The Australia Project

2023-07-04 21:43:00 Reverse genetics with a full-length infectious cDNA of
severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Baric et al. Open / Comment

2023-07-04 21:43:00 The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier
'Martin 1.1'.

This document is prepared for humanity by Dr. David E. Martin.

Any derivative use of this dossier must be made public for the benefit of others.
The author does not bear responsibility for errors in the public record or references therein. Throughout this document, uses of terms commonly accepted in medical and scientific literature do not imply acceptance or rejection of the dogma that they represent.

Background:
Over the past two decades, my company – M·CAM – has been monitoring possible violations of the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (the Geneva Protocol) 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction (the BTWC).
In our 2003-2004 Global Technology Assessment: Vector Weaponization M·CAM highlighted China’s growing involvement in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology with respect to joining the world stage in chimeric construction of viral vectors. Since that time, on a weekly basis, we have monitored the development of research and commercial efforts in this field, including, but not limited to, the research synergies forming between the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), Harvard University, Emory University, Vanderbilt University, Tsinghua University, University of Pennsylvania, many other research institutions, and their commercial affiliations.

The National Institute of Health’s grant AI23946-08 issued to Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (officially classified as affiliated with Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID by at least 2003) began the work on synthetically altering the Coronaviridae (the coronavirus family) for the express purpose of general research, pathogenic enhancement, detection, manipulation, and potential therapeutic interventions targeting the same. As early as May 21, 2000, Dr. Baric and UNC sought to patent critical sections of the coronavirus family for their commercial benefit [SEE: U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/206,537, filed May 21, 2000]

In one of the several papers derived from work sponsored by this grant, Dr. Baric published what he reported to be the full length cDNA of SARS CoV in which it was clearly stated that SAR CoV was based on a composite of DNA segments.

“Using a panel of contiguous cDNAs that span the entire genome, we have assembled a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV Urbani strain, and have rescued molecularly cloned SARS viruses (infectious clone SARS-CoV) that contained the expected marker mutations inserted into the component clones.” [SEE: https://www.pnas.org/content/100/22/12995/ Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier]

On April 19, 2002 – the Spring before the first SARS outbreak in Asia – Christopher M. Curtis, Boyd Yount, and Ralph Baric filed an application for U.S. Patent 7,279,372 for a method of producing recombinant coronavirus. In the first public record of the claims, they sought to patent a means of producing, “an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus.” This work was supported by the NIH grant referenced above and GM63228.

In short, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was involved in the funding of amplifying the infectious nature of coronavirus between 1999 and 2002 before SARS was ever detected in humans. Open / Comment

2023-07-04 21:42:21 The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier.
- Doctor David. E. Martin.

SOURCE: https://totalityofevidence.com/dr-david-martin/ Open / Comment

2023-07-04 21:42:21 Dr. Martin 1.1.

FOREWORD.
For your consideration: The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier - prepared for humanity by Dr. David E. Martin.

Folks, I am embarking upon a research project into the work of Dr. David. E. Martin (M.CAM).

One might name this research into research.

En route, I will produce compact and easily-digested excerpts for others to enjoy and process.
As it says in Dr. Martin's foreword, "Any derivative use of this dossier must be made public for the benefit of others".
This I now do.
You can enjoy these or, you can, of course, read the entire document.

We'll call this first installment 'Dr. Martin 1.1'.

There is much misinformation and distraction out there, thus we may here perhaps better inform ourselves.

I heard a quote by a researcher, once, which read, "Check your source and your source's sources".
This I shall do.

I will try to provide the actual references supplied within the original (Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier) document as I try to bridge the academic with the layperson.
Thus, I have supplemented the words 'SEE' in square brackets [ ] for the alternate ('foot notes') academic reference styles.
It is these references/citations I will try to attach as corresponding/supporting documentation.
These references (to attached documentation) will either be typed in bold italics of be a hyperlink.
The original Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier document has already been supplied, so scroll up.

As I asked my teacher group (the mighty N.E.W) to do (we who fought back the Department of Education and won!), 'COMPILE THE FILE'!
This way, we can be informed and not found foolish when confronting situations where substantiated data is required.

NOTE: Dr. David. E. Martin is not being sued for defamation as he continues to call these 'bad actors' (SEE ALSO: war criminals, genocidalists; mass murderers) out.
If he was making false claims, or was without substantive or contextual proofs, he would be in court...


Strength, with wisdom and honour.
Cole the Sociologist.


P.S: 'et al', basically, means 'and others'.

In a court document they would write 'ors' for others. Open / Comment

2023-07-04 10:38:12 The below must be shared far n wide as they banned it in Australia n was presented again on " London Real" the platform which cannot be banned.
This is what our Govt is doing .... not giving us a VOICE.
Can we trust them on taking Aboriginal Voice to Parliament? Is there a hidden agenda behind it as they have not disclosed what the VOICE is really about?




YouTube
YouTube Bans Australian Parliament Speech For First Time In History Open / Comment

2023-07-04 07:50:05 We apologise there will be no Triple TAP tonight. Our guest speaker has taken ill and we wish her a speedy recovery back to good health.

