Tesla Hope Wayne

Host of The Reasonable Doubt Podcast. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence. Helping Others Prosper Everyday.

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

"Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine. The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@thelillygaddis Its funny to watch an X Premium member talk about how they use ChatGPT over Grok, the AI that comes with X Premium.

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@LauraLoomer @tylerbowyer @AndrewKolvet @RCMaxw3ll This is going to become a huge crime here soon, fabricating texts and messages to push a narrative to your followers is the lowest thing a human can do, and on top of that, it’s of someone who can no longer defend themselves. Shame on you

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@PotatoDoggies @DavidCWOwens @YannickBuccella Ah, someone who believes AI cant read and respond. A troll poster. You fail to understand anything i posted. You probly think children died to covid. Because you are retarded

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@PotatoDoggies @DrNeilStone https://t.co/QXxvC2hk0T

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

From the skeptical perspective (emphasizing unvaccinated comparisons, data limitations, and alternative explanations), the claim of a vaccine-driven “100% reduction to zero deaths” is often viewed as overstated hype based on observational data with small numbers, confounding factors, and no direct unvaccinated control in the highlighted group. https://t.co/Oc6FZ0Ok7a
Baseline Rarity in Young Women
Cervical cancer is rare in women aged 20–24 even historically. Pre-vaccine mortality rates were already very low (~0.27 deaths per 100,000 women-years in the 2000–2014 baseline used in the study). This translates to roughly 23 expected deaths over 5 years in England’s population for that age group—not a common event. Hitting zero is notable but represents a small absolute change from an already low base. Critics note that deaths in this young cohort were “close to zero” for years, and random variation or other trends could explain the absence. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK
Trends Predated or Coincided with Vaccination
Mortality and incidence had been declining or shifting due to screening changes (e.g., raising the first screening age from 20 to 25 around 2004–2005, which affected younger cohorts), improved treatments, changes in sexual behavior/HPV exposure, smoking rates, and better diagnostics. Some point out that cases/deaths in 20–24 year olds were already dropping noticeably by ~2015 (around when vaccinated cohorts entered that age), but attributing it solely to the 2008 vaccine rollout ignores these longer-term patterns. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK https://t.co/2LYm3rTwCI
Observational Study, Not Randomized; Limited Direct Unvaccinated Comparison
The Lancet analysis is population-level and ecological: it compares observed deaths to “expected” based on historical rates and overlays vaccination coverage. For the 20–24 group in 2020–2024 (high ~88–90% coverage from routine 12–13 vaccination), there were zero deaths vs. 23 expected. However:
• It lacks individual-level vaccinated vs. unvaccinated data for this exact young cohort (most were offered the vaccine).
• Earlier catch-up cohorts (lower coverage) showed reductions, but the strongest effects align with younger vaccination.
• Broader evidence (e.g., Swedish or English incidence studies) does show dose-response protection and herd effects, but skeptics argue true causation requires clearer unvaccinated controls or longer follow-up, as cancer has a long latency. https://t.co/Cwh80pr1XA
Unvaccinated women (or those in low-uptake areas) still exist and provide some contrast in other studies, where incidence remains higher. But in England’s high-coverage young groups, near-universal exposure makes clean comparisons hard. Falling uptake (now ~76% nationally, lower in some areas) could test this if rates rebound. https://t.co/ZU6VdUoMsm
Small Numbers and Statistical Uncertainty
Zero events in a low-risk group over 5 years has wide confidence intervals (study reports 84–100% reduction). Poisson modeling and historical baselines introduce assumptions. Critics argue this is prone to overinterpretation, especially when media headlines say “zero risk” or “eliminated.” Incidence data (precancer/cancer cases) is more robust for showing vaccine effects than rare deaths. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK
Other Factors and Broader Context
• Screening + behavior: Continued screening (even if delayed), HPV awareness, and reduced smoking/partner changes likely contribute.
• Herd immunity: Benefits may extend somewhat to unvaccinated, muddying attribution.
• Vaccine limitations: It targets specific high-risk HPV types (not all cancer-causing ones), requires timely dosing before exposure, and doesn’t treat existing infections. Long-term efficacy (>15–20 years) is still emerging, and global data varies by coverage.
• Some online skepticism questions side effects, mandates, or overpromotion, though mainstream reviews find the vaccine’s safety profile strong for preventing targeted diseases.

