Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 BUT, it doesn't say that 1 in 10,000 die, it says that 20% of those who get it die. So, woudn't that be about .02 out of 10,000 die? Or 2 out of 100,000? My math may be a little rusty, but that is what I got. Sara ---- Rolinda Kim <rkgerman@...> wrote: > " The syndrome of vitamin K deficiency bleeding occurs in approximately > 1 in 10,000 babies. Hemorrhagic disease that occurs from week 2-12 of > life is the most dangerous form. Half of these affected babies suffer > sudden bleeding into the brain, and 20 percent of affected babies die. > Studies have shown that a single injection or oral dose of vitamin K > at birth results in adequate coagulation status and vitamin K levels > for up to three months following birth. " > > Randall, > I am in no way suggesting that the 1 in 10,000 baby that has this > disorder needs to die, but can you pint me and anyone else interested > here to any study that shows that the babies that wind up suffering > from this are NOT formula fed babies? Probably not. > > The article you pointed us to also states that VitK passes through the > placenta and Ingrid explained that the baby receives what it needs > through natural birth and from the breastmilk of the mother. I > realize that studies show that the oral version of VitK has not been > shown to have the same affects as the injection, but perhaps it would > be more prudent to recommend supplementation of oral VitK to only > those babies who might not otherwise receive what nature has deemed as > a sufficient supply from the birthing/nursing process... i.e C-section > deliveries and/or mothers who will choose not to breastfeed. > > That seems like a much more pragmatic approach instead of telling > >every< woman that SHE hasn't provided all the VitK her baby needs and > that if she doesn't supplement, she's putting her baby at risk for > what I believe works out to be something that kills 1 in 40,000 babies > ... (I'm sure my math is wrong, but half of the 1 in 10,000 develop > the disorder and half of those yet die) No one wants to see their > baby die from something that could possible have been prevented, but > something tells me the research needed to identify those truly at risk > isn't out there, and no one likes to be scared into anything. > > For what it's worth, > > Rolinda > Wife, Mother, Friend > > In a message dated 2/7/2007 4:07:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > randalln@... writes: > Perhaps Christian Scientists would agree that a genetic defect means > that babies should not live, but in the age of scientific research and > genetic testing, there are conditions which if undetected and > untreated would result in the deaths of babies who could otherwise live. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 I declined Vitamin K for my daughter in the hospital (after doing much research and making an informed decision), and I got a huge lecture from one of the hospital peds. I now wish I would have just said, I appreciate your prespective, but I have done my research and have made my informed choice. I do not wish to hear more. Thanks Ingrid for the article you posted, that represents my thoughts about this. Tara > > I declined Vitamin K when my daughter was born. I read some articles about > it in the UK, and was concerned about the possible link to leukaemia. We > had no history of bleeding problems in the family, so we decided that we > would not have it. I was given a hell of a time by the chief midwife (gave > birth in a midwife-led unit, no doctors allowed in) for this decision. She > contended that there was no point in having the oral vitamin K, her argument > being that if my daughter vomited her feed then it would be impossible to > know if it had been absorbed or not. > > Am I right in thinking that this protocol only has value if administered in > the first ten days after birth, and after that the risk of HDN diminishes > drastically? As a homoeopath, Randall, do you see any homoeopathic > alternative? > > Sue > > > > > > > The simple answer is no. This is a disease that causes internal bleeding > > and intestinal bleeding. Not what you want in a new infant. And not > > something you want to monitor. > > It's just an oral dose of one drop of vitamin K. I really don't understand > > why there is such an objection to this when this very serious > > problem can be > > so easily prevented. > > > > > > Randall Neustaedter OMD > > Classical Medicine Center > > 1779 Woodside Rd, 201C > > Redwood City, CA 94061 > > 650 299-9170 > > www.cure-guide.com Free e-newsletter - Subscribe > > > > Author of Child Health Guide: Holistic Pediatrics for Parents, 2005 > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Posted by: " Sassygirl1218@... " Sassygirl1218@... sassy_sara_shaugh Thu Feb 8, 2007 5:24 am (PST) BUT, it doesn't say that 1 in 10,000 die, it says that 20% of those who get it die. So, wouldn't that be about .02 out of 10,000 die? Or 2 out of 100 000? My math may be a little rusty, but that is what I got. Sara Yes, 1 in 10,000 have the defect, half of the 1 in 10,000 will develop the hemorrhagic disease. 20% of those will die. Sorry for the goof. My math with that sort of thing stinks. LOL! For ease, increase the number to 100,000. So 10 children will have the syndrome for VitK deficiency bleeding. Half of those will develop the most dangerous form: Hemorrhagic disease (5 children). 20% of those 5 children will die (1 child in 100,000). Rolinda Wife, Mother, Friend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Are the drops as effective as the shot? ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.. Try it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 According to the article that Dr Neustaedter posted, yes it is, and it has been deemed SAFE unlike it's injection counterpart. <http://www.cure-guide.com/Child_Health_Guide/Vitamin_K/vitamin_k.html> And here is the research. <http://www.whale.to/a/rothville.html> As to where to get it ... the first article states the following: " Although oral vitamin K is not licensed for use as a drug by the FDA, drops for oral administration are available. Typically, one drop contains 2 mg. of vitamin K. Contact a midwife in your area, or a birthing supply company (such as birthwithlove.com), or Scientific Botanicals (206 527-5521) where your health care provider can order liquid vitamin K directly. " Hope that helps. Thanks for the links, Dr. Neustaedter. Rolinda Wife, Mother, Friend > > Are the drops as effective as the shot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Wait, it would be 1 in 1,000,000 will die from it. If .02 out of 10,000 die, then you would have to multiply .02 by 100 to get 2 and 10,000 by 100, which gives you 1,000,000, right? I guess this is why I got a B in calculus ; ) Sara ---- RKG <rkgerman@...> wrote: > Posted by: " Sassygirl1218@... " Sassygirl1218@... > sassy_sara_shaugh > Thu Feb 8, 2007 5:24 am (PST) > BUT, it doesn't say that 1 in 10,000 die, it says that 20% of those who get > it die. So, wouldn't that be about .02 out of 10,000 die? Or 2 out of 100 > 000? My math may be a little rusty, but that is what I got. > > Sara > > > Yes, 1 in 10,000 have the defect, half of the 1 in 10,000 will develop the > hemorrhagic disease. 20% of those will die. > Sorry for the goof. My math with that sort of thing stinks. LOL! > > For ease, increase the number to 100,000. So 10 children will have the > syndrome for VitK deficiency bleeding. Half of those will develop the most > dangerous form: Hemorrhagic disease (5 children). 20% of those 5 children > will die (1 child in 100,000). > > Rolinda > Wife, Mother, Friend > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 I got a little too excited, it is 1 in 100,000 babies will die from it. Still, the odds are pretty great that your child will die from it. About a .001 % chance. Sara ---- Sassygirl1218@... wrote: > Wait, it would be 1 in 1,000,000 will die from it. > > If .02 out of 10,000 die, then you would have to multiply .02 by 100 to get 2 and 10,000 by 100, which gives you 1,000,000, right? > > I guess this is why I got a B in calculus ; ) > > Sara > > > ---- RKG <rkgerman@...> wrote: > > Posted by: " Sassygirl1218@... " Sassygirl1218@... > > sassy_sara_shaugh > > Thu Feb 8, 2007 5:24 am (PST) > > BUT, it doesn't say that 1 in 10,000 die, it says that 20% of those who get > > it die. So, wouldn't that be about .02 out of 10,000 die? Or 2 out of 100 > > 000? My math may be a little rusty, but that is what I got. > > > > Sara > > > > > > Yes, 1 in 10,000 have the defect, half of the 1 in 10,000 will develop the > > hemorrhagic disease. 20% of those will die. > > Sorry for the goof. My math with that sort of thing stinks. LOL! > > > > For ease, increase the number to 100,000. So 10 children will have the > > syndrome for VitK deficiency bleeding. Half of those will develop the most > > dangerous form: Hemorrhagic disease (5 children). 20% of those 5 children > > will die (1 child in 100,000). > > > > Rolinda > > Wife, Mother, Friend > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Respectfully, I would like to tell you why I disagree with the administration of Vitamin K to newborns on a mass basis without thought. Personally, I don't believe that the average infant is born with a deficiency of anything. We have developed over millions of years (my apologies to anyone out there who is a creationist :-) but this is my belief) to be born with our bodies perfect for survival in our world. Vitamin K is a vitamin which promotes clotting of the blood. Isn't it just possible that it is not either necessary or advisable to have baby's blood clotting within the first week of life (8 days, really, which is when a breastfed baby will have started to make their own vitamin K)? This is a time when they are getting rid of the excess blood from their mother's bloodstream (especially if the cord was clamped prematurely), getting rid of excess bile and getting their livers kick-started. Blood clotting interferes with all of this which is perhaps why babies who are given the vitamin K - either as a shot or orally - are much more likely to have severe jaundice. In addition, since the oral vitamin k is exactly the same as the injected - just taken out of the syringe and given on the tongue - it is still the same synthetic, preservative laden preparation. If the shot can be associated with leukaemia - why not the oral version? There is a herbal vitamin K tincture from New Zealand which has been shown to increase the amount of vitamin K in the infant and in the mother so if I were a mother who had had a traumatic birth with lots of head molding and bruising, I would be considering that - especially if for some reason I could not breastfeed (very rare!) but otherwise, I would be trusting to nature to do what it does best and what we have evolved to do - and that involves fully breastfeeding to seed our infant's gut with the bacteria necessary to make their own vitamin K by the 8th day after birth. All the best, Meryl ________________________________ From: Vaccinations [mailto:Vaccinations ] On Behalf Of J Lessard Sent: Friday, 9 February 2007 1:30 AM Vaccinations