Microchip Implants: Cunning or Creepy? Part I katebohner
If the American people looked at public policy beyond one issue in their own city or state---look at the big picture then they could see what national policy has as a goal. US neo-liberalism has been working overseas for decades in Asia and Africa and talking today just about health care and in this case------birth control-----we see that India and China have had US intervention and population policy implemented throughout those decades. We were controlling third world nation's population. Flash forward to today in the US where Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals have been working to install neo-liberal policies here in the US-----then we see contraception in the light of population control. It is the same thing. This contraception microchip will be inserted in women around the world----and in the US---all under the control of a Wall Street profit-driven global health system.
GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEMS WILL OPERATE THE SAME ALL OVER THE WORLD---REMEMBER, TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT ENDS OUR US SOVEREIGNTY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND WHAT IS GOOD FOR INDIA BECOMES GOOD FOR AMERICANS.
This is what I mean when I say Clinton neo-liberals take what used to be a progressive issue like women's birth control which is a very good thing for women-----and make it repressive by taking away the rights of women to control when and how often they can have children. Just think folks------remote control contraception as part of a mandated health care!!!!!!! This has nothing to do with religious beliefs-----it is Chinese population control.
WAKE UP AND START LOOKING AT GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL PUBLIC POLICY WRITTEN FOR ALL NATIONS----EVEN AMERICA!
'The Obama administration on Friday finalized its health care reform policy requiring nearly all employers to provide coverage of contraceptives in their employee health insurance policy free of co-pays, digging in its heels against backlash from religious groups.
The “safe harbor” agreement that gave temporary reprieve from the requirement to religious universities and hospitals was due to expire in just a month. But the administration on Friday extended that to January'.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obamacare-birth-control-coverage-policy-93566.html#ixzz3aJ69Alus
Three Reasons to Uphold the Contraception Mandate That Don’t Involve Birth Control
by Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Legal Analyst, RH Reality Check
February 25, 2014 - 5:18 pm
Much of the defense of the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act has focused on the public benefit to making contraception widely available and affordable. But there are a lot of reasons to uphold the mandate that have nothing to do with birth control.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in the two for-profit, corporate challenges to the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties.
While much of the coverage of the cases has centered on the challengers’ claims that the mandate infringes on their purported corporate religious rights, there is a lot more at stake in both these cases than the question of whether or not corporations are people under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and, if so, whether they have First Amendment free exercise rights. Here are three other important arguments for upholding the mandate and rejecting these challenges to it that have nothing to do with contraception.
1. There’s a long, failed history of opposition to civil rights laws in the name of religious liberty.
In an amicus brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the NAACP, the civil rights groups draw the Supreme Court’s attention to the long history of attempts to invoke religion, and the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment specifically, to try and defeat anti-discrimination laws or to avoid complying with them. Conservatives have invoked their religious beliefs to try and justify everything from racial segregation in business to refusing to pay women the same as men. Thankfully, since the civil rights movement, federal courts have consistently rejected those attempts. The contraception mandate, the ACLU and NAACP argue, addresses one of the last holdouts of discrimination in the workplace: sex disparities in the cost of health care, and the historical exclusion of coverage for health care unique to women.
Importantly, the ACLU and NAACP brief places the Affordable Care Act alongside another historic piece of federal civil rights legislation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, driving home the point that first and foremost the contraception mandate is about regulating employment benefits. In addition to furthering goals of economic equality and empowerment, the mandate helps dismantle outdated sex stereotypes by offering women the tools to decide whether and when to become mothers and rejecting cultural beliefs that women should either accept pregnancy or refrain from non-procreative sex. By tying these beliefs regarding the status and role of women in society to the manner in which the government regulates the workplace through anti-discrimination laws, the NAACP and ACLU drive home that women’s economic equality depends on dismantling Christian patriarchal structures, not further reinforcing them.
2. A ruling for Hobby Lobby would open the doors for broader workplace discrimination in the future.
With the ACLU and NAACP historical arguments on anti-civil rights forces trying to use the First Amendment to defeat civil rights gains as a backdrop, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund brief brings that argument to the present day and highlights the impact a ruling in favor of the challengers would have for the LGBT community as well as those living with HIV. Not surprisingly, the impact would be devastating.
