Vaccines Bring Death not Cure Death

This article claims to have proof that vaccines spread disease as illustrated by a doctor with a skull mask holding a blue syringe, and confirmed by vaccine "truth advocates,” an intangible source, happy to confirm any "truths." There are statistics that show vaccines largely eliminate diseases where they are used. Severe side effects to vaccines are very rare, much less so than the fatalities caused by the prevented disease. The net impact on the world is by far a positive one. This is not mentioned of course. The side effects are of course mentioned. The Kaiser Health News report is cited as proof of the claim that vaccines spread disease. This report which is given by a reputable .org website is an instance where a disease outbreak spread among a largely vaccinated populace. However, when drawing a conclusion about truth, many samples are necessary. There are vastly more instances outbreaks in unvaccinated populations. And just because there was an outbreak of disease where there were vaccinations, doesn’t mean there is a connection between those two things. As I get older, so do you, therefore you get older because I am getting older. That doesn’t make any sense and neither does this lie. By ignoring the other side of the data, that allowed them to more sneakily assume a false conclusion. They end the article, not stating that vaccines make people carriers of the disease, a claim made near the beginning, but just saying that vaccines don’t work because some guy who got the vaccine and got mumps later. Also, to be a carrier of a disease means that it is heritable and is present in a mutated allele. Vaccines do not change our DNA in any way so a basic understanding of biology shuts this down as well. They’re trying to hit two birds with one stone here. Too bad their rocks are imaginary. All you have to do is look and you won't see them.

Posted by “Takoda Nordoff” (3)

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-14-proof-vaccinated-people-are-spreading-communicable-disease.html

How Fast Do You Want to Lose Weight?

Walking around anywhere, browsing on the internet, celebrities in movies and on the red carpet - anywhere you go, there will be something that reminds you of the perfect body, whether it be a male figure or a female figure. There will always be these standards that people set. No one is born with the perfect body, most people have to work hard to achieve this healthy, nicely toned figure that they wish to have, and of course, they have to continue working hard to maintain that because once they let themselves go, it is much harder to get back to where they left off.

For some people, it's much harder to head to the gym and do the exercises they'd need to achieve this nice body they hope to have and that's when advertisers for diet pills come in and take their attention. These advertisements are everywhere, and yes, there are some pills out that that can help someone on their path to losing weight, but that also requires them to put in the work which is to have a consistent healthy diet along with some type of exercise at least, but some of these pills are said to "help lose weight without any exercises or anything else at all". As if someone can just take a pill a day and magically lose weight if they continue to live the lifestyle that they were already living.

This article on a site titled Health and Beauty Life reviews three diet pills that can help someone lose weight without having to exercise at all. They explain the benefits of each of the pills by describing the different types of chemicals and how each of those chemicals help with fat loss. They've included before and after photos of just one person who has tried these pills and seen "results" and even writes about whether or not the pills are safe along with the costs of them. What makes it seem even worst is that they have the websites of where to buy these pills and how to get discounts in bolded print, these colorful letters are even larger than the text of the rest of the article.

On livestrong.com, an article also titled Diet Pills Without Exercise speaks about how these diet pills can only help someone temporarily, and that sooner than later they will gain their weight back and usually prescribed diet pills are used to help those who suffer from obesity because it can help them with short term weight loss so they can begin their journey to losing weight the right way.

Everybody wants to sell products and make money, but to deceive those who are already battling with themselves and their body image is another story and this happens very often. People would falsely advertise products and win people over by simply using larger words to seem scientific and justifiable, but at the end of the day, they're the only winners because they're taking money from these people who just want to change their image.

Posted by "Han Nguyen" (3)

The Big Bang

            The beginning of the universe and the beginning of all life is unknown to us, there is no real proof as to what occurred that could cause the birth of our universe. The big bang is a theory that is thought to be very probable to kick start our universe yet however some stay closed minded toward it. People are allowed to have their own beliefs but in an article from Answer in Genesis they purposely and ignorantly ignore any possible theories on why the big bang may have occurred and only state that the bible has all the answers. They purposely bash and look down on the possibility that the big bang took place at all.

