We will continue discussing public health and medicine public policy this short holiday week but will finish this focus on vaccines and immunity today.
The statement above shows the intent of global 1% and ONE WORLD ONE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION is not elimination of disease vectors---it is the ramping up of taxpayer funding to bring billions of dollars to NEW PATENTED PHARMA including NEW PATENTED VACCINES. These few decades have seen all the gains in global public health regarding vaccinations and eliminating disease vectors in third world nations DISAPPEAR because as stated above, CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA allowed predatory and profiteering medicine take hold of all global health initiatives----the BILL GATES 'charity' which was only the Bill Gates building a global PHARMA corporation on the backs of taxpayer subsidy and 'DONATION'.
As the statement below shows----the subsidies for all these new vaccines are now phasing out and all gains in marginalizing those ordinary disease vectors are soon to be lost because developing nations cannot AFFORD THESE NEW PATENTED VACCINES and neither will US as public health subsidies disappear as well.
'The funding model of GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) – a key player in funding vaccine roll-out in developing countries – illustrates the underlying problems with the current system of vaccine pricing. The subsidies provided by GAVI to countries to finance new vaccines are intended to taper off over a 5-year period, once countries are no longer eligible. There is the expectation that, over time, prices will fall, allowing countries to finance their own vaccines. To date, however, this expectation has not been realized'.
THERE IS NO INTENT TO END DISEASE VECTORS BY A 5% AND THAT GLOBAL 1% WHO ARE LYING, CHEATING, STEALING, NO MORALS OR ETHICS NO US RULE OF LAW NO GOD'S NATURAL LAW FAR-RIGHT WING EXTREME WEALTH NIHILISTS ----these people use medicine against populations.
So, Bush sent an unexpected hundreds of millions to African tropical disease research and Bill Gates and now those 99% of citizens cannot access these PHARMA. All that research was done to protect the global 1% and their 2% -----who cares about that global 99% and US 99% black, white, and brown citizens.
Op-Ed How taxpayers prop up Big Pharma, and how to cap that
When Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price for Daraprim by 5,455%, he put drug pricing on the agenda for the leading 2016 presidential candidates. Bernie Sanders is reported to have rejected Shkreli's campaign donation, and Hillary Rodham Clinton came out with a plan to tackle spiraling costs. Even Donald Trump called Shkreli a spoiled brat.
Everyone knows that Americans pay high prices for drugs. But there is more to this story. The taxpayer not only shells out at the pharmacy but often plays a critical role in funding these drugs in the first place. In other words, the public pays twice.
Although the pharmaceutical industry justifies routine overcharging by pointing to the huge, and uncertain, costs of research, the truth is that the government historically took, and continues to take, the greatest risks.
Since the 1930s, the National Institutes of Health has invested close to $900 billion in the basic and applied research that formed both the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, with private companies only getting seriously into the biotech game in the 1980s.
Big Pharma, while of course contributing to innovation, has increasingly decommitted itself from the high-risk side of research and development, often letting small biotech companies and the NIH do most of the hard work. Indeed, roughly 75% of so-called new molecular entities with priority rating (the most innovative drugs) trace their existence to NIH funding, while companies spend more on "me too" drugs (slight variations of existing ones.)
Rather than making patient, long-term investments, large shareholders in Big Pharma companies are looking for a quick, easy, guaranteed return.
As evidence that Big Pharma is spending less on research becomes irrefutable, the pharmaceutical industry has used other excuses to support high prices. It has, for instance, argued that prices are proportionate to the intrinsic value of the drugs.
"Price is the wrong discussion," Gilead Sciences' executive vice president, Gregg Alton, declared in response to criticism over the price of Sovaldi. "Value should be the subject."
However, studies looking at cancer treatments have shown no correlation between the price of cancer drugs and the benefits they provide. Peter Bach, a renowned oncologist, has found that, for most drugs, a value-based cost is actually lower than the current market-based price.
This state of affairs is not simply a huge failure of the so-called free-market; it is a long con. The supposed partnership between public and private sectors is increasingly parasitic, hurting innovation and fueling inequality through reduced investment, exorbitant prices for consumers and more money siphoned off for shareholders.
Rather than the static debates about public versus private, what we need in the United States is a better deal between government and business. In exchange for the massive public investment, Big Pharma should be asked to reinvest profits back into R&D rather than giving such a high percentage to shareholders. Furthermore, given that most drugs originated thanks to public funds, the prices of these drugs should be capped to reflect the taxpayers' contribution.
Unthinkable? Well, this power already exists. The 1980 Bayh-Dole Act allowed publicly funded research to be patented (to facilitate commercialization) and in return allowed for price caps. Yet successive administrations, worried about being seen to intervene in the free market, have never capped the price of even one drug.
But this is a flawed understanding of what the market is. The market is the outcome of both private and public investments, as well as policies that help shape that process. America's economic success is due in no small part to an entrepreneurial state that has created and shaped new markets. Drug companies must acknowledge the role of the state — and the taxpayer — and act accordingly.
'Given the large amount of total medical R&D spending that is from publicly-funded university research, some suggest that taxpayers should get rebates on medicines originating in research financed by the tax-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH)'.
We always educate about problems AND SOLUTIONS----and this is the problem and solution with the attack by global 1% and those 5% pols and players against the strongest in world history broad and accessible public health......including vaccine research and production. Here is an article in GLOBAL WALL STREET FORBES----written by a person from GLOBAL BANKING NAKED CAPITALISM UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO giving 99% WE THE PEOPLE stats telling us it wouldn't matter if taxpayer funding and public research universities were not allowed to patent and if private research universities were not allowed to receive taxpayer funds for research -----AS HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR 300 YEARS IN US-----it matters and this is why PHARMA and vaccine costs have soared 70-80% since REAGAN ERA.
Both University of Maryland Baltimore Medical campus AND global hedge fund Johns Hopkins have profiteered and defrauded our Federal medical trusts---our national science research funding all to maximize profits for that OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%. This must end----to do that we GET RID OF ALL GLOBAL 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NOW TRUMP POLS AND PLAYERS.
OH SURE, lets believe Forbes and global Wall Street hyper neo-liberal IVY LEAGUES and their data. US citizens are now saying---these are the only research universities sending out data-----that's THE PROBLEM. We must rebuild our strong, public interest public universities especially our research public facilities.
