Debunked: Obamacare RFID Chip Implant Law Hoax

Mick West said:
Ashley has been banned for one month for being impolite.

I don't think conversation with him as going to be very productive. Seeing as he seemed convinced he was more intelligent than everyone.

I'm trying to keep a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio here.
Click to expand...
I had him on ignore but could still follow the dialogue. Does this mean I am psychic or he is predictable?

Don't worry about starting a new thread to answer that ;-)
 
I read and downloaded the PDF file from the official govt. site: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200ih.pdf. on page 1000 of the document it clearly states under the Subtitle C—National Medical Device Registry that: ''(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the 'registry') to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—... 2008 01:43 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01000 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS 1001 HR 3200 IH ''(B) is—
1
''(i) a class III device; or
2
''(ii) a class II device that is implantable,... (Guess what? The RFID chip falls under this classification of device!)

''(2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall,in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods for—''(A) including in the registry, in a manner consistent with subsection (f), appropriate information to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by
type, model, and serial number or other unique identifier; '(B) validating methods for analyzing patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and
for linking such data with the information included in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), including, to the extent feasible, use of—''(i) data provided to the Secretary underother provisions of this chapter; and '(ii) information from public and private sources identified under paragraph (3);
25
VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:43 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
1002
•
HR 3200 IH ''(C) integrating the activities described in this subsection with—
2
''(i) activities under paragraph (3) of section 505(k) (relating to active postmarket risk identification);
5
''(ii) activities under paragraph (4) of section 505(k) (relating to advanced analysis of drug safety data); and ''(iii) other postmarket device surveillance
activities of the Secretary authorized by this chapter; and ''(D) providing public access to the data and analysis collected or developed through the registry
in a manner and form that protects patient privacy and proprietary information and is comprehensive, useful, and not misleading to patients, physicians,
and scientists.

Let me ask you a question Mr. Debunker, Is this not misleading? A Harvard Law student would have a difficult time figuring this all out, especially when you consider all the other legislation that is referenced and included in this document.

I then went to the official ObamaCare info site and see what they had to say about all of this. Why not go straight to the horses mouth? The information there also is misleading very much like the PDF excerpt and your original thread. I found the "bend over, here it comes clause on the Obama myth debunked page. Here it is, decide for yourself: see: http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-microchip-implant.php

"Note: The FDA has established standards for an implantable radiofrequency transponder systems (RFID chips) that are Class II compliant (http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...ElectromagneticCompatibilityEMC/ucm116647.htm). However, these RFID chips will have patient identification and health information. While the bill does not require mandatory RFID microchip implantation, it does establish an initial framework where the scope could be expanded with future legislation and regulation." Let me repeat it for you in case you missed it. "While the bill does not require mandatory RFID microchip implantation, it does establish an initial framework where the scope could be expanded with future legislation and regulation."

In other words when you initially sign up for this wonderful, govt. mandate, you are agreeing to the initial framework where the scope could be expanded with future legislation and regulation. This has all been planned and slowly fed to the American people. It's like cooking a pot of frogs. First you put them into room temperature water and slowly add the flame until they are boiling. They don't notice what's happening to them... When you are standing in line to have the chip implanted, I guess then you'll realize what's going on..
 
And take special note of the claim that everyone would be implanted forcibly with a tracking microchip commencing march 23rd. Didn't happen.
 
jeff lynch said:
I read and downloaded the PDF file from the official govt. site: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200ih.pdf. on page 1000 of the document it clearly states under the Subtitle C—National Medical Device Registry that: ''(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the 'registry') to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—... 2008 01:43 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01000 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS 1001 HR 3200 IH ''(B) is—
1
''(i) a class III device; or
2
''(ii) a class II device that is implantable,... (Guess what? The RFID chip falls under this classification of device!)

''(2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall,in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods for—''(A) including in the registry, in a manner consistent with subsection (f), appropriate information to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by
type, model, and serial number or other unique identifier; '(B) validating methods for analyzing patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and
for linking such data with the information included in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), including, to the extent feasible, use of—''(i) data provided to the Secretary underother provisions of this chapter; and '(ii) information from public and private sources identified under paragraph (3);
25
VerDate Nov 24 2008 01:43 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
1002
•
HR 3200 IH ''(C) integrating the activities described in this subsection with—
2
''(i) activities under paragraph (3) of section 505(k) (relating to active postmarket risk identification);
5
''(ii) activities under paragraph (4) of section 505(k) (relating to advanced analysis of drug safety data); and ''(iii) other postmarket device surveillance
activities of the Secretary authorized by this chapter; and ''(D) providing public access to the data and analysis collected or developed through the registry
in a manner and form that protects patient privacy and proprietary information and is comprehensive, useful, and not misleading to patients, physicians,
and scientists.