            In the article, the author claims to have debated Bill Nye the science guy, telling him the same information as in the article, that the beginning of the universe is not unknown and that the answer is in the bible. He proceeds to say that the big bang is not even a theory in its own right as there is no proof that it could have happened in the first place and that its origins was only thought of to please man’s aesthetic belief that the universe was made without a god.  The author does throw in there that some Christians believe that god had a part in the big bang but then proceeds to bash them as well stating that those who believe that are only supporting a pagan belief and are going against the bible.  The author is clearly biased and does not believe in any science and only wishes to keep a closed mind about the possibilities, instead only thinking that the bible has all the answers.

            In a separate article it explains the big bang theory more in depth stating that it is the leading explanation on how the universe started. The universe started with a small singularity and it continued to inflate over the next 13.8 billion years into the universe we know of today. The author states that this theory was found using mathematical models and formulas in order to get what is known about the big bang today. Even though these scientist believe in the big bang they don’t out right say that this is the only possibility and this is exactly how the universe started. Instead the author keeps an open mind unlike the previous article and states that this theory may not be true and other explanations can arise. Everyone is allowed to believe in what they choose to regardless if there is evidence or not at the moment. However it is not right to bash another belief because it does not match up with your own belief whether it is religion or science, they wish for the same thing, to know how the universe started.

Posted by "Edwin Montecinos"

3 Simple and Easy Treatments for Depression

            A recent article published in Natural News explores what they believe to be possible alternative treatments for depression, claiming that “artificial junk”, or antidepressant medications, are more harmful and far less effective than natural remedies. They write that in addition to only a 50% chance of working, antidepressants, “according to numerous reviews” which were not cited, can lead to increased risk of suicide and have awful side-effects such as muscle paralysis. With this, the article jumps into introducing three effective, natural ways to combat depression.

            One suggestion includes partaking in partial or full sleep deprivation to reduce symptoms of depression. This means to either deprive oneself of sleep for approximately 21 hours (partial) or 36+ hours (full). However, looking more into the article that they cite, there seems to be no actual study done to prove the effectiveness of this method. The paper claims that clinical improvements were seen 24 hours after sleep deprivation, but does not explain what benefits they saw, how they were measured, and if this is even effective beyond 24 hours or as a long-term treatment. Looking further into this theory, I stumbled upon an article from Harvard Health discussing the effects of sleep on depression. The article directly contrasts to the statements put forward by Natural News. It writes that sleep problems that cause sleep deprivation such as insomnia actually increase the risk of depression as a lack of sleep can lead to impaired thinking and emotional regulation. It even goes on further to write that good sleeping habits can alleviate such impairments, citing statistical information and actual studies performed.

            The writer further goes on to say that talking to your mother more is also an effective method to combat depression, citing a study that merely shows a correlation to depression and relationship tension in one’s life. Again, this study does not offer this as a treatment for depression, but rather just notices a correlation based on survey questions administered and suggests that discussion of these relationships be considered by therapists when working with those with depression. Although it is certainly possible that improving relationships in your life can help improve one’s mental state, for Nature News to say that talking to your mom provides a “far better chance of recovery than synthetic drugs” without any actual evidence is completely illogical. Finally, this article throws in the “best” natural treatment to alleviate depression symptoms – magnesium supplements. They of course provide a link directing you to their website to purchase such supplements, but do not include any link to research to back up its effectiveness.

            The dangerous ideas put forward by this Nature News article are not only completely baseless, but may actually cause more harm to those who unknowingly follow these tips in order to treat their depression. Furthermore, using fear as a tactic to push their beliefs and to sell their products by claiming antidepressants are mostly ineffective and can even worsen your symptoms, again without citing any evidence, proves that this source as incredibly biased and unreliable.

