Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer

Big step forward for neonatal health👶: New 🇮🇳 BLOW2 RCT (n=5,420; 511 deaths) shows BCG+OPV at birth reduce neonatal mortality by 17 % (NNT≈21) and ↓ infection deaths by 47 %. A landmark confirmation of the Guinea-Bissau 🇬🇼 discovery of BCG’s life-saving non-specific effects.

@Vedv_Energi @SteffenFrolund Du kommer ikke langt med de AI svar.

Store havvindmølleparker placeret langt ude på havet kræver ofte betydelige investeringer i elnettet. Derfor kan der være økonomi i at flytte forbruget tættere på produktionen. For eksempel kan datacentre, produktion af grønne brændstoffer eller opladning til søtransport placeres strategisk med henblik på at minimere disse netomkostninger. Lad os sammenligne de samlede systemomkostninger.

Nu skal jeg lige prøve at forklare en sammenhæng mellem energiformer og elnettets størrelse. Forestil dig en forsimplet land - vi kunne kalde det "Grønmark". Det gode ved dette land er at elforbruget altid er stabilt på 4GW. Det gør det nemt at eksemplificere ting. Grønmark står overfor en skillevej. Hvilke energiformer skal benyttes og hvad betyder det for elnettets udbygning. De overvejer vindmøller. For at levere 4GW som er den efterspurgte strømmængde, så skal der bygges 10GW møller. De leverer nemlig kun 40% af kapaciteten i snit. Nogle dage leverer de næsten ingenting, og andre dage leverer de fulde 10GW. Okay. Når vi laver for meget strøm, så kan vi bare gemme resten, eller sende den til udlandet, eller lave den om til brint. Det kræver så et elnet der kan håndtere fulde 10GW når det engang imellem sker. Altså elnettet skal dimensioneres til 10GW, selvom vi kun laver og bruger 4GW i snit. Og når vi næsten ingen strøm laver, så er vi også afhængige af at bygge kabler til udlandet, som mindst skal kunne rumme 4GW, som de jo bruger på et hvert givent tidspunkt i Grønmark. Altså 10GW elnet og 4GW udlandskabler. Det andet scenarie de overvejer er atomkraft. For at levere de efterspurgte 4GW, så skal der etableres 4,5GW atomkraft, da de leverer tæt på 90% af kapaciteten - stabilt. Elnettet skal altså være 4,5GW stort da man kan ramme fuldt output, gemme resten, eller lave brint for det. Simple Grønmark skal som sådan ikke partout have udlandskabler. Så man i scenarierne for elnettet skal de vælge mellem A) 10GW elnetdimensionering og 4GW udlandskabler overfor B) 4,5GW dimensionering og ingen udlandskabler. Prisen for de to elnet er meget meget forskellige. Men når det også viser sig at det store elnet konstant forsinkes og fordyres, så tænkte Grønmark, at godt nok betyder pris meget, men at vi når vores elektrificerings- og klimamål betyder mere. Så det mindre system vi kan nå er smartere - og endda også billigere. Grønmark er et forsimplet billede. Men det viser dig hvorfor at et energisystem baseret på kilder med store udsving alt andet lige har brug for mere elnet end et system baseret på kilder som leverer stabilt. Gæt om de meromkostninger er med i den danske debat om energikilder eller ej? Det burde de selvfølgelig også være.

