It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: angelchemuel
So here we have it. The court in Lisbon in Portugal have ruled only 157 people died as a direct result of Covid19 and not the 17,000 touted by the Government. Last year the same court also ruled the PCR tests were unreliable.
Curious how the MSM are silent over this.
Link to report here....
Link to report and court ruling
Here is a you know where video dissecting the court ruling....
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: angelchemuel
I find that hard to believe.
These same people also claim that the court ruled that PCR is unreliable. It isn't.
This site also claims that the court ruled that PCR becomes more unreliable as you increase the amplification cycles above 35.
What happens if you increase amplification cycles above 35, is that the results are less and less likely to change, and so it is a waste of time and effort.
Most countries have technical advisories on PCR panels, that amplification cycles above 35 fall outside the exponential increase in accuracy seen at lower cycles. The effectiveness of amplification cycle number follows an exponential curve that flattens off and dwindles markedly for higher cycle numbers. Accuracy does not fall off, but increases very little above the larger exponential changes at lower cycle depth.
This is the opposite of the accuracy of the test becoming worse at higher amplifications. Accuracy doesn't change much the higher you go, so it is a waste of everyone's time to do too many cycles.
Clearly, if there ever actually was such a court ruling (which I doubt), then it shows that the court are not familiar with the technical issues and had the wrong idea entirely.
So, my guess is that it is all BS.
However, Internet users forget to note important information. In this sentence, it is clearly specified that the court only takes into account the certificates issued by these famous “doctors who work for the Ministry of Justice”. However, they represent only a fraction of the people authorized to produce these certificates. With theObserver, a site certified by the IFCN as part of the international fact-checking network, the health authorities have clarified the role of these experts.[quote]
originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: chr0naut
You are completely backwards on your assessment of cycles.
It gets more and more accurate as you raise the cycles.
Too accurate...picking up any coronavirus you may have had.
a reply to: angelchemuel
The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present. Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concludes that
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”
originally posted by: IAMTAT
Unfortunately, I hear that the PCR test inventor died right before the Plandemic was released.
He would, no doubt, have objected to a 40 CT being used with his test to classify China Virus deaths.
Seems this 97% False Positive would also help explain the incredible vanishing Flu season.
PCR Test is Flimsy, Say Inventor and Courts
Kary Mullis, the late inventor of the diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, explained how his test could be misused. So did a Portuguese court which ruled a positive test is an insufficient basis to isolate or quarantine anybody. Fortunately, this is not the TV news.
Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. He died August 7, 2019, months before it would be used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Regardless, his weighty words remain.
“The PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody,” Mullis once said in a public address. “If you can amplify one single molecule up to something you can really measure, which is something you can do.…So that could be thought of as a misuse of it.”
“These guys like Fauci get up and start talking and he doesn’t know anything really about anything and I would say that to his face. Nothing,”
“Those guys have got an agenda which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They have a personal kind of agenda.
They make up their own rules as they go; they change them when they want to. And they (are smug)—like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.
“You can’t expect the sheep to really respect the best and the brightest. They don’t know the difference,
PCR TEST INVENTOR KARY MULLIS EXPOSES DR. FAUCI AND HIS CRIMINAL CABAL