Posted by "Alexandra Rios" (3)

"Progressives mandating Vaccines = the New Nazis"

Vaccinations have always been a topic of debate from the moment of their creation and implementation. Vaccinations were created with the goal of stopping and preventing the spread of numerous deadly diseases that had caused numerous epidemics around the world before a vaccination was implemented and thus caused the disease rate to decline drastically. The debate of whether to vaccinate or not has lead to an article on naturalnews.com to compare California legislatures to that of highly, experimental Nazi doctors. This article, published in 2018 cites SB277 law passed in California as a violation of the Nuremberg Codes, which were set after the discovery of what Nazi doctors were experimenting on Jewish prisoners.

The mandation of vaccination (SB277) removed personal belief exemptions and required vaccination for entry into private or public primary schools. It was passed in June 2015, yet, this anti-vaccination article was published in November 2018. The author starts the article, “As California’s forests are going up in flames, you might wonder whether the bureaucrats of California actually care about children at all.” A fire in which some 20+ people have lost their lives in. He then quickly switches to the idea that if legislatures did care about children that  they wouldn’t be forcing these “dangerous, deadly” vaccinations. The author continues that by mandating these vaccines legislatures are violating the Nuremberg codes that were associated with Nazi era Germany. The codes are strictly related to the ethics of experimenting on humans that were specifically associated with Nazi doctors during the second world war and their racial hygiene experiments conducted within concentration camps.

Vaccinations have had vigorous testing done before they are released to the public. They are designed with the goal of preventing the spread of dangerous and deadly diseases. Yes, vaccinations do come with an array of various levels of side-effects but the most severe side-effects occur at a miniscule rate. The specific mandate in California was implemented after an outbreak of measles at Disneyland and due to low vaccination rates in some towns throughout the state. These vaccinations though are not comparable to the Nuremberg Codes and what they specifically related to. Vaccines have been experimented and highly tested for many years and have known side-effects and bring about an overall positive result of prevention of the spread of deadly disease; while, the Codes related to unethical treatment upon humans where doctors and scientists had one goal in mind of creating an Aryan race among other disastrous experiments. Also, this law is mandated for entry into primary and secondary schools where children interact and spread sickness to each other at a high rate; the Codes, however, are related to people who were restrained and had no consent on what was done. California, a highly populated and attractive destination for tourists around the world had the goal of mandating vaccination to prevent the epidemic of a deadly disease. Vaccinations have been highly tested and are still being tested. The side-effects and risks are always told to the patient prior to receiving the vaccine. Having a say in vaccination is something that people should be free to express but to compare a law that mandates vaccine to codes related to racial medicine that was experimented on unwilling subjects during a time of war is not an appropriate link.

-Maddie Powers

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-13-california-forced-vaccinations-a-blatant-violation-of-the-nuremberg-code.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill_277

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/vaccines-diseases.html

Mental Illness and Violence

       I'm sure you are all aware of the tragic shooting that occurred in a California bar last Thursday night which took the lives of 12 innocent people. If you saw any news articles, you've most likely read headlines and stories mentioning that the shooter was a veteran who might have suffered from PTSD. There is no current information on whether he was formally diagnosed with PTSD, but articles such as this label him as a “PTSD shooter”. Other articles such as this put PTSD in the headline, but then don't mention anything regarding what is known about PTSD and violent behavior. Unfortunately, this type of reporting is a recurring theme after every mass shooting, in which the media will use mental illness as the scapegoat. Based off current research, the idea that mental illness leads to violent behavior is nothing more than fake news. Not only is this faulty reporting, but it’s led a large portion of the public to believe that mentally ill individuals are more likely to act out in violent ways. This is detrimental to the rest of the population who suffer from these conditions, most commonly PTSD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, because it impacts how they’re treated.

