Rob Schneider Speaks Out Against Vaccines - Mothering Forums
1 2 
I'm Not Vaccinating > Rob Schneider Speaks Out Against Vaccines
Mirzam's Avatar Mirzam 01:56 PM 09-04-2012

He has done his research! His wife is 5 months pregnant and they won't be vaccinating.

 



fruitfulmomma's Avatar fruitfulmomma 02:09 PM 09-04-2012

That is awesome. joy.gif


Bronwen13's Avatar Bronwen13 02:13 PM 09-04-2012

Interesting . . . I get no volume.  So I tried on youtube, there are 4 videos for this, no sound on any of them.  I tried other videos on youtube, sound works fine.  Someone doesn't want me to hear what he has to say.  Good thing I already don't vax.  LOL


Jennyanydots's Avatar Jennyanydots 02:55 PM 09-04-2012
Wow! Go Rob!!! That's awesome!!

FWIW: I can't see a link here but I searched "Rob Schneider vaccine" and watched the first clip that came up. Volume worked great smile.gif
Marnica's Avatar Marnica 04:28 PM 09-04-2012
Another informed parent to be!
C is for Cookie's Avatar C is for Cookie 04:29 PM 09-04-2012

That's awesome!

 

Might I add that that California bill (AB 2109) that they are trying to pass is messed up! Out of curiosity, I looked it up and I think it is horrid.nono02.gif  Is it still under consideration of being passed? I hope not...  

 

Idk, someone inform me here. I might be behind on the times... bag.gif


WildKingdom's Avatar WildKingdom 04:50 PM 09-04-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

He has done his research! His wife is 5 months pregnant and they won't be vaccinating.



I wonder what kind of research he did? He claims that children today get 70 shots. He claims that you can only get hep b two ways- via IV drug use or sexual intercourse.
pek64's Avatar pek64 05:00 PM 09-04-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

I wonder what kind of research he did? He claims that children today get 70 shots. He claims that you can only get hep b two ways- via IV drug use or sexual intercourse.

And you claim?
MyName's Avatar MyName 05:22 PM 09-04-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post


I wonder what kind of research he did? He claims that children today get 70 shots. He claims that you can only get hep b two ways- via IV drug use or sexual intercourse.


I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but he (and all non-vaxxer's when they are stating this fact) mean children are given 70 vaccines, not 70 separate shots. When you count each separate vaccine they are getting (for example: Diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis all in one shot, but three separate vaccines) it ends up equally a very high number (probably over 70, but I don't have the time to count right now) from birth to age 18.

 

Also, almost all cases in the developed world of Hep B are contracted through IV drug use or sexual intercourse. Babies (without parents or family members that are Hep B positive) aren't at risk of contracting Hep B. They only vaccinate infants against Hep B in the USA for convenience. It is easier to do it at birth and then they won't miss the vaccine later in life when they are at risk for contracting Hep B through drug use or sex. Most other countries, including Canada, don't vaccinate infants or even young children against Hep B. It's done later in life to adolescents, since infants are not at all at risk for contracting it. USA is vaccinating babies against Hep B as a matter of convenience only, it is not at all necessary for babies.

 

And..... is this not posted in the I'm Not Vaccinating forum? A forum NOT to debate vaccines, but for those that are NOT vaccinating to have a safe place to discuss. Why do others always have to come here and debate?


rubidoux's Avatar rubidoux 05:22 PM 09-04-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post


I wonder what kind of research he did? He claims that children today get 70 shots. He claims that you can only get hep b two ways- via IV drug use or sexual intercourse.

 

How else can you get hep B?


WildKingdom's Avatar WildKingdom 05:29 PM 09-04-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubidoux View Post

 

How else can you get hep B?

 Vertical transmission (from mother to baby).  Contaminated blood transfusion.  Exposure to contaminated blood (i.e. healthcare workers getting splashed by infected blood or exposed in an accident).  Saliva and tears have viral DNA.  It's not clear if they can transmit Hep B, but up to 30% of affected adults have no "obvious" other source of infection.


momofboys2's Avatar momofboys2 05:56 PM 09-04-2012

Last week on Wed. 8/29th the bill was on its way to the governor.  It had been "Passed by the Legislature—On the governor’s desk for signature or veto".

People were being urged to call the governor.  I haven't heard anything since then.


Marnica's Avatar Marnica 09:51 AM 09-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyName View Post


I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but he (and all non-vaxxer's when they are stating this fact) mean children are given 70 vaccines, not 70 separate shots. When you count each separate vaccine they are getting (for example: Diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis all in one shot, but three separate vaccines) it ends up equally a very high number (probably over 70, but I don't have the time to count right now) from birth to age 18.

