Big Pharma Nanotechnology Encodes Pills With Tracking Data That You Swallow

TextThe pharmaceutical industry may soon begin using nanotechnology to encode drug tablets and capsules with brand and tracking data that you swallow as part of the pill.

Nano-encrypted barcode in every dose
Now don't get me wrong. Big Pharma isn't the only industry using nanotechnology despite a complete lack of safety evidence. "Nanoparticles" are present in sunscreens, fabric protectors, plastic food liners, and other products. But what's different about the nanoparticles soon to be found in a pill near you is that they are capable of storing data about where the drug was made, when it was made, and where it has traveled.

It's a lot like the barcodes used on parcels to track them along their shipping journeys, except that in the drugs, it's a molecular barcode that people will be swallowing. During digestion of the pill, the nano data bits will be distributed throughout your body and can become lodged in your body's tissues.

So if you take these drugs, you'll be swallowing nano "hard drives" that can store data -- data that will be distributed throughout your body and can be read by medical technicians who could then track what drugs you took in the past. And what's the rationale for this? According to the company, it's to "defen[d] against pharmaceutical counterfeiting and illegal diversion".
Researchers from the University of Rochester discovered back in 2006 that nanoparticles are easily absorbed throughout the body via inhalation. According to the report, nanoparticles travel from the nasal cavity directly to brain tissue where they deposit themselves and cause brain inflammation. In other words, nanoparticles very easily cross the blood-brain barrier, which is the mechanism by which the brain normally protects itself from foreign materials.

A study from 2004 found that low levels of fullerenes, a type of carbon nanoparticle used in electronics and other materials, changed the entire physiology of fish that were exposed to it. Exposure to just 0.5 parts per million (ppm) over the course of two days literally caused significant brain damage in these fish.

"Given the rapid onset of brain damage, it is important to further test and assess the risks and benefits of this new technology (nanotechnology) before use becomes even more widespread," emphasized Dr. Eva Oberdorster, author of the study, back in 2004.

Again in 2007, scientists from the University of California, San Diego, discovered that iron nanoparticles are toxic to nerve cells and nerve function. Even though iron is a necessary mineral that benefits the body in its natural form, its nanoparticle is quite dangerous, it turns out.

Nano-protected pills can be scanned by a detection device that will verify their authenticity and trace them back to the factories where they were manufactured, the warehouses where they were distributed, the pharmacies where they were stocked and sold, and so on. But here's the part where this all turns Big Brother: The same scanning technology can theoretically be used to scan your body tissues and determine which drugs you've been taking, who sold them, where you bought them, where they were made and possibly even how long you've been taking them.

By swallowing these nano-protected pills, you are essentially turning your body into a walking Big Pharma hard drive that's storing all kinds of data on your particular drug habits. This data could be read by law enforcement or even used against you in a court of law. It's sort of like swallowing RFID technology that tracks your medication use.
A few years ago, a friend of mine showed me a clever device that uses a laser to detect antioxidant levels in the body. It basically takes a reading based on the molecular signature of antioxidants in your skin. It uses a blue laser to produce a number revealing your antioxidant level. (Mine was very high, something like 90,000 on this machine.)

Theoretically, a similar detection device could be used to scan patients for nano particles to see whether or not they've taken their meds for the day, for the week, or even for the year. You could be scanned by a laser that you don't even see, and the government or anyone else could "read" your entire history of medication use. This information could be used against you in many ways:

• To deny you employment.
• To deny you health insurance coverage.
• To serve as evidence against you in a court of law.
• To take away your children by labeling you mentally unstable.
• To force you to take vaccines that you've been avoiding.

... and so on. This is a "drug enforcement" technology that makes all your private medication habits easily and instantly available to Big Brother and health industry drug enforcers who want you to "take all your meds."
This scenario is entirely fictitious at the moment, but with the way things are going with Big Brother and Big Pharma, it's a very real possibility in the near future. Nano technologies can be used in precisely this way to enforce compliance with things like drug prescriptions and treatment mandates. Big Brother will have access to your medical records because they'll have been implanted into your body tissues through nanotechnology, sort of like radio-frequency identification (RFID) for pharmaceuticals.

