General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFour babies hemorrhage after parents refuse vitamin K shot, a practice on the rise
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/health/four-babies-hemorrhage-after-parents-refuse-vitamin-k-shot-a/article_2f3f8317-6d00-5998-ad17-3e50cb21f254.htmlNot giving vitamin K at birth is an emerging trend that can have devastating outcomes for infants and their families, CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden stated in the report. Ensuring that every newborn receives a vitamin K injection at birth is critical to protect infants.
And further down in the article:
The article calls the injection a shotgun approach that lacked consideration of side effects. Mercola wrote that pain from the injection likely causes psycho-emotional damage and the solution contains preservatives that can be toxic for a baby.
That fucker Mercola (from NaturalNews.com) strikes again. The man is a menace to public health.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)He's no different than the 19th century patent-medicine man, hawking his fantastical theories as science.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Mercola needs to be sent a copy of this. www.mercola.com. I'll send one but it will be more effective is he receives a slew of these.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Real doctors and scientists are busy and can't dedicate hours to making sure that real science websites are more numerous then the woo sites. Mercola, Chopra, Weil, Oz and others have an army of followers posting woo shit all day long and the shear volume of nonsense on the web is massively in favor of the Snake Oil Salesmen.
Response to enlightenment (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)will believe anyone that pretends their "natural remedies" cure everything from insomnia to cancer. I'm surprised nobody has tried to sue this latest fucking charlatan.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)These are slick charlatans that prey on human frailties. in this case parents often want to do everything possible to do the 'best' things for their babies ... folk may lack the necessary education or may simply be duped by "slick' packaging and rhetoric.
I don't absolve the victims of all responsibility, but have compassion ... P.T Barnum may have said it best...
elleng
(131,107 posts)Turbineguy
(37,365 posts)Maybe the FDA should have him straight up for a nice lunch and a quiet word.
Retrograde
(10,156 posts)Which was a poorly-written, muddle-minded attempt to ban genetically modified foods from grocery shelves. One of the main reasons I voted against it.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Proposition 37 called for LABELING of GMO, not banning.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Dupont 5.5 million.
The pro side didn't come close to the propaganda funds funnelled to the anti side.
And there is not one word of banning mentioned in the prop.
The accusation that it did comes straight from Monsanto propaganda. Thus, you based your vote on a lie.
Prop 37 is a rather simply written prop. Remarkably simple. What muddled it (and reveals that few people actually read the text of propositions) is the anti 37 advertising blitz funded war chest by Monsanto, Dupont, PepsiCo, Kraft, and Dow. (You know - those humanitarians *snort*).
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)Now I know why! People fell for the propaganda from Monsanto, etc. rather than getting the facts. Just lazy thinking, I guess.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)You mean the fact that there's no scientific evidence to show any harm coming from the consumption of GMO food?
I have concerns with GMO's and genetic diversity, but that's a separate issue.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Period.
What's to dispute?
You don't think consumers have a right to know if a product is gm before purchase?
I don't care about what others think.... If it's my $ I want to know what's in it.
At one time or another there was no evidence lead paint was bad for people.
My $ my health my research my conclusions means my right to know and decide for myself.
Maybe we should stop labeling for nuts as an ingredient and see how that works out for people with allergies.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...has so far not shown to be harmful for consumption in any way. Sorry, but it's an apples to oranges comparison.
katsy
(4,246 posts)What was once thought safe turning out false is a common occurrence.
People need more info not less and they must draw their own conclusions.
Since when is it a progressive ideal to keep people from making their own informed decisions about their $ their bodies.
No. That is just wrong and leaves future policy making in control of a few what.... Fascists? Corrupt policy makers?
More info not less works best for all. I don't care about how convinced you are and I accept certain gm organisms. I totally don't want others in my life at all. Labeling is a peaceful coexistence. And no one has the right to deprive me of my right to refuse to injest something I find offensive.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Labeling may make it more convenient for people such as yourself who wish to avoid GM foods, but it's not like the information is being actively suppressed, either.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Period
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Otherwise I'm not interested. Period.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Is nonsense.
If you sell a product, consumers have a right to know it's contents.
For any number of health or social reasons.... Like liability if a crazy person in ur company decides to throw in melamine as milk or any scenario.
We regulate and label to protect the public.
What progressive or Democrat stands and says prove its harmful first. Do u see anything wrong with this argument at all?
I can foresee a crazy sociopathic GOP party gm food that may be harmful to the poor and minorities.
I want the food chain secure, well labeled for those who make choices with their $ to support organic or kosher or humane ratings. I want chickens that have a 4 or 5 humane rating. I found them and that's what I choose to buy. If I don't want gm corn... I want the ability to pass it over at my grocery. It is a basic human right to injest only what one doesn't find offensive.
Do u think the Kosher rating should be done away with? For what? Manufacturer's convenience. Forget that. Maybe we should do away with home inspections because we can't prove harm?
Kinda takes away of for and by the people big time. Buy this non-kosher food, tortured animal meat, piece of shit house from a for shit corporation and STFU. Are u saying I have no right to no? Because once that shit starts they carry it into all kinds of business. How about we let poisons in the water supply of certain communities we don't like because they can't PROVE its dangerous.... Oh wait is that scenario for real?
It's an ethical way of doing business.
How can anyone defend taking an economic choice away from the public.
I am fairly poor. But I go without shopping at Walmart. I never set foot in one and never will. I cannot PROVE them dangerous. All I am armed with to boycott is PUBLIC INFO about their practices and it's my decision to go without rather than AFFORD them. I'm a nightmare anti consumer who puts my $ in the pocket of whom benefits me.
Anything less than full control over being informed is kinda fascist. Pure evil.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)fascist and pure evil? Give me a break. I'm not saying they shouldn't label that there is corn or not corn in a product (something that's already done). I'm saying that why must they be forced to make a distinction between GMO corn and "organic" corn when there is effectively no difference between the two in terms of consumption and its effects?
This is a made up distraction of an issue, pure and simple. Now if you want to talk about the harms that GMO foods may have on genetic diversity, that's a conversation worth having, as it's at least grounded in reality.
Edit: An interesting article on the usefulness of labeling, and some unintended consequences.
http://www.biofortified.org/2009/01/to-label-or-not-to-label/
katsy
(4,246 posts)It was once ok to to use safe and cozy to use antibiotics to grow animals and the FDA wants labeling and a stop to the practice now. It seems it's rendering antibiotics ineffective for infections.
You think we need to prove harm when we think a simple right to know will make us more effectively control our own human right of making informed choices.
I don't know u or that Agra business that wants to gm anything.
I deserve the right to not buy your product until I can have the time to make my research and decision.
Your argument is for no sunshine unless harm is proven. You have no problem with this. I do.
That's just wrong. Contrary studies can be buried and otherwise manipulated.
No big business should be allowed to market products without proper labeling that immediately IDs the product as chemically or genetically modified.
