23 Nov 2025

Australia: Concerns over official responses to asbestos in children’s sand products

Kaye Tucker


Concerns are mounting for the health of thousands of children, educators and their families after children’s coloured sand products were recalled because testing revealed that the products contain asbestos.

Yet, few schools and day care centres using the sand have been closed for its removal. It is shocking that the only Australian state or territory to temporarily shut all affected schools has been the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), centred on Canberra.

Some of the coloured sand products recalled after detection of asbestos. [Photo: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission]

Over the past two weeks, about 1,000 schools and early learning centres across Australia have reported using the sand during curriculum activities, and 87 retailers have been involved in a voluntary recall of the products.

While some governments and agencies insist there is a “low risk” of health damage, it is a medical fact that all exposure to asbestos is potentially dangerous. Consisting of tiny fibres, it can be inhaled without knowing it. These fibres can get stuck in your lungs. Even one-time exposure can be harmful, so no amount of asbestos exposure is safe.

The health risks, especially to workers, were known to manufacturers for decades, but use of the material was not completely banned in Australia until 2003. Thousands of people have died from mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis as a result, often many years after their exposure.

Experts have stated that the risk of fatal exposure is less for the types of asbestos—chrysotile and tremolite—detected in the sands than for blue asbestos in mining, but warned of the need to treat the danger seriously, given uncertainty about how long children may have been exposed.

In a statement posted on the Science Media Centre, Dr Ian Musgrave, a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Adelaide, explained: “While less hazardous than blue asbestos, the infamous asbestos at Wittenoom (an Australian asbestos mine), all types of asbestos can cause mesothelioma, (a rare lung cancer) and asbestosis (interstitial pulmonary fibrosis).”

Musgrave added: “The risk of asbestos-induced disease depends on duration of exposure and the amount of inhaled fibres.” While authorities had reported that no release of respiratory asbestos fibres from the sand had been detected, “we do not have any indication of actual levels of these asbestos forms in the play sand.” He concluded: “While the risk is low, precautions should be taken anyway.”

The crisis first emerged on November 12, when the Australian Competition Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued recall notices over children’s sand products that were sold at various retailers. The sand was brightly coloured and designed for children to play with and for educational purposes. It was labelled as Kadink Sand, Educational Colours—Rainbow Sand and Creatistics—Coloured Sand. A voluntary recall was issued on the same day in New Zealand.

The ACCC urged customers to stop using the products immediately and place the sand in heavy-duty plastic bags, double tape them securely and keep them out of reach of children. The agency advised taking precautions such as a wearing disposable gloves and a mask and not disposing of the sand in general waste.

Since then, only some schools, preschools and childcare centres have undergone searches, and some full and partial closures have occurred. Multiple schools were temporarily closed in New Zealand.

On November 14, more than a dozen schools in Canberra were closed. By the following Monday, the ACT government had temporarily shut 70 public schools, citing strict safety legislation.

The ACT Work Health and Safety Commissioner Jacqueline Agius initially said that only the ACT had detected products containing chrysotile asbestos. She stated that asbestos found in other samples around the country was tremolite asbestos, which had “a more rigid fibre.”

After a public debate erupted over why other states and territories had not followed the ACT lead, the federal Albanese Labor government sprang to their defence. Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care Rebecca White said it was up to individual jurisdictions to decide.

The Queensland state Liberal National Party government then ruled out whole-of-school closures. Its Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek said it was important not to over-react.

Schools in New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria remained open. The Victorian and NSW education departments said they had advice from the ACCC and health departments that the health risk was “low.” The NSW education department said a safety alert had been sent to all its public schools to immediately and safely remove the sand products if they had them.

On November 18, the Tasmanian Liberal government announced that 50 of its public schools would be fully or partially closed that afternoon and on the following day. In addition, 12 Catholic schools and some non-government schools reported being impacted. Over a 24-hour period, an audit was conducted across 200 schools in the state.

Action has been limited elsewhere. In South Australia, more than 300 public schools were found to have the coloured sand, but the state Labor government’s Education Minister Blair Boyer said the advice of regulators, with the exception of the ACT, was not to close schools. Later, there were reports of dozens of schools being shut for cleaning.

