8 ms·

Babies Are Bleeding to Death as Parents Reject a Vitamin Shot Given at Birth

65 points by brendoelfrendo 6mo ago

ceejayoz 6mo ago
Another case of statistical murder that can't be punished as it should, unfortunately.
- baggy_trough 6mo ago
  What does 'statistical murder' mean in this case?
  - chowells 6mo ago
    It means making an informed choice that you know raises fatality rates.
    - baggy_trough 6mo ago
      Who did that in this case? The parents? Isn't it more likely that they don't believe it raises fatality rates (however incorrectly)?
      - ceejayoz 6mo ago
        > Who did that in this case? Anti-vax activists like RFK Jr. https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/120893 https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy...
        baggy_trough 6mo ago
        by not saying anything about it, he committed statistical murder?
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        Don't be disingenuous. He's actively suppressing publication of studies showing vaccine safety as a government official. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/05/us/politics/fda-covid-vaccine-studies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/05/us/politics/fda-covid-vac...
        baggy_trough 6mo ago
        He said nothing about the medication in question, so does your original comment mean that RFK is guilty of statistical murder and should be punished for his general vaccine skepticism? I'm not sure how else to read "another case of statistical murder that can't be punished as it should, unfortunately". That would be an extraordinary claim.
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        If you witness child abuse and say nothing, you bear some responsibility for its continuation. If you’re the top health official of the country and spread doubt about numerous public health interventions, including actively suppressing research showing their safety and efficacy, yes, you’re guilty as fuck. Hope this helps clarify things.
        baggy_trough 6mo ago
        Of course he’s probably wrong about much of that. Punishing him for it in a court, if that’s what you mean, would be illiberal and grotesque.
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        Why? It’s negligent homicide. It’s just so diffuse that it doesn’t fit in our crime model. Like polluters who shave years off an entire neighborhood’s lives via health impacts.
        6mo ago
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    It means you’re deliberately killing people, but indirectly enough it can’t be prosecuted. Fucking with vaccines kills people. Getting rid of USAID kills people. Selling cigarettes kills people. But none of these are crimes. Some of them probably should be.
    - j16sdiz 6mo ago
      It's not the same for an individual choice vs government choice. Individual different is real. Law of large number is true only for large number. Until you can claim omniscience, I don't think we should make an individual responsible for a "statistical" crime for one individual. Government policy, on the other hand, ...
      - ceejayoz 6mo ago
        > I don't think we should make an individual responsible for a "statistical" crime for one individual. Why not? We know tobacco execs lied about the dangers, even in Congressional testimony, and suppressed evidence. It's documented; no omniscience required. Musk's DOGE cuts killed, at minimum, hundreds of thousands. It's highly likely he was aware of that likelihood.
    - cityofdelusion 6mo ago
      There is no way to have enough nuance for this to actually mean anything. If I drive my child in a small car instead of a massive truck, is this statistical negligence? Or driving at all, very likely the most dangerous thing people do daily. What about the trees outside my home and their hundred pound limbs — if one breaks it will almost certainly be fatal. But many people accept that death is inevitable and minimizing the chance of it isn’t worth doing. Society also speaks out both sides of its mouth — why does an infant refused a vaccine constitute murder but 11 days earlier in the womb its life had no value? The world has a lot of things it needs to figure out with all this stuff. Blanket statements just aren’t very valuable IMO.
      - ceejayoz 6mo ago
        > If I drive my child in a small car instead of a massive truck, is this statistical negligence? No, I'd say the responsibility there lies on the car company execs making F-250s ever-bigger to the point they have worse forward visibility than a M1 Abrams tank. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v... > What about the trees outside my home and their hundred pound limbs — if one breaks it will almost certainly be fatal. If you don't maintain your trees and they kill your neighbor or damage their house, you'll often be on the hook for it, yes. Insurance won't cover you if it was negligence. > why does an infant refused a vaccine constitute murder but 11 days earlier in the womb its life had no value? Virtually zero abortions happen 11 days before term. When they do, they're medical emergencies, not voluntary. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2016_histogram.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gesta...
  - golem14 6mo ago
    “Do you understand what I'm saying?" shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!" "Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm. "What?" snapped Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?" "I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly. "I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!" "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.” ― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal
