Help! My husband is drowning in propaganda Kool-aid!

originally posted by: ketsuko
It's as close as I can come.

Comparing a 60 year old husband to a kid?

I guess, in some cases.

To your edit: So now besides her, you are going to tell the guy what he has to do?

a reply to: daskakik

I am? I am saying that they both have to be aware there are very real and serious risks either way and because of that they ought to respect each other.

60 is one of those ages where COVID can start to become a risk due to age, but there is also real evidence that the side effects from the shot are also real and not to be scoffed at.

a reply to: lostgirl

Sounds like divorce to me. I couldn't stay married to such an ostrich.

originally posted by: lostgirl

Today, I was trying to get him to understand that he is biased by media (such as NPR, which has become quite polarized)

Seriously though, if he regularly listens to NPR...it's probably time to put him out to pasture and start dating the pool guy.

a reply to: ketsuko
No sense of humor today?

Still kids have nothing to do with it, it isn't someone forcing someone to take or not take anything.

a reply to: lostgirl

Here's a pretty big red pill, one of the most comprehensive out there:

coreymitchell.substack.com...

By the way, Bill Gates was just identified to have given NPR 100 million dollars.

Thanks for all the replies thus far...

Just FYI - I am not trying to "brow beat" my husband -...
...I'm trying to protect him.

Earlier this year, after researching what was known at the time, we were on the same page and both agreed that we and our 22 year old daughter should get the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which we all did...

...but there's a lot more information (and disinformation) out there now, and when I open the newspaper and see that government agencies are now recommending that people get J&J boosters "every 2 months" (!) -

- I am concerned not only that my husband will make that choice, but that he will convince my daughter (who is a daddy's girl) to do the same!

I think this is a legitimate concern.


For those of you accusing me of 'coming to the internet for "marriage advice"' - that just hurts.

I've been a member of the ATS community since 2013.
You may not 'know' me, because I don't post very often, but I have read more than enough threads and posts by long time members to feel comfortable bringing a particular problem (particularly relevant to this community) to ATS for the particular assistance requested.

At no point in the OP did I ask for marital advice...
...thanks AugustusMagonicus not only for making me feel small - but also for making a worried wife/mother into a joke...
(maybe I am a joke - 57 years old and some idiot on the internet has me crying like child)

a reply to: lostgirl

I think we need to accept that everyone has made their choice. One will be more right and more wrong in terms of historical precedence but neither side will be 100% right or wrong. Life never works that way.

You should ask him what happened to those WMDs that the government said were going to be used on us unless we invade a bunch of countries to counter a terrorism threat that has now seemingly been replaced by Covid?

a reply to: lostgirl

This is the kind of melodrama I'm referring to, you come here looking for advice/opinions but you only want the ones that agree with you. Now think how that exact scenario plays out at home and how your family might feel.

a reply to: lostgirl

Well for a start you can show him that previous mass vaccination programs were admittedly contaminated with dangerous carcinogens.

If he only want's government sources then please see the following articles, i've pulled some quotes for you directly from the US government NIH website:

Polio Vaccines contaminated with Simian Virus 40

"In 1960, it was discovered that Simian Virus 40 (SV40) contaminated up to 30% of the poliovirus vaccines in the US. This contamination arose because the vaccines were produced in monkey kidney cell cultures harboring SV40 between 1955 and 1963. During this period, approximately 90% of children and 60% of adults in the USA were inoculated for polio and possibly exposed to SV40. Many epidemiologic and molecular pathogenesis studies have been conducted in order to identify potential cancer risks since this 'natural' experiment began. Productive SV40 infection has the potential to initiate malignancy in a variety of target tissues. Epidemiological studies that investigated the relationship between SV40 infection and cancer risks have yielded mixed results. Studies can be grouped into three categories based on their exposure definition of SV40 infection: (1) use of vaccination or birth cohorts as proxy variables for infection, (2) follow-up of children of pregnant women who received polio vaccines, and (3) direct molecular detection of the virus or serologic detection of anti-SV40 antibody responses. A meta-analysis of five published studies did not support the hypothesis that SV40 exposure increases the overall risk of cancer incidence or cancer mortality. The analysis of specific cancer sites is largely inconclusive because of substantial problems that most studies have had in reliably defining exposure, defining latency effects, or dealing with confounding and other biases. A new generation of molecular epidemiologic studies is necessary to properly address these issues."

