top of page

Synthetic Vitamin K

By Megan Redshaw via livingwhole

The pro-vaccination movement has suddenly become the anti-vitamin movement and babies are suffering … at least that’s what they’d like you to believe. Apparently more people are educating themselves and opting out of the synthetic vitamin K “prophylaxis” at birth. This is a huge problem. We can’t have parents questioning authority or a practice that has only been around for a few decades and was founded upon poorly done “studies” with no controlled or long-term trials whatsoever.

The about four babies who get vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) out of the four million babies born in the United States each year? That’s not due to the medications women take while pregnant, trauma women and babies suffer during a modern childbirth, early cord-cutting, the low levels of gut bacteria infants have because we wipe it out with antibiotics, infant circumcision, or the hep B vaccination given to your babe during its first 12 hours of life to “protect” it against a disease that’s transferred via sex and dirty needles. It’s just a coincidence that one of the many possible adverse reactions of all infant vaccines includes encephalitis, which coincidentally can cause hemorrhaging.

No, hemorrhaging is due to a vitamin K deficiency because a lack of vitamin K caused the bleed in the first place right? Wrong. But let’s pretend babies just randomly suffer brain bleeds at birth. In fact, it makes perfect sense to inject every single baby with something that could harm them to protect them from something that occurs so rarely we don’t even keep stats on it.

Do you know what else we don’t keep stats on? Babies who are injured by the vitamin K shot. Your child got leukemia from the vitamin K injection? Sure, we’ll acknowledge it. Studies prove it … until enough people start asking questions; then we’ll pretend that all of those studies was wrong, conflicted, or the people who did them were just high on common sense.

Like all vaccines and medications, the vitamin K injection is completely “safe.” Those adverse reactions in the package inserts are just there for funzies. Don’t bother reading the “black box” warning. It’s just the lives of our children we hold in our hands, right?

Severe reactions, including fatalities, have also been reported following INTRAMUSCULAR administration. Typically these severe reactions have resembled hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis, including shock and cardiac and/or respiratory arrest. “Warning” Benzyl alcohol as a preservative in Bacteriostatic Sodium Chloride Injection has been associated with toxicity in newborns. […] Benzyl alcohol has been reported to be associated with a fatal “Gasping Syndrome” in premature infants. Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 mcg/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration. Hemolysis, jaundice, and hyperbilirubinemia in neonates, particularly those that are premature, may be related to the dose of Vitamin K1 Injection.

That’s interesting. Hemolytic disease (i.e. ABO and Rh blood-type incompatibility, often evidenced by jaundice) can be deadly. My daughter had this. Luckily, I didn’t give her the vitamin K shot that can exacerbate this often serious and sometimes fatal condition.

My leafy greens didn’t come with a “could cause death” black-box warning. Did yours? No, because the “vitamin K” a baby gets through a biologically un-natural intramuscular injection is not the same vitamin K a person gets when they chomp down on a leaf, and it’s not the same form of vitamin K found in breast milk. Synthetic vitamins and vitamins in their natural state are not the same, nor are they processed by the body the same way. That’s why they call lab-made vitamins “synthetic.” In case you were wondering, a patented, synthetic, non-naturally occurring substance (complete with additives and preservatives) is a drug.

Vitamin K1 was only discovered in 1929 and scientists still don’t entirely understand how it works. As it pertains to infants, they know (all) babies have lower levels than adults and they think this is a deficiency that needs to be “fixed” or controlled…like the low levels of iron and vitamin D babies also have. But how big of a risk is vitamin K deficiency bleeding anyway?

According to the age of onset, early VKDB presents within 24 hours of birth and is almost exclusively seen in infants of mothers taking drugs which inhibit vitamin K, and mothers who had antibiotics.

I’m not on an anticonvulsant, anti-tuberculosis drug, or blood thinner are you? So, tell me again why I should assault my newborn within the first few hours of her life with an insane dose of something that could kill her?

Classical VKDB occurs between 24 hours and 7 days of life and is associated with delayed or insufficient feeding birth trauma, vaccinations, circumcisions, and unnecessary medical interventions. The clinical presentation is often mild, with bruises, gastrointestinal blood loss or bleeding from the umbilicus and puncture sites. Blood loss can, however, be significant, and intracranial hemorrhage, although rare, has been described. Estimates of the frequency vary from 0.25% to 1.5% in older reviews and 0–0.44% in more recent reviews (emphasis mine).

Did you guys catch that? Look at the percentage chance your child actually has of experiencing a hemorrhage. Worth a prophylaxis that could cause brain damage, cancer, and death? I think not.

Late VKDB is “associated” with exclusive breast-feeding. It occurs between the ages of 2 and 12 weeks. The clinical presentation is severe, with a mortality rate of 20% and intracranial hemorrhage occurring in 50%. […] Up to 75% of babies have an underlying cholestasis or malabsorption disorder (meaning they can’t synthesize blood clotting factors no matter how much vitamin K is in their diet).

Woah, this is bad right? But what else happens between 2 and 12 weeks that could cause a hemorrhage? Breastfeeding in and of itself does not and cannot cause trauma that induces bleeding.

