Vienna Administrative Court: Corona Policy Without Basis, PCR Test Inappropriate

ER Editor: The short article below is a little tough to read in parts. From it we get the following take-aways:

  • the PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness
  • antigen tests are also deemed not credible
  • certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness

This puts us in mind of a similar ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court back in November 2020: Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests As Unreliable & Unlawful To Quarantine People.

As the article says below, if we lived in a democracy, such court rulings should actually make a difference.


Vienna Administrative Court: Corona policy without basis, PCR test inappropriate


On March 24, the Vienna Administrative Court ruled on a complaint filed by the FPÖ against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court tore apart the Corona policy of the Turkish-Green federal government (ER: we believe this choice of adjective ‘Turkish-Green’ to be a dig at the pro-Turkish (Islamic?), pro-Green policies of the German federal government). Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that Anschober’s disease definitions (ER: minister of health, Rudolf Anschober) were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable.

A ruling that all of Austria, and perhaps the entire world, has been waiting for for over a year.

At last a court has looked at the shaky foundations on which the Corona policy, which claims a dangerous worldwide pandemic, rests. Only recently, renowned professor John Ioannidis found that the mortality from SARS-CoV-19 infection is only 0.15 percent – exactly the same as that from the annual flu. During the alleged pandemic, about as many people appear to have contracted covid-19 as would otherwise have contracted the flu – while there are supposedly no or hardly any flu cases worldwide. This is giving more and more people pause for thought.

Definition of disease completely wrong

The Vienna Administrative Court took a close look at the basis for the Austrian federal government’s hysterical policy and found that minister Anschober’s definition of illness alone is completely wrong and baseless.

If one goes by 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 fulfills the clinical criteria, or

3) any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfills 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 the WHO (…).

Reason for judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2, Administrative Court Vienna, March 24, 2021

If we lived in a democracy, this judgment would be capable of changing everything. All measures would have to be revoked immediately, the entire federal government would have to resign and would have to be legally prosecuted for the senseless destruction of countless livelihoods.

An equally memorable quote, which shows to what degree politics but also the bought media have deceived the public in the past year:

In it, the Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. (…) For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections/illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”.

Reasons for judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2, Vienna Administrative Court, March 24, 2021

As a basis for the medical part of the reasons for judgment, the court drew on the following:

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05, Nucleic acid testinq (NAT) technoloqies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2, 20 January 2021.

2020 study (Bullard, J., Dust, K., Funk, D., Strong, J. E., Alexander, D., Garnett, L., & Poliquin, G. (2020). Predicting infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from diagnostic samples. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 7j(10), 2663-2666.)

Dr. Cary Mullis (inventor of the PCR test): “… that a PCR test is not diagnostic and, therefore, by itself does not reveal anything about a person’s disease or infection.”

The court states that a physician alone is entitled to determine whether a person is sick or healthy (2 para. 2 Z 1 and 2 Ärztegesetz1998, BGBI. I. No. 169/1998 as amended by BGBI. I No. 31/2021).

The extreme error-proneness of antigen tests is also mentioned, and it is criticized that the Corona Commission would rely exclusively on such antigen tests for current analyses. This small piece of information alone is a political bombshell.

If the Corona Commission should have used the case definition of the Minister of Health and not that of the WHO; any determination of the numbers of “sick/infected numbers for “sick/infected” is wrong.

Reasons for judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2, Vienna Administrative Court, March 24, 2021.

The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.




The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.