Implantable Chip to Detect H1N1 and Other Pathogens

Hi Gordon, I just checked your VeryChip link. Thanks for bringing this up. The RFID chips is commonly used with animals for a long time(at least more than a decade, with my experience with farm animals). For disease control with animals and for the ease of transporting and tracking large numbers, the VeryChip is the solution. It's easy to implant under the skin with no "side effect". The animals don't even jump at the insertion. The chips is about 5mm long(1/4")and requires a big needle, however, if inserted in an area where the skin is loose with the least pain sensory, then it's quite painless.

To detect the chips, my hand held scanner has to be placed no more than 1 inch above the chip. However, a Federal Vet was telling me how efficient they have become(especially in Europe), and they have bigger more sensitive scanners to allow herds of animals to run through a door type (one at a time) and able to detect the chip from 1 feet or more, and instantly record them in their database which is well integrated in Europe. That's how they keep track of their info and traveling history, which can be refered easily to eliminate animals coming or haven't went to undesired contaminated location.

It's the only and most efficient way to eliminate livestock diseases that are alarming like Mad cow.

So these chips with their well integrated controling system has been well tested with livestock for a long time now.

That's quite interesting that they now can put sensors inside the chips to measure blood glucose. That's quite a useful tool and would be appealing and a better solution to those who have to prick their fingers all the time.

Yes the possibility are endless in adding sensors into the chips. But for animals, it's only used to ID them.

In regards to the H1N1 control, I don't think they would use the chip to detect H1N1 as a virus is quite small and you need a more extensive lab procedures. It's more complex than blood glucose. There are limitation of what a sensor can do. Also, it wouldn't be practical and expensive to be inserting chips for pathogen detection for a one time procedure. It is practical for glucose detection because the diabetic person needs to check their glucose every day and multiple time a day.

But I can see the need for ID-ing the population similar to how they do with livestock for the purpose of CONTROL. That's the only way to control large groups and it would be quite efficient and useful to control present travelling issues, disease issues, etc... We do have a over-population problem where more countries are getting "modernized" and more people are traveling everywhere. Plus, as we know, because of the degradation of lifestyle around the world, the population is getting more diseased adding to a legit World Wide health concern.

So it's really unavoidable and understandable that the world need to implemant an efficient Id-ing system like VeriChip to control the population. However, we know that those chips will be used against our freedom.

Now, let's pose this question:

Does having a chip from a nationwide H1N1 vaccination enforcement categorize you as having the "mark of the beast"?

In my view, No. Why? Because salvation, at our end, is based on character, not bodily features.

Elle,

Your farm herd experience should tell us volumes! I remember some counties in California introduced RFIDS for pets as early as c.1990. You probably know that Walmart was used to test RFIDs for product inventory. Also employed in hospitals and prisons for people tracking. At one point VeriChip pitched the U.S. Gov't to chip the entire U.S. armed forces - about 1.4 million personnel - don't know if this flew or not.

Some years ago film director Aaron Russo told how mass chipping of the population was an express goal of the Rockefeller family and their CFR colleagues. Nicholas Rockefeller had befriended Russo and laid out the plan.

Can you enter information on the chip prior to insertion?
_______

I'm no expert on these, but the ones I've used is only for Id-ing animals with a unique identifyer. These microchip you can't input data once purchased. They insert an unique code in it during it's manufacturing. After that, it's only a 16 digit code.

However, the glucose detector seems to be 'smarter' and more complex by inputing data, processing it, and then outputing a result.

I had never though that the microchips that I have here would be the ideal chips to id people until you brought it up.



Do you know what that guy actually said at that Montreal H1N1 conference? Did they publish the talk online yet? Anyway when they do, I would be interested to know what he actually said, in case there was a misunderstanding somewhere.

I just don't see they implementing a sophisticated microchip for a one time H1N1 procedure. To me it doesn't make sense. However, I do see there great interest to put in a simple chip with unique code just to id and tract people. However, the individual needs to have their microchip read by a scanner. There's no GPS in those chips.

