No, I watched him say it on C-SPAN, is that ok with you?Wow, I mean if a random account online (who has been pushing death cult propaganda) says it, it must be true huh?
Using your youtube science degree again I see.
Looks like you are just pushing more Trump spam.
Probably, but I prefer the C-SPAN video here:is there a youtoob video we can watch on this, peejers
You do realize the US and China as well as a number of other countries were colaborating in tracking possible future pandemic viruses after SARS showed there was a danger?For those who don't know. Peter Daszak is the person who received NIH funding, and then passed the funding on to Shi Zhengli, who is a virologist at Wuhan Institute of Virology, and researches SARS-like coronaviruses of bat origin.
Yes, and unfortunately they were also conducting Gain of Function research on viruses, to make them more infectious. Peter Daszak openly admitted it in the past.You do realize the US and China as well as a number of other countries were colaborating in tracking possible future pandemic viruses after SARS showed there was a danger?
And the US were doing the same thing. It is a thing that is known in the research world that many have carried out this type of investigation. Not necessarily to find a weapon but to see how the viruses tick.Yes, and unfortunately they were also conducting Gain of Function research on viruses, to make them more infectious. Peter Daszak openly admitted it in the past.
Yeah, the problem as I see it is that scientists sometimes don't know when to stop, and end up crossing the line, like Peter Daszak and his buddies did when they made the SARS virus more transmissible (Gain of Function), as he has openly proclaimed years prior to the pandemic.And the US were doing the same thing. It is a thing that is known in the research world that many have carried out this type of investigation. Not necessarily to find a weapon but to see how the viruses tick.
You in the room with a lot of top scientists enough to make that kind of statement?Yeah, the problem as I see it is that scientists sometimes don't know when to stop, and end up crossing the line, like Peter Daszak and his buddies did when they made the SARS virus more transmissible (Gain of Function), as he has openly proclaimed years prior to the pandemic.
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/repetition-advertisement-technique-24437.html
ypes of Repetition
The idea behind repetition is that when the consumer goes to buy a particular product, the name of your brand is the first one that comes to mind. There are several different types of advertising repetition. One is simply to repeat the same advertisement, such as a television commercial, over and over. For example, the same commercial may be broadcast at each ad break of a show.
Another way to use repetition is to place the product or brand in as many places as possible. For example, print ads in newspapers and magazines, television ads, radio ads and utilize product placement on television shows or in movies. Another type of repetition is to use ads that are produced with similar styles, but have a slightly different final product. For example, television ads that use the same actors, but in different scenarios.
Two-Factor Theory
One of the leading theories on the effect of repetition on consumer behavior was developed in the 1970s by University of Toronto psychology professor Daniel Berlyne. This theory, called two-factor theory, or wear-in/wear-out, suggests that repetition has a positive effect for a period, and then begins to have a negative effect.
During the first phase, called wear-in, repetition of an ad allows consumers to become familiar with the brand. In this phase, repetition can overcome consumer reluctance to purchase a new product or brand. As the repetition continues, consumers become used to the brand and may enter a second phase, called wear-out. In the wear-out phase, consumers become tired of hearing about the brand and continued repetition of ads can cause consumers to stop buying the product or brand.
Familiar and Unfamiliar Brands
The effect of repetition can vary based on whether the consumer is already familiar with the brand being advertised. Consumers tend to pay more attention to an ad that is for a completely new product or brand, than to an ad for a product or brand with which they are already familiar. The new ad will be more interesting to consumers, so they will be more likely to take note of it.
In this case, repetition may be more effective when it is used to advertise a new brand or product. Once consumers are familiar with a brand or product, the advertiser may be able to decrease the frequency of the ad and still achieve the same effect.
Signalling a Good Buy or a Quality Product
Repetition of an ad may signal to consumers that the brand or product is a good buy, or a quality product. This is sometimes referred to as signaling theory. In 1975, University of Wyoming researchers Anthony McGann and Raymond Marquardt found that ads with high rates of repetition tended to also be rated as high quality in Consumer Reports.
A later study, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, confirmed that consumers tended to think products advertised with repetition were good buys. Repetition may convince consumers that the manufacturer is willing to spend a lot of money on advertising because the product is a good one.
Yeah! Fucking scientists. If only they directed their efforts to the development of a vaccine.Yeah, the problem as I see it is that scientists sometimes don't know when to stop, and end up crossing the line, like Peter Daszak and his buddies did when they made the SARS virus more transmissible (Gain of Function), as he has openly proclaimed years prior to the pandemic.
So, am I understanding correctly that you are a supporter of Gain of Function research?You in the room with a lot of top scientists enough to make that kind of statement?
Also love the repeated use of the scare tactic terminology.
Yes it is a concern, one that had been brought up by scientists and discussed in private and out in the open. It seems that a number of eager students have taken things a little too far in the past. I can see a problem with the accessibility of the technology to the general public to play with in their basement. I posted a while back with a lab setup for a person to begin splicing stuff together for a few thousand dollars. I am more concerned with this than experiments being done in an appropriate lab. The Blade Runner era may be just about upon us. What are your thoughts on home gain of function research?Yeah, the problem as I see it is that scientists sometimes don't know when to stop, and end up crossing the line, like Peter Daszak and his buddies did when they made the SARS virus more transmissible (Gain of Function), as he has openly proclaimed years prior to the pandemic.
So, am I understanding correctly that you are a supporter of Gain of Function research?
Where is this from? (quite interesting)
View attachment 4942174
idk why you think that I would be informed enough (not being a specialist in these highly scientific (that take years of rigorous study to be proficient) fields) to make a non bullshit conclusion of it one way or another.
But that being said, here is a interesting read of a discussion of it.
lol if you mean the peewee herman thing, it was a late 80's early 90's kid show.Where is this from? (quite interesting)
Damn fine print.lol if you mean the peewee herman thing, it was a late 80's early 90's kid show.
If you mean the chapter of that book, the link is right above the ss I took on the National academies of science, engineering, and science academies press.