Daily Archives: September 10, 2007

Burma Accuses CIA of Assassination and Terrorist plots

Narinjara | Sep, 10 2007

The Burmese military government has accused the CIA via its state-run newspaper of involvement in the assassination of a Karen commander from the KNU who wanted to negotiate a ceasefire with the junta.

The article published Saturday in The Mirror, also known as Kyimon, claimed that the assassination of Colonel Kyi Min was a CIA plot, and that KNU operatives were acting under CIA control.

Colonel Kyi Min, Commander In-charge of Karen Liberation Army Regiment 18 from Bridge 6, was assassinated last month by unknown armed assailants on the Homh Tharaw River near the Thai-Burma border.

The murder occurred as he was returning to his headquarters from a Burmese army camp after discussions with Burmese officials.

The Mirror report also made accusations that one general from the US Army and CIA visited an insurgent group to provide military aid and training to detonate bombs inside Burma. The report did not, however, mention the name of the respective insurgent group on the border.

Accusations of frequent visits to insurgent camps along the Thai-Burma border to provide military aid and training were also thrown at former Military Attache to Burma Robert Helvey, retired US Air Force officer Michael Mitchell, retired US Marine officer Gene Sharp, and former US special forces officer David Eubank.

The US officials were also accused of praising several insurgent groups, including the ABSDF, NCGUB, SSA-A, CRDB, and DAB for efforts to “foil the stability and development of Burma” by means of terrorist act such as bombs planted inside Burma.

The Burmese military government often makes such accusations against the United States and Britain whenever public unrest stirs in Burma, said one Burmese politician.

Alex Jones arrested, later released, at 9/11 protest in New York


Alex Jones, center of photo, getting cuffed

Prison Planet | Sep 9, 2007

by Paul Joseph Watson

Alex Jones arrested during live Geraldo broadcast Fox News

NEW YORK – Media activist Alex Jones was arrested by New York Police Department officers while filming a documentary about the sixth anniversary of September 11th and joining the protest against the official version of what happened on 9/11.

Media presstitute Whoraldo’s semenally important interview with Hooter’s waitress Kyla Ebbert about wearing sexy outfits and XXX Porn Star “Doctor” Victoria Zdrok about the “powerful sexual urges” behind Sen Larry Craig’s gay tap-dance in the airport men’s room

According to Infowars sources Jones was singled out by police from the head of a crowd of about 400 9/11 Truth Activists and protesters. He was verbally accosted and forced by the police officers to present identification which he was not carrying at the time.

NYPD officers arrested Jones for “unspecified charges” and removed him from the protest crowd to be taken to the nearest police precinct where he was later released following a protest outside the jail by other 9/11 truthers who chanted “let him go”.

Jones was arrested during a protest of the live Geraldo broadcast on Fox News.

Geraldo ridiculed protesters and lauded the arrests as live footage of Alex being frog marched away by officers was broadcast, referring to them as “anarchists,” “communists” and “one of the least attractive groups of protesters I’ve ever seen”.

Geraldo Rivera insults protestors

In another clip, Geraldo states, “I think these demonstrators are all into rest room gay sex”. He later physically threatens the protesters, saying that if violence broke out “our Fox News team can take this bunch.”

Statement by Alex Jones regarding his arrest

The demonstrators had tried to obtain a “permit” for the protest but were refused by authorities. Officers later ticketed Jones for “using a sound device without a permit”.

However, other people who were simply filming the arrest were also arrested themselves.

Alex said the arresting officer was overbearing and that having the cuffs slapped on him hurt more than when he cut his finger off in a boating accident.

The officer physically charged and assaulted individuals who were not even involved in the protest, such as Discovery Channel cameramen.

Alex Jones’ cameraman Rob Jacobson was also pushed by cops and then punched in the shoulder for “obstructing police business” despite the fact that he was stood well away from the area on the sidewalk.

Two British cameramen who were part of the We Are Change UK group were also arrested for “blocking traffic”.

Eyewitnesses described a chaotic scene where police simply waded in, assaulting and arresting people on a whim, but noted that Alex Jones was singled out immediately after cops arrived.

Geraldo Rivera and Fox News chiefs were responsible for calling the police and having protesters arrested.

The group were told that they didn’t have a permit to protest. A permit is government permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal – meaning the right to peaceably assemble and free speech as defined in the Constitution have been officially outlawed.

