Follow @HuytonFreeman
Huyton Freeman - Lawful Rebel
Thursday 19 November 2020
Portuguese Appeals Court Deems PCR tests unreliable
A Portuguese Appeals Court recently deemed PCR tests unreliable and declared the quarantine of people unlawful.
On November 11th 2020 a Portuguese appeal court ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority concerning a lower court decision to declare unlawful the quarantining of four persons.
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.
The Azores Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard, which required that they go into isolation. The lower court had ruled against the Health Authority, and the appeal court upheld that ruling with arguments that explicitly endorse the scientific case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests The court’s main points are as follows: A medical diagnosis is a medical act that only a physician is legally qualified to undertake and for which such physician will be solely and entirely responsible. No other person or institution, including government agencies or the courts, has such an authority. It is not up to the Azores Regional Health Authority to declare someone ill, or a health hazard.
Only a physician can do that. No one can be declared ill or a health hazard by decree or law, nor as the automatic, administrative consequence of the outcome of a laboratory test, no matter which.
From the above, the court concludes that “if carried out with no prior medical observation of the patient, with no participation of a physician certified by the Ordem dos Médicos who would have assessed symptoms and requested the tests/exams deemed necessary, any act of diagnosis, or any act of public health vigilance (such as determining whether a viral infection or a high risk of exposure exist, which the aforementioned concepts subsume) will violate [a number of laws and regulations] and may configure a crime of usurpação de funções [unlawful practice of a profession] in the case said acts are carried out or dictated by someone devoid of the capacity to do so.”
In addition, the court rules that the Azores Health Authority violated article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, as it failed to provide evidence that the informed consent mandated by said Declaration had been given by the PCR-tested persons who had complained against the forced quarantine measures imposed on them. From the facts presented to the court, it concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test.
The court concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test.
“Based on the currently available scientific evidence this test [the RT-PCR test] is in and of itself unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that positivity in fact corresponds to infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for several reasons, among which two are paramount (to which one would need to add the issue of the gold standard, which, due to that issue’s specificity, will not be considered here): the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used; the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.”
Citing Jaafar et al. (2020; https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491) the court concludes that
The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.
Citing Surkova et al. (2020; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext), the court further states that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed prior to the undertaking of the test itself, and expresses the opinion that
“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.”
Follow @HuytonFreeman
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.
The Azores Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard, which required that they go into isolation. The lower court had ruled against the Health Authority, and the appeal court upheld that ruling with arguments that explicitly endorse the scientific case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests The court’s main points are as follows: A medical diagnosis is a medical act that only a physician is legally qualified to undertake and for which such physician will be solely and entirely responsible. No other person or institution, including government agencies or the courts, has such an authority. It is not up to the Azores Regional Health Authority to declare someone ill, or a health hazard.
Only a physician can do that. No one can be declared ill or a health hazard by decree or law, nor as the automatic, administrative consequence of the outcome of a laboratory test, no matter which.
From the above, the court concludes that “if carried out with no prior medical observation of the patient, with no participation of a physician certified by the Ordem dos Médicos who would have assessed symptoms and requested the tests/exams deemed necessary, any act of diagnosis, or any act of public health vigilance (such as determining whether a viral infection or a high risk of exposure exist, which the aforementioned concepts subsume) will violate [a number of laws and regulations] and may configure a crime of usurpação de funções [unlawful practice of a profession] in the case said acts are carried out or dictated by someone devoid of the capacity to do so.”
In addition, the court rules that the Azores Health Authority violated article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, as it failed to provide evidence that the informed consent mandated by said Declaration had been given by the PCR-tested persons who had complained against the forced quarantine measures imposed on them. From the facts presented to the court, it concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test.
The court concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test.
“Based on the currently available scientific evidence this test [the RT-PCR test] is in and of itself unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that positivity in fact corresponds to infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for several reasons, among which two are paramount (to which one would need to add the issue of the gold standard, which, due to that issue’s specificity, will not be considered here): the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used; the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.”
Citing Jaafar et al. (2020; https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491) 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 <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.
Citing Surkova et al. (2020; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext), the court further states that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed prior to the undertaking of the test itself, and expresses the opinion that
“in the current epidemiological landscape of the United Kingdom, the likelihood is increasing that Covid 19 tests are returning false positives, with major implications for individuals, the health system and society”.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.”
Follow @HuytonFreeman
Tuesday 17 November 2020
PROTEST is NOT 'Anti Social Behaviour' and is NOT illegal nor unlawful.
The Police state that, "the order has been brought in following a gathering last weekend which was in contravention of the Coronavirus legislation. This order has been authorised in order to protect lives, prevent the spread of Coronavirus and keep people safe."
This is both illegal and unlawful. Contravening Coronavirus legislation is not Anti-Social behaviour.
"Anti-Social behaviour" is defined in the Anti Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014 as "conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person"
Protesting peacefully, or using a megaphone, chanting or playing music and singing is also NOT Anti-Social behaviour.
Justice Holland, a judge in the High Court in 2007 stated that: “Protest is lawful; the use of a megaphone as an adjunct of lawful protest is itself lawful. The starting point is unfettered freedom to engage in so much amplified protest as is neither intimidating or harassing.” HLS Group Plc v SHAC 2007 WL 919475 [2007] EWHC 522 (QB) QBD.
Section 34 (3) of the Anti-Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014 clearly states, "In deciding whether to give such an authorisation an officer must have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention."
A number of people were fined, warned and arrested on Sat 14th November for simply being in the area and filming what was happening. This is not Anti-Social behaviour.
If anything, the behaviour of Police Officers, was clearly Anti-Social behaviour and the gatherings of hundreds of Police Officers was certainly hypocritical considering their comments about members of the public gathering to engage in lawful protest.
Follow @HuytonFreeman
Tuesday 10 November 2020
Indoor gyms, fitness studios, indoor sports facilities and other indoor leisure centres for supervised activities for children ARE LEGALLY EXEMPT! from having to close
However, I notice that Police have been citing "Section 16(1) of the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 which states that "A person responsible for carrying on a restricted business, or providing a restricted service, must cease to carry on that business or provide that service."
The trouble is, that Section 16(3) of the regulations states this, "The requirement in paragraph 16(1)—
(a)does not apply to any facilities provided in criminal justice accommodation, and
(b)is subject to the exceptions in regulation 17(6) and (8).
So, we look at the exceptions in regulation 17(6):
17(6) Regulation 16(1) does not prevent the use of—
(f) indoor gyms, fitness studios, indoor sports facilities and other indoor leisure centres for supervised activities for children
Check it out for yourself. LINK
Follow @HuytonFreeman
Saturday 7 November 2020
Police harass us for walking along the street.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 state that, being outside of the home for recreation is a reasonable excuse.
Today I was out of my home for work and recreation. Taking photographs and video for my YouTube channel, Facebook page and blog, on a recreational visit to the Albert Dock in Liverpool.
On arriving in the City, I came across a march/protest.
Liverpool Freedom march - 7th November 2020
This is what happened next.
Follow @HuytonFreeman
Today I was out of my home for work and recreation. Taking photographs and video for my YouTube channel, Facebook page and blog, on a recreational visit to the Albert Dock in Liverpool.
On arriving in the City, I came across a march/protest.
Liverpool Freedom march - 7th November 2020
This is what happened next.
Follow @HuytonFreeman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)