Lisbon Court Finds PCR Test “more than debatable”
It seems a court in Lisbon has upheld an earlier decision that ruled in favor of four (4) German tourists who were detained because one (1) tested positive for COVID-19 according the PCR test—that is, their detainment was ruled illegal.
Not surprisingly, lamestream media seems to have skipped over this one. We almost missed it too except we’re not pretending to be journalists.
Anyway, the court basically cited a study by Rita Jaafar et al titled “Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates”, published on 28 September 2020.
From paragraph 16 of the court ruling delivered on 11 November 2020:
16. In the case that concerns us now, there is no indication or proof, that such diagnosis was actually carried out by a professional qualified under the Law and who had acted in accordance with good medical practices.
In fact, what follows from the facts taken for granted, is that none of the applicants was even seen by a doctor, which is frankly inexplicable, given the alleged seriousness of the infection.
In short, the disease is so serious that no doctor was required. The test is infallible.
From paragraph 17 (partial) and paragraph 18 of the same ruling:
17. In fact, the only element that appears in the proven facts in this regard is the performance of RT-PCR tests, one of which showed a positive result in relation to one of the applicants.
i. However, in view of the current scientific evidence, this test is, in itself, incapable of determining, beyond reasonable doubt, that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, several reasons, of which we highlight two (to which is added the issue of gold standard which, due to its specificity, we will not even address):
For this reliability depend on the number of cycles that make up the test;
For this reliability depend on the amount of viral load present.
ii. Indeed, the RT-PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests, molecular biology tests that detect the RNA of the virus, commonly used in Portugal to test and list the number of infected (after nasopharyngeal collection), are performed by amplifying samples, through repetitive cycles. The number of cycles of such amplification results in the greater or lesser reliability of such tests.
iii. And the problem is that this reliability is shown, in terms of scientific evidence (and in this field, the judge will have to rely on the knowledge of experts in the field), more than debatable. …
“At a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remain positive in cell culture (i.e. were infected): in a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; in a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive and in a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in the culture. This means that if a person has a positive PCR test at a threshold of cycles of 35 or higher (as happens in most laboratories in the USA and Europe), the chances of a person being infected is less than 3%. The probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”
18. Thus, with so many scientific doubts, expressed by experts in the field, which are the ones that matter here, as to the reliability of such tests, ignoring the parameters of their performance and there being no diagnosis made by a doctor, in the sense of the existence of infection and risk, it would never be possible for this court to determine that AH__ had the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor that SH__, SWH__ and NK__ had had high-risk exposure.
Considering that everything is “debatable” in the legal world or else lawyers, prosecutors and judges will be out of a job, “more than debatable” is just a diplomatic way of saying, “You’re full of crap and I can argue against you all day (if you want to go on for that long) and win.” In short, the PCR test is bovine manure, especially when you run it for way too many cycles.
In other news, even the FDA admitted that there can be false positives on 3 November 2020 (when everyone was distracted with the US Presidential Election).
Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!
Follow us on Farcebook, Twitterpated, MeWe, Gab and Truth Social.