“Word came in that Geraldo Rivera was giving a live broadcast only a few blocks away,” writes We Are Change. A truth squad quickly dispatched itself to the scene. There, the group chanted a deafening “911 Was An Inside Job” endlessly. The police were concerned with us blocking the sidewalk, but so long there was a clear path we remained about 20 feet from Geraldo. All of the signs and banners were visible on TV, and it just happened to be up on the jumbo screen in the middle of Times Square. Then the rest of the group saw Alex Jones was suddenly pulled aside and arrested by police.

Groups headed out and searched for the precinct Alex was taken to. After finding the location, the rest of the group met there and demanded Alex’s release. Within only a few hours, we got what we wanted!

More footage of the Geraldo protest and the arrest from other truthers who filmed big screen displays nearby.

Tune in to Alex’s Sunday show this evening on KLBJ for a full account of what happened.

Chilling truth about ‘global warming’ hypocrisy

WorldNet Daily | Sep 10, 2007

Over the weekend, I saw a photo of Al Gore de-boarding a private jet. Gore was no doubt on his way to an emergency meeting on what can be done about the carbon emissions of everybody except Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, Bette “Chainsaw” Midler and all others who have earned the right to be environmentally hypocritical.

Leading the pack in ecopocrisy are some of Gore’s biggest supporters, the television and film industry. Hollywood is the second largest polluter in the state of California. This industry is, oddly enough, from where the most environmental finger-pointing originates, and they are being pressured to either reduce their emissions and/or buy carbon offsets. Recently it was announced that the program “24” will aim to be a “carbon neutral” production.

In reality, the most obvious solution to creating a carbon-neutral production is simple: Shut down production. This option is off the table, so what to do?

Being “carbon neutral” is now the designer jeans of wealthy, liberal self-proclaimed environmentalists who don’t want to stop their energy gluttony but also don’t want to appear to be harmful to the environment. This is where “carbon credits” come into play.

The notion of carbon credits is an offshoot of the “zero sum game” theory that is quite popular among certain economists and chess players. It’s quite often a theory used to cast guilt and shame upon somebody who makes money – allegedly at the expense of others. Zero-sum game theory implies that, for every dollar you make, somebody had to lose a dollar. There hasn’t been a more bogus economic theory since Bill Clinton’s answer to a businessman’s concerns over high taxes was to “just raise your price.”

Imagine you’re playing a zero-sum baseball game and the score is 4-4. Your team scores a run, so the other team loses a run, making the score 5-3. If you score another run, the score would be 6-2. The good news for the team with two is that by applying “zero-sum game,” even though they’re down by four, they’ll only have to score two runs to tie the game. Make sense? We find as we go through life that those who embrace the zero-sum game theory are usually the ones who are behind, in this case, trailing big time in the game of environmental friendliness.

But there’s something wrong, and also telling, about the above example. In a zero-sum game, the score could never be tied at four. True equality can only be attained if everybody (except the game’s “managers” such as Al Gore) has zero. Anything more or less for any party involved means the other sinks into negative-number oblivion.

Why do energy gluttons enjoy zero-sum games? If we apply the above baseball metaphor to carbon credits, the person who burns more energy in his or her life than the average person can tie, or “neutralize” the game, in this case via carbon credits, for far less than it took them to get down that much in the first place.

The unspeakable fact of the matter is that if Al Gore didn’t have a heated pool, there would be that much less energy burned. Period. Al Gore produces nothing – the sum of zero, if you will. If all his famous energy consumption went toward producing, say, wheat, his offset would be fed human beings. When his energy consumption goes toward ensuring his pool guests don’t get shrinkage when they dive in, the only way to offset this would be to turn off the heater and sentence swimmers to cringing in the cool water. Anything else is kidding himself and everybody else, which is what much of the “global warming” theory is based upon.

How come it seems that carbon credits never work the other way around? Can you write to Al Gore and tell him to turn off his air conditioning so you can mow your lawn today? Of course not. Offsetting Al Gore’s carbon emissions is your responsibility as a global citizen. Asking Al Gore to offset yours is… proof-positive you need to cut back on energy consumption.

The global warming movement as built by Al Gore believes that every gainer must have a loser, and what are the odds that Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio have any intention of being the latter?

Hopefully one day somebody will calculate how much carbon per year is spewed into the atmosphere by the smoke that accompanies the mirrors.

Senior police officer blames family breakdown for violent crime ‘cancer’ destroying society

Daily Mail | Sep 6,  2007


One of Britain’s most senior police officers is to attack the “cancer” of violent crime caused by family breakdown which is destroying society.

