- An invasive microchip tattoo was designed specifically to facilitate enforcement of children’s vaccination. It was developed at the personal request of Bill Gates. Ultimately, such tattoos will facilitate enforcement of vaccination dictates
Those with a major financial stake in medical products and services view patient “non-compliance” as a major stumbling block to the uninterrupted, steady flow of cash. Nowhere is compliance more intensely sought to ensure the steady flow of cash, than vaccines. Vaccine manufacturers want to monitor compliance with vaccination schedules that have been crafted to ensure highest utilization of new vaccines clusters. As a result, vaccines have become the profit engine for giant vaccine manufacturers.
- GlaxoSmithKline reported a 41% profit from vaccines in 2019, higher than profits from either drugs or over-the-counter health products.
This technology provides information that can be used to trigger police enforcement of state-mandated vaccination.
Katherine Wu, reporting in the Smithsonian Magazine wrote:
“The tattoo-esque technology, described today in the journal Science Translational Medicine, is still in the early stages of development, and hasn’t yet been tested in humans. But the team’s experiments in rats suggest that these medical marks are both safe and long-lasting, and can be administered alongside vaccines without compromising efficacy.”
Wu goes on to report that “though somewhat comparable to tattoos, the marks are delivered by a microneedle patch—a four-by-four grid of tiny, 1.5-millimeter-long spikes made up of nanoparticles that are undetectable in visible light, glowing only when viewed in infrared. Within two minutes, the nanoparticles diffuse into a layer of the skin”.
The study author, Kevin McHugh, a bioengineer at Rice University said “The goal is widespread adoption.”
A schematic showing how a new product could encode a person’s vaccination history without the need for medical records. A microneedle patch delivers fluorescent nanoparticles beneath the skin, leaving a pattern that can be visualized with a smartphone that can detect infrared light. (Courtesy of Kevin McHugh, Rice University)
It turns out that this technology is not exactly new. A variant of the latest micro-tattoo has been in use in hospitals since, at least, 2011. Researchers Develop Electronic ‘Tattoo‘ which they called an epidermal electronic system (EES)
The EES device was developed by collaborators from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Northwestern University, Tufts University, the Institute of High Performance Computing in Singapore, and Dalian University of Technology in China.
The EES designs yield flat devices that are less than 50-microns thick–thinner than the diameter of a human hair…Our goal was to develop an electronic technology that could integrate with the skin in a way that is mechanically and physiologically invisible to the user,” says corresponding author John Rogers, a professor in materials science and engineering department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
“We found a solution that involves devices we designed to achieve physical properties that match to the epidermis itself. It’s a technology that blurs the distinction between electronics and biology.” [National Science Foundation News release]
The Smithsonian article of December 2019, cites several experts who caution that both technical and ethical hurdles might stymie the chip-tattoo implementation. Nancy Kass a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University acknowledged that: private information about a patient could be ripe for misinterpretations and rumors. That’s especially true given the fraught history of vaccination in countries at all socioeconomic strata, including the United States.”
Dr. Grace Lee, an infectious disease pediatrician at Stanford University’s Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital points out the glaring ethical and privacy issues:
“there are plenty of reasons why patients might hesitate to sign on to such an unusual procedure. One of the biggest issues, Lee says, involves privacy, something that’s already a hot-button topic in the realm of health records. Carrying medical information on the body—even in a form that’s “invisible” without a special filter—could invite stigma, discrimination or worse. You want to advance science. But you also want to mindful of the potential impact that science might have.”
And Kendall Hoyt, a biosecurity expert at Dartmouth College’s Geisel School of Medicine, warned that the idea of administering tattoos may not be well received. Potential patients could reject the procedure out of fear or mistrust. They may worry that authorities are using the patches to “encrypt” information onto individuals. She notes that:
“Given the nature of these issues, the team’s tattoos could end up widening the chasm between patients and health providers, both foreign and local. If communication about the product isn’t initiated early. I worry about the unintended consequences. It could make things worse than they already are.” Kendall Hoyt, PhD
Promoters of the technology report that bioengineers are preparing to conduct surveys to assess whether invisible tattoos could be accepted by locals in high-priority regions: Malawi, Bangladesh, Benin and Kenya.
- What is not reported is that “local acceptance,” of multi-national corporate products and methods, is usually achieved by bribing public officials. Case in point: the hasty catastrophic roll out of the dengue vaccine in the Philippines.
Below are excerpts from two articles whose authors predicted the likelihood that microchip tattoos – that have been in widespread use to track pet animals – would soon be used to track and monitor everyone.
“This microchipping method is a way to ensure that all of us are eventually microchipped and able to be tracked and monitored. Soon everyone will be required to wear chips or ‘tattoos’ that prove they got their vaccinations, to link to health records, credit history and social security records.”
Hospital Patients Now Being Microchipped With “Electronic Tattoos” NaturalNews, August 25, 2011
Being microchipped is now being spun as a method of protecting the health of hospital patients. To help mask the practice of this bodily invasion with a trendy, high-tech appearance, microchipping sensors are being referred to as “electronic tattoos” that can attach to human skin and stretch and move without breaking.