    - dataflow 6mo ago
      If that's what it is, then -- regardless of whether it should be punished or not -- this is manifestly not statistical murder. Your story is describing a situation where one person's decision so strongly and clearly affects numerous unrelated people's lives that it's statistically guaranteed that some of them died as a result. Moreover, there's no plausible argument presented that the decision was in any sense intended to prevent unintended/unpredictable harm to those who would be ultimately affected by it. It's for the "joy of the game". Whereas the article is describing a situation where one person's decision is increasing the risk of death of one person (their own child). There's no statistical guarantee of anyone's death at the time of the parent's decision to not inject their child. Nor is the parent's decision affecting numerous people. Nor is the parent's decision affecting unrelated people - it's affecting exactly the people they have the most connection to & responsibility over: their own child. Nor are they refusing this "for sport" or "for the joy of the game"...
      - ceejayoz 6mo ago
        The statistical murder isn’t by the parents who fell for disinformation; they’re victims, to at least some extent. The statistical murder is done by the people spreading that disinformation. Wakefield. RFK Jr. Alex Jones. etc.
fleahunter 6mo ago
[flagged]
fred_is_fred 6mo ago
Speaking as someone with kids, many people I know rejected all of these. The eye ointment that they gloss over is to protect from gonorrhea. Which presumes that everyone having a kid has it in the first place. This is easy to test for before the baby comes though - what about Vitamin K?
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  The people who won’t let a kid get ointment aren’t gonna consent to a mandatory STD test either. (The ointment is also primarily for chlamydia these days.)
- brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
  Per the article: "All newborns lack vitamin K. No matter how much vitamin K a mother consumes, it doesn’t sufficiently pass through the placenta, and breast milk contains only small amounts." Even vitamin fortified formula may not be enough to provide infants with enough vitamin K to prevent bleeding. The open question in the medical community is not which newborns lack vitamin K (they all do), but why some vitamin K deficient newborns develop bleeding while others don't. I guess I don't see the point in rejecting the shot. It's a vitamin, it has a clear benefit, and no drawback.
  - i_think_so 5mo ago
    > Even vitamin fortified formula may not be enough to provide infants with enough vitamin K to prevent bleeding. Whoever told you that is selling something. Vitamin K is fat soluble and even the cheapest, lowest quality formulae can deliver enough of a dosage for an elephant. Unless the newborn is already bleeding, immediate supplementation is unnecessary. (Unless you're expecting to injure the newborn, in which case please get in the back of the squad car, sir, and don't bump your head.) I suppose it's possible the newborn is already bleeding, in which case somebody should probably figure out why and address that first. > I guess I don't see the point in rejecting the shot. It's a vitamin, it has a clear benefit, and no drawback. Please don't give medical advice. You're not good at it. A big whack of K (either form) in a shot can't be pulled back if it turns out to be too much for the child. If the placental diffusion just so happened to be higher for a particular child, and their levels were not so very deficient, now you've got an overdose condition to deal with.[1] Normally that's not the end of the world, but to say there's "no drawback" is just wrong. Further, it's entirely unnecessary when there are safer, titratable methods that don't involve poking a hole in the newborn, such as adding K to pumped breast milk or painting the mother's nipple. Oral dosage can be spread out over many feedings, and at the slightest indication of excess (jaundice, for example) can be discontinued without further risk. But of course, this requires the mother to have the wherewithal to remember to do the supplementation, and modern hospital protocols are designed with the assumption that the mother is incompetent at her job. Some of us have higher opinions of women and their ability to do what women have routinely done for millennia. A cynic might also point out that the hospital can't charge you as much for a bottle of cheap gel caps as an injection. By the way, K1 is the plant-derived form, which some of us feel is a bit better to supplement with than K2, particularly when coupled with fat intake. On the other hand, if you do intend to let the hospital shoot up your newborn instead, maybe ask to see the vial first. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20251206091225/https://www.vinmec.com/eng/blog/what-happens-to-the-body-if-there-is-an-excess-of-vitamin-k-en https://web.archive.org/web/20251206091225/https://www.vinme...
FridayoLeary 6mo ago
[flagged]
- brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
