Every Appointment Exploited: The VA's Use of Motivational Interviewing and Psychological 'Warfare' Tactics to Influence Vaccine Decisions

Psychological Warfare Meets Bioethical Failure: Exposing the VA's Vaccine Agenda.

Dear Reader,

Imagine being told by a trusted healthcare provider that they’re simply helping you think through a medical decision. They ask thoughtful questions, guide your responses with care, and leave you confident that your choice is entirely your own. But what if those questions weren’t neutral? What if they were subtly crafted to nudge you toward a predetermined conclusion, one that serves a broader healthcare agenda—without you even realizing it? Now, what if this wasn’t an isolated incident? What if it was happening at countless appointments, where veterans are unknowingly steered toward decisions that don’t truly reflect their informed consent?

[the agenda]

At the VA, this unsettling reality is becoming all too common. The use of Motivational Interviewing (MI)—a psychological technique originally designed to empower personal decision-making—has been repurposed into a covert tool of influence, subtly guiding veterans toward specific medical choices, particularly vaccines. What was meant to be a process of voluntary decision-making is now becoming a calculated, strategic intervention. A recent whistleblower exposed a training video showing how the VA uses MI tactics to sway decisions, often without fully informed consent, blurring the line between guidance and manipulation. SEE PARTIAL VIDEO BELOW:

Every Appointment Exploited: How the VA Uses Unethical Psychological Manipulation to Promote Experimental mRNA Injections

One particularly striking moment in the video underscores this manipulation. The VA counselor, framing the vaccine as the logical choice, states:

“What I can tell you is that with the vaccine you have a reduced risk of getting the coronavirus. On top of that, on top of reducing your risk of actually getting the coronavirus, also if you were to get it - by having the vaccine - you’re less likely to experience complications from coronavirus, including less likely to be hospitalized as a result”

At first glance, the statements might seem like a benign attempt to inform. However, it’s laden with suggestive implications that are neither fully contextualized nor transparently evidence-based.

By presenting the vaccine’s benefits as undisputed and omitting critical nuances—such as potential risks or the complexity of individual medical circumstances—it pushes the listener toward a conclusion that serves institutional priorities rather than fostering genuine informed consent.

Notably absent from this conversation is any discussion of the potential risks associated with the COVID-19 “vaccine”, a critical component of informed consent. Ethical and legal standards require that individuals be provided with a balanced understanding of both the benefits and risks of any medical intervention. However, as seen in the video, the focus was solely on purported benefits—some of which are scientifically questionable—while entirely omitting any mention of potential adverse effects. This lack of transparency undermines the fundamental principles of informed consent and patient autonomy

Notice the dates on the program start.

The VA’s use of MI is not an isolated incident; it’s part of a larger trend and it has been for a while. Governments and institutions worldwide are increasingly leveraging behavioral science to guide populations toward desired outcomes. For more insights into this - In PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order, Robert W. Malone, MD, and Jill Glasspool Malone, PhD, delve, in part, into PsyWars, the concept of "nudge" techniques, and deceptive implicature—subtle psychological strategies that shape behavior without overt coercion.

Deceptive Implicature: The Dangerous Precedent

What makes the use of MI especially concerning is the deceptive implicature at play. While veterans may believe they’re engaging in genuine, neutral discussions about their health, the techniques employed are subtly steering them toward a specific, institutional goal: increasing vaccine uptake.

• Framing and Linguistic Cues

The language used in MI sessions may downplay the risks of vaccination or present alternative options in a negative light. Veterans could be unknowingly swayed by the way questions are framed, leading them to feel like their decision is truly independent, when it’s actually shaped by the structure of the conversation.

• Exploiting Trust and Authority

These techniques rely on influencing subconscious decision-making pathways, shaping choices that individuals perceive as entirely their own. By strategically framing information, institutions create narratives that appear logical or inevitable.

For example, invoking social conformity—the innate human tendency to align with group norms—creates an illusion of consensus, subtly pressuring individuals to follow suit. Similarly, leveraging the authority of trusted figures, such as healthcare professionals, instills confidence and disarms skepticism, making individuals more receptive to institutional objectives.