And now, with the nano technology mentioned here, Big Pharma could be embedding your body's tissues with nanoparticle data that turns you into a compliant, monopoly-priced drug consumer whose medication habits can now be scanned right off your skin. That's what Big Pharma wants, of course: Total control over your body. Combined with targeted lobbying of corrupt Washington lawmakers and bureaucrats, Big Pharma could achieve a "mandatory medication requirement" across the entire country, where every citizen is required to dose themselves with psychiatric drugs, statin drugs or vaccines. Your compliance will be verified with a nanotech scan that reads the nanodata right off your skin, and if you're found to be non-compliant, you could be arrested and forcibly medicated on the spot.

Well, talk about sign of the times....
When I first read this I was a little shocked, but then I realized nanotechnology was the inevitable future of so many things, medicine included.
Does that make me any less apprehensive to subject myself to this....no.
I try and maintain some objectivity in my judgement, but the history of big pharma's practice and compromising safety for profits, tends to tilt me towards an adverse position.
So many factors come into play here. The safety of nanotech in the human body, big brother stamping and tracking us, and employers screening people without even giving them a chance to sell or prove themselves. ( Gattica comes to mind here)
There is also the possibility of "mandatory medicine requirement," that with this technology, would seem hard to get around, especially if they could retrieve
information from a laser scan on our skin.
Maybe they should call these new drugs Orwellianapine.
www.naturalnews.com...
EDITOR'S NOTE UPDATE

TextEditor's Note: UPDATE 1 -- The company originally mentioned in this story now denies what NaturalNews reported. Their own website text as quoted in this story, was apparently misleading, and they now claim they do not use nano "material" of any kind to achieve their nano encoding. We are temporarily removing the name of this company from this story while we attempts to sort out the truth of the matter. In the past, we've had many company rush to change their own website text after we ran a story on them. All quotes published in this story were 100% accurate at the time of publication, and we made a good faith attempt to report this story accurately.

Hmmm, so they(pharma co) now deny the notion of using Nanotech for their "nano encoding?" Am I the only one that calls that fishy?

Peace

[edit on 17-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


You are close, but then when you realize that nanotech had been in government black projects for decades before we even heard about them, then you realize that this may have been in our food, medicine, the air, etc for years. Remember they know who you are and how to find you when need be.

There was already a thread on this topic, though it used a much less sensationalist source. This type of technology is aimed at making sure patients who are mentally incompetent or senile are taking their meds. That's all.

S&F! Excellent Catch!

These Corporate Statists will go to no ends to be all that they can be when it comes to your nightmare!

Jeeeees!

Talk about getting to a point to where only a gun and 6 feet of deep thinking on thier end will be the only way to get it through that teflon wrapped walnut of thiers that:

WE AREN'T GOD DAMN CATTLE

==

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


Oh god, naturalnews.com...Anyways, the only thing I got out of their "article" and some other reading was that the only thing different from systems we use now is that it has information on the actual pill to prevent counterfeit or fake pills from going around. The article obviously has some bias against, well, anything modern really. "big pharma / big brother tracking your drug use..."

But here's the part where this all turns Big Brother: The same scanning technology can theoretically be used to scan your body tissues and determine which drugs you've been taking, who sold them, where you bought them, where they were made and possibly even how long you've been taking them...By swallowing these nano-protected pills, you are essentially turning your body into a walking Big Pharma hard drive...You could be scanned by a laser that you don't even see, and the government or anyone else could "read" your entire history of medication use"

Oh no, not the government. But really, the actual pill has nothing to do with any tracking / scanning / turning you into a "big pharma hard drive", the pill has information on it that, if scanned, it tell you if it is legitimate or not. Yes, if outfitted with RFID's or whatever you want to fantasize about, it could track the specific pill, which would be absurd anyways( You'd be tracking billions, if not trillions of pills, individually ), but that's not what the pill does.

Besides that, the things they mention like:"the government or anyone else could "read" your entire history of medication use. This information could be used against you in many ways:

• To deny you employment.
• To deny you health insurance coverage.
• To serve as evidence against you in a court of law.
• To take away your children by labeling you mentally unstable.
• To force you to take vaccines that you've been avoiding. ( Typical anti-vaccine propaganda slipped in there)

They can already do that now, it's called medical records and drug tests.

This is a "drug enforcement" technology that makes all your private medication habits easily and instantly available to Big Brother and health industry drug enforcers who want you to "take all your meds."

No, it's no different than a regular pill with the exception that it basically has a barcode on it.

reply to post by ZuluChaka

This is true, thanks for the reply.
spec

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

This type of technology is aimed at making sure patients who are mentally incompetent or senile are taking their meds. That's all.

