Conference moira::parenting

    	I absolutely question the theory of linking a Vit. K shot at birth
    to early childhood cancer. 

    	Cancer is a generic term which covers a multitude of conditions.

    	How can they be sure that the children who had the shots were not
    also exposed to carcinogenic substances while growing up? Was the food
    compared, the quality of air that they breathed compared, were
    chemicals in their environments compared? Were stress levels and
    nutrition compared? Were psychological profiles performed? 

    	I tend to think not.

    	The conclusion from the research that you stated is so very flawed
    that I would not be overly concerned about the injection.

    			Wendy

Wendy,

  I don't think you should dismiss this so easily.

>>    	I absolutely question the theory of linking a Vit. K shot at birth
>>    to early childhood cancer. 

Of course it should be questioned. I have but I am convinced on the
evidence I have seen that there is very likely to be a link between
intramuscular vitamin k & childhood cancer.

>>    	Cancer is a generic term which covers a multitude of conditions.

I know. The research lists the various cancers that the children in the
study suffered. The bulk are leukaemias, lymphomas and nervous system
tumours.

>>    	How can they be sure that the children who had the shots were not
>>   also exposed to carcinogenic substances while growing up? Was the food
>>    compared, the quality of air that they breathed compared, were
>>    chemicals in their environments compared? Were stress levels and
>>    nutrition compared? Were psychological profiles performed? 

>>    	I tend to think not.

Clearly cancers may be caused by a number of factors, or perhaps a
combination of factors, but surely that is not to deny any strong
correlation that may be found between some particular factor & subsequent
cancer. How else can we study it?

This study looked at medical records and so could only investigate any
links between various aspects of the childrens/mothers medical history
and the cancers. It looked for links with a number of such aspects.

It found an increase in the risk of childhood cancer by a factor of 2
in those children given the vitamin k injection. The 95% confidence
interval was 1.5 to 2.5 (these figures are approximate as I don't have
the paper in front of me).

Children's vitamin k concentrations are up to 5000 times the normal
level after the injection. It doesn't seem to be out of the question
for that to have some affects other than the prevention of HDN.
After all, if vitamin k is good for babies, why does mother nature
arrange that they have so little? Or, to put it the other way around,
if vitamin k is really advantageous, surely mother nature (i.e. the
results of evolution) would provide it.

>>    	The conclusion from the research that you stated is so very flawed
>>    that I would not be overly concerned about the injection.

I really have no idea how you can state that the conclusion is flawed
without having read the reasearch. I personally am very concerned about
the injection, but, as I say, I'm not an expert.

Mike.

    	100% of children who breath at birth will eventually go on to
    develop a terminal illness from which they will die (in most cases that
    terminal illness will be old age or accident).

    	If my child receives that shot and is then raised near a nuclear
    dump site and then develops cancer, is it due to the shot or to the
    environment, according to what you have presented that child would fall
    into the shot=cancer category.

    	I'm not saying that the shot is fabulous, there are a lot of things
    that you will be asked to do that are supposedly good for your child
    that you will question (we, for one refused the hep. series now
    routinely given at birth). 

    	As to why we appear to need something that mother nature is not
    providing? Perhaps some children do not indeed need any vitamin
    supplement at birth, some do. In olden days it would have been referred
    to as survival of the fittest, we are now able to increase the more
    "non-fittest" children's chances of survival. Is that to be considered
    bad or not "natural"?

    	I'm not telling you not to worry, it's your decision, worry about
    what you want to (and there will be a million worries with your little
    one ;-)), me? I'm worrying how to teach my kids to be kind to small
    animals and to laugh when they feel the urge.

    	Please keep us updated, I'm interested in your final decision.

    				Wendy

    				Wendy
    	

  Of course the chances are minimal & there are a hundred other things
  to worry about. I just happen to be on this one at the moment!

  As to your nuclear dump site analogy, what if half the children in that
  environment have the shot and a twice as many of that half develop cancer?
  Don't you ignore the environment and concentrate on the shot?

  And as to the "survival of the fittest", might it not be that that very
  mechanism has been selecting in favour of low vitamin k levels all
  the time? I wouldn't think twice about doing something 'unnatural'
  if there wasn't a thought at the back of my mind that maybe we don't
  know everything about what we are doing.

  Anyway, thanks for your interest, I'd better get onto the next of my
  million worries I suppose, or I'll never get through them!

