The four Germans who visited Portugal for holiday tested "positive" for the Chinese Virus based on PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests, which the Portuguese justice system admits are not a valid way to detect the presence of COVID.
Delivered on Nov. 11, 2020, the verdict followed an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus filed by all four Germans against the Azores Regional Health Authority.
"This body had been appealing a ruling from a lower court which had found in favour of the tourists, who claimed that they were illegally confined to a hotel without their consent," reported RT's Peter Andrews.
"The tourists were ordered to stay in 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 made to quarantine as well."
(Related: PCR testing was a scam from the very beginning.)
PCR testing for COVID is fraudulent
The Lisbon Appeal Court ultimately ruled that the Azores Regional Health Authority violated both Portuguese and international law by forcing the four Germans to remain isolated and holed up inside a hotel.
The judges in the case ruled that only a doctor can "diagnose" a person with a disease, not politicians based on faulty PCR testing. It turns out that none of the four Germans was ever properly diagnosed by an actual doctor before being force-quarantined.
Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity's knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Speak freely without censorship at the new decentralized, blockchain-power Brighteon.io. Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.
The judges also railed against PCR testing in general, writing in the conclusion of their 34-page ruling that the protocol is bunk from a scientific perspective.
"In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus," they said.
In other words, the Portuguese legal system determined that a "positive" PCR test does not correspond to a COVID case, no matter how much the media and politicians argue otherwise.
"The test's reliability depends on the number of cycles used," the judges wrote. "The test's reliability depends on the viral load present."
In the United States and Europe, the typical "cycle threshold" for PCR testing was set to between 35 and 40, but experts say that even 35 is far too high to be accurate. Many of them suggest a lower cycle threshold of 25-30 instead.
Data released from three U.S. states – Massachusetts, New York and Nevada – further shows that up to 90 percent of the people who tested "positive" for COVID during the "pandemic" probably never had the virus because of erroneous cycle threshold settings.
If someone tests "positive" for COVID at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually being infected is less than three percent, the Portuguese courts acknowledge. Conversely, they also said "the probability of ... receiving a false positive is 97% or higher."
The cycle threshold used by Portuguese labs is unknown, which only further backs the court's decision that the whole thing was basically a scam from the very beginning.
"Testing, especially PCR testing, is the basis for the entire house of cards of Covid restrictions that are wreaking havoc worldwide," Andrews writes.
"From testing comes case numbers. From case numbers come the 'R number,' the rate at which a carrier infects others. From the 'dreaded' R number comes the lockdowns and the restrictions."
The COVID scam is still with us more than four years after it was launched. Learn more at Plague.info.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
