Wisconsin Company To (offer) Implant Microchips In Employees.

[dowie]

you can never be sure of anything, but you can get pretty damn close.

you're blowing this well out of proportion, there are many things much worse for you than a little implant with a passive chip in it. do you wear a mask every day to protect against the effects of diesel particulates? if so, i worry for you being so paranoid.

hardly, I'm simply stating a position on this implant chip - it isn't a 'necessary' device/something to take to cure something else, potentially save your life or allow you to walk etc.. so why expose yourself to risk when it is still untested?

no one is blowing anything out of proportion, I've simply stated that I'd not chose to implant a chip and stated a valid reason for it, you've then quoted me multiple times either attacking things I've not even said or making lazy arguments/comparisons - I don't know what your problem is here?

Now you're trying to portray a reasonable choice/objection as 'paranoia' - I've not blown anything out of proportion rather that is you projecting.

if you fail to see how using knowledge derived from implanting foreign material into the human body for extended periods of time isn't applicable to make an educated conclusion that similar material won't have the same effect then i'm afraid there's not much hope for me saying anything further. you can call my arguments lazy if you like, but a lazy argument is better than a non-existent one.

How is shrapnel a 'similar material' to this? Your argument is basic and flawed, it is a lazy argument and I'm not sure it is better than if you'd made no argument at all.

 

[adolf hamster]

How is shrapnel a 'similar material' to this? Your argument is basic and flawed, it is a lazy argument and I'm not sure it is better than if you'd made no argument at all.

schrapnel is one of the many examples put forward that the human body can survive perfectly well with an implant, it wasn't the only one but you can ignore the rest if you like.

you started by stating a concern, that these are untested, and i put forward several examples of how there are similar cases of foreign materials used in medicine and that i thought this made a good enough conclusion that we can manufacture a safe implant. you then replied with a counter and it progressed into a debate (which by its nature requires the dissection and countering of arguments)

just in case you don't recall it wasn't an attack, i even agreed with the other half of your post that it'd need to offer greater functionality than just one workplace's clock card, and that to roll various services into one device wouldn't require a chip and also that i don't think such things should be mandatory.

 

[V F]

hardly, I'm simply stating a position on this implant chip - it isn't a 'necessary' device/something to take to cure something else, potentially save your life or allow you to walk etc.. so why expose yourself to risk when it is still untested?

no one is blowing anything out of proportion, I've simply stated that I'd not chose to implant a chip and stated a valid reason for it, you've then quoted me multiple times either attacking things I've not even said or making lazy arguments/comparisons - I don't know what your problem is here?

Now you're trying to portray a reasonable choice/objection as 'paranoia' - I've not blown anything out of proportion rather that is you projecting.



How is shrapnel a 'similar material' to this? Your argument is basic and flawed, it is a lazy argument and I'm not sure it is better than if you'd made no argument at all.

Until they make it law which I guarantee it will happen just like it did with the dogs.

 

[dowie]

you started by stating a concern, that these are untested, and i put forward several examples of how there are similar cases of foreign materials used in medicine and that i thought this made a good enough conclusion that we can manufacture a safe implant. you then replied with a counter and it progressed into a debate (which by its nature requires the dissection and countering of arguments)

yeah and that is fine, you put forward some dubious comparisons and I criticised them.. not got an issue with that, I think they missed the point somewhat but meh...

just in case you don't recall it wasn't an attack, i even agreed with the other half of your post that it'd need to offer greater functionality than just one workplace's clock card, and that to roll various services into one device wouldn't require a chip and also that i don't think such things should be mandatory.

I was referring to you attacking things I'd not even posted, that was just silly

 

[adolf hamster]

yeah and that is fine, you put forward some dubious comparisons and I criticised them.. not got an issue with that, I think they missed the point somewhat but meh...

well, whether you think they're dubious or not is up to you, although if you're going to make that claim it'd be nice for you to put forward some actual structured arguments as to how documented cases of various foreign entities doesn't amount to a fair amount of knowledge about implanting things in the human body with the minimum possible amount of risk.

 

[dowie]

well, whether you think they're dubious or not is up to you, although if you're going to make that claim it'd be nice for you to put forward some actual structured arguments as to how documented cases of various foreign entities doesn't amount to a fair amount of knowledge about implanting things in the human body with the minimum possible amount of risk.

it is silly argument in the first place - just because you believe that some people have been fine with shrapnel inside them (plenty of people haven't been fine btw..) doesn't infer that something different will also be fine, likewise you mentioned pace makers... but this isn't a pacemaker

I mean whith that logic why test new drugs - other similar drugs are fine so why bother right?

I've not claimed that this is going to kill you or that there is a huge risk here, but the fact that they've not been tested in humans over a long period means that for this sort of use I'd not chose to have one

if the question was would I implant some sort of similar size device in order to cure myself of cancer then my answer would be different but it isn't, it is a company asking its workers to implant these things and I don't see the benefit vs the unknown long term risks

 

[adolf hamster]

it is silly argument in the first place - just because you believe that some people have been fine with shrapnel inside them (plenty of people haven't been fine btw..) doesn't infer that something different will also be fine, likewise you mentioned pace makers... but this isn't a pacemaker

I mean whit that logic why test new drugs - other similar drugs are fine so why bother right?

we're going round in circles now, you're ignoring the principle point- that there's lots of knowledge on this subject and it's not like we're going in blind, and that this research means that many complications are already known and have mechanisms to be dealt with.

