It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big Pharma Nanotechnology Encodes Pills With Tracking Data That You Swallow

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


High-horses? Objectively speaking, that would include your position too.
Does the history of pharmaceutical development and application warrant no concerns, ever?



There is absolutely nothing in this technology that would lend itself to any sort of conspiracy.

Not sure how anyone could state such a thing with such certainty.
Again, agree to disagree.


spec




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


I can say it with certainty because neither of you have been able to point to any part of the technology that would contain personal information, be able to alter a person, or do anything against a person's will. So far, all you've been able to do is say, "Well, but what if they added this to it, and what about quantom computers?" Well, what if your computer has a tiny antenna in it, transmitting all your keystrokes to the NSA? You better shut off your computer, just to be safe, right?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Ok, let me start with the article . . . while nanotechnology is been promoted and researched is far from been a monster right now. . .

With that say let take the real monster here, already most of the US manufactured drugs are made oversea and the ones made in the US are mostly from oversea suppliers, so much for safety and regulation.

Now chips companies are already working with implantable and time release monitored capsules that will "help those" that can not remember to take medications due to many reasons.

Any body that wants to known about this information all it has to do is research verichip on health care.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 




Well, what if your computer has a tiny antenna in it, transmitting all your keystrokes to the NSA? You better shut off your computer, just to be safe, right?

That is going to extremes a bit. Rather, I would like to maintain an awareness of potentiality regarding the subject, so that I will recognize it as it unfolds, if it does.
Using the line of logic from your statement, I guess there is never anything to worry about concerning scienc/medical advances involving our bodies. So I will take whatever they feed me and question nothing.
You would not allow any room for concerns with these advances?
Both of these statements are illogical. There is middle ground here I think.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Well, what if your computer has a tiny antenna in it, transmitting all your keystrokes to the NSA? You better shut off your computer, just to be safe, right?


Ugh, more logical fallacies, exaggerations, and straw man arguments ... makes one wonder why you would have to resort to any of those tactics if your argument was sound on its own.

As to your false analogy above, the choices aren't get a computer and like it or throw your computer away. We get computers and use software/hardware to protect ourselves from all sorts of things. It's called accepting technology AND be mindful of its pitfalls.

As a self proclaimed medical/genetic "rockstar" surely you are familiar with the substantial field of bioethics. The field is precisely there to consider the very same things we are discussing on this thread. Namely taking new genetic/scientific/medical technologies and projecting into the future all the potential ethical quagmires they could entail.

I for one I'm done with this conversation as you seem unwilling and/or unable to even broach what are reasonable considerations and concerns about any emerging technology ... thankfully there are many in your field of work who take a more careful and holistic approach to their own discoveries.

More importantly you seem to think that science stands alone ... it does not, there are always humans involved, and where there are humans there will always be divergent usage motives/applications for any new technology.

Regards.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Hi OS.

Ok enough is enough! Seen a couple of threads tonight on similar themes.

Let's look at this ratinonally. Even if each of us has a nanochip embedded who the hell is watching each of us? And for how long?

So, we add another couple - for clothing (as posted at ATS), for food (as posted at ATS)....

Why all the fear mongering?

Yup we know all emails, all our text messages and all our posts are being tracked... but seriously, by whom - they are merely filtered by super computers that have been programmed by humans but which can't differentiate and therefore, require cerebral thought (and time). The logistics are totally impossible.

You need a population x n number of monitors to understand what each individual is doing/think/breathing/defacating....whilst at the same the said population don't even know what or are doing or why they are performing actions in themselves? (Aapart from defacating...)

Sorry - unless you believe we are all tracked by assigned guardian angels - there doesn't appear to be enough resources to contol anyone - apart from the mindless that watch the box and are happy to be brainwashed.

BTW McD's profits are up 21%!

Peace!

[edit on 23-7-2010 by The Wave]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by The Wave
 


Thank you for being one of the sane few here.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Please read ALL of my post, rather than cherrypicking statements and omitting words like "most" and "some".

