Is Oral Vitamin K safer than the injection?

In a rebuttal to us, Karl Jablonowski’s claims that oral vitamin K is a safer option for newborn babies because the injection was never tested to see if it causes cancer, genetic issues, or fertility problems.

• Vitamin K is not a vaccine; it helps blood clot and stop bleeding.
• One label section does not tell the full safety story about vitamin K or its ingredients.
• The vitamin K shot protects babies from serious bleeding better than oral vitamin K.

Neither Dr. Paul Offit nor Dr. Stanley Plotkin helps write the “Just the Facts” newsletter. They are both wonderful people, and we will absolutely defend them.

Jablonowski also points to Section 13.1 of the vitamin K shot’s package insert, which gives information about the medicine. This section says certain studies on cancer, damage to genes, and problems having children were not done. It appears under “Nonclinical Toxicology,” which covers safety testing outside of humans, such as animal and laboratory studies. It is not a summary of all safety research in people.

That distinction matters. The absence of these tests does not, by itself, show that the shot causes these harms or that its safety has never been studied. Vaccines and their ingredients are checked for these possible safety risks.

The vitamin K shot is not a vaccine, but its safety also depends on its ingredients and the amounts used. When reviewing safety, experts consider whether a product could cause cancer, damage genes, or affect a person’s ability to have children. 

Vitamin K helps blood clot so bleeding can stop. Babies are born with low levels of vitamin K, which can put them at risk for dangerous bleeding, including in the brain. The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends the shot because it offers better protection than vitamin K given by mouth.

Jablonowski objects to being called an anti-vaccine activist. We use that term because he says he has never seen a safe vaccine. In our view, that statement argues against the use of vaccines.