This is my first post.  I have enjoyed reading other ideas and the agreements and disagreements pertaining to them.  I am interested in learning the views of the members in this group about implantable RFID chips in humans.  I found this article yesterday which has mostly political overtones, unfortunately and though I don’t care for the politics within, I realize that this is a technology that will be pushed upon every human in the future by the politicians.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070908/ap_on_re_us/chipping_america_ii

I would like to learn your views to this Radio frequency implantable transponder that can be read through your home computer.

Any response is appreciated.  I am in no way affiliated with the people or companies involved in the article.  I am a humanist and believe that this is a disgrace to society in general.  Though the world we live in and the people within are not perfect I do not believe the answer is in chipping humans.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this technology.

I must say I very much doubt that this sort of invasive technology (basically involving minor surgery) would ever be forced on anyone in the US ... I have no idea about the claims of it causing cancer—that strikes me as prima facie unlikely—however I can’t believe it would fly with the public anyhow. Nobody wants to be tracked at all times, nobody wants to be injected with a foreign object unless necessary to preserve health, etc.

I don’t see anything in the article about how often the RFIDs were activated.

My understanding is that an RFID reader sends out a certain frequency causing the RFID implant to respond.  Now marketing types are talking about putting these things on clothing and other consumer items and retailers putting scanners in doorways.  So if this happened anyone with one implanted in their body might have it activated 20 times a day or more. 

So I don’t know if those cancer tests involved activation or not and how often if they did.

psik

We’ve been using these devices for many years in companion animals. They work as psikeyhacker described, and they are implanted using a large needle, so a bit ouchy but no surgery required. Obviously, I have no idea if the human versions would be bigger and might need surgical placement. As for safety, no evidence of cancer has been found. There is some concern in cats, since anything injected into them causes an inflammatory reaction that can rarely lead to a type of cancer. So far, this seems to be a species-specific problem. Otherwise, rare infections or inflammatory reactions occur, but these are few and not serious. I honestly think the political issues are far more important than the technical/medical ones. As for those, Doug’s right that anything mandatory hasn’t a chance in hell of passing in the U.S., and I doubt many people would volunteer for them. And I think they raise serious privacy concerns.

I saw an article in Science News Letter a few days ago about a finding that rate of animal cancers were somewhat increased.  I wasn’t too interested so I only skimmed the piece.  I’ll go back and see if I can find it and give a specific reference.

Occam

mckenzievmd - 10 September 2007 01:02 PM

We’ve been using these devices for many years in companion animals.

Aren’t they mostly implanted to find lost animals and probably activated less than once a month if not a lot less often than that?

As for animal cancers, they likely are increasing in frequency. The implication many people take from this is that they are somehow being poisoned by the environment, commercial pet food, space radiation, vaccines, whatever. Occassional this may be true (there is a rare but nasty vaccine-associate fibrosarcoma in cats). But I think there are better explanations. Here’s my reasoning:

1) better detection (I send out for MRIs regularly, which didn’t happen even 10 years ago)
2) older animals: most of the cancer (except lymphoma and mast cell tumors) occurs in geriatric animals. As the average life-expectancy has increased, so has the number of oncology cases
3) they’re not dying of something else first. Vets a generation older than me saw a lot more young animals dying of infectious disease and trauma than I do, and treated a lot fewer old animals with cancer.

Psikeyhackr,
They are implanted for identification for a variety of purposes (proof of identity for travel or breeding and recovery if lost are the majority). And yes, they are seldom scanned, probably much less than once a month for most animals.

This report linking cancer to such devices for animals was in the NYTimes today. Click HERE. (May require login).

There is also discussion of it on a NYTimes reporter (Barnaby Feder) blog HERE. He calls the reports of the link to cancer “flimsy science but brilliant advocacy work”. That sounds like a reasonable conclusion to me. We don’t have much information about any of this, but at present I don’t see any potential cancer-causing mechanism here.

