Portuguese Appeals Court Deems PCR Tests Unreliable, Throws Out Quarantine by Apparatchik Decree

Only a clinical diagnosis by a doctor, not a ridiculously misused and abused test, can be grounds for quarantine

A Portuguese professor and lockdown sceptic has sent me a long and informative email about a recent ruling by the Portuguese Court of Appeal which casts doubt on the reliability of the PCR test. It is a great tribute to the integrity of the Portuguese legal system that the Court seems to understand in considerable detail the shortcomings of the PCR test as a diagnostic tool, particularly when not used in combination with a clinical diagnosis. I think this is the best news I’ve had all week. What follows is not the whole email. The professor doesn’t want to be identified, so I’m only publishing an extract.

With Spain and Greece, Portugal is one of the few countries in the so-called West where enough people are still alive to know what a dictatorship looks like. Our numbers are dwindling, as you have to be at least 60 to have experienced the 1974 revolution in any meaningful manner. I was a teenager at the time, and I remember very well what daily life was like under censorship, massively lying mass media, police brutality, arbitrary detention in the name of the “national interest”, etc. — all those things that I hoped never again have to experience but that the current Covid climate has brought very, very vividly to the fore.

Yet, it may well be exactly because of such things having happened in living memory that our Government has been less heavy-handed about the pandemic than most others in Europe. And, now to the point, maybe that’s also why our high courts have issued rulings of potentially devastating consequences for the current Covid narrative. Portugal is a small country but is part of the EU and so what happens here still is of some international significance. That’s why I thought you’d be interested in learning about some recent developments.

In a recent decision, dated November 11, 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 (e.g., as extensively explained in Lockdown Skeptics by Dr. Mike Yeadon, Dr. Clare Craig and others).

The court’s ruling is a long text. I provide below a summary of the key passage.

The court’s main points are as follows:

  • 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.
  • From the above, the court concludes that “if carried out with no prior medical observation of the patient, with no participation of a physician certified by the Ordem dos Médicos 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 usurpação de funções [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 Médicos, roughly our equivalent of the UK’s Royal College of Physicians].”
  • 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.
  • 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.

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:

  • “Based 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’s specificity, will not be considered here): the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used; the test’s reliability depends on 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 <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown [N.B. – I know from acquaintances that in at least some Portuguese labs the threshold is 35 cycles].
  • Citing Surkova et al. (2020)), 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 “in 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.”

The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows:

  • “Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s 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.”

I anticipate this ruling to have massive legal implications in my country. Note that it comes in the back of a previous ruling by the Constitutional Court, our highest court, declaring as an unlawful deprivation of liberty a decision by the Regional Government of the Azores to force into a 14-day quarantine every passenger landing in an airport of the territory.

Source: Lockdown Sceptics

In the US,  the FDA’s instructions for PCR testing recommends a threshold of 40 cycles for a specimen to be considered positive. See page 35 of the instructions.

At 25 cycles the original material has been multiplied 33,554,432 times.

At 30 cycles the original material has been multiplied 1,073,741,824 times.

At 40 cycles the original material has been multiplied 1,099,511,627,776 times.

As you can see there is quite a difference in magnification at various cycle thresholds.

It is also important to remember PCR was invented as a way to create copies of genetic material. Its was never intended to be a diagnostic tool.

Source: Utica Phoenix

  1. SanityClaus says


  2. Ave Milagrosa says

    This is great news. But, regarding the cycle threshold, even at lower cycles, there is no guarantee of what is being detected. The primers used are for only a tiny fraction of the complete viral genome (and said genome is itself an abstract computer modelling made from earlier PCR samples.
    This short YT playlist shows the inherent inapplicability of PCR to true viral isolation:


    1. voza0db says

      Toma lá Ave Milagrosa!



      A GLOBAL FRAUD AND SCAM executed by the SRF & Billionaires in order to CHANGE THEIR PLANET AND CIVILIZATION.

      As for the PCR the FRAUD is very well done…

      they are even using primers 100% equal to Chromosome 8 of animal Homo “sapiens”

      “sapiens” because clearly the herd of uman animals is more moron than sapien!

