Dr. Phil guests debate microchipping people: ‘It’s dangerous to implant a computer in a person’


Tuesday’s episode of Dr. Phil featured two guests debating whether or not people should have microchips implanted in their bodies.

“It’s dangerous to surgically implant computers in people. How dangerous? We don’t know yet because that’s how they release the technology,” said a critic of microchip implants who identified himself as “R.”

People who get microchips implanted in them may learn about the risks of the technology too late, he said.

“As long as it doesn’t kill you instantly or almost instantly, it’s considered safe to sell. And then 5, 10, 20 years from now, we’ll find out it causes cancer, autism, birth defects, etc.,” said R. But until then, we’ve become so dependent on technology that we choose to live with the disease.”

A critic of microchipping people had his say on the episode of Dr. Phil.

PEOPLE NEED TO ‘PASS THE TEST’ TO PROVE THEY ARE ‘WORTH THE INCOME’ TO HAVE CHILDREN, DR. THE ELEPHANT DOES A GUEST SPECIAL

Technology inside the human body, R suggests, is a dangerous new area of ​​research.

“But the effects, it’s crazy. We’re literally talking about in-body, point-blank range, zero-day range for years. What effect does that have? We don’t know. But I can. I can tell you I’m telling you, it’s not going to be good,” he said.

In Dr. Phil’s studio, Amal Graafstra, founder and CEO of VivoKey Technologies, challenged R’s claims.

“I think we can squeeze it all out now because these devices are passive. That means they’re dead unless they’re exposed to a very low-frequency, low-power field within seconds. They don’t have any energy in them. “, he said.

R: “What does having that chip in your body for 20 years do to the average population of 20,000?”

Graafstra replied: “Nothing. We’ve been using this same material since the 70s. There’s almost no evidence of any irritation.”

June 4, 2013: A visitor looks at motherboards at the MSI booth at Computex 2013.  The blurred divide between humans and technology has long been a mainstay of science fiction, but seems to be becoming increasingly true.

June 4, 2013: A visitor looks at motherboards at the MSI booth at Computex 2013. The blurred divide between humans and technology has long been a mainstay of science fiction, but seems to be becoming increasingly true.
(Reuters/Pichi Chuang)

EXTINCTION ACTIVISM WANTS PEOPLE TO VOLUNTARILY DIE: “BE ‘EM’

After R cited past studies, Graafstra seemed to put them into context for Dr. Phil and the audience.

“Three studies are cited, but all are studies of tumors in animals genetically engineered to obtain tumors to study tumors or chemically induced tumors,” he said. “The results of the studies said, ‘Oh, you know, there was a tumor around the implants in these animals that we were using to detect them, but it was in addition to 50 other tumors in their bodies.’ And that’s not all, it was about 8 percent of the animals.”

He suggested that the data could be used for malicious purposes.

“But there are people who want to profit from it, they write certain books and certain kinds of scare tactics, and they use these studies to say, ‘Look, this is bad and all this is coming for you, and we want to sell you a book,'” he said. .

Dr. Phil interjected: “You have to focus on the level of risk. For example, we have 1.43 million people worldwide who have pacemakers in their bodies that use electrical impulses. We have 200,000 people who have brain implants. Now they are used to control Parkinson’s and other types of things.

Animal testing remains a controversial practice, but advocates say it helps prevent human suffering.

Animal testing remains a controversial practice, but advocates say it helps prevent human suffering.
(iStock)

R seemed to disagree, but some technology was worth the risk.

“Yes, no, the benefits there are incredibly tangible. They’re immediate. They save lives. They change the quality of life. I mean, I’d be completely different from opening Tesla.”

Related Articles

Latest Posts