Thomas Willcutts, an attorney who specializes in going after banksters, says false flag plots often feature a fallback Plan B. He writes:
“Listening to Geert Vanden Bossche, I was struck by his response to the question posed to him in the interview – ‘Did governments really have any choice but to deploy their experimental vaccines – where being seen to do nothing is not a practical alternative for a government?’ Vanden Bossche’s response to that question, invoking the hippocratic oath of ‘do no harm,’ completely ignored curative treatments available, which provide the best reasoning for not deploying an experimental vaccine. Vanden Bossche makes no mention of that alternative, consistent with the Establishment position of ignoring and suppressing treatment protocols as compared to vaccine strategies.
It was also not lost upon me that Vanden Boscche has some pretty impressive Establishment connections and credentials. My initial reaction was … He will be a more effective spokesperson and more difficult to discredit.
But then Rosemary Frei does a good job of posing the query as to whether he really is working for the Establishment, given his various statements.
So …. upon reflection, Vanden Bossche seems to be creating a Classic Plan B, especially considering that he was not been attacked by the Establishment for his apparent heresies.
What I mean by ‘Plan B’ is a fall-back position for an operation, should Plan A fail. The idea that the Powers-that-Be, the Establishment, undertakes major operations without a Plan B represents a failure to understand history and to understand your opponent.
Let’s look at some classic examples. Take the assassination of JFK. Plan A is Oswald as a lone nut. But it’s pretty obvious (to me anyway and not hard to support) that Oswald being a Russian agent was Plan B…”