      1. Ave Milagrosa says

        Gracias voza0db!
        I think this piece on Off-Guardian summarises the case againt the PCR better than anything else i’ve seen:


        1. voza0db says

          Yes, that’s a good one… BUT!

          Jim McDonagh Nov 17, 2020 10:35 PM
          Reply to Voz 0db

          Agreed the article is far too complex to be analysed by layman
          and political pundits of the trolling set ! Once a good crisis has been
          chosen as actionable by the powers that be it becomes its own reality .

          Voz 0db Nov 17, 2020 11:49 PM
          Reply to Jim McDonagh

          Indeed that’s a fact. For the regular slave this article is indeed a “no read”.
          Since the tools and techniques employed in this “pandemic” are pretty
          much the same used in other “pandemics” (HTLV-III/LAV-GRID, SARS and so on) it is easy for me to understand since the first paper published
          that this is just another scam/fraud.
          Sadly our number and voices have the same effect of those fines!

          1. Ave Milagrosa says

            Right. But i’m aiming this at a more literate (and scientifically-literate) audience. A certain section of Covid dissidents are going to need to challenge the science, so as not to leave the narrative in the hands of the corporate robot-clones. That necessitates learning at least the basics of microbiology, so we can learn (and reveal to people) what these virologists are doing wrong,and how they are flouting basic scientific protocols,

            1. voza0db says

              Well, two judges from Portróikal (former Portugal) where able to, in a short period of time, understand the FRAUD and CRIMES being committed surrounding the use of PCR!

              Main problem of your approach: vast majority of your target group, is fully engaged in this FRAUD AND SCAM.

              The very few that come out and talk about the FRAUD AND SCAM are rapidly destroyed in the Main Shit Media and Merda Social platforms with all those robots “fact checking” everything!

              And since the Herd of modern moron slaves have high levels of ignorance and personal irresponsibility they use MSM and Social Merda as the main source to “stay informed”!

              I’ve been sending many e-mail to the authors of scam papers so I know what I’m talking about, because as soon as I mention the incorrect use of PCR or point to a major flaw in the paper the exchange stops immediately.

              OPERATION COVID has planned for many years, the last training was very good (October 2019 NYC) and it seems that the deployment is finally a HUGE SUCCESS (after at least two failed fake pandemics in recent years!)

    2. NWOD says

      Only a part of the virus is replicated but it is supposed to be a unique part, i.e., that does not exist in any other known virus.

      1. Ave Milagrosa says

        That’s what is *claimed*, NWOD, but there’s a problem with this claim. The CDC stated in the summer that “no viral isolate is currently available”. None of the published isolations are in fact true isolation (“purification” in virologist-speak) which requires both density gradient centrifugation and several stages of filtration, followed by electron microscopy. This has simply not been done. That’s not an opinion. It’s a recognised fact, and is confirmed by several of the principal authors of those “isolation” studies. So, that being the case, how did the medical authorities determine which primers to use to look for those “unique” sequences? To know which primers to use, you *must* have a viral isolate that has been taken apart and had its entire genome sequenced. Choosing PCR as your diagnostic without having a viral isolate to refer to in the first place is placing the cart before the horse. Watch the first video on that playlist. In it, Andre Kaufman breaks it all down.

        1. NWOD says

          Yes, but it is now available. They state on their website “SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community” (more here) and that they have grown it in cell culture. Also its full genomic structure has been mapped many times – that’s how they identify different “strains”. You say they are not “true isolations”, it seems true that they are now using different techniques to isolate but I don’t see why PCR is a worse technique than centrifuges, if the goal is simply to get a lot of copies.

          In any event, this issue is entirely different from the accuracy of the PCR test. That has to do with two main factors: are they, in fact, testing for a unique sequence of SARS-CoV-2, and are they, in fact, using a reasonable number of cycles to prevent over-amplification. Another problem is they are using it as a diagnostic tool (assuming each positive case is an “infection”), whereas that is a complete abuse of the PCR procedure, which only identifies presence, even presence of viruses the body has effectively neutralized.