Never before has the Supreme Court allowed a commercial business to ignore a regulation simply because it offends the religious beliefs of the business owners, the fund notes. While there are some laws already in place to protect LGBT persons and those with HIV from discrimination in the employment context, a ruling on behalf of the challengers would be an open invitation to re-litigate the issue as religious conservatives have long tried to use religious objections to justify discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or disability.
In fact, we’re already seeing that very thing play out, as conservative lawmakers in places like Kansas and Arizona consider legislation that would affirmatively grant the right of business owners to discriminate against LGBT persons on the basis of religious objection. And in New Mexico, a lawsuit against an Albuquerque couple who operate a commercial photography business and refused to photograph same-sex couples on the basis of their religious objection has already made its way before the Roberts Court, with the business owners asking the Supreme Court to grant them an exemption based on their religious objections to the state’s public accommodations law, which makes refusing service to anyone on the basis of their sex or sexual orientation illegal.
3. Centuries of corporate law will go up in smoke.
Sure, compared to civil rights history and law, corporate law is undeniably drier. But as a group of law professors argue, it is also undeniably at risk of being upended should the Roberts Court accept the basic proposition that corporations can take on the beliefs of their owners. The corporate and criminal law professors detail many key concepts of corporate law at risk, most notably the fact that shareholders/owners rely on the corporation’s separate existence from its shareholders/owners to shield them from personal liability. This corporate shield encourages investment and innovation, which helps markets generally, meaning that ultimately businesses have more to lose then gain in siding with Hobby Lobby.
Should the Court side with the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga plaintiffs, then it is practically inviting religious objections to any federal regulation. In fact, similar to the religious objections bubbling up in response to marriage equality, this anti-regulation for the sake of it argument is already apparent in the for-profit challenges to the contraception mandate. Take, for example, the Eden Foods case, in which the owner, in an interview with Salon, said he didn’t object to offering birth control to his employees so much as he objected to the federal government telling him to do anything. A broad ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could take that attitude and use it to challenge everything from tax laws to environmental protections—which is, of course, exactly the point.
If you do any reading of international journalism you know that the word SUSTAINABILITY used worldwide means controlling limited natural resources and channeling them to the right people. It also means population control. Bill Gates has been tied to this concept for decades and the creation of his global PHARMA and medical device corporation had this in mind. If you do not see the autocratic society taking hold of the US by now---you are not looking. With that comes the idea of having power to control people's lives to such a degree. China has had the 'one child' policy for decades to control a population of billions. Now, the Chinese government simply sends them off to be work in other nations such as the US. The human trafficing of people is happening in all nations tied to global markets and Wall Street sees the coming decline in US population with the dying of baby boomers augmented by a mass migration of immigrants to the US. That is what Immigration Reform was about.
The second piece of this is the attitude that people are human capital and not citizens and they are only needed according to how profitable they can be. When worker shortages are solved by moving people around the world to work as with neo-liberalism ----then 'only the strong survive' becomes strong. Fascism always has a eugenics component where one group of people are better than another and we know Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons are trying to create a very autocratic and repressive society with no US Constitutional rights as citizens. It does not take a rocket scientist to see where Bill Gates and his population control policies seek to go.
Please just glance through this long article and think how all of this neo-liberal policy is coming back to the US.
Population control: Is it a tool of the rich?
- 28 October 2011
The temperature is some 30C. The humidity stifling, the noise unbearable. In a yard between two enormous tea-drying sheds, a number of dark-skinned women patiently sit, each accompanied by an unwieldy looking cloth sack. They are clad in colourful saris, but look tired and shabby. This is hardly surprising - they have spent most of the day in nearby plantation fields, picking tea that will net them around two cents a kilo - barely enough to feed their large families.
Find out more
- A three-part radio version of this story was broadcast on World Service.
- You can listen again using the link below.
Vivek Baid thinks he knows how to help them. He runs the Mission for Population Control, a project in eastern India which aims to bring down high birth rates by encouraging local women to get sterilised after their second child.
As the world reaches an estimated seven billion people, people like Vivek say efforts to bring down the world's population must continue if life on Earth is to be sustainable, and if poverty and even mass starvation are to be avoided.
There is no doubting their good intentions. Vivek, for instance, has spent his own money on the project, and is passionate about creating a brighter future for India.