  > This is probably going to be unpopular but i'll point out the US administers far more shots then any other country. Ok? Give me all the vaccines. Being able to train our immune systems to recognize and attack harmful or even deadly pathogens is like a super power that we all have access to. > Another point is the conspicuous lack of honesty surrounding the COVID vaccine, You'd have to help me out here; the vaccines worked well, and are safe for the vast majority of people. I don't think there was any lack of honesty surrounding them except from the people who are anti-vaccine.
  - utdoctor 6mo ago
    >Ok? Give me all the vaccines. Being able to train our immune systems to recognize and attack harmful or even deadly pathogens is like a super power that we all have access to. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I’d caution you to treat vaccines as a binary and imply they’re all good and always worth taking. There are numerous examples in history where vaccines were rolled out and had to be recalled due to unintended negative effects (Pandemrix is one example). Not all vaccines are a net positive.
CodeWriter23 6mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  > Adequate supply is easily addressed by the mother eating Vitamin K-rich foods, like spinach, during pregnancy. Sure, and murders are easily addressed by not murdering people. Unfortunately, we live in reality. > Sufficient levels can be confirmed at birth by an inexpensive blood screening… "We'd like to do a blood draw. To see if they need the shot you're terrified of." "No!"
  - negzero7 6mo ago
    And whom do we hold responsible for the severe reactions and deaths of babies that get the shots you seem to so desperate for the government to enforce? The reality you want is government overreach and a removal of individual choice.
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      > removal of individual choice Yeah, I'd rather you not be able to choose to kill your kid. > severe reactions and deaths of babies that get the shots Are we gonna sue peanut farmers for making peanuts, too?
    - multjoy 6mo ago
      Perhaps you can show the statistics for harm and death caused by the shots? >The reality you want is government overreach and a removal of individual choice. Have you not met the general public? The infants are incapable of advocating for themselves and they risk death all because an incredulous new mother has been influenced by some lunatic on TikTok (or, indeed, in Government).
- suzzer99 6mo ago
  > All newborns lack vitamin K. No matter how much vitamin K a mother consumes, it doesn’t sufficiently pass through the placenta, and breast milk contains only small amounts. That puts babies who are exclusively breastfed at a higher risk for vitamin K deficiency bleeding. Formula is fortified with vitamin K, but even with that, experts agree, babies should still get the shot. Did you not read the article, or are you refuting it?
incomingpain 6mo ago
[flagged]
- suzzer99 6mo ago
  The covid shot was a medical miracle. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives. There is a very small risk of myocarditis, which was always known and out in the open. Other than that every attack on the covid vaccines is just a bunch of nonsense FUD by wellness charlatans who make money off clicks and peddling snake oil.
  - negzero7 6mo ago
    The problem is that the leaders told us that if you got the vaccine you would be immune and not get COVID. The performances of the politicians and medical professionals mandating masking and then seeing them only putting them on right before they went on stage, and continuing to do all of the things the "common" folk weren't allowed to do ruined all of the their credibility. Of course people are going to question all of the recommendations from experts after that.
    - suzzer99 6mo ago
      > The problem is that the leaders told us that if you got the vaccine you would be immune and not get COVID. That's a straw man. Nobody in authority said this once the vaccine was out and it was obvious that immunity wasn't 100% or permanent. All vaccines are different. No one knew until it came out what category this vaccine would fall into. You can still get measles after getting the measles vaccine. But you're much much less likely to die from it. What the vaccine did do is greatly reduce the severity of the disease, which saved countless lives. See Wuhan, Northern Italy or NYC before lockdown. If the vaccine didn't work, as soon as lockdown ended, the hospitals would have filled to over capacity like they were in those places in the early days.
      - ceejayoz 6mo ago
        I do recall some politicians being, at the very least, imprecise on that issue. But I note that the "a politician was wrong once, therefore vaccines can't be trusted" folks don't tend to extend that theory to things like "tax cuts cause economic booms" or "abstinence only sex ed is super effective" sort of statements that have repeatedly flopped in tests.
8b16380d 6mo ago
[flagged]
- ASalazarMX 6mo ago
  Let's hope humanity develops defenses against the easy (even forced) spread of disinformation, hate, ignorance, and mass manipulation if general. Social networks, and the drivers of their owners, caught the world by surprise.
  - suzzer99 6mo ago
    I don't think humans will ever have a defense for "trigger my amygdala and tell me what I want to hear."
  - piva00 6mo ago