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@PotatoDoggies @LondonGreyhound @DrNeilStone https://t.co/QXxvC2hk0T

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

From the skeptical perspective (emphasizing unvaccinated comparisons, data limitations, and alternative explanations), the claim of a vaccine-driven “100% reduction to zero deaths” is often viewed as overstated hype based on observational data with small numbers, confounding factors, and no direct unvaccinated control in the highlighted group. https://t.co/Oc6FZ0Ok7a
Baseline Rarity in Young Women
Cervical cancer is rare in women aged 20–24 even historically. Pre-vaccine mortality rates were already very low (~0.27 deaths per 100,000 women-years in the 2000–2014 baseline used in the study). This translates to roughly 23 expected deaths over 5 years in England’s population for that age group—not a common event. Hitting zero is notable but represents a small absolute change from an already low base. Critics note that deaths in this young cohort were “close to zero” for years, and random variation or other trends could explain the absence. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK
Trends Predated or Coincided with Vaccination
Mortality and incidence had been declining or shifting due to screening changes (e.g., raising the first screening age from 20 to 25 around 2004–2005, which affected younger cohorts), improved treatments, changes in sexual behavior/HPV exposure, smoking rates, and better diagnostics. Some point out that cases/deaths in 20–24 year olds were already dropping noticeably by ~2015 (around when vaccinated cohorts entered that age), but attributing it solely to the 2008 vaccine rollout ignores these longer-term patterns. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK https://t.co/2LYm3rTwCI
Observational Study, Not Randomized; Limited Direct Unvaccinated Comparison
The Lancet analysis is population-level and ecological: it compares observed deaths to “expected” based on historical rates and overlays vaccination coverage. For the 20–24 group in 2020–2024 (high ~88–90% coverage from routine 12–13 vaccination), there were zero deaths vs. 23 expected. However:
• It lacks individual-level vaccinated vs. unvaccinated data for this exact young cohort (most were offered the vaccine).
• Earlier catch-up cohorts (lower coverage) showed reductions, but the strongest effects align with younger vaccination.
• Broader evidence (e.g., Swedish or English incidence studies) does show dose-response protection and herd effects, but skeptics argue true causation requires clearer unvaccinated controls or longer follow-up, as cancer has a long latency. https://t.co/Cwh80pr1XA
Unvaccinated women (or those in low-uptake areas) still exist and provide some contrast in other studies, where incidence remains higher. But in England’s high-coverage young groups, near-universal exposure makes clean comparisons hard. Falling uptake (now ~76% nationally, lower in some areas) could test this if rates rebound. https://t.co/ZU6VdUoMsm
Small Numbers and Statistical Uncertainty
Zero events in a low-risk group over 5 years has wide confidence intervals (study reports 84–100% reduction). Poisson modeling and historical baselines introduce assumptions. Critics argue this is prone to overinterpretation, especially when media headlines say “zero risk” or “eliminated.” Incidence data (precancer/cancer cases) is more robust for showing vaccine effects than rare deaths. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK
Other Factors and Broader Context
• Screening + behavior: Continued screening (even if delayed), HPV awareness, and reduced smoking/partner changes likely contribute.
• Herd immunity: Benefits may extend somewhat to unvaccinated, muddying attribution.
• Vaccine limitations: It targets specific high-risk HPV types (not all cancer-causing ones), requires timely dosing before exposure, and doesn’t treat existing infections. Long-term efficacy (>15–20 years) is still emerging, and global data varies by coverage.
• Some online skepticism questions side effects, mandates, or overpromotion, though mainstream reviews find the vaccine’s safety profile strong for preventing targeted diseases.

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@LondonGreyhound @PotatoDoggies @DrNeilStone .24/100,000 is the rate. And your commenting when I’m calling it out? Retard.

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@DavidCWOwens @YannickBuccella You’re right, I didn’t read it, that response is an AI overview of the study.