 

[dowie]

we're going round in circles now, you're ignoring the principle point- that there's lots of knowledge on this subject and it's not like we're going in blind, and that this research means that many complications are already known and have mechanisms to be dealt with.

I'm not ignoring it at all I just think it is a silly point/argument, I never said we were 'going in blind' likewise there is lots of knowledge about drugs...

 

[adolf hamster]

I'm not ignoring it at all I just think it is a silly point/argument, likewise there is lots of knowledge about drugs...

well, you say we don't know the risks, which we do, because there's lots of research around the subject.

the same way they can pretty confidently test drugs on humans given the wealth of knowledge that allows their development in the first place.

 

[dowie]

well, you say we don't know the risks, which we do, because there's lots of research around the subject.

the same way they can pretty confidently test drugs on humans given the wealth of knowledge that allows their development in the first place.

yet we still trial drugs...

and no, the point is we don't know for sure, we haven't had these things implanted in humans for a long period of time, if you can't understand that then this is perhaps why we're going round in circles

 

[adolf hamster]

and no, the point is we don't know for sure, we haven't had these things implanted in humans for a long period of time, if you can't understand that then this is perhaps why we're going round in circles

well we are, because we've come full circle to my original point is someone needs to trial it, and if you want it to be over the period of an entire human lifespan you aren't exactly going to be able to do that in a lab. so giving them to normal people who volunteer for it is fine, it's still "testing" just not done in the conventional way as this is impossible to acheive.

 

[dowie]

well we are, because we've come full circle to my original point is someone needs to trial it, and if you want it to be over the period of an entire human lifespan you aren't exactly going to be able to do that in a lab. so giving them to normal people who volunteer for it is fine, it's still "testing" just not done in the conventional way as this is impossible to acheive.

I didn't say I wanted it to be over the period of an entire human lifespan, that would be nice but I'd accept less than that if there were some larger utility from wearing this device

again I'm not objecting to others testing/using this stuff, I'm expressing my personal preference to not put something into my body that we don't fully appreciate the risks of and that has minimal benefit - it is a reasonable position so I don't really see the argument against it

 

[Amp34]

hip replacements, replacement valves?

those are left in for a long time.

these aren't too dissimilar to implants for contraceptives, albeit yes contraceptive implants are designed to dissolve completely and dont require removal.

but they'll just be in flesh, in a location where it'll be easy enough to extract. the mechanics of making a container to survive being in a human body are by all means possible albeit as i originally said, someone needs to be the first to spend their entire life with one.

Contraceptive implants need removing as well, unless one has come out in the last year or so that doesn't.

 

[Amp34]

I wonder how much it will cost them to move them from employees which have left the company. Probably a lot more than putting them in.

Most likely like contraceptive implants again, which just require a quick local anaesthetic and a nick with a scalpel before being pulled out.

 

[Amp34]

You said we're good at making things last inside the human body for a long time, which we're demonstrably not in several cases.

And given that there are no long term studies of this yet its a little early to say definitively if they'll be ok. That they likely will be still needs caveating.

One solution to that "issue" could be mandatory replacement every x years (say 5-10 years). That would also make sure that chips were up to date. A 10 minute trip to the doctors every 5 years isn't exactly a major chore.

 

[Nasher]

Most likely like contraceptive implants again, which just require a quick local anaesthetic and a nick with a scalpel before being pulled out.

Which in itself has risks, especially when anaesthetic is involved (and expensive, also requiring someone trained to administer it). You don't want to be doing things like that unless you really have to. Doing it for some unnecessary company toy isn't a good idea. If something goes wrong, pretty much the whole company could end up being shut down or sued to death.

 

[StriderX]

I doubt you'd need anesthetic to implant something under the skin layers, as long as it's quick, the pain should dissipate just as fast (well as long as it's shaped correctly). Most of the issues with contraceptive implants seems to be what it actually does.

 

[Amp34]

Which in itself has risks, especially when anaesthetic is involved (and expensive, also requiring someone trained to administer it). You don't want to be doing things like that unless you really have to. Doing it for some unnecessary company toy isn't a good idea. If something goes wrong, pretty much the whole company could end up being shut down or sued to death.

Local anaesthetic is cheap and very low risk. A few pounds maximum and a 5-10 minute job.

The actual procedural cost of removing a chip would probably be in the region of a couple of hundred dollars even in the US, probably significantly cheaper elsewhere.

To get a skin tag removed costs about ~£30 here (considered cosmetic so not covered by healthcare) and that involves local anaesthetic, a trained person, a scalpel and a plaster - similar to the requirements for removing contraceptive implants which is likely to be a very similar procedure to removing the chip in the OP.

Edit: cost of getting a contraceptive implant removed in the US - https://www.plannedparenthood.org/l...lanon/how-can-i-get-the-birth-control-implant

Implant removal can cost between $0 and $300

 

[platypus]

One solution to that "issue" could be mandatory replacement every x years (say 5-10 years). That would also make sure that chips were up to date. A 10 minute trip to the doctors every 5 years isn't exactly a major chore.

Could be indeed. The solution I'd prefer would be no microchipping .

 

[StriderX]

Could be indeed. The solution I'd prefer would be no microchipping .

"But i wanna stalk you tho, please?" Said the innocuous black suited guy