I hope you are right, but I don't think it will stop there. It makes sense for the Med and Ins industries to eventually utilize this technology to better organize and simplify their procedures.
spec


reply to post by Megiddodiddo

Thanks for the reply, and I too believe this is inevitable, though I do believe there will be some resistance to the implementation.
spec


reply to post by Whyhi

Thanks for the reply Whyhi, I guess I should have realized the source may be a little biased eh? Still though, it makes sense that things are progressing in this direction.

They can already do that now, it's called medical records and drug tests.

True, but not with the efficiency of this technology, which is why I think it will become a reality. It would be easier to maintain and access records on people, which could be a good thing, but personally, I have much distrust for big pharma. If we are moving to a one world gov, for better or worse, I think this technology will come to fruition, imo.
spec

Some additional info that supports the efforts of pharma co's utilization of nanotechnology, particularly to consolidate record keeping and commercialization.
I think the above mentioned scenario(op) is a very probable part of nanomedicine progression, it makes too much sense to me. As far as any nefarious association, well that is just my opinion, partially based on what I have seen over the last 10 years, profit before people.
www.news-medical.net...

With the potential for targeted therapy, and therefore reduced side effects, nanomedicine holds the promise of significantly improving quality of life parameters. At the same time, the adoption of nanotechnology-based applications by large therapeutic and diagnostic companies is accelerating the development of nanomedicine.
The prospect of site-specific therapeutic action and by extension of fewer side effects means that nanomedical applications have an enhanced risk-benefit analysis ratio. This is motivating their growing popularity as a therapeutic option.
Key to nanomedicine's rapid evolution has been the embrace of nanotechnology-based applications by pharmaceuticals, biopharmaceuticals and drug delivery companies. Prominent instances include the use of Elan Corporation's NanoCrystal technology by Wyeth and Merck and the deployment of Quantum Dot Corporation's Qdot(r) particles by Pfizer, GSK, Astra Zeneca and Genentech.

Forming synergistic collaborations with drug and medical device companies represents one of the most obvious routes of achieving such multi-disciplinary proficiency. Initially, such partnerships could take the form of joint marketing efforts, paving the way for nanomedical companies to independently handle all stages from R&D to commercialisation, in the long run.
"There is a pressing need for standardised manufacturing techniques for nanotechnology-based components," cautions Mr. Sankaran. "This is especially required if nanotechnology-based applications need to graduate to the big league and become ubiquitous in everyday applications. While they have the potential, an appropriate set of standards would help them reach there."

Peace

[edit on 17-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

Well the issue of counterfeit drugs is fairly serious:

The extent of the problem

The United States Food and Drug Administration estimates that counterfeits make up more than 10% of the global medicines market and are present in both industrialized and developing countries. It is estimated that up to 25% of the medicines consumed in poor countries are counterfeit or substandard.

These figures place the annual earnings from the sales of counterfeit and substandard medicines at over US$ 32 billion globally.

Trade in these medicines is more prevalent in countries with weak drug regulation control and enforcement, scarcity and/or erratic supply of basic medicines, unregulated markets and unaffordable prices. However, one of the most counterfeited drugs today is Viagra, which is sold extensively via the Internet in industrialized countries.

A World Health Organization (WHO) survey of counterfeit medicine reports from 20 countries between January 1999 to October 2000 found that 60% of counterfeit medicine cases occurred in poor countries and 40% in industralized countries.

In April 1999, reports of 771 cases of substandard medicines had been entered into the WHO database on counterfeits, 77% of which were from developing countries. Data analysis showed that in 60% of the 325 cases an active ingredient was missing from the product.

A recent study in The Lancet concluded that up to 40% of artusenate products (the best medicine to combat resistant malaria today) contain no active ingredients and therefore have no therapeutic benefits.

In 2002, GlaxoSmithKline in the United States discovered suspect bottles containing 60 tablets of Combivir (lamivudine plus zidovudine) that actually contained another medicine, Ziagen (abacavir sulfate). The company determined that counterfeit labels for Combivir tablets were placed on two bottles of Ziagen and labels on another two bottles were suspect. Both medicines are used as part of combination regimens to treat HIV infection and can cause potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions in patients taking other medicines in the combination.

Consequences of substandard and counterfeit medicines

At best, the regular use of substandard or counterfeit medicines leads to therapeutic failure or drug resistance; in many cases it can lead to death.

