Debunked: Obamacare RFID Chip Implant Law Hoax

**Defacto** · January 6th, 2013, 06:54 AM

Hello Mick;

I have been following this thread for quite a while and find it SO fascinating that people insist that this law (or the language) mandates chip implants, regardless of any evidence or proof that you offer. Most, obviously haven't even read the bills or the law !

I do have a small debate going on currently on you tube about this very topic.
There are several individuals who have pointed out that Verichip RFID's were already implanted in at least 160 Police officers and officials in Mexico in 2004.
Source:
http://www.informationweek.com/rfid-...-enfo/23901004

My problem, is trying to find an update on that story. I know Verichip over time, had a huge problem with animal implant subjects developing fast growing cancers at the implant site, which BTW is said to be why this human trial was done in Mexico and not in the U.S.
I can find plenty of articles about the Mexicans being implanted, but nothing so far about the outcome.

Might you know about any updates or know where to find information ?

Thanks

**RFID-supplier** · January 15th, 2013, 05:36 PM

(I registered a few hours ago but gave up waiting for a confirming email and am posting unregistered).

Disclaimer: I work for an RFID reader and tag supplier that sells glass tags that are implanted in animals.

> I know Verichip over time, had a huge problem with animal implant
> subjects developing fast growing cancers at the implant site,

Verichip had no problem with animals developing cancer due to tag implants. It was reported as an incidental finding (a curiosity) in a single non-cancer research study where some tagged mice developed cancer. The paper author noted it was not a significant sample size and not necessarily caused by the tag. No other tagged animal study has shown there is a link to cancer and lots of institutions have RFID tags for medical research including cancer studies for many years.

RFID tags have been implanted in millions of animals (cattle, livestock, pets, wildlife) for over 30 years and no correlation with cancer has been discovered. Millions of cats and dogs are tagged all over the world. Is there an epidemic of cancer in cats and dogs in the neck near the implant? RFID tagging of sheep and cattle is done to track disease (e.g. mad cow). If tags were causing cancer in food animals the problem would have recognized and stopped long ago.

Glass is a fairly inert material and can exist inside living tissue without rejection. The tag has no power until it is within range of a reader’s magnetic field which inductively charges the tag to send 10 bytes (64 bit unique identifier and 16 bit checksum) using a weak magnetic signal. The radio signals in animal tags use magnetic fields so they can travel through water but are easily blocked by metal.

> which BTW is said to be why this human trial was done in Mexico
> and not in the U.S.

The Mexicans tagged were not a medical trial. It was a security system.

Verichip lost their shirt trying to get into the human tagging business because it was a stupid idea that nobody wanted. They spent millions of dollars to put readers in Florida hospitals to identify disoriented people and nobody was interested in signing up. The Verichip division was sold off and has been re-branded and the parent company, Digital Angel, has since sold the rest of its animal tagging business (Destron) to a small company in Boise, who has no plans to tag people.

As for those who fear the government will force them to be tagged, I can only ask what would be the reason? The tag can only be read within a few feet of a reader (too far for black helicopters, it can’t be read outside your house when you’re inside) and if two tags are in the same field then neither can be read, so you can thwart the system by cuddling with another tagged person as long as you hold the same hand (or press foreheads together). A thin piece of metal foil is enough to block the signal from the reader. Magnetism is a near field force that does not project very far, particularly from a 2 mm diameter coil that is a little longer than a grain of rice.

Low frequency RFID tags do not work well in an electrically noisy environment with magnetic fields and have poor performance in the presence of laptop power supplies (switchers are the worst), florescent lights (CFL also terrible), electric motors and generators (power tools), high voltage power lines (aerial or buried), vehicle ignitions and the like. Things that may actually give you cancer.

What would be the motivation to inject 300 million people with a glass encapsulated circuit that can easily be thwarted by holding hands, operating a drill or with a foil candy bar wrapper? It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to implement a national tagging program and it would certainly draw significant media attention. And if citizens were somehow convinced/coerced to go along with this (national security, ACA), what capability would it really offer to those who want to do this to us? Who would need to wirelessly read your unique number while at close range? Credit card companies do but they find it easier to put the chip in the card.

RFID could be used to identify you but it’s much better to use your cell phone (worldwide locator), driver’s license (photo and address), address written on the front of your house, credit card, the tags in your car tires (10 year old federal law requires unique tire IDs and many use RFID), facial recognition system, company ID card, car license plate, social security number, unshredded trash, etc.

The purpose of RFID in the ACA is to have a wireless way to identify and track medical devices. The ACA includes methods designed to decrease the cost of medical care and RFID can be a good tool if used properly. Modern hospitals put RFID tags on defibrulators and other shared devices and use real time location systems (building-wide reader network) to find them. That saves money.

