Big Pharma Nanotechnology Encodes Pills With Tracking Data That You Swallow

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


You're misunderstanding the application of personalized medicine. It would do physicians literally ZERO good if the pill stored information. The point of personalized medicine is that everyone has a different CYP profile, the enzymes responsible for drug metabolism. When we are able to do a quick and inexpensive assay of your personal genotype for this small number of enzymes (not your whole genome, nor any genes that might show a predisposition to a given disease), we can tailor dosages and prescriptions to your specific metabolism. That's it. Nothing nefarious, nothing devious, just a way to give you the most effective dose possible.

I do agree with you, though, that the GINA legislation needs a patch-up for life and disability insurance. I imagine they excluded it at the time because it didn't seem like a reasonable problem, or because the insurance companies lobbied like crazy. That being said, the latest healthcare reform bill makes it increasingly difficult for ANY insurer (health, life, disability, or otherwise) to deny you based on a pre-existing condition, which a genetic predisposition would fall under.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Okay VZD, I have enjoyed the correspondence and have learned something in the process. I appreciate your civility and insight. On the notion of anything nefarious or devious, even by way of incompetence, well I agree to disagree, partly. However, you have somewhat deflated some of my conspiracy momentum and I feel that is a good thing. This is part of why I like ats, constructive and challenging feedback, from people with various backgrounds, including professionals.
Best wishes in your endeavors, tis certainly interesting times we live in, technologically speaking.

Peace

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


Originally posted by speculativeoptimist

Ah, jeez, natural news.These guys are not exactly your one-stop shop of technically accurate info.

The 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.

This guy is given to leaps of illogic. One is that NanoGuardian uses "nanoparticles" in any way. Another problem is that the author is obviously pretty non-conversant with technology in any form, and like most science-illiterate journos, thinks that anything with "nano" in the title is all the same thing, sort of the same way journos do with RFID. So like most of them, he confuses nanoparticulate material engineering with nanomachinery. Watch.

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.

Only it's not "a molecular barcode". It's a print technique for printing little tiny labels on the surfaces of pills and capsules. Like the little microprint on newer US currency, only smaller. It's not "floating data bits", it's not "nano hard drives". One has to wonder how he gets "nano hard drives" out of this. But no, it won't be possible for technicians to somehow read it, any more than you could read the WaPo from the guy's poop if he tore up a page and ate it. If you ate a barcode, do you expect that it somehow remains intact somewhere in your tissues?

A study from 2004 found that low levels of fullerenes...iron is a necessary mineral that benefits the body in its natural form, its nanoparticle is quite dangerous, it turns out.

Bees smell fear, and the human head weighs about eight pounds. These guys love to hum in a sciency non-sequitur to give themselves validation. Only what he just said doesn't pertain to this topic.

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.

And this part's true...

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.

...but this part he pulled out of his arse.

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.

Only it doesn't. It's a little printed code on the surface of the tablet. It's not a hard drive. He's striving really really hard to push the hard drive concept. Only he's a 'tard, technically speaking.

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.)

A possibly non-true story, but at any rate a non-sequitur.

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 take away your children by labeling you mentally unstable.
• To force you to take vaccines that you've been avoiding.

And another "fact" pulled out of his arse. Why would you think a questionably true anti-oxidant detector would "read nanoparticle hard drives", whatever those are? I have a neat gadget called a curve tracer, should I expect this will also read nano hard drive barcodes? Will any piece of diagnostic equipment do? How did I know he was afraid of being labeled mentally unstable? I must be psycho.

This scenario is entirely fictitious

Well, at least he's not totally out of touch with reality yet.

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.

But only if "nano hard drives" were real, and only if an anti-oxidant detector which may or may not be real is capable of reading them, two flights of fancy neither of which are real.

Hmmm, so they(pharma co) now deny the notion of using Nanotech for their "nano encoding?"

I'd imagine that they deny that leprechauns using Rife microscopes are painting on the barcodes using unicorn-hair brushes too...

reply to post by Bedlam

Ah, jeez, natural news.These guys are not exactly your one-stop shop of technically accurate info.

