Share

MEDIA COVERAGE
Media Coverage
  FACTS
Case Histories
Scientic Evidence
Microchip Risks
FAQ
Myths and Facts

  ACTION
Recommendations
Report A Case
Legislation
Activism Tools
Microchips Risks

FDA-IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS:
Adverse Tissue Reaction Failure of Electronic Scanner
Migration of Implanted Transponder Electromagnetic Interference
Compromised Information Security Electrical Hazards
Failure of Implanted Transponder Magnetic Resonance (MRI) Imaging Incompatibility
Failure of Inserter Needle Stick
microchip
Inject

The following information is provided courtesy of noble-leon.com.

FDA’s List of Potential Health Risks Associated with Microchip Implants
VeriChip Corporation (currently know as PositiveID) promotes and defends the safety and reliability of its microtransponder system by touting its approval “by the FDA and/or other U.S. regulatory authorities.” (1) However, VeriChip consistently fails to warn the public regarding the FDA’s list of potential health risks associated with the microtransponder system. As stated by the FDA:

 

"The potential risks to health associated with the device are: adverse tissue reaction; migration of implanted transponder; compromised information security; failure of implanted transponder; failure of inserter; failure of electronic scanner; electromagnetic interference; electrical hazards; magnetic resonance imaging incompatibility; and needle stick." (2-4)

 

VeriChip Corporation also fails to mention that the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs’ (CEJA) 2007 report, entitled "Radio Frequency ID Devices in Humans,” says microchip implants “may pose some physical risks, compromise patient privacy, or present other social hazards." (5-6)

In addition, the CEJA report says, "RFID tags may cause electromagnetic interference, which may interfere with electrosurgical devices and defibrillators. Finally, it has not been determined whether RFID tags might affect the efficacy of pharmaceuticals." (7) The same report also says:

 

"The primary concerns surrounding human RFID labeling pertain to their potential impact on patient privacy and security. Physicians must assure patients that their medical information will be held in confidence … Moreover, maintenance of privacy is required to protect patients from embarrassment, potential social discrimination, loss of health care coverage, or other detrimental consequences …"

Finally, physicians should be aware of emerging non-medical applications of human-implantable RFID devices. For instance, active RFID technologies might be considered for the tracking or surveillance of individuals who pose a threat to others. Although this is only one of many possible uses of RFID technology in the future, it alerts the medical profession to the need for continuous assessment of the appropriate role of physicians participating in RFID labeling of human beings. Indeed, certain uses could constitute an infringement upon patients’ individual liberties, placing physicians in a position to act as patient advocates by promoting the use of other, less intrusive alternatives, when available. (8)

 

The CEJA report also says, “If objective evidence demonstrates negative consequences that outweigh the benefits in relation to health care, the medical profession will bear an important responsibility to oppose the use of RFID labeling in humans.” (9-10)

Interestingly enough, a draft report entitled “The Use of RFID for Human Identification” from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Emerging Applications and Technology Subcommittee to the Full Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee says:

 

"RFID appears to offer little benefit when compared to the consequences it brings for privacy and data integrity. Instead, it increases risks to personal privacy and security, with no commensurate benefit for performance or national security … we recommend that RFID be disfavored for identifying and tracking human beings." (11-12)

 

The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) also expresses its concerns regarding the use of microchip implants in humans. In fact, the EGE questions the FDA’s approval of the VeriChip microtransponder system. In the 2005 EGE document entitled “Ethical Aspects of ICT Implants in the Human Body” it says, “One might wonder that the tests on the VeriChip were authorized for medical purposes in the face of such a detailed list of potential risks!” (13)

In light of the FDA’s list of potential health risks associated with the microtransponder system, not to mention the concerns expressed in the CEJA, DHS, and EGE reports, it may not be surprising to learn that VeriChip Corporation does not accept responsibility for problems associated with its product. In addition, the company does not guarantee the accuracy or availability of its website.

VeriChip’s "Waiver and Limitation Liability" says:


1.

"Patients acknowledge that execution and delivery of this VeriMed Patient Registration Form 'VPR', and resulting registration is conditioned upon the terms of the Conditions of Use. Patient voluntarily registers by executing and delivering this VPR and is fully aware of any risks, complications, risks of loss, damage of any nature, and injury that may be associated with this registration. Patient waives all claims and releases any liability arising from this registration and acknowledges that no warranties of any kind have been made or will be made with respect to this registration. ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, HOWEVER ARISING, WHETHER BY OPERATION OF LAW OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXCLUDED AND WAIVED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COMPANY BE LIABLE TO PATIENT FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING LOST INCOME OR SAVINGS) ARISING FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THEIR POSSIBILITY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES ARE SOUGHT BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY."

 

2.

