In late 2020, a judge in Portugal condemned the widely used PCR
(polymerase chain reaction) test for identifying the presence of the
Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) in individuals as being up to 97 percent
unreliable – but this ruling is still being ignored.
The verdict, delivered on Nov. 11, 2020, followed an appeal
against a writ of habeas corpus filed by four German holidaymakers to
the Azores against the Azores Regional Health Authority. The health
authority had been appealing a ruling from a lower court that favored
the tourists, who claimed that they were illegally confined to a hotel
without their consent, in compliance with the required 14-day isolation period for new arrivals to the Azores.
The 34-page ruling by the Lisbon Appeal Court reaffirmed the earlier decision of the courts that the four German tourists were “illegally confined” to a hotel in
the Azores. The tourists were ordered to stay in the hotel after one of
them tested positive for COVID-19 using a PCR test. The other three
were labeled as close contacts and therefore were made to quarantine as
well.
The appeals court further ruled that only a doctor can “diagnose”
someone with a disease and were critical of the fact that the four
tourists were never assessed by one. The court was also scathing about
the reliability of the PCR test.
The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following:
“In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be
unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity
corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2
virus.”
PCR testing far too unreliable to confirm COVID-19
The Portuguese court noted that the two most important reasons for questioning the reliability of COVID-19 tests are
that “the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used” and
that “the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.”
There is a discrepancy around the world regarding the “cycle
threshold” for PCR tests, or the number of amplifications that are
performed. Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in
the sample.
This number in most American and European labs is 35to 40 cycles,
but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many and that a
more reasonable protocol would call for 25 to 30 cycles.
The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” which was published by Oxford Academic.
It showed that if someone tested positive for COVID-19 at a cycle
threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually being
infected is less than three percent, and that “the probability of…
receiving a false positive is 97 percent or higher.”
While the judges in this case admitted that the cycle threshold
used in Portuguese labs was unknown, they took this as further proof
that the detention of the tourists was unlawful. The implication was
that the results could not be trusted.
Watch this video discussing how the PCR test for COVID-19 doesn’t actually test for the virus.
(Article by Ava Grace republished from NaturalNews.com )
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Planet Today
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.planet-today.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.