{"id":5831,"date":"2020-11-23T12:59:48","date_gmt":"2020-11-23T12:59:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biggeesblog.cymru\/?p=5831"},"modified":"2020-11-23T12:59:48","modified_gmt":"2020-11-23T12:59:48","slug":"portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biggeesblog.cymru\/index.php\/2020\/11\/23\/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful\/","title":{"rendered":"Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests \u201cUnreliable\u201d & Quarantines \u201cUnlawful\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Preamble<\/h2>\n

An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease – which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available ), and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.<\/p>\n

Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.<\/span><\/p>\n

Most importantly, the judges ruled that\u00a0a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Click on this graphic to view our RT-PCR Fact Sheet<\/p><\/div>\n

(Ed. note: the RT-PCR test is NOT recommended for diagnostic purposes and should ONLY be used for laboratory work. In practice – in the UK – positive results [false or otherwise] are\u00a0 recorded as ‘Cases’ despite the fact that no clinical diagnosis by a qualified doctor<\/em>\u00a0 may have been conducted, and the person tested presents with no symptoms and is generally healthy and not therefore infectious. Deaths are also attributed to Covid-19, based solely on a likely\u00a0 false RT-PCR test result in the previous 28 days.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The specifics of the case concern four tourists entering the country from Germany \u2013 all of whom are anonymous in the transcript of the case \u2013 who were quarantined by the regional health authority. Of the four, only one had tested positive for the virus, whilst the other three were deemed simply of \u201chigh infection risk\u201d based on proximity to the positive individual. All four had, in the previous 72 hours, tested negative for the virus before departing from Germany.<\/p>\n

In their ruling, judges Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Param\u00e9s referred to several scientific studies. Most notably\u00a0this study by Jaafar et al.<\/a><\/span><\/span>, which found that \u2013 when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more \u2013 the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false<\/span> positives.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable<\/span><\/strong>. Governments and private labs have been very tight-lipped about the exact number of cycles they run when PCR testing, but it is known to sometimes be\u00a0as high as 45<\/a>.<\/span><\/span> The World Health Organisation initially recommended a 45 cycle threshold for tests. In Ireland the test cycle threshold was INCREASED to 45 cycles, driving false positive rates up and by extension false claims that CASES were exponentially increasing, this was a highly suspect move by the Irish government. Even fearmonger-in-chief in the US – Anthony Fauci – has publicly stated anything over 35 is\u00a0totally unusable.<\/p>\n

You can read the complete ruling in the original Portuguese\u00a0here<\/a><\/span><\/span>, and translated into English\u00a0here<\/a><\/span><\/span>. A\u00a0Portuguese professor sent a long email about the case to\u00a0Lockdown Sceptics.<\/p>\n

The media reaction to this case has been entirely predictable \u2013 they have not mentioned it. At all. Anywhere. Ever.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The ruling was published on November 11th, and has been referenced by many\u00a0 non mainstream news sites since but the mainstream outlets are maintaining a complete blackout on it.<\/p>\n

The reddit Covid19 board actually removed the post, because it was \u201cnot a reliable source\u201d, despite relying on the official court documents.<\/p>\n

Lookout for a forced and disingenuous \u201cfact-check\u201d on this issue from HealthFeedback or some other \u201cnon-partisan\u201d paid for outlet in the near future. But until they find some poor fool to lend their name to it, the media blackout will continue.<\/p>\n

Whatever they say, this is a victory for common sense over authoritarianism and hysteria.<\/p>\n

Actual Ruling<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n

Portuguese appeal court ruling 11 November 2020<\/span><\/h3>\n

In a recent decision, dated 11 November 2020, a Portuguese appeal court ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority concerning a lower court decision to declare unlawful the quarantining of four persons. Of these, one had tested positive for Covid using a PCR test; the other three were deemed to have undergone a high risk of exposure. Consequently, the Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard, which required that they go into isolation. The lower court had ruled against the Health Authority, and the appeal court upheld that ruling with arguments that explicitly endorse the scientific case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests <\/span><\/p>\n