Here is the link to Health Link where they advertise the usage of the chip and it's the very same chip and principle as with livestock :

Gordon and all,

Looks like you heard right Gordon. They have a Microchip that will be able to detect H1N1. WOW! That's amazing and that's worst than just being immunized as that chip will be very sophisticated and I would suspect there will be a GPS into it.

Look what is in the news :

Please forgive me for doubting what you've heard Gordon. My mind couldn't see the possibility of detecting viruses and I still question if there really capable. Their wording could be misleading by implying a H1N1 detection and the microchip wouldn't be able to emmit the info without a marker that would be inserted during immunization time using a marked pathogen for the B&T-cells to copy. However, it looks like that's the pretext they will use to microchip the world.

Radio frequencies take energy to generate. Where does it come from?

This is now a topic of its own.

One would need to look at the patent to determine how specific the chip is or if it only looks for certain "by-products" and then makes assumptions.


It would come from the scanner. Which must be within 2 feet. Unless, you turn up the energy. This way, they can have scanners set up at certain strategic locations and "monitor" the population. But, what happens when you turn up the energy to monitor larger distances? With animals, who cares since detecting mad cow, etc. is more important. However, when someone says it's a matter of national security, crank up the power, who cares about people's health.....

Now, if they could build the chip with a pain control, if someone of their choosing should enter or do something they don't want them doing, they can turn up the pain. Exploding chips?

The possibilities are endless!
Just say no.

What might the greatest distance of scanning be?

I only heard 2 feet. But, I see no reason why the distance shouldn't be proportional to the power. The scanning device sends out radio waves which powers the chip to send the signal back. So there is both the distance the power has to travel to power the chip and the reception distance to pick up the response which has to travel a short distance through flesh, clothing, or packaging. Maybe 2 feet is the limit? But, something tells me that if the power is cranked up, disregarding any health aspects, the distance should be much greater. Never far enough to reach satellites directly, but across a room seems reasonable to me.

As a side note, I recall reading about a defeating device (concept only?) which when scanned sends back a huge number of responses overwhelming the scanner. Then recently, I read something about there might be a problem with that violating world trade agreements.

Would you microwave your hand if it disabled the chip?

kland,

Having some knowledge in the realm of radio transmission, I would say that simply cranking up the power on the base transmitter will not make the signal from the chip equally responsive. You are working with three big limitations, which really boil down to one word--size.

1) The tiny size of the implanted chip restricts the amount of antenna which it can contain;
2) This in turn limits the amount of electric power which can be harvested from the incoming signal and converted to an outgoing transmission; and
3) The outgoing signal is limited to a small range by both the shortness of the antenna and the shortness of the wavelength on the signal.

Longer-wavelength signals require longer antennas to transmit them. However, there are advantages and disadvantages to both longer and shorter wavelengths. Longer wavelengths can travel greater distances. Shorter wavelengths can penetrate better through various types of matter.

My guess is, due to the chip size, we are working with some very short wavelengths (high frequencies) for transmission. This will be good at penetration--no problem going through flesh, bones, some wood or plastic, a wall, etc. But this will not be worth much at a distance.

If you crank up the power on the base station transmitter, the chip will have an increased response up to a certain point, at which these physical limitations prevent any further benefit. You might have a chip that was receiving the signal from across the room, but was still unable to transmit it more than a few feet. One-way communication as this would be worthless. Exactly how many feet could they get out of an RFID chip? That depends much on the chip design, especially that of the antenna coil and length.

Now, if they could figure out a way of "harvesting" some natural "body antenna" by plugging the chip into it...would nerves work? I think most any organic material of the body would present too much impedance to make a proper antenna, not to mention the fact that bodies come in many sizes, so the antennae would not be well tuned.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Maybe cutting it off would be less painful?

Hi Kland,

The technology has long been discussed in engineering journals. The subject is old hat in the industry. Truckers use window-sticker RFIDs to expedite border crossing checkpoints; consumer products have the chips for warehouse inventory & customer databases - think Walmart. Railway cars in the switching yards - you get the picture. Human RFID tracking has been used for ~ 5 years in prisons & hospitals - bracelet or implant. Passive tags are low range; active (battery-powered) up to several hundred feet, maybe more.

