test is to relax in the test environment and note any symptoms of nervousness.

Sensitivity to symptoms can improve if the subject is free of drugs (caffeine, chocolate, nicotine, marijuana, alcohol, Medical and street drugs). Sensitivity also improves when one does not block awareness of symptoms by reflexively interpreting them as normal or inevitable.

I initially assumed that the intensity of ground EMR would not be related to distance from the earth surface, because it is so pervasive. Distance formulas are based on a single emission point. They describe EMR intensity as inversely related to the square of the Distance.

Fortunately, ground EMR intensity does appear to be related to the distance from the source. Intensity is also related to current flow, which in turn is related to earth moisture and salt content. The results in the table below reflects these assumptions.

The table is chronological. The good news is that the latter experiments find it possible to avoid earth EMR.

Distance is beneficial.

Experiments

1)

2012          Manhattan, NYC

This is early evidence is about EMR, but not actually about earth current. I found a small tumor growing in the sole of my right foot, where the foot was usually placed while working at my computer. I measured EMF with a TriField gauss meter at the location and found 20-30 milliGauss. Common in an apartment is 0.6 milliGauss. The health goal is 0.1 or less milliGauss. The left foot was 2 milliGauss. By moving my feet away from this area, the tumor nearly disappeared within a month.

2)	2018/5      Woodstock mountains, NY
	Desperate to escape NYC EMF, I went into the Woodstock mountains and tried to sleep. Forest floor was damp moss. I eagerly expected blissful deep natural sleep under the full moon. Instead, to my horror, I experienced galvanic symptoms, RLS and cramps within 30 seconds.

3)	2018/5     Woodstock mountains, NY
	I placed my raincoat over said damp moss. Could sleep but with mild RLS, no cramps.

4)	2019/06    Finger Lakes, NY
	Dry earth I could sleep but mild RLS. I asked other hikers about this and they answered that they were not aware of EMF sensitivity, and that they had no such problem. However, they are hiking many miles every day, and sleep would be natural priority.

5)	2019/07    Finger Lakes, NY
	Tent with tarp on grass I could sleep, but with mild RLS.

6)	2020/05    Tucson apartment
	Months of living with 20 Internet routers showing on my WiFi Analyzer App. This is not a ground current issue. Just showing context. RLS, muscle cramps often.

7)	2020/07    Tucson mountains
	Five nights, tent with tarp on dry earth
	Earth at two inches deep was slightly moist. Increased conductivity of ground current.
	RLS and leg cramps every night for five nights, getting worse each night. I did not leave because I was desperate to deny this horror, and  I was struggling through my fear of mountain lions. EMR suspicions began but I stayed in hopeful denial.  I watched birds grabbing bugs out of the air. The night clouds looked like predators.  I wondered how I might be part of that, predator or prey. On the fifth morning, I woke up with massive cramps, legs, stomach and jaw clenching. Almost broke my teeth. I got the hint, and went home saddened. For one month afterwards, I had swollen ankles, which diminished away over the next two months.  Simultaneously, as the ankle swelling diminished, the right calf muscle became swollen 30% in volume. This is not a problem, as this appears to be an inflammatory processing center for EMR stress, and not disabling. This episode was the worst of all my earth current EMF experiences.

8)	2020/11/01    Tucson mountains    Vacant house
	Wood floor one foot off ground level. This was a great relief from my apartment RLS. I fell asleep happy.

9)	2020/11/05    Tucson mountains    Resting flat on a mountain trail
	Dry rocky earth After 4 minutes, RLS. 20 minutes later, severe leg and stomach muscle cramps as I attempted to right myself to leave the area.

10)	2020/11/08    Tucson mountains    Vacant house
	Wood floor one foot off ground level. After 30 minutes rest, good but some mild RLS occurred.

11)	2020/11/08    Tucson mountains    Vacant house
	Concrete floor 2 feet above ground level. Mild RLS, though less intensity than on the wood floor. To date, this was the best of all prior earth current EMF experiences. I discovered a smart-meter seven feet from my sleeping position, though breakers were all off. It was shielded by its metal box. Don't know if it was transmitting. This added complexity to the test.

12)	2020/11/10    Tucson     First floor lobby over a basement
	Lights off, and off in the basement below.  Effectively, resting 10 feet above basement floor. Rested flat on the carpet for 20 minutes, and felt calm, no RLS. Tentative conclusion: Earth EMR is tolerable, possibly comfortable at 10 feet from ground level. Yea!