This I have learned, thanks.
I appreciate your input and angle on the matter.
I just feel that sometimes if something can be done, it will be done when it comes to scientific advances, especially with profit involved. That is not to say all advances have a malevolent attachment to them, but when it comes to medicine, I remain a little skeptical of the degree/direction such advances will travel.
What if the laser bit is true? Makes for interesting speculation, no?
Thanks again for the reply.

spec

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
What if the laser bit is true? Makes for interesting speculation, no?

But that doesn't make sense. For it to BE true, or even have a chance at being true, you'd have to eat a barcode, it has to remain intact, it has to be transported to the surface of your skin, and it has to be on the surface in a readable orientation.

Then the code has to be too small to see, yet have features that are easily picked off by a laser at a distance, with a power output so low you can't see it.

I'm going to have to give it four and a half moos for bullcrap, I'm afraid.

wow. I quickly scanned the posts and had a question regarding the inhalation of nanoparticles... is it possible to spray the air, such as chemtrails, to get a mass population to inhale this?

reply to post by Bedlam

But that doesn't make sense. For it to BE true, or even have a chance at being true, you'd have to eat a barcode, it has to remain intact, it has to be transported to the surface of your skin, and it has to be on the surface in a readable orientation.

Maybe I am giving the potential abilities of nano technology too much credit, but the way I see it technology will increasingly be able to do whatever we wish it to. Is it so improbable that a nano machine could store info, be programmed to reside in the epidermal layer and be detectable by some type of Nano scanning device? I think more yea than nay.
As fast as computer, nano and quantum technology is evolving, yes it is my opinion that they can or will be able to do just what you mentioned.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Is it so improbable that a nano machine could store info, be programmed to reside in the epidermal layer and be detectable by some type of Nano scanning device?

Yes, it is improbably. In order to do this, the machine would need some means of knowing where in the body it is a given time after ingestion. The rate of gastric emptying into the duodenum varies person to person, and is also dependent on hormonal influence. Assuming it is somehow able to determine it's location, it would have to pass through the bowels absorption system into the blood, which is highly selective and would not allow a mechanical entity to pass, as it barely allows most small molecules to pass. Following that, the nanotechnology would have to combat turbulent, high velocity bloodflow, determinining it's orientation and location in a second-to-second fashion, and would have to be able to burrow through dozens of cell layers to position itself in the epidermis.

In short, the technology needed to pull off such a stunt is so far-fetched, not even science fiction authors tackle it too often. It would be cumbersome, ineffective, and expensive, assuming anything like it even comes into existence in the next 200 years.

As fast as computer, nano and quantum technology is evolving, yes it is my opinion that they can or will be able to do just what you mentioned.

Computers haven't evolved that much, though. They still process binary data, they still require physical memory and circuits, and they still obey the laws of physics. The nanotechnology you keep considering "realistic" is far outside the bounds of even theoretical technology and physics.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
There was already a thread on this topic, though it used a much less sensationalist source.

Mmm, there was a thread about it, the source was Physorg, you participated and we had a rather civil and dare I say informative, albeit short, conversation about it ... on both its ethical and practical permutations.

You predisposition to view anything revolving around the medical profession as anything other that sacred seems to have significantly solidified since then, not to mention an averse reaction to a website named NaturalNews which seems to raise personal issue that should be discussed in a quiet room with a qualified professional and a hug dispenser ... so much so that thy intransigence makes you forget that there once was a place in the noggin for grey areas.

There's still good in you VZD, I can feel it!

[edit on 22 Jul 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I'm not sure why you think I feel everything in the medical field is "sacred" just because I have a reasonable grasp on the topic at hand. There is nothing in this technology that would even hint at a violation of privacy or autonomy.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

I'm not sure why you think I feel everything in the medical field is "sacred" just because I have a reasonable grasp on the topic at hand. There is nothing in this technology that would even hint at a violation of privacy or autonomy.

