Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

Background

the case concern four tourists entering the country from Germany – all of whom are anonymous in the transcript of the case – 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 “high infection risk” based on proximity to the positive individual. All four had, in the previous 72 hours, tested negative for the virus before departing from Germany.(https://principia-scientific.com/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/) Consequently, the Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard, which required that they go into isolation. (https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/11/16/latest-news-195/#portuguese-appeals-court-deems-pcr-tests-unreliable)

Significance

A Portuguese appeals court has ruled that PCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test. (https://www.panimmunity.org/legal/)

Plaintiff’s Argument

The Judge’s Decision shows that the Plaintiff argued that a test conducted without a Doctor’s supervision or medical input was not enough to enforce detaining people

“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. (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30)

Decision

The court stated:

“The identification of a disorder, disease or the state of a disease by studying its symptoms and signs and analyzing the tests performed is a basic health procedure that must be performed by a doctor and, in each specific area , by a specialist doctor”… in fact “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.”…”the only element that appears in the proven facts, in this regard, is the performance of RT-PCR tests, one of which presented a positive result in relation to one of the applicants. “(https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30)

• the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present. Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concludes that “if 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 less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” (https://www.panimmunity.org/legal/)
• “relevantly, there are no scientific data to suggest that low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equate to infection, unless the presence of infectious viral particles has been confirmed through laboratory culture methods.”(https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30)
• The court “ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection. (https://principia-scientific.com/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/)
• The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable. 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 as high as 45. (https://principia-scientific.com/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/)

Aftermath

• The ruling was published on November 11th, and has been referenced by many alt-news sites since…but the mainstream outlets are maintaining a complete blackout on it. The reddit Covid19 board actually removed the post, because it was “not a reliable source”, despite relying on the official court documents (https://principia-scientific.com/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/)

Further Research

• read the complete ruling in the original Portuguese here : http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30
• translated into English here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30
• https://greatgameindia.com/portuguese-court-pcr-tests-unreliable/
• https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/
• https://ukreloaded.com/pcr-test-unlawful-says-court/
• https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/jon-rappoport/historic-portuguese-appeals-court-ruling-on-pcr-test/
• https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-as-unreliable-unlawful-to-quarantine-people/
• https://canadafreepress.com/article/historic-portuguese-appeals-court-ruling-on-pcr-test
• https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/
• https://davidicke.com/2020/11/19/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-as-unreliable-unlawful-to-quarantine-people/

References

(https://www.panimmunity.org/legal/)

Keywords

PCR test, Cycle Threshold, False Positive, Cases in Portugal, Quarantine, Freedom of Travel

Back to All Cases