Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests As Unreliable & Unlawful To Quarantine People – General Chit Chat & Conversations – Expats Portugal Community Forum

Share:
Notifications
Clear all

Please feel free to view our Forum, but you must either LOGIN or REGISTER to join in the conversation.

Reis & Pellicano International Lawyers

Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests As Unreliable & Unlawful To Quarantine People  

Page 1 / 2

Posts: 10
 Barr
Community Member
(@barr)
Active Member
Joined: 2 months ago

One of the reasons why I love Portugal. There is still common sense to be found in the courts.

Has anyone experienced problem with these tests and been quarantined or refused travel?

If you are pressured to take one of these tests, show them this:

7 Replies

Posts: 1568
VIP Member
(@old-bloke)
Noble Member
Joined: 12 years ago

MISLEADING !!!

I suggest people read the full judgement of the court rather than one short extract from it.

The judgement outlined a number of factors that resulted in their decision. The important one being that quarantine cannot be based only on the result of a PCR test (as it was in this case) due to the fallibility of the tests, and other steps MUST be completed (which weren't in this case) to give weight to the test result for the quarantine to be lawful under the Portuguese constitution.

Reply

Posts: 10
 Barr
Community Member
(@barr)
Active Member
Joined: 2 months ago

Misleading?

Here are some translated excerpts, judge for yourselves!

 

Indeed, the RT-PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) tests,
molecular biology tests which detect the RNA of the virus, commonly used in
Portugal to test and list the number of infected (after nasopharyngeal collection),
are performed by amplification of samples, through repetitive cycles.
The number of cycles of such amplification results in a greater or lesser
reliability of such tests.

And the problem is that this reliability is shown, in terms of
scientific evidence (and in this field, the judge will have to resort to the knowledge of the experts in the field) more than debatable which is the result, among others, of the very recent and comprehensive study published at the end of September this year by Oxford Academic, run by a group of some of Europe's leading experts
and worldwide in this field.

This study concludes2, in free translation
"At a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, around 70% of the samples remain
positive in cell culture (i.e. they were infected): in a ct of 30, 20% of samples
remained positive; in a ct of 35, 3% of the samples remained positive; and
in a ct of more than 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in the culture
mobile phone (see diagram).

This means that if a person has a positive PCR test at a threshold of
cycles of 35 or more (as is the case in most US laboratories and the
Europe), the probability of a person being infected is less than 3%. A
The probability of receiving a false positive is 97% or higher".
What follows from these studies is simple - the possible reliability of the
PCR tests performed depends on the threshold of amplification cycles which
the same include, up to a limit of 25 cycles, the reliability of the
test will be about 70%; if 30 cycles are performed, the degree of reliability will drop
to 20%; if the 35 cycles are reached, the degree of reliability will be 3%.
In the present case, the number of cycles of
amplification with which PCR tests are performed in Portugal, including Azores
and Madeira, since we could not find any recommendations or
limit in this respect.

vi. In a very recent study by Elena Surkova,
Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy and Francis Drobniewski, accessible at
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext,
published in the equally prestigious The Lancet, Respiratory Medicine, refers (to
in addition to the multiple questions that the very precision of the test raises, as to the specific detection of the sars-cov 2 virus, for strong doubts about compliance with the call gold standard) that (free translation):

"Any diagnostic test shall be interpreted in the context of the
the actual possibility of the disease, which existed before it took place. For Covid-19,
this decision to perform the test, depends on prior evaluation of the existence of symptoms, previous medical history of Covid 19 or presence of antibodies, any
potential exposure to this disease and not likelihood of another possible one
diagnosis. "3

"One of the potential reasons for presenting positive results could be
reside in the prolonged spillage of viral RNA, which is known to extend over
weeks after recovery in those who were previously exposed to SARSCoV-2. However, and more importantly, there is no scientific evidence that
suggest that low levels of viral RNA per RT-PCR are equivalent to infection,
unless the presence of infectious viral particles has been confirmed
through laboratory culture methods.

In summary, Covid-19 tests showing false positives are each more likely, in the current epidemiological climate outlook of the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system and corporate level. "4

18. Thus, there are so many scientific doubts, expressed by experts in the matter, which are the ones that matter here, as to the reliability of such tests, ignoring the parameters of its realisation and there being no diagnosis carried out by a doctor in the sense of infection and risk, never it would be possible for this court to determine that C...was a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor that A., B... and D... had high risk exposure.

In conclusion, it will be said that, since the action was brought if shows inadmissible on the grounds of lack of legitimacy and lack of interest in acting on the part of of the applicant, as well as manifestly unfounded, must be rejected under Article 401(1)(a), Article 417(6)(b) and Article 420(1)(a) and (b), all of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
C.P. Criminal.

IV - DECISION.
In the light of the above, and under the provisions of Articles 417(6)(b) and 420
(a) and (b), both of which are set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure, reject the appeal brought by REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY, represented by the Regional Health Directorate of the Region
Autonomous Region of the Azores.
Pursuant to Article 420(3) of the Criminal Code, the applicant is ordered
in the procedural penalty of 4 UC

 

Reply

Posts: 10
 Barr
Community Member
(@barr)
Active Member
Joined: 2 months ago

Here is the decision in pdf format

 

Reply
1 Reply
VIP Member
(@old-bloke)
Joined: 12 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 1568

@barr

As I suggested earlier, people need to read the WHOLE transcript, not just selective parts solely about the PCR test. Such 'click-bait' creates a false impression to readers that it was ONLY because of the fallibility of such tests the quarantine was held to be unlawful.