Ian Johnston, president of the Police Superintendents Association, will also blame a failed education system, inadequate prison and probation services and a violent entertainment industry.

His comments, which will be made to the association’s annual conference next week, are certain to be of great concern to Labour, which entered Government ten years ago promising to be “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”.

In his speech, Chief Supt Johnston outlines his concerns about the causes of volent crime.

He says: “Some of the biggest challenges facing the Police Service and our society today relate to violent crime; anti-social behaviour; youths out-of-control; knife crime and gun crime.

“Violent crime is a cancer that eats away at the very heart of society.

“It ruins the lives of victims and their families and causes fear and alarm in communities that are blighted by youths who are out-of-control and anti-social behaviour.

“Cancer does not flourish in a healthy body so crime should not flourish in a healthy society.

“A failed education system, family breakdown, alcohol and drug abuse, inadequate prison and probation services, an unresponsive Criminal Justice System, an entertainment industry that promotes violence and aggression and a media that glorifies in failure rather than success are all symptoms of a society in desperate need of treatment.

“To blame the Police, as many commentators are seeking to do, for this list of ills, is like blaming Accident and Emergency and the Ambulance Service for the failure to reduce cancer rates!”

Chief Supt Johnston will also unleash a withering broadside against the culture of Whitehall target-setting, warning that centralised performance targets are leading to “dysfunctional” policing and should be scrapped completely.

Forces across England and Wales are measured against more than a 100 statistical targets – the most notorious of which is the number of “offenders brought to justice” by each officer, under which handing out an on-the-spot fine for drunkenness is valued as highly as catching and jailing a major terrorist.

Chief Supt Johnston will argue that the targets have zero credibility among police themselves, and do nothing to reassure the public.

“I believe we should abolish the performance framework in its entirety,” he said yesterday.

“It would allow us, the professionals, to make judgments.

“We want to reclaim policing for the police.”

He said the pressure to chase often conflicting targets had made some senior officers ill from stress, and almost three quarters of borough commanders believed such targets were harming policing more than they were helping.

Earlier this year the rank-and-file Police Federation voiced similar complaints, highlighting “ludicrous” decisions driven by targets such as arresting a child in Kent for throwing cream buns at a bus.

Unknowing Residents To Take Part In Terror Drill

City Testing Way To Quickly Distribute Antibiotics

WCVB TV Boston | Sep 7, 2007

BOSTON — About 23,000 Boston residents are weeks away from taking part in a bioterror drill, and many probably don’t even know it.

Health officials plan to have mail carriers deliver tiny white cardboard boxes to the doorsteps and mailboxes of thousands of residents in the city’s West Roxbury and South End neighborhoods on Sunday, Sept. 23.

“Anytime you are talking about a release of anthrax in the city, you are talking about pretty much a worst case scenario where you need to get medications to people as quickly as possible,” said John Jacob of the Boston Public Health Commission.

The empty boxes will be used to simulate how quickly antibiotics could be delivered to residents in the event of a bioterror attack.

“No one knows the streets, knows the deliveries, knows where the houses are and the sequence they are set up in better than letter carriers do,” said Bob Cannon of the U.S. Postal Service.

In the event of a real emergency when the antibiotics are highly coveted, the mail carriers will have a police escort.

“There is no emergency whatsoever. This is just a test, and this is a way for us to figure out if this particular delivery option is a good fit for Boston,” Jacob said.

If it were a real emergency, each box would hold 20 pills.

. . .

No information available here
Boston Public Health Commission

“Shadow King” Prince Charles in secret talks with Gordon Brown

brown_charlesPrince Charles is eager to develop a close working relationship with the Prime Minister. As part of what officials say will be a “natural, carefully managed progression”, Prince Charles is expected to stand in for the Queen at more investitures, have greater access to Government papers, and to expand the size and scope of his private office.

Telegraph | Sep 9, 2007

By Andrew Alderson

The Prince of Wales and Gordon Brown have met secretly in Scotland and are determined to forge a close working relationship as the heir to the throne develops his role as “shadow king”, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

In their first meeting since Mr Brown became Prime Minister in June, the pair sat down together for 90 minutes last weekend at Birkhall, the Queen Mother’s former home on the Balmoral estate. Senior sources said they had a “highly constructive” discussion covering a range of issues.

The meeting explains why Mr Brown did not accompany the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to the Highland Games in Braemar.