RFID Journal: http://www.rfidjournal.com/faq

Katherine Albrecht is one of the foremost consumer educators:

http://www.nocards.org/

http://www.spychips.com/
______

So if more power does give further distances in sending the request, what happens to the response signal? Does it abruptly stop or gradually fade away as it travels across the room? In other words, if a more sensitive receiver was used, would it be able to pick up the signal if no other interference?

kland,

That's a good question. Again, listening sensitivity can be improved, but only to a point. The point at which it fades out is the point at which the desired signal essentially blends with the ordinary "noise." Keep in mind that our ambient surroundings are continuously filled with radio waves, on many frequencies. Even from our sun and from space we receive certain levels of radio activity. Due to the radiant energy of the sun, our atmosphere's "F layer" splits during the daytime into two layers called the F1 and the F2 layers. At night, they rejoin into a single layer which is better able to bounce back and to retain radio transmissions (esp. useful for frequencies in the 10 - 40 meter wavelength spectrum, which can be transmitted through the night side of the earth fully half-way around). Thus, during the day, and especially if there are solar storms, also called "sun spots," there is more radio "noise."

Gordon mentioned the distinction between "active" (battery-powered) and "passive" (receives power from the incoming radio waves) RFID chips. Many of them are "passive," since batteries have a limited life, and are bulky and heavy. In this sense, a good example that may help you to understand the limitations might be to look at light for a minute.

A flashlight would be an "active" light source, since it is powered by a battery. However, the "glow in the dark" stars on your child's ceiling would be "passive." These do shine a little brighter if first hit by a brighter light, but only to a point. They can never hope to shine as brightly as the flashlight, even if they were blasted by the light of an arc welder.

If the room already had a nightlight on the wall, would the light from the glowing stars on the ceiling make a noticeable difference in the amount of light hitting the page in the book you were trying to read in that dim room? Would you be able to increase your eyes' sensitivity to notice the difference? Electronics also has its limits with sensitivity. Part of this involves the "noise" of the electric circuits themselves. It takes a great deal of circuit engineering and expense (maybe a little gold?) to produce the clearest electronic signals. Noise may have its biggest impact in technologies such as video camera CCUs, audio equipment, professional organs and keyboards, etc. But electronic noise is a problem for thousands of applications. Consider modems, for example. If noise were no issue, modem speeds might be a thousand times faster than they are today.

(Now I've unintentionally written an epistle already, when you probably wanted a two-sentence answer. My apologies.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Kind of on a side note, but figured maybe you could answer this about radio waves. There is an AM radio station not that far away which we pick up with pretty good reception. That is, until the sun sets. Some AM stations sign off, but this one continues broadcasting. The signal gets a little bit of static, I notice the sun has almost set, then the signal fades as quickly as the sun sets. I would expect a more gradual loss if any. Does this have something to do with a reverse of what you were saying about the F layer joining? It's almost like the light hitting or not hitting something makes an on/off difference. I also have noticed being able to pick up stations as far as half the US away at night, though it comes and goes reminding me of sine waves syncing and un-syncing. ("Resonance", is that the word?)

kland,

The separation of the F-layer into two layers is caused by the sun. I never studied nor learned how quickly these layers are separated and rejoined. Your experience is interesting. I do know, however, that they must join fairly quickly, as it is possible to circumnavigate half-way around the world through the night side with radio waves of the right frequency.

What you experience with the radio during the daytime may be related to one of two phenomena, the most likely being the one called "skip." Radio waves can bounce off the atmosphere. When the F-layer is all a single layer, AM radio can skip a long ways, something like skipping a rock on water. However, radio waves can also skip, to a lesser degree, on the split layers. The layering changes the altitude at which the skip occurs, and some layers may tend to absorb the radio waves, instead of conducting them (permitting them to pass).

The following website gives a nice chart of some radio frequencies and which layers, if any, of the atmosphere they are affected by.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.