Let me ask you a question Mr. Debunker, Is this not misleading? A Harvard Law student would have a difficult time figuring this all out, especially when you consider all the other legislation that is referenced and included in this document.

I then went to the official ObamaCare info site and see what they had to say about all of this. Why not go straight to the horses mouth? The information there also is misleading very much like the PDF excerpt and your original thread. I found the "bend over, here it comes clause on the Obama myth debunked page. Here it is, decide for yourself: see: http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-microchip-implant.php
"Note: The FDA has established standards for an implantable radiofrequency transponder systems (RFID chips) that are Class II compliant (http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...ElectromagneticCompatibilityEMC/ucm116647.htm). However, these RFID chips will have patient identification and health information. While the bill does not require mandatory RFID microchip implantation, it does establish an initial framework where the scope could be expanded with future legislation and regulation." Let me repeat it for you in case you missed it. "While the bill does not require mandatory RFID microchip implantation, it does establish an initial framework where the scope could be expanded with future legislation and regulation."

In other words when you initially sign up for this wonderful, govt. mandate, you are agreeing to the initial framework where the scope could be expanded with future legislation and regulation. This has all been planned and slowly fed to the American people. It's like cooking a pot of frogs. First you put them into room temperature water and slowly add the flame until they are boiling. They don't notice what's happening to them... When you are standing in line to have the chip implanted, I guess then you'll realize what's going on..
Click to expand...



When I first read about this I thought how great it would be if my Alzhiemer mother in law had one of these.
 
A data base of implantable medical devices not implantable devices that are themselves a part of that database.

I would think that Republicans would use something like this, if it were real, to help their cause of getting rid of Obamacare.
 
Mick West said:
Implantable RFID chips would be covered under the law, but that's simply because they are one of thousands of devices that are classified as Type III or Type II implantable.

It's not a law, and even if it was, it no more mandates you get a chip implanted than it mandates you get a hip replacement.
Click to expand...
Excellent example!
 
It's not a law, and even if it was, it no more mandates you get a chip implanted than it mandates you get a hip replacement.

This has also been quite well debunked over on Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp[/quote]
So... they changed the wording. Both HR 3590 and 4872 lead you to, (http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...ElectromagneticCompatibilityEMC/ucm116647.htm) and... (http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm072141.htm#d) and... (http://www.veriteqcorp.com/faq.html) It's on tour... http://nationalreport.net/rfid-mascot-chippie-nationwide-tour/#sthash.JcnRn3pL.dpuf. Yeah... I broke the posting rules... debunking a debunk.
 
Last edited:
 
Mick West said:
Perhaps you could quote the bits of the HRs that do this?
Click to expand...
What is it... starting on page 686 to 700 something... medical device tax, registry, "SEC. 7002. APPROVAL PATHWAY FOR BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS"? If you think those bills don't have pork added... you're just as bad as those who claim cloud seeding and agenda 21 are a hoaxs
 
Crushed Luminary said:
What is it... starting on page 686 to 700 something... medical device tax, registry, "SEC. 7002. APPROVAL PATHWAY FOR BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS"? If you think those bills don't have pork added... you're just as bad as those who claim cloud seeding and agenda 21 are a hoaxs
Click to expand...

Please quote the bit that references implanting RFID chips.
 
If you can't quote the parts of the bill that reference RFID, I shall have to assume you are trolling and ban you.
 
Mick West said:
If you can't quote the parts of the bill that reference RFID, I shall have to assume you are trolling and ban you.
Click to expand...
They all say block when they are challenged. It proves you are in denial... so block away!
(d) MEDICAL DEVICE SALES.—For purposes of this section—(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ''medical device sales'' means sales for use in the United States of any medical device, other than the sales of a medical device that—
(A) has been classified in class II under section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.360c) and is primarily sold to consumers at retail for not more than $100 per unit, or
(3) MEDICAL DEVICE.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ''medical device'' means any device (as defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h))) intended for humans.

