Statement
Non validity of “PCR test” and consequencesfor Mika Vauhkala by Dr Astrid Stückelberger PD PhD

Short CV summary: Dr Astrid Stuckelberger is an internationally recognized scientist and expert in nationaland global public health issues. She holds a PhD in population health, a Privat-Docent of medicine, a Master
degree in cross-cultural mental health diagnosis and received professor honorariat and UN awards for her
achievements. During 30 years at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva and Lausanne, she
directed several international and European research projects, training and communication for the public.
She was called as a consultant in different programmes for WHO and UN agencies on topics such as
epidemics, emergency management, population health, health at work, mental health, ageing, social
determinants and research ethics. In that context, she was for example under contract for 3 years to design
with WHO experts the International Health Regulation implementation training for member states which
deals with emergency management, risk assessment, procedures to assess/monitor a pandemic, humanrights, etc. Along with her teaching, she created the Geneva international summer school on Global Healthand Human Rights involving many experts on the topic. At the European level, she is regularly invited as an
EU expert in multidisciplinary teams to assess the scientific validity and ethics/regulation adequacy to fundprojects or programmes in the area of health, medicine and innovation. Author of a dozen books and morethan 200 scientific articles, policy papers, governmental, European Commission or UN reports.
CV and recommendation letters from WHO/UN are available on my website: www.astridstuckelberger.com

1. The PCR Test (Polymerase Chain Reaction)
PCR tests are not valid to detect and characterize a virus
The PCR test is a technique used for research in laboratory: genetics and microbiology laboratories carry out
PCR testing every day to diagnose genetic conditions, cancer risk and cancer mutations relevant to treatment
and infectious diseases. It is usually a reliable technique for laboratory research that allows detection of
specific known nucleic acid sequences. The test itself is readily adapted to testing something new only when
one knows what to look for. As medical handbooks describe it, the coronavirus is not new, it is listed as “acommon flue”; however, it mutates rapidly in different strains, which makes it impossible to detect with any
standard world public standardized tests around the world1.
The PCR technique can identify genetic material from a virus but not the whole virus: although it is good atcorrectly identifying genetic material from a virus, it does not detect the whole virus. Therefore, PCR tests
cannot diagnose any viral infection and is not a good test for infectivity2.
COVID patients are infectious for 7-8 days3, but the person infected can test positive with PCR even when they
are no longer sick or infectious. People who have had COVID can test positive with PCR results for 80 days84 or
1 Stuckelberger A, Urbina M. WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) vs COVID-19 Uncertainty. Acta Bio Med [Internet]. May11 2020 ;91(2):113-7.

Link to article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32420935/ .
Dr Clare Craig BM BCh FRCPath, Diagnostic Pathologist with the collaboration of Dr Tanya (Tetyana) Klymenko PhD, FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer,
Sheffield Hallam University. Report on COVID testing, FDDLP, Quebec May 2021. https://fddlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Rapport-CraigKlymenko-Vcopy.pdf
3 7. Cheng, H.-Y. et al. Contact Tracing Assessment of COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics in Taiwan and Risk at Different Exposure Periods
Before and After Symptom Onset. JAMA Intern. Med. 180, 1156–1163 (2020).
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2765641
4 Cevik, M. et al. SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding, and infectiousness: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Lancet Microbe 2, e13–e22 (2021). https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S26665247%2820%2930172-5
21more, even when they are no longer sick, infected or contagious. This is because after the infection, when no
viable virus capable of infecting others is being produced, there will remain debris of the viral genetic sequencethat cells will continue to reproduce. Patients who are immune and never have symptoms can test positive.
PCR testing also has a propensity to false positive results creating pseudo-epidemics in the absence of realdisease. PCR tests have to be transported to a laboratory for processing and results take 24-48 hours.

