The United nation's ID2020 project foresees everyone receiving a unique number called a Global Digital Identity for banking, registration and documentation purposes. Inclusion, they call it. In their paper they asked the question: what could serve as a useful entry point to give every global citizen their ID number? Their conclusion: the entry point for a global ID number should be at the point of vaccination. So how do they want to achieve that? They don't go into the finer details, so I decided to look into the topic myself.
If pets can be chipped, can humans be chipped easily too?
Let's take a look at the technology behind it first.
Pets can be chipped with an RFID chip: a Radio Frequency Identity Device. These are not for locating lost pets via satellite, but for being scanned with a reader. This type of chip is of the passive type - it has no means of transmitting its data by itself. The reader can only read its unique number after which it can be compared to a database where additional data like the pooch's owner and his home address and telephone number are stored. There are many different makes of chips, each with a reader or a scanner that matches its unique frequency. The only information the chip holds is a number. Once the number has been read by the scanner, it can be checked against a database. Provided the right RFID chip/reader combination is used with the right database, the owners of the animal in question can be located. Problems arise when the reader is not compatible with the chip, or the wrong database is checked by the veterinarian. There is no universal central database yet - the US and the EU for example have different systems. More: Microchipping of Animals ICAR: International Committee for Animal Recording
There are other potential problems: the chip can become dislodged and travel through the body, or even be rejected outright and expulsed through the skin. As it is a foreign body, the animal's immune system will try and neutralise it via inflammation, and if that doesn't work, encapsulate it with scar tissue which can turn into a malignant tumour in time.
The microchip itself can become defective or stop working altogether. Retrieving a chip is not as easy as injecting one, and adding new chips would only invite new potential problems.
Chipping animals has provided proponents of chipping humans with a wealth of information. It is evident that the technology is clearly not suitable for widespread human use yet. However, as the entities behind ID2020, the Global Working Solutions and other have clearly stated: all of mankind should be given access to their world system of governance through a Global Digital Identity. Only a technological data holder which is inseparable from the body will ever be suitable for this purpose, they claim. Or: an 'in vivo medical device'
If the Pet Chipping Pilot (if I may call it that) has provided some insights to the elite in the drawbacks clinging to chip technology, another unexpected event gave them even more pause for thought: protests. (YouTube clip to follow) Too many people became aware of the plans to introduce human chipping, and a cry of outrage was heard across the spectrum: what about our civil liberties? What about the health risks? Who would do what with our data? Can they be hacked? It's Big Brother, it's the number of the Beast, 666 is upon us! The furore was enough to stop the Johnson & Johnson, Gates Foundation and other parties involved in the scheme in their tracks. But not for long.
Excellent explanation on microchips and RFID technology
by Dr Katerine Albrecht
In the above presentation, Katherine Albrecht observed: "They cannot find a voluntary market, so they are now looking for an involuntary market". So in December 2016, Obama signed off a law (The 21st Century Cures Act) to give pharmaceutical companies, medical practitioners and researchers free reign to use medical devices as they see fit. From now on, patients can be fitted with a medical device without their consent. (link to follow) Is this paving the way to add chip technology to vaccines? Yes and no.
The title of this YouTube clip is misleading, but the content is spot on.
The title should be: New Law Eliminates Need for Informed Consent for Medical Devices.
Current medical RFID devices are unsuitable for lifelong embedding in the human body. In addition, they are too expensive to roll out globally, they are not scalable (suitable for mass production) and difficult to keep them in one place in the body. However, the best of the best of scientists are working around the clock to come up with an answer.
The Zuckerbergs and their Facebook Money
The Chan Zuckerberg Foundation has released virtually unlimited funds to stock up their BioHub with state-of-the-art research facilities and laboratories, manned by young ambitious scientists who are given generous grants and subsidies and carte blanche to develop whatever they want. Take a look at their websites and see what they are working on. Link to follow
The ISO Juggernaut
As for a universal database: the ISO organisation seems to have been earmarked for this purpose. All the microchips currently in use are registered at the ISO. I could write a complete separate article about this juggernaut and its transformation from an institute for quality to a vehicle for world power. Quite remarkable. Just wait until I add all the links.
