Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests As Unreliable & Unlawful To Quarantine People

drunkmonkey · 22-11-2020 1:24am #1

Interesting ruling in Portugal...

https://www.portugalresident.com/judges-in-portugal-highlight-more-than-debatable-reliability-of-covid-tests/

Of note..

“This means that if a person has a positive PCR test at a threshold of cycles of 35 or higher (as happens in most laboratories in the USA and Europe), the chances of a person being infected is less than 3%. The probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher”.

Did we ever get a definite figure on the amount of Cycles used here?

Miike · 22-11-2020 2:05am

Its lab/hospital dependant. We have a few medical scientists who post here but as I understand it if a result comes back +ve at >=35Ct the test is repeated - If it comes back positive it will be reported as either positive or indeterminate (new sample required for retesting) based on analyses and if it comes back negative it will be reported as such.

MadYaker · 22-11-2020 5:51am

Lol I should have known who the OP would be when I saw the title :pac: iTs a FaKe paNdeMiC gUyS

drunkmonkey · 22-11-2020 10:46am

MadYaker wrote: »

Lol I should have known who the OP would be when I saw the title :pac: iTs a FaKe paNdeMiC gUyS

It's fake news?

Thats me · 22-11-2020 10:55am

MadYaker wrote: »

Lol I should have known who the OP would be when I saw the title :pac: iTs a FaKe paNdeMiC gUyS

So what? Thanks to him for the interesting material.

EDit · 22-11-2020 11:35am

Thats me wrote: »

So what? Thanks to him for the interesting material.

Its more interesting if you can read the source material rather than a pretty ****e article in some online rag.

If interested, the paper to which they are referring is here: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603

drunkmonkey · 22-11-2020 11:51am

EDit wrote: »

Its more interesting if you can read the source material rather than a pretty ****e article in some online rag.

If interested, the paper to which they are referring is here: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603

I did and i'm well aware of it long before that court ruling.

No need for you to join the other crackpot by having a pop as well. People are more than capable of reading an article and checking the references.

EDit · 22-11-2020 1:35pm

oh **** off. My point was that neither you nor the supposed journalist linked to the source article. if its of any relevance, i think the research is pretty sound and leads to some important questions.

[Deleted User] · 22-11-2020 2:23pm

DaSilva · 22-11-2020 4:26pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

“This means that if a person has a positive PCR test at a threshold of cycles of 35 or higher (as happens in most laboratories in the USA and Europe), the chances of a person being infected is less than 3%. The probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher”.

Did we ever get a definite figure on the amount of Cycles used here?

No, never got a definitive figure but we have gotten definitive answers multiple times that I am certain you have read but choose to ignore.

I'll be the fool and get the answer for you again, though I know you will choose to ignore it

Martina1991 wrote: »

...
Different analysers run at various PCR cycles. Some might be 35, 40 or 45. It depends on the lab and the manufacturer, so Colm Henry could not give one answer to that question.

I work in a hospital lab. Our Microbiology department analyser CAN run up to 45 cycles but any patient sample that flags as positive over 35 cycles will be repeated at per the manufacturer's SOP. We have yet to have a positive patient greater than 31 cycles.

Just because an analyser can run up to 45 cycles does absolutely not mean that loads, or any, positive swabs are detected and reported at that level.

People have been misunderstanding and misrepresenting the whole testing process since the beginning. There are a lot of quality controls, extensive documentation that regulat Covid swab analysis.
...

drunkmonkey · 22-11-2020 5:07pm

DaSilva wrote: »

No, never got a definitive figure but we have gotten definitive answers multiple times.

Michael McNamara at the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Response asked Colm Henry to provide the figure iirc within 7days, I must look it up seen as you don't know.
Martina wasn't working in the covid PCR lab.

No need to be rude especially when you don't know the answer.

Miike · 22-11-2020 9:38pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Michael McNamara at the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Response asked Colm Henry to provide the figure iirc within 7days, I must look it up seen as you don't know.
Martina wasn't working in the covid PCR lab.

No need to be rude especially when you don't know the answer.

The days of one lab running PCRs are over. The bulk of community tests are run in Cherry Orchard and the NVRL but there are many other labs running them also.

I've also answered your question.

drunkmonkey · 22-11-2020 10:15pm

What's your thoughts on the courts ruling?

Richard Hillman · 22-11-2020 10:51pm

So can we go on holidays to Portugal without any quarantine?

drunkmonkey · 22-11-2020 11:03pm

No the government ignore the science the ruling was based on, there also in a state of emergency with loads of restrictions.

[Deleted User] · 22-11-2020 11:03pm

None of the conspiracy nonsense posters who peddle the false positive narrative ever address where all the positive results went in June when we we were still testing thousands of people per day. Why is this? Because they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and get all those talking points from the bizarre reaches of the internet. Often also seen telling us how Trump is about to overturn the election also

drunkmonkey · 22-11-2020 11:21pm

How is it a conspiracy theory? It's a court ruling based on published science.

DaSilva · 22-11-2020 11:29pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What's your thoughts on the courts ruling?