13)	2020/11/11    Tucson    Attic of vacant house
	10 feet above ground level. Late morning. I tried to fall asleep for one hour, however, I was too well-slept to sleep. Nevertheless, no RLS occurred and that was without shielding fabric. This is an optimistic observation, as this experience was the best so far. Plan: Try other scenarios, at various distances. Plan: Determine if aluminum foil and copper mesh will shield earth EMR.

14)	2020/11/13    Tucson    Attic of vacant house,
	10 feet above ground level. Spent 90 minutes trying to sleep. Felt comfortable and no RLS, but did not fall asleep (too well-slept, and rafters are uncomfortable). I plan to try again to transition into sleep. It is good to find that at 10 feet distance, or possibly less, maybe 5 feet or less. At least, presently, I've established that RLS is not perceived substantially at 10 feet. Voila!

15)

2020/11/14    Tucson     Not intended as a test.

I was sitting on a big rock on a hill, playing guitar. The right foot was flat on the ground, the left was up on a small rock. After 20 minutes, the right foot and ankle felt nervous. I moved it up on a rock and the nervousness subsided. I kept on playing guitar. I'm getting good at this, becoming naturally aware of how to correctly interpret symptoms. In my pre-aware days, I would have thought nothing about a nervous foot. I would just move my foot and express frustration. Context: Andrew A. Marino, PhD states that eyesight is a set of EMR symptoms in a narrow high frequency band, called "light". I'm cultivating EMR sight related to an electrosmog that does not show up on the usual EMF meters, however, the current flow that generates this EMR, can be measured, as Magdas has done. I plan to measure the earth current with my multimeter soon.

16)	2020/12/01    Tucson    Attic of vacant house
	10 feet above ground level. I spent 90 minutes there calmly. It was too cold to sleep the night, yet I intend to try again.

17)

2021/01/23    Tucson    Vacant house

I am renting a dilapidated house with permission to modify and house-sit. No power is connected to the building. I sleep off the floor. For the first time in about 10 years, I sang full throat, poco forte, from the bottom of the bass clef to the top of the treble clef. One week of sleeping in this house, and the body gets spoiled and then slight nervous syndromes begin again, as a lower level layer of EMF radiation is then perceived, and the body calls for abatement. I put on my hazmat EMF suit and a DayLite head wrap, and all is well, deep sleep.

Conclusion

Utility earth EMR is earth-bound electro-smog that diminishes to a tolerable level at 5-10 feet distance. Apparently, a wide variety of conflicting and "random" EMF waves, neutralize each other, thereby limiting the distance of this electrosmog.

Symptoms such as grinding teeth, jaw biting (tongue or mouth), twitches, and any nervous behavior, are generally the result of industrial EMR (earth or air/ether borne). 

There is a big physical difference between natural EMR (sunlight, etc) and industrial EMR (in terms of wave forms, polarization, etc). We have co-evolved with natural EMR, can handle it and we depend upon it.

Industrial radiation is synergistically toxic with other pollution poisoning, even that which has happened long ago in the womb, e.g., with prenatal ultrasound or X-rays. This is determined from long experience partially documented here, and from hundreds of studies at bioinitiative.org

_____________________________________________

Credits: Thanks to OregonMatt at POM and Jeanice Barcelo for editorial feedback.

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer: This site is for discussion purposes only. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights: The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa 2020, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

COVID-19 virus fake

by Jim West (please share and cite)

There is a real 2019-2020 respiratory pandemic, however, it is claimed to be caused by an invisible COVID-19 virus. 

This claim violates commonsense rules of argument, as described by Aristotle, Occam, Russell, Wittgenstein, and others: Simple explanations should be prioritized over the complex. 

[The] law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity"... [Wikipedia]

Virus theories embrace and cultivate complexity, like a chess player does when faced with a losing game.

