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?