During the meningitis epidemic in Niger in 1995, over 50 000 people were inoculated with fake vaccines, received as a gift from a country which thought they were safe. The exercise resulted in 2,500 deaths.

Source

That's from the WHO website. The rest of their article is worth checking out.

As others have said, the article in the OP is so one-sided that it really detracts from the issue. The author rightfully points out that the health effects of nanotechnology is not well understood; at least, the technology is outpacing the ability to understand the risks in a responsible way, at this point. The author wrongfully decides that we should reject all nanotechnology as toxic because of the lack of long term health studies.

We don't even know what the nano-encoding technology will be made of. There is certainly no evidence that it is dangerous; it doesn't even exist yet. How can someone try to convince you that something is dangerous when they don't know anything about it?

It's quite common for big industry to persuade the public into accepting new technologies based on promises that they will make their lives better and safer. And that's exactly what's happening with nanotechnology: We're all being sold a bill of goods on something that's entirely unproven.

Yes, industry tells us that technology is good and the author tells us to fear what we don't understand. Which one of those philosophies has worked out for us so far? In this particular case, shouldn't we at least find out the real pros and cons? Isn't it possible that the benefits outweight the risks, and doesn't that possibility justify further investigation?

And getting back to the issue of embedding nanoparticles in drugs, the whole argument for why this is necessary stems from the notion that there's a lot of drug fraud occurring, and that it could be stopped if only drugs contained proprietary nanocode data that could be read from your body tissues. But does this benefit the consumer in any way? Who really stands to benefit from this?

Just think about how rediculous this statement is. The author is implying that consumers would not benefit from reduced drug counterfeiting. As though he would rather take a counterfeit drug - which could be literally anything, except of course what it is labeled as - than take a legitimate drug that has nano-scale identifiers. This is patently absurd, and his dismissive treatment of "the notion that there's a lot of drug fraud occuring" is in complete disagreement with the reality.

Of course the consumer benefits. The risks of this specific technology remain to be seen, as we don't even know what substance will be used or in what amounts, but reducing drug counterfeiting is good for patients. Read the WHO article linked above. Counterfeit drugs hurt people. Big Pharma will benefit only in that people who are trying to purchase their products will be able to buy the real thing, and won't be tricked into buying something fake. This seems like it ought to be acceptable.

Remember, modern medicine has done measurably more good than harm. Fear mongering and assuming that what is not understood is automatically evil has done more harm than good.

Edit to add: All that nonsense about how the information might be used against you is just untrue. First of all, the information about what meds you're taking is already available; your doc knows, you know, your pharmacy knows, your insurance knows, and it can be determined from a blood test. Second of all, medical information is protected. Your nano-encoding is medical information and is afforded the same protection as the other sources of information about your medication. It can't be used against you in any way that the existing sources of the same info could be used against you. The courts in the US have a long history of siding with the individuals.

[edit on 7/17/10 by OnceReturned]

reply to post by OnceReturned

Hey OnceReturned, thanks for the perspective.
I agree with much of what you say, however the one fringe potential regarding privacy of information is when dealing with employers. Granted they would have to have one's approval to check your records out, but the bit about the laser/skin reading sounds a little scary, if it is true.
The counterfeit drug point you make I concur with.

We don't even know what the nano-encoding technology will be made of. There is certainly no evidence that it is dangerous;

Is there a big difference between nano technology and nano-encoding tech? Because as far as nanotech being harmful to living organisms, there are numerous studies to support that, when I Googled it. It is so experimental and new, how can anyone guarantee their safety and/or how they affect native organisms.

All that nonsense about how the information might be used against you is just untrue.

Hmmm, maybe I have seen too many movies or read too many posts here, or don't trust TPTB, but I would have to disagree, but that is only my opinion.

Peace


[edit on 17-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist

Hmmm, maybe I have seen too many movies or read too many posts here, or don't trust TPTB, but I would have to disagree, but that is only my opinion.

Peace


[edit on 17-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

Trust them with...what? The names and dosages of your medication? You know that doctors and insurance companies already have this information about you, right? It's in your medical record.

Do you honestly think having an accurate way to measure how much of a given drug you have taken is some conspiracy to hunt you down or cage you in some wy? I don't see any possible way this technology could be developed that would intrude on your person in any manner.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


The mistrust is not so much with what info/records they have, but their access to it and moreover the whole nanomedicine notion. I don't want them in me and I don't think I'm alone.