Complexity

Any virus criticism can be stalled by increasing the complexity of the argument. The human instinct for problem solving is exploited by authoritatively maximizing complexity, as for example, the discovery of COVID-19 virus:

Despite extensive laboratory investigations in patients with respiratory tract infections, no microbiological cause can be identified... In the past 3 years, several novel respiratory viruses... were discovered... PCR products (440-bp fragment of pol) were subjected to a melting curve analysis (65 to 95°C, 0.1°C/s) to confirm the specificity of the assay. Cloning and purification of His6-tagged recombinant N protein of CoV-HKU1. To produce a plasmid for protein purification, primers (5′-TTTT CCTTTT GCGGCC GCTT AAGCA ACAGA GTCTT CTA-3′ and 5′-CGGAATT CGATGT CTTAT ACTCCC GGT-3′) were used to amplify the gene encoding the N protein of CoV-HKU1 by RT-PCR. [ref]

Simplicity

Air pollution is the simple and obvious explanation for respiratory disease. Everyone knows this from personal experience. The residents of COVID-19 epicenters (Wuhan, northern Italy, etc) know this, as they were wearing air pollution masks and living under air pollution lockdowns for decades before COVID-19. I experienced lung inflammation at the end of 2019 in New York City, and many also experienced this during March-April during 2020 in the Tucson area.

The COVID-19 epicenter, Wuhan China

as portrayed by The Guardian (2012), Photo: STR/AFP/Getty

All COVID-19 epicenters suffer long-term air pollution. 

The mainstream admits that long-term air pollution is the primary cofactor, thereby maintaining the virus theory. However, it does not mention pollution as the short-term initiating trigger. COVID-19 virus was assigned that role.

Short-term air pollution, as the pandemic trigger, is never mentioned.

The essential toxicological controls are missing for all investigations (laboratory, clinical diagnoses, epidemiology, conjecture, opinion, journalism).

This gross omission invalidates COVID-19 virus theory. 

Conclusion

"Virus" is an energy trap. 

Defeat any virus argument by merely asking for the toxicology studies.

_____________________________________________

Credits for editorial feedback: OregonMatt at POM and Phil/PTL on Twitter.

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer: This site is for discussion purposes only. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights: The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa 2020, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Chorioamnionitis: Toxicology avoided

by Jim West (please share and cite) 
from Chapter 3 of DUS Book2B (not yet published, but Book1 is)

A common disease, chorioamnionitis, is now subject to revision.

This disease is another example of a so-called maternal-fetal infection misdiagnosed as germ causation, a cover story for Medical radiation damage.

Official definition

Chorioamnionitis is described as an inflammation of the chorion/‌amnion region, an intra-amniotic infection (IAI). This official infectious paradigm is illustrated, for example, by Mom Junction.

The supposed infection leads to FIRS (fetal inflammatory response syndrome). That is, it is said to be an inflammatory response to the presence of infection, e.g., GBS (Group B Streptococcal), E. coli, and/or mycoplasma bacteria. The disease is associated with preterm birth, and a risk factor for other disorders such as microcephaly.

It is often diagnosed by the presence of maternal fever and increased heart rate in mother or child. Notice in the following, the caring rationale for skipping the bacterial test. Tita (2010):

...chorioamnionitis is diagnosed solely based on clinical signs since access to uncontaminated amniotic fluid or placenta for culture is invasive and usually avoided.[1]

A diagnosis of chorioamnionitis due to fever alone could bring a treatment of intravenous antibiotics to the mother and fetus, or newborn. Dr. Audra Robertson explains:

Chorioamnionitis usually develops when bacteria that are part of the normal vaginal flora ‘ascend’ [upward] into the uterine cavity. The amniotic fluid and placenta, as well as the baby, become infected. E. coli, group B streptococci… Chorioamnionitis affects between 1 and 10% of women at term and up to 33% of patients preterm… In most cases, your doctor can diagnose chorioamnionitis due to fever in the mother and an increased heart rate in both the mother and her baby.[2]

“Infection”, ascertained by signs of inflammation such as fever, is the official cause of chorioamnionitis — and the declared most common cause of microcephaly.

Retrospective study indicates the commonest etiologies for prenatal microcephaly are in utero infection.[3]

Critical approach

The inflammation is real. But the “infection”, I argue, is a false assumption, with chorioamnionitis actually being a symptom of DUS (diagnostic ultrasound) damage. Any germs, if possibly found, would be common symbionts, friendly microbial scavengers and helpers, etc. Under toxic stress they could prevail because of micro-ecological imbalances.

Gestation timeline

Fever, infection, etc., are symptoms reminiscent of Zika virus infection: Chorioamnionitis and other “infectious maternal diseases” such as puerperal fever*, initiation of autism, and Zika virus positives, all are commonly diagnosed near the 20^th week of gestation, i.e., all correlate with the common DUS schedule. Allanson (2010):

Chorioamnionitis is a common cause of second trimester pregnancy loss, usually due to ascending infection. This study investigates the prevalence and bacteriology of chorioamnionitis in cases of spontaneous pregnancy loss in previable gestations (16-22 weeks).[4] 

Historical timeline

There appears to be no official history of chorioamnionitis. So I try to determine historical correlation with the Google ngram viewer.