WHY IS GLOBAL PHARMA PAYING FOR PUBLIC MEDICAL RESEARCH THAT SHOULD BE CHEAP ACCESS PUBLIC HEALTH?
'The next question is why is the industry willing to pay so little for university-generated research'?
Jun 3, 2016 @ 03:19 PM 1,282 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
Do Tax Payers Who Fund The National Institutes Of Health Deserve A Rebate On Medical Innovations?
Tomas Philipson , Contributor
University of Chicago economist with op-eds on the health care economy Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Given the large amount of total medical R&D spending that is from publicly-funded university research, some suggest that taxpayers should get rebates on medicines originating in research financed by the tax-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, existing evidence on the market value of NIH research suggests this research is worth less than 7% of the total dollars spent on development by the pharmaceutical industry, and that NIH spends about 10 times more on research than the market value of that research.
The commercialization of academic biotech research took off over four decades ago when researchers at Stanford and the University of California, San Francisco applied for a patent on recombinant DNA cloning. Through policies like the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which allows federally-funded universities to own the research and innovations developed within their walls, this commercialization has only increased over time. The US is not alone in this – other countries have implemented similar academic research policies – but US universities remain the world leaders in transferring intellectual property from universities to industry. In particular, the US retains a large lead in transferable biotech patents at its top universities.
The primary source of funding for university-based biotech research has long been taxpayer money. Specifically, taxes fund the NIH, which allocates money across universities after a rigorous and competitive application process. The Figure below shows the amount of taxpayer-provided NIH research funding per year, which has been between $28-31 billion in nominal dollars per year since 2005.
The Figure also depicts the spending levels of the research oriented biopharmaceutical firms that are members of the trade organization PhRMA, where the combined spending for PhRMA members ranged from nearly $40 billion to roughly $52 billion in nominal terms over the past decade. It is important to note that while spending for both groups are categorized as R&D, there is a difference in what the government and industry spends their dollars on. In medical R&D, the government is focused on research (R) and industry on development (D), i.e., taking an idea to market through the costly FDA process. Indeed, research is increasingly shifting from “big pharma” to other entities such as universities, which are often the start of the compound discovery process.
THIS IS THE PROCESS OF OUR US RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES SIMPLY BECOMING THAT R AND D ARM OF GLOBAL CORPORATIONS-----FURTHER PRIVATIZATION.
At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry increasingly specializes in marketing and distribution by outsourcing research in terms of acquiring compounds already in the FDA approval process. The commercialization process between universities and the pharmaceutical industry is facilitated by so called technology transfer offices, which ensure the greatest possible returns on the public’s NIH investment. As we found in a 2006 Milken Institute report*, university transfer offices provide a valuable bridge between the “R” and “D” phases, and these transfers offered great rates of return on the universities’ investments.
Given that publicly-funded university research represents a large amount of total medical R&D spending, a common concern is that tax-payers should not have to pay high prices for medicines they previously funded to research and discover. It is therefore natural to ask, how valuable is the research produced by NIH to the market? In other words, in the medical R&D process, how does the income a university receives from selling its research compare to the total development spending that takes place after this research has been sold? In addition, how does the market value of university research compare to the NIH money pumped into universities?
This question can be partially addressed by looking at how much the market is willing to pay each year for companies and patents coming out of universities. Universities are compensated for the research findings they generate broadly through “licensing income”, which comprises of running patent royalties, upfront payments, cash equity payments, and payments under options offered on new companies. The principal source of data on technology transfer processes and licensing income for all ﬁelds, not just biotech, is from the Association of University Technology Managers. They report total US university licensing revenue by year, and for the last few decades the aggregate revenues have been a couple of billions of dollars. The most recent estimate of university licensing revenue is $2.6 billion in the 2012 fiscal year**, which includes all fields; although, biotech patents comprise the majority of the income universities receive. Thus, a conservative estimate of these data suggests the industry is willing to pay less than 7% of its total development spending to buy the research conducted by universities. The estimate is conservative for two reasons: first, not all university licensing income is from biotech; and second, it assumes the minimum amount of $40 billion as development spending by manufacturers.
These facts also suggest that the NIH is pumping about ten times more money into universities annually than the market value of the research generated. There is, of course, a lag between research and products – often a decade long – but the estimates above have been of the same relative magnitude over several decades. If NIH was a privately-run institution with R&D spending at 1000% of the value of the output it generates, it would have been bankrupt a long time ago. Compare that to the biopharma industry, which has R&D spending at about 16% of its annual revenues. This does not mean that the NIH does not provide any social value. On the contrary, the NIH does provide social value since, without intellectual property being feasible for much of basic research, industry tends to steer clear of this type of investment. It suggests, however, that there may be more productive ways to generate that same social value allowing for a larger “bang for the buck” on NIH research.
The next question is why is the industry willing to pay so little for university-generated research? As I have discussed in a previous column, this is mainly due to the decade-long FDA process through which less than 10% of innovation entering the process is approved as marketable products. Therefore, the long and uncertain nature of medical development lowers prices for patents at the start of the process. Yes, there are of course success stories, but focusing on them misses the enormous amount of failure that plagues the process and pushes down the price offered for new research.
In sum, there is significantly more capital involved in bringing a drug to market than just paying for the initial idea; the initial idea can be bought by less than 7% of overall development costs. Even if tax-payers received a drug or innovation rebate that was scaled to the share of development costs their tax dollars generated, it would not amount to much – roughly a 7% rebate.
It is interesting to note that this amount is less than the government rebates already in place for innovations, e.g., the mandated rebate of 23% for Medicaid is more than three times as large. Although the qualitative argument that the public already owns some of the innovations they fund is true, the share of the value they own seems quantitatively small
'However, chickens can be pumped with other substances and drugs — such as antibiotics — that do, in fact, have serious effects.
The overuse of antibiotics in meat has caused a serious epidemic of superbugs, some of which are becoming more and more resistant to our most powerful drugs. Factory farmed chickens may also be subject to overcrowding, which can cause significant stress and have real impacts on the health and quality of the meat'.