I guess I am thinking about the future and how this progresses. Advances in genetic medicine is increasingly identifying genes that signify pre-disposed health ailments. Genetic information and predisposed genetic disorders /diseases will soon create further division in candidates for employment.

2ndly, I am talking about employment screening. Most jobs do not require blood samples and I am guessing it is either because of the cost for testing, or because people would have a hard time with such policies being enforced. I say this because what I am speculating on here, is what the article mentioned about laser reading from someone's skin. Not everyone discloses everything about their health when applying for jobs, right or wrong as it may be.

True they have all our info, but I want a choice in the matter when it comes to whether I have to permanently have it attached to me physically.
I don't want these things in me and I feel I should have a choice in that matter. However, if the screening process becomes so accurate, and able to be conducted with the only consent being "you want this job right?", then there lies a problem.

Another issue I have is with not just the info storage and delivery within this new paradigm, but the tracking abilities. No I don't care if they track my whereabouts, and yet I do if it is imposed.
Are you going to be first in line to take/prescribe these if offered? I will be last...

kind regards,
spec

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


You keep saying "these things" as if the nanotechnology being discussed is an entity. It is nothing more than a barcode, as a poster pointed out above. It's not a machine, it can't DO anything other than be recognized by a scanner until you poo/pee it out. That's it.

As for your medical records being tied to your job or insurance, there are already laws on the books preventing this from happening. It is currently illegal for an insurance company to have access to any genetic information about you other than diagnostic tests performed to confirm a diagnosis. It is illegal for them to have sequences of your DNA, descriptions of your predispositions, anything like that. In fact, the government wouldn't allow funds for a government-funded human genome project to be given out until such a ban was put into place.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

the nanotechnology being discussed is an entity

I stand corrected, I just found out it is more the structuring of matter than of an entity. I'm open to being wrong and learning from it.
Perhaps I digressed a bit from the post to include my own trepidation over any nanotechnology(medicine, sunscreen,food etc..) involving implementing it to/with the human body. Color me conspiratorial. My arena of thought encompasses potential wrong doings from the hands of those in power, and in this case with powerful technology as well.

there are already laws on the books preventing this from happening. It is currently illegal for an insurance company to have access to any genetic information about you other than diagnostic tests performed to confirm a diagnosis. It is illegal for them to have sequences of your DNA, descriptions of your predispositions, anything like that.

This I realize but if your records could be scanned simply by being present, don't you think some Ins Co's or employers are going to utilize it in making certain decisions, legally or not? I do.
I believe the Govmnt will eventually fund the HGP because the pharma co's will position the right people for prominent positions of decision making within the Govmnt.

spec

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
This I realize but if your records could be scanned simply by being present, don't you think some Ins Co's or employers are going to utilize it in making certain decisions, legally or not? I do.

Insurance companies are now banned, under federal law, from denying any client coverage based on a pre-existing condition. Additionally, if they were to deny coverage based on a genetic predisposition, they would have to offer an explanation. There is no way for a company to know this predisposition without having illegally accessed such information, which would be immediately apparent. Thus, it is impossible for them to use this information without anyone knowing.

I believe the Govmnt will eventually fund the HGP because the pharma co's will position the right people for prominent positions of decision making within the Govmnt.

You're about ten years behind. The government funded (and continues to fund) this project beginning about a decade ago, with the project being a joint government-private venture. The coding genome is sequenced already.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

There is no way for a company to know this predisposition without having illegally accessed such information, which would be immediately apparent.

Where there is a will there is a way.....money as the motivation makes things happen.

Thus, it is impossible for them to use this information without anyone knowing.

I disagree, but I don't put as much faith in things being done the right and lawful way as you may. Money trumps altruism sometimes, in my opinion.

You're about ten years behind. The government funded (and continues to fund) this project beginning about a decade ago, with the project being a joint government-private venture. The coding genome is sequenced already.

I know that, I meant I think the Gvmnt will soon support the application of genetic profile information being available, to them for whatever reason they claim, and to one's employer for insurance purposes.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist

I disagree, but I don't put as much faith in things being done the right and lawful way as you may. Money trumps altruism sometimes, in my opinion.

It's not about me having faith in things being done lawfully, it's about a company being unable to explain HOW they know you have a predisposition to colon cancer when they cancel your plan.

I know that, I meant I think the Gvmnt will soon support the application of genetic profile information being available, to them for whatever reason they claim, and to one's employer for insurance purposes.