@RasmusJarlov @onlycoolstuff22 Countries that have ruled Denmark: Denmark

@onlycoolstuff22 Countries that have ruled England: Rome Denmark Hannover

Countries Once Ruled by the United Kingdom (Former British Empire)🇬🇧 Europe Ireland 🇮🇪 🌏 Asia India 🇮🇳 Pakistan 🇵🇰 Bangladesh 🇧🇩 Sri Lanka 🇱🇰 Myanmar 🇲🇲 Malaysia 🇲🇾 Singapore 🇸🇬 Brunei 🇧🇳 Cyprus 🇨🇾 🌍 Africa Egypt 🇪🇬 Sudan 🇸🇩 South Sudan 🇸🇸 Kenya 🇰🇪 Uganda 🇺🇬 Tanzania 🇹🇿 Nigeria 🇳🇬 Ghana 🇬🇭 Sierra Leone 🇸🇱 The Gambia 🇬🇲 South Africa 🇿🇦 Zimbabwe 🇿🇼 Zambia 🇿🇲 Botswana 🇧🇼 Namibia 🇳🇦 🌎 Americas & Caribbean United States 🇺🇸 Canada 🇨🇦 Jamaica 🇯🇲 Barbados 🇧🇧 Bahamas 🇧🇸 Trinidad & Tobago 🇹🇹 Belize 🇧🇿 Guyana 🇬🇾 🌊 Oceania Australia 🇦🇺 New Zealand 🇳🇿 Papua New Guinea 🇵🇬 Fiji 🇫🇯 Solomon Islands 🇸🇧 At its peak, the British Empire controlled ~25% of the world’s land and population, the largest empire in history.

@sabhlok Yes, DTP would not prevent neonatal tetanus, maternal tetanus vaccination would prevent/reduce risk.

This nails it (I think!) This 2015 paper shows that 59% of all tetanus deaths globally in 1990 were neonatal tetanus deaths (i.e. BEFORE FOUR WEEKS). Neonatal tetanus mortality declined by 90% during the 25 year period to 2015. But here's the conclusive factor: DPT is given after EIGHT WEEKS (the earliest is six weeks). => DPT COULD NOT HAVE DONE ANYTHING TO STOP NEONATAL TETANUS. Neonates DIED BEFORE THEY COULD BE VACCINATED. I think there's nothing more conclusive than this about the fact that DPT DID NOTHING TO REDUCE TETANUS MORTALITY. Instead, it was the shift across the world to SAFE BIRTH - that explains the decline in tetanus. Q.E.D. Any comment from the experts? @FSBuchholzer @ClareCraigPath @RBystrianyk I hope I'm not jumping the gun here. But to me this explains BOTH the high death rate from "convulsion" in 17th century England AND the rapid decline in tetanus since 1900 in the USA and from 1990 (since the data are available) in the Third World. Iceland data show that up to 3/4th of the children were dying before 28 days due to tetanus in the early 19th century. Further, we have proof that neonatal tetanus was the MAIN component of tetanus deaths in develping societies (I'm assuming many mothers died, as well). And we have proof of a rapid shift towards safe births across the West (and now, across the Third World). This means that the tetanus deaths were conquered by something other than the vaccine. link.springer.com/article/10.118…

@sabhlok We have not studied this question, no.

@FSBuchholzer Thanks, Frederik. Did you study the impact of DPT on tetanus? I'm no longer sure that DPT even does much to prevent tetanus. Still investigating.

Dear .@FSBuchholzer I'm reviewing Aaron Siri's book and claims about harms from DPT. Claude AI has guided me to your 2022 paper (claude.ai/share/63306f9f…); (claude.ai/share/63306f9f…). As I read these papers, there seem to be too many moving parts - herd immunity, effect of other vaccines, nutritional status, travel, etc. - making it close to impossible for me to understand the net scientific position. Aaron has likewise concluded: "After over five years of searching for and repeatedly demanding studies and data to counter the weight of evidence supporting that DTP increases mortality, none has been provided. There are no better studies. And there is nobody relevant left to ask for better studies or data to show that DTP does not increase mortality." Is there any YouTube or other video that your team has prepared (e.g. @StabellBenn) that you can guide me to - to try to understand the substantive issue. Also, it appears that the main benefit of DPT is to stop tetanus, with diphtheria being of minor concern. Did your studies only look at all-cause mortality or also studied the impact of DPT on its individual components?

@sonderby @madseninjapan Ville komme smør på senere i processen, så det ikke branker. 1. Neutral olie, høj varme (lav sprød stegeskorpe på begge sider), 2-3 min. 2. skru ned og kom smør på, samt hvidløg, timian. 3. Bad bøffen med smør løbende. Hvor har du købt din Cote de Boeuf? Den ser god ud!

@madseninjapan Er det for lidt?

