I think what you say is important.
It is a whole different health approach then mainstream.
I dont understand why they dont test before givng the shot. But bear in mind that shot got a megadose of vit K, which may have some negative effects too.
Thanks Andrius. So the high risk danger is pain? What about the oral drops? Bad or fine? What is so bad about the injections anyway? Like Myca said, people on here have no problem with b12 shots... what's the deal with that...
Some people, like me, prefer oral route because shots bypass all of your immune defenses.
Unfortunately, I cannot post photos, names or the entire medical history of the infant who is now a non functioning human due to a severe brain bleed. The pain this baby suffered I will never forget. He spent most of his first year with us.
If you look back through history, people generally had many children. They didn't all make it to adult hood. The grave yards are filled with infants and children who died from all kinds of things from accidents to childhood illnesses. The risk of a brain bleed is actually small, however after seeing just one, I would never skip the vitamin k.
The title of that article says (paraphrased) "risks from the vitamin K shot that they don't warn you about".
Well folks let me tell you I am not even going to read that article. It must be a sham! They use the mysterious pronoun "they," so it must be a conspiracy theory. Of course doctors warn mothers of all the risks of mega-dosing a tiny infant with vitamin K. Right? It is simply inconceivable that a medical professional would be biased in any way. After all, I wouldn't want to play doctor.
All sarcasm aside, I still think that SAD babies from SAD mommies need vitamin K shots because they are sad and might die. That doesn't mean that we judge all mothers who dare refuse it, since then we are assuming that we can judge X mother for assuming she is healthy enough for her baby not to need it, and once we do that, the government comes in and makes a law that all babies must have a vitamin K shot, regardless of the mother's interpretation of the risk/benefit analysis. So we can judge an unhealthy mother and say "She should have known she wasn't healthy enough to avoid the K shot," but what's the point of that? Damage is already done. Too bad she has the choice! Wouldn't it be nice if the government just made a law requiring all mothers to let them jab their babies? That way, unhealthy mothers who make the wrong decision will be benefited by not having little junior croak, and healthy mothers who make the right decision will be screwed over by being forced to let a potentially harmful K megadose into their sweet unadultered newborn. Or we could just lie and assume it's a random chance that any baby could clot, and has absolutely nothing to do with the health and nutrition status of the mother. Yes, let's do that. A fruity mother would have a perfectly healthy baby whose brain would not clot. So for her, the risk is high compared to the benefit which would be virtually nonexistent. A mother who drank coffee and ate mcdonalds throughout her pregnancy would have a slightly lower risk compared to a higher benefit, so it would be in her best interest to get the shot.
It would be like someone telling me to get the flu vaccine or I might die of the bird flu. Riiiiighttt...
"just lie and assume it's a random chance that any baby could clot"
I guess you've already made your mind up on this Peter but how do you know that this isn't the case?
"A fruity mother would have a perfectly healthy baby..."
Seems like a dangerous assumption?
How do you draw the line between healthy and unhealthy? If only those following 811 are considered healthy then the vast majority must be unhealthy and prescriptive injections become easy to justify.
Because then we have made the assumption that evolution was "faulty" and our bodies were not designed very well. So our newborns have a 1/x change of randomly dying of brain clots a week after being born. What a crappy species we are! How did our gene pool last this long with such an abnormality. You'd think it would have been darwin'd out a million years ago....
What you said about the line between healthy and unhealthy seems pretty accurate. Anyone who eats SAD and doesn't exercise and strains their pelvic floor muscle and shrinks their vaginal canal due to western toilet habits (sitting, valsalva maneuver) and gives birth lying horizontal on a hospital bed exerting 67 pounds of pressure on the baby's head is more likely to experience birth complications and the baby is more likely to have health problems. I'm making a lot of dangerous assumptions here. Boy oh boy. No basis for these; just doesn't make any sense.
Evolution doesn't necessarily result in a perfect being. There is no "design;" it's just a series of improvements, and sometimes what is being improved upon can only be taken so far. And that's fine, cause one doesn't have to be perfect to be successful. There are many many ways different species could be "designed" better. I'm not trying to start a debate and I'm not commenting on your discussion with Nathan. It's just something to think about when using evolution in an argument.
Evolution doesn't necessarily result in a perfect being.
this is absolutely correct dangermouse!
evolution is always in a process of improvement and make numerous 'errors' along the way. nor is it hierarchical as i was taught in school. it is actually fractal in nature as robert our fine resident 30bad paleontologist pointed out to me.
'evolutionary design' is really not a good argument for health, though there are physiological developments that may be significant in certain situations.
Yes, evolution is not what people tend to think it is. Excellent point about the fracticalness, no wait, fracticality - oh! fracticalitivity! there we go.
Yes, evolution is not what people tend to think it is.
true and evolution doesn't think about people either. :D
Excellent point about the fracticalness, no wait, fracticality - oh! fracticalitivity! there we go.
i see you were experiencing some fractical difficulties for a while.