Regarding the 1st link: The article states somewhere that, I quote "and the research supporting a link between vitamin K injection and leukemia found that the very large dose of vitamin K given through injection at birth dysregulated that process, and that was what led to the increase in leukemia.".
<<< The opinions expressed in Evidence Based Birth┬о content by any Evidence Based Birth┬о team members or volunteers on behalf of Evidence Based Birth┬о are strictly their own personal opinions and not the opinions or policies of any third party, including any health care provider, employer, educational or medical institution, professional association or charitable organization. Nothing in the Evidence Based Birth┬о content constitutes or shall be construed as constituting medical or legal advice of any kind whatsoever, whether from a licensed medical professional or otherwise; nor is it a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis and treatment. If you need legal or healthcare advice or information, seek out a suitably qualified professional licensed to practice where you live. >>>
The 2nd link shows an interesting point about "interventionist medicine": Arguing on how do we know that the newborn must really need a blood coagulant, i.e. just to defend against a rare medical condition (brain bleeding). Especially if not planning to mutilate said baby via barbaric jewish circumcision? Those are indeed valid points.
Overall, it is probably a scare tactics from the big pharma, and being backed up by previous centuries' lack of modern sanitation, municipal water and sewage systems, and which made infantile mortality high and people's general life expectancy low. So the big pharma's (bad) rationale for administering it is to prevent those rare disease cases.
Ok, thank you for the leads provided. Will research more about this.
My kids had this done at birth in Canada. But the K was administered via serum spread over their eyes, from a syringe. Not via an intramuscular injection.
Re: "Even the innocent-sounding Vitamin K Shot given immediately at birth is Not good":
Would you be able to provide more info? I am now intrigued.
Thanks.
I found this about Vitamin K and cord clamping: https://marcellapiperterry.substack.com/p/vitamin-k-shot-and-delayed-cord-clamping
I also found this one: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-very-first-injection-vitamin
Regarding the 1st link: The article states somewhere that, I quote "and the research supporting a link between vitamin K injection and leukemia found that the very large dose of vitamin K given through injection at birth dysregulated that process, and that was what led to the increase in leukemia.".
^ Bollocks! Research coming after that single 1992/1993 study did not confirm the findings. The article also sends us to https://babyreference.com/vitamin-k-at-birth-to-inject-or-not ... which in turn points to another referenced "study", which is not peer-reviewed, but some sort of self-referenced article: https://evidencebasedbirth.com/evidence-for-the-vitamin-k-shot-in-newborns/
What evidence? B.S. It is not a scientific paper submitted to a recognized scientific institution / journal, nor peer-reviewed.
Here is the disclaimer from the evidencebasedbirth.com website:
<<< The opinions expressed in Evidence Based Birth┬о content by any Evidence Based Birth┬о team members or volunteers on behalf of Evidence Based Birth┬о are strictly their own personal opinions and not the opinions or policies of any third party, including any health care provider, employer, educational or medical institution, professional association or charitable organization. Nothing in the Evidence Based Birth┬о content constitutes or shall be construed as constituting medical or legal advice of any kind whatsoever, whether from a licensed medical professional or otherwise; nor is it a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis and treatment. If you need legal or healthcare advice or information, seek out a suitably qualified professional licensed to practice where you live. >>>
The 2nd link shows an interesting point about "interventionist medicine": Arguing on how do we know that the newborn must really need a blood coagulant, i.e. just to defend against a rare medical condition (brain bleeding). Especially if not planning to mutilate said baby via barbaric jewish circumcision? Those are indeed valid points.
Overall, it is probably a scare tactics from the big pharma, and being backed up by previous centuries' lack of modern sanitation, municipal water and sewage systems, and which made infantile mortality high and people's general life expectancy low. So the big pharma's (bad) rationale for administering it is to prevent those rare disease cases.
Ok, thank you for the leads provided. Will research more about this.
My kids had this done at birth in Canada. But the K was administered via serum spread over their eyes, from a syringe. Not via an intramuscular injection.