Subject: Re: Re: vitamin K Where do you get oral K? Jenn L Re: Re: vitamin K > > In a message dated 2/7/2007 4:07:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > randalln@cure- <mailto:randalln%40cure-guide.com> guide.com writes: > > Perhaps Christian > Scientists would agree that a genetic defect means that babies should > not live, but in the age of scientific research and genetic testing, > there are conditions which if undetected and untreated would result in > the deaths of babies who could otherwise live. > I think Rolinda was trying to make a valid point. From what I have > read every baby is " deficient " in Vit K. (I have read a different > opinion on here, but I can't remember exactly what it was) If every > baby is deficient, this is not a genetic defect. They compare this > deficiency to an adult's levels. > (Just like they give the same vaccine to an adult they do a baby). > This level is normal for babies. > > Instead of giving high risk babies Vit K, like preterm or w/obvious > liver problems, they (the medical profession) give Vit K to every > baby. This is just wrong. > > I agree w/Rolinda. > > Holly > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 > Randall, > I am in no way suggesting that the 1 in 10,000 baby that has this > disorder needs to die, but can you pint me and anyone else interested > here to any study that shows that the babies that wind up suffering > from this are NOT formula fed babies? Probably not. This disease has been described for over a hundred years. And since it occurs throughout the world, there is no reason to suspect it is isolated to formula-fed babies. Even if there is a higher risk in certain babies, that does not mean it will not occur in your baby. I still don't understand the objection to giving infants a drop of vitamin K liquid if there is ANY chance that your baby will have this condition, which would obviously require hospitalization and life-saving measures and drugs if it occurred. Randall Neustaedter OMD Classical Medicine Center 1779 Woodside Rd., 201C Redwood City, CA 94061 650 299-9170 www.Cure-Guide.com <http://www.cure-guide.com/> Author of Child Health Guide: Holistic Pediatrics for Parents, North Atlantic Books, 2005, and The Vaccine Guide, 2002 Subscribe to my free e-newsletter by using this <http://www.cure-guide.com/MySubscribe/mysubscribe.html?from=email> link. _____ <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15657/grpspId=1705126171/msgId=1 00961/stime=1170941043/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 I wouldn't because it is my belief that if every baby is born with these lower levels, then they are lower for a reason and it is normal. Sara ---- Randall Neustaedter <randalln@...> wrote: > > Randall, > > I am in no way suggesting that the 1 in 10,000 baby that has this > > disorder needs to die, but can you pint me and anyone else interested > > here to any study that shows that the babies that wind up suffering > > from this are NOT formula fed babies? Probably not. > > > > This disease has been described for over a hundred years. And since it > occurs throughout the world, there is no reason to suspect it is isolated to > formula-fed babies. > > > > Even if there is a higher risk in certain babies, that does not mean it will > not occur in your baby. > > > > I still don't understand the objection to giving infants a drop of vitamin K > liquid if there is ANY chance that your baby will have this condition, which > would obviously require hospitalization and life-saving measures and drugs > if it occurred. > > > > > > Randall Neustaedter OMD > > Classical Medicine Center > > 1779 Woodside Rd., 201C > > Redwood City, CA 94061 > > 650 299-9170 > > www.Cure-Guide.com <http://www.cure-guide.com/> > > Author of Child Health Guide: Holistic Pediatrics for Parents, North > Atlantic Books, 2005, and The Vaccine Guide, 2002 > > > > Subscribe to my free e-newsletter by using this > <http://www.cure-guide.com/MySubscribe/mysubscribe.html?from=email> link. > > > > _____ > > > <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15657/grpspId=1705126171/msgId=1 > 00961/stime=1170941043/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 I think there's a bit of a miscommunication going on here. I don't think Randall is saying that the low levels of Vitamin K in newborns is unhealthy, it's only a problem for infants who have this disorder. Randall, I think the reason many people on this list are balking at the idea of supplemental Vitamin K is that it's a medical intervention given to healthy persons, which many of us are wary of, especially given our distrust of mainstream medicine and its affection for mass application of " treatments " (such as vaccines) to otherwise healthy individuals -- treatments that often end up being harmful. Also, as I understand it, many mainstream medical personnel view the naturally low levels of Vitamin K in newborns as unhealthy, which is ridiculous if it is the naturally occurring condition, so perhaps they are perceiving you as saying that, although I don't think that's what you're saying. That is my guess. The obvious reasoning for mass application of Vitamin K to newborns is to prevent harm to the small percentage of newborns that might have this disorder, since apparently there is no way to " wait and see " if a newborn has this problem before administering Vitamin K. Theoretically, it's not a bad idea, if supplemental Vitamin K is not a problem for all of the healthy newborns who receive it. So, I guess the issue is: does it harm healthy newborns? We agree that the injected version does, but does the oral version? I guess, as with many things in life, it's a numbers game. If you are adamantly opposed to your child receiving supplemental Vitamin K at birth, and you refuse it, you run the risk that your child will be the 1 in xxx thousand who suffer from the disorder. So, Randall, these are my questions, please: 1. Does supplemental (oral) Vitamin K harm healthy infants in any way? 2. Why doesn't Vitamin K in the mother's breastmilk/colostrum prevent the problem in infants with this disorder. 