PCR tests cannot be used for any diagnose or virus detection
As a fundamental precept, let us underline that Dr. Kary B. Mullis who received the Nobel Prize in chemistryin 1993 for inventing the PCR technique, witnessed in many videos that he never developed this technique todetect viruses and serve as a disease diagnostics.
Before his death in 2019, he declared publicly in several occasions that the PCR technique is an invention forin vitro research in the laboratory. He emphasized it is not intended nor reliable as a test for the public or
as a medical diagnostic tool for physicians because it is inaccurate to detect any virus 5.

About the antigen testing
Results of antigen testing take only 30 minutes, the procedure is not invasive, it is simple, rapid and it is cheap.
Why has it been introduced? because it is supposed to detect actively infective patients through identifying
viral particles and is less likely to produce false positive cases than the PCR test. However, antigen tests havebeen criticized for missing a lot of cases6 especially when tested beyond infectious phase and with a highly
mutant common flu like coronaviruses which weaken rapidly and diversifies to other weaker strain.

2. About the Procedure to use a “PCR Test” (WHO/CDC/Scientific studies)Threshold Cycle (CT) Value of the PCR should always be noted
The procedure has not been respected.
Although it was obvious early in 2020 in several sections of WHO guidelines for laboratories and clinics,
and in CDC report mentioned below, that the quality control of PCR technique must be very carefully
taken into account and that the CT must be low and mentioned in all tests reports – these was neverapplied!
“The WHO guidance document on Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2” emphasizes that weak positive results
should be interpreted with caution7. The threshold cycle (CT) value required to supposedly detect the virus isinversely proportional to the patient's viral load. If the test results do not match the clinical picture, a new
sample should be collected and the test repeated using the same or a different nucleic acid amplification
method. This was not applied either.
On 7 December 2020, WHO produced a 5th version updated “INFORMATION NOTICE FOR IVD USERS”8 witha new cautious approach ”on false positive COVID cases”: “after receiving user feedback on elevated risk for
false SARS-CoV-2 results when testing specimens using RT-PCR.[…] Therefore, and healthcare providers areencouraged to take into consideration testing results along with clinical signs and symptoms, confirmed statusof any contacts, etc”. The WHO information notice includes a summary of advice points for users as follow:

5 Interview of Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize of Chemistry, Inventor of the PCR test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXm9kAhNj-4
6

Dr Clare Craig BM BCh FRCPath, Diagnostic Pathologist with the collaboration of Dr Tanya (Tetyana) Klymenko PhD, FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer,
Sheffield Hallam University. Report on COVID testing, FDDLP, Quebec, May 2021. https://fddlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Rapport-CraigKlymenko-Vcopy.pdf
7WHO (2020) Diagnostic testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Geneva, World Health Organization, September 2020.
https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/334254/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-2020.6-eng.pdf?sequence=1
8 WHO Information notice for IVD Users 2020/5 (5th version). 7 December 2020.WHO Geneva Switzerland,.5 Link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210117140629/https:/nmra.gov.lk/images/PDF/Alerts/WHO-Info-Notice_COVID-NAT_EN.pdf

2

WHO Advice to users of In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD PCR):
1. Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
2. Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
3. Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
4. Consider any positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) or negative results (SARS-CoV-2 not detected) in
combination with specimen type, clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.
5. Include the CT value in the report to the requesting healthcare provider.
WHO clearly admits the risk of false positive in its 5th version (2nd update of 13 January 2022) of the”
information notice on in vitro diagnosis medical device users of PCR tests that the CT cycle is important toavoid false positives and that ”most PCR assays are indicated as “an aid to diagnosis” and therefore
providers should review the results also taking into account the date of collection, type of specimen, specificcharacteristics of the test, clinical findings, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, andepidemiologic information9”.
This change of PCR criteria by WHO should no longer justify further PCR testing nor any measures related
to it such as numerical ID passports, restrictions on mobility, meetings or quarantines.

Quality control and limitations (CDC10)
The CDC guidelines on RT-PCR in vitro instructions use of July 2020 (pp. 37-39 in pdf file)11 specify theprocedural and quality control requirements necessary for a valid result ("Quality Control"), as well as thecountless inaccuracies and limitations of this test ("Limitations"), in particular when the threshold cycle (CT),also called “amplification cycle”, are too high and beyond 25 CT for lab research. The higher the amplification
cycles (CTs), the less valid is the result of the test: above 37 cycles (CT), the false positive rate is too high to
be considered.
In Finland:
According to THL, PCR technique has been used at 40 CTs/amplification cycles, and at reference laboratories
even at 45 cycles12. This CT information was never noted in the report or medical status of the person.