We can then use another article from the NIH to confirm SV40's link to various cancers:

SV40's role in cancer

"The polyomavirus simian virus 40 (SV40) is a known oncogenic DNA virus which induces primary brain and bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and lymphomas in laboratory animals. Persuasive evidence now indicates that SV40 is causing infections in humans today and represents an emerging pathogen. A meta-analysis of molecular, pathological, and clinical data from 1,793 cancer patients indicates that there is a significant excess risk of SV40 associated with human primary brain cancers, primary bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Experimental data strongly suggest that SV40 may be functionally important in the development of some of those human malignancies. Therefore, the major types of tumors induced by SV40 in laboratory animals are the same as those human malignancies found to contain SV40 markers. The Institute of Medicine recently concluded that “the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions.” This review analyzes the accumulating data that indicate that SV40 is a pathogen which has a possible etiologic role in human malignancies. Future research directions are considered."

In countries such as the US and UK almost all children born in the 1950's were infected with this virus, since that time there's been an explosion of cancer's, most of which when studied seem to be linked to SV40.

SV40 detection in human cancers

Following a number of sporadic reports of SV40 in human cancers [reviewed in (7)] (17), DJ Bergsagel in the laboratory of Robert Garcea reported that 90% of human ependymomas and choroid plexus tumors contained SV40 DNA sequences and that some of the tumor cells expressed the SV40 Tag (39). A few years later, John Lednicky in Janet Butel’s laboratory isolated infectious SV40 from one of those cancer specimens confirming that, at least in that specific biopsy, the “SV40-like sequences” detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) corresponded to infectious SV40 (40).

The finding that SV40 could cause mesothelioma in hamsters (18,19) and the coincidental exponential increase in the incidence of mesothelioma in the years that followed the administration of SV40-contaminated vaccines led to tests of the hypothesis that SV40 might have contributed, together with asbestos, to the increased incidence of mesothelioma in recent decades. The results revealed that most mesotheliomas and some osteosarcomas contained SV40 DNA sequences (41,42) [reviewed in (17,22)]. These findings, together with those involving brain tumors (39), suggested that SV40 might play a causative role in certain types of human cancers and might have contributed to the massive increase in the incidence of mesothelioma in recent decades (43-45).

Mesotheliomas are rare tumors whose incidence increased exponentially in the Western world after 1960 (data in other parts of the world are not available), an increase that has been linked to the large use of asbestos during and after World War II (46-48). Asbestos causes chronic inflammation and the release of mutagenic oxygen radicals (49-51), as well as the activation of various cellular pathways that promote cell growth (52-55). Kroczynska et al. demonstrated that SV40 and asbestos are co-carcinogens in causing mesothelioma in hamsters and malignant transformation of HM cells in tissue culture (56). This study strongly suggested that SV40 infection and asbestos exposure together could have contributed to the development of human mesothelioma. A molecular epidemiological study conducted by Cristaudo et al., supported these findings (57).

originally posted by: Grenade
If he only want's government sources...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he's not interested in any sources at all from anywhere.

Ask me how I know this.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

How do you know this?

originally posted by: Grenade
How do you know this?

I read the Original Post.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

She asked for proof of government shenanigans. I aim to please.

You're right tho, i've been in a few long term relationships, a nagging wife couldn't convince me the sky was blue if the football was on.

He told you that you do not trust the government.

he should realize that it is not a matter of trust.

"I think, therefore I am"

he is not thinking, he is absorving as true what others says.


old movies to watch:

Starwars - trust in government.
Wargames, 1982 -simulation.
Logans run -living in cities, depopulation at certain age, climate change, AI controlling.
matrix resurrections - all died

originally posted by: Grenade
She asked for proof of government shenanigans.

To force feed to her husband who 'still refuses to believe that anything 'nefarious' is going on' (exclamation point). I bet it would work though if the conversation went something like, "Hey, I got some links from a conspiracy site you need to hear me detail for you".

a reply to: lostgirl

As a member for so long you should be aware of the trolls. You just encountered one of my favourites, don’t take it personally, no one is safe.

originally posted by: lostgirl

So, on that note - please everyone - point me to the simplest, most basic documentaries on (proven) government 'shenanigans' that you've seen, so I can educate my husband...

Here we go Lostgirl - quite a few examples to choose from.


Conspiracy Realism.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Glad we agree my links to a government institute meet the criteria of a “conspiracy website”.

Let it go OP that's my advice, theres not much point showing your hubby vids from the net, as he would/could simply do the same. Let it go, or get a divorce..I'm kidding about divorce, but if you can't just accept he has his position, you might be heading there. Don't let this destroy you.