Microchips – A Threat to Health and Freedom
*A version of this article was published on the David Icke website back in 2018
Microchips - A Threat to Health and Freedom
It started with animals and has moved on to humans. People who predicted this development were ignored or branded conspiracy theorists at the time but the era of microchipping people is definitely here. But at what cost to our health and freedom?
Microchips cause cancer
Laboratory studies have conclusively proved that microchip implants cause cancer. The process is known as foreign-body-induced tumorigenesis. This is a well-known medical phenomenon and yet, when it comes to microchips, the mainstream medical establishment are silent.
The Scientific Studies
Study 1 - Le Calvez et al., 2006: "Subcutaneous microchip-associated tumours in B6C3F1 mice: A retrospective study to attempt to determine their histogenesis." Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology.
Summary: Microchips were implanted into 1,260 experimental mice for identification purposes as part of a larger study. Two years later, 4.1% of the mice had developed malignant tumors at the site of the microchip implantation. The cancers were directly attributed to the microchips.
Excerpt: "Most of the animals with microchip-associated tumors died prematurely...due to the size of the masses [or] the deaths were spontaneous and attributed to the masses." "One of the most potentially serious disadvantages of the microchip implantation is the possibility that foreign-body-induced tumours may develop."
Study 2 - Vascellari, Melchiotti, & Mutinelli, 2006: "Fibrosarcoma with typical features of postinjection sarcoma at site of microchip implant in a dog: Histologic and immunohistochemical study." Veterinary Pathology.
Summary: A 9-year-old bulldog developed a cancerous tumor (fibrosarcoma) adjacent to a microchip implant approximately seven months after being implanted with the device. Researchers attributed the tumour to either the microchip or to vaccinations at the site and called for better reporting of adverse reactions to microchip implants and vaccinations.
Excerpt: “The microchip was found, not embedded within the tumor, but immediately adjacent to it, surrounded by a very thin fibrous wall (approximately 1 mm thick) and some fresh hemorrhage. The mass was confirmed as a high-grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma.”
Study 3 - Vascellari et al., 2004: "Liposarcoma at the site of an implanted microchip in a dog." The Veterinary Journal.
Summary: An 11-year-old dog developed a cancerous tumor (liposarcoma) around a microchip that had been implanted approximately 19 months earlier. The tumor was removed and the dog recovered.
Excerpt: "The intact microchip was found completely embedded within the mass...[and] a diagnosis of low-grade liposarcoma was made." // "Veterinary surgeons are... encouraged to check the microchips that have been implanted in pets at least annually, such as when they come in for vaccinations, and report any adverse reaction."
Study 4- Elcock et al., 2001: "Tumors in long-term rat studies associated with microchip animal identification devices." Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology.
Summary: 1,040 rats were implanted with microchip implants for identification purposes as part of a larger study. After two years, just under 1% had developed malignant tumours surrounding the implants. The researchers attributed the tumours to the presence of the microchip, and referred to them as "microchip-induced."
Excerpt: "Electronic microchip technology as a means of animal identification may affect animal moribundity and mortality [i.e., illness and death rates], due to the large size and rapid growth of microchip-induced tumors as well as the occurrence of metastases." "Most tumors arising from foreign bodies are malignant . . and have a rapid growth rate, killing the animal in a matter of weeks."
Study 5 - Blanchard et al., 1999: "Transponder-induced sarcoma in the heterozygous p53+/- mouse." Toxicologic Pathology.
Summary: 177 genetically modified mice were implanted with microchips for identification purposes as part of a chemical compound study. After six months, 18 of the mice (10.2%) had developed malignant tumors ("undifferentiated sarcomas") around the microchips. The tumours occurred in both experimental and control animals.
Excerpt: "There was an unequivocal association between the [microchip implant] transponder and sarcoma that was unrelated to drug treatment." // "The presence of the foreign body [microchip transponder] may elicit tissue reactions capable of generating genotoxic byproducts."
Study 6 - Palmer et al., 1998: "Fibrosarcomas associated with passive integrated transponder implants." Toxicologic Pathology.
Summary: 800 mice were implanted with microchips for identification purposes as part of a larger study. After two years 2% of the mice had developed cancerous tumours (fibrosarcomas) around the implants.
Excerpt: "All tumors were observed. . .at or near the implantation site. . .[the tumors] were attached to the implant or partially or totally encased the implant."