The last topic of discussion we bring forward often so we will simply remind citizens ----if these few decades are going to bring back to US ordinary disease vector viruses with outbreaks in 15% of US citizens as well as our new immigrants and global labor pool----we MUST BUILD THE STRONGEST IMMUNE SYSTEM possible in our children and grandchildren. If we binge drink and constantly use drugs ---we are killing our immune system. If we continue to eat fast food -----low-priced meats and dairy filled with hormones and antibiotics---our immunity will be compromised.
This article seems to think chickens are not filled with hormones and antibiotics when there are plenty of signs they are being given both. Chicken McNuggets and Big Macs are killing US 99% of citizens' immune systems and these citizens will be most susceptible to resurgence in ordinary dangerous disease vectors in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
We would not go to media outlets like BUSINESS INSIDER for public interest health policy----this article looks to protect a chicken industry while throwing the beef and sheep industry under the bus. Now more than ever we need to buy meats and dairy locally because most in our grocery stores are being shipped from third world nations---even WHOLEFOODS pretending to still be ORGANIC.
Here's why farmers inject hormones into beef but never into poultry
- Mar. 31, 2016, 2:02 PM Business Insider
Have you ever noticed the phrase "no added hormones" or "hormone free" on a package of chicken?
It's pretty common, yet totally unnecessary. Why? Because all poultry sold in the US must be "hormone free." It's the law.
But why haven't farmers pushed to change the law and use hormones in poultry? It turns out that it's simply not practical.
To date, the FDA has only approved the use of steroid hormones in sheep and cows raised for beef.
Under current regulations, there are no approved uses of steroid hormones in dairy cows, veal calves, pigs, or poultry. (There is, however, an approved use of the non-steroidal hormone bovine somatotropin in dairy cows to increase their milk production.)
Farmers and big meat companies may pump their livestock full of such growth-promoting drugs — which can include natural and synthetic versions of estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone — to increase their weight. These drugs help the animal convert their feed into muscle, fat, and other tissues more efficiently than they would naturally.
But when it comes to chicken, farmers simply don't need those extra hormones, Tom Super, a spokesperson for the National Chicken Council told Tech Insider.
"Through genetics, breeding, nutrition, veterinary care, and advancements in the housing, chickens are healthier and bigger than ever before," Super said.
In short, we don't need to plump chickens up in the same way we need to fatten cows.
Using hormones in chickens also wouldn't be practical, Super said. "Farmers would have to physically inject each bird by hand about three times per day," he continued. When you consider that a typical farm can contain two to four barns, each containing about 25,000 chickens. That would be a hell of a lot of injections.
There is debate within the scientific community over whether these added drugs in any meat raised for food can harm the health of humans, so it's somewhat of a relief knowing that you'll never be caught off-guard with a package of chicken containing hidden hormones.
However, chickens can be pumped with other substances and drugs — such as antibiotics — that do, in fact, have serious effects.
The overuse of antibiotics in meat has caused a serious epidemic of superbugs, some of which are becoming more and more resistant to our most powerful drugs. Factory farmed chickens may also be subject to overcrowding, which can cause significant stress and have real impacts on the health and quality of the meat.
So while you can safely ignore that "hormone free" label on a chicken, you may want to pay attention to some of the other ones, such as those involving antibiotics. And while you're at it, ignore the "natural" label on chicken too. It's close to meaningless.
This is not strange and it is not NEW SCIENCE. REAL left social progressives were shouting during CLINTON ERA the permeation of antiobiotics just as plastics and petroleum products would bring national scale immunity problems for all population groups in US. We have known there is little need to have ANTIBIOTIC CLEANING PRODUCTS in our houses, offices, sprayed in US city alleys------if we are inside a hospital ----YES. If we have a family member with a compromised immune system ---YES.
This term SUPERBACTERIA was coined back in 1990s ------CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA all knew they were creating a national health crises in allowing what was once PUBLIC INTEREST HEALTH CARE----public interest FDA and Department of AG which cleaned up our US food system making it developed and first world---taking it back to third world conditions today.
Our human bodies have a strong immune system that will fight all infection-----it wins most of those fights. Our bodies cannot build that immunity if we sanitize all infectious agents away for several decades. So, almost all US citizens have no immunity against the most ordinary of infection.
Fast forward to today when MOVING FORWARD is bringing a few billion global citizens with more infectious disease vectors than ever existed in US----and we have staged mass public crises not able to be treated with what would have been good antibiotics.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA knew they were staging these health crises-----there was plenty of public interest medical data and researchers shouting at them---they simply did not care---the goal was always to cause that public health crises in US -----and those 5% pols and players are MOVING FORWARD all these public policy stances.
Scientific American used to be a GOLD STANDARD for our US medical research journals----so too NATURE ----both have been taken by global R and D corporations and no longer provide data in public interest. This article title is indeed true----but it was true 30 years ago before our US citizens were stripped of infectious immunity.
Strange but True: Antibacterial Products May Do More Harm Than Good
Antibacterial soaps and other cleaners may actually be aiding in the development of superbacteria.
- By Coco Ballantyne on June 7, 2007
Tuberculosis, food poisoning, cholera, pneumonia, strep throat and meningitis: these are just a few of the unsavory diseases caused by bacteria. Hygiene—keeping both home and body clean—is one of the best ways to curb the spread of bacterial infections, but lately consumers are getting the message that washing with regular soap is insufficient. Antibacterial products have never been so popular. Body soaps, household cleaners, sponges, even mattresses and lip glosses are now packing bacteria-killing ingredients, and scientists question what place, if any, these chemicals have in the daily routines of healthy people.Traditionally, people washed bacteria from their bodies and homes using soap and hot water, alcohol, chlorine bleach or hydrogen peroxide. These substances act nonspecifically, meaning they wipe out almost every type of microbe in sight—fungi, bacteria and some viruses—rather than singling out a particular variety.
Soap works by loosening and lifting dirt, oil and microbes from surfaces so they can be easily rinsed away with water, whereas general cleaners such as alcohol inflict sweeping damage to cells by demolishing key structures, then evaporate. "They do their job and are quickly dissipated into the environment," explains microbiologist Stuart Levy of Tufts University School of Medicine.