Jeg har kørt 6 år som ren pescetar... For nogle måneder siden er jeg hoppet tilbage på kødholdet, og kører nu en periode, hvor jeg prioriterer "keto"-lignende kost, for at komme lidt længere ned i vægt og via træning og tilskud øge testosteron naturligt. For 6 mdr. siden havde jeg næsten væmmelse ved tanken om at spise en bøf. Nu kan jeg næsten ikke få nok og har deciderede kød cravings. Hjernen er en mærkelig størrelse 🧠🤷‍♂️ Her dagens frokost på vej (sammen med salat) 🥩

For anyone who used a computer between 1990 & 2005… what’s the one game you still think about?

Det er mindblowing at vi defakto har rationering af strøm nu 🤯 I årevis har vi alle fået at vide at mere vejrafhængig sol- og vindenergi var billigt, hurtigt og løste vores behov. Det viste sig at gøre os mere afhængige af at brænde skove af, afhængige af andre lande, og at det presser elnettet så meget, at vi nu har en defakto rationering på strøm. Ikke grundet Hormuz, Rusland eller udefrakommende ting. Simpelthen skabt af egne politiske valg. Mange projekter får nu nej til tilslutning. Energinet har lukket for ansøgninger. Al vores velstand, velfærd og levevis bygger på adgang til energi. Der findes ikke et rigt energifattigt land. Det er helt oppe på skalaen for, hvor kritisk det er. Midt i geopolitiske omvæltninger skal vi være rige, produktive og uafhængige. Nu ser vi at rød energipolitik er ekstremt farlig. Mere VE løser det ikke. Det er en medvirkende årsag til presset på Energinet. Vi producerer længst muligt væk fra forbruget, kilderne svinger så meget i produktion at elnettet skal bygges til max peak, PtX og batterier skal tilsluttes for at placere dette ekstra peak, frekvensen danser rundt, og vi skal bygge flere kabler til udlandet for at dække vindstille dage. Alt sammen ekstra Energinet-opgaver. Det vigtigste du skal forstå er at det ikke handler om gennemsnit, men om minimum og maksimum brug af nettet. Større volatilitet lig med eksponentielt sværere elnet at drive. Vi så for nylig Spanien gå sort af sværhedsgraden. Energinet har i rapport efter rapport sagt dette mellem linjerne. Men det har været politisk selvmord for embedsværket at sige de ulovlige ord: Atomkraft. For det var at planlægge med det, og det var ulovligt. Det er en fullblown skandale at vi skal have energirationering forårsaget af egne valg. De venstreorienterede partier, som har sat os i denne situation, burde sætte sig over i hjørnet og sige undskyld i skam. Sol og vind er fine energiformer, men de egner sig kun til at være backbone at bygge et helt system på, hvis man afsætter gigantiske summer til elnet og gigantiske arealer til højspændingskabler - og tæller disse med i byggetiderne. Det har man ikke gjort, fordi man har ønsket at snyde på vægten, for at kunne kalde dem billige og hurtige. Vi skal tænke os godt om nu. Vi skal fjerne presset på Energinet, så deres pipeline ikke er proppet. Vi skal indføre flere stabile energikilder herunder SMR jf. Energistyrelsens nyeste udgivelse. Vi skal som LA foreslog i sidst samling sætte nettilslutninger i privat udbud. Vi skal sørge for at VE-anlæg leverer mere stabilt ud på nettet, med batterier inden meteret. Eksisterende VE anlæg skal nemmere kunne koble batterier på og opgradere deres møller, uden det kræver store nyansøgninger. Vi skal sige til store forbrugere, såsom datacentre, at de på pressede steder skal producere deres egen strøm direkte on-site. Energinet skal også tilpasse sig med nye processer, flere muskler og færre politiske dogmer. Vi skal forkaste venstrefløjen atommodstand endegyldigt. Og sidst men ikke mindst, så skal det være helt slut med socialdemokratiets orbanisme med at placere pensionsovermodne partiloyalister i spidsen for vigtige ting. Den politiske energidebat skal også være på et højere niveau nu. Hvad en energiform isoleret set koster at opføre er et amatørspørgsmål. De afledte følgeomkostninger ved energiformer, såsom dem vi ser nu, og derved det optimale mix, er den professionelle og relevante samtale. Det handler om hele Danmark - ikke om enkelte særhensyn.