The blog ends, “[I]sn’t VeriChip’s biggest problem exactly what it was before the cancer grenade was tossed? There doesn’t seem to be much demand for it whether or not it poses a health risk.” I would agree with that as well. I don’t see it ever being a credible option for humans, except in VERY isolated circumstances, and always as a matter of choice.

I’ve been looking into the data behind this “expose” and into the data from veterinary medicine. Of all the tens of thousands of chips put in dogs, there have been two puclished reports of fibrosarcomas at the site, though a direct causal link was not established. The oncologists I’ve read point out that, 1) any source of inflammation can lead to such cancers at a very low rate, 2) mice are far more prone to such cancers than dogs, cats, or people, 3) one of the leading cause of cancer is free radical damage, which we could eliminate by not breathing oxygen. The upshot is that there is probably a very small risk, equivalent to that of getting a vaccine, an antibiotic injection, accidentally stabbing oneself with a kitchen knife, and that the decision to get a chip should be analyzed in terms of relative risks and benefits. For my patients, the risk of getting lost and being euthanized is certainly greater than the risk of fibrosarcoma from a microchip for most of them. I’m not as familiar with the issues regarding human use. I certainly wouldn’t get one for convenience sake, but there may be benefits I’m not aware of.

mckenzievmd - 11 September 2007 04:53 PM

which we could eliminate by not breathing oxygen.

That does tend to eliminate a lot of things. 

The good thing I have been able to realize, within this CFI is that it appears in general human implants of this nature is not well received.

That is a positive to me, however,

One must have insight in order to believe the unbelieveable is possible…. 

Therefore, should a “Vaccine” become a requirment we should make each and every individual aware of this technology which has been hidden for so long.

That is for the Humanist

As for the response to my original question, and I thank you for your response of;

dougsmith - 11 September 2007 08:14 AM

This report linking cancer to such devices for animals was in the NYTimes today. Click HERE. (May require login).

There is also discussion of it on a NYTimes reporter (Barnaby Feder) blog HERE. He calls the reports of the link to cancer “flimsy science but brilliant advocacy work”. That sounds like a reasonable conclusion to me. We don’t have much information about any of this, but at present I don’t see any potential cancer-causing mechanism here.

I do very well see a potential to human risk, as this device heats the tissue surrounding it and with any cancer an over use of an organ in general is where the cancer is derived or is produced it is so very simple to see, that over heating can cause a potential problem to tissue, as our bodies regulate heat and any un natural object is normally rejected, these chips are encapsulated by a dow chemical sheathing which connects to human tissue to prohibit the chip from moving within the human body.

Here is something I learned of today which depicts rf as a cell killer for cancer, well the problem is that it does not separate the bad cells from the good, yet there is proof of “Killing cells” .    This is a you tube video ....  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkzCSNTYWXg

The blog ends, “[I]sn’t VeriChip’s biggest problem exactly what it was before the cancer grenade was tossed? There doesn’t seem to be much demand for it whether or not it poses a health risk.” I would agree with that as well. I don’t see it ever being a credible option for humans, except in VERY isolated circumstances, and always as a matter of choice.

Thank you so much for your humanistic belief in that this is not a “Creidble option for humans”. 

Does anyone know if this is an option or if someone can be implanted wihtout their own approval?  Can someone inject a chip without your approval?

I have not been able to find information regarding this.  I do fear that in the future people will be implanted as the trillion dollar industry will control, as with any big industry, check the price of oil or drugs, this will be bigger, I am sure.  I know that I am out on a limb, however, a good dsp system can monitor and each and every computer in the world can communicate with a verichip, through the RS-232 board and a simple program can broadcast the information. 

Therefor, every home computer can be a porthole to a home/business/human mind.  That is the scary part.  If your computer can communicate with an implanted chip, then how much privacy do you have and how long will you live?  If anyone wants more information please request, I can provide quite a bit.  I want to make certain that I do not promote this system for humans at all!