    There's too much financial incentive to spread disinformation, if you can make money by posting on social media and attracting a following on your disinformation there's always going to be someone ignorant/innocent enough to fall for it. I can't see what else humanity would need to develop as defenses, we can access nearly all information that exists, almost instantly, from the convenience of almost anywhere. The problem is to knowing how to parse so much information, even more when there's conflicting information where nuance and critical thinking are required. Accepting that there's very few absolute right answers, that the real world is much more "depends" than "for certain", and stil being able to navigate it all to reach a conclusion that aligns with the best probable answer demands quite a lot more quality education than the vast majority of humanity has access to.
  - tstrimple 5mo ago
    We know to some degree how to do it. Education helps. Conservatives are the problem. It's been shown over and over again that the grifters target conservatives because it actually works. Similar campaigns against more liberal targets aren't nearly as successful. Conservatives in the US have spent years sacrificing their bullshit detectors for "fuck the libs" policies and yay team Red rhetoric.
- thefz 6mo ago
ChiperSoft 6mo ago
There is a fantastic episode of Sawbones that goes into how we discovered vitamin K and why doctors started giving it to newborns. It cut infant mortality by a significant amount. I recommend it for anyone who has doubts or who just geeks out over science. https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/sawbones-vitamin-k/ https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/sawbones-vitamin-k/
brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
It's absolutely fascinating how much of these comments have to do with vaccines when the article is very clearly about a vitamin shot. Wellness culture and influencers have truly broken how we think and talk about medicine.
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  It’s the same core phenomenon, and the same activists pushing it.
- suzzer99 6mo ago
  I got in a series of debates over the Covid vaccine on Facebook with a guy I like and respect, who hosts sound baths, promotes psychedelic therapy, and does a bunch of other wellness-related stuff along with his wife. The idea was maybe we could civilly come to some kind of understanding. We kept it civil. But in the end, I came to the conclusion that being anti-vaxx was a core part of his identity as part of the wellness community, and I was never going to change that.
suburban_strike 6mo ago
All of our pediatric policy has become iatrogenic in the US. There's a reason our maternal mortality rates are worse than the third world. Infants are supposed to get vitamin K and other nutrients from breastfeeding, but we push formula. Vitamin K is supposed to stabilize after a week, but we push booster shots. Some parents believed the advocacy of actors, and withheld boosters and vaccines-- while feeding their children chemical slop that makes the news every so often after being found contaminated with toxins or deficient in some vital nutrient or mineral, leading to headlines like this. For maximum hilarity we're putting infants' underdeveloped clotting mechanisms to the test with a battery of injections and performing cosmetic circumcisions just hours after birth. If the assignment was "come up with a way to maim or kill as many children as possible while maintaining plausible deniability," these are the sorts of subversive pediatric policies I'd suggest. They'll bleed out days or months later, I feign ignorance and avoid attribution, mission accomplished. Every step of this is handled in the dumbest way conceivable, and if you speak out about it you get blackballed. (Not that this is anything new; they did the same to Semmelweiss, committing him to a mental hospital and beating him to death for suggesting that doctors should wash their hands between surgeries.) Babylonians/Jews wait until day 8--no sooner, no later--for reasons they could only have discovered through trial-and-error. They perform the same operations and get all the same vaccines we do but Israel's autism rate is 50% lower than the US. Maternal and infant mortality rates are also significantly lower for them. We trade in equipment and cross-train the same practitioners. The only differences are keeping infant nutrition organic/kosher and delaying ritual infant trauma just long enough so that they don't bleed to death in the absence of Vitamin K boosters.
- suzzer99 6mo ago
  > Infants are supposed to get vitamin K and other nutrients from breastfeeding, but we push formula. This is literally nonsense. From the article: > All newborns lack vitamin K. No matter how much vitamin K a mother consumes, it doesn’t sufficiently pass through the placenta, and breast milk contains only small amounts. That puts babies who are exclusively breastfed at a higher risk for vitamin K deficiency bleeding. Formula is fortified with vitamin K, but even with that, experts agree, babies should still get the shot.
gh0sty321 5mo ago
[flagged]
josefritzishere 5mo ago
Flagged? This is interesting and the comments are well behaved.
- brendoelfrendo 5mo ago
  As the OP, I'm not surprised. I had hoped that this would inspire some good discussion, but I don't think it really bore out. I'm not sure if your "well behaved" comment is sarcasm or not, but if it's not, then I can't really say I agree. Lots of flagged comments in here and, honestly, I think the comments started to veer off-topic almost instantly (and I am not blameless in that regard). I do think it is an interesting, albeit depressing, story, and I think that health and medicine have a place on HN, so it is disappointing we couldn't be more normal about it.