Under Western Australia’s state Labor government, the education department said the department of housing and works was removing all coloured sand products. In the Northern Territory, the Country Liberal Party government has not closed any schools or services, even though it said the coloured sand products were found in 41 schools.

Led by the Australian Education Union (AEU), the teacher unions have been complicit. There have been no calls for shutdowns, closures or protections. Not even a media release has been issued. This is despite the fact that all identified forms of asbestos can cause asbestosis, malignant mesothelioma, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, laryngeal cancer and other serious diseases.

According to a 2025 study, 5 percent to 10 percent of people exposed to asbestos at work will develop a related cancer. In most cases, these cancers do not reveal themselves for many years, even decades, as the history of mesothelioma disease internationally has shown.

The partial school closures in some states have resulted from opposition by worried teachers and parents, with media interviews revealing mounting concerns. A chat on the NSW Teachers Federation Facebook showed that members were both confused and concerned by the government response.

The comments included: “Why is ACT closing schools and not NSW?

“I have not seen anything, did you see it?”

“A school I worked at last week had some rooms empty for the day as they had used a kinetic sand that week. The rooms were getting cleaned or carpets removed?

“I know our school probably (including myself) has used that very sand. As usual NSW silence and secretism.”

What has also been revealed is a lack of government quality control and oversight in the importation of manufactured goods, in this case reportedly from China.

An Australian Border Force (ABF) spokesperson said it had strict requirements in place for imported high-risk goods. For many lower-risk goods, however, the ABF considered mandatory testing to be inefficient and costly to industry.

Even the discovery of the asbestos was the result of a one-off test at a laboratory on a new machine, the ACCC said. Despite the sand products entering the country for over five years, they were never previously tested.

An ACCC representative told the media: “That would be an extremely extensive exercise and it’s not currently required under Australian regulation. It’s a matter for suppliers to determine the risk of the products that they’re selling and to engage in appropriate testing.”

In other words, the deadly dangers of asbestos have been left in the hands of profit-driven companies, just as the mining of it was left in the hands of employers for many decades.

More information is yet to emerge. But it is likely, at this early stage, that working-class people are only being shown the tip of the “sand-berg” created by the subordination of basic social and health needs to the profit demands of the capitalist market.

The CDC embraces bogus claims of autism-vaccine links

Benjamin Mateus


On Wednesday the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly amended its “Autism and Vaccines” webpage to state that the familiar assertion—“vaccines do not cause autism”—“is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.” The agency further acknowledged that studies suggesting such a link “have been ignored by health authorities.” 

In so doing, the world’s preeminent public health institution surrendered to the anti-science agenda of the Trump administration, enforced by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the most notorious proponent of the myth that vaccines cause autism.

The updated webpage means that the CDC has crossed the Rubicon in the ongoing dismantling of science-based public health in the United States.

In their third key point of the web posting, HHS declared that “HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.” This is to be taken up at the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on December 4-5, 2025.

Kennedy and his anti-vaccine network have repeatedly called for stripping long-standing liability protections for vaccine manufacturers, reshaping the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and rewriting federal vaccine guidance from the ground up to reflect their anti-vaccine views. The decades of accumulated scientific evidence showing no credible association between childhood vaccines and autism are now being discarded.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., right, stands with Dr. Ben Edwards, left, outside the Reinlander Mennonite Church in Seminole, Texas, on Sunday, April 6, 2025, after a second measles death. [AP Photo/Annie Rice]

In response to the CDC’s falsified and politically altered webpage, the Autism Science Foundation (ASF) issued an unusually direct statement on Thursday. “We are appalled to find that the content on the CDC webpage ‘Autism and Vaccines’ has been changed and distorted and is now filled with anti-vaccine rhetoric and outright lies about vaccines and autism,” the organization wrote. 

ASF underscored that the scientific consensus on this question is unequivocal. “The science is clear that vaccines do not cause autism. No environmental factor has been better studied as a potential cause of autism than vaccines. … All this research has determined that there is no link between autism and vaccines. This is consistent across multiple studies, repeated in different countries around the world, with different individuals, at different ages including infancy, and using different model systems.” 