Thank you David for your question. The billions of small DNA fragments in a given dose and any intact plasmid DNA within lipid nanoparticles (LNP’s) are all delivered at the injection site where they are most concentrated. Additional injections deliver similar cargo often nearby the location of earlier injections. The LNP’s carry their cargo inside cells including replicating cells, damaged cells, premalignant cells, stem cells or existing cancer cells. Dividing cells break down their nuclear envelope so intracellular material can freely mix with chromosomes and any ongoing DNA repair processes in a stoichiometry that may favor insertional mutagenesis. There are no studies of the immediate early events after vaccination with COVID mRNA vaccines in humans. There are no reliable long-term outcome studies in the US after multiple boosters. There is a paucity of post-mortem studies with forensic evidence. There is uncertainty about whether certain adverse events or outcomes are captured in databases or electronic health records given lack of diagnostic codes or general awareness. There is variability in the contaminants and heterogeneity in risk among individuals. Such variability in risk is essential to understand better. The level of contaminating plasmid DNA has been documented to be underestimated in certain assays with amplified regions less detectable due to RNA-DNA hybrids. There is uncertainty about which cells that circulate actually come in contact with injected material but draining lymph nodes with immune cells, muscle cells and small blood vessels in the area are candidates. There have been unexpected findings in 1- biodistribution with some evidence that vaccine mRNA or Spike protein may persist for up to 2 years and be found in distant organs, 2- contaminants with altered manufacturing process where a plasmid-based Process II never tested in the early clinical trials was substituted for the in vitro transcription-based Process I when the COVID mRNA vaccines were rolled out for global use, 3- immune alterations involving novel epitopes from frameshifting, inflammation from the nucleic acids and LNP’s, and IgG4 class-switching by the time 4 doses of COVID mRNA vaccines have been given, 4- tropism to certain cells/organs such as CNS, heart, placenta, ovaries, GI track among others, 5- ribosomal frameshifting that is more common with the pseudouridine-modified stable mRNA, 6- presence of Spike in tumor cells when it was rarely looked for, 7- increased PD-L1 in tumors as a primary consequence of COVID mRNA vaccines in tumors as described in a Nature article in November 2025 where it was used to support a rationale for cancer immunotherapy, 8- altered microbiome, and 9- unexpected toxicities in a myriad of illnesses with similarity to long COVID. Six years after the pandemic started it is reasonable to ask questions about unexpected occurrences, their mechanisms and to allow experts to discuss and address issues. It is important to be more nuanced about individual risk:benefit considerations. There are gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed and there is lack of informed consent with the COVID mRNA vaccines. There is need for stricter oversight of modified mRNA products in LNPs with plasmid-based manufacturing. There is need for more transparency by manufacturers and regulators. There should be more attention to potential harms of products before large scale use. There should be liability for manufacturers as well as accountability that extends to regulators. Vaccines can save lives if they are safe and effective. Achieving that bar is relevant to what regulators approve and what individuals accept after informed consent that includes common and rare risks.

@AlecStapp @JonasHerby En tråd til dig :-)

What are your other favorite charts in this genre? Thinking of stuff like this:

@Jikkyleaks @elonmusk The second question being why a doctor and governments would recommend/demand that you take a vaccine for a disease you had recovered from?

@elonmusk Why would you take a vaccine for a disease you had recovered from? Genuine question

The vaccine dosage was obviously too high and done too many times. I had the original Wuhan virus before there was any vaccine and it was much like any other cold/flu. Bad, but not terrible. But my second vaccine shot almost sent me to the hospital. Felt like I was dying.

@Happeninger @jonatanpallesen @MatthewWielicki There is of course no guarantee of that. Burning wood for energy is stupid, just like this exchange.

No, I was just correcting the lack of understanding of basic physics/biology. You are guaranteed the trees will be regrown. Forests have been been growing all across Europe since the last ace age, and they show no signs of stopping. Monocultural forests are rare, they are usually for paper production, typically only the unusable remnants get used for biomass.