ceejayoz 6mo ago

Another case of statistical murder that can't be punished as it should, unfortunately.

baggy_trough 6mo ago
What does 'statistical murder' mean in this case?
- chowells 6mo ago
  It means making an informed choice that you know raises fatality rates.
  - baggy_trough 6mo ago
    Who did that in this case? The parents? Isn't it more likely that they don't believe it raises fatality rates (however incorrectly)?
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      > Who did that in this case? Anti-vax activists like RFK Jr. https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/120893 https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy...
      - baggy_trough 6mo ago
        by not saying anything about it, he committed statistical murder?
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        Don't be disingenuous. He's actively suppressing publication of studies showing vaccine safety as a government official. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/05/us/politics/fda-covid-vaccine-studies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/05/us/politics/fda-covid-vac...
        baggy_trough 6mo ago
        He said nothing about the medication in question, so does your original comment mean that RFK is guilty of statistical murder and should be punished for his general vaccine skepticism? I'm not sure how else to read "another case of statistical murder that can't be punished as it should, unfortunately". That would be an extraordinary claim.
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        If you witness child abuse and say nothing, you bear some responsibility for its continuation. If you’re the top health official of the country and spread doubt about numerous public health interventions, including actively suppressing research showing their safety and efficacy, yes, you’re guilty as fuck. Hope this helps clarify things.
        baggy_trough 6mo ago
        Of course he’s probably wrong about much of that. Punishing him for it in a court, if that’s what you mean, would be illiberal and grotesque.
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        Why? It’s negligent homicide. It’s just so diffuse that it doesn’t fit in our crime model. Like polluters who shave years off an entire neighborhood’s lives via health impacts.
        6mo ago
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  It means you’re deliberately killing people, but indirectly enough it can’t be prosecuted. Fucking with vaccines kills people. Getting rid of USAID kills people. Selling cigarettes kills people. But none of these are crimes. Some of them probably should be.
  - j16sdiz 6mo ago
    It's not the same for an individual choice vs government choice. Individual different is real. Law of large number is true only for large number. Until you can claim omniscience, I don't think we should make an individual responsible for a "statistical" crime for one individual. Government policy, on the other hand, ...
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      > I don't think we should make an individual responsible for a "statistical" crime for one individual. Why not? We know tobacco execs lied about the dangers, even in Congressional testimony, and suppressed evidence. It's documented; no omniscience required. Musk's DOGE cuts killed, at minimum, hundreds of thousands. It's highly likely he was aware of that likelihood.
  - cityofdelusion 6mo ago
    There is no way to have enough nuance for this to actually mean anything. If I drive my child in a small car instead of a massive truck, is this statistical negligence? Or driving at all, very likely the most dangerous thing people do daily. What about the trees outside my home and their hundred pound limbs — if one breaks it will almost certainly be fatal. But many people accept that death is inevitable and minimizing the chance of it isn’t worth doing. Society also speaks out both sides of its mouth — why does an infant refused a vaccine constitute murder but 11 days earlier in the womb its life had no value? The world has a lot of things it needs to figure out with all this stuff. Blanket statements just aren’t very valuable IMO.
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      > If I drive my child in a small car instead of a massive truck, is this statistical negligence? No, I'd say the responsibility there lies on the car company execs making F-250s ever-bigger to the point they have worse forward visibility than a M1 Abrams tank. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v... > What about the trees outside my home and their hundred pound limbs — if one breaks it will almost certainly be fatal. If you don't maintain your trees and they kill your neighbor or damage their house, you'll often be on the hook for it, yes. Insurance won't cover you if it was negligence. > why does an infant refused a vaccine constitute murder but 11 days earlier in the womb its life had no value? Virtually zero abortions happen 11 days before term. When they do, they're medical emergencies, not voluntary. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2016_histogram.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gesta...
- golem14 6mo ago
  “Do you understand what I'm saying?" shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!" "Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm. "What?" snapped Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?" "I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly. "I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!" "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.” ― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal
  - dataflow 6mo ago
    If that's what it is, then -- regardless of whether it should be punished or not -- this is manifestly not statistical murder. Your story is describing a situation where one person's decision so strongly and clearly affects numerous unrelated people's lives that it's statistically guaranteed that some of them died as a result. Moreover, there's no plausible argument presented that the decision was in any sense intended to prevent unintended/unpredictable harm to those who would be ultimately affected by it. It's for the "joy of the game". Whereas the article is describing a situation where one person's decision is increasing the risk of death of one person (their own child). There's no statistical guarantee of anyone's death at the time of the parent's decision to not inject their child. Nor is the parent's decision affecting numerous people. Nor is the parent's decision affecting unrelated people - it's affecting exactly the people they have the most connection to & responsibility over: their own child. Nor are they refusing this "for sport" or "for the joy of the game"...
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      The statistical murder isn’t by the parents who fell for disinformation; they’re victims, to at least some extent. The statistical murder is done by the people spreading that disinformation. Wakefield. RFK Jr. Alex Jones. etc.