Thank you to all those who have replied.

mckenzievmd - 10 September 2007 04:52 PM

As for animal cancers, they likely are increasing in frequency. The implication many people take from this is that they are somehow being poisoned by the environment, commercial pet food, space radiation, vaccines, whatever. Occassional this may be true (there is a rare but nasty vaccine-associate fibrosarcoma in cats). But I think there are better explanations. Here’s my reasoning:

1) better detection (I send out for MRIs regularly, which didn’t happen even 10 years ago)
2) older animals: most of the cancer (except lymphoma and mast cell tumors) occurs in geriatric animals. As the average life-expectancy has increased, so has the number of oncology cases
3) they’re not dying of something else first. Vets a generation older than me saw a lot more young animals dying of infectious disease and trauma than I do, and treated a lot fewer old animals with cancer.

Psikeyhackr,
They are implanted for identification for a variety of purposes (proof of identity for travel or breeding and recovery if lost are the majority). And yes, they are seldom scanned, probably much less than once a month for most animals.

The mice were not in a situation in which the scientist believed were opened for additional cancer causing agents, in the research, or according to the research.

You did hit a nail on the head with the scanning.  I believe that amount of scanning is the reason for the cancer or cancer causing agents to be exhibited.  The scanning causes the heat, and thus the activities within the tissue.

This does not make it acceptable to humans, at all!\\

What would be the “Acceptable reason” for a human to have one for you? 

Do you know the laws of who is allowed to implant one in a human without approval?

skeptic - 13 September 2007 11:09 PM

I do very well see a potential to human risk, as this device heats the tissue surrounding it and with any cancer an over use of an organ in general is where the cancer is derived or is produced it is so very simple to see, that over heating can cause a potential problem to tissue, as our bodies regulate heat and any un natural object is normally rejected, these chips are encapsulated by a dow chemical sheathing which connects to human tissue to prohibit the chip from moving within the human body.

Here is something I learned of today which depicts rf as a cell killer for cancer, well the problem is that it does not separate the bad cells from the good, yet there is proof of “Killing cells” .    This is a you tube video ....  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkzCSNTYWXg

Heat does not cause cancer. If it did, we’d all be in real trouble during the summer. Of course, heat can cause other problems, such as heatstroke, and if the heat becomes excessive it can kill cells. That appears to be the approach in the YouTube video.

In order to cause cancer you need to break chemical bonds in the DNA while keeping the cell alive.

Agreed that the chemical sheathing might be a possible issue; it might not, as well. But all I’m saying is that this appears to me to be a non-starter as a human implant device except in very limited circumstances.

skeptic - 13 September 2007 11:09 PM

Does anyone know if this is an option or if someone can be implanted wihtout their own approval?  Can someone inject a chip without your approval?

So far as I know, any such operation would need the approval of the subject.

skeptic - 13 September 2007 11:09 PM

I have not been able to find information regarding this.  I do fear that in the future people will be implanted as the trillion dollar industry will control, as with any big industry, check the price of oil or drugs, this will be bigger, I am sure.  I know that I am out on a limb, however, a good dsp system can monitor and each and every computer in the world can communicate with a verichip, through the RS-232 board and a simple program can broadcast the information. 

Therefor, every home computer can be a porthole to a home/business/human mind.  That is the scary part.  If your computer can communicate with an implanted chip, then how much privacy do you have and how long will you live?

This is going overboard though. These microchips are for tracking. I think the major use people see for them is to track people with allergies or other medical conditions who might be found unconscious. This is one reason why some people wear medical bracelets. The chip is meant to be something of a replacement for the medical bracelet. It doesn’t have any conceivable access to the human mind, however.

In a science fiction future we can all imagine 1984-type scenarios in which everyone is forced to have mental implants that are monitored by the government. But then we aren’t talking about reality anymore, and since nobody is proposing such a thing now, there’s no sense in wasting effort in opposing it.