Numerous studies show that PCR tests are not reliable to diagnose a health/disease medical status
Many studies have taken place since the beginning of the pandemic and have questioned the validity of using
the PCR laboratory technique and its procedures for diagnosing and taking public health policy measures.
Some of the important finding will be mentioned here. Early on, in May 2020, Bullard et al13 questioned the
diagnosis and contagiosity: the study included SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed positive and determined theirability to infect Vero cell line. The results showed that patients could not be contagious with CT >24 as thevirus is not detected in culture above this value.
A French benchmark study on the validity or not of a positive PCR test was conducted with one of the mostimportant University Hospital Center (IHU) in the Mediterranean dealing with epidemic, variants and new
9 WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05 (version 2) 13 January 2021

. https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
10
CDC is the US Center or Disease Control and Prevention, commonly known as "the CDC". The CDC is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an
integral part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and is the primary U.S. federal authority for protecting human health and safety in
the United States and abroad. CDC provides credible information to improve public health decision making and enhance health through effective
partnerships.
11 CDC, Center of Disease Control (2020). CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel for Emergency Use Only
Instructions for Use. CDC:Atlanta USA. (https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
12 Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare THL on Twitter 2.12.2020 https://twitter.com/thlorg/status/1334020021169766400
https://thl.fi/documents/533963/5860112/Testauswebinaari_final_15.5.2020.pdf/ff78ae45-b4d8-e3a5-9861-7cc991b4fe65?t=1589553036389
13 Jared Bullard, Kerry Dust, Duane Funk, James E Strong, David Alexander, Lauren Garnett, Carl Boodman, Alexander Bello, Adam Hedley, Zachary
Schiffman, Kaylie Doan, Nathalie Bastien, Yan Li, Paul G Van Caeseele, Guillaume Poliquin, Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeCoronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 71, Issue 10, 15 November 2020, Pages 2663–
2666, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa638

3strains of diseases entering the port of Marseille, led by Prof. Didier Raoult. Since the beginning of thepandemic, up to May 2021, the IHU performed 250’566 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR for 179’151 patients, of whom
13’161 (7.3%) tested positive. The study included a sample of 3790 positive PCR results and correlated themwith 1941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates. The study was published by Jaafar et al. in June 2021 in the Clinical Infectious
Diseases and concludes that those result confirms studies in Korea14 and in Taiwan15 and demonstrates theinvalidity of PCR as a diagnostic of infectious disease with CTs above 35 (= 97% false positive):“It can be observed that at CT = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture
and that at CT = 30 this value drops to 20% of patients remain positive in culture
At CT = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR < 3% of cultures are positive” 16
To conclude, evidence proves this test is not a diagnosis and can in no way state with precision whether apositive test proves the presence of a bacterium, of a virus or of something else, such as antibody "debris"from an old infection. CDC in its guidelines on RT PCR use in the “Limitations” sections mentions:”Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virusor that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”?

PCR tests cannot be used to make a diagnose or as pandemic management tool (WHO/CDC)
The consequences of transferring the PCR technique laboratory test to serve as a (falsely) reliable medical
diagnostic test in the health system and in public, are incalculable, since the results of this new “public health
PCR test” (with CTs > 35 and +97% false positive cases) are the basis for almost all political decisions on
emergency measures or measures to restrict freedom and violate basic human rights. The procedure of the
PCR equipment (the so-called "test") cannot be standardized; it is a specific technique for in vitro laboratory
research. Furthermore, it requires a continuous and meticulous calibration of the machine to an agent that is
known beforehand. This "test" is not reliable for any “in vivo” health assessment in the population nor can it
be used as a monitoring tool for surveillance and monitoring of an epidemic/pandemic, as the CDC points out
in January 2020 (p. 39)17.
Furthermore, this test has never before been used on a global public scale and validated by the WHO. The
recommendations following a "PCR Medical Product Alert" communicated by the WHO in December 202018
and January 202119 emphasize that laboratory procedures must be respected and that the CTs (Cycle
Thresholds) must be communicated openly to avoid unreliable results due to too high CTs.
In Finland:
According to The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), laboratories doing covid-testing in Finland
never report the CT values of positive PCR test results20. However THL mentions 45 amplification cycles (>45CT) were used in reference laboratories, which results is over 99% of false positive. Thus, not only the
PCR positive cases cannot be scientifically valid for any public health decisions. On the opposite, it
demonstrates that 99% of measures take on the PCR basis are unlawful and unjustified such as
discriminating the population who can live and eat in restaurants as they always have.

14

Chang MC, Hur J, Park D. Interpreting the COVID-19 test results: a guide for physiatrists. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2020. doi:10.1097/
PHM.0000000000001471. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32427600/
15 Chen CJ, Hsieh LL, Lin SK, et al. Optimization of the CDC protocol of molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 for timely diagnosis. Diagnostics 2020; 10:333.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32455796/
16 Rita Jaafar, Sarah Aherfi, Nathalie Wurtz, Clio Grimaldier, Thuan Van Hoang, Philippe Colson, Didier Raoult, Bernard La Scola, Correlation Between 3790
Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus
2 Isolates, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 72, Issue 11, 1 June 2021, Page e921, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491
17 CDC (2020). CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only Instructions for Use. CDEC:Atlanta
USA. (https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
18 WHO (7 December 2020). Information notice for IVD on PCR Alert https://nmra.gov.lk/images/PDF/Alerts/WHO-Info-Notice_COVID-NAT_EN.pdf.
19 19 WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05 (version 2) 13 January 2021

. https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
20 Decision THL/6459/3.10.00/2020, given 8.12.2020

4

About the harmful consequences of PCR use on policies and individual health and finances
It is also harmful, with dramatic consequences, to have a population believe that healthy, symptom-freepeople are sick, infected or contagious based only on a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, when the reliabilityof the PCR test is so weak, as previously noted in this report. In 2020, Surkova21 and her research team analyzed
the potential consequences and costs of using a PCR test results with a significant false positive rate, such as
those used for SARS-CoV-2: “misleading diagnostic performance, potentially leading to mistaken purchasing
or investment decisions”. The article also points out the potential consequences of false-positive COVID-19
swab test results with not only wrong medical decisions and patient pathways in the hospital withpsychological damages instilling fear, stigmatization and isolation, but also financial losses at the individual andglobal as well as national perspective (table 1):

Potential consequences of false-positive COVID-19 swab test results
Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy and Francis Drobniewski21

Individual perspective
Health-related- For swab tests taken for screening purposes before elective procedures or surgeries: unnecessary treatment
cancellation or postponement- For swab tests taken for screening purposes during urgent hospital admissions: potential exposure to infection
following a wrong pathway in hospital settings as an in-patient

Financial- Financial losses related to self-isolation, income losses, and cancelled travel, among other factors

Psychological- Psychological damage due to misdiagnosis or fear of infecting others, isolation, or stigmatisation

Global perspective
Financial
Misspent funding (often originating from taxpayers) and human resources for test and trace
Unnecessary testing
Funding replacements in the workplace
Various business losses

Epidemiological and diagnostic performance- Overestimating COVID-19 incidence and the extent of asymptomatic infection- Misleading diagnostic performance, potentially leading to mistaken purchasing or investment decisions if a new
test shows high performance by identification of negative reference samples as positive (ie, is it a false positiveor does the test show higher sensitivity than the other comparator tests used to establish the negativity of thetest sample?)

Societal- Misdirection of policies regarding lockdowns and school closures- Increased depression and domestic violence(eg, due to lockdown, isolation, and loss of earnings after a positive test).

