Covid PCR test reliability doubtful – Portugal judges

in News · 27-11-2020 17:50:00 · 19 Comments

The PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”, said the Lisbon Court of Appeal.

While the court has deemed the test to be unreliable, medical experts have hit back against these claims, stating the judges have acted “irresponsibly” in their ruling.

The initial decision, which was made on 11 November, related to an appeal by the Regional Health Administration of the Azores, following a request for habeas corpus - immediate release - of four German citizens who had been forced by the health authority to comply with isolation for 14 days in the hotel room

According to the process: “There is no evidence that this diagnosis was actually carried out by a professional qualified under the Law and who had acted in accordance with good medical practices”. These acts are reserved for the exclusive competence of a doctor.

“The only element that appears in the proven facts is the performance of RT-PCR tests, one of which presented a positive result in relation to one of the applicants”, reads the document.

The judges quoted a paper published in The Lancet by Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy and Francis Drobniewski, which stated: “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. When low pretest probability exists, positive results should be interpreted with caution and a second specimen tested for confirmation.

The paper continues: “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.

“To summarise, 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).”

The judges concluded by stating that: “The problem is that this reliability is shown, in terms of scientific evidence (and in this field, the judge will have to rely on the knowledge of experts in the field), as being more than debatable.

“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 existence of infection and risk, it would never be possible for this court to determine that C ... had the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor that A., B ... and D ... had high risk exposure,” concluded the judgement in relation to the case which has ultimately calls into question the reliability of the tests.

Meanwhile, the decision of the court has been damned by scientists in Portugal. According to a report in Públicio, the judges from the Lisbon Court of Appeal misread two scientific articles and the scientific consensus on PCR testing is “absolute”.

“The statement is false”, Vasco Barreto, a researcher at the Center for the Study of Chronic Diseases (Cedoc) of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa told Público, who added that he believed the judges acted “irresponsibly”.

“PCR tests have a specificity and sensitivity greater than 95%. That is, in the overwhelming majority of cases they detect the virus that causes covid-19 ”.

This is indicated in a scientific article that is cited in the judgment, but that has been read “completely wrong” by the magistrates, according to Germano de Sousa, former President of the Ordem dos Médicos and owner of a network of laboratories.

The other study cited in the judgement was Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates, whose results were published by Oxford Academic in late September.

PCR tests ("polymerase chain reaction") are the most widely used diagnostic method in most countries to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 precisely because they are the most accurate in identifying the virus. This is a technique that amplifies the virus's genetic material in successive cycles - with each cycle the material doubles. In the study cited, the relationship between the ability of the samples collected to infect cells and the number of cycles required to obtain a “positive” result was tested.

“The proportion of samples that were no longer able to infect cells maintained in culture in the laboratory increased with the increase in the number of cycles required to obtain a positive signal. This is because after our body controls the infection there are fragments of the virus's genetic material that persist and decrease over days, when the individual no longer poses a danger to others, ”explains Vasco Barreto. Conclusions like these have helped health authorities in different countries to reduce mandatory quarantine periods for those infected and to dispense with a negative test to “discharge” a patient.

Now, from reading the article, the judges conclude that “the probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher”. According to the investigation, this only happens if the cycle threshold is higher than 35 "as it happens in most laboratories in the USA and Europe", reads the judgment. This information is considered to be inaccurate by Vasco Barreto, who states that where he works at Cedoc “42% of the positive tests, only 25 or less cycles were needed and there is scientific evidence of the high capacity of the virus to spread from “positive” cases to less than 25 cycles”.



Related articles


Comments:

Oh wow you can see how the judges and those making the claims totally misunderstand basic virology, bioninformatics and a number of other scientific fields. You can also see how the grifters and conspiracy theorists latched onto this and now its being spread by the twooth camoonitee. Its all cherrypicked, false psuedoscience. Firstly the false-positive rate for the pcr test in its history has never exceeded 10%, during cov19 it hasn't exceeded 3%, secondly the more cycles they do doesn't somehow amplify nothing into existance, as you can find a positive result 5 to 10 times during the amount of cycles, they dont stop the cycles once they find it

By agecase from UK on 23-07-2021 05:05

Why has the Nobel prize winning inventor of the lauded PCR test repeatedly stated that the PCR test CANNOT be used as a diagnostic tool & CANNOT detect specific viruses? & Why has his statements never been listened to? It was invented as a laboratory tool to detect ANY genetic material in a sample..

By Alan Heron from UK on 30-05-2021 01:14

The only reliable way detecting a COVID-19 infection is the noninvasive approach of SEMIC EyeScan

By WG from Other on 06-05-2021 10:14

The PCR test was created before the advent of the magical chinese flu virus and test for broken strands of DNA and RNA.