 

Also, almost all cases in the developed world of Hep B are contracted through IV drug use or sexual intercourse. Babies (without parents or family members that are Hep B positive) aren't at risk of contracting Hep B. They only vaccinate infants against Hep B in the USA for convenience. It is easier to do it at birth and then they won't miss the vaccine later in life when they are at risk for contracting Hep B through drug use or sex. Most other countries, including Canada, don't vaccinate infants or even young children against Hep B. It's done later in life to adolescents, since infants are not at all at risk for contracting it. USA is vaccinating babies against Hep B as a matter of convenience only, it is not at all necessary for babies.

 

And..... is this not posted in the I'm Not Vaccinating forum? A forum NOT to debate vaccines, but for those that are NOT vaccinating to have a safe place to discuss. Why do others always have to come here and debate?

 If a child is vaccinated per the CDC schedule by the time they are 18 they have received 53 shots (not counting combos separately) and 77 if you do count combos separately. So looks like Rob may have gone to the CDC website and looked with his own eyeballs and decided perhaps - just maybe THATS CRAZY!


MyName's Avatar MyName 09:14 PM 09-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

 If a child is vaccinated per the CDC schedule by the time they are 18 they have received 53 shots (not counting combos separately) and 77 if you do count combos separately. So looks like Rob may have gone to the CDC website and looked with his own eyeballs and decided perhaps - just maybe THATS CRAZY!

 

53 shots?!?! That's crazy. dizzy.gif


MountainMamaGC's Avatar MountainMamaGC 09:10 AM 09-06-2012

I love how he is approaching this as a human rights issue. 


philomom's Avatar philomom 09:53 AM 09-06-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainMamaGC View Post

I love how he is approaching this as a human rights issue. 

That's my main argument with battling infant circumcision. It's a human rights violation.
rubidoux's Avatar rubidoux 11:28 AM 09-06-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainMamaGC View Post

I love how he is approaching this as a human rights issue. 

 

He used the phrase "parents' rights" a bunch of times, which kind of bugged me, though.  It's not that I don't think that parents should have rights, but the only time I've heard that phrase used was in relation to a parent's right to hit their child.  

 

I also think, and maybe I'm wrong, I hope, but, even though he is right about what he says, a lot of people who either haven't thought about the issue before or who have an opposing opinion are going to have a pretty easy time deciding he's crazy.  Something about his demeanor and the way he spoke makes me feel like he'll be easy to write off, or worse.  


kathymuggle's Avatar kathymuggle 11:42 AM 09-06-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubidoux View Post

 

He used the phrase "parents' rights" a bunch of times, which kind of bugged me, though.  It's not that I don't think that parents should have rights, but the only time I've heard that phrase used was in relation to a parent's right to hit their child.  

 

Huh.  Maybe that is a regional thing?

 

If you said "parental rights" to me, the first words that spring to mind are access (usually in custody cases), health and education.  

 

He did not come across as crazy to me at all, but he did come across as inexperienced in talking in front of the camera on vaccine issues.  I hope he sticks around, and that his comfort in expressing vaccine issues, grows.


Marnica's Avatar Marnica 12:57 PM 09-06-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubidoux View Post

 

He used the phrase "parents' rights" a bunch of times, which kind of bugged me, though.  It's not that I don't think that parents should have rights, but the only time I've heard that phrase used was in relation to a parent's right to hit their child.  

 

I also think, and maybe I'm wrong, I hope, but, even though he is right about what he says, a lot of people who either haven't thought about the issue before or who have an opposing opinion are going to have a pretty easy time deciding he's crazy.  Something about his demeanor and the way he spoke makes me feel like he'll be easy to write off, or worse.  

 Parental rights seems to be an accurate word choice IMO when discussing this issue. As for how he will be viewed, I think that the provax crowd will certainly write him off - not as crazy, but as misguided and ignornat, just like they have done with Jenna McCarthy. Its simple stereotyping. Rob Schneider is a comedian. He's funny and known for silly goofy film roles where he is acting like a doofus. Because of this he couldn't possible be a smart, thoughtful parent. Just like Jenna McCarthy is a dumb blond because she posed for playboy. I don't think his demeanor or how he spoke suggested crazy at all. He sounds like a parent to be that has had the wool lifted and is making new discoveries about this issue and it upsets him and he feels pissed that the government is going to tell him he has to do something to his child that he views as harmful. Perfectly reasonable IMO


HiMumumum's Avatar HiMumumum 02:52 PM 09-06-2012

I thought he was very compelling in front of the camera. Really passionate and informed. That was just my impression, though. If that were me I would be full of uhhh's and ummm's but for lack of a better phrase, I thought he was spittin' hot fiyah!


