Employee microchipping gains traction in Sweden

[Corky34]

Corky34, if you read the footnote then you realise that sentence was based on an article from a RFID trade magazine called "RFID journal". Of course they will muddy the water for Katherine Albrecht as it's in their interests to do so since they rely on revenues from growing the RFID market. To say otherwise would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Katherine Albrecht simply drawn information from several other studies around the world. Once news of her study went public Verichip stock price fell and have counteracted with their own sponsored research with the intention to damage her reputation. So the question remains on who do you trust? Do you take the word of a greedy corporation with a dodgy history over a non-profit organisation acting in the interest of its consumers?

I trust myself and came to the same conclusion that it seem the majority of people came to, that while some studies may point towards an increased risk of cancer further research needs to be conducted before a definitive conclusion can be arrived at, that carrying out unbiased, scientifically valid research is not helped when people like Katherine Albrecht uses pseudoscience and scare tactics to push their own agenda, that it doesn't exactly create an open and honest debate about the subject when someone like her calls RFID's the mark of the beast (666), that having a nutter like Katherine Albrecht associated with anything does more damage than good.

Also it's not just a RFID trade magazine called "RFID journal" that is refuting her claims and credibility, it was also people at the International Symposium on Technology and Society, and many other researchers working in the fields of toxicology and environmental carcinogenesis.

[Ttaskmaster]

TBH, just about everything gives you cancer these days, so why worry?
"Scientists have proven", "studies have shown", etc, that drinking orange juice gives you cancer... while other "Scientists have proven", other "studies have shown", other etc, that drinking orange juice actually prevents cancer...

All depends which company paid for the study.
[/cynical]

[Xlucine]

It's more to do with which words in the abstract the journalist randomly selected to read.

Your claims are based entirely on speculation and to accuse others of lying in the absence of real evidence says a lot about you. There's a great sense weirdness when I come across someone who vehemently defends these odious human implant RFID chips. Nearly all normal people would refuse to have these devices in their body regardless of whether it causes cancer or not.

Until it's been properly tested, identifying a correlation is speculation. There is plenty of real evidence, in that the fda has assessed all medical implants on the market for safety and efficacy and found no adverse affects with approved devices. Biocompatible materials are not beyond the wit of man.

This seems like a really clumsy retreat on your original assertions...

Talking of clumsy retreats, remind me - what was supposed to leak out of these again?

[Top_gun]

Until it's been properly tested, identifying a correlation is speculation. There is plenty of real evidence, in that the fda has assessed all medical implants on the market for safety and efficacy and found no adverse affects with approved devices. Biocompatible materials are not beyond the wit of man.

Actually there's no real evidence that the FDA had tested the product over cancer claims. Now you making things up.

[Top_gun]

Also it's not just a RFID trade magazine called "RFID journal" that is refuting her claims and credibility, it was also people at the International Symposium on Technology and Society, and many other researchers working in the fields of toxicology and environmental carcinogenesis.

I would suggest you caused yourself a couple of own goals. The first link showing the youtube video dates back to 2010 seems like a weak one. The audience were only regurgitating counteracting claims made by the sponsored task force designed to muddy the waters in 2007. Sadly people fell for it. The second linked to a study said this: "The tumors were observed to arise from dysplastic mesenchymal tissue that developed within the tissue capsule surrounding the transponder" . Not exactly disproving the theory that RFID causes cancer, is it now?

I'm sorry if you taken on the word of the corporate

[Corky34]

Well at least we've gotten past you initial claim that it was just a RFID trade magazine that was rebutting Katherine Albrecht claims, now you've accepted it was more than a just a publication that rely on revenues from growing the RFID market we can move on to address those other claims.

Firstly did you actually listen to the video, because if you did i assume you also heard how Katherine Albrecht used provocative language and that she presents those provocative statements as facts, she even admits from the studies she's read she concluded they cause cancer, note she concluded, not the studies concluded but she did, that right there is pseudoscience and IMO makes any claims Katherine Albrecht makes nothing more than her personal interpretation of the facts.

Moving onto the second link, if you'll recall i said...

I trust myself and came to the same conclusion that it seem the majority of people came to, that while some studies may point towards an increased risk of cancer further research needs to be conducted before a definitive conclusion can be arrived at

Something that's backed up by that second link that found 18 of 177 rats developed subcutaneous histologically malignant sarcomas, in other words yes there is some evidence but further research needs to be conducted before a definitive conclusion can be arrived at, that's unless, as you seem to be, claiming that 18 of 177 rats is definitive proof that RFID = Cancer.

Lastly this has nothing to do with taking the side of the corporate, it's to do with people like Katherine Albrecht, yourself, and many others distorting scientific facts, evidence and objective truths to serve their own agendas.

[Top_gun]

Well at least we've gotten past you initial claim that it was just a RFID trade magazine that was rebutting Katherine Albrecht claims, now you've accepted it was more than a just a publication that rely on revenues from growing the RFID market we can move on to address those other claims.