I'm not a lawyer, but I can see their angle alright. If I understood correctly they are basically saying that there is sufficient legal doubt in the results of PCR test that it cannot be used as the basis for forcing someone to isolate.

I'd say there are many legal complications with a lot of the restrictions, I'd bet that is why many of the restrictions are actually just government advice.

What is your narrative with this though? Are you suggesting the judges are casting doubt on the usefulness of PCR tests for identifying infections? Because from my reading that has not occurred, the judges are talking about whether its sufficient evidence for restricting a persons rights.

[Deleted User] · 22-11-2020 11:31pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How is it a conspiracy theory? It's a court ruling based on published science.

CT threshold is not a target. It’s a value above which the suppliers of test assays recommended retest. The vast majority of tests never get near these thresholds. And the ones that do are not false positives, they are instances where there may be insufficient virus present to indicate an active infection, but it’s still there, possibly from an earlier infection. Having only read links to this that have been filtered through the prism of the Covid sceptic world, I cannot comment on the judgement itself as don’t read Portuguese, however if in fact they have judged the PCR test as unreliable they have fundamentally misunderstood the paper on which their judgment was made, which clearly identified the control samples containing no SARS-CoV 2 genetic material as being negatives in all cases, no matter how many cycles were ran. You have had this explained multiple times and will continue to ignore

drunkmonkey · 22-11-2020 11:40pm

No i'm not suggesting they aren't useful in detecting infections. Whether it's necessary to detect asymptomatic cases at all is a different question.

When you start restricting people based on nothing only a positive result when the results can't stand up in a court of law the problem arises.
Your correct most of all our current restrictions are only advice but there presented to us as if it's the law, most people don't realize it's just an ask and there free to move and socialize.
I believe it's an abuse of power by Government via NPHET.

drunkmonkey · 22-11-2020 11:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

CT threshold is not a target. It’s a value above which the suppliers of test assays recommended retest. The vast majority of tests never get near these thresholds. And the ones that do are not false positives, they are instances where there may be insufficient virus present to indicate an active infection, but it’s still there, possibly from an earlier infection. Having only read links to this that have been filtered through the prism of the Covid sceptic world, I cannot comment on the judgement itself as don’t read Portuguese, however if in fact they have judged the PCR test as unreliable they have fundamentally misunderstood the paper on which their judgment was made, which clearly identified the control samples containing no SARS-CoV 2 genetic material as being negatives in all cases, no matter how many cycles were ran. You have had this explained multiple times and will continue to ignore

I'm not ignoring anything, I expect the court to have have done their dd before making a ruling.
Great you think they misunderstood it, that as far as I can see is just your assumption though.

Miike · 23-11-2020 12:17am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What's your thoughts on the courts ruling?

I really don't have the time this evening to read the ruling but I will get back to you on it when I do have the time. The article doesn't make sense to me, for many reasons, so I'll reserve comment until I'm fully informed.

DaSilva · 23-11-2020 12:55am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No i'm not suggesting they aren't useful in detecting infections. Whether it's necessary to detect asymptomatic cases at all is a different question.

When you start restricting people based on nothing only a positive result when the results can't stand up in a court of law the problem arises.
Your correct most of all our current restrictions are only advice but there presented to us as if it's the law, most people don't realize it's just an ask and there free to move and socialize.
I believe it's an abuse of power by Government via NPHET.

So I've been reading a bit of this, though as it is law its hard to be sure I am 100% understanding anything since I'm not qualified, but I think there is more nuance here than the news article led me to believe initially.

I think if a doctor had given them the positive diagnosis from reviewing the results of the test they would have had 0 legal argument and would have had to continue their quarantine. The argument seems to be a purely technical legal argument that without expert involvement, due to the fact that the test is not 100% accurate that it cannot be used alone to restrict these people's rights. It does seem like part of this result was due to the absence of a doctor's involvement.

Qualquer diagnóstico ou qualquer acto de vigilância sanitária (como é o caso da determinação de existência de infecção viral e de alto risco de exposição, que se mostram abrangidas nestes conceitos) feitos sem observação médica prévia aos pacientes e sem intervenção de médico inscrito na OM (que procedesse à avaliação dos seus sinais e sintomas, bem como dos exames que entendesse adequados à sua condição), viola o Regulamento n.º 698/2019

Maybe something like why in some jurisdictions the results of a breathalyzer isn't sufficient evidence to incarcerate someone and why the court case requires more evidence like a blood test interpreted by an expert or testimony of the police to poor driving or something.

Miike · 23-11-2020 1:19am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Whether it's necessary to detect asymptomatic cases at all is a different question.

I've only seen this now because it was quoted. Do you care to expand on that a little bit? I know your rhetoric on this forum quite well, but this is even a bit off tune for you.

CalamariFritti · 23-11-2020 1:57am

Miike wrote: »

I've only seen this now because it was quoted. Do you care to expand on that a little bit? I know your rhetoric on this forum quite well, but this is even a bit off tune for you.

I guess what he means is that an asymptomatic is not a case.
It is for no other disease. You are a case if you are sick.

I would concur with this.