Of course there is some technology that warrants concern. Those technologies, though, have plausible uses for less than benevolent tasks. This technology is not one of them. I've challenged you and Schrodinger to explain how this technology could be used in a bad way, and the best either of you have come up with is, literlally "Well, what about quantum computers!?"



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Ugh, more logical fallacies, exaggerations, and straw man arguments ... makes one wonder why you would have to resort to any of those tactics if your argument was sound on its own.


How was my statement an exaggeration? It is more likely, by several orders of magnitude, that the NSA is monitoring your computer than for this technology to somehow be used in a bad way. There is nothing in this technology that would allow for anything other than identification of the pill you are holding. Period.


As a self proclaimed medical/genetic "rockstar" surely you are familiar with the substantial field of bioethics. The field is precisely there to consider the very same things we are discussing on this thread. Namely taking new genetic/scientific/medical technologies and projecting into the future all the potential ethical quagmires they could entail.


Bioethics also requires that you understand the capabilities of the technology being examined. You clearly have not met this requirement, as you think this is some sort of personalized barcode that transmits it's data.


I for one I'm done with this conversation as you seem unwilling and/or unable to even broach what are reasonable considerations and concerns about any emerging technology ... thankfully there are many in your field of work who take a more careful and holistic approach to their own discoveries.


There are also people in my field who believe angels heal their patients. They are considered quacks and generally looked down upon, similar to those who think our drugs are being "bugged" by someone, like you apparently seem to think they will be.


More importantly you seem to think that science stands alone ... it does not, there are always humans involved, and where there are humans there will always be divergent usage motives/applications for any new technology
Regards.


Of course there will be new uses for technologies, but they always obey the laws of physics and computing. Nothing you have suggested does either.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Okay ... I think I may see the reason for the disconnect here.

First of all, without picking at sentences/statements one by one let me just say that unless I am severely mistaken, I have never uttered any of the statements you accuse me of ... including saying anything about the guvment tracking anyone 24/7 with this technology.

Should you wish to go back through my posts on this thread and the original thread, you will find that all I have done is ask questions in general and ponder potential applications. It seems you have been interacting with a lot of folks who might have some more "imaginative" ideas of what is possible and your general frustration with their disposition has made you react polemically with anyone who you perceive to be of their like mind.

I am not.

All I am defending is the process of critical thought and analysis ... and not even necessarily by myself but by those who are qualified. But you seem to reject that process outright and embrace new technologies unequivocally. There's a name for that and it called "Scientism."

Now, I never said this or that will happen, I merely asked the question could this or that happen. You can join in this inquiry, though it seems your mind is made up on this and several other subjects, or you can accept all emerging technology without the slightest scrutiny.

Finally let me say this ... your argument of asking anyone to "prove" to you how this could be used in order for you to accept it is yet another fallacious one ... so far as I know no one has successfully cloned a human yet, that doesn't mean that there isn't a whole bunch of folks deliberating and even legislating against it. So the technology can be hypothetical and it doesn't negate the validity of its consideration.

I am hoping that what we have here is a failure to communicate, because all I have ever proposed is that some questions are valid whereas it seems that you are negating the need for them.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 


well, i can believe that big pharma might be thinking about this, but as you said, so much can already be found out about a person thru medical records, drug tests, etc.
I hope this doesn't happen, at least in my lifetime, I hope I am dead and moved on to the "next life".



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


VneZonyDostupa.....

I think "Natural News" really has "the wrong end of the stick" with this one.

I also think the Co at the forefront of this technology has used the term "Nano" more as promo & spin & less as a description of it's technology.

Therefore I believe the premise of this thread is fundamentally flawed because the "Natural News" article is misleading.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

Hey friend, thanks for chiming in and I agree the premise is flawed and I did not know Natural News was what it was and should not be a place to argue from. I admit(ted) my digression earlier in the thread, and those digressions have been the subject of discussion. But when asked why one thinks the way they do, sometimes you have to cast a wider net to get the scope of origin of a particular view.