The Foundation also pointed to evidence of prenatal neurological differences in autistic children—“as early as the second trimester”—confirming that autism’s developmental origins precede any exposure to vaccines. Their statement amounts to a direct repudiation of the CDC’s new language and a stark reminder of how thoroughly the agency has broken with decades of accumulated scientific research.

The medical community’s response was equally unequivocal. In a published statement, Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, condemned the CDC’s action: “We call on the CDC to stop wasting government resources to amplify false claims that sow doubt in one of the best tools we have to keep children healthy and thriving: routine immunizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics stands with members of the autism community who have asked for support in stopping this rumor from spreading any further.”

The AAP emphasized that more than 40 high-quality studies conducted across seven countries and involving 5.6 million individuals have consistently found no association between vaccines and autism. In addition, the AAP joined 39 other leading medical, health and patient-advocacy organizations in a joint statement rejecting “this latest attempt to create fear around routine childhood immunizations,” reiterating that vaccines remain “one of our greatest medical success stories.” They warned that the deliberate erosion of confidence in immunization programs threatens to reverse decades of progress against diseases that once caused widespread and lasting harm.

Professor of Law Dorit R. Reiss, a leading scholar on the legal and social dimensions of vaccination policy, underscored the institutional breakdown revealed by the altered CDC webpage. She told the World Socialist Web Site, “Changing the CDC website does not change the data, and it is just further confirmation that CDC has been compromised and is no longer a reliable source.” Reiss emphasized the human cost within the agency itself: “My heart goes out to the civil-service scientists watching their agency taken down from a world-respected public-health institution to one whose unreliable political masters use it to promote blatant misinformation.” 

Professor Dorit Reiss [Photo by Dorit Reiss]

Other senior officials echoed these concerns. Dr. Daniel Jernigan, a long-time influenza specialist and former director of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, told STAT News that the revised autism-and-vaccines pages had not undergone any standard scientific vetting. Staff responsible for the content were neither consulted nor informed, he said—an unprecedented breach of institutional process. Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who resigned as director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, reported the same shock. “From my personal communications with folks, everyone was blindsided from the perspective of career scientists,” he noted. 

In place of principled scientists who have dedicated their lives to public health, Kennedy has enlisted quacks and frauds to oversee the new “research” into vaccines. He appointed David Geier to re-examine CDC vaccine-safety data despite his long record, alongside his late father, Mark Geier, of promoting discredited and methodologically corrupt claims about vaccine-autism links. 

Mark Geier, whose medical license was revoked in multiple states for unethical practices and deeply flawed research methods, helped create many of the claims that fueled the modern anti-vaccine movement. His son David co-authored much of that work and was previously restricted from full access to the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink because of concerns over data handling and analytical reliability. Despite this record, David Geier has now been brought back into federal review processes by Kennedy. 

Allowing individuals with this record to reassess vaccine-safety datasets is not an academic dispute over conflicting theories. It is substituting fraudsters for scientists. The purpose is to manufacture uncertainty to undermine confidence in routine immunization and destabilize long-standing public-health protections. Childhood illnesses will skyrocket, death rates will rise, life expectancy will plunge: all demographic outcomes that are viewed with favor by the financial oligarchs, who want to bankrupt or abolish programs like Social Security, which they regard as a waste of money.

In the United States, childhood vaccination rates have declined significantly in recent years, a trend closely linked to sustained anti-vaccine campaigns driven by Kennedy and allied groups such as those within the Make America Healthy Again movement. For decades, they have used social media, political platforms and disinformation to erode public trust in scientific institutions and cast doubt on the foundations of evidence-based medicine. 

Now, these same figures—having moved from what used to be called the “lunatic fringe” into positions of federal authority—are using official channels to legitimize those narratives. Their claims, now published on CDC webpages that traditionally serve as scientific reference points, do more than distort specific findings: they rewrite the language of science itself, replacing established standards of evidence with deliberate misrepresentation.