Unlike these traditional cleaners, antibacterial products leave surface residues, creating conditions that may foster the development of resistant bacteria, Levy notes. For example, after spraying and wiping an antibacterial cleaner over a kitchen counter, active chemicals linger behind and continue to kill bacteria, but not necessarily all of them.
When a bacterial population is placed under a stressor—such as an antibacterial chemical—a small subpopulation armed with special defense mechanisms can develop. These lineages survive and reproduce as their weaker relatives perish. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is the governing maxim here, as antibacterial chemicals select for bacteria that endure their presence.
As bacteria develop a tolerance for these compounds there is potential for also developing a tolerance for certain antibiotics. This phenomenon, called cross-resistance, has already been demonstrated in several laboratory studies using triclosan, one of the most common chemicals found in antibacterial hand cleaners, dishwashing liquids and other wash products. "Triclosan has a specific inhibitory target in bacteria similar to some antibiotics," says epidemiologist Allison Aiello at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
When bacteria are exposed to triclosan for long periods of time, genetic mutations can arise. Some of these mutations endow the bacteria with resistance to isoniazid, an antibiotic used for treating tuberculosis, whereas other microbes can supercharge their efflux pumps—protein machines in the cell membrane that can spit out several types of antibiotics, Aiello explains. These effects have been demonstrated only in the laboratory, not in households and other real world environments, but Aiello believes that the few household studies may not have been long enough. "It's very possible that the emergence of resistant species takes quite some time to occur…; the potential is there," she says.
Apart from the potential emergence of drug-resistant bacteria in communities, scientists have other concerns about antibacterial compounds. Both triclosan and its close chemical relative triclocarban (also widely used as an antibacterial), are present in 60 percent of America's streams and rivers, says environmental scientist Rolf Halden, co-founder of the Center for Water and Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Both chemicals are efficiently removed from wastewater in treatment plants but end up getting sequestered in the municipal sludge, which is used as fertilizer for crops, thereby opening a potential pathway for contamination of the food we eat, Halden explains. "We have to realize that the concentrations in agricultural soil are very high," and this, "along with the presence of pathogens from sewage, could be a recipe for breeding antimicrobial resistance" in the environment, he says.
Triclosan has also been found in human breast milk, although not in concentrations considered dangerous to babies, as well as in human blood plasma. There is no evidence showing that current concentrations of triclosan in the human body are harmful, but recent studies suggest that it acts as an endocrine disrupter in bullfrogs and rats.
Further, an expert panel convened by the Food and Drug Administration determined that there is insufficient evidence for a benefit from consumer products containing antibacterial additives over similar ones not containing them.
"What is this stuff doing in households when we have soaps?" asks molecular biologist John Gustafson of New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. These substances really belong in hospitals and clinics, not in the homes of healthy people, Gustafson says.
Of course, antibacterial products do have their place. Millions of Americans suffer from weakened immune systems, including pregnant women and people with immunodeficiency diseases, points out Eugene Cole, an infectious disease specialist at Brigham Young University. For these people, targeted use of antibacterial products, such as triclosan, may be appropriate in the home, he says.
In general, however, good, long-term hygiene means using regular soaps rather than new, antibacterial ones, experts say. "The main way to keep from getting sick," Gustafson says, "is to wash your hands three times a day and don't touch mucous membranes."
MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES have no US standards of quality of life----no public interest policy ----no labor and justice rights---global corporate campuses will operate in US as they do overseas and that means citizens work 15-18 hours a day 6 days a week ----then volunteer to clean global corporate campus----and there is no such thing as SICK DAYS----that is a Western developed nation labor policy.
It is widely documented these few decades of FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES overseas having workers report sick-----often to point of dropping----infecting the workforce at large with those workers in fear of losing jobs if they fail to work those full shifts. Ask our US Latino immigrant workers who have already faced these conditions these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----it is now soaring these several years of Obama ----and Trump will MOVE FORWARD those labor stances.....ask our international labor union leader 5% players ---they KNOW THIS.
No doubt, US workers have abused sick day benefits. People have taken sick days when not sick simply for days off. Any labor union protecting these actions are not helping workers----as we see today it harmed US workers thinking these actions were OK.
What we are seeing these few decades is the move to keep workers and students in classrooms or workplace no matter the illness. A student or teacher---or any workplace employee is now judged as NOT THE BEST if they miss class or work. There are plenty of global labor pool after all willing to work 15-18 hours a day and work sick ------NO JOB FOR YOU SAY GLOBAL 1% -----
The ethos for 300 years in US was----keep a sick child or worker home so as not to spread disease or infection-----MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---do not recognize sick days and are already making it BAD TO MISS SCHOOL OR WORK for illness.
City schools crackdown on teacher leave causing friction in district
BTU tells teachers: If you've got it, use it
March 20, 2012|Erica L. Green Baltimore Sun
Since our story last week on the $65 million in unused sick/vacation/personal leave the Baltimore City school system has paid out in the past five years, I've been receiving feedback from several city teachers who said that there is a new order in town about the use of sick leave, and it has many worried.
City educators have reported that in an effort to crackdown on teacher truancy, the district has directed that principals discourage teachers from using their sick leave, to the point where their absences could be reflected in their year-end evaluations. Baltimore Teacher Union officials confirmed that it is a message being communicated in schools across the district.
While school system officials vehemently denied that it has directed principals to penalize teachers for using their leave--which makes sense because that would not only breach union contracts, but in some cases be HIGHLY illegal--the school system said that it is targeting to cut down days missed by the most truant teachers.
The Sun posed the question to district officials after hearing from teachers who fear the new directive: the husband of one pregnant teacher called and said he was concerned about his wife's ability making doctor's appointments after her principal told staff that they needed to cut down on their leave; another teacher said she was reprimanded, she said, for using 5.5 days due to an illness that was directly caused by her school building.
District officials said these experiences reflect a gross misunderstanding of the message.
"What the CEO has said is that if we have employees (not just teachers) that are not coming to work and there is not a legitimate reason for those absences it should be reflected in one’s evaluation," said Tisha Edwards, Alonso's chief of staff. "I think that’s a reasonable expectation in EVERY profession."
Edwards said that she has also communicated with union heads about the crackdown, which she said is motivated by the importance of having a teacher in the classroom everyday.
"That’s what I expect as a parent for my son," said Edwards, the parent of a city school student.