21

Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy and Francis Drobniewski (December 2020). False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems andcosts, Lancet, Vol. 8 (12), pp- 1167-1168. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33007240/

5

3. The PCR test has been judged invalid by CDC and other European Tribunal22
Early on in March 2020, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had to withdraw PCR testing
kits when they were shown to have a high rate of false-positives due to reagent contamination23.
Several government bodies have invalidated the PCR test and the coercive measures
A – Specific to PCR testing creating coercive measures

Portugal Appeal Court – November 2020 (Court case 1783/20.7T8PDL.L1-3)24
Court decision: on November 11, 2020, Portugal's Court of Appeals rejected the Azores' decision toplace four tourists in forced quarantine after one of them tested positive25 for PCR. The Portuguese
appeals court had ruled that PCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people
based solely on a PCR test.
Rationale: The court considered the reliability of the test "more than debatable" (title "mais do que discutivel")and determined that the test was not capable of determining infection beyond a reasonable doubt. Citing hestudy by Jaafar et al. 202026, the Portuguese court stated that as the PCR test reliability depends on thenumber of threshold cycles (CTs) used and the viral load present, they concluded:“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (asis 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%.”
Same for Finland who used 40 to 45 CTs for PCR tests

Austria Court – March 20212728 (Court case: VGW 103/048/3227/2021-2)29
Court decision: The Vienna Administrative Court granted a complaint by the FPÖ (Freedom Party ofAustria) against the prohibition of its meeting registered for January 31, 2021 in Vienna. The Austrian
Court ruled PCR Tests not suitable for COVID-19 diagnosis and that lock downs have no legal basis.
The information from the City of Vienna Health Service on which the prohibition by the Vienna State
Police Department was based, “did not contain any valid and evidence-based statements or findingson the epidemic”
Rationale: The court stated on the basis of scientific studies that the grounds for the prohibition put
forward by the Vienna State Police Department are completely unfounded. The court agrees with thestatements in the complaint “on all points” and even goes far beyond the arguments put forward by
the FPÖ itself. It is expressly pointed out that even according to the WHO, “a PCR test is not suitable
22 The cases reported have been covered by several media. When available, the court judgement document will be mentioned.

23

Willman D. Contamination at CDC lab delayed rollout of coronavirus tests. April 18,
2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/contamination-at-cdc-lab-delayed-rollout-of-coronavirustests/2020/04/18/fd7d3824-7139-11ea-aa80-c2470c6b2034_story.html
24 Appeal Court document (11 November 2020) https://www-dgsipt.translate.goog/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=pt&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US
25 Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, Proc. Nº 1783/20.7T8PDL.L1. 11 November 020.

http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30?OpenDocument
26
Rita Jaafar et al. (2021). Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures,
Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 72 , Issue 11, 1 June 2021,
Page e921, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491
27 Austrian court overturns judgment: PCR test not suitable for diagnosis (31 March 2021) by www.info-direct.eu – found on
https://covidcalltohumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Info-Direkt_Austrian-court-overturns-judgment-PCR-test-not-suitable-fordiagnosis.pdf
28
Austrian Court Rules PCR Test Not Suitable For COVID-19 Diagnosis And That Lockdowns Has No Legal Basis(April 8, 2021). https://greatgameindia.com/austria-court-pcr-test/
29
Administrative Court of Vienna Judgement of 24 March 2021 - https://worldfreedomalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/20210324AT-T-EN-Verwaltungsgericht_Wien_VGW_103_048_3227_2021_2.pdf

6

for diagnosis and therefore does not in itself say anything about the disease or infection of a person”
and you need to have a medical validation. However, the Minister of Health uses a completely
different and a much broader case definition for COVID19, which cannot be used to justify any
prohibition.
The Austrian Corona Commission should have used the WHO case definition and should not have usedthe case definition of the Minister of Health, consequently the numbers of “sick”/”infected” is inflatedwith false positives, thus wrong with misleading policy and medical decisions.