  Mike.

    Every parent faces these statistical worries, if they are informed on
    the risks of receiving the various childhood vaccinations.  Even the 
    remote chance of complication can get a parent to worrying.
    
    All you can do is act based on the information you have, however
    incomplete it may be.   If you can learn the risks of getting 
    Haemorrhagic Disease, comparing Vitamin K supplemented kids vs.
    untreated, then perhaps you will have enough information to make
    a decision.                                  

    Sorry not to be giving you any of the answers that you need, but one 
    thing I was curious about: Are these vitamin K routine in the US? I
    was never asked for consent for any such thing, and I have never 
    heard of vitamin K shots or oral dose before.
    
    Eventually, you'll have to go with your gut feelings when it comes to a
    final decision. Sometimes parental decisions fly in the face of current
    fashion and end up being correct in the long run. For example, I
    insisted on lying my newborn daughter on the back, even though all the
    nurses kept really telling me off. It just looked more "natural" to me,
    and that's the way we were all raised back home. Now of course, medical
    fashion has gone back to back-sleeping, and I feel vindicated.
    
    Good luck in your decision.
    
    Patricia.

Vitamin K shots are routine in the U.S.  They help the blood clot, which
is especially important if parents decide to circumsize a baby boy before
he is 8 days old.  (I thought it really interesting when our doctor told
us that the blood doesn't clot well until they are 8 days old, and that
this is the age that the Bible suggests circumsizing a boy).

     Carol

    
    I've been meaning to enter this note for a while but... well I always
    manage to forget.  Today is my last day (for a while), I'm due with my
    second in two weeks.  
    
    After reading this note, discussing it with hubby and then going thru
    all my Lamaze refresher stuff I discovered that this Vitamin K shot
    is mandatory in Massachusettes.  I left the paper at home, on the table
    where it has been patiently waiting for me to remember to bring it in,
    but alas, I've forgotten again.  The article/paper mentioned the law(?)
    number (if that is the correct term), but basically it seems you don't
    have a choice in Mass.  If you expect your child to attend public
    schools etc. then certain innoculation requirements must be met.  
    
    This always confuses me...since you "MUST" have these shots to attend
    public schools but students without innoculations are in
    schools....hmmm.  Just something to think about.  You may find that
    your state just does things and the hospital/dr you choose has no
    options for you.  
    
    Just a thought....
    
    anxiously awaiting #2,
    
    Rose Marie

    Vitamin K isn't an immunization, it is a vitamin which is given to
    prevent hemorraging in newborns.
    
    There is some debate among people on whether it is necessary,
    particularly if the mother will be breastfeeding (breastfed babies seem
    to get the bacteria which manufactures vitamin K more quickly than
    formula-fed babies), and there was no use of forceps, or other
    extraction techniques during the birth.  Extraction methods often cause
    some trauma which can cause bleeding.  
    
    I had my two youngest girls at home, so this wasn't an arguement as
    direct-entry midwives can't give innoculations or drugs, or use any
    extraction equipment.  
    
    Meg
    Meg  

The cancer numbers mentioned in .0  have been questioned by a different team in
Sweden who found no increase in cancer cases in children who had been given Vit
K at birth. This was in "The Guardian" health section about a week ago. I no
longer have the paper.

Given all the other risks we subject children to, I think the Vit K jab is a 
very minor factor. I mean should you put petrol in your car when your child is
is it - what about all those bezene fumes? What is in the water around here?

I live Berkshire, England and I am far more worried about what may be coming 
out of the MoD places around here and the quality of the air and water than 
the fact that my child was given Vit K at birth.

          Celia

    This was in last Thursday's Boston Globe (9/23)
    
    Vitamin-cancer link in infants disputed
    
    The Vitamin K shots given to all newborns to reduce the chance of
    dangerous hemorrhaging do not appear to increase the risk of childhood
    leukemias or other cancers, according to a study in today's New England
    Journal of Medicine. The survey, which included nearly 55,000 children,
    counters two previous smaller studies suggesting a doubling of the
    cancer risk.
    

    since this is the only place i've seen heamorrghic mentioned, i'll post
    my question.
    
    i remember being sick in first grade and being told that i had H-Fever. 
    as far as my parents can remember the H stood for heamorraghic.
    
    does anyone know what it is?  i'm 31 today and fairly healthy.
    i'm just curios.
    
    jo