Something you might have fallen for perhaps when your original post contains "If you are pressured to take one of these tests, show them this".

The bottom line is the tests are lawful, the results are a guide, but before quarantine can be lawful under the constitution a proper clinical diagnosis must be carried out.

If you're going to quote selected passages that don't just only serve to support a particular viewpoint about Covid, this is the only passage you should have quoted.

"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 high risk exposure.

Reply

Posts: 10
 Barr
Community Member
(@barr)
Active Member
Joined: 2 months ago

Imho the bottom line is this: The PCR test are unreliable. This is the judges opinion, he/she has confirmed what many are saying, that the PCR tests give very very high "false positive" results and should not be relied on.

The judge also cited several scientific studies claiming the same thing. There are a great number of medical experts that agree with this.

Imo again, the bottom line was NOT that the problem was that no doctor was present. If a doctor was present and administered the PCR, would the test be more reliable? Lower false positives? It seems not.

Obviously, a positive PCR test does not mean that you are sick. It also does not mean that you have an infection. It means only, that the test found some genetic material of undefined origin or type.

This unidentified genetic material is amplified and increased by the test itself, as much as 40 fold. That is all that the PCR test was built and designed to do, to amplify small fragments of DNA so that they are large enough to work with. Nothing more than that.

The inventor of the PCR test himself stated this, on the record. And that these tests cannot be used to detect illness and cannot diagnose any infection or illness. Period.

The army also force tested much of the population of Liverpool recently, using a different test. They got completely different results, which showed much much lower rates of what are being called "cases"; which are where fragments of alledged covid DNA is being found in healthy people, who show little or no signs of illness.

In other words; healthy people.

A "case" or a positive PCR result, is therefore not evidence of sickness or dangerous infection, it is nothing more than an example of small fragments of vial DNA, perhaps from a previous flu, or common cold for example, or herpes, or any other virus, or perhaps a previous mild covid infection, have been found and amplified sufficiently in order make it detectable. Otherwise it would not be detecable. As shown in the Army's results.

Clickbait? Really? Are you saying that the judges negative statements on the reliability of the PCR are meaningless and that the PCR is valid? That the reporters are only trying to make money via advertising (clickbait)? and are distorting the truth? Only because of that line stating that a doctor was not present? Or is there something I am missing?

Thanks for the conversation, always good to hear alternative opinions, especially in times like these!

Reply
1 Reply
VIP Member
(@old-bloke)
Joined: 12 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 1568
Posted by: @barr

Are you saying that the judges negative statements on the reliability of the PCR are meaningless and that the PCR is valid? That the reporters are only trying to make money via advertising (clickbait)? and are distorting the truth? Only because of that line stating that a doctor was not present? Or is there something I am missing?

Thanks for the conversation, always good to hear alternative opinions, especially in times like these!

No, what I'm saying is the original story you linked to are focused on the reliability of the test being the only factor that resulted in the court's decision, rather than it being one of the deciding factors.

It was a combination of factors which can only be understood by reading the full transcript. The most basic explanation of their decision is that test results alone without a supporting clinical assessment are not grounds for quarantine.

Not, as the headline suggests, PCR tests are unlawful and cannot be used to quarantine people.

Had their headline said "PCR tests alone are not sufficient grounds for quarantine", they wouldn't be misleading their readers.

Granted the opening paragraph paints the true picture of the court's decision, but they never refer to it again, or explain what other factors must be followed by the authorities after a positive test to ensure the decision to quarantine someone is lawful.

"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."

I support the court's decision in recognising the fallibility of the tests and applying constitutional law in deciding when placing someone in quarantine is justifiable (as should all of us). What I don't support are news reports that are written in such a way that they don't report that decision without covering ALL the factors the court took into account when arriving at their decision, hence why I said it is misleading.

Reply

Page 1 / 2

Ei! Migration Banner

To post a reply, sign up and become a member!

Premium

By becoming a valued Premium Member today, your support will help the team continue to bring you useful content about life in Portugal. You can also:

JOIN TODAYOnly €25 per year
Share:

Free

Sign me up as a Community Member today for limited access to the forum and meet-ups.

SIGN UP

Premium

By becoming a valued Premium Member today, you will unlock some great privileges, freebies and perks:

  • Receive over €300+ worth of exclusive member benefits from our partners (view current member perks and benefits)
  • Priority access to our Zoom meet-ups and webinars (visit our What’s On Calendar for our next online events)
  • Browse the forum with no advertising (only see or partners)
  • Get 10% discount off Business Directory advertising
  • Get 10% discount off Ask Our Expats services
  • Buy and sell items in our Classifieds forum
  • And last but not least, shout Astrid, Gerry & Carl a beer on Friday 🙂
Join TodayOnly €25 per year

Copyright © 2020 Expats Portugal

Marketing by Unity Online