So this bill only talks about medical device sales. But in this section we can see mentioning about the sale of a class II device which corresponds to section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.360c).
This is a definition by FDA of class II device:
"(ii) a class II device which is intended to be permanently implantable or life sustaining or life supporting; or``(1) implanted in the human body for more than one year, or (2) a life sustaining or life supporting device used outside a device user facility."
Subchapter E—Medical Devices 4872 is the very same thing. BLOCK ME!
 
Crushed Luminary said:
What is it... starting on page 686 to 700 something... medical device tax, registry, "SEC. 7002. APPROVAL PATHWAY FOR BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS"? If you think those bills don't have pork added... you're just as bad as those who claim cloud seeding and agenda 21 are a hoaxs
Click to expand...

Biosimilar biological products? Sounds kinda scary, until you understand exactly what it means.

External Quote:
Biologic products are pharmacologic agents produced in living cell cultures or through genetic engineering of proteins. Therapeutic biologic products work by a variety of mechanisms including replacing missing enzymes (e.g., cerezyme), enhancing normal regulatory processes (e.g., epoetin alpha, filgrastim or peg-filgrastim), altering the immune response (e.g., infliximab, ipilumumab), or modulating the neoplastic process (e.g., rituxumab, bevaziumab, or trastuzumab). Biosimilars arebiologic products that are produced by a company and/or method that differs from the reference product.
http://www.sgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Biologic-products-and-biosimilars.pdf

Basically biological products are just medical products that are derived from a natural source like a live culture and a biosimilar is the same or similar product derived from a different natural source or culture. A couple of examples would be human blood for transfusions and the flu virus for vaccines which is grown in chicken eggs.

The only thing the law does in regards to implantable devices is provide a means of evaluating the efficacy of implantable devices of which RFID chips are just one of many like pacemakers. Sorry if you're reading more into it than that but that's how it is.
 
Crushed Luminary said:
They all say block when they are challenged. It proves you are in denial... so block away!
(d) MEDICAL DEVICE SALES.—For purposes of this section—(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ''medical device sales'' means sales for use in the United States of any medical device, other than the sales of a medical device that—
(A) has been classified in class II under section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.360c) and is primarily sold to consumers at retail for not more than $100 per unit, or
(3) MEDICAL DEVICE.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ''medical device'' means any device (as defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h))) intended for humans.

So this bill only talks about medical device sales. But in this section we can see mentioning about the sale of a class II device which corresponds to section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.360c).
This is a definition by FDA of class II device:
"(ii) a class II device which is intended to be permanently implantable or life sustaining or life supporting; or``(1) implanted in the human body for more than one year, or (2) a life sustaining or life supporting device used outside a device user facility."
Subchapter E—Medical Devices 4872 is the very same thing. BLOCK ME!
Click to expand...

There's nothing there that was not covered in the first post. Please read it again:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-obamacare-rfid-chip-implant-law-hoax.497/
 
Last edited:
solrey said:
Biosimilar biological products? Sounds kinda scary, until you understand exactly what it means.

External Quote:
Biologic products are pharmacologic agents produced in living cell cultures or through genetic engineering of proteins. Therapeutic biologic products work by a variety of mechanisms including replacing missing enzymes (e.g., cerezyme), enhancing normal regulatory processes (e.g., epoetin alpha, filgrastim or peg-filgrastim), altering the immune response (e.g., infliximab, ipilumumab), or modulating the neoplastic process (e.g., rituxumab, bevaziumab, or trastuzumab). Biosimilars arebiologic products that are produced by a company and/or method that differs from the reference product.
http://www.sgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Biologic-products-and-biosimilars.pdf

Basically biological products are just medical products that are derived from a natural source like a live culture and a biosimilar is the same or similar product derived from a different natural source or culture. A couple of examples would be human blood for transfusions and the flu virus for vaccines which is grown in chicken eggs.

The only thing the law does is provide a means of evaluating the efficacy of implantable devices of which RFID chips are just one of many like pacemakers. Sorry if you're reading more into it than that but that's how it is.
Click to expand...
That's why the FDA talks about "This is a definition by FDA of class II device:
"(ii) a class II device which is intended to be permanently implantable or life sustaining or life supporting; or``(1) implanted in the human body for more than one year, or (2) a life sustaining or life supporting device used outside a device user facility." Yeah, I MUST be reading more into it, eh? Yeah... implantable, Migration Testing of Implanted Transponder. Yeah... I read WAYYY too far into that.
 
