I thought maybe "it kills people after a while" (e.x. myocarditis), because that was the narrative, but its important to keep a proper distance from the news. Then I remember the old talk from what, six months ago, or a year? What was it? "Binary weapon." Yeah, that was the phrase. Using it to divide the military. Why? To destroy man power. But that would leave a sizeable contingent of veterans to organize civilians against an invasion. So the perpetrator would either be 1. not china 2. the u.s. government. Neither of which makes sense. Why poison your supporters? Why kill them? "Permanently lock them down with fixed interval jabs once or twice a year" But that just eventually leads to hardcore resistance. Which, as ramshackle as the u.s. government is, would present a capable threat to them. So no, that can't be it. "Collapse the u.s." is too general. Maybe the "inoculate the obedient, and leave the well-armed and dangerous exposed to a bioweapon" plot? But my hunch is this *doesn't work* for some reason. Whatever spreads, loses too much potency with each leap between hosts *as is natural*. But then of course theres plenty, when spread, that *does* kill easily enough, that the u.s government or a foreign invader could use: ebola, smallpox. Neither scenario *alone*, targeting the jab for killing, or targeting the unjabbed, makes sense. But the jab is definitely harmful. More importantly it is *not* protective, which tells us that this isn't about health and safety--at least against corona virus. So maybe it protects against--something else, or prepares the way for it. But then why do it that way, again, when all the unjabbed have mostly been cleanly divided along political lines, namely gun owners, gun owners who would present a problem in a collapse/martial law or invasion scenario. No. It's either about eliminating the left because they have total control now, in a way that makes guns irrelevant, or its about protecting the left from *something that hasn't been released yet but might or will soon be released*, while eliminating the right. This has the added benefit of also allowing them to eliminate or sterilize people on a regular basis when the jab is turned into a recurring yearly or seasonal requirement. Which scenario offers more profit, the reduction of risk, and higher control? The "pandemic of the unvaccinated" isn't a false narrative being used to deflect blame for the death of the vaccinate. Thats only the "incompetence" cover story. Whats it actually is is the pre-narrative warm-up, the news prep-work for making the public believe the next series of events. It' *psychological priming*. They're *telegraphing* what the state intends to make happen. I think the marek's disease narrative has been true all along. The vaccine will, despite its dangers, loosely "protect" people who got it--protect them from *symptoms* of the next "variant", and that variant will be *deadly* to the unjabbed. It' the only scenario that makes any sense at all. Unless the DOD said fuck it, and decided to mass murder the left and remove the bolshevik subversion by the root. Which I seriously doubt.