Pet microchips have become increasingly common over the past few years. These chips are marked with a small barcode that can be scanned just like the tags on grocery items.
- This seems to suggest that microchips are meant to turn the wearer into an object that can be tracked and catalogued.
Once inserted in an animal, the chip stays there for the entirety of its lifetime and can be used to identify the pet if it should be found on the street or turned into a shelter. The subdermal chips are often recommended by vets and animal care experts as a way to ensure lost pets find their way home again.
But research suggests that despite their proclaimed usefulness, pet microchips may cause cancer. Multiple studies have clearly linked pet microchips with increased incidence of cancer and tumors in mice and rats.
In the past, public disclosure of these suggested links between microchipping and cancer in animals stirred widespread concern over the safety of implantable microchips in living beings. The animal microchip study findings that created such an uproar were so persuasive that Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, was quoted in an article about microchipping as saying, “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.”
Researchers believe the technology could be used to replace traditional wires and cables, but this sounds remarkably like an excuse used to cover up the real truth: that this new microchipping method is a way to ensure all of us are eventually microchipped and able to be tracked and monitored. Soon, everyone will be required to wear chips or “tattoos” that prove they got their vaccinations, to link to health records, credit history and social security records.
If the government can require Americans to carry microchipped documents including your work, financial and health records, it seems it is only a matter of time before these chips will be implanted for the sake of “convenience” or “security.” According to them, all of this is being done “for our own good.”
“The lessons learned from the adoption of other technologies suggest that radio frequency identification will be more important than anyone currently imagines.”
– Mark Roberti, founder and editor of RFID Journal
The merging of SMART society and surveillance already has a formidable momentum in America. These examples are the tip of an emerging philosophy of data collection and surveillance which is making inroads into every facet of our once relatively free existence. For instance, just in case you were in any doubt that vaccinations are always a gift from God, registry systems have been set up to track your vaccination status so that you can continue to do as you’re told. Or perhaps you’ve come across the biometrics programs currently be tinkered with in US schools which will “… track students’ eye movements, monitor their conversations or even measure their smiles.” Turning the classroom into a tech-lab paradise of attentive drones is easy – and profitable. In the same month, online journal The Future Is Now ran an article entitled: ‘Biometrics Help Teachers Track Students’ Every Move.’ Sheila Dharmarajan writes: “When the student is looking up at the teacher, the teacher score goes up. If she looks down at the computer, the computer score goes up. So we’re tracking facial expressions. If she makes a smile, it might be indicative that is enthusiastic about the topic.” 
Ah, the simple world of binary perception …
But it isn’t only in the US. While the UK’s ID scheme has been temporarily jettisoned, other countries are pushing ahead. Journalist Katitza Rodriguez, writing for the Electronic Frontier Foundation on January 10, 2012 highlighted Argentina’s resurrected and mandatory National Registry of Persons (RENAPER) which had lain dormant from the era of military dictatorship. Facial recognition and finger-printing are part of a security-surveillance system which is about to be integrated into the Federal System of Biometric Identification (SIBIOS) used by existing police and military networks. The registration of new-born babies’ biometric information has taken place since 2012 with projections that the SIBOS database will reach over 40 million within the next two years.
In January 2012, all 1.2 billion residents of India were the lucky beneficiaries of a nationwide program overseeing the allocation of a Unique Identification Number (UID). Each number will be fixed to the biometric data of the recipient utilizing using three different modes of information detection: fingerprints, iris scans, and face recognition. The implementation of RFID (radio-frequency identification) is the next stage for India’s flourishing biometric industry.
RFID stands for “Radio Frequency Identification”. With the advent of Wi-Fi and SMART applications the platform for RFID is expanding to include SMART labels for consumer products, assest tracking, secuirity and data retrieval for business. Then we have the more invasive tagging with computer chips implanted into physical objects, animals, livestock and human beings. The Electronic Product Code that lies within the chip can be “read” when the device emits a radio signal. The chips contain electronically stored information which can be read up to several meters away. Active tags are self-powered and have a long range, particularly useful for surveillance. Passive tags are without battery source and use a local power source, the range being variable.
Some Christians have long been frothing at the mouth at the prospect of micro-chipping and what they consider to be the proverbial “Mark of the Beast” from The Book of Revelations, without which: “no man might buy or sell save he that had the Mark.” To be fair, it does sound remarkably similar. The Association for Automatic Identification and Mobility (AIM) sees biometric identification in true technocratic form where federal, state, local governments, military and commercial applications should join together and embrace the SMART culture without a care in the world. According to AIM, the RFID-chipped “SMART cards” and the biometric revolution “are set to pervade nearly all aspects of the economy and our daily lives.” 