Study 7 - Tillmann et al., 1997: "Subcutaneous soft tissue tumours at the site of implanted microchips in mice." Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology.
Summary: 4,279 mice were injected with microchip implants for identification purposes as part of a larger study. Of these, 36 developed malignant tumours (fibrosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma) that were "clearly due to the implanted microchips." Control animals as well as experimental animals developed the tumours.
Excerpt: "The neoplasms induced in the present investigation are clearly due to the implanted microchips." "Further information on [tumors] induced by microchips, e.g., experiments on their chemical components (glass and polypropylene cap), or the physical presence of the implant alone are necessary."
Study 8 - Johnson, K., 1996: "Foreign-body tumorigenesis: Sarcomas induced in mice by subcutaneously implanted transponders." Toxicologic Pathology.
Summary: A two-year Dow Chemical study of 2,000 mice found an approximately 1% incidence of sarcomas surrounding microchip implants used for identification purposes. The tumors appeared in both control and experimental animals. This was consistent with a diagnosis of foreign-body-induced sarcoma.
Excerpt: "Investigators using. . . implanted devices need to be aware of foreign-body tumorigenesis [cancer development] when evaluating the results of long term studies using mice."
The proof that microchips cause cancer is not just restricted to the laboratory. There are cases of family pets, both dogs and cats, getting sarcomas at the site of the microchip. There have even been cases of zoo animals developing tumours.
Other health issues
Cancer, however, is not the only health problem associated with microchips. Abscesses are another issue. As a trustee of the only animal charity in the UK to oppose the compulsory microchipping of dogs, I have had reports from a number of people whose animal has suffered adverse reactions after microchip implantation.
I was informed of a pup that had been chipped and within a few weeks a large lump began to grow around the implant site. It eventually grew to the size of a cricket ball and started bleeding. It turned out to be an abscess which had to be drained for five days with the pup being put on a course of antibiotics. In another case, a12 week old pup developed a lump at the implant site. It turned out to be badly infected and the chip had to be removed.
The adverse reaction may not always be immediate. A young, male dog was microchipped and 12 months later developed a lump near its ear. When the vet inspected it, it was discovered that lump was severely infected and the microchip had migrated from the implant site, all the way around the dog's neck to its ear. One and a half inches of the dog's damaged neck tissue had to be removed and the dog received 29 stitches.
A survey conducted by Shallowford Kennels in 2011 produced the following statistics -
88.9% of owners said their dog/puppy was microchipped.
12.5% of owners say their puppy/dog has so far suffered an adverse side effect to microchipping.
37.5% of owners would not have had their puppy/dog chipped had they been informed of possible side effects.
Only 25% of owners feel they were given full, fair and balanced information about microchipping.
62.5% were not given any details at all of the possible side effects.
Problems with microchipping horses
There are many accounts of microchips causing abscesses and lameness in horses. Journalist, Caroline Davies, relayed the story of a Dutch Horse owner –
“About a year ago one of our horses, a four-year-old gelding, developed a lump on his neck. We thought it could be something to do with the microchip, but our vet said no, he didn’t think it could be and to just keep our eye on it and let him know if it developed further.
“Well, the lump just got bigger and bigger over the next few weeks so we called out the vet again and he scanned it – and the chip could be seen at the centre of the mass. Our vet opened up the lump, which turned out to be a huge abscess that had formed around the chip. He drained the abscess and removed the chip.”
Davies goes on to mention nerve damage caused by a microchip, resulting in a horse’s inability to move its neck and lameness and another where the implant caused the horse to continually shake its head from side to side.
Manipulating safety data
Whilst researching the dangers of microchips I came across a study carried out on dogs in 1994. The company, a microchip manufacturer, was testing to see if the microchips would migrate in the body. Their conclusion was that none of the chips moved from the site of implant. However, I noticed that they had started off with 148 dogs but, by the end, only 37 remained. According to the study protocol, the dogs had been ‘culled to rotate the genetic program.’ Apart from the horrifying fact they had killed so many dogs, why do it mid-study? Obviously, the final results were misleading as the microchips in the culled 111 dogs had not been taken into account.
I contacted the company and asked them why the dogs had been killed mid-study, and if it was because of adverse reactions to the chip. Their response was -
“The company has changed hands twice since 1994 and there is no corporate memory on this trial. Since then, however, millions of microchips using the Biobond cap have been implanted in dogs all around the world with very positive results and it is still a product in wide scale use today across multiple species.”
