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.