MD PhD, Assistant Professor at Bandim Health Project @SyddanskUni. Vaccine trials & epi. Father of 2, polyglot. WhatsApp (+45) 42702170 ✉️ frederik@bandim.org
Copenhagen
Joined December 2014
- Tweets6.9K
- Following1.1K
- Followers5.2K
- Likes62.2K
Pinned Tweet
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.
start giving HBV "by 2028", the proposed trial is clearly ethical until the time GB starts giving the vaccine routinely to neonates. In addition, it is clearly unethical not perform the trial up to that time given that, if the trial were to begin, half the participants would get
Sent to me by an expert in pediatrics and vaccinology:
Quote 1:
"The unfounded criticism of the HBV trial is a disgrace - I suspect largely motivated by fear that an RCT might show that HBV is, in fact, harmful to neonates."
Quote 2:
"Given that Guinea-Bissau is only planning to
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
We have gotten ourselves into a very strange situation, where there is significant uncertainty about the effects of mass vaccination, but the studies that could resolve this uncertainty cannot be done "for ethical reasons."
Reminder that even the leading vaccine textbook by Plotkin admits that "Randomized trials are needed to understand this observation" of harmful nonspecific effects from vaccines. Even vaccinologists know their science is inadequate.
The true ethical failing was rolling out these vaccines to hundreds of millions of people without first doing proper studies. Now those studies will never be done.
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
Christine Stabell Benn blev Ridder af Dannebro efter covid-19, men siden er kritikken haglet ned over vaccineforskeren i den internationale presse.
Stort set hver gang med henvisning til penge og ros fra USAs vaccineskeptiske sundhedsminister, Robert Kennedy Jr.
berlingske.dk/samfund/dansk-…
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
Without the study, zero of those 14,000 newborns receive the hep B vaccine. With the study, all of the babies born to Hep B positive mothers, plus half of all the others receive it.
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
Paul, you misunderstood this trial, which will provide access to the hep B vaccine where it is currently not assessible. All mothers will be tested for hep B; neonates born to a positive mother will be offered 💉as will those who decline to participate.
bandim.org/revised-hepatitis…
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
Thanks Frederik. My growing concern is that political agendas are overshadowing independent scientific judgement. I greatly respect experts such as Dr Offit, but scientific scrutiny must remain impartial, regardless of who is in office. It is not too late to restore that balance, but public trust is increasingly at stake.
Unbelieveable COVID-19 💉 revelations by BMJ Investigation:
The Bayesian analysis framework to detect safety signals in VAERs did not work, it was mathematically compromised, & officials ignored several warnings about it, while citing the lack of signals as evidence of safety 😱
DAN-RSV trial in adults >59 years old
131,379 participants
Across RSV seasons, 💉efficacy was 71% (39%–87%), but there was almost no RSV:
💉group: 0.11 events/1000 PYRs
Control: 0.37 events/1000 PYRs
All-cause deaths were:
146 💉
120 for controls
Episheet RR: 1.22 (0.96-1.55)
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
En résumé, ils reprennent la partie discussion de l'article de @StabellBenn et réécrivent les arguments qui s'y trouvent déjà en faisant croire qu'ils apportent des points nouveaux. Si je devais parier, je dirais qu'ils n'ont pas lu en détail l'article qu'ils critiquent.🤦♂️
2/n
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
A successful hearing with Anthony Fauci would establish the following for the public record:
1. NIAID funded virus hunting & genetic engineering of novel coronaviruses at low biosafety (BSL2). This body of work could have caused the pandemic.
2. When Covid emerged, Fauci did not ask the Wuhan lab's partners in the US, specifically EcoHealth Alliance @PeterDaszak and @UNC Ralph Baric, to share data or research proposals written with the Wuhan scientists. NIAID did not search for progress reports from EcoHealth otherwise they would've known the 2019 report was late and missing. They would've also seen from a 2018 EcoHealth report that a SARS-like virus had been accidentally enhanced to be deadlier in humanized mice - yet NIAID did not suspend funding or send the project for additional review.
3. NIAID never had access to the Wuhan lab's database of samples or virus sequences. So they do not know of all viruses collected (especially after 2015) and studied using NIAID funding.
4. Fauci's senior advisor implicated Fauci (alongside numerous co-conspirators, scientists and journalists) in their own stated attempts to break federal records law. "I forgot to say there is no worry about FOIAs. I can either send stuff to Tony on his private gmail, or hand it to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble."
5. Fauci supported and advised the publication of a letter, Proximal Origin, to shut down the lab leak hypothesis but his role (funder of the authors) was not disclosed in the letter. If this is acceptable practice, it sets a dangerous precedent for researchers in other critical areas (e.g., vaccine safety) to write opinions without disclosing the involvement of funders with strong competing interests (e.g., pharmaceutical companies).
6. The coronavirus hunting and downstream genetic engineering funded by NIAID was not required for the development of any of the Covid vaccines, therapeutics, or medical countermeasures. It did nothing to predict the outbreak in Wuhan or prevent the pandemic.
7. Research that can create pandemic pathogens should be regulated by an independent entity with standardized screening and review processes. The risks are shouldered by the public, which is not even informed about potentially catastrophic research happening in their own cities.
The Slack messages coming out now from the Proximal origins crew is just out of this world.
The dishonesty, lack of ethics, spine and moral compass, is sickening.
I can't believe that we have been listening to these people for years.
