Val Maylone

Pronouns: Aught, Naught, Whatever

[Kenny Carmody @KennyCarmody]

Jesus offered the clearest possible epistemological tool.

“By their fruits you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.”

Not by their credentials. Not by their institutional affiliation. Not by the authority of their position or the confidence of their communication or the consensus of their peers.

By their fruits.

The fruit test is uncomfortable because it requires waiting for outcomes and then being honest about what you see.

Apply it to the pandemic response.
The lockdowns were implemented to protect the vulnerable. The fruit: nursing home residents who died alone, denied family contact in their final weeks.

Children who lost developmental years. Mental health crises documented across age groups. The educational losses that will take a decade to measure.

The mandates were implemented to create herd immunity. The fruit: populations that achieved neither immunity nor the end of transmission requirements, while the definition of „vaccine“ was quietly updated to accommodate a product that did not prevent infection or spread and indeed caused massive damage to humanity.

The censorship of dissent was implemented to protect public health information. The fruit: the systematic suppression of safety signals that would have modified clinical guidance and protected patients, and a level of institutional distrust that no subsequent communication campaign has been able to repair.

But the fruit test does not evaluate intentions. It evaluates outcomes.
A tree is known by what it produces, not by what it intended to produce.

This is not cynicism. It is the most basic form of empirical accountability available.

And it is the one standard that cannot be adjusted by authority, overridden by consensus, or suppressed by professional consequence.

The fruit is there. It is documented. It is measurable.

The question is whether we are willing to apply the test honestly to the institutions that produced the fruit, and to ourselves for the degree to which we enabled the tree to keep growing.

By their fruits you will know them.

You already know what the fruits were.

The question is what you will do with that knowledge.

[Aaron Siri @AaronSiriSG]

Congressman @andybiggs4az proposed bills to eliminate mask and vaccine mandates, and push transparency, and he is now running for Governor of Arizona! You can support his run at https://t.co/TJUqNkq3t2 Help keep America free! And I think you will enjoy our discussion...

(00:00) Introduction to Congressman Biggs

(02:54) Constitutional Rights and Federal Overreach

(09:58) Fauci, Power, and Conflicts of Interest

(14:28) Bureaucratic Stasis and the Deep State

(20:44) Reforming America's Most Powerful Health Agencies

(28:17) The Challenge of Reducing Government Size

(34:14) Special Interests, Lobbying, and Legislative Gridlock

(38:32) Monopolies and Their Impact on Competition and Consumers

(46:10) How Regulations Can Distort Free Markets

(50:36) Regulated vs Unregulated FDA Products

(53:43) Three Arizona Bills Vetoed by Governor Hobbs

(1:04:58) Andy Biggs' Plan for Arizona's Future

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@JohnCleese Also, the way Jesus treated and regarded women.

[Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath]

After SIX YEARS the Irish Medical Council have concluded their case against Dr Marcus de Brun.

Read what he said to them after they concluded.

The whole speech is very powerful.

https://t.co/e2liuYVkri

[Humanspective @Humanspective]

World Renowned Oncologist says there’s no informed consent with mRNA tech, as the Nobel Prize winning Pseudouridine takes the stage.

The order looks backwards:

1. Inject billions.
2. Give them a Nobel Prize.
3. Publish a peer reviewed paper finding something unexpected.

@weldeiry - “It should be clear to everyone. Pseudouridine modified mRNA were used for the first time in the population... NEVER BEFORE.”

Months after Pseudouridine won the Nobel Prize, a peer reviewed paper was published saying this “upgraded” technology is leading to the production of “strange proteins in the body”.

Professor Clancy says: “No one knows what those proteins are doing”.

“The Nobel Prize in 2023 was given to two people for putting pseudouridine in a messenger RNA, to make it work better... within three months, a group in Cambridge found that 20% of readouts, and about 10% of people, had strange proteins circulating in their bodies, some of which have the capacity to form amyloid”

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@weldeiry It is 100% useless for the purpose of understanding cancer risk if the variable of the mRNA is not addressed. OBVIOUSLY, the majority of the population was exposed to this new product using a platform with unknown risks. Why do people think omitting vax status is OK?

[Wafik S. El-Deiry, MD, PhD, FACP @weldeiry]

The Cell paper from May, 2026 has a critical omission.

https://t.co/VkeyhMvTpU

Can you believe that in the human cohort they did not provide the COVID vaccination status of the people who developed or did not develop lung cancer??

Imagine that.

This is important because the cohort developed severe COVID related respiratory illness at a time when most people were vaccinated.

If the vast majority of those who became severely ill were vaccinated, you have to ask the question why they became so sick and are they representative of the general population.

I would say we do not understand why the vaccine didn’t prevent severe respiratory illness in those people.

I would say they do not represent the vast majority of individuals in the general population.

Instead of being dismissive, it is important to be honest and open about what we know and what we do not know.

Please tell me how the journal Cell published that paper with no mention of the COVID mRNA vaccination status of the human cohort.

I would add, and I have said this before, that the COVID mRNA vaccines increase PD-L1 expression in tumor cells.

Of course this makes the tumors more sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade.

But why not address PD-L1 some other way like epigenetic drugs, chemo or radiation, agents that actually have an anti-tumor effect.

Increasing PD-L1 by using agents that do not have an anti-tumor effect is by itself an immune evasion tumor promoting effect.

BTW, this is shown in the October, 2025 Nature paper whose discussion reads like marketing.

https://t.co/5yPjsaDQPy

Both NSCLC and melanoma respond to immune checkpoint therapy much better than other tumors with possible exception of MSI-high tumors.