Until now, Downing Street officials would say only that Mr Brown and his wife, Sarah, had been unable to attend the games because of “other commitments”.

As a result of the talks, Prince Charles is now expected to meet Mr Brown at least three or four times a year.

The Prince is keen to develop an even closer working relationship with Mr Brown than he has done with previous prime ministers, particularly if the Labour leader wins the next general election.

Recent speculation that the two men do not get on was dismissed as “nonsense” last night by royal and political aides.

Last weekend, the two men are understood to have discussed their shared concerns, particularly over the need to combat climate change and build more environmentally friendly towns.

Both believe in the importance of tackling deforestation, which experts say accounts for 20 per cent of harmful global emissions.

The Prince is believed to have briefed Mr Brown on a new project to tackle the problem that will be launched with business leaders at Clarence House on Wednesday.

Mr Brown is known to admire the Prince’s charities, particularly the Prince’s Trust, which has helped more than 500,000 underprivileged youngsters since it was set up 31 years ago.

The two men also share a belief in the need to develop “corporate social responsibility”, whereby major companies invest in local communities and support voluntary projects.

Mr Brown spoke last October at a conference on corporate social responsibility in Whitehall sponsored by Prince Charles.

There he praised the heir to the throne for the “many lives that have been changed” by his work.

In December, Mr Brown was supportive of Prince Charles’s Costing the Earth – The Accounting For Sustainability project in which the heir to the throne delivered a warning that we are all “living on borrowed time”.

Clarence House and Downing Street declined to comment yesterday on the “private meeting”.

However, one senior royal aide said: “The Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister have an excellent working relationship which goes back to the time when Mr Brown was still Chancellor.”

Mrs Brown was present at the meeting but the Duchess of Cornwall was away from Scotland.

Following the talks, the Browns travelled to Balmoral to stay with the Queen.

It is understood that Prince Charles wrote Mr Brown a handwritten letter in June congratulating him on becoming Prime Minister, in which he expressed a desire that they work closely together. The Prime Minister is, in turn, believed to have written a “warm” reply.

The Queen is now 81 and Prince Philip is 86.

Although they both remain in robust health, it is inevitable that they will slow down over the coming years, leading Prince Charles to take on more duties as “shadow king” – or “king in waiting”.

Royal officials are eager to stress, however, that he will not exceed the traditional role of the heir to the throne and that he will remain above party politics.

Prince Charles, accompanied by the Duchess of Cornwall, is expected to do more of the longer foreign tours.

As part of what officials say will be a “natural, carefully managed progression”, Prince Charles is expected to stand in for the Queen at more investitures, have greater access to Government papers, and to expand the size and scope of his private office.

The Prince also has regular contact with the leader of the Conservative Party. The heir to the throne has already met David Cameron and his wife, Samantha. The Prince and Tory leader will also meet at least once before Christmas.

The Prince of Wales will this week become the first passenger in Britain to travel in a train powered by pure bio-diesel.

In a joint project agreed by the Prince and the Queen, the Royal Train has been modified to run on 100 per cent bio-diesel, made from waste vegetable oils.

Prince Charles will make a 960-mile round trip, with an overnight stop-off, to Scarborough, North Yorks, on Thursday and Friday.

“The Prince is very excited,” said one senior royal aide. “If the journey goes as planned, the royal train will use bio-diesel permanently.”

Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors


Bush embraces Secretary of Health and Human Services and former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson after speaking about healthcare reform issues at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wis., February 11, 2002. Wisconsin’s current governor Scott McCallum is also pictured. Thompson was a former VeriChip Corp director and microchip implantation pied piper who received options on 166,667 shares of VeriChip stock, and options on an additional 100,000 shares of stock from its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions.

Thompson has yet to be chipped himself…

. . .
AP | Sep 9, 2007


When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients’ medical records almost instantly. The FDA found “reasonable assurance” the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005’s top “innovative technologies.”

But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had “induced” malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.

“The transponders were the cause of the tumors,” said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich.

Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people.

To date, about 2,000 of the so-called radio frequency identification, or RFID, devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp. The company, which sees a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips, insists the devices are safe, as does its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, of Delray Beach, Fla.

“We stand by our implantable products which have been approved by the FDA and/or other U.S. regulatory authorities,” Scott Silverman, VeriChip Corp. chairman and chief executive officer, said in a written response to AP questions.

The company was “not aware of any studies that have resulted in malignant tumors in laboratory rats, mice and certainly not dogs or cats,” but he added that millions of domestic pets have been implanted with microchips, without reports of significant problems.