What I said was this in relation to the Wikipedia article: "Corky34, if you read the footnote then you realise that sentence was based on an article from a RFID trade magazine called "RFID journal". Of course they will muddy the water for Katherine Albrecht as it's in their interests to do so since they rely on revenues from growing the RFID market. To say otherwise would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Katherine Albrecht simply drawn information from several other studies around the world. Once news of her study went public Verichip stock price fell and have counteracted with their own sponsored research with the intention to damage her reputation. So the question remains on who do you trust? Do you take the word of a greedy corporation with a dodgy history over a non-profit organisation acting in the interest of its consumers?"

Firstly did you actually listen to the video, because if you did i assume you also heard how Katherine Albrecht used provocative language and that she presents those provocative statements as facts, she even admits from the studies she's read she concluded they cause cancer, note she concluded, not the studies concluded but she did, that right there is pseudoscience and IMO makes any claims Katherine Albrecht makes nothing more than her personal interpretation of the facts.

The idea that a youtube video someone in a audience depicts widespread condemnation of Katherine Albrecht sounds very naive to my ears. What she said was it was the researchers themselves who said the RFID caused cancer. Yes, it was Katherine Albrecht who made her personal interpretations after reading several studies. Hardly pseudo-science.

Something that's backed up by that second link that found 18 of 177 rats developed subcutaneous histologically malignant sarcomas, in other words yes there is some evidence but further research needs to be conducted before a definitive conclusion can be arrived at, that's unless, as you seem to be, claiming that 18 of 177 rats is definitive proof that RFID = Cancer.

I think we can all agree that most of the research shows a link between RFID chips and animals getting cancer from them.

Lastly this has nothing to do with taking the side of the corporate, it's to do with people like Katherine Albrecht, yourself, and many others distorting scientific facts, evidence and objective truths to serve their own agendas.

Not at all. I just feel sorry for you taking the word of the corporates as facts. After reading the claims and counter-claims why would anyone want to stick that thing in their body?

[Corky34]

What I said was this in relation to the Wikipedia article: "Corky34, if you read the footnote then you realise that sentence was based on an article from a RFID trade magazine called "RFID journal". Of course they will muddy the water for Katherine Albrecht as it's in their interests to do so since they rely on revenues from growing the RFID market. To say otherwise would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Katherine Albrecht simply drawn information from several other studies around the world. Once news of her study went public Verichip stock price fell and have counteracted with their own sponsored research with the intention to damage her reputation. So the question remains on who do you trust? Do you take the word of a greedy corporation with a dodgy history over a non-profit organisation acting in the interest of its consumers?"

Indeed you did, however you were selective in your use of the footnotes, something i highlighted by including the other two sources that also refute Katherine Albrecht's and your spurious claims, if anyone is muddying the waters it's people like yourself and Katherine Albrecht when they make hyperbolic claims that are not supported by the facts.

The idea that a youtube video someone in a audience depicts widespread condemnation of Katherine Albrecht sounds very naive to my ears. What she said was it was the researchers themselves who said the RFID caused cancer. Yes, it was Katherine Albrecht who made her personal interpretations after reading several studies. Hardly pseudo-science.

Who said anything about widespread condemnation, IIRC i said Katherine Albrecht has been widely discredited, that's not really surprising though as she's a bit of a loony and i think the majority of people would come to the same conclusion of someone who calls RFID's "spy chips" and claims they and other emerging technologies could lead to the Mark of the Beast, while also writing a children's book called "I Won't Take the Mark: A Bible Book and Contract for Children"

Also do you even know what pseudoscience is? It's claims, beliefs, or practices presented as being plausible scientifically, but which are not justifiable by the scientific method and that's exactly what Katherine Albrecht is doing as the studies she references did not say that RFID caused cancer, only you and Katherine seem to making that claim as the actual studies she referenced found between 0.8% and 10.2% of laboratory mice, rats, and dogs developed malignant tumors, for comparison eating two strip of bacon a day can increase your risk of cancer by 21%, more than double that of the study that found 10.2% of 177 mice developed cancer, maybe you and Katherine should be screaming about the risk of eating more than 1.7 ounces of processed meat a day.

I think we can all agree that most of the research shows a link between RFID chips and animals getting cancer from them.

There's plenty of research that shows links between something or other and cancer, that doesn't mean we should adopt the same approach as the daily mail and start claiming everything under the sun causes cancer.

Not at all. I just feel sorry for you taking the word of the corporates as facts. After reading the claims and counter-claims why would anyone want to stick that thing in their body?

FYI I'm not taking the word of the corporates, as I've already said I'm using the actual studies Katherine cited in her review of the literature, something you seem incapable of doing as you seem fixated on claims and counter-claims instead of coming to your own conclusion.

[Spud1]

I personally seriously considered getting an RFID tag in my hand a couple of years ago and its an idea I return to every now and again. It's legal to do so and costs about £100 to get it done professionally. I'd be looking to tie this in to my NFC door locks and other NFC enabled stuff in my house predominately, but also as a bit of a marketing gimmick for our company to advertise single sign on with it.

The only thing that has put me off so far is the very short lifespan of the chips - i don't want to be replacing them every couple of years necessarily and the failure rates are not great....but as the tech improves it's something i'll be reviewing.