We will reschedule her once she is better.

To those of you who love to join us live, enjoy your night off and we hope to see you back next week.

Thank you for your understanding.

#tripletap Open / Comment

2023-07-02 03:48:53 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENHANCE VALIDITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND COMPATIBILITY OF BULLYING RESEARCH.
Volk, A.A., Veenstra, R., & Espelage, D. L.
Aggression and violent behaviour 36. pp. 34 - 43.

MY FORWORD:
I, purposely, engaged volumes of research into bullying as extra-curricular academic study.
I have filleted some excerpts for your consideration, as we examine 'bullying'.
Note that the 'power' exerted via 'power imbalance' may be physical, hierarchical, economic, social, or intellectual (to name some).


(p. 35) "...Aggressive, goal-directed, behaviour that harms another individual within the context of a POWER IMBALANCE" (Volk, Dane & Martin. 2014).

(p. 35) "...tease apart PROXIMATE GOALS ... from the ULTIMATE GOALS".

(p. 35) "...the victim represents the means through which to send a signal about a willingness to use aggression to OBTAIN or MAINTAIN high social STATUS".

(p. 35) "...HARM is a PERCEPTION of the victim that relates to both the FREQUENCY and the INTENSITY".

(p. 35) FREQUENCY INTENSITY INDIVIDUAL RESILIENCY HARM.

(P. 35) "More powerful bullies appear less susceptible to anti-bullying interventions"

(p. 36) "...being socially dominant leads to future bullying (Van der Ploey, Steglish, Salmivalli & Veenstra, 2015)... as do more UNEQUAL DOMINANCE HIERARCHIES (Garandeau, Lee & Salmivalli, 2014).

(p. 36) "...some [positive] bystanders intervene in bullying even when there is no immediate benefit for them doing so"
"On the other hand, [negative bystanders] people tend to show a strong tendency to associate themselves with 'powerful' [via power imbalance], successful, individuals who can directly or indirectly help them obtain their own goals".

(p. 36) [as opposed to 'PURE BULLIES' {not bullied themselves} "...how well does this fit with individuals who are both BULLIES & VICTIMS?
... they are trying to IMITATE [what is perceived as] SUCCESSFUL BEHAVIOUR but are not capable of doing so themselves (..impulsively choosing poor targets).
Second - their BEHAVIOR may not be [essentially] bullying at all... a form of DISPLACED AGGRESSION against weaker [weakened by power imbalance] individuals instead of their tormentors".

(p. 36) "This would, potentially, be GOAL-ORIENTATED (relieving frustration) but it might not be ADAPTIVE or ... DEFENSIVE ... [potentially] reducing the levels of bullying they would otherwise receive".


Does any of this sound familiar?


Cole the Sociologist.

Still hunting the bullies.


https://t.me/TheAustraliaProject
The Watchmen are here and We See You. https://theaustraliaproject.org Open / Comment

2023-07-01 04:33:38 REGULATION OF COSMETIC INDUSTRY (continued...).

TAKEAWAYS.

Plastic surgeons are not cosmetic surgeons.

A.H.P.R.A (registering body) & the M.B.A are fundamentally and statutorily different entities.

Do the concerns (psychological; advertising) surrounding body dysmorphia apply to gender reassignment?

What part are schools, potentially, believing themselves qualified and of the right to coerce medical procedures (again), playing?

Does the R.A.C.S simply use A.H.P.R.A to ensure the money for surgery goes to them?

Are social marketing and Youtube/Tiktok channels showing procedures being examined for further regulation?

Are plastic surgeons being trained with public money in public hospitals to provide private cosmetic treatment and, if so, is it economically viable?

If not, do plastic surgeons get specific training in cosmetic surgery obtained as a fellowship or observership after completion of surgical training?

Will these regulations encourage people (dysmorphic) to travel overseas (cosmetic tourism industry) to receive such surgery, and potentially create further pressure on Australian health systems if it goes wrong?

Is this about money or health?

T.A.P MEDIA ANALYSIS DIVISION.
T.A.P.M.A.D Open / Comment

2023-07-01 04:33:38 REGULATION OF COSMETIC INDUSTRY (continued...).

Advocacy group Operation Redress and its cofounder Maddison Johnstone have been a driving force behind the public call for changes.

“One day we got a call from a nurse whistle-blower,” Ms Johnstone said, “It became clear there were significant issues.
We started looking at the social media of doctors.
We were alarmed from the outset. We were seeing essentially live surgeries happening on Tik Tok and Instagram, both of which have such large [percentages] of children watching, and impressionable and vulnerable people,” Ms Johnstone said.


Dr Tonkin said the changes crack down on advertising that downplays risks and exaggerates benefits.


According to figures released by the Cosmetic Physicians College of Australasia (CPCA), Australians spend up to $1 billion on cosmetic procedures annually.


The new guidelines have met with controversy within the medical community; in particular, the new area of endorsement, which has been approved at the 24 February 2023 Health Ministers’ Meeting, which brings together federal, state and territory health Ministers.