I have no reason to trust Agra business. A label so vehemently fought against by them makes me distrust them at the get go. It's bad practice to take away the publics right to know what makes up their food.
Conversation over.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Last bit of reading material for ya, since the conversation is apparently over. http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/backers-of-gmo-labeling-unthinkingly-buy-conspiracy-based-arguments_2013-06-15.html
katsy
(4,246 posts)I was searching out no antibiotic used foodstuffs before it was vogue. My decisions based on nothing but what I want.
I want the power to make my own decisions
For most consumers that means accurate info and labeling.
Disclosure means consumer empowerment.
And for further disclosure: both my kids are vaccinated with every vaccine as required by schools and rec by pediatricians. Don't know mercola. Never bought into eggs are bad for u bs and too lazy to be conspiratorial 😂😂😂
I buy what's labeled accurately and don't give a shit about the herd. Go drink lye if you want. I want clearly marked labels for my family AND I want to know if kosher and humane rating. In exchange u get my money. Non kosher hasn't been proven unhealthy right? But they label it.
Do u think it's ok china toys and jewelry mkt to kids with high doses of heavy metals with no labeling?
Do consumers have a right to just SUSPECT certain things are unhealthy and steer clear? Why not?
My right to know what my food is trumps industry profits IMO
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...then your right is not being violated, even without active labeling directly on the product itself.
So much for "conversation over," eh?
katsy
(4,246 posts)I demand to know if my food is organic
I'm appalled that anyone would find that offensive
Labeling of foodstuffs should be factored into cost and passed on to a better informed consumer
So all labeling is the result of showing harm? I can't afford my own testing. So I have no right to know if my corn is gm? I have to trust profiteers?
What is this Somalia?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And Somalia? Really? You've gone so beyond the pale on this subject that I doubt rational discussion will ever be possible.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Stop insulting me just because I am demanding and get over the top with my exasperation.
It is not an insult to you. But u insult me.
I don't know what the long term affects of gm products will be & neither do you. There are unforeseen results possible.
I prefer not to buy gm corn specifically because of roundup and maybe rice. I want gmo labeled.
Organic should be nonGMO whether agribusiness complies is a leap of faith maybe
That's my understanding
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And i already have addressed your issues. That you ignored it is not my problem.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)it simply requires labeling.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)"That fucker Mercola (from NaturalNews.com) strikes again. The man is a menace to public health." .... I agree completely
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)"That fucker Mercola (from NaturalNews.com) strikes again. The man is a menace to public health."
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Also, "Dr." Joseph Mercola should be in jail for fraud.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)seems like once a week now - dead kid, no charges, no arrests.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I wish there was consistency in the law, hell it finally took a long time for some states to actually call neglecting a child's medical needs as actual neglect, regardless of excuse.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)ready to share their proverbial wisdom.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
At Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:39 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Yeah, the age of autism gang, etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4150164
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Personal attack without substance.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:44 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Age of autism? What does that even mean?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: You've got to be kidding me. Please take your alternative medicine freak show elsewhere.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)has to be directed at a specific "person."
"All the assholes who think X are idiots" is not a personal attack.
"You, John Doe, are an idiot asshole who thinks X" is.
I'm surprised this wasn't a six-zip "take a hike."
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)8. and the resident woo believers will be here in 3.. 2.. 1...
38. Yeah, the age of autism gang, etc.
ready to share their proverbial wisdom.
MADe my day to read such silly slander.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Now, the statements may be true, or they may be false, but that's not the point I was making.
No one was "personally" attacked in either of those statements. Unless a person has a membership card in a formal club that says "John Doe: Dues-Paying Resident Woo Believer" or has a sig line that reads "Proud Member of the Age of Autism Gang" those posts were just GENERIC disparagements directed towards groups that the author did not agree with--they are not "PERSONAL" insults.
A personal insult has to be directed at a person. If a poster calls another poster names, e.g. You are (fill in the insult), that's personal. The examples provided are just a general statement of disagreement --they aren't at all specific.
The jury "got it" and that's good. It should have been six-nix, though.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)
GOOGLE: proverbialwisdom mercola site:democraticunderground.com
Summary: I once participated on a thread on water fluoridation which mentioned Mercola, although I didn't, and I once linked to the sole distributor at the time of the film, THE GREATER GOOD, PERIOD. Yes, his store sold the DVD of THE GREATER GOOD before the film's website did and I linked to it. Here's info about the film, FYI.
Film Reviews
A new documentary about childhood immunizations, THE GREATER GOOD could intensify debate around the potential dangers of vaccines.
- The Wall Street Journal
Deftly examined provocative film is an effective eye opener
- LA Times
Whats being said is staggering, especially if you dont know too much about the science of, and politics behind, vaccines.
- LA Weekly
THE GREATER GOOD is a fascinating exploration of how vaccines are produced and regulated.
- Pegasus News
THE GREATER GOOD seeks to heat things up, but not to the boiling point.
- Dallas Film Festival
Experts in the Film
THE GREATER GOOD interviews leading authorities on vaccines and vaccine safety. Equal consideration is given to the doctors and scientists who advocate for universal vaccination, in addition to those who persistently ask probing questions about regulation and administration.
MORE AT LINK.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)to invoke and summon
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #104)
proverbialwisdom This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's what LINKS are for...just saying.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)The only stuff that isn't copyrighted, that we can be certain of, is government material--that belongs to "We the People."
I wouldn't assume that stuff isn't copyrighted.
Edit--scroll down to the bottom of the page....
Copyright © 2012 THE GREATER GOOD Movie
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)You do know that DU was embroiled in a NASTY copyright case for awhile there, don't you? It's not something to take lightly and it's why copyright admonishments are part and parcel of the TOS here. The DU site owners prevailed, because the supposed "copyright holders" were a bunch of copyright-troll grifters, who would try to "shake down" website owners by threatening them with expensive lawsuits, but I wouldn't be surprised if the entire ordeal caused the site owners a few sleepless nights, a few wrinkles, and maybe a couple of gray hairs before they emerged victorious.
It's why copyright admonitions are part of the TOS:
Don't willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights.
To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.
More detail is available at the link within that paragraph--they mean it.
In the event you are not aware of this case--and I suspect you are not--here are the specifics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven_LLC_v._Democratic_Underground_LLC
Righthaven LLC. v. Democratic Underground LLC. was a copyright infringement case which determined that a contract giving a party right to sue on behalf of a copyright holder does not give the party legal standing to file such lawsuits. Judge Roger L. Hunt ruled that Righthaven lacked standing to file a copyright infringement suit and ordered Righthaven to show cause within two weeks why it should not be sanctioned for failure to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party. This case is one of over 200 similar cases filed by Righthaven against media outlets using content from Stephens Media.
....On June 14, 2011, Judge Roger L. Hunt found that Stephens Media had not transferred any copyrights to Righthaven, but merely a "right to sue," which is not a transferrable right under copyright law.[5] Since Righthaven did not own the copyright for which it was filing the lawsuit, Hunt dismissed the case for lack of standing. In addition, since Righthaven had failed to identify Stephens Media as an financially interested party, Hunt ordered Righthaven to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for "flagrant misrepresentation to the Court."