3. Do infants who become ill from the disorder but don't die (only 1 in 100,000 die) suffer any other long-term problems? 4. I'm interested in hearing your answer to Sue's questions, too (see earlier posting from mum2mishka). Thank you, Angie On Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 06:16 PM, <Sassygirl1218@...> wrote: > I wouldn't because it is my belief that if every baby is born with > these lower levels, then they are lower for a reason and it is normal. > > Sara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Thanks Angie for summarizing this issue so eloquently. I completely agree with you, and I sympathize with parents who are suspicious of unnecessary medical interventions, of which there are many. To answer your questions. 1. It is hard to imagine how or why 1 or 2 mg of vitamin K could injure an infant in any way. 2. Like many other nutrients, vitamin K may not get through the milk in an adequate amount to prevent this problem from developing. 3. I would think that an infant who got through this ordeal would probably be fine in the future, but we are talking about possible transfusions and coagulants, and other drugs, etc in the process. 4. Sorry I don't have Sue's question. Could you repeat it? Randall Neustaedter OMD Classical Medicine Center 1779 Woodside Rd., 201C Redwood City, CA 94061 650 299-9170 www.Cure-Guide.com <http://www.cure-guide.com/> Author of Child Health Guide: Holistic Pediatrics for Parents, North Atlantic Books, 2005, and The Vaccine Guide, 2002 Subscribe to my free e-newsletter by using this <http://www.cure-guide.com/MySubscribe/mysubscribe.html?from=email> link. _____ From: Vaccinations [mailto:Vaccinations ] On Behalf Of Totten Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:22 PM Vaccinations Subject: Re: Re: vitamin K I think there's a bit of a miscommunication going on here. I don't think Randall is saying that the low levels of Vitamin K in newborns is unhealthy, it's only a problem for infants who have this disorder. Randall, I think the reason many people on this list are balking at the idea of supplemental Vitamin K is that it's a medical intervention given to healthy persons, which many of us are wary of, especially given our distrust of mainstream medicine and its affection for mass application of " treatments " (such as vaccines) to otherwise healthy individuals -- treatments that often end up being harmful. Also, as I understand it, many mainstream medical personnel view the naturally low levels of Vitamin K in newborns as unhealthy, which is ridiculous if it is the naturally occurring condition, so perhaps they are perceiving you as saying that, although I don't think that's what you're saying. That is my guess. The obvious reasoning for mass application of Vitamin K to newborns is to prevent harm to the small percentage of newborns that might have this disorder, since apparently there is no way to " wait and see " if a newborn has this problem before administering Vitamin K. Theoretically, it's not a bad idea, if supplemental Vitamin K is not a problem for all of the healthy newborns who receive it. So, I guess the issue is: does it harm healthy newborns? We agree that the injected version does, but does the oral version? I guess, as with many things in life, it's a numbers game. If you are adamantly opposed to your child receiving supplemental Vitamin K at birth, and you refuse it, you run the risk that your child will be the 1 in xxx thousand who suffer from the disorder. So, Randall, these are my questions, please: 1. Does supplemental (oral) Vitamin K harm healthy infants in any way? 2. Why doesn't Vitamin K in the mother's breastmilk/colostrum prevent the problem in infants with this disorder. 3. Do infants who become ill from the disorder but don't die (only 1 in 100,000 die) suffer any other long-term problems? 4. I'm interested in hearing your answer to Sue's questions, too (see earlier posting from mum2mishka). Thank you, Angie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Good morning, Randall. I asked you: " Am I right in thinking that this protocol only has value if administered in the first ten days after birth, and after that the risk of HDN diminishes drastically? As a homoeopath, Randall, do you see any homoeopathic alternative? " Many thanks, Sue > > > Thanks Angie for summarizing this issue so eloquently. I completely agree > with you, and I sympathize with parents who are suspicious of unnecessary > medical interventions, of which there are many. To answer your questions. > > 1. It is hard to imagine how or why 1 or 2 mg of vitamin K could injure > an infant in any way. > 2. Like many other nutrients, vitamin K may not get through the milk in > an adequate amount to prevent this problem from developing. > 3. I would think that an infant who got through this ordeal would > probably be fine in the future, but we are talking about possible > transfusions and coagulants, and other drugs, etc in the process. > 4. Sorry I don't have Sue's question. Could you repeat it? > > > > Randall Neustaedter OMD > > Classical Medicine Center > > 