Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Anti-vaccine movement gains more victims

Posted by on Aug. 29, 2014 at 8:30 PM
  • 44 Replies
2 moms liked this

Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:23 PM PDT

by HunterFollow

Baby feeding from a bottle
Anti-vaccine fears aren't just for vaccines anymore.
The anti-vaccination forces are gaining new victims:
In May, the Tennessean reported on a truly shocking medical problem. Seven infants, aged between seven and 20 weeks old, had arrived at Vanderbilt University's Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital over the past eight months with a condition called "vitamin K deficiency bleeding," or VKDB. This rare disorder occurs because human infants do not have enough vitamin K, a blood coagulant, in their systems. Infants who develop VKDB can bleed in various parts of their bodies, including bleeding into the brain. This can cause brain damage or even death.
Which is why newborns usually get a vitamin K shot immediately after birth, just in case. It's not a vaccine, it's a vitamin, and odds are good that many of the same people objecting to the this vitamin pop vitamin pills regularly. The problem is that yes, it's an injection, and so parents are assuming (with the help of anti-vaccine groups, not-at-all-coincidentally) there must be something devious about that.
A quick Google search returns a number of dire warnings about vitamin K shots circulating on the Internet. One of the top results is an article at, which urges readers to "Skip that Newborn Vitamin K Shot," before going on to list an array of "dangerous ingredients in the injection cocktail." (The site also calls vaccines "scientific fraud.") [...]

And then there's physician Joseph Mercola (whose popular website calls vaccinations "very neurotoxic" and suggests they are associated with a list of conditions, including autism).

I can only presume that somebody's keeping track of the body count on these things. Being an informed medical consumer is one thing, risking your child's health based on paranoid/fringe internet theories is something entirely different.

Originally posted to Hunter on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:23 PM PDT.

by on Aug. 29, 2014 at 8:30 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
by AllieCat on Aug. 29, 2014 at 8:49 PM
1 mom liked this

It was never an issue for me, my girls having the shot of Vitamin K.


by on Aug. 29, 2014 at 8:57 PM
7 moms liked this
So you're telling me my PHD from Google University is NOT the end-all be-all!??? Curse you perry the platypus
by Pepperlynn on Aug. 29, 2014 at 8:59 PM
13 moms liked this

Mobile Photo

by Obama licker on Aug. 29, 2014 at 9:01 PM
2 moms liked this
by Gold Member on Aug. 29, 2014 at 10:42 PM
2 moms liked this

Quoting -Celestial-:

Mobile Photo

by Ruby Member on Aug. 29, 2014 at 10:58 PM
6 moms liked this

Hmmmmm......let's see.....we are now at 1 in 90 kids with, that is it is 1 out of 68 U.S. kids have autism.   Hmmmm....those rates are rising.  Hmmm.....Japan's rates are lowering after they adjusted their vaccine schedule. 

by Platinum Member on Aug. 29, 2014 at 11:28 PM
I don't remember any of my kids being offered that shot and my youngest is just going on three months. I'm a non vax mom but vitamins are different.
by Ruby Member on Aug. 29, 2014 at 11:34 PM
3 moms liked this

Have you seen the ingredients of Vitamin K?  It is absolutely the same thing as a vaccine, without bacteria/viral parts.

That being said, I got my 1st the shot because I was planning to have him circumcised.  I got my 2nd the shot because she had a traumatic birth.  I did not get my 3rd the shot, because he was premie, and with all the stuff we had to do for him to keep him alive and healthy, I chose not to have him circumcised right away.  I waited until his body was making enough Vitamin K on his own.

A "just in case" is never a good reason to give all perfectly healthy newborns any kind of neurotoxin, of which Vitamin K absolutely qualifies.  Each parent should weigh the pros and cons.  My stipulations were if it was a boy and we were getting him circumcised, or there was a traumatic birth.  My 1st two qualified, my 3rd did not.  Being an informed medical consumer is very important, and risking my child's health based on paranoid medical theories is dangerous.

by Ruby Member on Aug. 29, 2014 at 11:42 PM
2 moms liked this

This is ridiculous.  There is a major difference between drugs that have been properly tested, and drugs that have not.  Vaccines have not been properly tested.  They have been tested against aluminum placebos, which react very similarly to the components in vaccines, giving artificial results.  They should have been tested against saline placebos, the way all other drugs are required.  Most drugs are required to have long term studies, vaccines do not.  Most drugs, if you have severe nasty results that were not disclosed by the manufacturer, you can sue the drug company, and win.  Vaccines are immune from this.

The list goes on and on. 

Quoting -Celestial-:

Mobile Photo

by Ruby Member on Aug. 30, 2014 at 1:09 PM

First I've heard of it although when my first two babies were born, it wasn't something that was even discussed, it was just something the hospital did as a matter of course so I'm sure they were given it. I know I was never given a choice nor was it even mentioned. My third was not. She was a home delivery and again, it wasn't even brought up although being as she was with me the entire time as opposed to being taken to a nursery, I would have know if she had been given it or for that matter, anything at all.

It appears there are many articles for it and just a few that suggest caution regarding it. One article claims that 1 out of 100 babies had some bleeding and 1 out of a 1000 has serious bleeding, although how they came up with those figures isn't mentioned and every other article claims it isn't something that has been tracked in the U.S. as well as some saying it is rare. Another article (which has a disclaimer saying it's the authors opinion) insinuates that exclusively breast-fed babies are at higher risk. The few I actually read appear to contradict one another in at least one area.

What is fact is that the U.S. didn't begin automatically injecting newborns with Vitamin K until 1961 which makes me wonder how all those thousands of babies born in the U.S. prior to 1961 managed to survive without bleeding of some kind. As far as I can see, it's just another thing that people need to inform themselves about and make their decision based on what they learn, although I doubt many are actually given the choice regarding that injection since hospitals would consider standard medical care for a newborn

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)