But critics allege that campaigners like Vivek - a successful and wealthy male businessman - have tended to live very different lives from those they seek to help, who are mainly poor women.
These critics argue that rich people have imposed population control on the poor for decades. And, they say, such coercive attempts to control the world's population often backfired and were sometimes harmful.
Most historians of modern population control trace its roots back to the Reverend Thomas Malthus, an English clergyman born in the 18th Century who believed that humans would always reproduce faster than Earth's capacity to feed them.
Giving succour to the resulting desperate masses would only imperil everyone else, he said. So the brutal reality was that it was better to let them starve.
'Plenty is changed into scarcity'From Thomas Malthus' Essay on Population, 1803 edition:
A man who is born into a world already possessed - if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food.
At nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour. The plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall.
Rapid agricultural advances in the 19th Century proved his main premise wrong, because food production generally more than kept pace with the growing population.
But the idea that the rich are threatened by the desperately poor has cast a long shadow into the 20th Century.
From the 1960s, the World Bank, the UN and a host of independent American philanthropic foundations, such as the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, began to focus on what they saw as the problem of burgeoning Third World numbers.
The believed that overpopulation was the primary cause of environmental degradation, economic underdevelopment and political instability.
Massive populations in the Third World were seen as presenting a threat to Western capitalism and access to resources, says Professor Betsy Hartmann of Hampshire College, Massachusetts, in the US.
"The view of the south is very much put in this Malthusian framework. It becomes just this powerful ideology," she says.
In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson warned that the US might be overwhelmed by desperate masses, and he made US foreign aid dependent on countries adopting family planning programmes.
Other wealthy countries such as Japan, Sweden and the UK also began to devote large amounts of money to reducing Third World birth rates.
'Unmet need'What virtually everyone agreed was that there was a massive demand for birth control among the world's poorest people, and that if they could get their hands on reliable contraceptives, runaway population growth might be stopped.
But with the benefit of hindsight, some argue that this so-called unmet need theory put disproportionate emphasis on birth control and ignored other serious needs.
"It was a top-down solution," says Mohan Rao, a doctor and public health expert at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
"There was an unmet need for contraceptive services, of course. But there was also an unmet need for health services and all kinds of other services which did not get attention. The focus became contraception."
Had the demographic experts worked at the grass-roots instead of imposing solutions from above, suggests Adrienne Germain, formerly of the Ford Foundation and then the International Women's Health Coalition, they might have achieved a better picture of the dilemmas facing women in poor, rural communities.
"Not to have a full set of health services meant women were either unable to use family planning, or unwilling to - because they could still expect half their kids to die by the age of five," she says.
Us and them
India's sterilisation 'madness'Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay (above) presided over a mass sterilisation campaign. From the mid-1970s, Indian officials were set sterilisation quotas, and sought to ingratiate themselves with superiors by exceeding them. Stories abounded of men being accosted in the street and taken away for the operation. The head of the World Bank, Robert McNamara, congratulated the Indian government on "moving effectively" to deal with high birth rates. Funding was increased, and the sterilising went on.
In Delhi, some 700,000 slum dwellers were forcibly evicted, and given replacement housing plots far from the city centre, frequently on condition that they were either sterilised or produced someone else for the operation. In poorer agricultural areas, whole villages were rounded up for sterilisation. When residents of one village protested, an official is said to have threatened air strikes in retaliation.
"There was a certain madness," recalls Nina Puri of the Family Planning Association of India. "All rationality was lost."
In 1968, the American biologist Paul Ehrlich caused a stir with his bestselling book, The Population Bomb, which suggested that it was already too late to save some countries from the dire effects of overpopulation, which would result in ecological disaster and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the 1970s.
Instead, governments should concentrate on drastically reducing population growth. He said financial assistance should be given only to those nations with a realistic chance of bringing birth rates down. Compulsory measures were not to be ruled out.
Western experts and local elites in the developing world soon imposed targets for reductions in family size, and used military analogies to drive home the urgency, says Matthew Connelly, a historian of population control at Columbia University in New York.
"They spoke of a war on population growth, fought with contraceptive weapons," he says. "The war would entail sacrifices, and collateral damage."
Such language betrayed a lack of empathy with their subjects, says Ms Germain: "People didn't talk about people. They talked of acceptors and users of family planning."