       So, lets get some things straight, individuals with a serious mental illness are not any more likely to act out violently than the average person. Of course there are many other variables at play that do increase violence when combined with a mental illness, such as substance abuse, comorbidity, personal stress, etc., but when just looking at an individual with some mental illness, this relationship holds true. In fact, studies have shown evidence of the opposite, in that mentally ill individuals are at least three times more likely to a be victim of violence rather than the perpetrator. This number is already high due to the frequent discrimination and difficulties of life that come with having a mental disorder, so being linked with people who commit mass shootings only increases the amount of stigma against them. Another study found that patients with a serious mental illness only accounted for 5% of all violent crimes in the US, much lower than the 18% of the population who suffer from these illnesses. In other words, even if every person with a serious mental illness was removed from society, violent crime rates would only fall by 5%. When compared to other developed countries, further data shows that the proportion of Americans with a severe mental illness is about the same even though the US has had many more mass shootings and violent crimes in general.

       All these studies, and many more, provide a lot of evidence that go against this belief still widely held by many people. Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying that the people who commit these awful acts of violence have nothing wrong with them, but rather you shouldn’t think any differently about someone who has one of these mental illnesses.

Posted by: Matt Murdoch (3)

Vaccines Cause Autism?

This has been a debated topic for many years. We have the pro vaccinators and those against vaccinations. For years many people have believed the vaccines were the cause for children having autism but there is more then ample evidence that refutes this absurd thought. This article explains the stories of multiple children who have been vaccinated and who are autistic and how their siblings who have not been vaccinated are not. It continues to falsely accuse vaccinations for the cause of their child’s illness. 

There have been multiple studies that have done research on if vaccines really do cause autism with the same continuous outcome that it does not. The article, “Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association,” states that their research does not support a causal relationships between vaccines and autism. They go on to say that; “There was no difference in age at diagnosis between the cases vaccinated before or after 18 months of age and those never vaccinated. Also there was no temporal association between onset of autism within 1 or 2 years after vaccination.”  This and many other articles go to dispute the false accusations that vaccines cause autism.

In another article in the Australian Vaccination-risks Network Inc., a mother tells a story about how she vaccinated her child and found him dead in his cot the next work. This mother also bases her opinion that the vaccine killed her child on the medical opinion of Dr. Kalokerinos, who had been know to support many controversial issues over his years. He believed that vaccines were used in the genocide of indigenous Australians and the spread of HIV in Africa. Off the bat a man with such controversial opinions should not be a trusted source for information about vaccines. The moms who speak out about their children becoming autistic after receiving vaccinations support their claims from very biased doctors and uneducated websites. 

I think that people who decide to not vaccinate their children should have copious amount of evidence as to why they aren’t doing so. They should also look into the multiple cases of scientists and doctors refuting their earlier work that vaccines are unsafe, as more evidence has come to light about vaccines in recent years. There is a great deal of evidence to support that everyone should vaccinate their children, not only for their health but the health of everyone around them. 

https://avn.org.au/information/vaccine-injury/vaccinevictimsofaustralia/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)01239-8/fulltext

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Kalokerinos

Posted by: Katarzyna Mosio (3)

The Sushi Scare

       Sushi, one of millennials favorite foods, was put on the chopping block by the media in early 2017. A (not so) shocking case study was published in the British Medical Journal, which provided a detailed report of a portuguese man who acquired a parasitic nematode, in the genus Anisakis, from eating sushi! He was diagnosed with a disease called anisakiasis, which was caused by consuming the raw tuna. As is common knowledge, sushi is not cooked, therefore there is high risk of it containing bacteria and even parasites. This is simply because these types of organisms tend to reside in the tissue of animals which humans consume. Although we are extremely familiar with this risk when we are eating chicken or beef, it seems to somehow have been lost when we are consuming seafood. 

