Tuesday’s episode of Dr. Phil featured two guests sparring over a debate surrounding whether humans should be implanting microchips in their bodies. 

“Surgically implanting computers into humans is dangerous. Just how dangerous? We don’t know yet, because that’s how they release technology,” A critic of microchip implants calling himself “R” said in his introduction. 

He went on to say humans who get microchips implanted in them would likely learn far too late about the risks of the technology.

“As long as it doesn’t kill you instantly or almost instantly, it’s deemed safe for sale. And then it’s 5, 10, 20 years later we learn that it causes cancer, autism, birth defects, and more,” R said. “But by that point, we’ve become so dependent on the technology we choose to live with the disease.”

R suggested technology inside of one’s body is a dangerous new field of study.

“But these exposures, these are crazy. We’re talking about literally inside the body, point-blank range with zero distance day in and day out for years on end. What impact will that have? We don’t know. But I can tell you it won’t be good,” he said.

A picture of founder and CEO of VivoKey Technologies, Amal Graafstra.
Amal Graafstra, the founder of VivoKey Technologies, said that there is minimal risk to human microchipping.
Fox News

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

“I think we can just nip this all in the bud right now because these devices are passive. That means when they’re not in the seconds of exposure of a very low frequency, low power field, they’re dead. They’re inert. They have no energy whatsoever,” he said.

R asked, “What does having that chip in your body for 20 years do on average to a population of 20,000 people?”

A picture of "R", a critic of microchipping humans.
On the other hand, a critic who called himself “R” said that “surgically implanting computers into humans is dangerous.”
Fox News

Graafstra responded, “Nothing. We’ve used this exact material since the ’70s. There’s been almost zero evidence of any kind of irritation.”

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

“There are three studies that were referenced, but these are all studies that were tumor studies in animals either genetically engineered to get tumors in order to study the tumors or chemically-induced tumors,” he said. “The outcomes of the studies were noted that, ‘oh, you know what, around the implants in these animals we’re using to I.D. them, there were a tumor, but alongside 50 other tumors in these bodies.’ And it wasn’t all. It was about 8% of those animals.”

A picture of two guests debating over whether humans should have microchips implanted.
Dr. Phil interjected, “you have to look at the risk-reward ratio,” explaining how countless people have pacemakers and brain implants for health reasons.

A picture of a Radio Frequency Identification - RFID microchip on a palm.
R said humans who get microchips implanted in them would likely learn far too late about the risks of the technology.


Advertisement

He went on to suggest the information is used in bad faith.

“But there are people that want to benefit off of this, people that write certain kind of books and certain kind of scare tactics, and they use these studies to say, ‘look, it’s bad and this is all coming for you, and we want to sell you a book,’” he said.

Dr. Phil interjected, “you have to look at the risk-reward ratio. I mean, for example, we’ve got 1.43 million people globally that have pacemakers in their bodies that use electrical impulses. We have 200,000 people that have brain implants right now that are used to control Parkinson’s and other type things.” 

A picture of founder and CEO of VivoKey Technologies, Amal Graafstra.
When talking about the technology, Graafstra said “we’ve used this exact material since the ’70s. There’s been almost zero evidence of any kind of irritation.”
Fox News
A picture of R, a critic of microchipping humans.
“…we’ve become so dependent on the technology we choose to live with the disease,” the critic, R, said.
Fox News

R did not appear to disagree but suggested some technology is worth the risk.

“Yeah, no, the benefits there are incredibly tangible. They’re immediate. They’re lifesaving. They alter the quality of life. That is, I would say, quite different from opening your Tesla.”



Source link

Author

Comments are closed.