Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by leereeves 105 days ago
All of those links are for the same book from 2015 (the fourth isn't direct to the relevant article but it's easy to find on the page). Has there been any new information since then?
1 comments
realityfactchex 105 days ago
The 50 studies in the cited 2015 book ought to span a range of time, and their keywords could be used to search literature for more recent material.

> Has there been any new information since then?

Since you asked, there apparently was a 2017 followup book by the same author. These links are for that book:

https://harvoa.org/chs/pr/dusbk2.htm

https://www.amazon.com/Ultrasound-Causation-Microcephaly-Vir...

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36466945-ultrasound-caus...

link
leereeves 105 days ago
That book claims:

> Microcephaly incidence increased 1000x within the area of The Network. This was first observed seven months after The Network began its remote prenatal ultrasound program. Do the math.

Almost every baby is exposed to prenatal ultrasound. What do you think was different about that ultrasound program? Why would prenatal ultrasound cause microencephaly there, but not everywhere?

link
realityfactchex 105 days ago
> not everywhere?

Are you absolutely certain that there is not an unexplained uptick in brain damaged newborns/children in the USA?

And that its cause is not some thing(s) that "almost every" one of them is subjected to repeatedly?

And that it is not just a case of better/more/over diagnosis?

IDK about by you, but there are literal nurseries/schools for the brain-damaged kids popping up on Main Street. That's how many there seem to be.

So yeah, maybe they're not in that study. But that means they don't exist?

link
leereeves 105 days ago
I don't think that's comparable to what happened in Brazil at that time.
link