fleahunter 6mo ago

[flagged]

fred_is_fred 6mo ago

Speaking as someone with kids, many people I know rejected all of these. The eye ointment that they gloss over is to protect from gonorrhea. Which presumes that everyone having a kid has it in the first place. This is easy to test for before the baby comes though - what about Vitamin K?

ceejayoz 6mo ago
The people who won’t let a kid get ointment aren’t gonna consent to a mandatory STD test either. (The ointment is also primarily for chlamydia these days.)
brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
Per the article: "All newborns lack vitamin K. No matter how much vitamin K a mother consumes, it doesn’t sufficiently pass through the placenta, and breast milk contains only small amounts." Even vitamin fortified formula may not be enough to provide infants with enough vitamin K to prevent bleeding. The open question in the medical community is not which newborns lack vitamin K (they all do), but why some vitamin K deficient newborns develop bleeding while others don't. I guess I don't see the point in rejecting the shot. It's a vitamin, it has a clear benefit, and no drawback.
- i_think_so 5mo ago
  > Even vitamin fortified formula may not be enough to provide infants with enough vitamin K to prevent bleeding. Whoever told you that is selling something. Vitamin K is fat soluble and even the cheapest, lowest quality formulae can deliver enough of a dosage for an elephant. Unless the newborn is already bleeding, immediate supplementation is unnecessary. (Unless you're expecting to injure the newborn, in which case please get in the back of the squad car, sir, and don't bump your head.) I suppose it's possible the newborn is already bleeding, in which case somebody should probably figure out why and address that first. > I guess I don't see the point in rejecting the shot. It's a vitamin, it has a clear benefit, and no drawback. Please don't give medical advice. You're not good at it. A big whack of K (either form) in a shot can't be pulled back if it turns out to be too much for the child. If the placental diffusion just so happened to be higher for a particular child, and their levels were not so very deficient, now you've got an overdose condition to deal with.[1] Normally that's not the end of the world, but to say there's "no drawback" is just wrong. Further, it's entirely unnecessary when there are safer, titratable methods that don't involve poking a hole in the newborn, such as adding K to pumped breast milk or painting the mother's nipple. Oral dosage can be spread out over many feedings, and at the slightest indication of excess (jaundice, for example) can be discontinued without further risk. But of course, this requires the mother to have the wherewithal to remember to do the supplementation, and modern hospital protocols are designed with the assumption that the mother is incompetent at her job. Some of us have higher opinions of women and their ability to do what women have routinely done for millennia. A cynic might also point out that the hospital can't charge you as much for a bottle of cheap gel caps as an injection. By the way, K1 is the plant-derived form, which some of us feel is a bit better to supplement with than K2, particularly when coupled with fat intake. On the other hand, if you do intend to let the hospital shoot up your newborn instead, maybe ask to see the vial first. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20251206091225/https://www.vinmec.com/eng/blog/what-happens-to-the-body-if-there-is-an-excess-of-vitamin-k-en https://web.archive.org/web/20251206091225/https://www.vinme...

FridayoLeary 6mo ago

[flagged]

brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
> This is probably going to be unpopular but i'll point out the US administers far more shots then any other country. Ok? Give me all the vaccines. Being able to train our immune systems to recognize and attack harmful or even deadly pathogens is like a super power that we all have access to. > Another point is the conspicuous lack of honesty surrounding the COVID vaccine, You'd have to help me out here; the vaccines worked well, and are safe for the vast majority of people. I don't think there was any lack of honesty surrounding them except from the people who are anti-vaccine.
- utdoctor 6mo ago
  >Ok? Give me all the vaccines. Being able to train our immune systems to recognize and attack harmful or even deadly pathogens is like a super power that we all have access to. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I’d caution you to treat vaccines as a binary and imply they’re all good and always worth taking. There are numerous examples in history where vaccines were rolled out and had to be recalled due to unintended negative effects (Pandemrix is one example). Not all vaccines are a net positive.