On July 15, 2011, Righthaven was ruled to have misrepresented to the court its relationship with Stephens Media and Stephens Media's financial interest in the lawsuit and sanctioned $5,000.[6] Righthaven was further ordered to file the transcript of the ruling in all the hundreds of other copyright cases it had brought forth against other parties in Nevada.
After requesting and receiving a stay of the monetary sanction, Righthaven sought another extension which the court did not grant.[7]
dionysus
(26,467 posts)mainer
(12,029 posts)Because they trust the internet more than they trust doctors and hospitals.
I have a friend in the UK whose daughter was permanently damaged by a brain hemorrhage -- back before NHS required Vit K shots in all infants.
Do these "natural" parents also accept the "natural" high infant mortality of the old days?
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)The things I have witnessed as an L&D nurse would make most of you fall out of your chairs. Just last week we had a patient who flat out stated she would accept the death of her baby over allowing the doctor to perform a c-section. Not even kidding. It happens all the time, every day. Patients tell me more and more, "I read on the internet...." and I just cringe.
mainer
(12,029 posts)She is an unfit mother. The kid should be taken away!
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)that you're not a "real woman" if you've had a c-section (or so I've been told...)
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)C-sections and use of pain medications during labor are very emotionally weighted for many women due to pressure from other women. Fortunately for me, I had 8 years of L&D under my belt before I had my own kids, so I didn't give a rat's ass what anyone else thought. LOL. Healthy me, healthy baby, that's all I wanted. My c-sections were fabulous.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)For most of my recent pregnancy (6 months ago) my twins were Baby A breech, Baby B vertex. So we scheduled a c-section. 4 days before the c-section, Baby A turned vertex (so both vertex) and my OB offered to induce and go for a vaginal birth since I'd given birth vaginally 3 times before. I thought about it, but we had invested so much in the pregnancy to get the boys to almost 38 weeks (they were born at 37w 5d) that I wasn't about to jeopardize Baby B just to try a vaginal birth.
So I went ahead with the scheduled c-section and it was my best birth experience EVER! I really don't know why I suffered through hours and hours of labor with my first three when you could just have them out in 2 minutes
Luckily, my recovery was equally fast and amazing...but I'm not sure it would have been had I tried to labor for hours and had an emergency c-section for Baby B after giving birth to Baby A. Considering that both of them were over 8 lbs, it would have been hard to turn Baby B if he decided to flip back again.
There IS a lot of pressure in the Mommy wars to give birth "naturally" and then breast feed for a year and yadda yadda yadda... but we have to learn to resist that pressure and make our own decisions just like we did in high school!
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)I bow to your spectacular baby growing abilities. Your body must cook one helluva placenta. LOL. I'm glad you had a good experience.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)Growth ultrasound a week before showed them at 6 lbs each...I was on bed rest for 5 weeks and was pretty miserable by the time they were born. That may have contributed to the good experience...the c-section was a relief. Being almost 6 feet tall helped, but didn't make it "easy"
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)whose parents refuse the injections. There can be problems with compliance, since the IM version is done in a single injection at birth, and the oral form requires three doses over a period of time. Also, at lower doses, the oral might not be as effective.
But the bottom line is that if a parent is that concerned, s/he should be talking to his or her doctor, not ordering anything over the internet.
http://newborns.stanford.edu/VitaminK.html#risks
If parents refuse IM vitamin K:
2 4mg PO vitamin K after first feeding then 2mg at 2 4 weeks and again at 6 8 weeks OR
2 4mg PO vitamin K after first feeding then 2mg within first week and weekly while breastfeeding OR
2mg PO vitamin K after first feeding then 2mg within first week followed by 25mcg daily for 13 weeks
(See notes below about oral regimens)
**************
there is no licensed PO form in US, but parental form can be given orally
in countries that have gone to PO prophylaxis, failures (even with good compliance) have been reported . Failures have not been reported with IM prophylaxis.
since multiple doses are required, compliance is an issue
advise parents regarding the increased risk of VKDB (exact numbers are unknown)
maternal dietary changes have little effect on overall vitamin K status of newborn
maternal vitamin K supplements of 5mg/day (800% RDA) has been shown in one study to raise infant serum levels to near formula-fed levels, but there is no FDA approved MVI that contains this amount of vitamin K
mainer
(12,029 posts)and parents don't always comply.
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)but I am only a volunteer so I only work one weekend a month, sometimes 2.
and we are in a pretty country area.
that is very scary.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)We've gotten rid of most links to his woo web site on DU. And yet, he still spreads his deliberate ignorance and nonsense to visitors to his fact-free website.
He has supporters on DU, as well.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Mercola belongs in prison. How many people have died or gotten hurt after following his nonsense?
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)People are dying, and will continue to die because of this asshat.
Those poor babies.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Why isn't Mercola in jail?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Why on earth do babies need a Vitamin K injection at birth in the first place???
Nature probably didn't design us this way. So what are mothers doing wrong or what's wrong with our food supply that this is even necessary?
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)"Babies have very little vitamin K in their bodies at birth. Vitamin K does not cross the placenta to the developing baby, and the gut does not have any bacteria to make vitamin K before birth. After birth, there is little vitamin K in breast milk and breastfed babies can be low in vitamin K for several weeks until the normal gut bacteria start making it. Infant formula has added vitamin K, but even formula-fed babies have very low levels of vitamin K for several days."
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Vitamin_K_and_newborn_babies
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's no particular reason we have to stick with that.
mainer
(12,029 posts)http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm
And these parents want to go back to those good old "natural" days when the infant mortality rate was 10x what it is today.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)There's a neonatal unit here in our city that has a new policy of not clamping preemies' cords for, I think 30 or 60 seconds and found that it led to a lot less brain bleeds and other preemie complications (this was a local news story a few weeks ago) and that the preemies who had the cord clamping delayed did far better and needed far less blood transfusions than 'early clamping' preemies. This goes with some theories about cord clamping in full term babies I read about (it's been awhile though...)
I was lucky enough to have nice doctors that did delayed clamping at my request with my 2nd and 3rd babies. I still got the vitamin K shots for my kids (even the ones who had delayed cord clamping).
With regards to your point about food supply there's also a theory about mothers not eating enough leafy greens and being vit K deficient themselves and not passing it on in breast milk, but I don't know if any of these theories have studies behind them.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I talked to my health care provider about this kind of thing and didn't assume "natural" was by definition better. I asked her about delaying cord clamping and she agreed that it was a good idea and said that at some point she imagines it'll become standard practice.
Anyway, I'm into the delaying cord clamping.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)How is anything in nature designed?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)infants dying without medical intervention jive with that?
THAT'S my question.