Well I tend to read your posts precisely because you seem to know your stuff ... that in fact has never been in question from my part. My observation is more regarding your seeming inability or unwillingness to extrapolate other feasible/realistic applications for a technology beyond its original intended use. And ridicule to some degree those that do, both in the original thread and increasingly so since.

Yet history is filled with scientists, many of them men of virtue and affection for their fellow man, who's breakthroughs were eventually used and abused as tools of "evil" for lack of a better term, soon after their discovery. Sure in many cases that was not the original purpose, but that is the reality that played out.

So that's where you and I for what it is worth go in different paths ... in fact your stops with the acceptance of the "thing" as it is and needs no more extrapolation. Others like myself, within the guides of reason and plausibility, try to imagine other uses for all these wonderful things.

Fact is it doesn't matter much what you and I do anyway ... there are people at work as we speak evaluating the use everything that is invented as a potential tool for their ambitions.

We know this to be true, there's countless examples in our history.

[edit on 22 Jul 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I'm well aware that some inventions have been used for evil. However, nothing about this technology lends itself to anything of the sort. The only information stored on these pills is dose and type of medication. That's it. Do you honestly think a pharmacy is going to have the time or equipment to imprint every capsule in prescription containing dozens of pills with your patient information?

No, they won't. They'll encode it with the dose and medication type at the manufacturing plant. That's all they're doing. That way, when you have patients who are either mentally unsound or unable to completely care for themselves, their healthcare providers have a relatively easy way to be sure the patient received their medication.

If I'm missing something about this technology, please, inform me. But, to date, no one has shown me anything that is even remotely able to be used to store or expose patient information.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

If I'm missing something about this technology, please, inform me. But, to date, no one has shown me anything that is even remotely able to be used to store or expose patient information.

Ok ... this is from physorg from the original thread linked above:

One part is the pill, a standard white capsule coated with a label embossed with silvery lines. The lines comprise the antenna, which is printed using ink made of nontoxic, conductive silver nanoparticles. The pill also contains a tiny microchip, one about the size of a period.

"The vision of this project has always been that you have an antenna that is biocompatible, and that essentially dissolves a little while after entering the body,"

Ok, you have a chip and you have an antenna, they also working to have the dissolution as a controllable variable. I'm sorry but if those combinations, benign as they may be at the moment, do not make you raise an eyebrow as to how they could be applied for other purposes than uncle Bob taking his meds, then you are correct and there's little point in continuing this conversation further.

But I'm willing to wager that even as Siegfried Marcus was putting the first internal combustion engine on his handcart, the soupcon occurred to him that it might one day propel a vehicle of war.

[edit on 22 Jul 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Controlling the rate of dissolution has been possible since the realization that you can give meds by mouth, injection, or as a suppository. Why do you think some drugs are gel caps while others are solid pills? To control the rate at which the pill dissolves. Some are only effective when they get to the duodenum, so you design them to hold together until they pass the stomach. Others are only effective in the stomach, so you design them to dissolve quickly.

And why does the idea of a chip and antenna seem so sinister? Again, you're acting as if they are going to program every pill in every prescription with a patients medical record, which is simply impractical. Why would you want to do that? What good would it do? Who would gain anything if they were able to glean from your pill bottle that you are taking penicillin G for a case of syphillis?

I'm still not seeing a conspiracy here, other than the conspiracy of this site continuing to be a cauldron of fear and paranoia.

One advance in computers, which you say has not been that significant is quantum computing. Just recently they have made quite a leap.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Existing communications and computer architecture are increasingly being limited by the pedestrian speed of electrons moving through wires, and the future of high-speed communication and computing is in optics, experts say. The Holy Grail of results would be "wireless interconnecting," which operates at speeds 100 to 1,000 times faster than current technology.

This will usher in some truly revolutionary applications I would imagine. So yes, I feel that technology will take us into the realms of imagination.

I found this article about the future of nanotech and what we are dealing with here is molecular manufacturers. How can one doubt the reaches of these advances? Sounds like sky's the limit to me.
www.scientificamerican.com...