It apparently began in recent times, correlating with the fetal ultrasound timeline, according to this word history analysis.

Robert W. Bendon, MD

Dr. Bendon is an obstetrical pathologist with vast experience and knowledge, a world-class authority. He is a straight-laced Medical official, as is apparent from his extensive article on chorioamnionitis. He begins with the standard definition.[5]

Chorioamnionitis is an ascending infection of the intrauterine cavity during pregnancy. The concept is that microorganisms, primarily bacteria, ascend from the vagina through the cervix into the intrauterine cavity where they initiate an inflammatory response in the mother and fetus.

Critical evidence

Dr. Bendon’s article is a wealth of mainstream science, from which I can assemble a critical view, as follows.

He describes chorioamnionitis as virtually aseptic, i.e., no infection found.

The majority of microscope slides showing chorioamnionitis do not demonstrate microorganisms.

Yes, you read correctly. And as follows, even the most powerful germ detection technique, PCR, fails to find an infection source in the endometrium (inner uterine membrane)!

The role of vaginal flora and its potential interaction with the cervix remain incompletely understood aspects of chorioamnionitis. Is chorioamnionitis initiated by microorganisms chronically in the endometrium? Not surprisingly, pathogenic microorganisms, E. coli and Group B streptococci, were not found in genetic amniocenteses by the PCR technique.

We can assume that chemical and radiation causation is being avoided.

Only infectious causes of chorioamnionitis have been plausibly proposed, but it remains a frustrating fact that even very sensitive molecular techniques [PCR, etc] have failed to find bacteria in the amniotic fluid in all cases of chorioamnionitis…

When microbes are found, they are often not very dangerous.

Surprisingly the microorganisms were often not very pathogenetic, with ureaplasma being the most common either alone or in culture with other organisms.

Maternal defenses are strong.

The cervix is filled with mountainous ridges raining down viscous mucus, drone like antibodies, chemical warfare, and white cell snipers... The evidence is against this mad rush of microorganisms reaching the uterus.

Bendon carefully walks along the threshold of blasphemy. Without saying “poison”, he indirectly supports a toxicological view.

...even if we accept that all chorioamnionitis has an infectious etiology, it does not necessarily follow that the organism detected in the amniotic fluid is actually the organism that initiated the inflammatory response...

Diagnoses could include signs of inflammation that indicate tissue injury, not necessarily infection.

Bendon describes mediators of inflammation as evidence of inflammation.

As a pathologist, I identify chorioamnionitis by the presence of neutrophils, a white cell that is relatively easy to identify with routine H&E sections, and is a recognized marker of acute inflammation. Neutrophils are normally circulating in the blood, but enter the tissue in response to acute inflammatory signals (chemotaxis) secreted by lymphocytes and macrophages or from tissue injury…

Bendon writes, “neutrophils [are a] marker of acute inflammation” — however, it is known that neutrophils also move substantially towards non-acute injury.[6] Thus there is a stronger toxicological context, one that could even more certainly include DUS as a good explanation for neutrophil presence.

Without a toxicological review, CDC advises that maternal fever is reason enough to presume the presence of pathogens,

In an effort to avert neonatal infections, maternal fever alone in labor may be used as a sign of chorioamnionitis and hence indication for antibiotic treatment…[7]

Administering antibiotic poisons for a disease that could be caused by poisons is a common, profitable, iatrogenic, and deadly protocol. 

Bendon:

...antibiotics have not prevented preterm labor even in patients with positive endometrial culture or plasma cells on endometrial biopsy at the start of the study and may have increased the incidence of adverse outcome...

Note:  "...antibiotics... may have increased the incidence of adverse outcome..." 

Note: Chorioamnionitis can lead to “poor cardiorespiratory, neurological, and renal outcomes”, per Galinsky (2013).[8]

Should not such outcomes be expected from radiation damage (DUS) and toxic synergists (intravenous antibiotic treatment for chorioamnionitis)?

Here is industry’s complicated and absurd causative chain.

Maternal germs ascend to® chorioamnion region and fetus® An inflammatory response® causes damage

That is similar to claiming that fever is the cause of disease symptoms, rather than itself a symptom.