          1. Ave Milagrosa says

            No NWOD. The study of relevance that that page links to is the June study. Look at what it says:
            “We designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of
            the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512). We
            extracted nucleic acid from isolates and amplified by using the 37
            individual nested PCRs. We used positive PCR amplicons individually for
            subsequent Sanger sequencing and also pooled them for library
            preparation by using a ligation sequencing kit” https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

            Re: “on the basis of
            the coronavirus reference sequence [in GenBank]”. In other words, the were referring to various other nucleotide sequences that they had in their database. Depending on the cycles used in their PCR runs, they could be picking those particular sequences from a variety of sources. A key to how phony this all is is the fact that Fauci himself recognises that at 35 cycles and above PCR tells you basically nothing. You’re getting about 97% false positives at this point (i.e. 35 cycles). Yet the CDC recommends the use of 40 cycles. that’s orders of magnitude higher sensitivity.

            Also, even if a real isolation (“purification”) is carried out now, it wouldn’t solve the problem of knowing what exactly they were looking for back in January, when Chinese scientists published their computer-modelled Sars CoV-2 genome. How did they know what to look for if no isolate existed at that time? The fact is that mammalian bodies have all kinds of free RNAs, and RNAs that are shuffled around in horizontal gene transfer. Establishing “unique” sequences from entire families of related viruses is not as sure & simple as they make out.
            With respect to RNA transferability, we also have in us endogenous nucletide sequences that are identical to some genes that appear in the HIV virus: One example: https://www.hhmi.org/news/human-genome-bears-virus-related-hiv-1
            Finally, i think all thinking people will recognise that there has been an enormous fear campaign that has arbitrarily labelled anything and everything as “Covid-19”. And yet this riduclous, over-the-top statistical gerrymandering (which has included flu deaths, heart attacks, & even motorcycle accidents as “Covid-19”) all together produced a whopping infection fatality rate of…0.1 % (at most). Given this figure, the existence of a “real” novel coronavirus must be completely irrelevant, because whatever this elusive entity turns out to be, it is clearly not pathogenic. “Isolation” issues aside, for all practical purposes, Sars CoV-2 does not exist.

            1. NWOD says

              I’m not an expert on genetic engineering and clearly neither are you. The point is the method is out there for anyone with competence in the field to review, and even though I have seen lots of dissent on various topics in the COVID-19 theater, I haven’t seen it on this matter. So here is what you are missing: yes they used a reference sequence in order to isolate what they had in their patient, but once they isolated it they did a genetic sequence of what their patient had and it matched. Unless your claim is that their processes actually just replicated the reference sequence – in which case, please explain in detail how this happened, because from what I do understand of the process that is not what happened.

              Another way to state this: they used the reference isolate to isolate and amplify the virus in their patient. Then then sequenced this amplified virus and matched it to the reference genome.

              Next you go to the number of cycles. Increasing the number of cycles only affects the amplification. Thus 40 cycles amplify more. This does not mean it is testing for something else, it only means that you are amplifying so much that even someone with a minimal viral load – i.e. who is not infected but merely had some exposure – will test “positive”, as the amplification crosses the threshold for detection (the whole point of the amplification is to increase the quantity to permit detection).

              How did they know what to look for if no isolate existed at that time. You are correct that the method described in the paper relies on the accuracy of the original genome reference sequence, as they admit in their study. I don’t know how that one was isolated, and from your response it’s clear neither do you. Just because you don’t know how that sequence was isolated, doesn’t mean it was done “incorrectly” and that it’s “not actually a virus” as you state. In fact, if it wasn’t actually a virus, then it’s quite remarkable that the person this team sampled had the exact same sequence.