Not quite as convinced by my employer doing it though!

[qasdfdsaq]

I personally seriously considered getting an RFID tag in my hand a couple of years ago and its an idea I return to every now and again. It's legal to do so and costs about £100 to get it done professionally. I'd be looking to tie this in to my NFC door locks and other NFC enabled stuff in my house predominately, but also as a bit of a marketing gimmick for our company to advertise single sign on with it.

The only thing that has put me off so far is the very short lifespan of the chips - i don't want to be replacing them every couple of years necessarily and the failure rates are not great....but as the tech improves it's something i'll be reviewing.

Not quite as convinced by my employer doing it though!

Is there something inherent to these that makes their lifespan so short? Pet RFID tags, NFC credit and ID cards, and biometric passports don't replacing every few years for example.

P.S. Epicenter isn't an employer. It's a startup/innovation hub facility.

Frankly I'd be totally up for having a chip implanted (I've been wanting electronics implanted for nearly 20 years) but I'd need it to be more flexible than single facility use - the ability to use it like Android pay for example, or otherwise programatically changing the card/chip/tag it identifies as.

[Spud1]

Is there something inherent to these that makes their lifespan so short? Pet RFID tags, NFC credit and ID cards, and biometric passports don't replacing every few years for example.

P.S. Epicenter isn't an employer. It's a startup/innovation hub facility.

Frankly I'd be totally up for having a chip implanted (I've been wanting electronics implanted for nearly 20 years) but I'd need it to be more flexible than single facility use - the ability to use it like Android pay for example, or otherwise programatically changing the card/chip/tag it identifies as.

It depends on the type of tag - active ones are the most useful but last 1-2 years, passive ones are usually activated by the device you are reading them with (this is the type used in passports etc) so last longer, but even then there are various varieties wtih different capabilities and lifespans. The chips i've been looking at are supplier by "dangerous things" - there is a decent FAQ here which covers a lot of it

https://forum.dangerousthings.com/t/...ransponder-faq

[peterb]

This seems like a really clumsy retreat on your original assertions. Of course, groups have some kind of an agenda but to say I don't understand it is complete nonsense. For a start I could easily take apart the Tory policies and expose the party for what it is - idiots! How's that for understanding agenda. Sadly, there's some people here defending the party in blind faith.

Not a retreat at all - the only assertion I made was that it is a pressure group with its own agenda - an assertion you have just agreed with. In fact it seems to be you that is retreating, looking at your subsequent posts, and your own rather clumsy attempts to muddy the water by introducing the totally irrelevant (to this thread) of party politics!

I realise that you regard anyone who disagrees with you as automatically 'wrong' - but fortunately not everyone has that closed and narrow minded point of view.

[Top_gun]

Not a retreat at all - the only assertion I made was that it is a pressure group with its own agenda - an assertion you have just agreed with. In fact it seems to be you that is retreating, looking at your subsequent posts, and your own rather clumsy attempts to muddy the water by introducing the totally irrelevant (to this thread) of party politics!

I realise that you regard anyone who disagrees with you as automatically 'wrong' - but fortunately not everyone has that closed and narrow minded point of view.

Not at all. I stand by my original points. With regards to party politics, it wasn't designed to muddy the waters. I merely mentioned to show my ability to cut through organisation's agenda. Big difference. I do see your posts as a poor attempt to undermine me rather than provide a positive contribution to the thread. No doubt, the memories of the music streaming thread where you zero input on musical knowledge remains vivid in my memory.

[Top_gun]

TBH, just about everything gives you cancer these days, so why worry?
"Scientists have proven", "studies have shown", etc, that drinking orange juice gives you cancer... while other "Scientists have proven", other "studies have shown", other etc, that drinking orange juice actually prevents cancer...

All depends which company paid for the study.
[/cynical]

The tobacco industry is a great example of how the corporates distorts truth about cigarettes causing cancer in order to protect their profits. No doubt there are still apologists today defending these corporations using corporate funded reports and lobbying governments.

And yes, I hear your cynicism, money talks.

[Ttaskmaster]

No doubt there are still apologists today defending these corporations using corporate funded reports and lobbying governments.

Lots of doubt, actually.
In the face of overwhelming evidence that vaping is 95% safer than smoking tobacco, they are still lobbying over their profits but instead trying the argument that people in their industry are losing their jobs... but with official backing from the WHO that people smoking tobacco is a useful source of tax revenue, no pretentions are needed.

But similarly, you will need to supply definitive proof that these chips either definitely do or definitely do not cause cancer...

[peterb]

Not at all. I stand by my original points. With regards to party politics, it wasn't designed to muddy the waters. I merely mentioned to show my ability to cut through organisation's agenda. Big difference. I do see your posts as a poor attempt to undermine me rather than provide a positive contribution to the thread. No doubt, the memories of the music streaming thread where you zero input on musical knowledge remains vivid in my memory.

You seemed unable to cut through the OCA's agenda until forced to admit they are a pressure group - but no doubt you are a self proclaimed connoisseur of such groups as you were for music. But since you choose to revive that topic, I don't recall you providing any evidence to support your claims in that thread either.