Industry’s paradigm remains unresolved because both valid microbial and toxicological reviews are missing. The paradigm is backwards. It contradicts the evidence, seeking to put causation on the mother. Was she filthy with germs? Was she innately weak, unable to mount a sufficient or correct response to germ invasion?

DUS Causation

The DUS paradigm, on the other hand, agrees with the evidence.

Critics, with DUS causation evidence, can better interpret the test for inflammatory mediators, i.e., neutrophil presence. They can view that presence as a marker, a positive test result for DUS synergistic damage.

DUS damage is always present. Capable pathogens are not usually present.

Bendon:

...we seldom see microorganisms in the tissue sections of chorioamnionitis...

DUS causation theory is sensible, scientific, and simple, yet avoided by Modern Medicine.

DUS has been empirically demonstrated to readily damage the chorioamnion region, so of course, inflammation or neutrophil presence could occur after DUS. Tests are supposedly for inflammation, however, they test for inflammatory mediators such as neutrophils, as indicators of inflammation.

DUS causation is supported by a rare Western human study, Carrera (1990): Carrera studied DUS chorionic damage with two sub-studies, one in vivo that results positive, and one in vitro lab study that results negative.[9] Carrera is dismissed by Marinac (2002), who asserts that Carrera utilized high DUS intensity and infers Carrera’s human study was unethical.[10] Andreassi (2004) lists Cerrera’s negative results and omits Carrera’s positive results that indict DUS.[11] Carrera is not very strong, yet the study should be presented as evidence.

JZhang (2002) is a modern Chinese in vivo study published in English that documents human chorioamnion damage due to DUS.[12] There appears to be no public discussion of this study, except as begun with my ultrasound book. The study is perhaps masked from the public by its title, which indicates an overly technical focus on DUS’s relation to biochemical pathways leading to chorioamnion cellular apoptosis, rather than, simply stated, DUS damage to fetal region. But obfuscation is required for publishing. JZhang brilliantly obfuscates, fulfilling the oppressive rules while providing tremendous evidence against DUS.

There are many other Chinese in utero human studies that describe DUS damage in the chorionic region in a total of approximately 600 maternal-fetus pairs. See DUS Book I.

Here is the sensible and direct DUS causation chain, a natural view:

DUS damages chorioamnion and fetus® An inflammatory response occurs® Neutrophils appear

DUS exposure to various areas is a matter of chance, operator habits, and shading from adjacent organs, as organs of various densities shade each other from the radiation.

DUS radiation flows directionally like a flashlight beam. Knowing this, then does not Bendon’s following text serve as an analogy for DUS damage?

The intensity of the fetal response may be less or even more intense than the maternal response. An area of the membrane may be markedly more intense than another.

Bendon describes inflammation intensity and location. That can be critically interpreted in terms of proximity to the DUS transducer. See below, where I use brackets and bolding to reveal what he is saying as if he were describing DUS radiation.

Daily histologic examination of placentas confirms that there is a wide range of difference between maternal [nearer to DUS] and fetal [farther from DUS] response in individual placentas.

It is unusual for the fetal response [farther from DUS] to be more intense than the maternal [nearer to DUS]. In general the more intense the maternal response, the more intense will be the fetal response [as if DUS were toxic radiation].

DUS causation of microcephaly could be described similarly, whereby DUS would be radiating the forebrain, the front of the fetus, a common radiological examination view. In fact, microcephaly usually consists of forebrain, eye and hearing damage. Pilu (1999):

When microcephaly is present, the most affected part is usually the forebrain.[13]

Political options

Even if one assumes germ causation, one could theorize that DUS damage would create microbial ecological imbalance, not necessarily direct germ pathogenesis. If industry must pursue germ pathogenesis then it could consider that DUS damage in the chorion region would also open up pathways for microbial migration. Industry does not want to go there.

Chorioamnionitis and FIRS should be considered as natural responses to DUS damage.

Bendon’s becomes extra-verbal when he nears the possibility of environmental causation.

The failure to prove an infection is not evidence that it is not present. The possibility that a subset of chorioamnionitis is not infectious cannot be excluded, but no plausible alternative mechanism has been proposed.

He does not write “environmental” or “toxicological”, which fall under his phrase, “not infectious”. He moves into an unusually intricate phrasing with five negatives and four diminishments, i.e., “failure… not… not… possibility… subset… not… not… excluded… no… alternative”. This, I have found, is the common semantic form utilized by professionals for politically sensitive material. They tend to sink into these semantic netherlands.