The selling pitch goes like this: The tagging of products from razor blades to underwear represents enormous benefits to consumers, protecting us against fraud and theft as well as providing cost reduction and convenience. What could be simpler? And because it is so simple and so convenient given the fast-paced nature of our modern society, doesn’t it make sense to get yourself tagged too? Efficiency, efficiency and more efficiency …
As a precursor to this we have contactless technology being pushed by companies such as Google, with the majority of mobile network companies getting in on the act because data – your data – is king. Disney’s electronic “MagicBand” illustrates why. In the summer of 2013, the Disney corporation announced the use of an electronic wristband for all visitors to its theme parks. First introduced at Disney World in Florida it can be used at rides, hotel doors, stores and allow Disney staff to greet you using your first name. Who needs a wallet when everything is done for you? The downside to this of course, is a marketing coup d’état where Disney will be able to track what you purchased, which stores you visited, which rides you enjoyed and when, at which hotel you stayed and a vast collection of data to provide valuable insights into social psychology of visitors.
So, what’s a little data between friends and theme parks? Quite a lot actually.
In February 2007, the electronics corporation Hitachi proudly revealed the development and successful testing of the world’s smallest and thinnest class of “non-contact RFID Powder IC (integrated circuit) Chip.” It measures just 0.05 x 0.05 millimetres, which is about the size of a pin-head or less. We read on their website in a Research & Development report that their aim is: “… to embed the chip in thin paper, a practice that is already in general use,” informing us that: “These technologies are expected to be seen in a wider range of applications.” 
In 2015 this became a reality. The chips have a 128-bit ROM for storing a unique 38 digit number and can indeed be worked into any product at all. Since these chips are “already in use” it begs the question: what other applications are they thinking about? The military surveillance uses are well ahead of the consumer game. As one writer on the chips mused: “… suppose you participated in some sort of protest or other organized activity. If police agencies sprinkled these tags around, every individual could be tracked and later identified at leisure, with powerful enough tag scanners.” 
This echoes trans-national corporation IBM and their business relationship with Nazi Germany’s Third Reich in the 1930s and their subsequent collaboration during World War II. Investigative journalist and author Edwin Black explained how IBM’s technology helped facilitate Nazi genocide against Jews and other undesirables through the creation and tabulation of punch cards based upon national census data. Aside from administrative and logistical support, IBM machines were used in concentration camps. Many prisoners had their details passed through the Labour Assignment Office and assigned a characteristic five-digit IBM Hollerith machine number, 44673. This five-digit number in the punch card system was designed to track prisoners in the camps, most notably the slave labour camp at Auschwitz. The number was the precursor to the numerical tattoo stamped upon the arm of an individual and deemed more cost-effective and efficient.
IBM Hollerith Card Processing Machine used by the Nazis circa 1940s
There is no doubt that the targeted identification of Jews and other racial groupings for: “… asset confiscation, ghettoisation, deportation, and ultimately extermination” took place in a way that is logistically and insanely ambitious. The Nazis were able to kill as many as they did with the help of IBM’s pioneering computer work which required: “… generations of communal, church, and governmental records all across Germany—and later throughout Europe—[to be cross-indexed] a task so monumental, it called for a computer. But in 1933, no computer existed.”  That’s where IBM came in. And its legacy for number crunching computation has remained, the profits of its participation in the logistical side of the holocaust having kept it afloat for all these years.
So, what has IBM been up to recently?
Harking back to their darker history, the corporation has finished patenting their “Identification and Tracking of Persons Using RFID-Tagged Items in Store Environments.” Security and Privacy analyst Katherine Albrecht, founder of the consumer pressure group CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering) writes about RFID’s potential for surveillance: “… where networked RFID readers called ‘person tracking units’ would be incorporated virtually everywhere people go – in “shopping malls, airports, train stations, bus stations, elevators, trains, airplanes, restrooms, sports arenas, libraries, theaters, museums, to closely monitor people’s movements.”
You can already see the acclimatisation taking place with i-phone apps scanning capabilities in billboard ads in bus shelters and shopping malls. When RFID tag scanners are located in the required locations, they scan the RIFID tags on a person. Albrecht continues: “As that person moves around the store, different RFID tag scanners located throughout the store can pick up radio signals from the RFID tags carried on that person and the movement of that person is tracked based on these detections … The person tracking unit may keep records of different locations where the person has visited, as well as the visitation times.” What is more, if personal data does not register on the tag, no problem, IBM tells us: “the personal information will be obtained when the person uses his or her credit card, bank card, shopper card or the like.”  Which means a person’s unique RFID number and his or her identity will merge into the overall techno-identity of our SMART society.
Although slower than the technocrats would like, the implantation of RFID’s in the global population is making progress. Alongside marketing tattoos a much vaunted fashion statement, another method of gradualism was to implant pets and farmyard animals as part of an agribusiness efficiency and as a prelude to human implantation.
In January 2007 Business Week reported on the Federal mandated National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and their desire to digitally tag “… 40 million farm animals to enable regulators to track and respond quickly to disease, bioterrorism, and other calamities.” The report rightly highlights the fears of the more informed which it summarises thusly: “You test it on the animals first, demonstrating the viability of the radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) to monitor each and every animal’s movements and health history from birth to death, and then move on to people.” The report mentions the ambitions of one Scott Silverman who runs a: “… company that sells the rice-size people chips, which are the only ones with Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval, for implantation in an individual’s right biceps. They carry an identity marker that would be linked to medical records. His goal is to create ‘the first RFID company for people.’”  More from Mr. Silverman presently.