CLOSER LOOK AT THE PCR TESTING METHOD.
AUSTRIAN COURT OVERTURNS RULING: PCR TEST NOT SUITABLE FOR DIAGNOSTICS
“In the name of the Republic” issued on March 24 under the case number VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 a sensational judgment that gives a resounding slap in the face to the panic policy of the Kurz government. The court states in several places that a PCR test is not suitable for determining infectivity. This probably factually correct verdict indirectly rejects the entire Corona policy in Austria, which is based on this very test.
The Vienna Administrative Court has upheld an appeal by the FPÖ against the prohibition of its meeting registered for January 31 in Vienna. “The prohibition was unjustified,” it says on behalf of the Republic. In the reasons for the ruling, the court states, based on scientific studies, that the justification for the prohibition put forward by the Vienna Regional Police Directorate is completely baseless. The court agrees with the statements in the complaint “in all points” and even goes far beyond the arguments put forward by the FPÖ itself. In particular, the criteria and definitions used to determine the number of Corona sufferers are massively questioned.
“PCR test not suitable for diagnostics”.
It is explicitly pointed out that even according to the World Health Organization (WHO) “a PCR test is not suitable for diagnostics and therefore does not in itself say anything about the disease or an infection of a person”. However, he said, the Minister of Health uses a very different, much broader case definition for Covid 19 disease, which cannot be used to justify prohibiting a meeting, because:
Should the Corona Commission have used the case definition of the Minister of Health, and not that of the WHO; then any determination of the numbers for “sick/infected” is wrong.
The court concludes that in the “information” of the Health Service of the City of Vienna, on which the prohibition by the Vienna Provincial Police Directorate was based, “there are no valid and evidence-based statements and findings on the epidemic situation.”
The court literally:
Assuming the definitions of the Minister of Health, “Case Definition Covid-19” of 23.12.2020, a “confirmed case” is 1) any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid (PCR test, note), regardless of clinical manifestation or 2) any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who meets the clinical criteria or 3) any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who meets the epidemiological criteria. Thus, none of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the WHO term “ill/infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by WHO (…).