Instead of providing a helpful explanation as others did, you apparently chose to insinuate that I am some sort of biblical literalist and creationist whackjob, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
But coming from you, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Type one diabetes, childhood leukemia, truly crappy hearts, 2 or 3 hundred genetic disorders many doctors prescreen for, and about a million other things that could go wrong.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)For instance, my daughter is almost 18. Nineteen years ago, there was no prenatal genetic screening. Six months ago my wife and I both got screened before she conceived for ~200 different genetic disorders. Science is truly amazing.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I can just imagine what would come up on mine. Yes, science is truly amazing.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I'd prefer being unnatural in this case.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)doc03
(35,364 posts)easily. I have had two blood clots in my leg and have a Greenfield filter to catch the clots before they travel to the
lungs or brain. I am supposed to avoid vegetables like broccoli and brussels sprouts that are high in vitamin K which
helps blood to clot. What if the infant was born with that disorder and they gave him a vitamin K shot?
Sinistrous
(4,249 posts)From the cited article:
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report last month about four babies in Nashville, Tenn., who hemorrhaged after their parents refused vitamin K injections at birth. The babies were diagnosed with life-threatening vitamin K deficiency bleeding between February and September. Three had bleeding in the brain, and one had gastrointestinal bleeding. They survived, but the infants with brain hemorrhages could have long-term neurological problems."
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's far more infants that will suffer harm from not enough vitamin K than infants born with a Factor 5 problem...if there was no prenatal testing for genetic disorders and both parents are orphans with no family history.
Since neither of those is usually true, you can usually figure out before birth if a Factor 5 problem may be present and adjust accordingly.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Up to 8 percent of infants of white European descent have at least one copy of Factor 5 Leiden (which increases the risk of blood clots), and there are other disorders that cause too much clotting, too. But they do have testing for Factor 5 now, thank goodness.
(We have it in our family, too.)
What percent of babies are at risk of hemorrhage if they don't have Vitamin K?
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/factor-v-leiden-thrombophilia
On edit:
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/health/four-babies-hemorrhage-after-parents-refuse-vitamin-k-shot-a/article_2f3f8317-6d00-5998-ad17-3e50cb21f254.html
Without the vitamin K injection, incidence of the early form of the bleeding disorder (up to 2 weeks of age) is 0.25 to 1.7 percent of all births. Incidence of the late form, which tends to be internal bleeding that can go unnoticed, is four to seven out of every 100,000 births.
mainer
(12,029 posts)Without Vit K, they were seeing DEATHS from infant hemorrhagic bleeds at rates of 130/100,000.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pitt.edu%2F~super7%2F14011-15001%2F14211.ppt&ei=UwelUsX1EsS3kQfDgIGYDA&usg=AFQjCNEr1D8iUddxvKeZkuq_-a0pPNuFTw&bvm=bv.57752919,d.eW0
In Vietnam, incidence is reported as over 100 cases per 100,000, and is a particular problem in breastfed infants.
http://archives.who.int/eml/expcom/expcom16/COMMENTS/VitK.pdf
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)mainer
(12,029 posts)I didn't know that.
mainer
(12,029 posts)Maybe you could enlighten us.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)The question is what the risk would be to newborns with Factor 5 Leiden -- a mutation that comes with a risk of clotting -- from a Vitamin K injection to promote clotting. And I haven't seen that statistic, have you?
mainer
(12,029 posts)Vitamin K would affect primarily the prothrombin time. (Which can be counteracted by warfarin.)
Factor V, I believe, is reflected in both the partial thromboplastin time and also the prothrombin time.) (The effect is counteracted by a combination of heparin and warfarin.)
Which means that Vitamin K might not actually affect an infant with Factor V Leiden.
Are there any hematologists here who can clarify this?
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)(And Heparin) So it seems that they would be connected.
mainer
(12,029 posts)"Factor V is synthesized by the liver and is not a VK-dependent factor."
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/126354-differential
Which implies that Vitamin K may not affect the synthesis of Factor V. All the pharmaceutical information I can find does not list Factor V Leiden as a contraindication to administration of Vitamin K, and the most serious complication cited is anaphylaxis.
mainer
(12,029 posts)neonatal hemorrhages are without vitamin K, because it's just a subset of the far larger group who hemorrhage but don't die.
I can't seem to find any data on newborn deaths with Factor V, or any death rates from Vitamin K injections.
doc03
(35,364 posts)why is it that I never had a problem with the blood clots until I was 58 years old? Now I am told I have to take Warfarin indefinitely because of Factor V.
mainer
(12,029 posts)And may be exacerbated by certain things like pregnancy or prolonged bed rest or air travel.
I'm just re-familiarizing myself with the coagulation cascade, after many decades of not thinking about it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So you probably learned about "dominant" and "recessive" genes. Like all things we learn in high school, reality is a little more complicated.
The "problem" Factor V gene is what's called "co-dominant". That means both the "normal" and the "problem" version of the genes are expressed. So if you have one copy of each version, you are going to have 1/2 "normal" Factor V and 1/2 "problem" Factor V.
As a result, you might have had not enough of the "problem" protein to cause symptoms until you got older, when aging makes blood clots more likely.
blue neen
(12,328 posts)like Lovenox, etc. I wonder if the doctors give their newborns the Vitamin K. It's kind of complicated, isn't it?
Personally, I think that there is a high enough incidence of Factor V that there should be required screening at birth.
Another fairly common blood clotting gene is the MTHFR gene.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)and the next day had a miscarriage with a great deal of bleeding. It's not supposed to do that, but it happened with her . . .
I'm not sure they're a great solution.
blue neen
(12,328 posts)There is a lot more research being done on these genetic blood clotting disorders. In people of Swedish descent the percentage actually goes as high as 15%.
I hope that the doctors are able to find the right solution for your daughter.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Lars39
(26,116 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Factor 5 is a genetic disease, and the "disease" version of the gene is dominant. Thus one of the parents has to have it in order for the baby to have it. It's not like hemophilia where a parent can be an asymptomatic carrier.
Even if it isn't diagnosed in the parents, being dominant means it would show signs in the family history. If the OB is doing their job, they should be asking the parents about family tree, and be very interested if there's parts of the tree that experienced blood clots.
And even if that isn't enough, genetic testing can easily find it.
So the probability isn't the incidence rate of the disease. It's the probability of an undetected instance of the disease. Which is much more remote than the incidence rate of the disease.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)But back then we couldn't have answered correctly, anyway, because my daughter hadn't had her diagnosis yet (maybe they hadn't invented the test yet).
And most people with Factor 5 Leiden still aren't diagnosed, even today.
It's not always obvious in the family history, because you can have one copy or even two copies and never get a blood clot. It increases your risk of clots but it doesn't guarantee them. And some people in a family's history will have died of a heart attack that no one even now connects to Factor 5 Leiden.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So it's extremely likely that some aunt or uncle or grandparent or great-aunt/uncle or (and so on) would have a blood clot.
Don't know how far back we're talking with your son, but they only figured out the problem in 1994. So they may not have known to ask.
