Long reply -- sorry -- but it's a complicated topic & deserves lengthy discussion :)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Enudely
I heard that even though Breastmilk doesn't have much vitamin k in it, Colostrum is chock full of it, so as long as the babe gets colostrum he should be o.k. I also read (just in the past few days of researching) that the Vit K shot can lead to an 80 % (!) increased risk of childhood leukemia. Can that be right? It sounds a bit crazy.
|
The problem as I understand it, is that the baby needs more Vitamin K in its stores than what it gets from colostrum or breastmilk in order to adequately prevent the hemorrhaging. And truthfully, the amount of Vit K typically found in colostrum is only minutely more than the amount typically found in breastmilk, according to several studies I've read (here's one older article from
Midwifery Today, for example:
http://www.naturalchildbirth.org/nat...feeding15.htm). Matter of fact, some would argue there is more in BM later as it is contained primarily in the fat, and the more (quantity) the baby drinks, the better than chances of it getting more Vit K. But some opponents would argue that formula supplemented with Vit K is a better source of the vitamin. That's unacceptable for us, since we plan to exclusively breastfeed. But for some women, this might be an option to the oral supplement form of Vit K.
Here's a good article that talks about both sides:
http://www.womens-health.co.uk/vitk.asp
Regardless, to rely on colostrum solely as the lasting Vit K source for your baby could be by some considered chancing it, since the baby needs the Vitamin in its system to last for at least the first month of life (and your milk should come in before a month's time). Which is fine, if that's what you want to do. Please know that I'm really not trying to talk you in or out of anything. Just telling you our process and what we discovered from months of researching.
Some people will argue that the format of the vitamin found in the shot and the oral supplement (as well as baby formula) is poor (and even harmful) for baby, as only true food sources are truly effective. Some admit the same but say that the mother's diet cannot provide enough Vit K to adequately prevent hemorrhaging in the infant, due to other contributing factors such as environment, ingredients, etc., that can inhibit the body's (both mom and infant's) absorption of the vitamin.
Still others will say that the synthetic forms are more effective as they are direct and administered in such a way that they remain in the baby, whereas the "natural" intake is so diluted and lessened that by the time baby gets any of it, the benefits are lost.
Regardless of which you believe or what seems most logical, I cannot reiterate enough the benefits of seeking out professional medical opinions on this one. Consider it practice for what you'll go through when it's time to decide about vaccinations! If your pediatrician dismisses your concerns out of hand, then find a diff ped. Look for someone who will discuss with you the pros and cons of anything you put into your child. Our ped is awesome. She expects parents to make INFORMED decisions and does what she can to help educate us. She doesn't agree with our not getting the eye ointment (she sees it at harmless and I see it as an unnecessary intervention), but she approved our refusal, because she knows it was an informed decision on our part. She agreed that the Hep B vaccine was unnecessary in our case.
As for the 80% you listed...honestly, that figure is pretty damn scary, and way far out there according to my pediatrician and the research she provided us with (which was not funded/provided by the drug companies, btw). She also conferred with the leading childhood oncologist in town since my concerns were primarily about leukemia, before she came back to us with a recommendation (she's selectively pro-vax, btw, and doesn't use anything with mercury/thimerosal in it, etc.). Matter of fact, we're banking the cord blood in case of any probs -- that's how concerned I am about the thought of leukemia. But we're still going with the Vit K shot, because I feel that the contributing factors to leukemia and other childhood cancers are far beyond the scope of one shot and the research just isn't conclusive that there is a definite link between Vit K administered either intramuscularly OR orally, and an increased rate of childhood leukemia in a defined cause and effect relationship. IOW, yes, leukemia and other childhood cancers are still on the rise, I'm sure. But we live in such an incredibly toxic world now, you know? How could they NOT be? But that's just me. Here's some info on leukemia in children:
http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all...incidencebyage
Anyway the oncologist reiterated that the chances of the child developing leukemia from the shot were less than the chances of hemorrhaging without it (and yes, we're aware that those chances aren't that great -- but they are great enough for us to decide to get the shot -- again, that's just us), and that many sites who list statistics like that 80% aren't taking into account things like location (living near power lines or chem factories, etc.), diet, chemical exposure, mother's diet while pg, genetics, radiation exposure, etc., all of which can be contributing factors. In other words, the chances of any child developing leukemia are higher now than they were years ago, whether it's been given Vit K or not. Again, we live in a toxic world. Could there be a correlation between Vit K and leukemia? Absolutely! Do we know this for certain? No.
But what we do know is there is a connection between some medications the mother has taken and the development of hemorrhaging in the infant.
For instance, I was on anti-convulsants for many many years prior to TTC, and although I went off my meds nearly a year before we got pg, and haven't been on any anti-convulsants during the pg, still, I fear that my intake of these meds could prove significant (since that's a known contributor to hemorrhaging).
Thing is that there are meds that women take prior to getting pg that could have mild anti-convulsant properties and they not know it! Same with some meds taken during pregnancy.
In my mind it's better to be safe than sorry, IMO. And *for us* that means getting the shot. If you haven't taken any medications at all that could have any contributing factor to your child bleeding, and you feel confident that your child isn't the 1/10k child who could be affected, then don't worry about it.
It's a very rare condition -- but the kicker is, it's a horrible one and quite deadly. And preventable.
And in the end, for you and your child, it's up to you -- please talk to some medical professionals about this, since many websites (and non-medical professionals, like me!), though highly informative and well-meaning, can be misleading. Please seek out some professional opinion, since my opinion and the others you'll find on this forum are at best, well-meaning laypersons. Unless there's an oncologist among us I'm unaware of?
Hope that helps!
.)