Critics of population control had their say at the first ever UN population conference in 1974.
Karan Singh, India's health minister at the time, declared that "development is the best contraceptive".
But just a year later, Mr Singh's government presided over one of the most notorious episodes in the history of population control.
In June 1975, the Indian premier, Indira Gandhi, declared a state of emergency after accusations of corruption threatened her government. Her son Sanjay used the measure to introduce radical population control measures targeted at the poor.
The Indian emergency lasted less than two years, but in 1975 alone, some eight million Indians - mainly poor men - were sterilised.
Yet, for all the official programmes and coercion, many poor women kept on having babies.
Media caption The BBC's Fergus Walsh finds out whether the numbers will rise or fall in the futureAnd where they did not, it arguably had less to do with coercive population control than with development, just as Karan Singh had argued in 1974, says historian Matt Connelly.
For example, in India, a disparity in birth rates could already be observed between the impoverished northern states and more developed southern regions like Kerala, where women were more likely to be literate and educated, and their offspring more likely to be healthy.
Women there realised that they could have fewer births and still expect to see their children survive into adulthood.
By now, this phenomenon could be observed in another country too - one that would nevertheless go on to impose the most draconian population control of all.
China: 'We will not allow your baby to live'Steven Mosher was a Stanford University anthropologist working in rural China who witnessed some of the early, disturbing moments of Beijing's One Child Policy.
"I remember very well the evening of 8 March, 1980. The local Communist Party official in charge of my village came over waving a government document. He said: 'The Party has decided to impose a cap of 1% on population growth this year.' He said: 'We're going to decide who's going to be allowed to continue their pregnancy and who's going to be forced to terminate their pregnancy.' And that's exactly what they did."
"These were women in the late second and third trimester of pregnancy. There were several women just days away from giving birth. And in my hearing, a party official said: 'Do not think that you can simply wait until you go into labour and give birth, because we will not allow your baby to live. You will go home alone'."
The One Child Policy is credited with preventing some 400 million births in China, and remains in place to this day. In 1983 alone, more than 16 million women and four million men were sterilised, and 14 million women received abortions.
Assessed by numbers alone, it is said to be by far the most successful population control initiative. Yet it remains deeply controversial, not only because of the human suffering it has caused.
A few years after its inception, the policy was relaxed slightly to allow rural couples two children if their first was not a boy. Boy children are prized, especially in the countryside where they provide labour and care for parents in old age.
But modern technology allows parents to discover the sex of the foetus, and many choose to abort if they are carrying a girl. In some regions, there is now a serious imbalance between men and women.
Moreover, since Chinese fertility was already in decline at the time the policy was implemented, some argue that it bears less responsibility for China's falling birth rate than its supporters claim.
"I don't think they needed to bring it down further," says Indian demographer AR Nanda. "It would have happened at its own slow pace in another 10 years."
Backlash In the early 1980s, objections to the population control movement began to grow, especially in the United States.
In Washington, the new Reagan administration removed financial support for any programmes that involved abortion or sterilisation.
if you give women the tools they need - education, employment, contraception, safe abortion - then they will make the choices that benefit societyAdrienne Germain The broad alliance to stem birth rates was beginning to dissolve and the debate become more polarised along political lines.
While some on the political right had moral objections to population control, some on the left saw it as neo-colonialism.
Faith groups condemned it as a Western attack on religious values, but women's groups feared changes would mean poor women would be even less well-served.
By the time of a major UN conference on population and development in Cairo in 1994, women's groups were ready to strike a blow for women's rights, and they won.
The conference adopted a 20-year plan of action, known as the Cairo consensus, which called on countries to recognise that ordinary women's needs - rather than demographers' plans - should be at the heart of population strategies.
Today's record-breaking global population hides a marked long-term trend towards lower birth rates, as urbanisation, better health care, education and access to family planning all affect women's choices.
With the exception of sub-Saharan Africa and some of the poorest parts of India, we are now having fewer children than we once did - in some cases, failing even to replace ourselves in the next generation. And although total numbers are set to rise still further, the peak is now in sight.
China promoted birth control before implementing its one-child policy Assuming that this trend continues, total numbers will one day level off, and even fall. As a result, some believe the sense of urgency that once surrounded population control has subsided.