Not to mention, the system also spends millions, last year $5.4, for emergency substitutes.
This isn't new, as I'd been hearing about this issue since the beginning of the school year, after city schools CEO Andres Alonso presented data on teacher absences in his annual "State of the Schools" address to principals.
The presentation highlighted that of the 878 teachers who missed more than 11 days in the 2010-2011 school year, 202 were on approved leave of absence, leaving 676 who should have been documented using the employee attendance policy.
According to the data, the majority of the city's teachers--about 1,940--only used between two and five sick-leave days; 1,197 used between six and 10; 283 used between 21 and 60 days; and 31 used more than 60.
Ten teachers were dismissed that year for chronic absences, he said.
Since then, Alonso apparently has continued to reinforce that the attendance policy needs to be enforced more forcefully--but not to the extent of being unreasonable, the system said.
"If ANY employee has a legitimate reason for an absence—which includes health related issues and personal business that must be handled; it’s OK and is not an evaluation issue," Edwards wrote. "Alternatively, if someone is chronically absent and has a history of lateness or unexcused absences then there will be accountability—that is what the CEO communicated to principals."
BTU officials confirmed that many of its field representatives have been receiving several calls from teachers whose principals have communicated that they will be penalized for using sick time.
Per their union contract, teachers have one personal day per years; teachers in their first two years have 10 sick days, and those with three or more can take up to 20. The unions 12-month-employees (teachers are usually 10-month) have 18 sick-days, and 24 vacation-days a year.
"The BTU’s stance is, if you have sick/vacation/personal leave time to use, use it!" wrote Jessica Aldon, spokesman for the union. "Teachers and PSRPs who have been directed not to use their time or who have been penalized for using it, should contact their Field Rep immediately."
Aldon said that as of Friday, the union was not aware of any grievances filed due to this new policy, but that it has already come up in evaluation conversations.
She said that for the most part, "field reps have been able to talk to principals and inform them that they are misinterpreting their attendance policy and they usually will change their opinion or fix the teacher’s evaluation."
We are seeing all kinds of FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT stances on these labor issues. Pols and labor and justice organizations filled with those dastardly 5% backing MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies complete with the expectation of global corporations operating in US as they do overseas ---are the ones shouting for SICK DAY LAWS.
Now, we had strong workplace sick day and preventative workplace illness these several decades of REAL LEFT social progressive policies. It was CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA allowing Federal and US Constitutional rights for labor that killed these workplace illness standards. It killed first for our immigrant workers---then our low-income workers---and now it is disappearing all together as TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT MEETS US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies.
Global 1% see the BEST OF THE BEST of workers as those with strongest immunity able to resist illness and they are not going to be shy about pushing any and all US workers showing weakness in fighting off ordinary infections----and disease vectors. This is why our US workers are now coming to work SICK. If they are sick----those workers with weakened immune systems will be sick----and VOILA----our US workplace is cleansed of US citizens with weakened immune systems ----NO SICK DAYS FOR YOU!
Our global labor pool from developing nations have not had these few decades of total immersion in ANTIBIOTICS and lost immunity----they have strong immune systems regarding ordinary infections and disease vectors -----WE THE PEOPLE THE US 99% -----NOT SO MUCH.
If a local labor and justice organization and all candidates and pols in local governance are PUSHING MOVING FORWARD and US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES WITH GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES----they are NOT trying to protect US workers against these labor stances from overseas.
By Aimee Picchi MoneyWatch February 20, 2014, 11:50 AM
Why your sick co-worker insists on coming in
If it seems like there's an epidemic of workers insisting on schlepping into the office despite looking green and popping cough drops, you're right.
One-quarter of American workers say they always go to work while sick, according to a survey from public health company NSF International. Another one-third admit to waiting until their symptoms are full blown until deciding to stay at home.
Working while sick is increasingly coming under scrutiny by workers' advocates, who note that there are no federal requirements for employers to provide paid sick leave. Failing to provide paid sick days is a public health issue, as that incentivizes ill workers to show up for work or send a sick child to school, which can spread disease, according to a report for the National Partnership for Women & Families.
Almost 40 million U.S. workers lack paid sick leave, the National Partnership for Women & Families notes. Its report found that almost one-quarter of adults have either lost a job or been threatened with firing for taking time off to deal with an illness or a sick dependent.
Nevertheless, the biggest reason why employees insist on going to work while being sick is the fear of missing deadlines, with 42 percent of respondents citing heavy workloads.
Lost wages or financial issues was the second most common reason for working while sick, with 37 percent noting that they couldn't afford to be sick.
Interestingly, one-quarter of respondents said their bosses expect them to work sick. That doesn't jibe well with co-workers, however, as 57 percent said they would tell a colleague to go home if she or he turned up sick. Another one-quarter of workers are willing to tell sick colleagues to stay out of their workspace.
While workers don't want to catch their colleagues' germs, the majority said they view sick employees as "hard working."
"Only 16 percent of workers felt that colleagues who came to work sick were selfish and didn't care about the well-being of their co-workers, and 13 percent believed co-workers come to work sick because they don't trust their colleagues to do the job while they are out," NSF said in a statement.
Some states and cities have either passed laws to require employers to pay for sick days or are mulling legislation. San Francisco became the first U.S. locality to pass such a law, while cities such as Milwaukee and Seattle followed. Still, Connecticut is the only state with mandated paid sick time. Other states are contemplating legislation, including Arizona and New York.
Employers are often divided on providing paid sick days, The Wall Street Journal noted earlier this month.
"When you're hiring part-time retail individuals, it's hard to cultivate a culture where they're really loyal," one employer told The Journal. "If someone says they're sick, are they really sick? Hopefully you get the right behavior."
'Almost 90 percent of workers come in to work despite knowing that they’re sick, according to Staples’ annual Flu Season Survey. That’s up significantly from two years ago — despite the fact that there are policies we could put in place to reverse this trend'.
These trends occurred during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA because there was no enforcement of US labor rights and workplace laws------this is not new---it has steadily grown to match what Foreign Economic Zones were doing on overseas global corporate campuses and global factories. If we think a UNITED NATIONS filled with global 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA neo-liberals is really interested in passing SICK DAY LEGISLATION after these few decades of completely ignoring labor and workplace rights---we have swampland in Florida to sell.