       Despite the fact that this should not be shocking news, the media plastered the story all over the internet fully knowing millennials intimate relationship with this foreign food. After the story was posted and shared, it quickly found itself in every corner of the internet. However, it was not the case of anisakiasis that was fabricated, but rather BMJ's fear-mongering twist on it. The BMJ article, which told of the singluar portuguese case of anisakiasis, references an additional study that had detailed 25 other gastrointestinal diagnoses of anisakiasis. BMJ used this study as evidence to warn the public about the dangers of consuming sushi, and to be very cautious when eating it. However, the 25 diagnoses of anisakiasis that were detailed in this study had absolutely no connection to consuming sushi whatsoever, and rather, was caused by anchovies! Furthermore, an additional article was published recently revealing that there has only ever been 60 reported cases of anisakiasis in the United states, none of which were found to be caused by the consumption of sushi. This article also confirms that the majority of diagnosed cases of anisakiasis, in the America's and Europe, originate from marinated anchovies. 

       False information can be spread so easily and can even originate from sources which we believe we can trust. Situations such as this are an important reminder that within the scientific community it is vital to ensure that the cited literature referenced in scholarly articles is not misleading. But also, as a consumer, it is important to always verify the validity of other's cited sources. 

Posted by: Hayley Fecko (2)

A Change in Climate and Attitude

A Change in Climate and Attitude

In this age of modern media, we see thousands of news article, videos, and images every single day. They can be funny, serious and informational but they’re often misleading and opinionated; loosely anchored in fact and heavily anchored in emotion. As we can see from this Life Site article, Global warming is fake science, promoted by biasedscientists, an almost disgruntled and angry writer tries to defend the point of view that global climate change is not occurring at all.

               He begins the article with a disgruntled reasoning as to why the we changed the terminology of climate change from global warming as something scientists did to mask the fact that the world wasn’t actually getting warmer. He explains that these scientists say that it’s affecting more than just temperature but precipitation and other climate factors, but to him this can’t be true because storms have always been detrimental and there isn’t anything new or worse about the more recent storms such as Hurricane Sandy. His claims are made without the consideration of the actual science of water and climate, because as water, especially form the oceans, becomes warmer it is more likely to evaporate and become trapped within the atmosphere causing more rain and increasing the likelihood of hurricanes and typhoons, according to NASA. Just because a worse hurricane occurred in the past does not mean it was too wasn’t linked to the increase in global temperature ands sea level as the example he gives us of the hurricane of 1938 Boston was still post-industrial revolution where the levels of CO₂ were just beginning to rapidly rise.

               To make his argument even stronger he goes onto describe how scientists can be bought out and bribed into getting the results that the buyer wants, but the amount of money that it would take to make the majority of accredited scientists to fake data and science would astronomical. Also, most companies that would bribe scientist to fake data aren’t on the side of fixing climate change and acknowledging its existence, most of these companies would rather nothing be done about so they can continue to abuse the limitations set on CO₂ emissions.

               Towards the end of his rant he accuses the supporters of global climate change to have been using flawed data and incorrect science, yet he doesn’t cite a single scientific study in his entire article. His entire article consists of sensationalist statements that aren’t backed up with fact, science and in some cases logic.

               This article is a clear example of media that tries to discredit scientific work with statements made from opinion and emotion which is easily the most detrimental kind of media to our society, and it happens on all sides of the political spectrum.  As this media has become more and more popular in modern culture we have seen a rise in the belief of these statements, this has lead us to where we are now with our law makers being the ones making the ridiculous statements and believing in them as well.

Posted by Francis Hoey (2)

Anti-scientific “Research Journal” Explains Natural Events with Religious Thinking

“Answers in Genesis” is an website that tries to explain different natural events by using religious thinking. Generally, people in “Answers in Genesis” disagree with evolutionary theory, and believe that god made decisions about which species extinct and which species survive. They see themselves as Christianity defenders and denial scientists for not confessing that god created different organisms and continuously modified the whole world.