THE COMPANY DOES NOT WARRANT THE CONTENT OF THE WEBSITE WILL BE ACCURATE, RELIABLE OR CORRECT; THAT THE WEBSITE WILL BE AVAILABLE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME; THAT ANY ERRORS WILL BE CORRECTED; OR THAT THE WEBSITE WILL BE FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE COMPANY BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES THAT RESULT FROM THE USE OF, OR INABILITY TO USE, THE WEBSITE. THE COMPANY DISCLAIMS ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR CURRENTNESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE WEBSITE.

 

3.

THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATES AND ANY PROVIDERS FOR ALL CLAIMS, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE AND PRODUCT LIABILITY), OR OTHERWISE, ARISING OUT OF, CONNECTED WITH OR RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE COMPANY’S PRODUCTS OR WEBSITE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE NET AMOUNT PAID BY PATIENT TO THE COMPANY PURSUANT TO THIS VPR.” (14)

 

A Closer Examination of the FDA’s List of Potential Health Risks Associated with Microchip Implants: Adverse Tissue Reaction and Migration of Implanted Microchip

Although the FDA document does not define "adverse tissue reaction," data indicates that tissue reaction to microchip implants varies from mild to severe. For example, adverse microchip reports by the British Small Animal Veterinary Association indicate that "swelling," "infection," "abscesses," and "tumors" have occurred due to microchip implants. (1-2) Also, whenever a foreign object is implanted in the body, some degree of tissue reaction occurs. In the case of a microchip implant, additional tissue reaction occurs due to anti-migrational techniques that are used to prevent the implanted chip from moving. One method used is “BioBond.” A description says:

 

"The patented BioBond anti-migration cap is a porous polypropylene polymer sheath attached to RFID microchip implants to impede migration of the device within animal tissue. The use of the patented BioBond cap results in increased retention by promoting the development of fibrocytes and collagen fibers around the implant, thus inhibiting movement of the implant within the animal." (3)

 

Use of the Bio-Bond anti-migrational cap is important to note because in order to prevent migration of the microchip implant, intentional tissue reaction is created. It is also important to note because many researchers believe that a foreign object in the body, inflammation and/or cellular changes may cause cancer. Unfortunately, a microchip implant provides all three ingredients together. Why, therefore, are we to believe that microchip implants are exempt from causing cancer?

In the study "Transponder-Induced Sarcoma in the Heterzygous p53+/- Mouse" by K.T. Blanchard and associates, microchip implants by Biomedic® were used. The small cylindrical glass devices were partially covered on one end with an anti-migration, polypropylene sheath that contained a round hole, barb, extrusion lines, and a sprue (a sprue is at one end of the microchip and looks like a “twisted nipple with jagged elevations”). (4) Interestingly enough, the researchers noticed that the microchip-induced sarcomas began to develop at the end of the chip with the polypropylene sheath and the barb. According to the report:

 

"Although there was variation in the extent of neoplastic involvement of tissue immediately surrounding the transponder site, it appeared that tumor(s) arose in the mesenchymal tissue surrounding the polypropylene component of the transponder, initially involving the barbed area and then in some cases extending completely around the entire transponder site." (5)

 

The researchers’ observation is fascinating and results in more questions than answers regarding microchip-induced sarcomas. Perhaps one of the most poignant questions is, Does the anti-migrational sheath – due to its design, composition of material and/or tissue reaction elicited – cause tumors?

Katherine Albrecht, Ed.D., author of “Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006,” says:

 

"At the present time, there is no definitive, universally accepted explanation for the formation of malignant tumors around implanted microchips in mice, rats, and dogs. The following are among some of the explanations that have been proposed:

(1) Foreign-Body Tumorigenesis: The presence of the microchip, a subcutaneous foreign body, may cause cellular changes that can lead to cancer.

(2) Post-Injection Sarcoma: Inflammation from the chip-injection procedure may cause cellular changes that can lead to cancer.

(3) Possible Genotoxic Properties of the Implant: The glass capsule or polypropylene sheath surrounding it may have carcinogenic or genotoxic properties, or its presence within the host may give rise to genotoxic byproducts.

(4) Radio-Frequency Energy Emissions from the Transponder or Reader: The radio-frequency energy involved with the transponder may somehow contribute to tumor formation." (6)

 

Further research into the reasons that microchip implants cause cancer is necessary.

Failure of Implanted Transponder and Potentially Lethal Implications- click here.
Failure of Electronic Scanner- click here.
Electromagnetic Interference with Microchip Implants and Scanning Devices-click here.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Incompatibility with Microchip Implant Technology- click here.
Microchip Implant Technology May Result in Compromised Information Security- click here.
More Potential Health Concerns Associated with Microchip Implant System- click here.
Tagged from Cradle to Grave- click here.

References- click here.

 

Home | About Us | Activism Tools | Case Histories | Contact | Donate | FAQ | Hall of Shame | Legislation | Links | Media Coverage
Microchip Risks | Myths & Facts | Press | Our Mission | Recommendations | Report A Case | Scientific Evidence | Site Map | Your Comments

ChipMeNot.com
Hall of Shame