CodeWriter23 6mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 6mo ago
> Adequate supply is easily addressed by the mother eating Vitamin K-rich foods, like spinach, during pregnancy. Sure, and murders are easily addressed by not murdering people. Unfortunately, we live in reality. > Sufficient levels can be confirmed at birth by an inexpensive blood screening… "We'd like to do a blood draw. To see if they need the shot you're terrified of." "No!"
- negzero7 6mo ago
  And whom do we hold responsible for the severe reactions and deaths of babies that get the shots you seem to so desperate for the government to enforce? The reality you want is government overreach and a removal of individual choice.
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    > removal of individual choice Yeah, I'd rather you not be able to choose to kill your kid. > severe reactions and deaths of babies that get the shots Are we gonna sue peanut farmers for making peanuts, too?
  - multjoy 6mo ago
    Perhaps you can show the statistics for harm and death caused by the shots? >The reality you want is government overreach and a removal of individual choice. Have you not met the general public? The infants are incapable of advocating for themselves and they risk death all because an incredulous new mother has been influenced by some lunatic on TikTok (or, indeed, in Government).
suzzer99 6mo ago
> All newborns lack vitamin K. No matter how much vitamin K a mother consumes, it doesn’t sufficiently pass through the placenta, and breast milk contains only small amounts. That puts babies who are exclusively breastfed at a higher risk for vitamin K deficiency bleeding. Formula is fortified with vitamin K, but even with that, experts agree, babies should still get the shot. Did you not read the article, or are you refuting it?

incomingpain 6mo ago

[flagged]

suzzer99 6mo ago
The covid shot was a medical miracle. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives. There is a very small risk of myocarditis, which was always known and out in the open. Other than that every attack on the covid vaccines is just a bunch of nonsense FUD by wellness charlatans who make money off clicks and peddling snake oil.
- negzero7 6mo ago
  The problem is that the leaders told us that if you got the vaccine you would be immune and not get COVID. The performances of the politicians and medical professionals mandating masking and then seeing them only putting them on right before they went on stage, and continuing to do all of the things the "common" folk weren't allowed to do ruined all of the their credibility. Of course people are going to question all of the recommendations from experts after that.
  - suzzer99 6mo ago
    > The problem is that the leaders told us that if you got the vaccine you would be immune and not get COVID. That's a straw man. Nobody in authority said this once the vaccine was out and it was obvious that immunity wasn't 100% or permanent. All vaccines are different. No one knew until it came out what category this vaccine would fall into. You can still get measles after getting the measles vaccine. But you're much much less likely to die from it. What the vaccine did do is greatly reduce the severity of the disease, which saved countless lives. See Wuhan, Northern Italy or NYC before lockdown. If the vaccine didn't work, as soon as lockdown ended, the hospitals would have filled to over capacity like they were in those places in the early days.
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      I do recall some politicians being, at the very least, imprecise on that issue. But I note that the "a politician was wrong once, therefore vaccines can't be trusted" folks don't tend to extend that theory to things like "tax cuts cause economic booms" or "abstinence only sex ed is super effective" sort of statements that have repeatedly flopped in tests.

8b16380d 6mo ago

[flagged]

ASalazarMX 6mo ago
Let's hope humanity develops defenses against the easy (even forced) spread of disinformation, hate, ignorance, and mass manipulation if general. Social networks, and the drivers of their owners, caught the world by surprise.
- suzzer99 6mo ago
  I don't think humans will ever have a defense for "trigger my amygdala and tell me what I want to hear."
- piva00 6mo ago
  There's too much financial incentive to spread disinformation, if you can make money by posting on social media and attracting a following on your disinformation there's always going to be someone ignorant/innocent enough to fall for it. I can't see what else humanity would need to develop as defenses, we can access nearly all information that exists, almost instantly, from the convenience of almost anywhere. The problem is to knowing how to parse so much information, even more when there's conflicting information where nuance and critical thinking are required. Accepting that there's very few absolute right answers, that the real world is much more "depends" than "for certain", and stil being able to navigate it all to reach a conclusion that aligns with the best probable answer demands quite a lot more quality education than the vast majority of humanity has access to.
- tstrimple 5mo ago
  We know to some degree how to do it. Education helps. Conservatives are the problem. It's been shown over and over again that the grifters target conservatives because it actually works. Similar campaigns against more liberal targets aren't nearly as successful. Conservatives in the US have spent years sacrificing their bullshit detectors for "fuck the libs" policies and yay team Red rhetoric.
thefz 6mo ago