So, I managed to find one of the scientists involved and asked him the same question which he never answered. He simply replied - ‘we needed to measure the migration (distance) of the microchip from the implant site.’
From that one can conclude 3 things –
1. There is a great deal of animal cruelty involved in the microchip industry.
2. Safety figures cannot be believed as not all test subjects are included in the final figures.
3. The microchip industry is not very forthcoming when asked questions about its practices.
The human microchipping agenda
Here is what Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York had to say about RFID implants, "There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members."
And yet the authorities have introduced the idea of human microchipping anyway and they have done it gradually and with various, different strategies. Initially they said the technology was only to be used on a very small percentage of the population, a group of people that nobody would care about – prisoners.
In 2008 the UK government, at the behest of the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, put forward the proposal to microchip serious sex offenders and track their movements by satellite. This was quickly amended to cover anyone convicted of a crime that was electronically tagged and living in the community. The idea was then expanded once again, when it was suggested the chips be used on all prisoners still in jail to enable the wardens to track prisoners’ movements and keep order. Although this has yet to be implemented in the U.K. it has already been introduced in various states in the USA.
Next, it was the turn of Alzheimer’s patients. Chips would be implanted in patients with dementia so they could be identified if they wandered off and got lost. The first experiment with patients happened almost a decade ago but the bill to legalise it was only passed in the USA in 2016. By now, however, it wasn’t just Alzheimer’s patients but children with developmental problems such as autism or people with other mental disabilities.
The problem is that the list of mental disorders grows every year. The psychiatrists’ bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, now lists 297, the vast majority of which are completely fabricated, such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder, which basically classifies anyone that questions what authority figures tell them as having a mental illness. It is easy to see, therefore, how governments will eventually use this to microchip an increasing number of people.
From prisoners and people with mental disorders they moved on to the next target – children. An NBC news report in 2016 promoted the microchipping agenda by interviewing a mother whose daughter had not been kidnapped or even went missing but had momentarily disappeared behind a rack of clothes in a department store. Her reaction was to wholeheartedly endorse the microchipping of children by saying ‘If it’ll save my kid, there’s no stuff that’s too extreme.’
In an article in the U.K.’s Guardian Newspaper the microchipping of children agenda continued. In it a mother had agreed to have her daughter chipped. The girl aged 11 said, “I think it is a really good idea. It is better than getting kidnapped or abducted.”
From children, they moved on to the workforce. In 2017, employees in a Wisconsin firm volunteered to be microchipped so they could log on to their computers more conveniently. Companies in Belgium and Sweden have also microchipped their employees. Now Sweden, one of the biggest proponents of the technology with an estimated 20,000 of its citizens already chipped, has moved from just microchipping employees to chipping commuters on their way to work as a rail company is allowing passengers to pay for their journeys using chips implanted in their hands.
What does the future hold?
The microchipping agenda will inevitably be relentlessly rolled out using various, dubious reasons to support it. A Finnish politician has suggested they could be implanted in welfare benefit claimants - another section of the community that the right-wing press has tried to brainwash the rest of the public into hating. No doubt the topics of immigration and terrorism will also be utilised to advance the agenda. People will be chipped to prove they are the citizens of the country they live in and to prove they are not on a potential terrorist threat. The authorities may even use the threat of a fake pandemic to coerce people into being microchipped so their vaccine status can be ascertained instantly. Fear is always a potent weapon to promote the program. Convenience is another one.
If the people aren’t frightened into accepting microchip implants, sheer laziness may suffice. The thought that by just waving their hand they can open doors, pay for goods at checkouts or get onto a plane without queuing, will probably be enough to encourage a large section of the population to voluntarily get chipped.
No matter the reason, more and more people will be microchipped. In fact, with the technological advances in this field, such as smart dust and nanochips, we may not even know we have actually been chipped as these are capable of being dispersed into the air and can lodge themselves within our bodies without our knowledge. The plan is to eventually microchip us all, whether it is by persuasion, stealth or compulsion. When that happens, we can say goodbye to our freedom once and for all as the tyrants will be in complete control.
*Note-since writing this, the fake pandemic has, of course, come to pass and there were, indeed, calls for microchipping to be introduced to monitor who was vaccinated.
During the ‘pandemic, in 2021, Sweden actually developed a chip to be used to store vaccine passport data.
In 2022, the UK government announced a trial for electronically tagging some immigrants-a step closer to actual microchipping.