“A. The prescription and diagnosis are medical acts, under the exclusive responsibility of a doctor, registered in the Order of Doctors.”
11/11/20, Original Portugueseee=
11/11/20, “Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeals,” Habeus Corpus Interest in acting Sars Cov 2 RT-PCR tests, Privacy of Freedom, Illegal Detention. Unanimity: Criminal resources provision denied
“To summarize, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal levels (panel).” (end of article)
“Summary:” “I. The ARS cannot appeal against a decision that ordered the immediate release of four people, due to illegal detention, in the context of a habeas corpus case (article 220 als. C) and d) of the CPPenal), asking for the confinement to be validated mandatory for applicants, for being carriers of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (A….) and for being under active surveillance, due to high risk exposure, decreed by health authorities (B…, C…. and D… ..) for having no legitimacy or interest in acting.
II. The request made would also be manifestly unfounded because:
A. The prescription and diagnosis are medical acts, under the exclusive responsibility of a doctor, registered in the Order of Doctors.
B. In the case that now concerns us, there is no indication or proof, that such diagnosis was actually performed by a professional qualified under the Law and who had acted in accordance with good medical practices. In fact, what follows from the facts taken for granted, is that none of the applicants was even seen by a doctor, which is frankly inexplicable, given the alleged seriousness of the infection.
C. The only element that appears in the proven facts, in this respect, is the performance of RT-PCR tests, one of which presented a positive result in relation to one of the applicants.
D. In view of the current scientific evidence, this test is, in itself, unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for several reasons, of which we highlight two (to which the issue of the gold standard is added, which, due to its specificity, we will not even address):”…
………………………..
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.
19. In summary, it will be said that, since the appeal filed is inadmissible, due to lack of legitimacy and lack of interest in acting by the applicant, as well as manifestly unfounded, it will have to be rejected, under the terms of the in articles 401 nº1 al. a), 417 nº6 al. b) and artº420 nº1 als. a) and b), all of the Penal CP. iv – decision. In view of the above, and under the provisions of articles 417, paragraph 6, al. b) and 420 nº1 als. a) and b), both of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appeal filed by REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY, represented by the Regional Health Directorate of the Autonomous Region of the Azores , is rejected.
Under the terms of paragraph 3 of article 420 of the CPPenal, the applicant is condemned in the procedural sanction of 4 UCs, as well as in the TJ of 4 UCs and costs. Immediately inform the court “a quo” of the content of this judgment. Lisbon, November 11, 2020 Margarida Ramos de Almeida Ana Paramés _______________________________________________________ [1] [1]…
[2] “that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (ie were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram) This means that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher . [3] Any diagnostic test result should be interpreted in the context of the pretest probability of disease. For COVID-19, the pretest probability assessment includes symptoms, previous medical history of COVID-19 or presence of antibodies, any potential exposure to COVID-19, and likelihood of an alternative diagnosis.1 When low pretest probability exists, positive results should be interpreted with caution and a second specimen tested for confirmation. [4]
Prolonged viral RNA shedding, which is known to last for weeks after
recovery, can be a potential reason for positive swab tests in those
previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. However, importantly, no data
suggests that detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates
with infectivity unless infectious virus particles have been confirmed
with laboratory culture based
methods.7
To summarize, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal levels (panel).”
……………………………………..
Among comments to above linked at Off-Guardian, 11/20/20, “Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” & Quarantines “Unlawful.” Important legal decision faces total media blackout in Western world”
The Prosecutor, unhappy with the ruling, appealled the decision.
The Lisbon Court of Appeals (ruling made by a collective of 3 judges – one appointed as the head) not only confirmed the decision made by the lower court, but stated that the tests will highly unreliable (97%).
The judges in the Court of Appeals who made this courageous ruling are under intense scrutiny by even their peers
and their ruling will be debated and analyzed in a meeting to be held
by the CSM (Superior Council of Magistrates) – the highest body in the
Portuguese Judiciary.
They may be sanctioned for their decision and suffer penalties.
It´s really ominous when even the Juduciary becomes politicized.
These are dangerous times.”
…………………………………………
From Off-Guardian:
11/20/20, “Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” & Quarantines “Unlawful.” Important legal decision faces total media blackout in Western world.” Off-Guardian
Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.
Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.
The specifics of the case concern four tourists entering the country from Germany – all of whom are anonymous in the transcript of the case – who were quarantined by the regional health authority. Of the four, only one had tested positive for the virus, whilst the other three were deemed simply of “high infection risk” based on proximity to the positive individual. All four had, in the previous 72 hours, tested negative for the virus before departing from Germany.
In their ruling, judges Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Paramés referred to several scientific studies. Most notably this study by Jaafar et al., which found that – when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% 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.
You can read the complete ruling in the original Portuguese here, and translated into English here. There’s also a good write up on it on Great Game India, plus a Portuguese professor sent a long email about the case to Lockdown Sceptics.
The media reaction to this case has been entirely predictable – they have not mentioned it. At all. Anywhere. Ever.
The ruling was published on November 11th, and has been referenced by many alt-news sites since…but the mainstream outlets are maintaining a complete blackout on it.”…
..........