In the netherland, Bendon calls non-infectious chorioamnionitis a “subset”, but that is logically improbable, if not impossible. He already stated that the general case is not found infectious. He already established infection as the minor subset. His entire article on chorioamnionitis is limited to the minor subset of chorioamnionitis — as if the official actionable view of chorioamnionitis that advises intravenous antibiotics is the general case. The official view politically dominates but in terms of available data, it is a logical subset of the general view, in terms of available data.

Bendon is a fine intellect, willing to consider DUS possibilities. I believe he understands the sensitivity of this topic, and that he can only discuss it within the netherland. As expected, despite being quite helpful with my challenges, he maintained the official view during our conversation.

His blog allowed for comment. So I commented, proposing a consideration of DUS causation. This is necessary because Bendon asserted that "no plausible alternative mechanism has been proposed."

My comment awaited moderation for several days, then was rejected.

 

I emailed Bendon again. No reply.

________________________________

*Thanks to OregonMatt at POM forum. His comment under Steve Kelley's smart post, got me thinking about toxic cause for the maternal disease, "puerperal fever". This disease appears to be very similar to chorioamnionitis, but occurring during the 10 days following birth, rather during gestation, and so it is listed here. Thanks for his editorial review.

________________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

________________________________

[1] Alan T. N. Tita and William W. Andrews, “Diagnosis and Management of Clinical Chorioamnionitis,” Clinics in Perinatology 37, no. 2 (June 2010): 339–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2010.02.003.

[2] Audra Robertson, MD, “Chorioamnionitis: Could This Infection Spell Disaster?” (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, March 15, 2012), http://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/infections-chorioamnionitis.

[3] L. Dahlgren and R. D. Wilson, “Prenatally Diagnosed Microcephaly: A Review of Etiologies,” Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 16, no. 6 (December 2001): 323–26, doi:53935.

[4] Ben Allanson et al., “Infection and Fetal Loss in the Mid-Second Trimester of Pregnancy,” The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 50, no. 3 (June 2010): 221–25, doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01148.x.

[5] Robert Bendon, MD, “Chorioamnionitis,” Obstetrical Pathology, December 3, 2012, http://obstetricalpathology.wordpress.com/chorioamnionitis/.

[6] Zaccaria Ricci et al., “Whole Blood Assessment of Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin versus pediatricRIFLE for Acute Kidney Injury Diagnosis and Prognosis after Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: Cross-Sectional Study*,” Pediatric Critical Care Medicine: A Journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies 13, no. 6 (November 2012): 667–70, doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e3182601167.

[7] CDC, “Prevention of Perinatal Group B Streptococcal Disease.”

[8] Robert Galinsky et al., “The Consequences of Chorioamnionitis: Preterm Birth and Effects on Development,” Journal of Pregnancy 2013 (March 7, 2013), doi:10.1155/2013/412831.

[9] Paola Carrera et al., “Sister Chromatid Exchanges in First-Trimester Chorionic Villi after in Vivo and in Vitro Exposure to Diagnostic Ultrasound,” Prenatal Diagnosis 10, no. 3 (March 1990): 141–148, doi:10.1002/pd.1970100302.

[10] Marinac-Dabic, Danica; Krulewitch, Cara J.; Moore, Roscoe M. Jr, “The Safety of Prenatal Ultrasound Exposure in Human Studies,” Epidemiology 13, no. 3 (May 2002): S19–22.

[11] Maria G. Andreassi, “The Biological Effects of Diagnostic Cardiac Imaging on Chronically Exposed Physicians: The Importance of Being Non-Ionizing,” Cardiovascular Ultrasound 2, no. 1 (November 22, 2004): 25, doi:10.1186/1476-7120-2-25.

[12] JiaYin Zhang et al., “Long Dwell-Time Exposure of Human Chorionic Villi to Transvaginal Ultrasound in the First Trimester of Pregnancy Induces Activation of Caspase-3 and Cytochrome C Release,” Biology of Reproduction 67, no. 2 (August 1, 2002): 580–83, doi:10.1095/biolreprod67.2.580.

[13] Gianluigi Pilu, Philippe Jeanty, “Microcephaly,” The Fetus, July 27, 1999, http://sonoworld.com/fetus/page.aspx?id=127.