|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chip implants linked to animal tumors
Chip implants linked to animal tumors
By Todd Lewan, AP National Writer | September 9, 2007 Full article @: The Associated Press: Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients' medical records almost instantly. The FDA found "reasonable assurance" the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005's top "innovative technologies." But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had "induced" malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats. "The transponders were the cause of the tumors," said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich. Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people. To date, about 2,000 of the so-called radio frequency identification, or RFID, devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp. The company, which sees a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips, insists the devices are safe, as does its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, of Delray Beach, Fla. 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. "There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members," said Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Before microchips are implanted on a large scale in humans, he said, testing should be done on larger animals, such as dogs or monkeys. "I mean, these are bad diseases. They are life-threatening. And given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there's definitely cause for concern." The product that VeriChip Corp. won approval for use in humans is an electronic capsule the size of two grains of rice. Generally, it is implanted with a syringe into an anesthetized portion of the upper arm. When prompted by an electromagnetic scanner, the chip transmits a unique code. With the code, hospital staff can go on the Internet and access a patient's medical profile that is maintained in a database by VeriChip Corp. for an annual fee. VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been marketing radio tags for animals for more than a decade, sees an initial market of diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer's disease, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. The company is spending millions to assemble a national network of hospitals equipped to scan chipped patients. Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate and RFID expert, asked shortly after VeriChip's approval what evidence the agency had reviewed. When FDA declined to provide information, she filed a Freedom of Information Act request. More than a year later, she received a letter stating there were no documents matching her request. "The public relies on the FDA to evaluate all the data and make sure the devices it approves are safe," she says, "but if they're not doing that, who's covering our backs?" Late last year, Albrecht unearthed at the Harvard medical library three studies noting cancerous tumors in some chipped mice and rats, plus a reference in another study to a chipped dog with a tumor. She forwarded them to the AP, which subsequently found three additional mice studies with similar findings, plus another report of a chipped dog with a tumor. Asked if it had taken these studies into account, the FDA said VeriChip documents were being kept confidential to protect trade secrets. *** Wouldn't stop anyone from getting one...but it seems some people out there really want to move this along very quick like. It will be interesting to note how the company will suffer this. By the lack of accountability in the interviews it seems they're doing some damage control talking no negatives, taking the angle that they're working out the kinks while still poised on increasing their activity in the pubic sector, side stepping the ethics of mass chipping. Doesn't micro chipping people that have alzheimer's strike you to be the least bit questionable? Using mentally unstable/senile individuals for such cutting edge experimental advances in technology doesn't seem to be a good breeding ground to protect their position to make an educated and well informed, coherent decision. Meanwhile here we have a company that is lacking accountability where so far no one is stepping up to the plate to ensure this isn't just going to be swept under the rug internally... I wonder how many people already chipped are going to be notified of this. 
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
So what are you implying, a ice grain size implant that monitors an individuals health, is nothing more then a stab from the 'the man' to help the brain leeches from space take over? Because that's what it sounds like. Do you think people join the medical profession to actively seek out a way to fuck mankind for dollar dollar bills? Last edited by Goat; Sep 10, 07 at 07:46 AM.
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 papa would be proud
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm not talking about the doctors or nurses themselves, but corporations that create things like this are definitely after money...
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
VeriChip themself states: “In the two-year, 200 patient study, participating individuals suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia, as well as their caregivers, would receive the VeriMed™ implantable microchip to provide emergency department staff easy access to those patients' identification and medical information.” VeriChip News Release Now you might want to assume they have caregivers because they actually need them for the general reasons someone with dementia needs a care giver. Somehow I doubt when they were approached that the information about the chips potentially causing cancer was ever mentioned...nor may it be now after the fact the lid is blown. In case you don't get the point, the study includes others with forms of dementia. Would you feel comfortable if your grandma was in such a state and this decision was made for her? Not only is injecting potentially harmful microchips into people who cannot say "no" ethically problematic, it is in direct violation of VeriChip's longstanding position that no one should be involuntarily implanted with their product. In its press release, VeriChip acknowledges that the patients being implanted "cannot speak for themselves." Since cognitively impaired individuals are unable to give informed consent, their use in medical experiments is highly controversial. When medical research is conducted on human beings in conjunction with a university or research institution, an institutional review board (IRB) is charged with ensuring that the research meets appropriate ethical and safety guidelines. There is no such oversight in this case. So far you're just reacting negatively to someone who has a concern for health and privacy...but can you make a decent counter claim to anything I've brought up? You've only made one counter claim among a list of concerns I brought up...and it was, at that, a weak argument easily proven false with just a little bit of time to dig deeper on related articles. It's something you could have done yourself if you weren't busy trying to shoot the messenger.
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
cute straw man though.
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is an awesome thread of people who have no clue what they are talking about subjects they have no grasp of.
Just because you can google or wiki something, doesn't mean you have any idea what you're talking about. Especially when it comes to disscusing medical studies...
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Potato chips cause cancer.
Cell phones cause cancer. TV, microwaves, computers, pdas, video games, smoking.....etc RFID is the last thing anyone should worry about. They have your dna and fingerprints from birth. Your voice frequency is in multiple databases. You basically big brother yourself with facebook etc... The #1 thing I think causes cancer ? Stress, worrying about wtf some old geezer in Arkansas has injected into him on a daily basis is the last thing I g.a.f about. 
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
meh. tumors. you want something to be scared of. go fight an octopus. thats scary. fuckin kids these days.
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
[quote=djmarkpaul;
Since cognitively impaired individuals are unable to give informed consent...[/quote] Go read the rest of the article corknut Quote:
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
So for the record...if anyone wants to do this go ahead be my guest...but the point Im raising in short is that this technology is being hurried along and corners are being cut at just about every turn, and then swept under the rug. So far no one can poke a hole in that statement, so keep the oneliners coming, octopuses are most def more bad ass, stress causes heart problems not cancer, and GWB is still the president of the us of a.
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
you obviously don't know the industry definition of informed consent, corknut.
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
And as to the whole argument about a (and here's the key word) potential risk of uncontrolled cell growth, every medical prescription in the book has a risk of side affects. None of the tests have shown (someone, by all means,prove me wrong) actual cancer growth in human patients. Someone drops the c-word and you clowns start going hysterical and crying doomsday and government takeover.
A company has acknowledged their product isn't perfect. What more do you want?
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
which is it? "medical community" or "medical professionals"? there's a very distinct difference between the 2. either way, your statement doesn't change the validity of what i said previously which is in fact relevant to this discussion. especially since it clarified the many glaring misconceptions in your original statement as well as the ridiculous "conclusion" and smear tactics.
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You make it out to be that there is no side stepping or potential abuses to such technology...which is foolhardy at best. Quote:
|
|
Sep 10, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