There is no test which can detect the fantasy "covid" virus.

It is that simple folks (please explain why NOBODY is dying from the annual flu ad the decrease in annual flu cases matches the number of chinese flu cases/

By ED from Other on 24-02-2021 07:13

Germano Sousa is getting rich with covid.

By Danny Way from Açores on 04-02-2021 11:15

Vasco Barreto's claim is very weak.

1. He failed to give evidence that they are the most accurate in identifying the virus. The fact that it is one of the most widely used tool tells nothing about its accuracy.
He failed to give otherwise evidence.

2. The study, i.e., "Correlation Between 3790..." is silent on the matter of whether RT-PCR is reliable or not. It just tells us that culture raised from the sample obtained by way of running cycle threshold of more than 25 or that is more than 8 days old(even if obtained via CT of less than 25) cannot infect cells.

3. He failed to show what other "scientific evidence" of the high capacity of the virus to spread from “positive” cases to less than 25 cycles.

4. To support his claim that RT-PCR has specificity and sensitivity greater than 95%, he should at least be able to defeat 10 points made by https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/, and also, he should consult with Fauci on why he admitted that RT-PCR has flaw. https://humansarefree.com/2020/11/bombshell-fauci-states-covid-test-has-fatal-flaw.html

5. From above-mentioned material, we can at least say he is lying by saying that <scientific consensus on PCR testing is “absolute”>.

6. It is stipulated that he is the owner of the network of laboratories. If the 'laboratories' are those testing Covid, then he has GREAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST which inevitably makes his claims BIASED.

By Ivy Kim from Other on 16-12-2020 03:32

The linked Lancet article doesn't say *anywhere* that the false positive rate is 97% (which is a ridiculous claim anyway). But it says in the *second sentence* that it's indeed pretty accurate. Hear: " RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95%"

Here specificity means the ratio of *true* negatives. Which, together with the false positives gives a 100%. So if the specificity is 95% that means that the false positive rate is 5%. As opposed to the ridiculous 97%. (Which no sane person would believe even without this. It's enough just to look at the numbers to understand why that is utterly stupid.)

By atleta from Other on 12-12-2020 04:46

In Norway the hospitals are using "No ore than 40 Cycles" wich we found out after trying to get an answer for months.

By Geir Hovland from Other on 03-12-2020 12:19

Response to Phillip A who claims to have worked on PCR. Please can you specify exactly who you worked for and in which capacity because you are very vague about your medical and scientific credentials and experience in contrast to this global team https://www.rt.com/op-ed/508383-fatal-flaws-covid-test/ and to The Great Barrington Declaration scientists. Please also specify which peer reviewed paper the judges have failed to consider in coming to their outcome or are you suggesting people and judges should simply use your comment as a test of veracity. It must be understood you are someone who is posting and not positing evidence in a court of law which has been subject to examination and scrutiny which you seek to dispute with a commen. This is exactly the problem in which Coronavirus (covid19) material is presently disseminated by the media and Government and is often more likely to induce confusion and panic rather than information. The Coronavirus material must be subject to rigorous science and if infections cause no symptoms. why are we not treating this like every other disease previously? I am not concerned about having flu like symptoms which will result in no harm to me at all and unless you can prove that an asymptomatic person infects others with documented scientific peer reviewed studies, I believe this is disinformation. The impact of this mess is affecting and devastating the lives of ordinary people who do not need more contradictory information without full evidence when they are facing implications from an unreliable test or an illness that kills very few because the measures are not justified and breach human and constitutional rights as well as their economic livelhoods.

By Ms BC from Other on 02-12-2020 10:53

The "scientists" are lying. I've been reading statements left and right from actual scientists which confirm that pcr tests are unreliable and the results can be manipulated. Here in Croatia too they are confirming that, as well as explaining how. And we have some brilliant scientits here.

By Karmen from Other on 01-12-2020 10:19

CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) PCR Diagnostic Panel (July 13, 2020)
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Page 2:
“Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities”.
Page 38
• “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”.
• “This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens”.
Page 39
“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available…”

By Sasa from Other on 01-12-2020 04:48

I’m a scientist who worked with PCR data before. The quote in the subtitle is false. The judge misunderstood the study, as it’s about being infective, not having been infected.

The PCR test *is* able to determine that a positive result corresponds, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It isn’t able to say for sure if that person is infectious.

PCR tests have a result that answers “Could we detect genetic material in the sample? If yes, we how much? If no, we can’t be sure if there’s none or just very little”. If there’s a result, the person is or was infected. If the Ct value is *low* that means a lot of genetic material and a *high* chance of infectiveness. If the Ct value is *high*, it means little material and a *low* chance of infectiveness.

