Vaccine sceptic Dr Joseph Mercola reverses stance on newborn vitamin K shots
Dr Joseph Mercola states data is clear that vitamin K saves lives, following ProPublica investigation into fatal bleeding cases
Dr Joseph Mercola, a prominent vaccine sceptic and long-time critic of standard newborn medical interventions, has publicly reversed his opposition to vitamin K injections for infants. In an article published on his website in April, Mercola stated that the data is clear and that the shots save lives, marking a significant departure from his previous warnings that the procedure was unnecessary.
The change in position occurred two days after ProPublica contacted Mercola regarding an investigation into infant deaths linked to parents refusing the treatment. Mercola, who previously promoted unapproved oral alternatives, acknowledged that his past writings, specifically a 2010 article, contributed to misinformation. He wrote that the science had moved forward and that he supported vitamin K prophylaxis for all newborns.
Mercola’s reversal coincides with rising concerns among medical professionals and politicians about declining uptake of the shot and subsequent cases of fatal bleeding in infants. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr remained silent when confronted by Representative Kim Schrier about the vitamin K shot during a House subcommittee hearing. Schrier, a former paediatrician, described the resulting brain and gut bleeds in infants as heartbreaking and scary.
An HHS spokesperson acknowledged declining uptake of the shot, attributing it to falling public trust in healthcare institutions, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The spokesperson stated that rebuilding trust requires honesty, informed consent, and respect for individual choice, while noting that the CDC recommends parents give newborns the shot within six hours of birth.
Mercola, who has faced federal scrutiny for false claims about product safety, declined to be interviewed for the story but provided a written response. He noted he did not agree with all characterisations in ProPublica’s summary but had nothing further to add. His online posts include a disclaimer that they are intended as a way of sharing knowledge and information, not medical advice.