              When you get your PhD in genetic sequencing, read the article again and tell me what is wrong with it. As it stands, you are even more ignorant than me about it, and I am clearly aware of my limitations in understanding this technology and those limitations prevent me from coming to the conclusion you reach. Just because you don’t understand something, does not make it false. 🙂

              I agree with many/most/all of your other points – the “case” numbers are largely meaningless, there is lots of propaganda, and that COVID-19 is just an excuse for a power grab they have been planning anyway. But none of that means that the virus does not exist and does not in fact kill many people. That part I believe. On a related note, I think the real “killer” of those people is not the virus, which is just opportunistic; the real “killer” is the depressed immunity the victims have, and the “cause of death” should be attributed to whatever lowered the immunity (which I think very often is Vitamin D deficiency, even though they don’t even look for that). That is part of the massive propaganda on this “disease”.

            2. Ave Milagrosa says

              Re: “they used a reference sequence in order to isolate what they had in
              their patient, but once they isolated it they did a genetic sequence of what their patient had and it matched.”

              I probably didn’t explain myself well. So i’ll try again. NO sequencing was done from a purified isolate because – to date – no such isolate exists. The referred paper in your link, describing “isolation” is from June. However, the CDC’s 13th July 2020 document entitled,’ CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only Instructions for Use’ (1) states:

              Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were
              tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL)
              spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and
              viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen”.

              (And i’m hardly the only one talking about this: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3925/rr-2)

              When award-winning journalist Torsten Engelbrecht with Konstantin Demeter called the virologist Dr. Charles Calisher, they asked him if he knew of a single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 was isolated and purified.

              He answered:

              “I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”

              Dr. Andrew Kaufman has had the same response from all of the authors of the “isolation” papers that he contacted.

              So, i restate what i said earlier: the gold standard of viral purification has NOT been carried on out the purported Sars CoV-2. What the paper you shared refers to as “isolation” is not that at all (virologists abuse this word, borrowing a term from chemistry that does not apply to these methods). But in the paper you indirectly linked to, they state clearly what the sample contains in this case: heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO,, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B. In addition, of course, to the human cell sample.

              When we use heat, toxins, hypoxia or antibiotics to stress cells, new genomic information is generated, and extra cellular vesicles (with their own RNA) are released in response. EVs can transfer nucleic acids such as RNA from cell to cell. This is basically what many of them do.
              Given the variety of potential sources for the RNA in your sample soup, and given how many human endogenous retroviral sequences are potentially transferred, how can they be certain about the source of the RNA?
              If we search, using BLAST, the RdRp SARS-CoV-2 sequence, it reveals 99 human chromosome with a 100% sequence identity match. The Orf1ab (E gene) returns 90 with a 100% sequence identity match to human chromosomes.

              The sequence “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT” is an 18-character primer sequence found in the WHO coronavirus PCR testing protocol document. But this exact same 18-character sequence is also found on Homo Sapiens
              chromosome 8.

              Also, too much cycling will inevitably amplify all kinds of nucleid acids. That is why even Fauci has recommended not using CT of higher than 35. Too bad tnobody got the memo (since the US standard is 40 cycles) So, a higher CT interferes with the reliability of an already faulty process.

              But the problems are not even limited to contamination. Some of the alleged
              PCR “matches” are in fact substantially lower than a 100% in correspondence. So the vaunted “specificity” of these PCR tests fails on this point alone.

              Now, if you’re selecting your primers from a variety of sequences that you *know* a certain proportion of the population is going to react positive to (esp. at higher cycle thresholds) you can easily generate an “epidemic” out of nothing.

              Re:”I’m not an expert on genetic engineering and clearly neither are you.The point is the method is out there for anyone with competence in the ield to review”

              This is hand-waving and “argument-from-authority”. A bit poor for someone of your apparent intelligence. I haven’t heard anyone else make the claim
              that a PhD in molecular biology is required to read a paper such as the
              one referenced in that link. Even those of us who are “not aware of our own limitations” may have – like me – experience in investigating other scientific frauds (which gives one a nose for them). Moreover, deference to more knowlegeable authority should not be used that to excuse looking away whilst cossetted, institutionalised scientists play fast and loose with the facts.