But much more relevant, elsewhere in the thread is a post that mentions the Factor V problem is not related to vitamin K levels. So the shot shouldn't matter. I'm guessing they suggest limiting vitamin K to reduce overall clotting as opposed to vitamin K having a direct effect.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)are caused by clots. Most people have deaths by heart attacks in their family, but that doesn't mean they're aware of Factor 5 Leiden as a predisposing factor.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The OB should be taking a family history. Lots of non-smokers dying from heart attacks and/or strokes would raise red flags.
But again, it appears that vitamin K levels affect a different part of clotting than Factor 5, so the shot would not exacerbate Factor 5 problems.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)a definitive answer, especially in light of this.
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/98/9/2875.1.full
The prevalence of factor V Leiden (FVL) in people of northern and central European descent suggests that FVL bestowed a survival advantage on those populations. In the study by Corral et al, the presence of FVL reduced the risk of spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage by 5-fold.1 Specifically, FVL protected against hemorrhagic transformation of ischemic events associated with artherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease in subjects with a mean age of 66.4 years. Although this finding is of interest, it seems unlikely that this advantage led to the persistence of FVL in European populations. There is no apparent survival advantage, biologically speaking, to protecting elders from hemorrhagic stroke. It is more plausible that this allele protected those of childbearing potential.
Today, acquired hemorrhagic disease is uncommon in young people. However, it is likely that hemorrhagic disease of the newborn (HDN) was prevalent thousands of years ago, contributing significantly to neonatal mortality. HDN is caused by vitamin K deficiency, a common condition in neonates even today,2 and can result in life-threatening intracranial hemorrhage. Therefore, one could hypothesize that FVL is prevalent in certain populations because it lessens the severity of HDN. It is possible that clinically significant vitamin K deficiency was more common thousands of years ago because food sources rich in vitamin K were not available year-round and breast-feeding, which is a significant risk factor for HDN, was more common.
The hemostatic system of the neonate is such that the presence of FVL could result in enhanced thrombin generation because of the limited capacity of both the antithrombin and the protein C pathways. Significant vitamin K deficiency could further enhance this effect. In the neonate, levels of procoagulant and anticoagulant vitamin Kdependent proteins are low.3 In the healthy neonate, a balance is maintained, making bleeding and thrombotic complications uncommon. With worsening vitamin K deficiency, this balance is lost in favor of bleeding. The presence of factor V Leiden could prevent the loss of this fine balance by attenuating the protein C pathway.
The study by Corral et al is important in that it lends evidence to the notion that there is benefit to having factor V Leiden. However, for a polymorphism associated with disease to persist in a population, the net effect must favor survival of those most likely to procreate. Nonetheless, the hypothesis that FVL protects against fatal intracranial hemorrhage in neonates with HDN would be difficult to prove; therefore, the elder population with cerebrovascular disease will have to suffice as an acceptable experimental model.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The excerpt theorizes that Factor 5 was "ramped up" to deal with vitamin K deficiency. That doesn't mean having the shot would cause clotting - the two compounds work in different steps in clotting.
Essentially, they theorize that A lead to B. That doesn't mean B leads to A.
Additionally, these authors are just theorizing about why the Factor 5 Leiden evolved. There's no real causality here, there's an educated guess about causality. The fact that the Leiden allele is relatively rare is a problem for their theory. It either has to be relatively new, so that it has not had time to come to dominance, or it is not terribly beneficial. If it was as beneficial as their theory states, it would be far more common - for example, the sickle-cell genes are far more common than Factor 5 Leiden, and that has a very negative double-recessive condition.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)percent of predisposed-clotters at about 15%.
On edit: I don't know where you got the idea that Sickle Cell is much more common. Even among African Americans, it is only about 1 in 400. Up to 8% of white Europeans have at least one copy of Factor 5, and that one copy can increase their risk of a clot by 3 to 10 times baseline.
http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/how-common-sickle-cell-anemia
jeff47
(26,549 posts)To have the sickle-cell disease, you have to have both recessive genes. To gain the benefit from sickle-cell genes, you only have to have one copy.
1-in-400 is the number of people who are double-recessive and have the disease. The number of people who are heterozygous is much higher - about 8%.
Heterozygous for sickle-cell only provides resistance to Malaria, and has a very bad double-recessive disease. These authors propose Factor 5 Leiden provides a large reduction to infant mortality with a negative that only occurs after childbearing. If Factor 5 Leiden provided the proposed benefit with the evolutionarily-irrelevant cost, the evolutionary pressure for it would be enormous, resulting it it being far more common.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)mainer
(12,029 posts)So Factor V Leiden may behave differently in neonates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3021393/
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Another snake oil seller?
mainer
(12,029 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 08:02 PM - Edit history (3)
I found an Israeli study that looked at hemorrhagic deaths of newborns, and how Vit K has changed that.
Prior to Vit K administration being required: 131 deaths/ 100,000 live births (1977)
The year it was first required: 31 deaths per 100,000 live births. (1984)
And in 1988, when Vit K administration was universal, it declined to 3 deaths per 100,000
The administration of Vitamin K resulted in a 97% drop in the death rate! And this does not even take into account the number of babies who survived but were permanently handicapped by brain hemorrhages.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Thanks for posting. Alternative medicine woo woos are endangering public health.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)comes up first on Google. Those of us with chronic diseases are always looking for new info, and his stuff forces the good stuff (i.e. properly tested and reported in a legitimate journal!) to the second page!
The other thing about his woo that I hate is that it anyone who suggests something new to look into gets categorized with him!
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)In a given month I see family members posing crap from such places.
Mercola links 12
NIH links 0
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)People, people this is not going to kill your kids, or do long term damage. On the other hand, NOT giving the shot IS.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)a single dose vial instead?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Or like in this case, be disabled for real for the rest of their lives?
But please, do proceed on this one.
Carl Sagan comes to mind here...
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If weve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. Were no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. Its simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that weve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)After determining through blood tests that they don't have Factor 5 or other clotting disorders. (Which are not that rare, unfortunately. One of my children has it and I was surprised to find out how common it was.)
But if they can give infant vaccines in single dose vials, and my B-12 in single dose vials, I don't know why they can't do that with Vitamin K.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)hospitals do not use single dose Insulin either, or for that matter plenty of narcotics.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)With your logic, you would say there is no harm in any preservative in any vaccine or injection, and yet many of them are available in single-dose form.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)They are not at the hospital for reasons such as storage, tracking and all that happy horse.
You are not using a few of these things in a hospital setting. It is like gauze. You can buy them in individual packages for home use, where you do not use many of them, or often. You know how much of that shit a hospital goes through in a day? Hence, buying in bulk makes lots of sense.
If parents are too stupid to refuse these things for their kids, the rest of us pay for their stupidity. PERIOD. In this case, we will have to take care, as a society, of a kid with what should have been a very preventable brain lesion. Oh and the kid gets to live with it, when he\she should not.
The same goes with vaccines. We should not be dealing with Whooping Cough, we are. What is next? Due to the stupidity and willful ignorance of parents, as well as hucksters, what is next? A Polio outbreak? I have very little patience for this level of rank stupidity.
