Lisbon court rules 157 died of C19 not 17,000

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....


Rainbows
Jane
PS Aargh! Link to YT not working! Here's full link.... www.youtube.com...

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....

Rainbows
Jane

Can't watch in Japan

Japan has 134 million people, death count for 1.5 years as of yesterday is 14,740 actual cases registered by the National Police with other govt. agencies.

a reply to: angelchemuel

It's not being picked up by the MSMas it's not true, your source is lying.

news.in-24.com...

Lisbon court is racist.

Pretty sure.

Isn’t that how 2021 works?

Lisbon court is racist.

Pretty sure.

Isn’t that how 2021 works?

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.

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.

Your guess would be correct.

From link above

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]

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.
article
article

a reply to: angelchemuel

The court did not rule that. It ruled that the Ministry of Justice issued 152 death certificates. Problem is, that's not the group that would normally be doing it. The Ministry of Health would include normal doctors who issue almost all death certificates .. including Covid ones.

Do some research then ask yourself why you believed the lie.

I don;t trust fact checking websites but worth reading this which disputes the entire thing:

Link

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.
article
article

Surely a false positive, or a false negative is not test accuracy.

As you raise the number of cycles the test becomes more accurate, ie, has fewer false positives or false negatives, but after a certain point it is a waste of time because the extra cycles will not show anything different than has already been obtained at a lower cycle depth.

Check out the graph of amplification plot window (figure 18) on page 34 of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel Instructions for Use (.pdf) to see actual plots of amplification cycles vs accuracy of results.

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%.”

greatgameindia.com...
academic.oup.com...

a reply to: angelchemuel

So...@ a cycle threshold of 35...we get 97% resulting in FALSE Positive.

It should ALSO be noted that in the US...a PCR Cycle Threshold of 40 (not 35) is being used...making for an even HIGHER amount of FALSE Positives in people who have died.

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.

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.

97% are not false positives.

www.thejournal.ie...

Re: PCR Test Inventor:

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.”

According to the (late) PCR inventor...Fauci is a fraud and has his own agenda:

“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,”

...AND...

“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,

fcpp.org...
(emphasis mine)

VIDEO:

PCR TEST INVENTOR KARY MULLIS EXPOSES DR. FAUCI AND HIS CRIMINAL CABAL

www.bitchute.com...

Mullis challenged Fauci to debate him...and Fauci kept refusing the invite.
Crazy this guy died right before the Plandemic was released.

Most World Governments have been influenced by somebody to lie !!!

I wonder WHO ? 😃

a reply to: musicismagic
So were the 17000 in Portugal originally reported by Dr's etc. But now look what's happened once they reviewed it. Similar thing happened in Ireland a while back.

Rainbows
Jane