The term population control itself has fallen out of fashion, as it was deemed to have authoritarian connotations. Post-Cairo, the talk is of women's rights and reproductive rights, meaning the right to a free choice over whether or not to have children.
According to Adrienne Germain, that is the main lesson we should learn from the past 50 years.
"I have a profound conviction that if you give women the tools they need - education, employment, contraception, safe abortion - then they will make the choices that benefit society," she says.
"If you don't, then you'll just be in an endless cycle of trying to exert control over fertility - to bring it up, to bring it down, to keep it stable. And it never comes out well. Never."
Nevertheless, there remain to this day schemes to sterilise the less well-off, often in return for financial incentives. In effect, say critics, this amounts to coercion, since the very poor find it hard to reject cash.
"The people proposing this argue 'Don't worry, everything' s fine now we have voluntary programmes on the Cairo model'," says Betsy Hartmann.
"But what they don't understand is the profound difference in power between rich and poor. The people who provide many services in poor areas are already prejudiced against the people they serve."
Work in progress
For Mohan Rao, it is an example of how even the Cairo consensus fails to take account of the developing world.
"Cairo had some good things," he says. "However Cairo was driven largely by First World feminist agendas. Reproductive rights are all very well, but [there needs to be] a whole lot of other kinds of enabling rights before women can access reproductive rights. You need rights to food, employment, water, justice and fair wages. Without all these you cannot have reproductive rights."
Perhaps, then, the humanitarian ideals of Cairo are still a work in progress.
Meanwhile, Paul Ehrlich has also amended his view of the issue.
If he were to write his book today, "I wouldn't focus on the poverty-stricken masses", he told the BBC.
"I would focus on there being too many rich people. It's crystal clear that we can't support seven billion people in the style of the wealthier Americans."
Health care for all was tied to the Affordable Care Act but the way health care will be delivered will be so cold and oppressive that people should be SHOUTING ABOUT OPEN TALKS OF ETHICS AND MORALITY IN THE USE OF THESE TECHNIQUES. There has been literally no public policy talks about these health procedures that are the main focus of BioTech facilities tied to Johns Hopkins et al. We will have no choices as to how we receive care and what we receive. These health systems will have a pre-determined route of treatment with brand name products tied to the health insurance plan. It is most cost-effective for you to get all of your care at home and that is what this tiered private health insurance will do.
Who will you be communicating with? A call center contracted by your health system and it could be anywhere----see what global health systems have as a goal.
You will not be able to stop the flow of drug or medical procedure from your end----it will just happen until it is remotely stopped. For women, all these new medical products that have any semblance of clinical research have now to deal with the cheapening of that research and the return to very limited subsets of patients in trials----so all of these products will not be ready for prime-time. Reproduction tied to receiving social services ------tied to people having trouble paying bills-----tied to people who are disabled in any way-----or simple poverty will come into play very quickly.
This kind of medicine will hit the low-income hardest-----70% of Americans are at or near poverty now------80% will be soon after this coming bond market crash. If you are affording a Silver Plan now-----medical costs are going to soar as these systems go global and act as Wall Street in profiteering.
WHEN A JUSTICE ORGANIZATION SUPPORTS HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATES AND MANDATED CONTRACEPTION ------NATIONAL LEADERS KNOW WHERE CLINTON WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS ARE GOING WITH THIS.
The future of prescription drugging and birth control lies in a microchip.
Right now, chips with drug reservoirs can be implanted directly under the skin, delivering doses of pharmaceuticals or birth control hormones at the same time each day. The implanted chip is designed to be remote-controlled and governed by "medical professionals."
Chips destroy liberty, subjecting people to control
How might the concept of being chipped destroy personal sovereignty, as a system of sick care is branded inside the skin?
How might individual liberty be demolished as "health care professionals" govern one's dosage through wireless communications?
How might this technology be disrupted, misused or hacked, potentially delivering obscene amounts of drugs into user's systems?
How might this technology ultimately be a form of greater population control through its aggressive birth control mechanisms?
How might this technology open the door for drug companies to gain an even tighter grip over the lives of people who struggle with horrendous side effects, drug-to-drug interactions, and drug-to-heavy-metal-catalyst implications?
