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.

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.

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.

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.

$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?

@VPrasadMDMPH is one of the scarce few truth-tellers in medicine today. He is brilliant, ethical, honest, yes - decisive - and funny. This is a tremendous loss to the FDA and the American public. I do wish Makary or Trup had been able to push back against the corruption. Vinay once said on a pod during the pandemic - do the work, then step into the ring. He has opinions because he does the work, he knows the data. How many of those who disagree with him have the intellectual honesty (or skill) to even ask the right questions, let alone interpret the data. This is a great loss. I'd be sad longer if I weren't convinced VP would be on to more gratifying endeavors and other pursuits that will continue to elevate the practice of medicine. Best wishes to you, VP! Can't wait to see what is next. @anish_koka - absolutely brilliantly written. How in the world do you do it all?!

Hope we will someday get a full and honest account of Vinay Prasad's tenure at the FDA. Based on the way he was covered in the media, he came to DC with a set of core principles and did not allow the vicious smears to compromise them one bit. By all appearances, he emerges from this tumultuous year as a person who proved himself to be of extremely rare integrity.

The level of smear applied in your substack is pretty stunning, even for you. Comparing the proposed Danish study to Tuskegee is a jaw-droppingly sleazy move. Glad to see so many people waking up to the realities of the "ethical" science you relentlessly promote.

Marruecos: -Escondió la toalla del portero Mendy -Se benefició de dos graves errores arbitrales -No quiso entregar la Copa África a Senegal -Boicoteó la RDP del seleccionador rival La Confederación Africana de Fútbol le entregó el premio al Fair Play. elconfidencial.com/deportes/…

The whole African continent must stand with Senegal and call out Morocco's VAR corruption. Morocco robbed Tanzania of a penalty challenge on Iddi Nado: no VAR check. Senegal scored a legitimate goal: no VAR check. But the moment Brahimi shouts for a foul, VAR is suddenly active. This isn't inconsistency, it's corruption at it's core. It’s time for the continent to send a clear message to Motsepe and CAF: end this now. Enough is enough.

Katherine, how many of the 14000 babies in the hep B birth dose study would get a birth dose if there were no study?

This exaggerated take on the changes in US hep B vaccine policy is inaccurate in several ways. The actual policy of targeted vaccination excluding newborns of mothers WITHOUT hepatitis B is a strategy that has successfully contained Hepatitis B throughout Europe.

We have an interesting webinar on the non-specific effects of BCG vaccine today featuring speakers from all over the world. Two hours of exciting new research results, starting at 12.30 CET (45 minutes from now). No registration needed. Link: syddanskuni.zoom.us/j/682005…

Vaccinologists need to realize that their unwillingness to debate is one of the primary drivers of hesitancy. The next chapter of vaccine trust will NOT be written by institutions. It will be written by: •Scientists willing to show humility •Physicians willing to engage in dialogue •Parents willing to ask honest questions •Platforms willing to host real conversations You don’t rebuild trust by avoiding uncomfortable topics. Because the truth doesn’t fear conversation. And science doesn’t fear questions. Only dogma does.

The argument that newborn HepB shots can't have rare but severe side-effects because millions have been vaccinated is deeply flawed - Billions got mRNA 💉 (& were gaslit) before the severe myocarditis link was established - Billions got BCG before beneficial NSEs were documented

WEBINAR: The latest news on BCG vaccine and its non-specific effects. 8 Januar 2026. Six ground-breaking presentations from excellent researchers from all over the world. For everyone with an interest in non-specific effects of vaccines. No registration needed. #NSEvac

The US Hep B 💉rec change is rational pharmacotherapy which targets the intervention (Hep B at birth) to those in need (newborns born to infected mothers or mothers with unknown infection status). This is how medicine is supposed to be practiced, & how it is practised elsewhere.

Is this The Science™ that quite a few have been talking about?

These news are very sad and align with the preschool-aged child that died in the moderna mRNA COVID-19 KidCOVE trial after receiving a booster shot. These vaccines should never have been given to children, teens and healthy adults, only those at very high risk of severe COVID-19.

Alvorlig avsløring i Ingeniøren i dag 🇩🇰 Dette bør få konsekvenser — ikke bare for kjernekraftdebatten i Danmark. Det er nå dokumentert at flere sentrale danske forskere bak et innflytelsesrikt kjernekraft-notat har operert med skjulte modellparametere. De har brukt kostnadstall som ligger langt utenfor det som det finnes faglig dekning for. Å publisere en studie der forutsetningene er skjult, gjør etterprøving umulig. Det er ikke en bagatell — det er et direkte brudd på vitenskapelig redelighet. Og det blir enda merkeligere: 1️⃣ 𝐃𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐤𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐯𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 «𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐭» 𝐡𝐨𝐬 𝐈𝐄𝐀. Det er feil. De totale driftskostnadene ligger 28 prosent høyere enn både vår analyse og IEA. Når tallene ikke stemmer med verken litteratur eller IEA – og likevel forsvares offentlig – begynner vi å nærme oss noe som likner bevisst villedning. 2️⃣ 𝐈𝐄𝐀𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐭𝐢𝐝𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐣ø𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞. Siden 2022 har IEA oppjustert kostnadene for framtidig havvind med 45 prosent mer enn kostnadene for kjernekraft. Likevel virker det som enkelte forskermiljøer fortsatt ikke klarer å ta dette innover seg. Når fakta ikke lenger får stå alene, men må vike for politiske preferanser, står vi overfor et større problem: 👉 Hvor har den vitenskapelige redeligheten blitt av? Les avsløringen i Ingeniøren her: ing.dk/artikel/danske-forske…