These methods are insidious precisely because they mask the extent of control being exerted. Unlike explicit mandates, MI tactics and tactics like nudges operate covertly, embedding institutional priorities within what seems like personalized guidance. This deceptive subtlety erodes the principle of informed consent, as individuals are guided toward predetermined conclusions without fully realizing the extent to which their autonomy has been compromised.

In the case of the VA, the misuse of Motivational Interviewing exemplifies how these 'nudge' strategies can steer veterans toward medical decisions that align with organizational goals, effectively overriding their personal choices or preferences for how they wish to approach their own healing. By appearing to empower individuals while quietly limiting their agency, such tactics reveal a troubling convergence of psychological manipulation and institutional overreach.

Veterans may feel they are making independent choices, unaware that their decisions are being carefully orchestrated to align with the VA’s goals, such as increasing vaccine uptake, which should never be conflated with actual health outcomes. This isn’t just about healthcare—it’s a form of psychological warfare.

These revelations bring the Malones’ warnings in PsyWar into sharp focus. Governments and institutions have long used psychological manipulation to influence public opinion and individual behavior. What’s happening at the VA reflects a broader, more concerning trend: the use of behavioral techniques to normalize coercion and undermine autonomy.

If the VA can use MI to subtly compel medical decisions, what’s next?

Could they extend these tactics to other treatments, experimental protocols, or lifestyle changes? The legal and ethical implications are staggering. Without transparency and accountability, such practices erode trust in institutions and raise critical questions about the limits of institutional influence over personal health decisions.

The VA’s actions are not just an overreach—they represent a dangerous precedent. If this kind of covert psychological influence goes unchecked, it opens the door to further infringements on individual autonomy, posing a threat not only to veterans but to society as a whole.

Psychological bioterrorism at Play?

By presenting vaccine uptake as a "personal" decision, Motivational Interviewing (MI) breaks down resistance and subtly reshapes a veteran’s decision-making process. The influence extends beyond the individual, targeting an entire population. This psychological technique aligns veterans’ health decisions with institutional goals, making them believe they are making informed choices. In reality, they are often nudged—sometimes without their awareness—into a decision that serves the VA’s agenda.

Do these tactics align with the Malones' concept of psychological bioterrorism—a form of psychological warfare where the state manipulates fear, obedience, and conformity under the guise of promoting public health? Were the MI techniques employed not just tools of influence, but mechanisms of censorship—suppressing independent thought, stifling autonomy, and coercing compliance, all under the cover of medical guidance?

This raises the unnerving question: Are these tactics not only about persuasion but about controlling the essence of free will, using health as a guise for social and psychological manipulation?

This institutionalized deception isn’t just an ethical violation—it carries profound, long-lasting consequences. It erodes the trust between veterans and the VA, undermining the integrity of the entire healthcare system. When veterans feel betrayed by the institution they have long trusted, the damage extends far beyond healthcare. This breakdown could ripple outward, destabilizing broader public trust in government institutions and deepening the fracture in the social contract between citizens and the state.

As Robert and Jill Malone argue in PsyWar, the fundamental pillars of freedom of thought and speech protect personal sovereignty against psychological manipulation. When an institution like the VA resorts to covert psychological tactics—including subtle yet deceptive implications—to advance its agenda, it breaches more than ethical norms; it destabilizes the very principles that sustain a democratic society. This manipulation chips away at individual autonomy, threatening the personal freedoms upon which our nation was built.

Legal and Ethical Violations: The Heart of the Matter

The legal and moral principles of informed consent and patient autonomy are jeopardized when medical professionals use covert tactics to shape decisions, rather than providing transparent, balanced information. Such practices do not uphold the fundamental tenets of care; they turn healthcare into a mechanism of institutional control.

Potential Violations of Federal Regulations and DoD Policies

1. Informed Consent Requirements (45 CFR § 46.116)

   • Violation: Using MI to influence 'vaccine' acceptance without disclosing the use of psychological techniques violates the requirement for informed consent under HHS regulations.

