By Peter Bianco

On November 11, 2020, a Portuguese appeal court ruled it was unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test.

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%.” The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.

This case concerned the fact that four people had been quarantined by the Regional Health Authority.  Of these, one had tested positive for COVID using a PCR test; the other three were deemed to have undergone a high risk of exposure. Consequently, the Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard, which required that they go into isolation.

The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows: “Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.”

In the US,  the FDA’s instructions for PCR testing recommends a threshold of 40 cycles for a specimen to be considered positive. See page 35 of the instructions.

At 25 cycles the original material has been multiplied 33,554,432 times.

At 30 cycles the original material has been multiplied 1,073,741,824 times.

At 40 cycles the original material has been multiplied 1,099,511,627,776 times.

As you can see there is quite a difference in magnification at various cycle thresholds.

It is also important to remember PCR was invented as a way to create copies of genetic material. Its was never intended to be a diagnostic tool.



Lockwood Law


  1. Good for you, portuguese court!! You are among an apparently very small number of intelligent courts!! I hope there are MANY more like you. And you are right…the PCR tests are worse than WORTHLESS for showing infection! Imagine quarantining people for a test that has 97% FALSE positives for a disease that killed few under the age of 65…less than the yearly flu does…and almost NO ONE under that age without other significant medical problems!! This whole thing is NOT ABOUT A VIRUS…but about control, about destroying the rights of citizens and their financial safety…along with destroying the economies of the West.

  2. Sure it is j t. All around the world governments are deliberately reducing their chances of being re-elected (in democracies at least) by making their people frustrated and poorer 😂. Or they are just doing what they can to save lives 🤷‍♂️. All over the place with their strategy, but they are clearly trying to minimise deaths.

    • They are clearly not reducing their chances of being re-elected, in fact Biden ran on a policy of face masks and lockdowns and won. It’s clear to the establishment the US(S)A has communist leanings (which is not in their best interests) as evidenced by the popularity of Bernie Sanders and the support of Donald “massive government” Trump by so-called conservatives.

      And then you throw in fear mongering based upon PCR tests which a Portuguese court has deemed unreliable (see article above) and viola, the masses will clamor to be led to safety.

  3. 🤦‍♂️😂. So their plan is to make people poorer and frustrated when there’s no need to because they think it will win them popularity? Strange that so many countries came to the same conclusion all at the same time 🤔.

    • In the article you link it says the judges read the studies “wrong” and “irresponsibly.” One of the experts interviewed said “PCR tests have a specificity and sensitivity greater than 95%,” but did not substantiate his claim.

      The other expert said the judges read is “completely wrong.” This guy seem to think the judges said a person who tests positive is not infectious 97% of the time regardless of the cycle thresh hold. That is not what the judge said as you can see above.

      Finally the second expert stated the person who was ordered to quarentine tested positive after six days in Portugal. They had a negative test 72 hours before entering the country. Therefore, it was “in full swing” when he was ordered to quarentine. Sorry but that is not proof of infection. There are many reports of peoples test results alternating with tests performed in succession.

      Let me know if you think I have misunderstood the other article.

  4. My dear friends, the Portuguese conclusion about the PCR test has nothing to do with the on-going rulings & advice that SOPs must still be followed i.e. wearing mask, social distancing, etc. Let’s not mix the two ya!

    • Hi JLBH, what I take away from this the courts decision is that this is another good example of how inaccurate PCR test numbers. States are closing down businesses again based on an increase of cases, which are based on these faulty tests.

      Peoples lives and businesses are being destroyed by these measures which many see as erring on the side of caution. But the downside of depression, anxiety, suicide, failure to thrive, and inability for people to provide for their families is not given much thought.

      Also, I think the evidence is strong that masks do not prevent the spread of infection. Here is one article about it.

        • Cassandra-
          Unfortunately, the rate of deaths and hospitalizations are based on these faulty tests. CDC changed fatality-reporting guidelines, exclusively for COVID-19.
          Also CDC required all patients that need hospitalization for any reason be tested at time of entry regardless of symptoms. A patient testing positive is categorized as a new COVID-19 case and hospitalization. Patients testing positive are required to be PCR tested every 24 hours until they have 2 consecutive negative PCR tests at least 24 hours apart. There are no data collection guidelines within the CSTE Position Paper adopted by the CDC on April 14, 2020 to prevent the same patient being counted multiple times.

  5. This is a culling process for all governments or shall I call them criminal psychopaths who are blatantly committing genocide right in front of our faces.

    This 1% empire who want to murder all thier citizens from 7 billion to half billion is truly disturbing. These psychopaths are war criminals and are defiantly not interested in public health at all. They are using politics and laws to violate us humans as they continue to do. Karma will come around as history has taught us all empires have fallen in history whether good or bad. This is the biggest crime in history by our governments. Thier is a hidden agenda as why do they want to test and vaccinate 7 billion.. oh they care about us.. if they care about us that’s why in the UK we have homeless people living on the streets.. I’d they care about us why on the other side of the world in poor countries people cannot even get clean drinking water.
    These psychopaths do not care about us and are using Law, politics and reverse psychology to make the sheeps believe in thier governments and many sheeps do unfortunately.

    Good luck to all


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here