Hear me out as a retired hosp ital nurse. I bring attention to the last sentence that makes no sense in its context regarding newborn vaccinations. I rewrite part of the sentence:

"...NO BABY WAS GOING TO BLEED OUT ON MY WATCH..."

First of all, I am an anti-vax person, BUT NONE OF THE VACCINES given after birth, EXCEPT ONE have anything to do with "bleeding out," a/k/a hemorrhaging, and it's not a vaccine, IT'S A VITAMIN.- VITAMIN K...but the real question is, does the infant REALLY NEED THE SHOT?

Newborns usually have low levels of vitamin K in their bodies. This vitamin is needed for the blood to clot. Low levels of vitamin K can cause a rare but serious bleeding problem. Research shows that vitamin K shots prevent dangerous bleeding in newborns.

Vitamin K is metabolized and stored in the liver—not free-floating throughout the body—so almost none of a pregnant woman’s vitamin K crosses the placenta. Medical literature states that all babies are therefore born vitamin K-deficient, putting them at risk for uncontrolled bleeding, called vitamin K deficiency bleeding.

BUT, does the infant REALLY NEED THE SHOT? More likely than not, NO.

Approximately, only 0.25% to 1.7% of newborns who don’t receive vitamin K at birth will experience classic or early vitamin K deficiency bleeding. Classic is within the first week after birth; early is in the first 24 hours. However, nearly all early vitamin K deficiency bleeding is secondary, which means the newborn has an underlying disorder or was born to a mother who was taking medications that inhibit vitamin K, such as anti-epileptic drugs, some antibiotics, tuberculosis drugs, or blood thinners.

Lastly, I could not find any medical/scientific literature regarding any early or latent serious complications or sequelae resulting from newborn administration of Vitamin K.