1779 Woodside Rd., 201C > > Redwood City, CA 94061 > > 650 299-9170 > > www.Cure-Guide.com <http://www.cure-guide.com/> > > Author of Child Health Guide: Holistic Pediatrics for Parents, North > Atlantic Books, 2005, and The Vaccine Guide, 2002 > > > > Subscribe to my free e-newsletter by using this > <http://www.cure-guide.com/MySubscribe/mysubscribe.html?from=email> link. > > > > _____ > > From: Vaccinations > [mailto:Vaccinations ] On > Behalf Of Totten > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:22 PM > Vaccinations > Subject: Re: Re: vitamin K > > > > I think there's a bit of a miscommunication going on here. I don't > think Randall is saying that the low levels of Vitamin K in newborns is > unhealthy, it's only a problem for infants who have this disorder. > > Randall, I think the reason many people on this list are balking at the > idea of supplemental Vitamin K is that it's a medical intervention > given to healthy persons, which many of us are wary of, especially > given our distrust of mainstream medicine and its affection for mass > application of " treatments " (such as vaccines) to otherwise healthy > individuals -- treatments that often end up being harmful. Also, as I > understand it, many mainstream medical personnel view the naturally low > levels of Vitamin K in newborns as unhealthy, which is ridiculous if it > is the naturally occurring condition, so perhaps they are perceiving > you as saying that, although I don't think that's what you're saying. > That is my guess. > > The obvious reasoning for mass application of Vitamin K to newborns is > to prevent harm to the small percentage of newborns that might have > this disorder, since apparently there is no way to " wait and see " if a > newborn has this problem before administering Vitamin K. Theoretically, > it's not a bad idea, if supplemental Vitamin K is not a problem for all > of the healthy newborns who receive it. So, I guess the issue is: does > it harm healthy newborns? We agree that the injected version does, but > does the oral version? > > I guess, as with many things in life, it's a numbers game. If you are > adamantly opposed to your child receiving supplemental Vitamin K at > birth, and you refuse it, you run the risk that your child will be the > 1 in xxx thousand who suffer from the disorder. > > So, Randall, these are my questions, please: > > 1. Does supplemental (oral) Vitamin K harm healthy infants in any way? > > 2. Why doesn't Vitamin K in the mother's breastmilk/colostrum prevent > the problem in infants with this disorder. > > 3. Do infants who become ill from the disorder but don't die (only 1 in > 100,000 die) suffer any other long-term problems? > > 4. I'm interested in hearing your answer to Sue's questions, too (see > earlier posting from mum2mishka). > > Thank you, > Angie > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Amen to that Meryl. Excellent post! Sue > > > Respectfully, I would like to tell you why I disagree with the > administration of Vitamin K to newborns on a mass basis without thought. > Personally, I don't believe that the average infant is born with a > deficiency of anything. We have developed over millions of years (my > apologies to anyone out there who is a creationist :-) but this is my > belief) to be born with our bodies perfect for survival in our world. > Vitamin K is a vitamin which promotes clotting of the blood. Isn't it > just possible that it is not either necessary or advisable to have > baby's blood clotting within the first week of life (8 days, really, > which is when a breastfed baby will have started to make their own > vitamin K)? This is a time when they are getting rid of the excess blood > from their mother's bloodstream (especially if the cord was clamped > prematurely), getting rid of excess bile and getting their livers > kick-started. Blood clotting interferes with all of this which is > perhaps why babies who are given the vitamin K - either as a shot or > orally - are much more likely to have severe jaundice. > > In addition, since the oral vitamin k is exactly the same as the > injected - just taken out of the syringe and given on the tongue - it is > still the same synthetic, preservative laden preparation. If the shot > can be associated with leukaemia - why not the oral version? > > There is a herbal vitamin K tincture from New Zealand which has been > shown to increase the amount of vitamin K in the infant and in the > mother so if I were a mother who had had a traumatic birth with lots of > head molding and bruising, I would be considering that - especially if > for some reason I could not breastfeed (very rare!) but otherwise, I > would be trusting to nature to do what it does best and what we have > evolved to do - and that involves fully breastfeeding to seed our > infant's gut with the bacteria necessary to make their own vitamin K by > the 8th day after birth. > > All the best, > Meryl > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 I have referred this question to some holistic pediatricians to get their input. I will get back to you about it. Randall Neustaedter OMD Classical Medicine Center 1779 Woodside Rd, 201C Redwood City, CA 94061 650 299-9170 www.cure-guide.com <http://www.cure-guide.com/> Free e-newsletter - Subscribe Author of Child Health Guide: Holistic Pediatrics for Parents, 2005 _____ From: Vaccinations [mailto:Vaccinations ] On Behalf Of mum2mishka Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:31 PM Vaccinations Subject: RE: Re: vitamin K Amen to that Meryl. Excellent post! Sue > > > Respectfully, I would like to tell you