Let's assume for arguments sake that the jabs, after this flu season, will smash through a significant number of people. People begin dropping and the flu season turns into a terrible, terrible epidemic.
Up until this point he's advertised it and the only differentiation he's made from the narrative is that they should not be mandated.
What's the rationale at that point? That white hats replaced many of the poisons and it could have been worse? That this had to happen as part of the plan?
What can he say once the jab (assuming it does what we think it does), begins doing what it was designed to do? He's the one who promoted it, funded it and essentially ran half a campaign on it.
That they solely relied on the vaccine and didn't give people other options?
I'm trying to wrap my head around how he can call out the DS for it.
If he comes out against the Jab too soon, the media can paint him into a corner. Too many people WANTED the Jab, ie. they wanted the miracle shot they thought science would give them. Too many have taken the shot. If he comes out too soon and tells the truth they will turn away from him. he is walking a tight rope. I think he has a cure under wraps and when he's back in office he can tell people they lied to us they were planning evil but here is a solution to keep it from getting worse.