One of the “research journal” on this website, Living Evidence of a Global Catastrophe: How Microbial Biogeography Supports Noah’s Flood, indicates that the fossil record is one convincible evidence of the Noah’s Flood. This “research journal” says that the water accumulated from low elevation to high elevation, and eventually cover the whole planet. As the flood progressively increased in depth, animals living in the low elevation were drowned and buried first, and then the animals living in the high elevation were covered. As a result, now people can find fossils of different species under different layers of the stratums. It also states that the distribution of the fossils reflects the distribution of different species in different ecosystems. The reason why we cannot find fossils of human in the site where we can find fossils of dinosaurs is that human and dinosaurs lived in different habitats.

The “research journal” also tries to use Noah’s Flood to explain the distribution of microbes. It says that the Noah’s Flood covered the whole planet, and the microbes that used to live on the surface of the land were carried by the flowing water. Eventually, the water deposited the microbes everywhere on the earth. Fortunately, this article did no go too far. To explain the differences of the distributions of different microbes, the “research journal” uses an explanation that is similar to the natural selection. It states that different environments after the flood would make certain kinds of microbes survive better than other kinds of microbes did. As a result, some microbes may be abundant in certain environment, but never be found in other environment.

The whole article is based on an event that did not happen in the past. And there is no illustration, data or graph that support its ideas. Many of the sources of the article are from non-scientific materials such as Genesis, Scripture and other creationism articles. Moreover, the article attacks the modern biogeography and evolutionary thinking, but does not provide any useful evidence that could support its opinions. For example, it does not explain why we can find fish fossils beneath the soils and rocks on the top of the hills if the fossil distribution reflects the species distribution before the flood. According to their sources, the Flood lasted from “the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month” (Genesis 7:11) until “the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month” (Genesis 8:13), which is very short time for the formation of fossils, or even very short time for the formation of different layers of stratums where fossils were found. People in this website lack basic knowledges about the things and events they are talking about. Even though they try to write a research journal to support their idea, they fail to realize that research is something scientific, something that they do not trust and try to denial.

Posted by Muchen Liu (Group 2, Week 8)

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v11/global_catastrophe_biogeography_noah_flood.pdf

Yes for Natural Remedies and No for Prescription Medications

Yes for Natural Remedies and No for Prescription Medications

  We are in 2018 where internet is taking over almost every person, place, job and homes. The primary source of information today that people use is the internet, especially google. Whatever people are concerned about, need to be informed or know about anything, they immediately search it on google where good and bad scientific information pops up and have easy access. An article talks about how bad prescribed medications are and how good natural remedies are.

           The easy access to information on google is dictated by how much money it was paid not by how correct the information are. A blog was written about prescription medications causing horrific health problems being worse than the condition treated. This subject was on naturalnews.com. I did not trust this website from the look of the page to begin with. No written source with author name, sources like health.harvard.edu page were listed that talks about similar subject but the content is way different. This is one way used to gain trust indirectly. The page has an overwhelming number and variety of advertising that distract you from the topic and sometimes are very big that take your attention from reading, and in the middle of the paragraph while being unrelated. By reading this article, i noticed how severe the talks against prescribed medications are. They are trying to convince people that the natural materials are way better and that doctors are prescribing these medications that are very unhealthy and makes things worse than it is. They said that nutritional classes were cancelled at medical colleges, which is a very inaccurate and incorrect information because doctors has to study nutrition and their content to know what can cause illness, what can be beneficial and the sources that food provides. This article is trying to show that their main concern is people's health by convincing them to think that doctors are the bad source of medications and their products which are natural are the best. They are pushing people indirectly to trust more their product and shop on the page. The main reason in fact for the whole website is to sell products that are organic, and super healthy. They also said that natural remedies are no longer recommended by Medical Doctors which is very wrong, i know myself that my doctor still recommend some good natural remedies but rarely, this is because medications are more specifically concentrated to be more effective and can be a mix of many natural ingredients which makes it more efficient, not necessarily have side effects and are really bad like the article shows.

At the end of this blog, this should be clear that incorrect and misleading information on the internet cannot be trusted, which focus more on marketing and less on science. Prescription medications are the most effective and used drugs to treat or cure illness and diseases.