why I disagree with the > administration of Vitamin K to newborns on a mass basis without thought. > Personally, I don't believe that the average infant is born with a > deficiency of anything. We have developed over millions of years (my > apologies to anyone out there who is a creationist :-) but this is my > belief) to be born with our bodies perfect for survival in our world. > Vitamin K is a vitamin which promotes clotting of the blood. Isn't it > just possible that it is not either necessary or advisable to have > baby's blood clotting within the first week of life (8 days, really, > which is when a breastfed baby will have started to make their own > vitamin K)? This is a time when they are getting rid of the excess blood > from their mother's bloodstream (especially if the cord was clamped > prematurely), getting rid of excess bile and getting their livers > kick-started. Blood clotting interferes with all of this which is > perhaps why babies who are given the vitamin K - either as a shot or > orally - are much more likely to have severe jaundice. > > In addition, since the oral vitamin k is exactly the same as the > injected - just taken out of the syringe and given on the tongue - it is > still the same synthetic, preservative laden preparation. If the shot > can be associated with leukaemia - why not the oral version? > > There is a herbal vitamin K tincture from New Zealand which has been > shown to increase the amount of vitamin K in the infant and in the > mother so if I were a mother who had had a traumatic birth with lots of > head molding and bruising, I would be considering that - especially if > for some reason I could not breastfeed (very rare!) but otherwise, I > would be trusting to nature to do what it does best and what we have > evolved to do - and that involves fully breastfeeding to seed our > infant's gut with the bacteria necessary to make their own vitamin K by > the 8th day after birth. > > All the best, > Meryl > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Why don't we know? Although I've only looked online and then only briefly, but I couldn't find much information about what is transfered through breastmilk. My question arose when my MD suggested I take Pepsid acid controller (for stomach pains that I now believe are gallbladder attacks but MD suspected gastritis/ulcer). As my 3 month old (at the time) was ofcourse still nursing, I had concerns about what would pass through to her. THe MD said it would be ok, but I was reluctant and didn't take (instead tried digestive enzymes and chorlerra(sp)). The short of all that is my question of why isn't that information readlily available? Or is it and I just haven't looked in the right places? Thanks, Crystal > 2. Like many other nutrients, vitamin K may not get through the milk in > an adequate amount to prevent this problem from developing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 - > > This disease has been described for over a hundred years. And since it > occurs throughout the world, there is no reason to suspect it is isolated to > formula-fed babies. Formula milk has been around for much longer than that and unnatural birth has been around for longer than that too. It would be interesting to find out if the babies that were affected were artificically fed,and had not had a normal birth. Ingrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I second that. Ingrid > > Amen to that Meryl. Excellent post! > > Sue > > > > > > > Respectfully, I would like to tell you why I disagree with the > > administration of Vitamin K to newborns on a mass basis without thought. > > Personally, I don't believe that the average infant is born with a > > deficiency of anything. We have developed over millions of years (my > > apologies to anyone out there who is a creationist :-) but this is my > > belief) to be born with our bodies perfect for survival in our world. > > Vitamin K is a vitamin which promotes clotting of the blood. Isn't it > > just possible that it is not either necessary or advisable to have > > baby's blood clotting within the first week of life (8 days, really, > > which is when a breastfed baby will have started to make their own > > vitamin K)? This is a time when they are getting rid of the excess blood > > from their mother's bloodstream (especially if the cord was clamped > > prematurely), getting rid of excess bile and getting their livers > > kick-started. Blood clotting interferes with all of this which is > > perhaps why babies who are given the vitamin K - either as a shot or > > orally - are much more likely to have severe jaundice. > > > > In addition, since the oral vitamin k is exactly the same as the > > injected - just taken out of the syringe and given on the tongue - it is > > still the same synthetic, preservative laden preparation. If the shot > > can be associated with leukaemia - why not the oral version? > > > > There is a herbal vitamin K tincture from New Zealand which has been > > shown to increase the amount of vitamin K in the infant and in the > > mother so if I were a mother who had had a traumatic birth with lots of > > head molding and bruising, I would be considering that - especially if > > for some reason I could not breastfeed (very rare!) but otherwise, I > > would be trusting to nature to do what it does best and what we have > > evolved to do - and that involves fully breastfeeding to seed our > > infant's gut with the bacteria necessary to make their own vitamin K by > > the 8th day after birth. > > > > All the best, > > Meryl > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 > 