The United Nations/World Health Organization have watched as US strong public interest public health was brought down by massive defrauding of our Federal public health trusts, by corporatization of our National HEALTH NGOs ------United Nations promotes naked neo-liberal capitalism and Foreign Economic Zone global human capital distribution systems knowing these global 99% of citizens are enslaved and exposed to the worst of workplace toxicity and treatment-----global 1% simply want Western nation 99% of citizens to THINK our Western workplace rights are being saved----AND THEY ARE NOT.
This is yet another factor for US citizens and immunity ------if our local city council allows ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLIC HEALTH to exist as in BALTIMORE-----then they could care less about SICK DAYS.....about STRONG VACCINATION/IMMUNITY policies---they will simply approve any PHARMA or medical PATENTED PRODUCT off the global 1% boat.
What has happened is this----now 99% of WE THE PEOPLE think we must take FLU VACCINES in order to not miss work or school------and flu vaccines are not necessary for citizens not in compromised population groups.
90 Percent Of U.S. Employees Come To Work Sick
Sy Mukherjee Oct 23, 2013, 7:54 pm
Almost 90 percent of workers come in to work despite knowing that they’re sick, according to Staples’ annual Flu Season Survey. That’s up significantly from two years ago — despite the fact that there are policies we could put in place to reverse this trend.
One way that employers could reduce the number of workers coming in sick is by implementing telecommuting programs. Staples found that more than half of workers at companies with those programs were likely to stay home and telecommute during flu season to avoid spreading or contracting germs.
But 21 percent of those respondents said they still came in to work sick, even though they had the option of telecommuting, because they didn’t think working from home would be feasible. And as Staples points out in its press release accompanying the survey, worker productivity is drastically compromised when the worker is ill — not to mention that many types of work simply cannot be done from home.
So a more expansive approach to discouraging sick employees from coming in would be expanding paid sick leave. The data shows that this method is extremely successful in reducing flu transmissions between co-workers, which make up 11.54 percent of all flu infections, according to a 2013 study by the University of Pittsburgh. With universal paid sick leave access, 72 percent of employees stayed home for roughly two days on average, cutting flu transmissions by over five percent.
Instituting “flu days” — fully paid leave specifically for the purpose of recovering or avoiding the flu — was even more effective. Companies that offered just one flu day saw workplace infections fall by more than 25 percent on average, while companies that offered two saw infections fall by a staggering 39 percent.
Unfortunately, many companies don’t heed the evidence that paid sick leave is ultimately good for productivity and health. About 40 percent of private sectors workers and 80 percent of low-income private sector workers have no paid sick days. But some states and cities are trying to buck that trend. Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop signed the country’s seventh paid sick leave bill into law on Monday, extending paid sick leave benefits to more than 30,000 workers who didn’t have them before.
'Setting aside Meem's age, and the gig would have still run afoul of many countries' labor standards: the job offered no weekends, except for a half-day every Friday, no sick leave and no holidays. But in a country where roughly a third of the population is living in poverty, according to the World Bank, this was in fact a "prized job," even for a nine-year old, according to the report. It paid around $30 a week'.
This is the NORM for Foreign Economic Zones overseas for several decades soaring under CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----no matter what laws a developing nation pass to LOOK LIKE THEY ARE advancing labor rights and wages---IT IS NOT BEING ENFORCED ---as is the same in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones these few decades----a State of Maryland may pass a sick day law but it will be dodged and not enforced. Developing nations have had no intention of changing these labor rights conditions but UNITED NATIONS is saying----look, we need to PRETEND to be expanding labor rights in all Foreign Economic Zones overseas because Western 99% of citizens are going to be made EX PATS and sent to these overseas Foreign Economic Zones---just PRETEND to adopt some of US and European labor laws.
We our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE must consider as well-----the goal of MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES is just that-----pushing 99% of US citizens black, white, and brown citizens---to overseas global factories and corporate campuses complete with lots of disease vectors to which US citizens are NOT IMMUNE---with a weakened immune system.
OH, LOOK----there is RACE TO THE TOP corporatized K-career apprenticeship free labor being installed in US cities like Baltimore------where a 9 year old gets to be a supervisor----when you hit the workplace in third grade ----or 6th grade----even 9th grade---exposures to disease vectors and infections soar. All of our Baltimore City Council---our Mayor of Baltimore ---and global Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' 5% players are MOVING FORWARD these child enslavement policies and yes, they are killers for our children with weakened immune systems.
Hmmmmm, these are the global regions sending US Foreign Economic Zones the most global labor pool workers..
'According to statistics compiled by UNICEF, one out of six children in the world today is involved in child labour, "doing work that is damaging to his or her mental, physical and emotional development." Areas with high concentration of child labor are the Asia-Pacific region and Sub-Saharan Africa'.
What's Life In A Sweatshop Like?
Ask This 9-Year Old Manager
Dan Fastenberg AOL FINANCE
Oct 14th 2013 3:57PM
What's it like to work in a sweatshop? The underbelly of global labor is rarely exposed to the light of day, but one reporter for the Toronto Star successfully landed a gig over the summer working undercover trimming threads at a garment factory in Bangladesh for the purpose of documenting the experience. And very early in her tenure, Raveena Aulakh found out just how extreme such a workplace can be -- her manager was a 9-year old girl named Meem. Aulakh documented the experience in a series, entitled, "Clothes On Your Back."
Meem's official title is "sewing helper" in the factory. The report said the factory has no name, employs about 45 people, and is run by a man named Hamid. It's located in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka in an area "clogged with rickshaws, crowded buses and fancy cars," according to the Toronto Star report.
The factory had poor to no windows or lighting, no fire extinguishers and a toilet that qualified as more of a hole than a passable restroom, according to the report. (The report didn't specify which retailers work with the factory, but the country's factories are known to serve western retailers.) Meem, for her part, ended up in the job as the result of a "fairly common story among poor Bangladeshi families: too many mouths to feed, too few bringing in money," according to Aulakh.