“In fact, for more than 15 years we have used our encapsulated glass transponders with FDA approved anti-migration caps and received no complaints regarding malignant tumors caused by our product.”

The FDA also stands by its approval of the technology.

Did the agency know of the tumor findings before approving the chip implants? The FDA declined repeated AP requests to specify what studies it reviewed.

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip’s approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device’s approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options.

Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA’s approval process of the RFID tag.

“I didn’t even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services,” he said in a telephone interview.

Also making no mention of the findings on animal tumors was a June report by the ethics committee of the American Medical Association, which touted the benefits of implantable RFID devices.

Had committee members reviewed the literature on cancer in chipped animals?

No, said Dr. Steven Stack, an AMA board member with knowledge of the committee’s review.

Was the AMA aware of the studies?

No, he said.


Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous “sarcomas” — malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants.

_ A 1998 study in Ridgefield, Conn., of 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent — a result the researchers described as “surprising.”

_ A 2006 study in France detected tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice. This was one of six studies in which the scientists did not set out to find microchip-induced cancer but noticed the growths incidentally. They were testing compounds on behalf of chemical and pharmaceutical companies; but they ruled out the compounds as the tumors’ cause. Because researchers only noted the most obvious tumors, the French study said, “These incidences may therefore slightly underestimate the true occurrence” of cancer.

_ In 1997, a study in Germany found cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 chipped mice. The tumors “are clearly due to the implanted microchips,” the authors wrote.

Caveats accompanied the findings. “Blind leaps from the detection of tumors to the prediction of human health risk should be avoided,” one study cautioned. Also, because none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted.

Still, after reviewing the research, specialists at some pre-eminent cancer institutions said the findings raised red flags.

“There’s no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members,” said Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Before microchips are implanted on a large scale in humans, he said, testing should be done on larger animals, such as dogs or monkeys. “I mean, these are bad diseases. They are life-threatening. And given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there’s definitely cause for concern.”

Dr. George Demetri, director of the Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, agreed. Even though the tumor incidences were “reasonably small,” in his view, the research underscored “certainly real risks” in RFID implants.

In humans, sarcomas, which strike connective tissues, can range from the highly curable to “tumors that are incredibly aggressive and can kill people in three to six months,” he said.

At the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, a leader in mouse genetics research and the initiation of cancer, Dr. Oded Foreman, a forensic pathologist, also reviewed the studies at the AP’s request.

At first he was skeptical, suggesting that chemicals administered in some of the studies could have caused the cancers and skewed the results. But he took a different view after seeing that control mice, which received no chemicals, also developed the cancers. “That might be a little hint that something real is happening here,” he said. He, too, recommended further study, using mice, dogs or non-human primates.

Dr. Cheryl London, a veterinarian oncologist at Ohio State University, noted: “It’s much easier to cause cancer in mice than it is in people. So it may be that what you’re seeing in mice represents an exaggerated phenomenon of what may occur in people.”

Tens of thousands of dogs have been chipped, she said, and veterinary pathologists haven’t reported outbreaks of related sarcomas in the area of the neck, where canine implants are often done. (Published reports detailing malignant tumors in two chipped dogs turned up in AP’s four-month examination of research on chips and health. In one dog, the researchers said cancer appeared linked to the presence of the embedded chip; in the other, the cancer’s cause was uncertain.)

Nonetheless, London saw a need for a 20-year study of chipped canines “to see if you have a biological effect.” Dr. Chand Khanna, a veterinary oncologist at the National Cancer Institute, also backed such a study, saying current evidence “does suggest some reason to be concerned about tumor formations.”

Meanwhile, the animal study findings should be disclosed to anyone considering a chip implant, the cancer specialists agreed.

To date, however, that hasn’t happened.


The product that VeriChip Corp. won approval for use in humans is an electronic capsule the size of two grains of rice. Generally, it is implanted with a syringe into an anesthetized portion of the upper arm.

When prompted by an electromagnetic scanner, the chip transmits a unique code. With the code, hospital staff can go on the Internet and access a patient’s medical profile that is maintained in a database by VeriChip Corp. for an annual fee.

VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been marketing radio tags for animals for more than a decade, sees an initial market of diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer’s disease, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The company is spending millions to assemble a national network of hospitals equipped to scan chipped patients.

But in its SEC filings, product labels and press releases, VeriChip Corp. has not mentioned the existence of research linking embedded transponders to tumors in test animals.