UltraMama's Avatar UltraMama 12:25 PM 09-07-2012

Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said?  A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids?  Really?  That can't be true.  Vaccines are tested over and over right?  My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe.  Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)


kathymuggle's Avatar kathymuggle 12:58 PM 09-07-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraMama View Post

Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said?  A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids?  Really?  That can't be true.  Vaccines are tested over and over right?  My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe.  Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)

This is a really complicated but good question!  I hope others chime in - and you might even want to cross post on the main vaccine page to get a more varied response.

 

There are no good studies that compare unvaxxed children to vaxxed children.  The mainstream medical community considers it "unethical" to leave children unvaxxed.  Ergo no good studies.  Studies that exist often compare vaxxed children to vaxxed children - children vaxxed with this preservative in the vaccine, versus those without said preservative.  That sort of thing.

 

There are some epidemilogical studies (which looks at data), however the number of truly nonvaxxed children in these studies are often quite small so it is hard to reach conclusions.

 

I believe much of the vaccine testing is done by the pharmaceutical industry itself - which is hardly without conflict of interest.  Sadly, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to sit on CDC advisory panels.  I will get a link for you later on that if you like (just ask).


amyknits1076's Avatar amyknits1076 12:59 PM 09-07-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraMama View Post

Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said?  A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids?  Really?  That can't be true.  Vaccines are tested over and over right?  My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe.  Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)

I would not say that there are NO studies, they have to do some studies to please the FDA. What I *would* say is that there are insufficient studies on most vaccines. For example (mind you I am remembering this statistic from researchI did for a paper in nursing school about 5 years ago, so bear with me, I hope I get it right): Gardasil vaccine- the research was done mostly on women ages 15 or 16 up to 24 or 25. Yet, they are recommending it be given to girls as young as 11 years old who have not even gone through puberty yet. And they don't know the risks vs. benefits for girls that age because they didn't do the research on girls age 11-15. Also, the study was only 5 years long, and yet they called it a long-term study. We don't know the long-term effects of this vaccine, yet many women are reporting infertility, painful menses, on up to seizures, coma, and even ironically, cancer years on down the line. But they didn't do the research long enough to see that kind of stuff. If that is not insufficient research, I do not know what is, especially recommending it for an age group they didn't even test it on!

 

That's just one example, but there are many more like it on the vaccines for children under age 2. They do enough "studies" to cover their behinds, but it's really insufficient, at least to me, to prove that their benefits outweigh the risks.


amyknits1076's Avatar amyknits1076 01:01 PM 09-07-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

This is a really complicated but good question!  I hope others chime in - and you might even want to cross post on the main vaccine page to get a more varied response.

 

There are no good studies that compare unvaxxed children to vaxxed children.  The mainstream medical community considers it "unethical" to leave children unvaxxed.  Ergo no good studies.  Studies that exist often compare vaxxed children to vaxxed children - children vaxxed with this preservative in the vaccine, versus those without said preservative.  That sort of thing.

 

There are some epidemilogical studies (which looks at data), however the number of truly nonvaxxed children in these studies are often quite small so it is hard to reach conclusions.

 

I believe much of the vaccine testing is done by the pharmaceutical industry itself - which is hardly without conflict of interest.  Sadly, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to sit on CDC advisory panels.  I will get a link for you later on that if you like (just ask).

Listen to her. She answered you so much better. And I was talking about the actual vaccine research, not vaxxed vs. unvaxxed, my mistake.


Marnica's Avatar Marnica 01:19 PM 09-07-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by amyknits1076 View Post

I would not say that there are NO studies, they have to do some studies to please the FDA. What I *would* say is that there are insufficient studies on most vaccines. For example (mind you I am remembering this statistic from researchI did for a paper in nursing school about 5 years ago, so bear with me, I hope I get it right): Gardasil vaccine- the research was done mostly on women ages 15 or 16 up to 24 or 25. Yet, they are recommending it be given to girls as young as 11 years old who have not even gone through puberty yet. And they don't know the risks vs. benefits for girls that age because they didn't do the research on girls age 11-15. Also, the study was only 5 years long, and yet they called it a long-term study. We don't know the long-term effects of this vaccine, yet many women are reporting infertility, painful menses, on up to seizures, coma, and even ironically, cancer years on down the line. But they didn't do the research long enough to see that kind of stuff. If that is not insufficient research, I do not know what is, especially recommending it for an age group they didn't even test it on!