Nearly two-thirds of Denmark’s “renewable energy” comes from burning biomass — mostly imported wood pellets. Not wind. Not solar. Wood. Burned for energy. Burning wood for power produces more CO₂ at the smokestack than natural gas. 🤦‍♂️

@Happeninger @jonatanpallesen @MatthewWielicki You have spent a long thread arguing nothing. It would clearly be better for the planet and each country if we left these trees alone and used nuclear energy instead. There is no guarantee that they will be regrown, and monocultured forests are really not something to desire for.

@FSBuchholzer @jonatanpallesen @MatthewWielicki 50% is local, most of the imports are from the EU and North America and previously Russia. Brazil's share is minor. x.com/Happeninger/st…

@Happeninger @jonatanpallesen @MatthewWielicki Denmark is burning biomass from eastern Europe, Brazil and North America.

@FSBuchholzer @jonatanpallesen @MatthewWielicki If forests in your country produce 2.4 million cubic meters of wood annually, and you burn 2.4 million cubic meters of wood per year, you haven't increased atmospheric CO2. Unless you mean locally around the chimneys, but that's sophistry.

@Happeninger @jonatanpallesen @MatthewWielicki You still increased atmospheric CO2 by burning the wood, so it would have been better to get the energy/electricity from somewhere else which does not pollute or emit anything, like nuclear.

@FSBuchholzer @jonatanpallesen @MatthewWielicki Wood is made from carbon, which comes from CO2 via photosynthesis. If you burn a tree, and at the same time forests produced more wood than was the tree you burned, total CO2 in the atmosphere decreased.

@Happeninger @jonatanpallesen @MatthewWielicki I am talking about chopping down trees and burning them for energy. I am not really sure what you are talking about..

@FSBuchholzer @jonatanpallesen @MatthewWielicki > And then burning wood NOW does how a negative effect NOW, accelerating CO2 in the atmosphere, to be captured again over decades. If you're burning fewer trees than grow each year (which the West is), how is that "accelerating CO2"? Net balance is negative.

@AndrewSabisky @AndreasSteno US healthcare fails on every parameter compared to European healthcare if you look at overall health care outcomes, e.g. infant mortality, child mortality, life expectancy. So you may you more money, but less healthy years of life to enjoy them in.

@AndreasSteno I think you are selling the US a bit short tbh, the quality and quantity of healthcare the money buys is quite a bit better than most European countries by quite some way. Think this is also true for education tbh, certainly at tertiary level

Just to add some nuance to the propaganda here. If you look at the median rather than the mean, which is what actually reflects how most people live, the picture changes quite a bit. Once you also account for unavoidable out of pocket costs like healthcare and education, life in the US looks much more average, and often falls behind Northern European countries for the typical person. The US model clearly creates immense wealth at the very top, but for the vast majority of people, median living standards are what really matter. And by that measure, the story is far less impressive than it is often made out to be.

@AndreasSteno @tomhfh The US is also on a spending spree using borrowed money, with debt exploding. Living off on borrowed money isn't wealth.

Another journalist with no understanding of numbers. This is an apple versus pears comparison. If you look at the median rather than the mean, which is what actually reflects how most people live, the picture changes quite a bit. Once you also account for unavoidable out of pocket costs like healthcare and education, life in the US looks much more average, and often falls behind Northern European countries for the typical person. The US model clearly creates immense wealth at the very top, but for the vast majority of people, median living standards are what really matter. And by that measure, the story is far less impressive than it is often made out to be.

Europoor is an entirely accurate phrase. America is simply in a different league.

@jonatanpallesen @MatthewWielicki That is if 1) it is replanted and 2) if it can grow fast enough. And cutting it down and sailing it here also emits. And then burning wood NOW does how a negative effect NOW, accelerating CO2 in the atmosphere, to be captured again over decades Nuclear would have been better.

@MatthewWielicki But wood is in a cycle. If you grow new trees and burn them, you don't add to the overall CO2 balance. This is different from burning fossil fuels.

@Jikkyleaks @OpenSAFELY That is super scary.

Now do you understand why I keep telling you that data from "EHR databases" that cannot be verified - like those from @opensafely that fraudulently misrepresented potential COVID treatments - are a problem? And why I tried to warn you about #EMRgate 3 years ago.