**Defacto** · January 16th, 2013, 12:32 PM

Thanks for your post.

This appears to be a very knowledgeable and insightful perspective on the RFID implants.

Most of this harmonizes with my elementary understanding of these devices and their properties. You seem quite certain as an insider in this industry, that the cancer problems experienced by the Verichip were WAY over blown and had little to do with its demise. I would have little cause to differ with your persuasive argument. However. I just want to make it clear that I didn't just skid-off of a tour of the conspiracy web sites before I posted the message you responded to.

I may be guilty of incorrectly extrapolating some of the information from which I formed this opinion. This lead me to believe that the incidence of cancer were the main reason for the failure of the Verichip. But, let me at least site a Washington Post Article as some verification of my view.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...800997_pf.html

Allow me to post a fragment of this article:

Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous "sarcomas" _ malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants._ A 1998 study in Ridgefield, Conn., of 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent _ a result the researchers described as "surprising."
_ A 2006 study in France detected tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice. This was one of six studies in which the scientists did not set out to find microchip-induced cancer but noticed the growths incidentally. They were testing compounds on behalf of chemical and pharmaceutical companies; but they ruled out the compounds as the tumors' cause. Because researchers only noted the most obvious tumors, the French study said, "These incidences may therefore slightly underestimate the true occurrence" of cancer.
_ In 1997, a study in Germany found cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 chipped mice. The tumors "are clearly due to the implanted microchips," the authors wrote.

This was an Associated Press article released in 2007.
I present this for what it is worth.

I am very impressed with the insider knowledge that you presented in your response.
I would certainly like to cite this information in future debates and discussions. I wonder if there are any citable source articles that you could recommend that are consistent with these
views ?

**RFID-supplier** · January 16th, 2013, 03:23 PM

(My metabunk registration came through)

Tens of millions of animals are tagged every year in order to track their health and no significant evidence has shown that there is connection with cancer. Granted a few researchers have found cancer in tagged animals but there have been no conclusive studies that say that it came from inert glass rods. Glass is not carcinogenic except in fiber form and some art glass that contains other chemicals.

Dr. Kathrine Albrecht is frequently a source for inciting this fear and she has valid privacy concerns about tracking people but the cancer scare is bogus and doesn't help her cause. Most people, even those in the RFID field think tagging humans is a bad idea.

Our customers are almost entirely scientific researchers who use RFID in their work with a wide variety of endangered and protected species (not livestock and food animals). Our company sells hundreds of thousands of glass tags every year to government agencies and research institutions all over the world. There have been numerous studies on the effects of tags on the mortality and behavior of endangered animals and if there were any occurrences of cancer they would err on the side of safety and stop using them. I have never had one customer tell me they found cancer that may have come from a tag.

I don’t know if there has been research published that declares tags safe but I trust that our customers would have noticed a problem a long time ago. Reasonable people can and do disagree (existence of climate change, Bigfoot, UFOs) but I talk with people every day who use thousands of tags in their research and it just doesn’t happen.

This is a very old thread and I rarely post to the interwebs but I just ran into Metabunk’s site and found it to be good place for civil discourse. Nice!

**RFID-supplier** · January 17th, 2013, 07:08 PM

Here's a statement by the World Small Animal Veterinary Association about microchips and cancer. It says there is little or no evidence of cancer developing from tags.
http://www.wsava.org/sites/default/f...20Efficacy.pdf

Dogpoo · January 18th, 2013, 12:53 PM

No matter how hard you try to get around it, the implantable micro chip is here. Just 10 years ago when it was said to exist people just like you went on to 'debunk' the myth. Well you were wrong it does exist and it is being used today and there are beta communities that are openly using it right now. So there is no hoax there. And the chip is used to track personal records, and used to buy and to sell, not very hard to imagine in today's technological community. As far as the language in the Obamacare bill, your right it's vague and if you want to think that because the vague language could mean a million other things then great believe that all you want. However as usual guys like you will attempt to keep your Nation in the dark for years until they wake up one morning and find out you were wrong and they could have stood against legislation that they were led to believe doesn't exist, but it's too late. Bottom line when it comes to a tool like this that is way to easy to put all information in one easy to reach location and then tie it to every major function in society, of course it will be used. It's easy to see that it would at first be a choice, then a requirement for certain items or jobs, and then later required as frustrations mount that not everyone is using the same method. Without the chip there is the usual paperwork with the chip instant access to any and all info,...so yah,...not really tough to imagine.

**Mick** · January 18th, 2013, 01:16 PM