Again, Carl Sagan is quite right on this.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Single doses are common in hospitals... the only reason peoplr use multi dose vials is cost. Tracking is the same for vaccines. .
it should be mandatory that single dose the available upon request for all vaccines and medications
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)where I've ever worked used only single dose vials. I have never seen a multi dose vial for either of those things in 16 years and 3 hospitals.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And that was the reason given.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)What health system was this, Canadian? I'll have to ask my Canadian coworkers about that next week. That, and to please bring home some Tim Horton's coffee grounds from their holiday visits. LOL.
Anyway, yes, in 16 years of L&D, newborn nursery, mother baby, and special care nursery nursing at 3 different hospitals, I have never used anything but single dose. Nursing school we never used anything but single dose either.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)wonders never cease. Never, ever, in this place.
Yes, I worked EMS in ANOTHER NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM. Imagine this, it is one where the Red Cross, yes the Red Cross, still runs ambulances, like it's American counterpart used to do (in some rural places) all the way to the fifties, but mostly stopped in the 20s.
Part of my Paramedic Training was at a HOSPITAL Labor and Delivery unit, yup, where under the watchful eye of Nursing and Medical Staff we did quite a bit of shit.
Just imagine that.
Oh wait, my local paramedics also train as part of their rotations in hospitals in the AMERICAN medical system. Gee, wonders never ever, ever, cease in this place.
Why I seldom post anymore. The web and DU in particular are especially toxic.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)No idea why you're flying off the handle, but whatever. *shrug* I train paramedics on my unit too, so yeah, I am aware of that happening.
Okee doke. So in Mexico they use multi-dose vials. I'm just gonna go over here or something....lol........
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)was that it was a different NATIONAL SYSTEM. It was YOU going over the edge, not me, my dear.
By the way, we are very much done. Since you know all that goes on in not one, but apparently three national medical systems.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you got quite the imagination there.
At this point this is entertaining. Please proceed.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is what is so damn funny. Sometimes you cannot pay enough for the comedy. Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)Also, parents who are refusing vitamin K are usually going to refuse blood tests, in my experience. Parents who refuse vitamin K usually refuse, well, everything. *shrug*
I've said it before, I'll say it again....go to mothering.com and read a while. It will give you a whole other perspective on birth and where a lot of these parents get their information.
If you have known clotting disorders in yourself or your family, I can understand hesitating. Otherwise, I really can't. JMO.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)After two cases of DVT. That's probably how most people find out, unfortunately. But it's not uncommon. When we discovered this in our family I read somewhere that 15% of people have a genetic mutation that can cause too much clotting. Factor 5 Leiden is just the most common of them.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)Most learn about it from either blood clots or repeated miscarriages. I dunno what to tell you, I'm just telling you what the doctors (and hospital billing) would say about a blood test. They would first balk at the cost involved, then of course waiting for results, blah blah blah. I can hear the reasoning on both sides of the argument, yours and theirs.
Healthcare is.........interesting...........to work in.
mainer
(12,029 posts)It is not considered cost effective.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)to get more information about their genes, without having to pay huge amounts for patented tests.
My doctor recommended I have a certain test for a type of cancer that can run in families, and it costs $5K. So of course my insurer turned it down.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)undiagnosed/unknown clotting diseases. It's one of the few ways that women and babies still die in childbirth today.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)I'd called my doctor over the weekend to talk about the pain I was having where my thigh joins my abdomen, and he asked the usual questions (no redness, no swelling, no streak). I saw him on Monday and he still thought I was having just ordinary pregnancy discomfort. I called on Tuesday and they didn't think they needed to see me again. I went back on Thursday and my doctor's partner -- who had seen one case of DVT in a pregnant woman in med school -- convinced him to send me into the hospital for testing. Even though there still wasn't any obvious swelling.
But the tech in the hospital diagnosed me almost the second I got on the table -- even before she did the ultrasound -- which was unnerving! Of course she had seen many more of these over her career than any young family practitioner.
All of a sudden, after my symptoms being a "discomfort" for 5 days, I was a major emergency. For two days, while they waited for the Heparin to take effect, I wasn't supposed to even move myself in the bed. And then later I read about DVT and saw the unforgettable words "can occur without symptoms and cause instant death." It took me a while before I got up the nerve to get pregnant again, that's for sure.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)I'm very sorry that happened to you, and very glad you survived it. I do think what happened to you has more to do with your doctor not listening to your concerns and dismissing you, but again, that is also something about which I could wax poetic for hours. Good for you for advocating for yourself and not backing down. It saved your life and your baby's life.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)You have to be willing to advocate for yourself and your child. Doctors know more than I do about medicine in general, but no one knows our family like I do.
And I have had to educate some specialists in conditions that are outside their normal purview (like Celiac disease, for instance -- I had a cancer doc tell me it didn't matter if I got exposed to just a little gluten). But I don't blame them for that. No one can be a specialist in everything. But I can be the "specialist" in my own family's health issues.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)doc03
(35,364 posts)filter. Do you know why I never had any problems with this Factor V until I was 58 years old?
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)or if there's some other reason -- taking more long flights, drinking less water, etc.
doc03
(35,364 posts)I have heard that sometimes that can be a side effect of radiation.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Even if factor 5 leiden ran in my family, I'd still consider giving my kid the vitamin k. It's effects are not instantaneous (you need FFP for that) and can be reversed if absolutely necessary. Appropriate blood testing can be initiated before it is fully effective.
longship
(40,416 posts)That Sagan quote nails the issue.
Nicely played, my friend.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)thimerosal was removed from all infant injections some years ago, despite the fact that there has never been any evidence to suggest a link between thimerosal and developmental disorders. Vitamin K is not a vaccine and has never contained thimerosal. The preservative in injectable vitamin K is an 0.9% solution of benzyl alcohol. http://www.scribd.com/doc/33874512/Merck-Vitamin-K-Package-Insert-Aquamephyton-PI
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I really want to do this many a times when I read things like this.
repeteadly indeed.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)it is more likely the disruption of the gut biome that is an issue. Autism is increasingly linked to gut disorders, and one of the concerns mentioned in the article had to do with disruption of the gut bacteria.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)...as all of the autism bs.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)And far from being disproven, the specific autism concern mentioned in the article (gut-autism connection) is cutting edge medicine.
Just a few:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24188502
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24130822
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21524713
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12173102
Now - whether or not vitamin K has an impact on the gut flora, I don't know. But to the extent it does, that concern is in line with the current leading minds on autism.
It would be nice if people didn't just see autism and knee jerk to calling it BS, without bothering to take the time to read the specific issue being raised and doing a little research. Just because autism is mentioned doesn't mean whatever is being said is BS.
