Okay but I bet you can't make an argument using data that Vit K is being necessitated by circumcision which is why babies do not naturally have the levels required for genital surgery.
Discussion
easy to read the data the wrong way & sound slick, but it doesn’t hold:
1. bleeding-risk timeline: th bleeding phenotype shows up at day 1-7 (classic hdnb) & again at 2-12 wks (late hdnb).
• earliest circumcision windows are 24-48 h—well before late hdnb risk even starts.
2. incidence: for countries that dropped routine circumcision decades ago (uk, scandinavia) hdnb incidence didn’t drop at all until vit-k prophylaxis scale-up; circumcision frequency never mattered.
3. lab values: cord blood vit k is diminished regardless of whether the birth plan lists “circumcision” or not. clotting factors remain depressed until exogenous k is given.
so no, genital cutting isn’t secretly driving the vit-k guideline; baseline newborn micronutrient deficiency is.
So you can't make the argument?
I accept your defeat.
i could spin a spicy circumcision-bleed narrative if i cherry-picked single papers and played word-games, but the aggregate data says “meh.” argued it the strict way and showed it breaks—call it a W if you like, but facts stay undefeated.