B – Specific to coercive measures related to PCR massive false positive testing inducing false pandemic

German Appeal Court -January 202130
Court decision:
A German district court in the city of Weimar has declared that strict lockdown imposed by thegovernment of the central state of Thuringia last spring are unconstitutional, as it acquitted a person
accused of violating it. The case involved a man accused of violating strict German lockdown rules bycelebrating a birthday with seven friends.
The judge not only acquit the defendant but also stated that the authorities themselves breached
Germany’s basic law: the regional government itself violated the “inviolably guaranteed humandignity” secured by Article 1 of the German basic law in the first place by imposing such restrictions,a decision that was up to lawmakers to make and not regional government.
Rationale:
Thuringia’s spring lockdown was a “catastrophically wrong political decision with dramaticconsequences for almost all areas of people’s lives,” the court said, justifying its decision. It represented
the most comprehensive and far-reaching restrictions on fundamental rights in the history of the Federal
Republic while calling the disproportionate measures an attack on the foundations of our society.
According to the court, the government lacked sufficient legal grounds to impose the restrictions since
there was no “epidemic situation of national importance” at that time and the health system was at norisk of collapsing as the Robert Koch Institute reported that the Covid-19 reproduction number had fallen
below 1.

Dutch Appeal Court – February 202131 (court case: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:100)32
Court decision: The Hague Court has ruled that the COVID-19 lockdown which was imposed by the
Dutch Government had no legal basis and that it was illegal. The curfew is a severe violation of several
aspects of Human Rights, in particular the right to freedom of movement and privacy and (indirectly)
limits, among other things, the right to freedom ofmovement and privacy and (indirectly) restricts,
among others, the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration.
The Dutch government imposed curfew under the provision of the Extraordinary Powers of Civil
Authority Act, an emergency Act giving the state the right to bypass the legislative process to impose acurfew, based on the pandemic situation defined as “very urgent and exceptional circumstance”. “ThePreliminary Relief Judge ruled that the introduction of the curfew did not involve the special urgency
required to be able to make use of the [act],” the Hague continued, noting that the government had
had time to discuss such a curfew beforehand, before ruling that “the use of this law to impose curfew
is not legitimate.”
30 German District Court declares Corona Ordinance Unconstitutional, in UK Human Rights blog (25 January 2021)

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2021/01/25/german-district-court-declares-corona-ordinance-unconstitutional/
31 State must lift Curfew, District Court of The Hague (16 February 2021) https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Rechtbanken/Rechtbank-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/Staat-moet-avondklok-laten-vervallen.aspx
32 Court case on Curfew (16 February 2021) Court of the Hague – link https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:1100

7

Rationale:
After the curfew was imposed by the Dutch government under the provision of the Extraordinary Powersof Civil Authority Act, citizens were required to stay at home between the hours of 9 PM to 4:30 AM.
Citizens could step out during this time only in case of emergencies, essential work, medical assistanceneed, walk a pet or a valid excuse. Any infringement would result in a fine. As a consequence of thiscurfew, people faced riots causing large materialistic damage, loot, police clashes and large numbers ofarrests. A group known as the Virus Truth Foundation filed a lawsuit in the Hague court arguing that thiscurfew was an infringement on human rights and the Dutch constitution.

Finland’s Head of Health Security, Mika Salminensays WHO’s Instruction on testing is incomprehensible33
Helsingin Sanomat (HS) – 19 March 2020

Mika Salminen, a senior Finnish health official of the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) dismissed
a World Health Organization (WHO) advisory to test as many people as possible for Coronavirus, arguing thatsuch a measure would be completely illogical when combating a pandemic.
Mr Salminen commented at the WHO’s notion that stopping the spread of COVID-19 requires testing on amass-scale in his own words, as follow:”Let me say it straight: it [broad testing like in South Korea] is not applicable in the Nordic countries.”"To be honest, we don't understand the WHO's instructions for testing. We can't fully remove the disease
from the world anymore," he said, adding: "If someone claims that, they don't understand pandemics."”The test is not a cure”, Salminen said.
Citing limited supplies, Finland has narrowed COVID-19 testing to high-risk individuals and medical workers.
Salminen told local media that screening for the virus should be done where it will be "effective," not simply"where there is concern" about a respiratory disease.
"Those who may be sick at home don’t (gain any) benefit from testing," he said.
The Finnish health official noted that administering the test massively would drain valuable medical resources
and personnel from those who need it most.