            3. NWOD says

              The July 13, 2020 paper just says no quantified virus isolates were then available for purposes of testing the detection limits of the RT-PCR assay. It does not mean there were no viral stocks worldwide, and in particular, it says nothing about virus isolates in China. Again, you just don’t like that there are now new technologies available for doing what was once done another way. Instead of culturing the virus in a lab, they can take a genetic sequence and transcribe it with genetic tools, which is what CDC did in this case to test the RT-PCR detection limits. That was not possible 20 years ago, so different methods were used.

              Also according to various sources there are now hundreds of isolates of the virus. One of them is Dr Thushan de Silva, from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease.

              You claim that “the US standard is 40 cycles”. I have looked into this and I know this is clearly false, but I will ask, prove it please. The reason Fauci says not to go over 35 cycles is not because it picks up “other RNA” (if it did that it would also do so with even 2 cycles, or 35 cycles), but because it over-amplifies, as I wrote in my prior post.

              As to the sequence that occurs in everyone, allegedly, that was my point earlier, a valid critique would be that they are not using unique sequences to test for the virus. It is of course no surprise that the virus would match a sequence of other animal RNA, since viruses are derived from animal DNA. The question is whether the sequences are unique. These sequences are the “cut points” where a single RNA strand is cut, and then the smaller (segment) of the virus is amplified using PCR. To do the cut, you use two sets of sequences – hence, the requirement is that these two sequences are unique, not that each of the sequences is unique, to a particular virus. Thus, for your point to be valid, you would have to show that the other sequence used for the cut also occurs in the same RNA strands (and, IIRC, at the same distance). Can you show that?

              As to my alleged “argument from authority”, lol, that’s not what it is at all. You are making an “argument from ignorance”, you are critiquing something you don’t understand. Anybody can do that, but nobody can do that meaningfully.

              Maybe the flu virus doesn’t exist either. You are not relying on experts for that, are you? Why do you even think any virus exists? Maybe we don’t exist? Maybe we are living in the Matrix? Can you prove we are not? You can take skepticism to all kinds of levels, and that is all well and good, but irregardless of any of that, what exactly is your contention? That people aren’t dying at all? That there are no excess deaths at all? Or that those excess deaths don’t involve a respiratory disease? Or they do involve a respiratory disease but it’s, what, the flu? What is your claim?

  3. ke4ram says

    “It is a great tribute to the integrity of the Portuguese legal system that the Court seems to understand in considerable detail the shortcomings of the PCR test as a diagnostic tool, particularly when not used in combination with a clinical diagnosis”

    It takes about 30 minutes of reading to know they’re misusing the test. Even the inventor said it should not be the only diagnostic tool. There is no reason anyone should be ignorant of this.

    A few years back there was a PCR epidemic of whooping cough. They finally figured out the real problem. Ended up there was no whooping cough.

    1. Megan Kauffman says

      Get $192 of an hour from Google!… Yes this is Authentic as I just got my first payout and was really awesome because it was the biggest number of $38000 in a week…(c1841)… It seems Appears Unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it

      >>>> http://www.JumpZoo.com


  4. Mr. Evans says

    That’s A Start .

    1. voza0db says

      That was only useful for that case. Four morons from Germany on vacation on Azores Island!

      It won’t CHANGE anything else in Portróikal (former name Portugal).

  5. Jerome Toulan says

    Je pense que les décisions scientifiques doivent être laissées aux véritables scientifiques spécialisés, vous n’êtes pas plus un expert que moi sur le sujet. Si le test PCR est utilisé par tant de pays pour freiner la pandémie de COVID-19 ainsi que par les pays européens pour déterminer les restrictions d’entrée dans l’UE, je ne pense pas qu’il soit totalement inefficace.

    Les technologies développées pour effectuer le dépistage de la maladie ont été longuement étudiées. Une compréhension scientifique et génétique plus approfondie est nécessaire pour porter un jugement sur le test PCR et le discréditer.

    De plus, même si cette décision a été prise par une cour d’appel portugaise, le Portugal continue d’accepter les tests PCR pour les voyages via le certificat COVID numérique de l’UE. Elle n’a donc visiblement pas été reconnue et appliquée par les autorités.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.