The court\u2019s ruling is a long text. The court\u2019s main points are as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    A medical diagnosis is a medical act that only a physician is legally qualified to undertake and for which such physician will be solely and entirely responsible. No other person or institution, including government agencies or the courts, has such an authority. It is not up to the Azores Regional Health Authority to declare someone ill, or a health hazard. Only a physician can do that. No one can be declared ill or a health hazard by decree or law, nor as the automatic, administrative consequence of the outcome of a laboratory test, no matter which.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    From the above, the court concludes that \u201cif carried out with no prior medical observation of the patient, with no participation of a physician certified by the Ordem dos M\u00e9dicos who would have assessed symptoms and requested the tests\/exams deemed necessary, any act of diagnosis, or any act of public health vigilance (such as determining whether a viral infection or a high risk of exposure exist, which the aforementioned concepts subsume) will violate [a number of laws and regulations] and may configure a crime of usurpa\u00e7\u00e3o de fun\u00e7\u00f5es [unlawful practice of a profession] in the case said acts are carried out or dictated by someone devoid of the capacity to do so, i.e., by someone who is not a certified physician [to practice medicine in Portugal a degree is not enough, you need to be accepted as qualified to practice medicine by undergoing examination with the Ordem dos M\u00e9dicos, roughly our equivalent of the UK\u2019s Royal College of Physicians].\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    In addition, the court rules that the Azores Health Authority violated article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, as it failed to provide evidence that the informed consent mandated by said Declaration had been given by the PCR-tested persons who had complained against the forced quarantine measures imposed on them.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    From the facts presented to the court, it concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    The above would suffice to deem the forced quarantine of the four persons unlawful. The court thought it necessary, however, to add some very interesting considerations about the PCR tests:<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  6. \n

    \u201cBased on the currently available scientific evidence this test [the RT-PCR test] is in and of itself unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that positivity in fact corresponds to infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for several reasons, among which two are paramount (to which one would need to add the issue of the gold standard, which, due to that issue\u2019s specificity, will not be considered here): the test\u2019s reliability depends on the number of cycles used; the test\u2019s reliability depends on the viral load present.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  7. \n

    Citing Jaafar et al. (2020; https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/cid\/ciaa1491<\/u><\/span><\/a>), the court concludes that \u201cif someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.\u201d The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  8. \n

    Citing Surkova et al. (2020;\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 (https:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/lanres\/article\/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7\/fulltext<\/u><\/span><\/a>), the court further states that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed prior to the undertaking of the test itself, and expresses the opinion that \u201cin the current epidemiological landscape of the United Kingdom, the likelihood is increasing that Covid 19 tests are returning false positives, with major implications for individuals, the health system and society.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  9. \n

    The court\u2019s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority\u2019s appeal reads as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  10. \n

    \u201cGiven how much scientific doubt exists \u2014 as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter \u2014 about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests\u2019 analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician\u2019s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    <\/h3>\n

    ADDENDUM<\/h3>\n

    Any politicians, or those involved in any way with this hideous attack on humanity should take serious heed of what is developing. As we see above, courts are starting to get involved, and the truth is being gradually brought to the people’s attention.<\/p>\n

    This is not only happening in Portugal, but in many other European countries and also The USA, South Africa and Canada and many other countries across the world. There is a small army of top lawyers, barristers and others armed with expert witness statements from among the foremost medical and scientific circles that are amassing [Example<\/a><\/span><\/span>].<\/span> They are preparing to take necessary actions to resolve this issue once and for all in the courts.\u00a0 Some class lawsuits have already been filed in various countries. The ones sued should be prepared for heavy damage compensation costs that will be incurred.<\/p>\n

    What those who have been directly involved should seriously concern themselves with, is that INDIVIDUALS<\/span> will be held PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE, for their actions or non actions, consequently, they will be sued along with organisations and governments.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n

    SUBSCRIBE to receive notifications of new posts in your e-mail inbox<\/strong><\/em><\/span>

    Please enter your details below and click 'Subscribe'<\/div>
    <\/span><\/span>Bookmark<\/span><\/a>
    Please login to bookmark<\/span>\n<\/line><\/line><\/svg><\/i>Close<\/i><\/a><\/div>
    \n