Against this backdrop, two policy proposals now under active consideration—and for which the revised CDC webpages appear designed to provide justification—are expected to define the December 4-5, 2025, ACIP meeting. The first is the removal of aluminum adjuvants from certain vaccines; the second is the dismantling of established multivalent vaccines, such as the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) shot, into separate monovalent doses. Both run directly counter to decades of scientific evidence showing the safety and efficacy of these formulations. 

As STAT News reported, the practical consequences would be profound. Developing replacements for aluminum-containing vaccines or creating single-component versions of combination shots would require manufacturers to return to square one, a process that could take a decade or more and cost upward of $1 billion per vaccine. Industry experts warn that the uncertainty, expense and regulatory disruption involved could render the US vaccine market “really unattractive,” driving manufacturers out of the country and destabilizing an already fragile supply chain. 

Furthermore, the move to reverse the CDC’s longstanding stance on autism is being interpreted by legal and public-health experts as a prelude to adding autism to the VICP’s (Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) Table of Injuries—a change that “could face an exorbitant number of claims that would threaten the viability of the program.” If the protections that underpin the US childhood vaccine market are undermined, manufacturers may find the US market untenable and could withdraw, placing availability of key immunizations at risk. 

Child suffering from measles, pre-1963. [Photo: US Government]

The new guidance also raises alarms for the ACA’s preventive-services mandate: under current law, private health plans must cover ACIP-recommended vaccines delivered in-network with no cost sharing, but if the ACIP’s recommendations or the CDC’s endorsement change, this coverage guarantee could vanish. Meanwhile, the VFC program—providing free vaccines to children who are uninsured, underinsured or Medicaid-eligible—stands to face immediate consequences from manufacturer pull-out, altered vaccine schedules or cost shifts to states and families.

The implications of these proposals are not theoretical. Researchers at Stanford Medicine, in collaboration with scientists at several universities, published a large-scale epidemiological modeling study in JAMA in April that examined what even modest declines in vaccination would mean for the United States. Their models showed that a 10 percent reduction in vaccination coverage would lead to 11.1 million measles cases over the next 25 years, with measles becoming endemic in under five years. The projected toll included 90,000 hospitalizations per year, 34,000 deaths, and more than 8,000 individuals left with lifelong disabilities, alongside an estimated $1 trillion in economic costs.

If vaccination rates were cut in half—a scenario well within reach if the current political program succeeds—the outlook becomes catastrophic. The model forecasts 51.2 million measles cases, 9.9 million rubella cases, 4.3 million polio cases, and 200 cases of diphtheria. Over 25 years, this would produce 10.3 million hospitalizations, 159,200 deaths, 51,200 cases of post-measles neurological injury, 10,700 cases of congenital rubella syndrome, and 5,400 cases of paralysis from polio. Under these conditions, measles would become endemic in less than five years and rubella in under 20. The study leaves no ambiguity: sustained declines in immunization would reverse decades of public-health progress and reintroduce diseases that modern vaccines had effectively eliminated as routine threats.

What is unfolding at the CDC is the opening phase of a political project that seeks to dismantle the scientific infrastructure underpinning modern public health. These changes reflect a much deeper shift in the political landscape, where mounting economic pressures are pushing the ruling establishment toward increasingly authoritarian and anti-scientific solutions. The attack on vaccines and public health is part of a broader drive to weaken the social protections that were built to safeguard ordinary people.

Mass layoffs escalate in US healthcare industry

Max Jones



A nurse transports a patient on a stretcher inside Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center on Tuesday, July 1, 2025, in the Brooklyn borough of New York. [AP Photo/Andres Kudacki]

Mass layoffs across the U.S. healthcare industry continue to accelerate, further straining a system already overburdened by workforce shortages. This is part of a wider jobs massacre, with US employers announcing 1.1 million jobs this year alone.

This week, Providence announced it is cutting approximately 450 staff in the Washington and Oregon area. These cuts, which are set to take place in early 2026, will impact more than 100 departments, including front line clinical healthcare workers. Providence has already laid off 200 this year, and also announced a restructuring plan in June that impacted 600 full-time jobs.