1. It is hard to imagine how or why 1 or 2 mg of vitamin K could injure > an infant in any way. Even that amount can lead to allergies as the gut in a newborn is not mature enough and will let foreign material through into the bloodstream and cause allergies. This can even happen if mum eats something that baby is sensitive to if breastfeeding. Why take this risk when nature makes sure that during a normal birth the baby receives the bacteria necessary for vit k production and after birth, colostrum takes over to provide the baby with plenty vit k? > 2. Like many other nutrients, vitamin K may not get through the milk in > an adequate amount to prevent this problem from developing. ALL nutrients are absorbed nearly 100% in an exclusively breastfed baby, only artificially fed babies have this problem and are at risk of vit k problems and therefore may need the supplement, especially if born unnaturally. I would not have any reservations if all this criteria was met but to make vit k a blanket recommendations for all babies, is wrong, I feel. Ingrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 - > And here is the research. > <http://www.whale.to/a/rothville.html> > Thank you, Rolinda, this is an excellent article. Lot of great info there. I like the references to breastfeeding especially and am pasting them into this email for information. Ingrid BREASTFEEDING – WHY IS IT A RISK? Several authors have noted the higher incidence of HDN in solely breastfed babies.9, 30 The incidence has been quoted as 1 in 1200.30 Studies comparing breastmilk with formula and cow's milk have shown that breastmilk is lower in vitamin K.22, 28, 32 Breastmilk substitutes are heavily supplemented with vitamin K. However, it is possible that, like iron, vitamin K is biologically more available to the baby from breastmilk, and so such high levels are not necessary. Measured levels of vitamin K in breastmilk seemed to vary depending on the type of measurement used; however, they all come out lower than cow's milk. Fournier22 and Greer28 found levels of around 8-9m g/l, which would mean that if a baby was taking in about 500ml per day, it would be getting the recommended 3-5m g daily. Vitamin K content and availability are greater in the hind milk because of its higher fat content and vitamin K levels are also higher in colostrum.32 As an extra plus, breastmilk contains thromboplastin, one of the factors in blood clotting.18 Vitamin K levels in the breastmilk rise markedly in response to the mother eating vitamin K rich foods or taking vitamin K supplements.29, 54 Nishiguchi found no cases of low vitamin K levels in breastfed infants whose mothers had been given supplements, as opposed to infants who had only been given 1 or 2 doses of oral vitamin K.54 Unrestricted access to the breast in the early days after birth is important, due to the higher levels of vitamin K in colostrum. The importance of early feeding has been recognised since the 1940's. Babies who have been fed within their first 24 hours have significantly better coagulation times than babies not fed until after 24 hours.24 It is essential that, to receive the full complement of vitamin K in breastmilk, the baby completely finishes one breast before being offered the other. Any practice that involves restricting either the baby's time at the breast or the number of feeds will not allow the baby to receive optimum amounts of vitamin K and will also prolong the time it takes for the baby's intestine to be colonised by friendly, vitamin K manufacturing bacteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Hi Chrystal, this is a bit OT but you can check with a qualified breastfeeding counsellor what medication is ok to take while brf, they should have access to the info from a book called " Medication and mothers milk " . But I personally would steer clear too of any such drugs while brf, but there is a lot lees going into the breastmilk than people think, with most drugs but not all, so it is important to check first.And your docror should have done this. Ingrid > > Why don't we know? Although I've only looked online and then only > briefly, but I couldn't find much information about what is > transfered through breastmilk. My question arose when my MD > suggested I take Pepsid acid controller (for stomach pains that I > now believe are gallbladder attacks but MD suspected > gastritis/ulcer). As my 3 month old (at the time) was ofcourse > still nursing, I had concerns about what would pass through to her. > THe MD said it would be ok, but I was reluctant and didn't take > (instead tried digestive enzymes and chorlerra(sp)). > > The short of all that is my question of why isn't that information > readlily available? Or is it and I just haven't looked in the right > places? > Thanks, Crystal > --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Here is one response I received from an MD to these concerns of Meryl's Vitamin K is a vitamin which promotes clotting of the blood. Isn't it > just possible that it is not either necessary or advisable to have > baby's blood clotting within the first week of life (8 days, really, > which is when a breastfed baby will have started to make their own > vitamin K)? This is a time when they are getting rid of the excess blood > from their mother's bloodstream (especially if the cord was clamped > prematurely), getting rid of excess bile and getting their livers > kick-started. Blood clotting interferes with all of this which is > perhaps why babies who are given the vitamin K - either as a shot or > orally - are much more likely to have severe