out fda at work protecting us - not

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
the title should read our fda not out fda

Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors
September 08, 2007 1:04 PM EDT

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.
 
Last edited:
Don't get it if you're feeling so paranoid.

w

you mean one more thing that is supposed to be 'healthy' or 'good' for us and passed by the fda is not

i did not plan on getting one anyway, but figured it would become one more thing the government would require...for our own good
 
The FDA has just put in motion steps for doctors to allow patients to choose to put these chips on themselves. It has nothing to do with the government "forcing" you to do it.
 
Let's think about this - how could a chip cause cancer? Do all chips cause cancer then?

Damn journatlists. Oversimplifying everything and leaving out details. What a loser ass profession. Anyone that went into that has to be an anal retentive dumbass, only concerned with profits at the expense of the truth.
 
Not much money to be made in it, but most journalists are too stupid to realize that.

Journalists do it for other reasons. There's not much money in teaching either, so why do you think people do it? Hint: It's not 'cause they're stupid.

This idea of yours that journalists sit around trying to turn out bad copy (because somehow turning out bad journalism makes the company more money?) is a pretty damn lame attempt to goad me into an argument.
 
Let's think about this - how could a chip cause cancer? Do all chips cause cancer then?

Damn journatlists. Oversimplifying everything and leaving out details. What a loser ass profession. Anyone that went into that has to be an anal retentive dumbass, only concerned with profits at the expense of the truth.

w

the small amount of RF transmitted by the chip is the likely culprit - it is very localized and the frequency used and signal strength have been know to create tumors

but like you say no one is forcing anyone to use the yet...
 
Let's think about this - how could a chip cause cancer? Do all chips cause cancer then?

Damn journatlists. Oversimplifying everything and leaving out details. What a loser ass profession. Anyone that went into that has to be an anal retentive dumbass, only concerned with profits at the expense of the truth.

hmm not sure, but the chips respond to RF energy and radiate rf energy back.
Lots of RF energy out there so the chips might be radiating most of the time.
Talk on your cellphone around the dog and cause it to get cancer. Wifi, cordless phone, etc...
 
Back
Top