They would have to repeal over a dozen longstanding federal laws, as well as the similar laws nearly every state has passed. Unlikely, given the only two times this has happened was the abolishment of slavery and the repeal of prohibition.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

explain HOW they know you have a predisposition

Who says they have to explain or record it? They could use the knowledge to determine coverage variables in your premium benefits or how much it costs.
If your doctor has your records which include a predisposition to colon cancer, what happens when the insurer or the employer finds out? You say they can't use this info against you but they just can't explain it to an individual as the reason for any changes. I just feel that they would still use the info against you.
With a a nano deigned pill storing all the info, the day will come where all that info will be scannable by anyone that posses the scanner, legit or not, and nanomedicine seems to be the vehicle for accommodating this scenario.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Who says they have to explain or record it? They could use the knowledge to determine coverage variables in your premium benefits or how much it costs.

When they change your premium, you are given the option to appeal, in which case they give you their explanation. How would they explain such an increase without divulging that they used illegal records?

If your doctor has your records which include a predisposition to colon cancer, what happens when the insurer or the employer finds out? You say they can't use this info against you but they just can't explain it to an individual as the reason for any changes. I just feel that they would still use the info against you.

And when they use it against you, they are required to explain it to you, or face a lawsuit, in which case they would be required to explain it before a judge. They could then either settle the suit and give you a nice, fat settlement, or they could divulge that they used illegal records. There really is no other explanation.

With a a nano deigned pill storing all the info, the day will come where all that info will be scannable by anyone that posses the scanner, legit or not, and nanomedicine seems to be the vehicle for accommodating this scenario.

Why would the pill store your genetic information? No one is suggesting it would, nor would that even be a useful technology. The only information that nanotechnology would store in medicines is the identity and dose of the pill in question.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Okay, so I took a some time to read up a little on nanomedicine. I found this article:

www.news-medical.net...

Now in response to your comments:

How would they explain such an increase without divulging that they used illegal records?

Crafty legal terms, numbers game, or policy changes. I would imagine only a small portion of people inquire about their increased rates or policy changes. At least not anything beyond asking why and then complaining. I would think an agent would explain it in some sensible way?

Why would the pill store your genetic information? No one is suggesting it would, nor would that even be a useful technology.

Me thinks this may be why...

the success of personalized medicine is contingent upon the ability of scientists and healthcare providers to capture, manage, store, and provide access to large amounts of data and medical information. This will require the use of high-speed computer networks and large databases composed of electronic health records (EHRs). At present, most medical records in the United States are almost exclusively paper-based. While billions of dollars of U.S. stimulus funds have been allocated to convert paper records into EHRs, no consensus has been reached on software standards that will be used to create, store, or share EHRs. Further, linking clinical data and genomic data sets is likely to present formidable integration challenges, and superimposing treatment algorithms on this data may be even more daunting.

I found this of interest too...

Personalized medicine advocates contend that the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) enacted in May 2008 would shield patients from potential “genetic discrimination” by either health insurance companies or employers. While this may be true, GINA does not cover life, disability, or long-term care insurance, and the potential for genetic discrimination still exists in these areas. For example, a person at genetic risk for developing Alzheimer’s could be denied long-term healthcare insurance because Alzheimer’s patients have been known to live for long periods of time, and their care is costly.

Surprisingly, at present, it isn’t clear who owns or ultimately controls a person’s genetic information and DNA sequence data after it is generated. For example, it is likely (but not certain) that a consumer who purchases whole genome sequencing services from a personal genomics company owns and controls his/her sequence data. However, as whole genome sequencing continues to enter the mainstream, individuals will likely receive complete or partial genomic sequence information from a variety of sources. Ownership and control of the information isn’t likely to be straightforward or easily defined until rules and regulations are crafted to clarify how genomic information is owned, stored, and accessed by individuals and third parties.

So the GINA doesn't shield all disabilities, in one case because of the short life expectancy associated with it. I could see how that makes sense in the eyes of the insurer I guess. But discrimination potential nonetheless, imo.

It seems this is such a new movement that there are a lot of issues to be ironed out and so only time will tell what may come.

brings to mind "one a day" how long have they been around? if your in the armed service, do you still get your 35 med shots? digital angle no longer goes by that name, do you now your pin numbers by memory, or do you have to look them up? would you get a chip to have what you have or would you let it all go?just some good thoughts to think about,