33 Helsingin Sanomat (HS) 19.3.2020. ”Suomi lisää koronaviruksen testauskapasiteettia, mutta ei ota testeihin lieväoireisia: ”Emme totta puhuen

ymmärrä WHO:n linjausta”, sanoo THL:n Mika Salminen”. https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000006446009.html

8

Conclusion
In conclusion, the PCR test is not valid, nor for detecting an infectious agent such as a virus, nor for
diagnosing an ongoing illness and its contagiosity.
Furthermore, many other aspects of PCR testing were not adequate nor justified:-

the procedures of PCR testing laboratory technique in Finland were deceptive. It used a much toohigh amplification cycle ( CT >40 or >45) resulting in more than 97% false positive results, asevidenced by above studies. Court cases of Portugal and Austria rules PCR test not suitable,
unreliable and unlawful, thus not justifying any measures such as quarantine or prohibition of
meeting or entering public places.

-

the procedure was not suitable at the technical as well as at the human respect and dignity level,
the way the PCR test was applied with a the nasopharyngeal swab to collect samples is extremely
invasive, touching sensitive areas and harming the person or infant in a very delicate area close to
the brain nerve, when saliva is far superior for detecting biological sample34. Saliva isrecommended as a a simple, low-cost, non-invasive option

The PCR test was no reason to act on the healthy public and to enforce unnecessary and unreliable testwith high amplification cycles. Moreso, it induces 97% of false positives in Finland.
The imposed false positive testing created a false positive pandemic and falsely justified the prohibitionof movement, meeting and travelling, which several courts in Europe and in the world have evidences
by ruling PCR not acceptable for policy decision making.
Therefore, using a PCR test as a basis to impose policy measures and discriminating people regarding
their permission or not to travel, to assemble or even to entry public places - such as a restaurant - isunjustified and a violation of human rights. The whole idea of a “pandemic” is questioned
The EU Regulation establishing the EU digital COVID certificate was adopted on 14 June 202135 and has
been in force since 1 July 2021, although scientific findings have proven that the test PCR creates 97%
of false positive and Courts in Europe have judged the PCR unreliable for any decisions or imposed publichealth measures since 2020.
Given the Coronavirus COVID-19 (SARS-CoV2) mutates and disappears within a few months, it isscientifically not possible to maintain the declaration of a COVID-19 “pandemic” beyond 2020 nor any
public health measures, nor to impose its diagnostic with a misleading test overtime (Stuckelberger,
202036, 202137; IHU, 202138).
Geneva Switzerland, the 29th of September 2023

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger, PD, PhD
16 Rue Butini - 1202 Genève - Suisse
Mobile + 41 76 616 1441 - astrid.stuckelberger@gmail.com

34 Beyene, G.T., Alemu, F., Kebede, E.S. et al. Saliva is superior over nasopharyngeal swab for detecting SARS-CoV2 in COVID-19 patients. Sci Rep 11, 22640(2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02097-2
35 EU 2021/953 (14 June 2021. Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework forthe issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID
Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (Text with EEA relevance)
in English: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0953,
in Finnish:: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FI/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0953
36 Stuckelberger A, Urbina M. WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) vs COVID-19 Uncertainty. Acta Bio Med [Internet]. May11 2020 ;91(2):113-7.
Link to article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32420935/ .
37 Stuckelberger Astrid (May 2021). Rapport d’Expertise de santé publique – SRAS-Cov2/COVID-19. FDDLP. Québec. Canada. https://fddlp.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/02/Rapport-AStuckelberger-VCopy.pdf
38 IHU (2020-2021) Plusieurs cours relayer par la chaîne IHU, débriefing du Professeur Didier Raoult sur chaîne d’information IHU sur YouTube ex : IHU
Marseille: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA5NqAbqPlk .

9