Successful human tests for first wirelessly controlled drug-delivery chip
Date:February 16, 2012Source:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Science Daily
Summary:About 15 years ago, two professors had the idea to develop a programmable, wirelessly controlled microchip that would deliver drugs after implantation in a patient's body. This week, they reported that they have successfully used such a chip to administer daily doses of an osteoporosis drug normally given by injection. The results represent the first successful test of such a device. Share: Total shares: 356 FULL STORY This implantable medical device, developed by professors Robert Langer and Michael Cima and colleagues, allows repeated wireless drug delivery in lieu of injections. Credit: M. Scott Brauer About 15 years ago, MIT professors Robert Langer and Michael Cima had the idea to develop a programmable, wirelessly controlled microchip that would deliver drugs after implantation in a patient's body. This week, the MIT researchers and scientists from MicroCHIPS Inc. reported that they have successfully used such a chip to administer daily doses of an osteoporosis drug normally given by injection.
The results, published in the Feb. 16 online edition of Science Translational Medicine, represent the first successful test of such a device and could help usher in a new era of telemedicine -- delivering health care over a distance, Langer says.
"You could literally have a pharmacy on a chip," says Langer, the David H. Koch Institute Professor at MIT. "You can do remote control delivery, you can do pulsatile drug delivery, and you can deliver multiple drugs."
In the new study, funded and overseen by MicroCHIPS, scientists used the programmable implants to deliver an osteoporosis drug called teriparatide to seven women aged 65 to 70. The study found that the device delivered dosages comparable to injections, and there were no adverse side effects.
These programmable chips could dramatically change treatment not only for osteoporosis, but also for many other diseases, including cancer and multiple sclerosis. "Patients with chronic diseases, regular pain-management needs or other conditions that require frequent or daily injections could benefit from this technology," says Robert Farra, president and chief operating officer at MicroCHIPS and lead author of the paper.
"Compliance is very important in a lot of drug regimens, and it can be very difficult to get patients to accept a drug regimen where they have to give themselves injections," says Cima, the David H. Koch Professor of Engineering at MIT. "This avoids the compliance issue completely, and points to a future where you have fully automated drug regimens."
The MIT research team started working on the implantable chip in the mid-1990s. John Santini, then a University of Michigan undergraduate visiting MIT, took it on as a summer project under the direction of Cima and Langer. Santini, who later returned to MIT as a graduate student to continue the project, is also an author of the new paper.
In 1999, the MIT team published its initial findings in Nature, and MicroCHIPS was founded and licensed the microchip technology from MIT. The company refined the chips, including adding a hermetic seal and a release system that works reliably in living tissue. Teriparatide is a polypeptide and therefore much less chemically stable than small-molecule drugs, so sealing it hermetically to preserve it was an important achievement, Langer says.
The human clinical trial began in Denmark in January 2011. Chips were implanted during a 30-minute procedure at a doctor's office using local anesthetic, and remained in the patients for four months. The implants proved safe, and patients reported they often forgot they even had the implant, Cima says.
Chips used in the study stored 20 doses of teriparatide, individually sealed in tiny reservoirs about the size of a pinprick. The reservoirs are capped with a thin layer of platinum and titanium that melts when a small electrical current is applied, releasing the drug inside. MicroCHIPS is now working on developing implants that can carry hundreds of drug doses per chip.
Because the chips are programmable, dosages can be scheduled in advance or triggered remotely by radio communication over a special frequency called Medical Implant Communication Service (MICS). Current versions work over a distance of a few inches, but researchers plan to extend that range.
In the Science Translational Medicine study, the researchers measured bone formation in osteoporosis patients with the implants, and found that it was similar to that seen in patients receiving daily injections of teriparatide. Another notable result is that the dosages given by implant had less variation than those given by injection.
Henry Brem, professor of neurosurgery, ophthalmology, oncology and biological engineering at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, called the results "stunning."
"It's very rare to find a paper that is really a breakthrough in technology," says Brem, who was not part of the research team. "It fulfills the promise of polymer drug delivery and the incredible sophistication of microchip capabilities."
Once a version of the implant that can carry a larger number of doses is ready, MicroCHIPS plans to seek approval for further clinical trials, Farra says. The company has also developed a sensor that can monitor glucose levels. Eventually such sensors could be combined with chips that contain drug reservoirs, creating a chip that can adapt drug treatments in response to the patient's condition.