   • Impact: Informed consent safeguards autonomy, ensuring individuals make voluntary decisions based on comprehensive information. Bypassing this principle erodes trust.

2. Ethical Standards of Medical Practice (DoD Instruction 6000.14)

   • Violation: Ethical healthcare delivery requires honesty and transparency. Manipulating veterans contravenes these principles and undermines respect for autonomy.

   • Impact: Targeting vulnerable populations like veterans diminishes trust in the military healthcare system and impacts morale and readiness.

3. Coercion and Misuse of Authority (18 U.S.C. § 242)

   • Violation: Coercive tactics to push 'vaccine' uptake could constitute an abuse of authority, depriving veterans of their rights under color of law.

   • Impact: Such actions represent serious federal offenses with implications for institutional accountability.

4. Deceptive Practices and Behavioral Manipulation (15 U.S.C. § 45)

   • Violation: Failing to disclose MI as a psychological technique may constitute deceptive practices, breaching ethical obligations for honest communication.

   • Impact: Misleading veterans undermines trust and ethical healthcare delivery.

5. DoD Regulations on Behavioral Science Research (DoD Instruction 3216.02)

   • Violation: MI may fall under human subjects research regulations, requiring informed consent and institutional oversight. If misclassified as routine care, this would be a violation.

   • Impact: This undermines critical safeguards designed to protect individuals from coercion and harm.

Implications in a "War" Context

1. Psychological Operations (PSYOP) Standards

   • Applying psychological influence techniques on veterans blurs the line between healthcare and psychological operations, raising serious ethical and legal questions.

2. Damage to Force Readiness

   • Eroding trust in healthcare among service members and veterans compromises long-term military readiness, recruitment, and retention.

3. Weaponization of Healthcare

   • Behavioral manipulation turns healthcare into a tool for policy enforcement rather than patient care, eroding its neutrality and ethical foundations.

In the case of the VA, veterans—already vulnerable due to their service—were influenced by MI techniques that nudged them toward accepting the vaccine. However, the reality was that the vaccine, initially promoted as a preventive measure, did not stop infection or transmission. Instead, it functioned primarily as a therapeutic, designed to manage symptoms rather than prevent disease. This discrepancy between what was promised and what was delivered raises serious ethical concerns about informed consent and medical autonomy.

Expanding the Scope: Beyond Vaccines to Broader Medical Mandates

The issue at hand transcends the immediate context of vaccines and points to a growing trend: mandating medical treatments framed as solutions when, in reality, they may only address symptoms, not the underlying causes of health problems. This pattern raises profound concerns about medical autonomy, transparency, and the ethical use of institutional power.

A critical legal question emerges from this scenario:

Can an institution like the VA, which holds the power to compel medical care, extend its influence beyond symptom suppression to other forms of medical interventions that might infringe on personal autonomy—or even introduce health risks? While we're not speculating about extreme cases such as medical euthanasia, we must consider a more pressing question: Could these same psychological tactics be applied to encourage, or even mandate, other medical decisions that contradict an individual’s personal beliefs or values?

These interventions could include treatments for mental health conditions, lifestyle modifications, or even experimental medical procedures. The central issue is not confined to vaccines; it's about the fundamental question of how far an institution can go in influencing or even mandating medical decisions, especially when these decisions are made without fully informed and voluntary consent.

A Call for Legal Accountability: Protecting Future Generations

The manipulation of medical decisions through psychological tactics, as demonstrated here, carries far-reaching implications. It highlights a crucial legal and ethical issue: when powerful institutions like the VA overstep personal autonomy, they jeopardize the freedoms that form the foundation of a free society.

History has taught us the dangers of unchecked institutional influence—coercion, manipulation, and negligence lead to systemic abuse. This is not a hypothetical concern but a pressing reality that must be addressed. The legal framework surrounding medical coercion, autonomy, and informed consent must evolve to protect the rights of future generations.

Now is the time to reaffirm the principles that safeguard individual rights in healthcare, not just for the veterans of today but for the future of our nation’s healthcare system.