Nine
(1,741 posts)I think it's the sign of a broken health care system that patients are placing less and less trust in their doctors. When I was younger - before I became a mother, before my parents had any real health issues, before I myself had much dealings in healthcare and hospitals - I really had a lot of blind faith in medical authority. No more. I've dealt with too much incompetence and learned too much about how the profit motive permeates healthcare at all levels. I don't just blindly accept things anymore; I do a lot of research myself - yes, on the big, bad Internet. I think this makes me a better consumer of healthcare, not a worse one.
Archae
(46,345 posts)Not just the Internet, television and radio, also.
Woo advocates frequent TV shows, news programs, and such.
Also just look at the ads for pharmaceuticals.
"Ask your doctor..."
What if you don't have clinical depression? Or a limp dick?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)For Nursing school now the there are chapters on CAM. The sections on Homeopathy try not to condone it, but they still try to act as if it's a belief and don't point out the nonsense behind it.
I kid you not. Homeopathy is now in Nursing books.
Local Chiro College near us has a cadaver lab and suckers local Nursing schools into invites by using that as a carrot; and then makes the students sit through presentations on chiro, accupuncture, and other bits of Woo.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Warpy
(111,339 posts)Sure, refuse those shots, then spend your life caring for a brain damaged kid who would have had a normal life if you didn't rely on QUACKS.
The only reason I ever hope there's a hell is for these quacks.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)where Freud was limited to well defined fiction.
Lithos
(26,404 posts)....
Celebration
(15,812 posts)that he says supplemental vitamin K can be absolutely necessary, but that oral dosing of Vitamin K may be the way to go, and that parents need to be informed that this is an option.
NickB79
(19,258 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Not for a newborn. How are you going to give it to them?
Aristus
(66,462 posts)THIS ISN'T MEDICINE, PEOPLE! THESE ARE NOT SCIENTISTS!
Please don't think that all we medical providers are like this...
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Some posters wonder why there are some of us who are so anti-woo and anti-CT.
It's because of bullshit like this.
It's not the "scientific materialists" who are doing dumbass shit like this. It the chemtrail believers and their ilk who need to have their nutbar idiocy relegated to the dustbin of history.
Sid
gollygee
(22,336 posts)both times. People asking if I was going to have this intervention or that after the birth, and often surprised that I would be OK with it. There is a thought that the more natural things are, the better, but in nature a lot of babies die.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)my bullshit detector starts to fire.
mainer
(12,029 posts)A friend of ours in the UK had a baby decades ago, when Vitamin K wasn't mandated. The neonate had a cerebral hemorrhage and suffered permanent brain damage that resulted in institutionalization. A life ruined, because he didn't receive a simple injection.
Soon thereafter, the UK required Vitamin K shots for all neonates.
This change was not "big pharma's" influence; it was based on sound science and a UK National Health Service who saw how many babies were suffering catastrophic damage.
I have yet to read a credible case of a neonate who suffered irreversible damage from a Vitamin K shot.
I personally know of an infant whose life was ruined because he DID NOT get the shot.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The hospital did a test at birth for PKU and found nothing wrong. The first shots were at three months, with thyroid tests, which showed a problem.
Vitamin K was never mentioned. But that was nearly thirty years ago.
Parents allowing a child's brain to bleed is criminal neglect...
mainer
(12,029 posts)It's so routine, and with all the other screening tests done on newborns, you may not have realized it was part of that long list of procedures you signed your consent to.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)remind them of this. Woo is OK because it never hurts anyone right?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Something really needs to be done about him, and his moronic supporters.
sakabatou
(42,174 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)and don't have to deal with "modern medicine". I feel sorry for my poor daughter who is pg and has to deal with all this, but it's her life, her child, and her decision to make. I will stay out of all this medicine stuff in today's world, thank you, very much.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)What exactly are you even implying? That modern medicine is somehow a bad thing and you're glad you don't have to deal with it?
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)that is it. I see all the procedures, etc, that my daughter has to go through purely as "wellness" testing. It has made her a nervous wreck and she is so afraid that something is going to go wrong.
mainer
(12,029 posts)so it's good to be aware of the risks and plan accordingly. Deaths are rare, but Americans are less and less accepting of risks, and they freak out when there's a bad outcome. They demand risk-free pregnancies.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)She may not be reacting well to it, but it could help them ID a problem early that could have a seriously negative impact on her or her baby in time enough to do something about it and possibly save both their lives. You're implying that people were somehow better off living in ignorance, and dealing with the consequence of that ignorance. Sorry, but I have to disagree.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)That says to me she has good insurance and they want to bilk her insurance. She was even told by her doctor that "normally, we only do a sonogram at 16 weeks". Read between the lines of that. She has NYC GOVERNMENT insurance.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Ours was, and we got ultrasounds every two weeks, then every week near the end. We found comfort in seeing our baby that much and knowing how she was doing.
In her 20s with no history of any conditions other than an allergy to beef.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)generations, are much less likely to either be disabled or die from carrying the pregnancy to term. The same applies for the baby too, who has a much lower mortality rate.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)My doctor had the entire OB hosptial staff there to "show them how to delivery a breech". Yes, there were hospital staff there in case an EMERGENCY C-Section was needed, but it WASN'T. Even 34 years ago they wanted routine C-Sections done. Today? Forget it.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)get the red out
(13,468 posts)I generally quit reading when I see his name and I am into some natural supplements and such. He just screams scheming quack to me.
Response to NickB79 (Original post)
Jesus Malverde This message was self-deleted by its author.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)But couldn't encouraging mothers to eat leafy green vegetables (particularly cabbage, it is full of vitamin K) help?
Besides that, though, who is trusting a freaking weirdo on the internet instead of the hospital ob/gyn that is delivering their baby?
LisaL
(44,974 posts)So mother having a lot of vitamin K doesn't mean it will pass to the baby.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)These lunatics that push their own products like Mercola convince people that modern medicine isn't as effective as their quack products, and should be ashamed of themselves. For every million children saved by something as simple as a Vitamin K injection, there's probably one complication that has nothing whatsoever to do with the injection itself, but a mitigating factor.
The anti-vaccination people are going to bring long-since managed diseases back to plague all of us. If you are dumb enough to listen to a quack on the internet instead of medical providers, you are bringing it on yourself, and unfortunately the rest of us, too.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Ob-Gyns and Reproductive Medicine Specialists or 'the industry's American Chemistry Council,' as detailed below.
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE
Highlights from Fertility and Sterility: Environmental Chemicals Harm Reproductive Health
September 24 , 2013
by: ASRM Office of Public Affairs
Published in ASRM Press Release
Ob-Gyns Advocate for Policy Changes to Protect Health
Washington, DCToxic chemicals in the environment harm our ability to reproduce, negatively affect pregnancies, and are associated with numerous other long-term health problems, according to The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). In a joint Committee Opinion, The College and ASRM urge ob-gyns to advocate for government policy changes to identify and reduce exposure to toxic environmental agents.
Lawmakers should require the US Environmental Protection Agency and industry to define and estimate the dangers that aggregate exposure to harmful chemicals pose to pregnant women, infants, and children and act to protect these vulnerable populations, said Jeanne A. Conry, MD, PhD, president of The College.
