The article really doesn’t support that conclusion. You have one rettrospective study that is self reporting. The overall set of people evaluated should NO preference for handedness and yet a subset of males did. There is not even an attempt to explain this oddity. Moreover, it cautions against drawing any conclusions on the data since there was no data taken about parents handedness ( since lefties do in fact have lefty children more frequently than rightie parents)
I am not a big fan of multiple ultrasound scans but okease do not throw off some cautionary article as being a smoking gun. It is not
What, then, would cause a higher proportion of left-handed parents to have ultrasounds over right-handed parents, if you believe parents’ handedness could be an issue here? I’m curious.
If ultrasounds can’t possibly hurt, why not be “a big fan of multiple ultrasound scans?” I mean, come on, they can’t possibly cause a problem to a small little thing like a fetus, right?
Never mind that low intensity ultrasound is used for acoustophoresis, bone and tooth regeneration, and disruption of the blood-brain barrier for drug delivery. Also, never mind that higher-intensity ultrasound is used to break up kidney stones, dental plaque, and even cancerous tumors on people.
Will you next tell us that all of the above uses are bogus, because ultrasound can’t possibly do anything?