I am starting to see accusations/assertions repeat themselves in this thread and I think all points have been covered leaving nothing but tit for tat arguments and a downward spiral into condescension which seems to be the next step when someone can't get someone else to agree with them or their "realism," which imo, is both subjective and objective therefore cannot be purely objective, as in there is only one reality here.

I have learned much here about the topic as well as things to consider when posting a thread. I am grateful for all the responses and I am left with a personal "agree to disagree."
I have said all that I can say on this subject without repeating myself so, I will leave any further conjecture to others.

spec



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Double post...my bad

[edit on 23-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Speculativeoptimist.....

It's always a great pleasure to see you in the threads!


I have spent my whole clinical & business life in the area of advanced medical technology.

I presently run a very large & successful medical business that specialises in assessing, acquiring, launching & managing very new & very innovative medical technologies.

I can tell you from hard experience.....this area is massively complex & very easily misinterpreted.


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

I think "Natural News" really has "the wrong end of the stick" with this one.


Hey mmn ...

Natural News often has a sensationalist spin to their stories for their own website promotion, but their sources as opposed to their conclusions are usually sound.

Here's the original physorg article describing the same technology from a more 'neutral' pov.


It is still not unreasonable imho to ask questions (not conclude) as to any potential alternative applications of such a technology, especially as it will undoubtedly improve with time.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Schrodingers Dog…..


Hey mmn ...


Hey Schrodingers Dog!



Natural News often has a sensationalist spin to their stories for their own website promotion, but their sources as opposed to their conclusions are usually sound.


Fair enough……


Here's the original physorg article describing the same technology from a more 'neutral' pov.


Thanks…..I shall have a look at that.


It is still not unreasonable imho to ask questions (not conclude) as to any potential alternative applications of such a technology


I agree…..I spend much of my working life asking questions about new medical technology, for a variety of different reasons & I clearly understand why you would ask questions about new medical technology pertaining to the thoughts you have posted.


especially as it will undoubtedly improve with time.


Well…..sometimes these improve & sometimes they don’t, for a variety of reasons including but not limited to…..

- Technical

- Commercial

- Ethical

My own guess at the future of this technology is it will not progress too far for a combination of reasons pertaining to my 3 broad categories as noted above.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist

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.


And at that point, you are also confusing nano-engineered materials and nanomachines, which are not the same thing at all.

I'm not sure anyone's got a working nano-scale robot. I'm not sure it can be done. I've certainly not heard of one, and I hear about a LOT of things the normal folk don't.

If you want to postulate the possible functions of a possible machine in a possible future, it's one too many extrapolations for me. And there's just a lot of reasons why you couldn't get this to work quite like that. And I'm not sure what the point would be - it's back to what I call the Goldfinger syndrome. Could we invent very complex, very futuristic technology to do stupid pointless jobs, yes, Mr Bond, I expect you to die - but it's always going to be cheaper to just shoot someone than to tie them down on a gold table and cut them in two with a fakey laser.

When you combine multiple levels of what if..then what if...then what if...then what if...and the end result is to track whether you've had your daily Chocks, I have this urge to do a facepalm that's nearly irresistable.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Ok, you have a chip and you have an antenna, they also working to have the dissolution as a controllable variable...


But I'm sure you realize that's not at all the topic of the OP's article.

Next, the capsule trick you are linking to is an h-field part, and is not interrogatable at a distance.

I guess you could have people running up to you with a reader coil to see if you've had your soma, but it's going to be somewhat obvious.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Here's the original physorg article describing the same technology from a more 'neutral' pov.


Actually, this is a totally different thing, unrelated in every way.

One is a label printing system that provides lot tracking and manufacturer data on an individual tablet basis, and the other is a lame RFID idea.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join