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@PotatoDoggies @DrNeilStone Says the one who will believe anything. Go get more shots retard

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@PotatoDoggies @LondonGreyhound @DrNeilStone Ah, you are an antivaxer

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@PotatoDoggies @SCvB4 @LondonGreyhound @DrNeilStone You probably also need a course in dieting

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@gallen47 @mcucolo57 There are no plains, there are planes. Retard

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@DavidCWOwens @YannickBuccella https://t.co/QXxvC2hk0T

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

From the skeptical perspective (emphasizing unvaccinated comparisons, data limitations, and alternative explanations), the claim of a vaccine-driven “100% reduction to zero deaths” is often viewed as overstated hype based on observational data with small numbers, confounding factors, and no direct unvaccinated control in the highlighted group. https://t.co/Oc6FZ0Ok7a
Baseline Rarity in Young Women
Cervical cancer is rare in women aged 20–24 even historically. Pre-vaccine mortality rates were already very low (~0.27 deaths per 100,000 women-years in the 2000–2014 baseline used in the study). This translates to roughly 23 expected deaths over 5 years in England’s population for that age group—not a common event. Hitting zero is notable but represents a small absolute change from an already low base. Critics note that deaths in this young cohort were “close to zero” for years, and random variation or other trends could explain the absence. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK
Trends Predated or Coincided with Vaccination
Mortality and incidence had been declining or shifting due to screening changes (e.g., raising the first screening age from 20 to 25 around 2004–2005, which affected younger cohorts), improved treatments, changes in sexual behavior/HPV exposure, smoking rates, and better diagnostics. Some point out that cases/deaths in 20–24 year olds were already dropping noticeably by ~2015 (around when vaccinated cohorts entered that age), but attributing it solely to the 2008 vaccine rollout ignores these longer-term patterns. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK https://t.co/2LYm3rTwCI
Observational Study, Not Randomized; Limited Direct Unvaccinated Comparison
The Lancet analysis is population-level and ecological: it compares observed deaths to “expected” based on historical rates and overlays vaccination coverage. For the 20–24 group in 2020–2024 (high ~88–90% coverage from routine 12–13 vaccination), there were zero deaths vs. 23 expected. However:
• It lacks individual-level vaccinated vs. unvaccinated data for this exact young cohort (most were offered the vaccine).
• Earlier catch-up cohorts (lower coverage) showed reductions, but the strongest effects align with younger vaccination.
• Broader evidence (e.g., Swedish or English incidence studies) does show dose-response protection and herd effects, but skeptics argue true causation requires clearer unvaccinated controls or longer follow-up, as cancer has a long latency. https://t.co/Cwh80pr1XA
Unvaccinated women (or those in low-uptake areas) still exist and provide some contrast in other studies, where incidence remains higher. But in England’s high-coverage young groups, near-universal exposure makes clean comparisons hard. Falling uptake (now ~76% nationally, lower in some areas) could test this if rates rebound. https://t.co/ZU6VdUoMsm
Small Numbers and Statistical Uncertainty
Zero events in a low-risk group over 5 years has wide confidence intervals (study reports 84–100% reduction). Poisson modeling and historical baselines introduce assumptions. Critics argue this is prone to overinterpretation, especially when media headlines say “zero risk” or “eliminated.” Incidence data (precancer/cancer cases) is more robust for showing vaccine effects than rare deaths. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK
Other Factors and Broader Context
• Screening + behavior: Continued screening (even if delayed), HPV awareness, and reduced smoking/partner changes likely contribute.
• Herd immunity: Benefits may extend somewhat to unvaccinated, muddying attribution.
• Vaccine limitations: It targets specific high-risk HPV types (not all cancer-causing ones), requires timely dosing before exposure, and doesn’t treat existing infections. Long-term efficacy (>15–20 years) is still emerging, and global data varies by coverage.
• Some online skepticism questions side effects, mandates, or overpromotion, though mainstream reviews find the vaccine’s safety profile strong for preventing targeted diseases.

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@XAnJoDustX69 @cutiieepie6 Faggot

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

In summary, from this viewpoint, the drop is real and welcome but likely multifactorial—not proof of near-miraculous vaccine elimination in isolation. Direct vaccinated vs. unvaccinated comparisons (from incidence studies) support protection, especially with early dosing, but absolute claims based on zero rare events warrant caution. Experts across sides still recommend screening alongside vaccination, as no intervention is 100% or risk-free. Ongoing data as cohorts age will clarify further.