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
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.
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
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.
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
My company rolled out AI tools 11 months ago. Since then, every task I do takes longer.
I am not allowed to say this out loud.
Not because there is a policy. There is no policy. There is something worse than a policy. There is enthusiasm.
There is a Slack channel called #ai-wins where people post screenshots of AI outputs with captions like "this just saved me an hour." There is a VP who opens every all-hands with "the companies that adopt fastest win." There is a Director who renamed his team from Operations to Intelligent Operations. There is a peer review question that now asks: "How have you leveraged AI tools to enhance your workflow this quarter?"
If the answer is "I haven't, because I was faster before," that is a career decision.
So I leverage.
Emails.
Before the tools, I wrote emails. This took the amount of time it takes to write an email. I did not measure it. Nobody measured it. The email got written and sent and it was fine.
Now I write the email. Then I highlight the text and click "Enhance with AI." The AI rewrites my email. It replaces "Can we meet Thursday?" with "I'd love to explore the possibility of finding a mutually convenient time to align on this." I read the rewrite. I delete the rewrite. I send my original email.
This takes 4 minutes instead of 2. The 2 extra minutes are the enhancement. I do this 11 times a day. That is 22 minutes I spend each day rejecting improvements to sentences that were already finished.
In #ai-wins I posted a screenshot of the rewrite. I did not post the part where I deleted it. 23 people reacted with the rocket emoji.
That is adoption.
Meetings.
We have an AI notetaker in every meeting now. It joins automatically. It records. It transcribes. It summarizes. After each meeting I receive a 3-paragraph summary of the meeting I just attended.
I read the summary. This takes 3 minutes. I was in the meeting. I know what happened. I am reading a machine's account of something I experienced firsthand. Sometimes the account is wrong. Last Tuesday it attributed a comment about Q3 revenue to me. My manager made that comment. I spent 4 minutes correcting the transcript.
Before the notetaker, I did not spend 7 minutes after each meeting correcting a robot's memory of something I personally witnessed. I attend 11 meetings a week. That is 77 minutes per week supervising a transcription nobody requested.
I mentioned this once. My manager said "think about the people who weren't in the meeting." The people who weren't in the meeting do not read the summaries. I checked. The read receipts show single-digit opens. The summaries exist not because they are useful but because they are there. I read them for the same reason.
Documents.
I write a weekly status update. Before the tools, this took 10 minutes. I typed what happened. I sent it. My manager skimmed it. The system worked.
Now I open the AI writing assistant. I give it my bullet points. It produces a draft. The draft says "Significant progress was achieved across multiple workstreams." I did not achieve significant progress across multiple workstreams. I updated a spreadsheet and sent 4 emails.
I rewrite the draft to say what actually happened. Then I run my rewrite through the grammar tool. It suggests I change "done" to "completed" and "next week" to "in the forthcoming period." I click Ignore 9 times. Then I send the version I would have written in 10 minutes. The process now takes 30.
I have been doing this every week for 11 months. I have added 20 minutes to a task that did not need 20 more minutes. I call this efficiency. I have been calling it efficiency for 11 months. That is what efficiency means now. It means the additional time you spend to arrive at the same outcome through a longer process. Nobody has questioned this definition. I have not offered it for review.
I kept a log once. 2 weeks. Every task, timed. Before-AI and after-AI. The after number was larger in every case. Every single one. Not by a little. The range was 40 to 200 percent.
I deleted the log.
I deleted it because it was a document that said, in plain numbers, that the AI tools make me slower. And a document like that has no place in a company where AI adoption is a strategic priority. I could not send it to my manager. He championed the rollout. I could not post it in #ai-wins. I could not raise it in a meeting because the notetaker would transcribe it and the summary would read "[Name] expressed concerns about AI tool efficacy" and that summary would be the first one anyone actually reads.
So I do what everyone does.
I use the tools. I spend the extra time. I post in #ai-wins. I write "leveraged AI to streamline weekly reporting" in my review and my manager gives me a 4 out of 5 for innovation. I have innovated nothing. I have added steps to processes that were already finished. I have made simple things longer and labeled the difference with words that used to mean something.
Every week in #ai-wins someone posts a screenshot. And 20 people react with the rocket emoji. And nobody posts the part where they deleted the output and did the task themselves. Nobody posts the revert. Nobody posts the before-and-after timer. Nobody will. Because "I was better at my job before the AI tools" is a sentence that cannot be said out loud in any company that has decided AI is the future.
Every company has decided AI is the future.
So we leverage. Quietly. Adding steps. Calling them optimization. Getting slightly less done, slightly more slowly, with slightly more steps, and reporting it as progress.
My yearly review is next month. There is a new section this year. "AI Impact Assessment." It asks me to quantify the hours saved by AI tools per week.
I will write a number. The number will be positive. It will not be true.
But the AI writing assistant will help me phrase it convincingly. That is the one thing it does well.
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
FDA is so totally corrupt and so totally steered by Big Pharma’s useful idiots among politicians, the media and patient organisations that it will never come to work for patients. When FDA finally employed the right person, Vinay Prasad, they fired him twice: bit.ly/4sw37Aj.
Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer retweeted
$qure
Serious Q: If you think the FDA should approve any drug (let alone a brain injection that’s $3M a pop) based on a negative RCT with N<40 and a “study” that gave it to 12 people who were then compared to a “historical control” cohort, why not just abolish the FDA?