Chicago-based Oak Street Health, which is part of CVS, also announced this week that it is cutting 219 jobs early next year. Last month, they announced they would close 16 Oak Street Clinics starting in February 2026. These operate as primary care facilities for seniors.

Earlier this month, Pennsylvania-based Tower Health announced 350 layoffs, including medical staff at Pottstown Hospital in Montgomery County. Tower Health owns multiple hospitals in the region and it is unclear what other hospitals will be impacted with these layoffs.

Earlier this month, Optum care announced mass layoffs and clinic closures across New Jersey, with 572 jobs to be terminated next year, and 90 clinics to be closed, mostly by the end of November. These clinics provide essential primary care for children and adults, who are now left scrambling to find other healthcare options. 

In late October, PeaceHealth, which owns nine hospitals in Oregon, Washington and Alaska, announced it would lay off 2.5 percent of its workforce, roughly 400 workers.

Also in late October, Point32Health—the second-largest health insurer in Massachusetts—laid off 254 workers, representing 6.7 percent of its workforce. This followed an earlier reduction of 110 employees in March. Another health insurer, Oregon-based PacificSource, announced mass layoffs in late October affecting roughly 300 workers across Oregon, Montana, Idaho and Washington. In early October Kaiser Permanente announced layoffs for 216 workers, little more than a week before nurses went on a 5 day strike.

These layoffs are part of a major escalation of healthcare workforce reduction. In July, the WCH Service Bureau released a ‘deep dive’ into the staggering level of healthcare layoffs in 2025, noting that the industry ‘is experiencing an unprecedented wave of workforce reductions in 2025, with 51 hospitals and health systems announcing layoffs affecting tens of thousands of employees.’

Federal workers have also been a primary target, with roughly 10,000 full-time jobs being cut in the Department of Health as part of the federal job cuts pursued by the Trump regime. This includes around 4,300 workers at the Centers for Disease Control, a third of the workforce.

These layoffs are taking place most of the way through the 5th year of the COVID-19 pandemic which is estimated to have killed more than 30 million people worldwide, with hundreds of millions suffering with long covid causing potentially life long disabilities. The COVID-19 virus continues to rapidly mutate and present a significant threat to public health.

Hospital closures have also increased this year, bringing devastating consequences in particular for rural communities. According to a November report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, 27 hospitals have closed or are in the process of closing so far this year, surpassing the 21 closures recorded in 2024. 

April and May, Taylor Hospital and Crozer-Chester Medical Center shut their doors in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, resulting in thousands of layoffs. Together, these hospitals had handled more than 78,000 emergency room visits and over 54,000 inpatient and outpatient cases annually. These tens of thousands of visits will be redirected to other hospitals in the area, increasing the burden on the understaffed healthcare system.

The ruling class is stripping away social spending in order to sustain ever-expanding profits. Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, which was signed into law in July, slashed over $800 billion from Medicaid over the next decade, with Medicare likely to see $500 billion of cuts in the period between 2026 and 2034. These cuts will result in millions of people losing their healthcare, increased healthcare costs across the board, and an escalation of the mass layoffs among healthcare workers.

There is no shortage of resistance among healthcare workers, who are on the front lines of the class struggle, striking over understaffing, stagnant wages, and ongoing layoffs. 

Earlier this week, hospital workers across the University of California (UC) healthcare system held a two-day strike, confronting the Democratic Party–controlled system that refuses to provide a livable wage. According to the union, roughly 40,000 workers participated.

Last week, 600 nurses in New Orleans held a three-day strike demanding improved staffing ratios and raises that many workers have not received in over a decade. This marks the fifth strike in two years.

Last month, 46,000 Kaiser healthcare workers held a limited five-day strike demanding better working conditions, wages and staffing. A month later, they are still working under an expired contract. 

But in every case, these struggles are being limited and isolated from each other by the healthcare union bureaucracy. While workers want to fight to defend the social right to healthcare, the union bureaucracy is motivated by protecting its corrupt ties with management and the government. At Kaiser, the workers in last month’s strike are in the Alliance of Health Care Unions (AHCU), which participates in the Labor Management Partnership. This corporatist body receives millions of dollars a year from Kaiser, and its explicit aim is to prevent strikes.