Vitamin K

Below is just a re-post of something I posted on another thread. If you search, though, you'll find tons of threads on the vit K in Pregnancy and Birth and on the vax boards.

Quote:

Quote:
Yes, I agree with you. I haven't decided 100% what I'll do; honestly, I think the most compelling reason for not getting the vit K is the fact that all human babies are born with low levels--which suggests that there may very well be a reason for the "low" levels, even if we don't know what they are. I am reminded about a study I read recently about how kids who have their tonsils removed are at higher risk for certain conditions as adults (throat problems? respiratory problems? I can't remember). I remember growing up hearing that the tonsils were just useless, vestigial organs...turns out, maybe not so much (unless it's the surgery, and not the lack of tonsils that accounts for the problems?).

I do think, however, that of newborn "procedures" the vit K seems less risky (to me) than many of the others. As with all these decisions, I think you just have to do your research and see where your comfort lies.

Oh, and to the OP: I've heard of mamas declining the shot but taking lots of alfalfa supplements themselves to boost the vit K in their breastmilk. It's never been studied, but it might be worth researching if you do decide to decline.

From the mothering homepage, list of questions:

"What are the risks/benefits to letting your baby have a shot of vitamin K after birth?"

Today there are many reasons to de-dramatize the topic and to reassure at the same time the parents who are inclined to refuse the shot and also those who prefer to do it.

To the parents who refuse the injection, we can say that they don't take a great risk, since the chances of their breastfed baby having a hemorrhagic disease related to vitamin K deficiency is in the region of one in 15,000. It is even probable that the risks are still lower if the birth and the initiation of lactation were undisturbed. My view is that vitamin K deficiency of breastfed babies is probably no more physiological than the weight loss in newborn babies. After thousands of years of culturally controlled childbirth and lactation, we usually underestimate the amount of 'colostral milk', and therefore of vitamin K, a human baby has been programmed to consume during the first days following birth.

A well-constructed Japanese study showed that babies who consume 350 ml of breast milk in the first three days following birth are protected against vitamin K deficiency. Let us also remember that vitamin K deficiency is unheard of among formula fed babies.

Some parents who accepted the injection might feel guilty or anxious afterwards when hearing about two British studies suggesting that vitamin K injected at birth (not vitamin K given orally) is a risk factor for cancer in childhood. These parents must be reassured as well because the British findings have not been confirmed by other studies, particularly a huge authoritative Swedish study involving more than one million children. However one cannot hide the fact that the routine injection of 1 mg of vitamin K at birth is always associated with the injection of 10 mg propylene glycol and 5 mg phenol, the effects of which are unknown.

After much research, we have decided to decline the Vitamin K. The possible links to Leukemia are scary, but that is not the main reason we decided to decline. My primary reason is that I have a hard time believing that babies are born "deficient" in something that they need to survive! How do health "professionals" say that babies have "low" levels...compared to who? Adults who are 10 times the size of infants? To me it is slightly absurd. Nature just simply could not have screwed something like that up. Women have been giving birth for MANY years, and never needed a Vitamin K shot- my mom never had to get one for me, and she also didn't have to get Rhogam at 28 weeks, or a Glucose Challenge test for that matter. There just seems to be so many medical interventions that are meant to protect a very small population, but have become umbrella policies because of liability issues. My doctor explained it to me like this: Eye ointment is only needed to prevent blindness in babies whose mothers have Gonhorrea, yet we can't look at a patient and say...hmmm, she looks like she sleeps around, lets give HER baby the ointment, and then look at another women and assume her to be clean- it is discrimination. Basically unless you do your research you subject your infant to a whole lot of stuff that isn't really needed just so doctors can cover their ass. I love this message board by the way, it is very helpful to read what other similar-minded mommies opted to do and not do.