Popular Articles
Today Week Month Year

Portugal court ruled in 2020 that PCR tests are TOO UNRELIABLE to confirm COVID-19 – but this ruling is still being ignored
By Ava Grace // Mar 21, 2024

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. (Related: PCR testing a fraud: Government uses faulty testing to amplify COVID case numbers.)

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.

This video is from the Slawomir Slowianin channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

FDA warns against using COVID-19 at-home test due to bacterial contamination.

PCR tests and the rise of disease panic.

COVID RACKET: Biden stole $1 billion from U.S. taxpayers by overpaying for Chinese covid “test” kits.

PCR tests once again proven fraudulent.

Sources include:





Related News
Take Action:
Support NewsTarget by linking to this article from your website.
Permalink to this article:
Embed article link:
Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use is permitted with credit to NewsTarget.com (including a clickable link).
Please contact us for more information.
Free Email Alerts
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.

NewsTarget.com © 2022 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. NewsTarget.com is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. NewsTarget.com assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published on this site. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

This site uses cookies
News Target uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using this site, you agree to our privacy policy.
Learn More
Get 100% real, uncensored news delivered straight to your inbox
You can unsubscribe at any time. Your email privacy is completely protected.