May 30, 2024

The following is a new guideline released by the Swedish Public Health Agency (SPHA) on the criteria which will be used to determine “freedom from infection in COVID-19”.

According to the guideline first released on July 21, 2020, and updated last November 30, 2020, “The PCR technology used in tests to detect viruses cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized by the immune system and therefore these tests cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not. RNA from viruses can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after the illness but that does not mean that you are still contagious.” [The same statement has been given by a government chief microbiologist in a recent hearing, see Manitoba Government Chief Microbiologist: 56% of positive “cases” are not infectious, but products of misleading RT-PCR tests].

The SPHA recommends that the criteria for assessing freedom from infection should be based on the patient’s clinical improvement. The patient must not have fever for at least two days, and seven days must have passed since the first onset of symptoms. Those who have moderate symptoms can only be considered recovered after 14 days of illness. Meanwhile, for the very sick, those who have severe symptoms, will depend on the treating doctor’s assessment.

This guidance was reassessed last April 19, 2021, and no update was needed. The assessment was conducted by the SPHA in coordination with experts in infectious disease medicine, clinical microbiology, hygiene, and infection control.

The article attached below is in Swedish but may be translated through DeepL Translate.

Editor’s Note: This guideline from the SPHA is significant for a number of reasons. First, it reaffirms that the RT-PCR cannot be used for diagnosis as it cannot tell whether a person is infectious or not. This is significant as most countries have not made the same distinction. Second, the increase in RT-PCR-positive results must not be used to intensify coronavirus policies, particularly when the test is not being used properly.

We must realize that aside from the caution in utilizing RT-PCR tests in declaring whether a person has recovered from COVID, the SPHA has also implemented strict guidelines in assessing who should get the RT-PCR as a way of minimizing false-positive results [There are at least two ways for false positives appear. First, through the indiscriminate use of RT-PCR testing, see Why COVID-19 is guaranteed to never end. Second, through the use of high cycle thresholds, see New York Times: More experts questioning RT-PCR testing. Most experts agree that the test is overly sensitive, and in the way it is being used today by most countries, it is scientifically meaningless, see RT-PCR tests are scientifically meaningless].

According to the SPHA, only those people who meet the following criteria should undergo testing[1]

  1. Those who have developed COVID-19 symptoms should get tested. The SPHA recommends testing no later than five days after the first onset of symptoms.
  2. Those who previously had RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 in the past 6 months no longer need to get re-tested. If necessary, the SPHA recommends an antigen or antibody test. If a person has symptoms of COVID, the SPHA recommends patients to stay at home.
  3. Those who have recovered from COVID (based on the guidelines in the article attached below) no longer need to get re-tested to see if they have recovered. They say, “It is the number of days that have passed since you fell ill and how long you have been free of symptoms that determine when you stop being infectious”.
  4. Those who have received COVID vaccines and developed the symptoms and common side effects after vaccination should not get tested if the symptoms disappear within 24 hours. Patients must stay at home as long as they have symptoms.

From this list of guidelines alone, we can already see how some countries have abused RT-PCR testing. For example, in the Philippines, entry to specific areas requires negative RT-PCR tests, even for individuals with no symptoms. We also know that patients who initially received a positive RT-PCR had to receive a negative test result before they can be declared recovered. Even when they are already symptomless, as long as their test results come back positive, they are still considered open cases and are forced to quarantine.

We also know that vaccine recipients were still given the RT-PCR test in the early days of the vaccination rollout even when they had no symptoms. As a result, many were found to be RT-PCR positive.[2]Read two cases at and … Continue reading. We must remember that the March-April “surge” in “COVID cases” was preceded by the start of the vaccination rollout. And because our Department of Health does not gather this data, we cannot know how many of those who contributed to the “surge” were in fact vaccinated. We do know, however, that such “surges” in countries that start vaccination almost always appear [see New COVID surge in 4 out of 5 vaccinated countries in the world, Countries report increased cases after using Sinovac vaccine, Untangling the web of lies surrounding India’s latest COVID surge].

In the Philippines, a positive RT-PCR has become synonymous with COVID cases, regardless of the presence (or the lack of) symptom. Our president has recently threatened the reimposition of stricter lockdowns if the cases increase [see Duterte to vaccine-hesitant Filipinos: Don’t leave your house if you won’t take the vaccine]. If the Philippines based its public health decisions on the SPHA instead of the World Health Organization (WHO) or the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we will know immediately that this is an uneducated statement.

Two percent (2%) of the Philippines’ “cases” are asymptomatic and 93.6% are mild (data as of May 21, 2021). Our recovery rate is pretty high at 93.6%, with 4.7% of all “current cases” considered active because again, they are waiting negative RT-PCR test for patients to be considered “recovered”. The over-inflated death rate remains low at 1.69%.

If our country implemented the SPHA criteria for recovery, as well as the guidelines for testing, and a lower cycle threshold, we are sure that the government will see that the crisis has ended, and that vaccines and covid restrictions are no longer necessary. Instead, our misguided leaders continue to place their jurisdictions under lockdowns – a public health policy that has long been debunked by science [see our article category Is a lockdown necessary? to learn more].

Read Online

Click the button below if you wish to read the article on the website where it was originally published.

Read Offline

Click the button below if you wish to read the article offline.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *