MSM silent as court rules PCR Covid tests are 97% inaccurate - unfit for purpose

Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose. So what does the MSM do? They ignore it.
Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case in a judgment that condemns the widely used PCR test as being up to 97 per cent unreliable.
Earlier in the month, Portuguese judges upheld a decision from a lower court that found the forced quarantine of four holidaymakers to be illegal. The case centred on the reliability (or lack thereof) of Covid-19 PCR tests.
The judgment, which was delivered on 11 November, followed an appeal of a habeas corpus petition filed by four Germans against the regional health authority of the Azores. This body had appealed a ruling from a lower court that had found in favour of the tourists, who claimed that they were illegally confined to a hotel without their consent. The tourists were ordered to remain at the hotel over the summer after one of them tested positive for coronavirus in a PCR test — the other three were labelled close contacts and therefore also placed in quarantine.
Unreliable, with a high chance of false positives
The proceedings in the Lisbon Court of Appeal are extensive and fascinating. It ruled that the regional health authority of the Azores had violated both Portuguese and international law by confining the Germans to the hotel. The judges also said that only a doctor can “diagnose” someone with a disease, and were critical of the fact that they were apparently never assessed by one.
They were also sharp about the reliability of the PCR test (polymerase chain reaction), the most commonly used check for Covid.
The conclusion of their 34-page judgment included the following: “In the light of current scientific evidence, this test is not shown to be capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity actually corresponds to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
In the eyes of this court, therefore, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The two most important reasons for this, the judges said, are that “the reliability of the test depends on the number of cycles used” and that “the reliability of the test depends on the viral load present.” In other words, there are quite simply too many unknowns surrounding PCR testing.
Tested positive? There may be as little as a 3% chance that it is correct
This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be aware that their results have a great deal to do with the number of amplifications performed, or the ‘cycle threshold’. This number in most American and European laboratories is 35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many, and that a more sensible protocol would require 25–30 cycles. (Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample.)
Earlier this year, data from three American states — New York, Nevada and Massachusetts — showed that when the amount of virus found in a person was taken into account, up to 90 per cent of the people who tested positive could actually have been negative, as they may only have carried small amounts of the virus.
The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world-leading specialists,” which was published by Oxford Academic at the end of September. It showed that if someone tested positive for Covid at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually being infected are less than three per cent, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”
While the judges in this case admitted that the cycle threshold used in Portuguese laboratories was unknown, they took this as further evidence that the detention of the tourists was illegal. The implication was that the results could not be trusted. Because of this uncertainty, they stated that there was “no way this court would ever be able to determine” whether the tourist who tested positive was actually a carrier of the virus, or whether the others had been exposed to it.
Sshhh — don’t tell anyone
It is a sad indictment of our mainstream media that such a landmark judgment, of such obvious and pressing international importance, has been ignored. If one were to make (spun) excuses for them, one could say that the case escaped most science editors because it has been published in Portuguese. But there is a full English translation of the appeal, and alternative media managed to pick it up.
And it is not as if Portugal is a distant, mysterious nation where news is unreliable or whose judges are suspect — this is a Western EU country with a large population and a legal system similar to many other parts of Europe. And it is not the only country whose institutions clash with received wisdom about Covid. Finland’s national health authority has disputed the WHO’s recommendation to test as many people as possible for coronavirus and says it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money, while poorer Southeast Asian countries are refraining from ordering vaccines, citing an incorrect use of limited resources.
Tests, especially PCR tests, are the foundation of the entire house of cards of Covid restrictions that are creating chaos worldwide. From tests come case numbers. From case numbers comes the ‘R number’, the rate at which a carrier infects others. From the ‘feared’ R number come the lockdowns and restrictions, such as England’s new and confusing tiered restrictions that come into force next week.
The daily barrage of statistics is familiar to us all at this point, but as time goes on, the evidence continues to mount that something may be deeply wrong with the entire basis of our response to this pandemic — the testing regime.