Conclusion: A Call for Oversight and Accountability

The use of Motivational Interviewing (MI) within the VA—while perhaps well-intentioned—raises profound ethical and legal questions about the integrity of healthcare delivery. As seen in the video, the absence of transparency and a genuine informed consent process was not only a breach of trust but a subtle form of coercion. By failing to disclose the methods used and neglecting to provide a balanced discussion of both benefits and risks, the process veered away from autonomy and into the realm of psychological manipulation.

This is not merely an isolated incident about vaccine choices—it reflects a deeper, more troubling trend in which the very foundation of personal autonomy and informed decision-making is under threat. When healthcare institutions, particularly one as powerful as the VA, manipulate medical decisions through covert tactics, it sets a dangerous precedent. This is not just about medical ethics; it’s about the very rights of individuals to make autonomous decisions about their own bodies.

Looking forward, we must demand greater transparency and oversight to ensure that such manipulative tactics never become the norm. We cannot afford to ignore the historical lessons of unchecked institutional power, especially in the realm of healthcare. It is imperative that the legal framework surrounding informed consent evolves to protect the freedoms of those who have already sacrificed so much. The use of psychological techniques like MI, when misused in this context, may blur the line between care and coercion, undermining both trust in healthcare and the principles of personal liberty.

This is a critical moment, not just for veterans but for the future of healthcare in this country. If we allow these tactics to go unchecked, we risk eroding the very freedoms that form the cornerstone of our democracy. It’s time to hold institutions accountable and ensure that informed consent remains a fundamental right—not just a checkbox in a medical appointment.

One Final Thought: In closing, there is one final, deeply concerning precedent emerging from this practice—one that remains largely unspoken yet is quietly taking hold. It is the precedent to mandate a ‘vaccine’ not to prevent disease or protect public health, but to suppress symptoms. This mandate to suppress future symptoms shifts and signals a profound departure from the foundational principles of medicine and public trust. By reducing the human body to a battleground for institutional objectives, such mandates strip away the individual's autonomy and redefine health not as personal well-being, but as compliance with an agenda. Such an approach doesn’t just threaten our physical health—it undermines the ethical fabric of our society and jeopardizes the trust upon which true care must be built.

Clarification on Terminology and Legal Implications in the Context of VA and DoD Actions

It’s important to note that the COVID-19 mRNA treatment, commonly referred to as a "vaccine," does not meet the traditional definition of a vaccine. While vaccines are designed to prevent infection and disease transmission, the mRNA product functions more as a therapeutic aimed at managing symptoms, not preventing infection or the spread of the virus.

This distinction has significant medical and legal implications. Mandating a therapeutic under the guise of a vaccine raises serious concerns about informed consent, medical autonomy, and the ethical use of government power. Veterans and service members may be unaware that they are being compelled to take a symptom-managing treatment rather than a true preventive measure, which undermines their ability to make informed decisions about their health.

Both the VA and DoD must ensure that these treatments are accurately classified as therapeutics, not vaccines. Misclassifying the mRNA products complicates the informed consent process and potentially violates individuals' rights to clear and transparent medical information.

If the government mandates a treatment under the false pretense of a vaccine, it raises complex ethical and legal questions about the extent of governmental authority to compel medical interventions. This issue is further highlighted by the COVID Select Committee and Moderna’s 2018 SEC filings, which reveal that the treatments align more with therapeutics than vaccines.

Addressing this misclassification is crucial to ensure that any mandates imposed on veterans or service members are legally sound, ethically justified, and transparent.

Thanks for reading. Stay tuned for more insights on how modern warfare is shaping healthcare decisions and personal autonomy.

References:

1) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/09/exclusive-whistleblower-combat-veteran-unmasks-vas-unethical-experimentation/

2) https://www.malone.news/p/us-warfighter-and-force-readiness?publication_id=583200&post_id=142243712&isFreemail=true&r=absk1&triedRedirect=true

3) https://fedsforfreedom.substack.com/p/unmasking-the-vas-unethical-experimentation?r=2f4jml&triedRedirect=true