Descriptions of nanotech typically characterize it purely in terms of the minute size of the physical features with which it is concerned--assemblies between the size of an atom and about 100 molecular diameters. That depiction makes it sound as though nanotech is merely looking to use infinitely smaller parts than conventional engineering. But at this scale, rearranging the atoms and molecules leads to new properties. One sees a transition between the fixed behavior of individual atoms and molecules and the adjustable behavior of collectives. Thus, nanotechnology might better be viewed as the application of quantum theory and other nano-specific phenomena to fundamentally control the properties and behavior of matter.
Starting around 2010, workers will cultivate expertise with systems of nanostructures, directing large numbers of intricate components to specified ends. One application could involve the guided self-assembly of nanoelectronic components into three-dimensional circuits and whole devices. Medicine could employ such systems to improve the tissue compatibility of implants, or to create scaffolds for tissue regeneration, or perhaps even to build artificial organs.
After 2015-2020, the field will expand to include molecular nanosystems--heterogeneous networks in which molecules and supramolecular structures serve as distinct devices. The proteins inside cells work together this way, but whereas biological systems are water-based and markedly temperature-sensitive, these molecular nanosystems will be able to operate in a far wider range of environments and should be much faster. Computers and robots could be reduced to extraordinarily small sizes. Medical applications might be as ambitious as new types of genetic therapies and antiaging treatments. New interfaces linking people directly to electronics could change telecommunications.

Descriptions of nanotech typically characterize it purely in terms of the minute size of the physical features with which it is concerned--assemblies between the size of an atom and about 100 molecular diameters. That depiction makes it sound as though nanotech is merely looking to use infinitely smaller parts than conventional engineering. But at this scale, rearranging the atoms and molecules leads to new properties. One sees a transition between the fixed behavior of individual atoms and molecules and the adjustable behavior of collectives. Thus, nanotechnology might better be viewed as the application of quantum theory and other nano-specific phenomena to fundamentally control the properties and behavior of matter.
Starting around 2010, workers will cultivate expertise with systems of nanostructures, directing large numbers of intricate components to specified ends. One application could involve the guided self-assembly of nanoelectronic components into three-dimensional circuits and whole devices. Medicine could employ such systems to improve the tissue compatibility of implants, or to create scaffolds for tissue regeneration, or perhaps even to build artificial organs.
After 2015-2020, the field will expand to include molecular nanosystems--heterogeneous networks in which molecules and supramolecular structures serve as distinct devices. The proteins inside cells work together this way, but whereas biological systems are water-based and markedly temperature-sensitive, these molecular nanosystems will be able to operate in a far wider range of environments and should be much faster. Computers and robots could be reduced to extraordinarily small sizes. Medical applications might be as ambitious as new types of genetic therapies and antiaging treatments. New interfaces linking people directly to electronics could change telecommunications.

This paper really goes into the future of nano tech, a nice read. Who could doubt what exactly a molecular manufacturer could or could not do?
www.foresight.org...

The second product is a gene reader, a complex molecular device built on the surface of a chip. The biologists who built the reader combined proteins borrowed from cells with special-purpose molecular machines designed from scratch. The result was a molecular system that binds DNA molecules and pulls them past a read-head-like tape through a tape recorder. The device works as fast as some naturally occurring molecular machines that read DNA, with one key advantage: it outputs its data electronically. At that speed, a single device can read a human genome in about a year. Though still too expensive for a doctor's office, these readers are promptly in great demand from research laboratories. Another small industry is born.
The eventual result was a primitive molecular assembler able to build molecular objects by the trillions.
Within a decade, almost anything could be made by molecular manufacturing, and was.

www.foresight.org...
www.foresight.org...

Again, you're acting as if they are going to program every pill in every prescription with a patients medical record, which is simply impractical. Why would you want to do that? What good would it do?

Because of this?

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.