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

From the skeptical perspective (emphasizing unvaccinated comparisons, data limitations, and alternative explanations), the claim of a vaccine-driven “100% reduction to zero deaths” is often viewed as overstated hype based on observational data with small numbers, confounding factors, and no direct unvaccinated control in the highlighted group. https://t.co/Oc6FZ0Ok7a
Baseline Rarity in Young Women
Cervical cancer is rare in women aged 20–24 even historically. Pre-vaccine mortality rates were already very low (~0.27 deaths per 100,000 women-years in the 2000–2014 baseline used in the study). This translates to roughly 23 expected deaths over 5 years in England’s population for that age group—not a common event. Hitting zero is notable but represents a small absolute change from an already low base. Critics note that deaths in this young cohort were “close to zero” for years, and random variation or other trends could explain the absence. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK
Trends Predated or Coincided with Vaccination
Mortality and incidence had been declining or shifting due to screening changes (e.g., raising the first screening age from 20 to 25 around 2004–2005, which affected younger cohorts), improved treatments, changes in sexual behavior/HPV exposure, smoking rates, and better diagnostics. Some point out that cases/deaths in 20–24 year olds were already dropping noticeably by ~2015 (around when vaccinated cohorts entered that age), but attributing it solely to the 2008 vaccine rollout ignores these longer-term patterns. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK https://t.co/2LYm3rTwCI
Observational Study, Not Randomized; Limited Direct Unvaccinated Comparison
The Lancet analysis is population-level and ecological: it compares observed deaths to “expected” based on historical rates and overlays vaccination coverage. For the 20–24 group in 2020–2024 (high ~88–90% coverage from routine 12–13 vaccination), there were zero deaths vs. 23 expected. However:
• It lacks individual-level vaccinated vs. unvaccinated data for this exact young cohort (most were offered the vaccine).
• Earlier catch-up cohorts (lower coverage) showed reductions, but the strongest effects align with younger vaccination.
• Broader evidence (e.g., Swedish or English incidence studies) does show dose-response protection and herd effects, but skeptics argue true causation requires clearer unvaccinated controls or longer follow-up, as cancer has a long latency. https://t.co/Cwh80pr1XA
Unvaccinated women (or those in low-uptake areas) still exist and provide some contrast in other studies, where incidence remains higher. But in England’s high-coverage young groups, near-universal exposure makes clean comparisons hard. Falling uptake (now ~76% nationally, lower in some areas) could test this if rates rebound. https://t.co/ZU6VdUoMsm
Small Numbers and Statistical Uncertainty
Zero events in a low-risk group over 5 years has wide confidence intervals (study reports 84–100% reduction). Poisson modeling and historical baselines introduce assumptions. Critics argue this is prone to overinterpretation, especially when media headlines say “zero risk” or “eliminated.” Incidence data (precancer/cancer cases) is more robust for showing vaccine effects than rare deaths. https://t.co/tESgnWL5MK
Other Factors and Broader Context
• Screening + behavior: Continued screening (even if delayed), HPV awareness, and reduced smoking/partner changes likely contribute.
• Herd immunity: Benefits may extend somewhat to unvaccinated, muddying attribution.
• Vaccine limitations: It targets specific high-risk HPV types (not all cancer-causing ones), requires timely dosing before exposure, and doesn’t treat existing infections. Long-term efficacy (>15–20 years) is still emerging, and global data varies by coverage.
• Some online skepticism questions side effects, mandates, or overpromotion, though mainstream reviews find the vaccine’s safety profile strong for preventing targeted diseases.

[Yannick Buccella MD @YannickBuccella]

The study doesn't report deaths split by vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals. It reports total deaths per age group per year, alongside overall vaccination coverage (e.g. 2024, ages 20-24: 0 deaths total, population 1.7M, 90% coverage).

So "zero deaths in both groups" is the only possible outcome when total deaths in the whole age band hit zero. There's no subgroup to split.

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@Macbeth4183781 @drterrysimpson And there it is. Retards can’t make any sense!

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@Macbeth4183781 @drterrysimpson You sound retarded, it’s pretty simple.

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@YannickBuccella So again, no unvaccinated people died. You sound like that retarded doctor that tried to convince people babies were dying to Covid. How much they paying you?

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@SCvB4 @LondonGreyhound @DrNeilStone A course in dieting would help you

[Tesla Hope Wayne @TeslaHopeWayne]

@PotatoDoggies @LondonGreyhound @DrNeilStone Get another shot