Melanoma already has approved use of interferon therapy that is part of the COVID mRNA vaccine mechanism in that Nature paper.

Why not use IFN. Oh it’s because it’s pretty toxic.

The strategy suggested in the Nature paper has issues.

But, I did say it is OK to conduct clinical research with informed consent within a population that has very different risk:benefit considerations from the general population.

Oh, but we don’t have informed consent for the COVID mRNA vaccines as I said under oath a couple of days ago I don’t believe we have informed consent. https://t.co/gVxAWrWG4l

[Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath]

This is the push back re folic acid in bread.

It is the official reason why it is being put into bread.

What few people know is that there were NINE DEAD BABIES for every neural tube defect "prevented" in the only trial on low risk women.

The researchers tried to raise the alarm but were ignored because by then it was a public health sacred cow.

https://t.co/tAHlpSeeiX

[sabine hazan md @SabinehazanMD]

When a scientific hypothesis is retracted, we don’t just lose one paper — we lose progress in science and medicine itself. This affects every single one of us.
@ChildrensHD
We are all future patients. It is the responsibility of every human being to stand against this corruption.
We cannot demand miracles from our doctors while simultaneously preventing them from innovating, questioning, or even forming hypotheses. True medicine dies in silence.

[Jessica Rose 🤙 @JesslovesMJK]

This is absolutely STUNNING. It's not a COVID protein: it's the surface glycoprotein (spike) from SARS-2 virus. Language matters because it conveys meaning and understanding.

This 1-minute clip is proof positive that even brilliant, trained professionals at high level institutions outright claiming the COVID-19 shots are "safe and effective" have NO IDEA how the COVID-19 nucleoside modified RNA-LNP shots actually work, or the GMP issues very clearly delineated in multiple published studies.

She has no idea about the DNA contamination issue either. She deflected on @SenRonJohnson 's question about DNA, by claiming that RNA doesn't get into DNA. Uh, yes. That's correct. RNA does not get into DNA.🤦‍♀️

She needs to catch up on her literature reviews and start with LINE-1 studies (see: reverse transcription) and then move onto DNA contamination studies.
@Kevin_McKernan @DJSpeicher @weldeiry @KUPERWASSERLAB @DrJBhattacharya @CharlesRixey @SecKennedy @RWMaloneMD
@JanJekielek @brownstoneinst @Honest_Medicine @joevaron

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@DoctorPerin I’ve followed them all. From Dr. Ruth to Dr. Lilly. You are top notch.

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@FindJohnGalt74 @rapsheet1mile @CynicalPublius Huh. I actually posted stats to support my position.

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@thefarmers_Dog I think it’s a great account. Some people are low order intellects, so they feel that taking someone down makes them big. It just makes them idiots. Ignore, block. Continue with your fun content.

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@WilliamShatner A Treasure suit! I’d DIE for that look!

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@FindJohnGalt74 @rapsheet1mile @CynicalPublius One thing we don’t agree on is whether you have been a dick in this conversation.

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@GrantHBrennerMD Yeah, that’s the problem. Words have real meanings despite how they are used in mass communication. They are being redefined and inverted for political purposes, to foster division. “Genocide” is such a word.

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@PearlJam1964 @WilliamShatner He could wear a Hefty bag and still look awesome.

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@KCromwellAuthor @WilliamShatner It looked better on Shatner.

[Val Maylone @MayloneVal]

@WilliamShatner Too bad. I love the look.

[Mr PitBull Stories @MrPitbull07]

In 1965, a 17-year-old girl in Sicily was kidnapped, assaulted, and held captive for over a week.

Then her attacker offered her a deal:

Marry him, and everything would be “forgiven.”

At the time, Italian law allowed rapists to avoid punishment if they married their victims.

It was called “reparatory marriage.”

The logic was horrifying:

A woman’s “honor” mattered more than her consent.

If she married the man who violated her, her reputation could supposedly be restored — and the rapist could walk free.

Most women had no real choice.

Families pressured them.
Communities expected obedience.
The law itself encouraged silence.

But Franca Viola said no.

At 17 years old, traumatized and publicly shamed, she refused to marry the man who assaulted her.

That single word changed Italy forever.

Her decision sparked outrage in her town.

Neighbors turned against her family.
Their vineyards and olive groves were burned in retaliation.

But Franca’s father stood beside her and supported her decision to press charges.

In 1966, Franca testified publicly against her attacker in court.

At a time when most victims were expected to stay silent forever, she spoke openly in front of the entire country.

Italy watched in shock.

Her attacker, Filippo Melodia, was convicted and sentenced to prison.

For the first time in Italian history, a woman had publicly rejected “reparatory marriage” and won.

The case became international news.

But the law itself still remained.

For another 15 years, rapists in Italy could technically still escape punishment by marrying their victims.

Then finally, in 1981, Italy abolished the law completely.

And many activists pointed to Franca Viola as the moment the country first began confronting the cruelty of that system.

Years later, Franca married a childhood friend who had stood beside her through everything.

Not because she needed her “honor restored.”

But because she deserved love, dignity, and a life defined by her own choices.

That’s why her story still matters.

Franca Viola wasn’t just resisting one man.

She was resisting an entire culture that treated women’s suffering as something to hide rather than something to fight.

At 17 years old, she stood against her attacker, her community, and even the law itself.

And eventually, the law changed.

Sometimes history moves because powerful people decide to act.

And sometimes history moves because one terrified teenager quietly refuses to surrender.