By Philipp A. from Other on 30-11-2020 10:28

WEll some scientists want to keep their research money, even the CDC has said the PRC do not diagnose any illness and they also state there is no evidence so called SAR2 causing a disease called covid 19, To have a disease one needs to have symptoms that can be diagnosed, that is the simplest of medicine

By Marilyn Shepherd from Other on 29-11-2020 02:33

Wow! Well done Judges! Finally the facts are comming to light! It is unlawful to detain anyone (unless a proven criminal) The Portuguese medical dictatorship has gone to far. Of course the scietntists and medical professionals who are working with pharmecutal companies and such will have a vested interest in keeping this plandemic alive, obviously they will fight back...but they will loose. " Those who scream the loudest"

By adam parker from Lisbon on 28-11-2020 12:00

More Snakes in this article than a bag of Vipers.

People are acting out of Pure Self Interest in times of fear and distrust.

Follow the Money.

By Stephen Walker from Other on 28-11-2020 11:55

So why are they still putting millions of people in Portugal and elsewhere into lockdown?
Because it’s a scam! This pandemic was created, along with the global warming Greta thurnberg scam, as part of the plan by globalists and bankers to bring down the western economy and financial system, the plan is total enslavement of human race by a bunch of globalist furthers in UN WEF WHO EUSSR under the pretext of a great reset.
There is No pandemic! The numbers of covid infections are falsely inflated, by use of a fraudulent testing kit, its fraud on a biblical scale!
The so called fourth industrial revolution as put out by klaus schwab of WEF, is really the fourth reich!

By Guy fawkes from Lisbon on 28-11-2020 10:14

Whenever someone says something is true/untrue you should always wonder "Is the statement made by that person in that person's interest or not?" In the case of the Públicio article: are they stating something "against" themselves or are they trying to avoid loss of face?

For people interested in the background to the PCR criticism, see for instance "Scientist Demands Retraction of Original PCR Study" (https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/11/26/#scientist-demands-retraction-of-original-pcr-study) for a quick introduction to the specific form of PCR test (and why it is such a bad test!). Another great resource is the document "PCR-based COVID testing has failed and is not a proper basis to lockdown the nation, let alone decide on tiers for restrictions - Briefing paper for MPs – 26 th November 2020" (https://lockdownsceptics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/MP-briefing-26-Nov-2020.pdf).

And finally, to get a feeling for what Públicio and other publications and their authors (plus the organization(s) they represent!) are doing and should stop doing as soon as possible see this great article from a BMJ editor: "Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science" (https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425). The BMJ is one of THE most prestigious scientific medical journals in the world. They have a lot more information on how currently "the science" used as excuse by politicians and journalists is really not doing anybody any favours at all!

By Willem Koppenhol from Other on 28-11-2020 08:19

I never used Germano Sousa for blood tests and such; but they were my dentist clinic (near ALAMEDA metro station)up to beginning of March 2020. They never called/wrote back to initiate dentist appointments as they said they would. Meanwhile, bc i need close monitoring i started going to IRO, so as not to deteriorate my situation any further, I wrote to them demanding they send all my dentist history there by e-mail either to me, or to my new dentist at IRO. They never did. Too busy making the big buck on covid-19 testing. And no one is going to hold them responsible for witholding my dentist history from then up to now. This is Portugal, ladies and gentleman. To Germano de Sousa clinic administrators, i have to quote s.o. else´s words "Avoid greed, for greed in itself is poverty."

By guida from Lisbon on 28-11-2020 08:09

It seems that the medical experts objecting to the Lisbon Court of Appeal Judgment are actually saying their information cannot withstand any evidential examination or testing by medical and science experts to be established for accuracy or truth. Incase, these experts had not noticed, testing evidence is a common practice in medical law and indeed, any area if the evidential truth of any matter is to be estabslished. To criticise the judges suggests that the medical experts do now want the covid-19 test to be scrutinised or examined even though such tests are and have and are presently being used to cause social economic and health harm with devastating consequences for individuals and society at large. To suggest the information is not examined, is not only unethical but against justice, human rights and the rule of law. The question is why would any medical expert want to criticise the examination of the validity of the information they are expecting the public to adhere to comply with. It must not be forgotten that covid19 infections are being equated with the possibility of other infections and quarantine, if the tests are remotely false let alone by 97%, such actions are not only reckless and irresponsible, the disproprortionate nature should also be examined as the measures against society are without complete justification. This matter should be examined publicly and urgently.

By Ms BC from Other on 27-11-2020 07:00
Interactive Topics, send us your comments/opinion on this article.

Please note that The Portugal News may use selected comments in the printed edition of the newspaper.