A rising wave of skepticism is sweeping through the Department of Defense, focusing especially on vaccine mandates. This sentiment mirrors the concerns within the Department of Veterans Affairs, where doubts about the flu vaccine have been quietly brewing. A whistleblower has stepped forward, revealing that employees in the VA have voiced similar hesitations.
The stories of service members like Marine Corps officer Major Brennan Schilperoort, Army Sergeant Dan McGriff, and Air National Guard Technical Sergeant Tony Oslin highlight a troubling trend. Their experiences show the Department of Defense’s reluctance to grant religious or medical exemptions for vaccines. This stance raises questions about whether the VA has been more lenient with its own employees.
Sonny Fleeman, speaking to The Gateway Pundit, shared his findings on the issue. His opinions are personal and do not represent any official views. Fleeman’s investigation began with a Freedom of Information Act request to the VA in February 2025.
At the time of his request, the VA still mandated COVID-19 and flu vaccines for healthcare workers. Fleeman wanted to uncover how many of these employees sought exemptions. He believed that these numbers would reveal the true sentiment within the healthcare community.
Fleeman’s inquiry also extended to flu shot exemptions. The results were surprising, showing that in 2024, nearly 100,000 VA healthcare workers, or about 25% of the staff, were granted exemptions. This significant figure challenges the narrative that vaccine mandates are operationally necessary.
The VA’s ability to function with a quarter of its staff exempt from flu shots raises questions about military policies. Fleeman argues that this data undermines the military’s justification for strict vaccine mandates. He shared his findings in an August 17 post on social media.
“If the VA can serve millions with such a large exempt workforce,” Fleeman asserts, “the military’s rationale for career-ending mandates is unfounded.” He believes that the argument for necessity was more about control than readiness.
Fleeman sees mandates as tools for enforcing compliance and creating an illusion of universal agreement. He suggests that these mandates serve to manufacture artificial demand. By coercing compliance, they present a false consensus on the science.
In his view, pharmaceutical interests heavily influence these mandates. Funding, lobbying, and career pressures skew the scientific narrative. As a result, the appearance of settled science is often misleading.
VA statistics, according to Fleeman, reveal a hidden truth. They show that dissent among healthcare professionals is both widespread and significant. This challenges the official narrative of unanimous acceptance.
Fleeman argues that mandates are more about control than health protection. They create compliance and artificial demand, consolidating authority under the guise of science. These findings suggest a need to reevaluate the motives behind such policies.
The concerns raised by Fleeman and others point to a broader issue of freedom and choice. In this context, the debate over vaccine mandates is not just about health but about autonomy. The resistance within the VA reflects a deeper discontent with enforced compliance.
As this conversation unfolds, it is crucial to consider the voices of those on the frontlines. The experiences of healthcare workers and military personnel offer valuable insights. Their perspectives challenge the prevailing narratives and call for a reassessment of policy approaches.
The dialogue around vaccine mandates continues to evolve. It is a debate that extends beyond health, touching on issues of personal freedom and institutional control. The voices of the dissenters, like Fleeman, highlight the complexities of these decisions.