ChiperSoft 6mo ago

There is a fantastic episode of Sawbones that goes into how we discovered vitamin K and why doctors started giving it to newborns. It cut infant mortality by a significant amount. I recommend it for anyone who has doubts or who just geeks out over science. https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/sawbones-vitamin-k/ https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/sawbones-vitamin-k/

brendoelfrendo 6mo ago

It's absolutely fascinating how much of these comments have to do with vaccines when the article is very clearly about a vitamin shot. Wellness culture and influencers have truly broken how we think and talk about medicine.

ceejayoz 6mo ago
It’s the same core phenomenon, and the same activists pushing it.
suzzer99 6mo ago
I got in a series of debates over the Covid vaccine on Facebook with a guy I like and respect, who hosts sound baths, promotes psychedelic therapy, and does a bunch of other wellness-related stuff along with his wife. The idea was maybe we could civilly come to some kind of understanding. We kept it civil. But in the end, I came to the conclusion that being anti-vaxx was a core part of his identity as part of the wellness community, and I was never going to change that.

suburban_strike 6mo ago

All of our pediatric policy has become iatrogenic in the US. There's a reason our maternal mortality rates are worse than the third world. Infants are supposed to get vitamin K and other nutrients from breastfeeding, but we push formula. Vitamin K is supposed to stabilize after a week, but we push booster shots. Some parents believed the advocacy of actors, and withheld boosters and vaccines-- while feeding their children chemical slop that makes the news every so often after being found contaminated with toxins or deficient in some vital nutrient or mineral, leading to headlines like this. For maximum hilarity we're putting infants' underdeveloped clotting mechanisms to the test with a battery of injections and performing cosmetic circumcisions just hours after birth. If the assignment was "come up with a way to maim or kill as many children as possible while maintaining plausible deniability," these are the sorts of subversive pediatric policies I'd suggest. They'll bleed out days or months later, I feign ignorance and avoid attribution, mission accomplished. Every step of this is handled in the dumbest way conceivable, and if you speak out about it you get blackballed. (Not that this is anything new; they did the same to Semmelweiss, committing him to a mental hospital and beating him to death for suggesting that doctors should wash their hands between surgeries.) Babylonians/Jews wait until day 8--no sooner, no later--for reasons they could only have discovered through trial-and-error. They perform the same operations and get all the same vaccines we do but Israel's autism rate is 50% lower than the US. Maternal and infant mortality rates are also significantly lower for them. We trade in equipment and cross-train the same practitioners. The only differences are keeping infant nutrition organic/kosher and delaying ritual infant trauma just long enough so that they don't bleed to death in the absence of Vitamin K boosters.

suzzer99 6mo ago
> Infants are supposed to get vitamin K and other nutrients from breastfeeding, but we push formula. This is literally nonsense. From the article: > All newborns lack vitamin K. No matter how much vitamin K a mother consumes, it doesn’t sufficiently pass through the placenta, and breast milk contains only small amounts. That puts babies who are exclusively breastfed at a higher risk for vitamin K deficiency bleeding. Formula is fortified with vitamin K, but even with that, experts agree, babies should still get the shot.

gh0sty321 5mo ago

[flagged]

josefritzishere 5mo ago

Flagged? This is interesting and the comments are well behaved.

brendoelfrendo 5mo ago
As the OP, I'm not surprised. I had hoped that this would inspire some good discussion, but I don't think it really bore out. I'm not sure if your "well behaved" comment is sarcasm or not, but if it's not, then I can't really say I agree. Lots of flagged comments in here and, honestly, I think the comments started to veer off-topic almost instantly (and I am not blameless in that regard). I do think it is an interesting, albeit depressing, story, and I think that health and medicine have a place on HN, so it is disappointing we couldn't be more normal about it.