Every pregnant woman in America is exposed to many different chemicals in the environment, said Dr. Conry. Prenatal exposure to certain chemicals is linked to miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth defects. Many chemicals that pregnant women absorb or ingest from the environment can cross the placenta to the fetus. Exposure to mercury during pregnancy, for instance, is known to harm cognitive development in children.
The scientific evidence over the last 15 years shows that exposure to toxic environmental agents before conception and during pregnancy can have significant and long-lasting effects on reproductive health. For example, pesticide exposure in men is associated with poor semen quality, sterility, and prostate cancer, said Linda C. Giudice, MD, PhD, president of ASRM. We also know that exposure to pesticides may interfere with puberty, menstruation and ovulation, fertility, and menopause in women.
Other reproductive and health problems associated with exposure to toxic environmental agents:
* Miscarriage and stillbirth
* Impaired fetal growth and low birth weight
* Preterm birth
* Childhood cancers
* Birth defects
* Cognitive/intellectual impairment
* Thyroid problems
Approximately 700 new chemicals are introduced into the US market each year, and more than 84,000 chemical substances are being used in manufacturing and processing or are being imported.The scary fact is that we dont have safety data on most of these chemicals even though they are everywherein the air, water, soil, our food supply, and everyday products, Dr. Conry said. Bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone disruptor, is a common toxic chemical contained in our food, packaging, and many consumer products.
To successfully study the impact of these chemical exposures, we must shift the burden of proof from the individual health care provider and the consumer to the manufacturers before any chemicals are even released into the environment, said Dr. Conry.
Certain groups of people and communities have higher exposures to harmful environmental chemicals than others. For example, women exposed to toxic chemicals at work are at higher risk of reproductive health problems than other women, Dr. Conry said. Low-wage immigrants who work on farms have higher exposures to chemicals used on the crops that they harvest.
As reproductive health care physicians, we are in a unique position to help prevent prenatal exposure to toxic environmental agents by educating our patients about how to avoid them at home, in their community, and at work, Dr. Giudice said.
What can physicians do?
* Learn about toxic environmental agents common in their community
* Educate patients on how to avoid toxic environmental agents
* Take environmental exposure histories during preconception and first prenatal visits
* Report identified environmental hazards to appropriate agencies
* Encourage pregnant and breastfeeding women and women in the preconception period to eat carefully washed fresh fruits and vegetables and avoid fish containing high levels of methyl-mercury (shark, swordfish, king mackerel, tilefish)
* Advance policies and practices that support a healthy food system
* Advocate for government policy changes to identify and reduce exposure to toxic environmental agents
Exposure to Toxic Environmental Agents, a committee opinion, is published in the October issue of Fertility and Sterility.
For examples of toxic environmental exposure patient history forms, go to http://prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/clinical_resources.html
For the Breast Cancer Funds recent report on prenatal BPA exposure and breast cancer risk, see http://www.breastcancerfund.org/
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, founded in 1944, is an organization of more than 7,000 physicians, researchers, nurses, technicians and other professionals dedicated to advancing knowledge and expertise in reproductive biology. Affiliated societies include the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology, the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, the Society of Reproductive Surgeons and the Society of Reproductive Biologists and Technologists. www.asrm.org
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College), a 501(c)(3) organization, is the nations leading group of physicians providing health care for women. As a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization of approximately 57,000 members, The College strongly advocates for quality health care for women, maintains the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education of its members, promotes patient education, and increases awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing womens health care. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a 501(c)(6) organization, is its companion organization. www.acog.org
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/09/24/environmental-chemicals-pregnancy-risk-report-claims/
Report: Environmental chemicals pose pregnancy risk
Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press 6:38 p.m. EDT September 23, 2013
Certain chemicals are linked to infertility, miscarriages and birth defects.
From mercury to pesticides, Americans are exposed daily to environmental chemicals that could harm reproductive health, the nation's largest groups of obstetricians and fertility specialists said Monday.
The report urges doctors to push for stricter environmental policies to better identify and reduce exposure to chemicals that prove truly risky. But it's likely to scare pregnant women in the meantime.
That's because during the first prenatal visit, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wants doctors to ask mothers-to-be about their exposure to different chemicals. They're also supposed to teach women how to avoid some considered most worrisome during pregnancy.
<>
The industry's American Chemistry Council said current environmental regulations offer enough consumer protection, and that the new report will create "confusion and alarm among expectant mothers" and distract them from proven steps for a healthy pregnancy.
Link from comment posted by: cmo | September 24, 2013 at 09:58 PM: http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/from-the-editor.html
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)http://www.pewhealth.org/other-resource/pew-examines-gaps-in-toxicity-data-for-chemicals-allowed-in-food-85899493633
http://www.pewhealth.org/projects/food-additives-project-85899367220
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623813003298
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/americans-health-mortality-illness/1818903/
Opinion on DU is unanimous re:OP, so why belabor the point. Respect Ob-Gyns? Then PLEASE support their most recent initiative.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)don't even attempt to get me mixed up in this - I just mentioned that cabbage has a lot of Vitamin K, but then learned that it doesn't easily transfer across the placenta.
Regardless, I would encourage people to follow the opinions of their medical providers over some person on a website trying to sell them something. If anti-vaccination people want to follow the medical advice of a woman who previously took off her clothes for a living as opposed to physicians that studied for years and have years treating patients, they are welcome to do so, but the fact is they harm us all in the long run.
We should all eat a healthy diet - that contributes to a healthier populace. That doesn't replace the value of modern medicine and science.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 04:14 PM - Edit history (2)
YES, OBVIOUSLY, CHOOSE GOOD OB-GYN ADVICE over bad info. No one at DU has opposed that to my knowledge whereas many here have ferociously defended the status quo regarding issues raised in the PRESS RELEASE, effectively siding with 'the industry's American Chemistry Council' against Ob-Gyns and Reproductive Medicine Specialists, without being confronted by anyone. In fact, the views expressed in the PRESS RELEASE ('Ob-Gyns Advocate for Policy Changes to Protect Health') are even aggressively attacked as 'woo' by some. Hypocrisy alert, anyone?
That's controversial, that's critically important to the public. Trust your ob-gyn on the issue of vitamin K and trust them on the issues raised in the PRESS RELEASE. That's my point.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I guess infant mortality reflected that then too?
Edit: You people born then should bow down that you are so lucky to be ALIVE today without "modern" medicine.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)In 1977, HDN deaths in Israel were 131/100,000 live births, declining to 31/100,000 live births in 1984 and 3/100,000 in 1988, after the Vitamin K injections became routine.
It was also widely practiced but not universal in the United States by the 1970s, following recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1961.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)in 1979 and 1984. Vitamin K was not "routine". Again, large NYC hospitals.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Modern medicine is responsible for the saving of countless lives. I just can't wrap my head around why that's a horrible thing in the eyes of some.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)in the entire history of our species.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)*smirk*
Sid