In commenting on the changes, President of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), Dr Sally Langley, said she had concerns with the endorsement process.
Dr Langley, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon, is concerned that an accredited qualification for cosmetic surgery would be held to a lesser standard than the qualifications which are currently required to be registered as a specialist surgeon.
“[RACS] does not support the endorsement process,” Dr Langley said, “Our main concern is that surgeons should be doing surgery”.

Dr Langley emphasised that those surgeons need be trained to RACS standards.

“They are virtually always surgeons trained by RACS,” Dr Langley said.
“At least five years, on top of being a hospital doctor and achieving competency, not just medical and surgical skills, but teamwork, collaboration, decision-making, and professionalism etc. We can’t see that a shorter, more limited, training program for the endorsement process can be safe or acceptable for the public”.

Dr Langley also said that, in addition to concerns about professionalism, the prospect of training is not feasible.
“How will [other medical professionals] do the training? What sort of clinics or hospitals will these trainees go to? It’s just unfathomable to me”.

“We at RACS know what a big job Australian Medical Council (AMC) accreditation is. It takes a lot of staff and it’s very expensive. I can’t see an AMC accredited endorsement program being achievable.
We know that cosmetic procedures have become rampant in the United States and countries in Asia... but we’ve really got to try to stop this endangerment of the community,” said Dr Langley.


It has been reported that there are 5 (five) outstanding class action lawsuits in Australia against cosmetic surgeons.
These will amount to 10’s of millions of dollars (if not more), against our collective medical indemnities that will have to be paid.


Another opponent of these changes asks where the cohort-matched, comparative, evidence is to support RACS’ position that RACS Fellows can practise cosmetic surgery to a “higher standard” (whatever that means) than non-FRACS doctors?
They claim there is no such evidence (publicly available).
There is, however, plenty of anecdotal evidence that RACS-trained surgeons do not always practise cosmetic surgery safely. One only need look as far as the death of a Melbourne patient in the early 2000s after a liposuction procedure performed by a FRACS surgeon at the private facility of another FRACS surgeon.

Other critics (among other things) refer us to the large body of actuarial data on cosmetic procedure litigation held by the various medical indemnity organisations, asking, "why have the relevant Government bodies not subpoenaed this data?"

T.A.P MEDIA ANALYSIS DIVISION.
T.A.P.M.A.D Open / Comment

2023-07-01 04:33:38 REGULATION OF COSMETIC INDUSTRY.

Health professionals practising cosmetic surgery will need to meet 'tougher' regulations from the 1st of July 2023.

New guidelines released by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) will put 'stronger regulations' on health professionals practising cosmetic surgery.

The guidelines requiring higher standards for practitioners, will enforce stronger restrictions on advertising, as well as establishing a new model of accrediting cosmetic surgery known as an “endorsement of registration”.
This would introduce new minimum standards for the education, training, and qualification of Australian medical practitioners seeking to practise as cosmetic surgeons and will require them to provide evidence of their qualifications to the MBA in order to be approved.


Associate Professor Gemma Sharp (Monash university) says these 'stronger regulations' will now be enforced, particularly applied to those suffering from body dysmorphic disorder.
Sharp claims, "Someone suffering from body dysmorphic disorder is more likely to see a cosmetic surgeon than a psychologist".
Associate professor describes this psychological condition as more than a 'normative discontent'.

The regulations, by Sharp's account, "would prohibit sexualization of procedures and surgery" (e.g: via social media/influencers) and require a G.P referral before engaging surgery.


The changes follow a report from an independent inquiry, commissioned by AHPRA and the MBA, into the cosmetic surgery industry (published in September last year) followed by a public consultation in December.

Dr Anne Tonkin, MBA Chair, said that there was a clear need for a' higher quality' information and accreditation available to the public.
“What we released this week is part of carrying out all 16 recommendations made by the inquiry,” said Dr Tonkin.
Dr Tonkin claims the guidelines give practitioners more guidance on how they must practise in cosmetic surgery.
“Firstly, we require these procedures to be done in a licenced facility, with proper clinical governance, proper hygiene, and infection control systems,” said Dr Tonkin.
“We are requiring cosmetic surgery patients to get a referral from a GP and a longer, mandated, cooling-off period between the patient giving informed consent and the procedure,” said Dr Tonkin, who outlined extra requirements into the informed consent process.
“We’re also making it clear that it needs to be the practitioner themselves giving the patient the information at the beginning, and responsible for appropriate care after the procedure."
“It is also up to the practitioner to be up-front about their training, expertise and experience, and to be up-front about the total costs.”


Dr Tonkin, as quoted above, appears to have contradicted her own recent statements that “…the ‘cowboy’ reputation of cosmetic surgeons was not reflected in the AHPRA/board data” and that “complaints around cosmetic procedures were spread evenly among cosmetic surgeons, plastic surgeons, and other specialties, so there was no simple dichotomy between ‘bad’ cosmetic surgeons and ‘good’ plastic surgeons”, reports one critic.

T.A.P MEDIA ANALYSIS DIVISION.
T.A.P.M.A.D Open / Comment