From Flintstone to Nano Robot
As for the microchips that are usually portrayed as cumbersome rice grain-sized Flintstone era chips - forget them. New generations of these chips are now nano-sized and go by names as biosensors and MEMs (Micro Mechanical Systems). They can be inserted or injected into the body for a number of applications, for example for analysing glucose levels in the blood. In addition to passive chips, they now come with an integral antenna to transmit the data they have assembled. Some are programmed to attach themselves to a particular cancerous tumour to deliver medication right where it will have the most 'efficacy' - or in layman's terms: where they will work best.
Info about MEMs' biocompatibility: (scientific paper) Grayson Implantable Review
No Jackpot Yet
But the scientific community is still waiting for the one invention that will tick all the boxes for their Global Digital ID: scalable, cheap, able to transmit data, with a universal database and cheap readers that can be used in a wide range of situations. The biomarker or MEM should not irritate the body, stay in one place and last a lifetime. It must be reliable and not malfunction, and be unhackable. In addition, if the recipient is aware and doesn't agree with having the device, it should be impossible to remove. That is a tall order, especially when the deadline for the whole harebrained scheme is 2020.
See also: Uribe Explains Microchip Comment
Note: One company is getting close, but their invention is for in vitro use, and therefore was rejected by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Biosensor for Vaccine Monitoring. And here is an example of existing biosensor technology waiting for approval: a wearable glucose sensor. This technology leads to more commerce and monetisation: here is a company that collects data from numerous medical devices, analyses them and makes them available to its clients: vivametrica.com.
Another development to watch: A temporary tattoo (printed on the wearer's skin) that changes colour when the biosensor detects a change it has been programmed to respond to. Imagine the red Global Citizen ring as a wearable. In fact, their LogicInk website coincidentally already features a red dot programmable temporary tattoo.
The role of the military
Note: This is all I can find at present from the academic world. However, according to this article, nano technology for use inside the human body has been available and applied in secret by several military forces in some NATO countries since the 1980s. The argument seems to be that the public needs to be primed first before agreeing to such invasive techniques. However, that leads me to question why the Obama administration felt such an urgent need to pass a law abolishing the need for informed consent for medical devices. I don't know the answers, so I'll keep collecting information until the picture becomes clear.
Is the new Euro banknote chipped?
Finally, a last observation. One type of microchip was developed by the Hitachi corporation. It is called the mu chip, and it is smaller than a grain of sand. It is cheap and easy to produce on a massive scale. A few years ago, when the ECB was working on a new design for the Euro notes, Hitachi boasted about their negotiations only to zip their mouths again very soon after. Radio ID Chip May Track Banknotes. The Hitachi mu chip is suitable to be added to paper and cardboard like gift vouchers and concert tickets. Have the new Europa series banknotes been supplied with these RFID chips? It is very difficult to find out, and believe me I have tried. But maybe we should let the banknotes do the talking for themselves:
|An RFID shaped grid looking like the letters ID is joined with the goddess in the window|
Watch the glossy ECB clip here: Hidden Message of the Goddess in the Window
Perhaps our money has been given the additional function of communicating the latest news: get ready to be tagged without your consent, and be 'included' into the new global financial reality.
- An Introduction to New technologies (2008) Although outdated, there is still a lot of relevant information in this article. It goes through the different types of chips, how they work and the various applications.
- The latest nanotechnology: injectable nanoworms. Is there a nanoworm in your vaccine?
- RFID zapper: an invention to render RFID chips useless. (2006) Scroll down a bit or hit Ctrl-F and type in RFID. Or how about this: an RFID blocking wallet.
- Bill Gates with his mathematical formula on human productivity and vaccines: Natural News. Note: he claims that vaccines give women healthy babies so they don't get pregnant multiple times to replace the children who died. He doesn't actually claim that vaccines reduce populations through killing babies, but his reasoning is obviously flawed. More here: his TED talk with his Global Citizen mantra of fighting poverty. Compare his reasoning to this clip: Climate Change - What do Scientists Say?