Let’s see what can:

Between four and twelve weeks, we give babies twelve vaccines including a second dose of Hep B, and two doses of DtaP, IPV, Hib, and PCV, all of which can cause vasculitis and brain encephalitis that can induce a hemorrhage. Our children also get two doses of a live rotavirus vaccine that can shed, infect others, and cause hemorrhagic enteritis and thrombocytopenic purpura (a bleeding disorder). Have you read your child’s vaccine inserts?

Forget “Late-onset VKDB” (vitamin K deficiency bleeding). Let’s call it “Late-onset VIB” (vaccine-induced bleeding). When these babies get sick from their vaccinations, we then put them on antibiotics, which wipe out their gut flora hindering their ability to synthesize vitamin K from breast milk leaving them at risk for an uncontrollable bleed.

Speaking of breast milk…breast milk is low in vitamin K, which is why they say your baby is at an increased risk of late-onset VKDB if you exclusively nurse. What they fail to take into account is that the vitamin K that is in breast milk is in a highly absorbable form the body can readily utilize in the digestive tract. The synthetic version is unnaturally injected into your baby’s muscle at 20,000 times the newborn level at birth and is 100 times greater than the recommended daily allowance for adults.

Whether you nurse has nothing to do with the trauma that has to occur for your baby to hemorrhage in the first place. But we’ll just pretend that the babies plastered on the “VKDB” propaganda were not born via C-section or to mothers who took antidepressants and other medications while pregnant.

You know what else “synthetic vitamin K” enthusiasts don’t understand? The thought that babies (and all animals for that matter) have lower levels of vitamin K at birth for a beneficial, protective, reason.

I’m just going to throw these “common sense-based” thoughts out there but let’s consider them:

First, in order to absorb vitamin K we have to have a functioning biliary and pancreas system. Your infant’s digestive system isn’t fully developed at birth which is why we give babies breast milk (and delay solids) until they are at least 6-months-old, and why breast milk only contains a small amount of highly absorbable vitamin K. Too much vitamin K could tax the liver and cause brain damage (among other things). As baby ages and the digestive tract, mucosal lining, gut flora, and enzyme functions develop, baby can process more vitamin K. Low levels of vitamin K at birth just…makes…sense.

Secondly, cord blood contains stem cells, which protect a baby against bleeding and perform all sorts of needed repairs inside an infant’s body. Here’s the kicker, in order for a baby to get this protective boost of stem cells, cord-cutting needs to be delayed and the blood needs to remain thin so stem cells can easily travel and perform their functions. Imagine that, baby has his/her own protective mechanism to prevent bleeding and repair organs…that wasn’t discovered until after we started routinely giving infants vitamin K injections.

Third, a newborn might have low levels of vitamin K because it’s intestines are not yet colonized with bacteria needed to synthesize it and the “vitamin K cycle” isn’t fully functional in newborns. It makes sense then to bypass the gut and inject vitamin K right into the muscle right? Except baby’s kidneys aren’t fully functional either.

Fourth, babies are born with low levels of vitamin K compared to adults, but this level is still sufficient to prevent problems; so even if your baby does need daily heel pricks (like mine) or has a bruise (like my sister’s baby), vitamin K prophylaxis isn’t necessarily needed.

Finally, several clinical observations support the hypothesis that children have natural protective mechanisms that justify their low vitamin K levels at birth (read here and here). I don’t know about you, but we should probably figure out why that is before we “inject now and worry about it later.”

Do you know why vitamin K is pushed on parents and their children? Because pharmaceutical companies don’t like to lose money, doctors don’t like to be questioned, the American Academy of Pediatrics dare not change its recommendations. It’s just a whole lot easier to give every child vitamin K to prevent the bleeding that could occur from the harm caused by our birth procedures, circumcisions, vaccinations, medications, and unnecessary medical interventions.

It just makes complete sense to further assault a newborn’s body with an insane level of synthetic vitamin, some antifreeze, and a substance derived from coal-tar that bears a threat of death that warrants a black-box warning.

Preventing infant death caused by anything is noble, but how about we look at a solution that doesn’t include injecting our infants with yet another pharmaceutical drug? Here are a few ideas, eat a pregnancy diet rich in vitamin-K; “just say no” to antibiotics, barbiturates, blood thinners, antidepressants, and anti-convulsion medications; minimize interventions during pregnancy and childbirth which increase your baby’s chance of having a bleed; delay cord-cutting; opt out of vaccinations; and forgo the circumcision (or at least wait until the 8th day when a circumcision can be performed without vitamin K intervention).

And hey, while we’re at it…how about we actually take five minutes to “screen” newborns that might be at an increased risk of having a bleed and implement the well-researched oral vitamin K program they use in the Netherlands. No need to expose any child to the risks of an unnecessary intervention right?

When it comes to my children, I err on the side of biology, evidence, caution, and common sense. Whether you believe in God or biology, I don’t think either messed up, and the “data” hasn’t shown otherwise. Who’s with me?


PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s).

FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page