When the FDA approved the device, it noted some Verichip risks: The capsules could migrate around the body, making them difficult to extract; they might interfere with defibrillators, or be incompatible with MRI scans, causing burns. While also warning that the chips could cause “adverse tissue reaction,” FDA made no reference to malignant growths in animal studies.

Did the agency review literature on microchip implants and animal cancer?

Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate and RFID expert, asked shortly after VeriChip’s approval what evidence the agency had reviewed. When FDA declined to provide information, she filed a Freedom of Information Act request. More than a year later, she received a letter stating there were no documents matching her request.

“The public relies on the FDA to evaluate all the data and make sure the devices it approves are safe,” she says, “but if they’re not doing that, who’s covering our backs?”

Late last year, Albrecht unearthed at the Harvard medical library three studies noting cancerous tumors in some chipped mice and rats, plus a reference in another study to a chipped dog with a tumor. She forwarded them to the AP, which subsequently found three additional mice studies with similar findings, plus another report of a chipped dog with a tumor.

Asked if it had taken these studies into account, the FDA said VeriChip documents were being kept confidential to protect trade secrets. After AP filed a FOIA request, the FDA made available for a phone interview Anthony Watson, who was in charge of the VeriChip approval process.

“At the time we reviewed this, I don’t remember seeing anything like that,” he said of animal studies linking microchips to cancer. A literature search “didn’t turn up anything that would be of concern.”

In general, Watson said, companies are expected to provide safety-and-effectiveness data during the approval process, “even if it’s adverse information.”

Watson added: “The few articles from the literature that did discuss adverse tissue reactions similar to those in the articles you provided, describe the responses as foreign body reactions that are typical of other implantable devices. The balance of the data provided in the submission supported approval of the device.”

Another implantable device could be a pacemaker, and indeed, tumors have in some cases attached to foreign bodies inside humans. But Dr. Neil Lipman, director of the Research Animal Resource Center at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, said it’s not the same. The microchip isn’t like a pacemaker that’s vital to keeping someone alive, he added, “so at this stage, the payoff doesn’t justify the risks.”

Silverman, VeriChip Corp.’s chief executive, disagreed. “Each month pet microchips reunite over 8,000 dogs and cats with their owners,” he said. “We believe the VeriMed Patient Identification System will provide similar positive benefits for at-risk patients who are unable to communicate for themselves in an emergency.”


And what of former HHS secretary Thompson?

When asked what role, if any, he played in VeriChip’s approval, Thompson replied: “I had nothing to do with it. And if you look back at my record, you will find that there has never been any improprieties whatsoever.”

FDA’s Watson said: “I have no recollection of him being involved in it at all.” VeriChip Corp. declined comment.

Thompson vigorously campaigned for electronic medical records and healthcare technology both as governor of Wisconsin and at HHS. While in President Bush’s Cabinet, he formed a “medical innovation” task force that worked to partner FDA with companies developing medical information technologies.

At a “Medical Innovation Summit” on Oct. 20, 2004, Lester Crawford, the FDA’s acting commissioner, thanked the secretary for getting the agency “deeply involved in the use of new information technology to help prevent medication error.” One notable example he cited: “the implantable chips and scanners of the VeriChip system our agency approved last week.”

After leaving the Cabinet and joining the company board, Thompson received options on 166,667 shares of VeriChip Corp. stock, and options on an additional 100,000 shares of stock from its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, according to SEC records. He also received $40,000 in cash in 2005 and again in 2006, the filings show.

The Project on Government Oversight called Thompson’s actions “unacceptable” even though they did not violate what the independent watchdog group calls weak conflict-of-interest laws.

“A decade ago, people would be embarrassed to cash in on their government connections. But now it’s like the Wild West,” said the group’s executive director, Danielle Brian.

Thompson is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a Washington law firm that was paid $1.2 million for legal services it provided the chip maker in 2005 and 2006, according to SEC filings.

He stepped down as a VeriChip Corp. director in March to seek the GOP presidential nomination, and records show that the company gave his campaign $7,400 before he bowed out of the race in August.

In a TV interview while still on the board, Thompson was explaining the benefits — and the ease — of being chipped when an interviewer interrupted:

“I’m sorry, sir. Did you just say you would get one implanted in your arm?”

“Absolutely,” Thompson replied. “Without a doubt.”

“No concerns at all?”


But to date, Thompson has yet to be chipped himself.