jaundice. You argue that " vitamin K is a vitamin which promotes clotting of the blood. " While this statement is partially true, a more accurate statement would be 'vitamin k is a vitamin which ALLOWS FOR clotting of the blood.' Within the blood there is a complex system of proteins that balances blood clotting (or coagulation) and the breaking apart of blood clots (or fibrinolysis). Vitamin K is necessary for the modification of clotting proteins to make them functional. (More specifically, it is necessary for the carboxylation of amino acid residues on clotting factors V, VII, IX and X and prothrombin of the coagulation cascade). Without these functional proteins, the platelets that work to prevent bleeding are not well stabilized by an overlying mesh of fibrin. Therefore with deficiencies of vitamin K, the body is more prone to bleeding (or becomes coagulopathic), whether in infants or adults. But now lets examine the reverse. Because vitamin K does not act itself to clot blood, but rather is a necessary cofactor in the production of functional clotting factors, increasing levels of vitamin K do not increase the risk of clotting. One can generally understand this by saying that vitamin k is a permissive factor rather than an inductive factor in blood clotting. In fact, excess vitamin k has never been associated with an increased tendency for clotting. You are very correct in saying that babies are likely to have physiologic jaundice for a number of reasons. They do have an increased amount of red cells when compared to adults, and an immature liver slow to process (or conjugate) bilirubin. However, the break down of red blood cells, processing of bilirubin and excretion of bile in the feces is a process relatively unrelated to the clotting of blood in the circulatory system. I am unaware of a connection between vitamin K administration and neonatal jaundice (although I would be very interested in any studies that show this). For more on the benefits of vitamin K prophylaxis, I would refer you to the Cochrane Database review of the subject at the following url. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=A bstractPlus & list_uids=11034761 & query_hl=2 & itool=pubmed_docsum> & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=AbstractPlus & list_uids=11034761 & query_hl=2 & itool=pubmed_d ocsum Randall Neustaedter OMD Classical Medicine Center 1779 Woodside Rd., 201C Redwood City, CA 94061 650 299-9170 www.Cure-Guide.com <http://www.cure-guide.com/> Author of Child Health Guide: Holistic Pediatrics for Parents, North Atlantic Books, 2005, and The Vaccine Guide, 2002 Subscribe to my free e-newsletter by using this <http://www.cure-guide.com/MySubscribe/mysubscribe.html?from=email> link. _____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 DO NOT use the injectable form of vitamin K for oral administration. In the US a good supplier for liquid vitamin K is Scientific Botanicals 206-527-5521. Any health care practitioner can order from them and homebirth suppliers also carry it (www.birthwithlove.com). > In addition, since the oral vitamin k is exactly the same as the > injected - just taken out of the syringe and given on the tongue - it is > still the same synthetic, preservative laden preparation. If the shot > can be associated with leukaemia - why not the oral version? > Randall Neustaedter OMD Classical Medicine Center 1779 Woodside Rd., 201C Redwood City, CA 94061 650 299-9170 www.Cure-Guide.com <http://www.cure-guide.com/> Author of Child Health Guide: Holistic Pediatrics for Parents, North Atlantic Books, 2005, and The Vaccine Guide, 2002 Subscribe to my free e-newsletter by using this <http://www.cure-guide.com/MySubscribe/mysubscribe.html?from=email> link. _____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I'm a bit confused with this response. I thought the comment below was addressing why leukemia is only associated with the injected form of vit K when the oral vit K contain the same ingredients......Anita Randall Neustaedter <randalln@...> wrote: DO NOT use the injectable form of vitamin K for oral administration. In the US a good supplier for liquid vitamin K is Scientific Botanicals 206-527-5521. Any health care practitioner can order from them and homebirth suppliers also carry it (www.birthwithlove.com). > In addition, since the oral vitamin k is exactly the same as the > injected - just taken out of the syringe and given on the tongue - it is > still the same synthetic, preservative laden preparation. If the shot > can be associated with leukaemia - why not the oral version? > --------------------------------- Have a burning question? Go to Answers and get answers from real people who know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 In a message dated 2/8/2007 at 7:54:34 PM Central Standard Time, randalln@... writes: 1. It is hard to imagine how or why 1 or 2 mg of vitamin K could injure an infant in any way. Sir, In general I agree with you.. except when your infant gets jaundice from this and an over zealous doctor wants to hospitalize your less than week old infant. He threatened me with calling Children's services on my infant and me. I asked him straight out what number the level had to be below and he finally told me. We went and did the test at his demand and thank God were under that level. This test was done after the poor child had screamed for over 45 minutes at the doctor's hands. I was not allowed to comfort at all. So.. due to over zealous doctors, I would not do Vitamin K again.. except for supplimentation by the mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.