Yeah... I read WAYYY too far into that.
Click to expand...

Yep, you did. It's a definition of a class II device, not a mandate. A dialysis machine would be a life supporting or sustaining device. Heck even my grandmothers portable oxygen rig is a life supporting device so I suppose it would be defined as a class II device. Implantable devices like pacemakers are also class II devices. So what?
 
Crushed Luminary said:
That's why the FDA talks about "This is a definition by FDA of class II device:
"(ii) a class II device which is intended to be permanently implantable or life sustaining or life supporting; or``(1) implanted in the human body for more than one year, or (2) a life sustaining or life supporting device used outside a device user facility." Yeah, I MUST be reading more into it, eh? Yeah... implantable, Migration Testing of Implanted Transponder. Yeah... I read WAYYY too far into that.
Click to expand...

What exactly ARE you reading into it? I explained what it all means in the first post in this thread. Did you read that post?
 
solrey said:
Yep, you did. It's a definition of a class II device, not a mandate. A dialysis machine would be a life supporting or sustaining device. Heck even my grandmothers portable oxygen rig is a life supporting device so I suppose it would be defined as a class II device. Implantable devices like pacemakers are also class II devices. So what?
Click to expand...
You are very naive if you believe the government... A good movie for you, Schindler's List...
 
You never actually stated the thing that actually has you freaked out. The definition of devices? Exactly what about that implies a compulsory tracking chip? You really failed to make yourself clear, you should work on that.
 
Crushed Luminary said:
Epic Face Palm... "Uses: Personnel tracking" amongst others. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...ElectromagneticCompatibilityEMC/ucm116647.htm
Click to expand...
And so? What's your point? Some ID badges have RFID chips in them. Hospital bracelets sometimes have RFID tags in them.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/rfid-simplifies-improvements-to-hospital-bedside-care
c93e59ca3bda467b838c7fdb2b6baf56.gif

External Quote:

The use of RFID as the basis for Automatic Identification Technology platforms provides distinct advantages over barcodes, the other major technology employed in this area. For example, barcodes require a nurse or other staff member who wishes to identify a patient to uncover the patient's wristband, rotate the barcode into view, ensure line-of-sight between the scanner and wristband, and then aim and activate the scanner. Similar steps must be taken to identify medications or other barcoded materials, and damaged or wrinkled barcodes create difficulties in the process.
Encodable_Rfid_Wristbands_Hospitals_For_Patient_Identification_Photo_Detailed_about_Encodable_Rfid_Wristbands_Hospitals_For_Patient_Identification_Picture_on_Alibaba.com._20131116_131345.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mick West said:
And so? What's your point? Some ID badges have RFID chips in them. Hospital bracelets sometimes have RFID tags in them.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/rfid-simplifies-improvements-to-hospital-bedside-care
c93e59ca3bda467b838c7fdb2b6baf56.gif

External Quote:

The use of RFID as the basis for Automatic Identification Technology platforms provides distinct advantages over barcodes, the other major technology employed in this area. For example, barcodes require a nurse or other staff member who wishes to identify a patient to uncover the patient's wristband, rotate the barcode into view, ensure line-of-sight between the scanner and wristband, and then aim and activate the scanner. Similar steps must be taken to identify medications or other barcoded materials, and damaged or wrinkled barcodes create difficulties in the process.
Encodable_Rfid_Wristbands_Hospitals_For_Patient_Identification_Photo_Detailed_about_Encodable_Rfid_Wristbands_Hospitals_For_Patient_Identification_Picture_on_Alibaba.com._20131116_131345.jpg
Click to expand...
Looks like an implanted RFID, eh? Yet... another, Epic Face Palm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete Tar said:
And this is made compulsory for all citizens where exactly?
Click to expand...
[...] All previous versions of ACA HR's mandated it... ACA itself, as of right now is... Mandated with out the consent of the Majority Of The People. No one can stop the government from adding more to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mendel
Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena Joint Program Office [UAP JPO]
Replies
6
Views
3K
Mick West
Mick West
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
34
Views
8K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
Oystein
Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs
Replies
32
Views
10K
Marc Powell
Marc Powell
John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
9K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
U
The UAP Policy and Discursive Shift - Changing narratives on UAPs and its effect on policy.
Replies
21
Views
8K
Greene
Greene

Latest posts

Back
Top