In Meem's case, her mother recently had to give up a job working as a domestic helper in a wealthy household when she found out she was pregnant. Other family demands forced Meem to seek out the job in Hamid's factory. Setting aside Meem's age, and the gig would have still run afoul of many countries' labor standards: the job offered no weekends, except for a half-day every Friday, no sick leave and no holidays. But in a country where roughly a third of the population is living in poverty, according to the World Bank, this was in fact a "prized job," even for a nine-year old, according to the report. It paid around $30 a week.
And Meem apparently only beamed positivity. During the reporter's four days on the job, Meem showed up early to her 12-hour days, which spanned from 9 am to 9 pm, so she could prep her threads. She maintained a sunny disposition, dancing jigs and humming Bengali songs. (She was yelled at for the latter.) And even at her tender young age finding herself in such a situation, she was still hopeful about her career path. "When I become a sewing operator, I will make very good shirts," she said. "No one will yell at me."
The child worker
Her story is shockingly common. According to statistics compiled by UNICEF, one out of six children in the world today is involved in child labour, "doing work that is damaging to his or her mental, physical and emotional development." Areas with high concentration of child labor are the Asia-Pacific region and Sub-Saharan Africa.
With their near-perfect eyesight, small fingers and little recourse for complaining about their working conditions, the system "works for everyone" as Smitha Zaheed, of the Dhaka-based Independent Garment Workers' Union Federation, told the Toronto Star. "Factory owners get workers who are not demanding . . . while the parents get to keep what the kids earn because the kids don't know any better."
But those hopeful for change may have reason to believe a better day lies ahead for workers like Meem. The Star's report was inspired by the disaster in April at the Rana Plaza factory, at which 1,129 died. And the fallout from the accident has resulted in much more than a piece of investigative journalism. More than 100 retailers have signed agreements promising to pay millions to improve safety. And garment workers have begun organizing for better rights. According to the Toronto Star, there are now 50 workers' unions for the country's 5,000 factories.
There's that RACE TO THE TOP workplace training for our US students!
The last public policy issue discussion regarding public health and immunity/vaccination is this.........MOVING FORWARD brings the same workplace conditions from overseas to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones----this includes exposure to toxic substances we already KNOW harm body organs especially or organs of immune system. It also brings global labor pool workers from all over the globe into close proximity exposing US workers very quickly to disease and infection vectors their weakened immune systems will not be able to fight-----vaccinations will not protect against many of these exposures.
As this article makes clear-----Foreign Economic Zones overseas are JUKING THE STATs to make it appear conditions in global corporate campuses and factories are improving when they are as bad as ever. It is the hours of work ---especially for our children that wears down a body's ability to fight disease and infection----again, vaccinations will not help this.
COMING OUR WAY IN MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----OUR CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA 5% POLS AND PLAYER PRETENDING TO HELP THE US POOR WHILE INSTALLING THESE WORKPLACE/K-CAREER SCHOOL POLICIES.
All our US citizens flashing those 5% freemason/Greek signs, wearing those funny hats, knowing those secret knocks-----they are going under the bus as with children and grandchildren---these are the conditions those WINNERS will work ----getting jobs before robotics/artificial intelligence kills jobs.
Please don't allow a scare over vaccines in US go from keeping people from all vaccinations-----instead of educating over what corruption in vaccine policies need to be FIXED----don't forget as well, much of our infections and diseases are not covered in vaccines---we MUST have HEALTHY immune systems for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE in coming 21st century.
China - 10/25/2013
The Barbie blues: Workers describe 'awful' conditions at Mattel suppliers
Workers at a Chinese factory that makes toys for Mattel. Photo courtesy of China Labor Watch
Mattel, the company behind Barbie and many other toys, has come under fire after a labor watch organisation denounced working conditions at some of its suppliers’ factories in China. FRANCE 24 spoke to a worker who served as an undercover investigator for China Labor Watch.
The New York-based organization’s 94-page report, published earlier this month, listed numerous alleged legal and ethical violations at six factories, a small fraction of Mattel’s approximately 100 suppliers in China. These include underpaying workers, unsanitary conditions, inadequate safety training, unlawfully long hours, environmental pollution, and more.
All this was discovered during a six-month long probe, during which the group sent undercover investigators to work at the factories and interviewed more than 300 workers. Based on their findings, China Labor Watch estimates that these suppliers annually “steal” between 6 million and 8 million euros in wages from the six factories’ workers through a variety of means, including failure to pay overtime and benefits, as well as underreporting the number of hours worked.
“Our managers were under a ton of pressure to produce toys quickly, and they took this out on us”
Last spring, I applied for a job at the Boade toy factory [located in Shenzhen, in southern China], which is a Mattel supplier that makes toys for the American and European market. I was hired mid-May, and worked there until the end of June. My job was to carry merchandise around the factory.
When I started, I was given a 10-minute talk on what to do in case of a fire, but that was it. I didn’t get any other safety training. [By law, factory workers must undergo 24 hours of safety training.]
I worked 11 hours a day, from 8am to 9pm with an hour break for lunch and an hour break in the evening. Others worked 12 or 13 hours. [The legal limit is 9 hours per day. At this factory, some employees reportedly worked up to 100 hours of overtime per month – well above the legal limit of 36 hours of overtime]. I was paid 1,600 yuan [190 euros] per month, which is really not enough to live decently with. [In China, the average wage for private sector workers is about 300 euros. According to China Labor Watch’s report, workers at this factory and others were regularly paid a month late].
This pay stub, which reportedly belongs to an employee at Foshan City Nanhai Sino-American factory, states that he worked a total of 81.5 overtime hours in April. The legal maximum is 36.
I lived in a cramped, dirty dorm with other factory workers. [Editor’s Note: It is common for Chinese factory workers to live in on-site dorms to save money. This also allows them to work longer hours]. There was no hot water, no kitchen. We lived four to a room, and had trouble sleeping because some of us worked days, while others worked nights.
A factory dorm room equipped with bunk beds.
“If you got sick, you lost your day’s wages”
The factory itself was quite unsanitary too. Dirty water was stocked, and dumped outside as soon as it started raining. Meanwhile, toxic substances were dumped in regular trashcans. Our only protection was face masks. It was also extremely hot in the factory, making it difficult to work. [According to China Labor Watch’s report, the factory did not pay workers extra when temperatures rose above 33 degrees Celsius, thus breaking the law]. It was awful. And if you got sick, you lost your day’s wages.