 

That's just one example, but there are many more like it on the vaccines for children under age 2. They do enough "studies" to cover their behinds, but it's really insufficient, at least to me, to prove that their benefits outweigh the risks.

yes but the studies you are referring to are not studies that compare vaccinated children to unvaccinated controls.

AmandaT's Avatar AmandaT 01:26 PM 09-07-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraMama View Post

Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said?  A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids?  Really?  That can't be true.  Vaccines are tested over and over right?  My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe.  Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)

I was born in 1988, and had the majority of vaxes in '89-95. I can tell you there are NO studies done which show the results of vaxing a child whose parent was so heavily vaccinated (with lots of mercury too). There have been no long-term studies done on the effects of vaccines (read: what happens when people who have been heavily vaccinated turn 50, 60 or 70?).

 

In the late 1960s/ early 1970s there were 3 shots to protect against seven diseases. http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-schedule/history-of-vaccine-schedule.html There are now 35 shots for 14 different vaccines by the age of 6 http://www.nvic.org/downloads/49-doses-posterb.aspx ( 35 v 49 as the page states because of combo shots). We simply have not been vaccinating long enough to really know the long-term side effects. 

 

There are no reputable vaxed vs unvaxed studies because it is generally considered unethical to "withhold" vaccines from children in order to perform these studies. 

 

Yes, there are many safety studies done on vaccines but most are done by the companies that produce/profit from the vaccines. Many of the safety studies also exclude MANY segments of the population (children whose mothers had ANY complications in pregnancy, and premature babies, babies with low birth rates, babies or children with any health problems- lots and lots of children who still receive the vaccines every day). They do not test new vaccines in conjunction with the rest of the vaccines on the schedule- they are tested singularly and given together (read: more than one shot per visit). 

 

Personally, I think most of the safety studies are a joke and do not vaccinate my daughter. This is only my opinion and is what I have chosen for my family. I strongly suggest you look into the studies yourself- it is very time consuming but you are the only one who can make the vaccine decision for your child. I have some great links to starting sites for research if you would like to PM me. 


Marnica's Avatar Marnica 01:27 PM 09-07-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraMama View Post

Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said?  A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids?  Really?  That can't be true.  Vaccines are tested over and over right?  My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe.  Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)

 Please watch this interview to understand why your doctor told you this.

 

http://shelf3d.com/PWbaIEaAsu4


ma2two's Avatar ma2two 01:38 PM 09-07-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraMama View Post

Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said?  A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids?  Really?  That can't be true.  Vaccines are tested over and over right?  My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe.  Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)

Not only are there no studies comparing never vaccinated kids to kids vaccinated on the regular schedule, but the studies your doctor is referring to test vaccines against injections of mercury, aluminum, another vaccine, or everything in the vaccine except the antigen. They never use a real placebo.

 

So a new vaccine being tested might only have a slight increase in side effects compared to an injection of aluminum, or a different vaccine, but that's not what normal people want to know. They want to know, what are the side effects compared to not getting the vaccine at all? And there are never answers to that question, because they never use a real placebo.


momofboys2's Avatar momofboys2 01:44 PM 09-07-2012

Negative outcomes are often ignored or covered up and because of big money & influence medical studies are either not allowed into the data, or the results are not reported accurately, if it's not favorable, which is the case.

 

Here are a few articles.  Hopefully you can find something helpful in them which answers your questions.

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/14/expert-pediatrician-exposes-vaccine-myths.aspx

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/26/why-is-the-cdc-ignoring-life-and-death-vaccine-studies.aspx

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/05/Vaccine-Studies-Under-the-Influence-of-Pharma.aspx


Marnica's Avatar Marnica 01:55 PM 09-07-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

This is a really complicated but good question!  I hope others chime in - and you might even want to cross post on the main vaccine page to get a more varied response.

 

There are no good studies that compare unvaxxed children to vaxxed children.  The mainstream medical community considers it "unethical" to leave children unvaxxed.  Ergo no good studies.  Studies that exist often compare vaxxed children to vaxxed children - children vaxxed with this preservative in the vaccine, versus those without said preservative.  That sort of thing.

 

There are some epidemilogical studies (which looks at data), however the number of truly nonvaxxed children in these studies are often quite small so it is hard to reach conclusions.

 

I believe much of the vaccine testing is done by the pharmaceutical industry itself - which is hardly without conflict of interest.  Sadly, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to sit on CDC advisory panels.  I will get a link for you later on that if you like (just ask).

 You know what they say about Epidemilogical studies - " Epidemiology is like a bikini. What is revealed is interesting. What is concealed is crucial"


Tags: Vaccinations
1 2 

Up