I understand some will say that knowing cases (infected) not just the sick is of value. I would say it may be of value if you were able to use the cases numbers to deduct something useful from it. Like confirming true spread through representative mass testing. Or getting an idea about upcoming hospitalisations.

But in order to do get such valued information testing would have to be consistent.
Out testing has had no consistency whatsoever. First we were testing only the sick. Then the sick and people who presented themselves with multiple symptoms. Then also one symptom and if you were a close contact. Then more and more testing. I dont even know what current policies are.

The point is the only thing we know about our case numbers is that they wont tell us anything because of this.

Now I might be off key here myself but as far as I know there is no confirmation that asymptomatic can actually spread. So whats the point seems a genuine question?

Miike · 23-11-2020 2:11am

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I guess what he means is that an asymptomatic is not a case.
It is for no other disease. You are a case if you are sick.

I would concur with this.

I understand some will say that knowing cases (infected) not just the sick is of value. I would say it may be of value if you were able to use the cases numbers to deduct something useful from it. Like confirming true spread through representative mass testing. Or getting an idea about upcoming hospitalisations.

But in order to do get such valued information testing would have to be consistent.
Out testing has had no consistency whatsoever. First we were testing only the sick. Then the sick and people who presented themselves with multiple symptoms. Then also one symptom and if you were a close contact. Then more and more testing. I dont even know what current policies are.

The point is the only thing we know about our case numbers is that they wont tell us anything because of this.

Now I might be off key here myself but as far as I know there is no confirmation that asymptomatic can actually spread. So whats the point seems a genuine question?

Asymptomatic is a case, and it is vital to detect asymptomatic cases to establish the prevalence of the disease in the country and to guide IPC measures (and restrictions) when the incidence is high. COVID is a strange one because of the nature of asymptomatic disease, there is a lot we don't know about the viral dynamics of SARS-COV-2. What we do know is it's a well established fact that asymptomatic transmission is possible and proven. I don't know where this has been called into question - every leading health authority on the planet has established this.

As for "not telling us anything about our case numbers" the HPSC provides very detailed information about our cases. I'm not sure what more information the general public could want in terms of epidemiological breakdown of the disease?

There's a a lot to unpack in your message when it comes to testing criteria and case definitions but this is dynamic due to the nature of capacity to test. This is the same the world over bar a few outliers who have capacity to mass test as routine (either through large lab capacity or relatively low population).

CalamariFritti · 23-11-2020 2:52am

Miike wrote: »

Asymptomatic is a case, and it is vital to detect asymptomatic cases to establish the prevalence of the disease in the country and to guide IPC measures (and restrictions) when the incidence is high. COVID is a strange one because of the nature of asymptomatic disease, there is a lot we don't know about the viral dynamics of SARS-COV-2. What we do know is it's a well established fact that asymptomatic transmission is possible and proven. I don't know where this has been called into question - every leading health authority on the planet has established this.

They have and they haven't. They think an asymptomatic may be able to spread but they think its much less likely. Nothing certain really in terms of how relevant they are to the spread.

Miike wrote: »

As for "not telling us anything about our case numbers" the HPSC provides very detailed information about our cases. I'm not sure what more information the general public could want in terms of epidemiological breakdown of the disease?

There's a a lot to unpack in your message when it comes to testing criteria and case definitions but this is dynamic due to the nature of capacity to test. This is the same the world over bar a few outliers who have capacity to mass test as routine (either through large lab capacity or relatively low population).

My point with the ever changing test criteria is that it means at no point in time can we compare and relate a number to another point in time.

100 cases in March is not the same as 100 cases in April or in May or in June or now. When we had say 1000 cases in April and 60 people died that day we took that as a baseline. But when we had 1000 cases a day again in October we didnt have 60 people dying. People were wondering had the virus changed. Which it hadn't, its simply down to 10 times more testing (or more).

And because of that case numbers tell us nothing really.

drunkmonkey · 23-11-2020 9:21am

I posted this the day it was released. There is no evidence of asymptomatic spread in the study of the 10 million Chinese tested.
"There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

Luke O'Neill can reference nature but when I referenced it the thread was moved to the conspiracy thread forum.
I really don't agree with the reclassification of it as a conspiracy.

mikekerry · 23-11-2020 12:03pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I posted this the day it was released. There is no evidence of asymptomatic spread in the study of the 10 million Chinese tested.
"There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

Luke O'Neill can reference nature but when I referenced it the thread was moved to the conspiracy thread forum.
I really don't agree with the reclassification of it as a conspiracy.

Probably moved because any issue that doesn't agree with the official covid narrative will be classified as a conspiracy theory.

CalamariFritti · 23-11-2020 12:28pm

mikekerry wrote: »

Probably moved because any issue that doesn't agree with the official covid narrative will be classified as a conspiracy theory.

I wouldnt say 'any issue' but that particular one seems a bit weird to classify as CT.

drunkmonkey · 23-11-2020 12:34pm

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I wouldnt say 'any issue' but that particular one seems a bit weird to classify as CT.

The pro maskers/lockdowners lost the rag when they read it, could only be considered false in their minds.

Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests As Unreliable & Unlawful To Quarantine People

Comments