Emotional Manipulation in the Vaccine Messaging
A Yale University study from 2020 reveals how they got public compliance
Not a lot of people know that there was a very important study done at Yale University in July 2020 in which they tested the most effective emotional manipulation tactics to get people to take the experimental gene technology.
Of course they didn’t call it emotional manipulation. They called it “COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging” but as we explore the premise of the interventions used, the outcome objectives and the rest of the information they openly disclose from the study, the red flags of emotional manipulation are crystal clear.
The study was clearly done to change the way people think, feel and behave regarding the experimental injections.
This is a nefarious use of applied behavioral science. It’s also the same thing that abusers do in abusive relationships, while telling you that it’s for your safety and protection.
It’s also clear that the emotional manipulation tactics from the study weren't just used to sell the jab.
If you look at the bigger picture, you’ll see how this is actually the same messaging we’ve been hearing for two years around the mandates and restrictions in general, imposed by tyrannical governments and the corporations doing their bidding.
In this study, they’ve openly disclosed the playbook for manufacturing the compliance of the public.
Here’s a direct link to the Yale University study listed on the NIH U.S. National Library of Medicine clinical trials site if you’d like to see it with your own eyes. If anyone can find out who sponsored this study or had the university conduct this particular research, please let us know in the comments below.
The Yale University study involved 4000 participants.
If we skip to the bottom first, to look at the primary and secondary outcome measures, the objectives of the study, we find the following:
So their first objective was to find out the likelihood of a person getting the jab after the intervention message (emotional manipulation tactic).
Their secondary objectives are even more interesting.
They wanted to know the impact of the messages (manipulation) on a person’s confidence in the experimental injectables.
They wanted to know how willing the person will be to persuade others to take the experimental drugs.
They wanted to influence the level of fear that the person will feel about those who didn’t take the experimental injections.
And finally, they wanted to influence the social judgment that the person will feel toward those who didn’t take the experimental gene technology. They’ve additionally provided four areas on which to base the social judgment:
Trustworthiness — if a person chose not to take it, they’re not to be trusted.
Selfishness — if a person chose not to take it, they’re selfish.
Likeableness — if a person chose not to take it, they’re not likable.
Competence — if a person chose not to take it, it means they’re incompetent.
So basically they want to know how to get you to take it, how to get you to convince others to take it, how to get you to be afraid of those who didn’t take it, and how to get you to socially judge those who didn’t take it, for which they’ve provided a 4-part basis for the public smear campaign against those who didn’t participate in the medical experiment.
But it’s all for your good, right?
The study tested the following messages to see which would be the most effective:
Personal freedom message
Economic freedom message
Community interest message
Economic benefit message
Trust in science message
Not bravery message
When we look at the emotional messaging that’s been used since 2020, not just about the experimental injectables but also wearing a mask, staying home, social distancing, etc., we can see these exact tactics woven through the narrative and talking points.
“Follow the science. OMG, you’re anti-science!”
“I am the science. If you’re against me, then you’re against science!”
“It’s the fault of the unvaccinated that we can’t go back to normal.”
“The unvaccinated are cowards.”
“Do your part for society.”
“Just take the jab and get your freedom back!”
“Take the jab and you could win $50, $100 or even $1 million!”
“You need three doses if you want to work or get a college degree.”
Clearly some of the emotional manipulation tactics proved to be more effective than others.
Trust in science was one of the most common ones we heard in the media, from the public health figures as well as the politicians towing the line. Now it’s clear that it wasn’t based on real science but instead a distortion of reality and a weaponization of science. Yet still, these same figures continue to push the phrase follow the science even though the science clearly shows they were wrong and none of this made sense.
It also appears that the combination between the guilt-tripping message and the community interest message was spectacularly effective because this is the most common one I heard from people in the collective psychosis.
We can even see gaslighting woven into the premise of the messaging.
Take a look at the personal freedom message, “which is a message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s personal freedom”.
The virus didn’t limit most people’s personal freedom, with the exception of those who are vulnerable such as the sick and elderly. For the rest of us, it was the government mandates and restrictions that limited people’s personal freedom.
They wanted us to see the virus as the enemy. That was a clever sleight of hand.
People were promised their freedom back in exchange for taking two doses of the experimental gene technology.
Then the goal post moved again and they were told they’d need a third dose if they wanted to keep their newly returned freedom. In some places, the number is now four. The CEO of the drug manufacturer already tells us he envisions people submitting to yearly doses, ongoing indefinitely.
Let’s call it what it is, a permanent condition upon your freedom, imposed by psychopaths in positions of power.
The same gaslighting applies to the economic freedom message.
The virus didn’t tell people to stay home from work because they’re “non-essential”.
The virus also didn’t tell people that they would lose their job and ability to earn a living on Planet Earth if they didn’t participate in the medical experiment.
The virus didn’t shut down people’s small businesses while allowing only the massive corporations to continue to function. The virus didn’t threaten businesses with fines if they didn’t demand that their customers participate in the medical experiment.
They made it clear in the intervention column above that they wanted people to believe that “by working together to get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its personal freedom.” The same phrase was written in the economic freedom intervention.
So actually they’ve woven the community interest message through several of these interventions, and very subtly, also the guilt message because it implies that if we don’t work together to get people to get injected with the experimental gene technology, then we are holding up all of society from getting our freedoms back.
Abusers love to take away the freedoms of their targets through a staged crisis. They’ll say it’s for the target’s own good. Then they’ll provoke the target’s emotional reaction by distorting the perception of reality and stoking negative feelings. That’s how they get the target to drive their own behavior toward the pre-determined solution that the abuser planned all along. Problem, reaction, solution.
Abusers get a sense of power and thrill from getting their targets to self-destruct.
The most sophisticated abusers will make the target think it was their idea all along, even though they were coerced, manipulated, to do something that would destroy them.
People were promised it was safe and effective, though it’s clear now that it was neither safe nor effective, and they knew it within a few months yet still pushed this messaging anyway.
Steve Kirsch published an important article last week, Things You Should Know About the New Pfizer Documents.
Knowing what we know now about just the initial documents released (yes, the documents they wanted to keep hidden for 75 years, and yes, the documents with several hundreds of thousands of pages more to be released), it sure appears to be intentional harm and a violation of the Nuremberg Code.
I’ll leave the science to the scientists to explain. My area of expertise involves recognizing the red flags of emotional abuse and manipulation.
Would you consider the emotional manipulation in the messaging of this study, and its application to the public messaging that you’ve heard constantly, to inhibit a person’s ability to exercise the free power of choice?
Do you see elements of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching or other ulterior forms of coercion in the messaging of the Yale study?
Do you know people who feel mislead and betrayed now that they see the truth coming out too little too late?
Take a mental note of these emotional manipulation tactics because now you’ll start noticing them in the messaging of all of the narratives that they’re spinning, not just covid.
These are the emotional manipulation tools being used for compliance in general.
Have you also noticed these same messaging tactics appearing in the new narrative currently taking over the airwaves?
Well, if the playbook worked once, I guess they figure it will keep working. And they were right! It didn’t take long at all since the prior years already laid the psychological groundwork.
They want compliance with whatever measures they impose and now they have a playbook of the most effective emotional manipulation tactics for changing the way people think, feel and behave. This study will be applied to the narrative of the next crisis and the next one…
It’s shocking, yet not surprising, that society is moving so effortlessly from one mass formation to the next.
This post is a transcript with expansion from my presentation during the Grand Jury Model Proceeding, Day 4: Injections & Psychological Warfare with Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Viviane Fischer and their international team of lawyers and other experts.