Sources:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-07-prescription-medications-cause-horrific-health-problems.html

https://www.healthrangerstore.com/?utm_source=NaturalNews.com&utm_medium=MenuButton

Posted by “Jad Imad” (3)

Detecting Any Cancer with One Drop of Blood

     Cancer research is clearly at the head of science right now. It seems that everywhere we turn nowadays we hear of some new and upcoming treatment that could change the way we view cancer, so it can be hard to tell what's real and what isn't. When it comes to treating cancer, early detection is often the key to success. The earlier that treatment can begin, often the less intensive it has to be and the better the rates of remission. As we seek to find new treatments, research is often also looking into how to improve these early detection rates.
     In this article, a recent discovery is discussed. This article reports on a new use for a discovered heat shock protein that is a known hallmark of cancer, Hsp90. It states that scientists have now discovered a way in which to use the qualities of this protein to detect the presence of any cancer, and that therefore all that is needed is a single drop of blood. While this seems plausible in theory, it is not the case of the work being discussed. Luo Yongzhang and his team are working on using this protein, and blood samples in order to detect a specific kind of cancer, and to monitor this cancer's growth.
     As shown in this publication, Hsp90 is being looked into for use in specifically detecting liver cancers, but they are not discussing the use of it to detect any other types of cancer. The levels of the protein tend to correlate well with the size of liver tumors, again going back to its use in monitoring cancer. While it seems like a fairly similar conclusion to assume this new method can be used for detecting all cancers, it is rather detrimental and distributes false information. I think this was a genuine mistake as it can be rather confusing, but this information is misleading and could elicit some false hope in early detection methods of other cancers.

Posted by Alexandra McGuire (2)

“The Dark Side of Vitamin K”

Right off the bat by looking at this website, my mind already began questioning the credibility of this source. There was advertisements plastered on every open space and a pop up screen asking me if I would like to subscribe to the newsletter. “Newsletter” was the key word as this implied to me that this website was similar to a magazine. Spreading news in order to gain views. The author, Dr. Joseph Mercola, has been a longtime leader in controversial dietary supplements and alternative approaches to generic hospital practices. His website, mercola.com, has forever been debunked by other professionals in the industry, all pleading that he stop trying to influence people with his illegal and oftentimes incorrect ideas about health.

In this particular article, it deals with Vitamin K and the dark side when it comes to infants and whether or not they should be immunized. Immediately, one has to analyze the bias present here. Dr. Mercola is actively selling out alternative supplemental approaches to health and as such, him debunking the idea of vaccinations would only serve to increase the amount of people looking for these “alternative dietary supplements” he conveniently happens to sell. While he does admit that Vitamin K is a necessity for your newborn baby, he offers alternative ways for ingestion. He offers three main dangers of the shot that also serve to pave the way for this altered approach. He offers that you would be better off to give the vitamin orally and simply adjust the dosage for the baby. However, this alternative method has actually been shown to be more lethal for children when they are not receiving adequate levels of Vitamin K.

In a short project done completed in 2013, 3 years after the publication of Dr. Mercola’s article, it was seen that babies who were denied a Vitamin K shot had higher levels of VKDB (Vitamin K deficiency bleeding). The risk of succumbing to this as an infant is 81 times greater if you do not receive the intramuscular shot. Therein, why is this self-defined Dr. Mercola advertising something that will most certainly raise the risk of developing this bleeding? His only basis for the dangers of the shot was that it would inflict pain, was a higher dose than needed and could potentially become infected. However, do any of these outweigh the mortality risk associated with VKDB? The reasoning for the parents declining the injection? Because they did not want to expose their child to “toxins”, something that is practiced and preached by Dr. Mercola himself in an effort to promote his brand and reap the benefits of uninformed health customers worldwide.


“Posted by Lauren Hiller” (2)

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/27/high-risks-to-your-baby-from-vitamin-k-shot-they-dont-warn-you-about.aspx

https://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/k.html