At the Baode factory, waste water is reportedly ejected directly into a nearby pond.
Our managers verbally abused us. They insulted workers who were slower than others. The managers were under a ton of pressure to produce toys quickly, and they took this out on us.
There were no unions at the factory that we could complain to. In any case, no one dared complain, because they were too afraid to lose their jobs.
While unions remain weak in China, strikes are becoming more common. In August, after Mr Cheng quit his job in late June, workers at the Boade factory managed to organise a strike to demand compensation for unpaid social insurance. In the end, they received only compensation for unpaid subsidies for working in high temperatures.
In its report, China Labor Watch argued that Mattel, the world’s largest toymaker, is responsible for violations in its supply chain. This is far from the first time the organisation investigates Mattel suppliers; they have put out several reports castigating them since 2000. Their last, released in 2012, reported on conditions at four different factories. Following that investigation, Mattel had written to China Labor Watch saying that “with few exceptions, the allegations are unfounded”.
This time, the company has responded by announcing that it would review working conditions at the six factories featured in this year’s report.
To try to make sure it follows through, the French NGO "Peuples Solidaires" has started a petition called "Stop Barbie, the repeat offender" addressed to Mattel's CEO, Bryan Stockton.
Workers napping at the factory during a break at Metron Plastics and Electronics factory in Dongguan.
To RE-ENFORCE the goal of far-right wing global 1% to create a condition where the maximum number of US citizens are most vulnerable to death and injury from the coming return of ordinary disease viruses and infections once eliminated in US------here is the WHACKO installed to make our US Presidential executive position look dismantled, decayed, and ready to be replaced by a global corporate tribunal rule ending US sovereignty.Who listens to TRUMP? Our 99% of low-income and poor white citizens-----so, while our US cities have a majority of black citizens----these FAKE NEWS are indeed ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT-----ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%. These vaccine scares are coming from FAKE LEFT and FAKE RIGHT.
Let's be clear=======too many vaccines will end in the same harm to natural immunity as too many antibiotics
'Infants' immune systems don't get "overloaded" by vaccines — that's just not how it works. A single bacterium has 2,000 to 6,000 immunological components, and we encounter many bacteria every day. The total number of immunological components of all 14 vaccines given in the first years of life is about 160'.
Trump has suggested vaccines cause autism — an idea that couldn't be more wrong
- Jan. 24, 2017, 12:21 PM
The new US president has said he believes that vaccines are harmful and has repeatedly and erroneously suggested that they cause autism. These claims are untrue and dangerous.
Back in 1998, British medical researcher Andrew Wakefield published a paper in the health journal The Lancet that claimed to show a link between children who were given the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine with autism and bowel disease.
No other scientists were able to reproduce his results — something that is vital in research. Most of Wakefield's coauthors withdrew their support for the study. After conducting an official inquiry, a tribunal of the British General Medical Council concluded that Wakefield acted dishonestly and irresponsibly and even performed unnecessary invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies on the children.
The Lancet eventually retracted the paper, and Wakefield was struck from the UK medical register with a statement identifying that he had deliberately falsified scientific results.
By then, however, the damage had already been done. Many people in the US and Europe still believe that vaccinations cause illnesses and conditions including autism in children. Despite official medical advice that says vaccines are safe and vital, many parents still worry about inoculating their children. The belief is heavily ingrained in the minds of many.
According to a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, about one in 10 Americans thinks vaccines are not safe. Among those is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nephew of John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy has pushed hard against the use of a chemical called thimerosal — a preservative used in vaccines to prevent the growth of bacteria and fungi that so-called antivaxxers often confuse with mercury. He also thinks parents should choose whether their children are vaccinated.
After a meeting at Trump Tower this month, Kennedy said Trump had "some doubts about the current vaccine policies and he has questions about it." He also said the president had asked him to chair a commission on vaccination safety, but Trump's team has since denied this.
Trump has previously used anecdotal examples to express his views on the matter.
Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2014"I've seen people where they have a perfectly healthy child, and they go for the vaccinations, and a month later the child is no longer healthy," Trump said on Fox in 2012. "It happened to somebody that worked for me recently. I mean, they had this beautiful child, not a problem in the world. And all of a sudden, they go in, they get this monster shot. You ever see the size of it? It's like they're pumping in — you know, it's terrible, the amount. And they pump this into this little body. And then all of the sudden, the child is different a month later. And I strongly believe that's it."
During the GOP debate in September 2015 he described that example again and suggested that vaccines were causing an "autism epidemic."
"People that work for me, just the other day, 2 years old, beautiful child went to have the vaccine and came back and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic," he said.
Contrary to those statements, there is no epidemic. It is true there are more cases; in the 1970s and 1980s, about one in 2,000 children had autism, but today the CDC estimates that one in 150 8-year-olds in the US have it. But this is probably due to better diagnosis rather than anything else. And Trump's opinions of vaccines do not appear to be backed up by any sort of scientific research. More recently he has claimed to support vaccination but has argued that they should be given over an extended period of time.
No more massive injections. Tiny children are not horses—one vaccine at a time, over time.
This belief is also popular among those opposed to vaccines, but there is no scientific evidence supporting it. Vaccinations are given at set times after decades of doctors working out the best schedule.
Infants' immune systems don't get "overloaded" by vaccines — that's just not how it works. A single bacterium has 2,000 to 6,000 immunological components, and we encounter many bacteria every day. The total number of immunological components of all 14 vaccines given in the first years of life is about 160.
In fact, not getting vaccines on time can put children at risk. Infants can be easily exposed to nasty diseases because their immune systems are just getting started, and spreading vaccines out delays their protection. It also exposes young children to more visits to the doctor, potentially exposing them to contagious diseases. Also, if there is a long time between boosters, some parents forget to bring their children back.
Vaccinations eradicated smallpox, but antivaccination rhetoric appears to have kept this from happening to other diseases. Polio came close to eradication, but instances of it have cropped up in countries recently. In 2014, an epidemic of measles spread across Wales because of vaccine skepticism. Whooping cough was at an all-time low in the 1980s — 10 years after the vaccine was introduced — with 2,900 cases in the UK. After Wakefield's paper, this rose to 26,000 cases in 2004 and 50,000 in 2012.