It appears there are 2 camps of thought here. One says they can and will develop this tech and one says they can't and won't. Don't get me wrong, I am astounded at the advances in science and medicine, but it does not end there. It is the money machine that sometimes solicits the nefarious and deceptive angles on these advances. Neither of us can accurately say with absolute certainty that we are right, we have to speculate as these things occur. True there is a lot of fear and paranoia here, but just because one raises concerns about a subject that could harbor potential wrong doing, does not necessarily make those people paranoid. I would liken it to a social drinker, they are not necessarily alcoholics. So we can postulate our theories without all being categorized as paranoid, imo.

spec

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

I'm still not seeing a conspiracy here, other than the conspiracy of this site continuing to be a cauldron of fear and paranoia.

Fear and paranoia?
Is it hyperbole day again?

Your rigidity and unwillingness to consider anything other than this technology's intended/marketed use, combined with your 'quick on the draw' penchant for squashing valid considerations and honest inquiry is at the very least intentionally disingenuous, at worst obfuscation to an end.

No one is screaming "they're hiding haarp in mah pills" .... perhaps you should re-familiarize yourself with the law of unintended consequences as it has born many an undesired result. No matter, in all those instance as in this one there were many who welcomed the tools of their enslavement and championed those "who were here to help" ...

And so it goes ...

So, you're willing to trash a wonderful advance in medicine that will make it possible to give smaller, more effective doses of medications that are specific to the individual, purely because of a "future technology" that "might exist" at "some point in time"...or maybe it won't.

Seriously? If the entire world was as paranoid and timid as some of the people on this board, we likely never would have invented the wheel. They would have been afraid that, despite it's obvious advantages, someone might hurt another person with some future technology that uses a wheel.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

So, you're willing to trash a wonderful advance in medicine that will make it possible to give smaller, more effective doses of medications that are specific to the individual, purely because of a "future technology" that "might exist" at "some point in time"...or maybe it won't.

If adding concern to the subject is "trashing" an advance, well to each their own. I stated my admiration for our science/medicine advances, but no I don't believe they will remain wholesome through the marketing process.

Seriously? If the entire world was as paranoid and timid as some of the people on this board, we likely never would have invented the wheel. They would have been afraid that, despite it's obvious advantages, someone might hurt another person with some future technology that uses a wheel.

And if we accepted everything at face value without scrutiny. where would that leave us? In the wake of profits before people,imo.
This is not an either or scenario, both of our stances can be accommodated here, no?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
So, you're willing to trash a wonderful advance in medicine that will make it possible to give smaller, more effective doses of medications that are specific to the individual, purely because of a "future technology" that "might exist" at "some point in time"...or maybe it won't.

Who trashed anything?
Certainly not me.

I welcome medical/scientific breakthroughs but I'm also mindful of what can come of them down the road ... whereas you seem to only focus on the former and discard and belittle the latter. It is not a new tactic btw ... though I will show you how flawed it is by replacing a couple of words in your last sentence who someone of your disposition surely spoke not long ago:

So, you're willing to trash a wonderful advance in genetics that will make it possible to feed the world, more effective GMO that are specific to the demand, purely because of a "future technology" that "might exist" at "some point in time"...or maybe it won't.

See ... it happens.

Seriously, one doesn't have to choose between being a luddite or belong to the church of scientism ... it's not a choice between embrace unconditionally and reject irrationally. It's called critical thinking and anything else is flagrant dogma.

[edit on 23 Jul 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Oh please, both of you can step off of your high-horses anytime now. Everytime someone posts something about a new advancement in science or medicine, the first response is, "Well, but what if pharma uses it to spy on me?!" or "what if the insurance companies get my information?!". It's sheer paranoia for no reason other than to be paranoid and you know it. There is absolutely nothing in this technology that would lend itself to any sort of conspiracy.

As for GMO crops, I think overall they are fine. The bullying tactics of Monsanto against farmers is awful and should be illegal, but the crops themselves have allowed us to produce more than enough food for the nation, and other nations, too. There is little to no evidence that any adverse effects arise from eating GMO foods.