Microchip Implants Linked To Animal Tumors In Research Animals

MicrochipVarious veterinary and toxicology studies done since the mid-1990s found that microchip implants were linked to malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.

“The transponders were the cause of the tumors,” said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, said in regards to a 1996 study he led at Dow Chemical.

The Associated Press is reporting the results of these studies were not made public by microchip companies or federal regulatory agencies. When the FDA was asked which studies they were aware of, they declined to answer. Microchip companies and even the American Medical Association said they were unaware of these studies.

The studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous “sarcomas” — malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants.

In 1998, a Connecticut study including 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent of research animals implanted with microchips.

A 2006 study done in France showed tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice.

In 1997, a study in Germany reported cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 mice. The researchers wrote that the tumors “are clearly due to the implanted microchips.”

For some cancer specialists, seeing these results from lab studies is alarming.

“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.

Dr. Cheryl London, a veterinarian oncologist at Ohio State University said tens of thousands of dogs have been chipped. So far, veterinary pathologists have not reported outbreaks of tumors in the area of the neck, where canine implants are mostly done.

The Associated Press reported that there were two published reports about malignant tumors in two chipped dogs. In one incident, the researchers said cancer seemed to be linked to the implant of the microchip. In the other case, the cause of the cancer was uncertain.

She added that there is a need for a 20-year study of microchipped dogs to see the biological effects. Another veterinary oncologist at the National Cancer Institute agreed and said this evidence “does suggest some reason to be concerned about tumor formations.”

Source: The Associated Press

Photo: Operation Kindness

47 Responses to “Microchip Implants Linked To Animal Tumors In Research Animals”

  1. Radcliff, Allie, Luna, & Ozzie says:

    hmmmmmm……

    Maybe we won’t get microchipped after all.

  2. pat says:

    i’m not surprised to learn that this information has been suppressed. a lot of money has been invested in automated identification technology, and since federal authorities are pretty much the whores of big business, they aren’t going to worry about what might happen to the animals. the message to pet owners is : just shut up and keep paying for poisoned food and carcenogenic products.

  3. purringfur says:

    from above: …”RESULTS of these studies WERE NOT MADE PUBLIC by microchip companies or federal regulatory agencies. When the FDA was asked which studies they were aware of, they declined to answer.”
    ………………

    Nothing new there! Just keep the dangers hidden for 9 YEARS to PROTECT COMPANIES, while pets are getting cancer!! And where are these displays hawking the microchips? Vet offices! What literature is often included in adoption kits when you adopt from a shelter? Microchip brochures.

    I really thought of microchipping my two puppies. I’m so glad I didn’t. Instead, I went with an ID tag with name, address, phone, email, & “reward” indicated.

    Wasn’t microchipping chickens & livestock to trace them from farm to processing plant under consideration?? Elaine, are you around?

    WHEN will HEALTH and SAFETY EVER BE A CONCERN of GOVERNMENT and our REGULATORY AGENCIES? If companies make unsafe products, it’s up to them to pull them, but why should they? They know they can sell their product for years without fear of a recall because our regulatory agencies are so lax. Research should be done FIRST to prove that an item is safe –NOT the other way around!

    With the vaccines, toxic food, and microchipping, it’s no wonder the cancer rates in pets have soared! Go as natural as possible for your animals… and yourselves!

    Job for Us? Give copies to our vets and advise them to advise patients of the research before agreeing to microchip a pet. I’m sure our vets can pull up the actual studies on their databases.

    And just think of all the dangerous, toxic products that we NEVER HEAR ABOUT, ALL IN THE NAME OF PROTECTING BUSINESSES!

    Another irony - a product that is supposed to protect our pets and keep them safe is actually HARMING THEM! Just like the food…

    Good find, Emily!

  4. Kevin says:

    I have known about this for some time now. For additional findings, please click on the link below.

    http://www.celestialpets.com/microchip.shtml

  5. E. Hamilton says:

    This is just one more reason that I, a life long pet parent, am NOT getting a kitten or a puppy , after my pets were killed by the poison.

    A lot of people are making the same choice to turn away from having pets. Which may have been the intent all along. Fewer, and sickly pets, owned only by people willing to spend anything, do anything for those pets makes MORE money for the pet industry.

    Healthy pets do not make money for the pet industry. Simple as that.

  6. Furball Mom says:

    I, too, have gone with the collar and I.D. with phone number, etc. Besides growing cancerous tumors, these chips often “travel” away from the spot where they were injected and can’t be scanned anyway…..OR the scanner isn’t compatible with the chip! Beware, fellow animal lovers…..as long as there is $$ to be made, there will be those there to collect it, whether it’s a good thing for your fur kids or not!

  7. Velvet's Dad says:

    When I adopted Velvet from a shelter more than nine months ago, following the sudden death of a long-time feline companion, the microchip had already been implanted. I am thankful for this report and will monitor (as I have done and will continue to do) Velvet’s health. But, had I the decision to do again, I would still open my home to a feline in need. We can work to change the system, certainly, and that means educating the vets who do chips and spaying/neutering for shelter animals, but this report should not make us close our hearts to animals in need. E. Hamilton’s entry saddens me.

  8. Garyn says:

    This is unbelievable. Now I am thankful that my dog and kitten are not chipped. I was considering chipping my kitten and now will not. Ironically, I always felt like I had done something wrong because I did not microchip my dog. I just did not want a foreign object inside his body. He wears ID’s which contain my home number, my cell number, grandma’s number, a statement “if alone am lost,” his rabies tag and his license. He jingles a bit but that’s Ok. His collar is made in the USA so hopefully it doesn’t have some lethal toxin in it.

    Isn’t it so sad that these greedy amoral sociopaths, and that is what they all are as far as I am concerned, have destroyed the joy of pet ownership by making us afraid every single solitary day that anything our pets eat or come in contact with will sicken and kill them. And that the dangers are deliberately kept from us makes me crazy. This is so wrong on so many levels and no one, not a single person in power to help us and to save our pets, seems to understand that. Why on earth would the FDA care about the profits of a microchipping company. How does that help anyone.

  9. JJ in IL says:

    Does anyone know how to de-activate these chips once they are put in? Place I adopted my dog insisted she have a chip as this was their ‘policy’ or I wouldn’t be allowed to have her. I didn’t want this chip put in at all. How difficult is it to have removed?

  10. catmom5 says:

    Good question, JJ. Two of my five cats have been microchipped, at the vet’s suggestion. Being a good cat mom I, of course, did the “right” thing. Not so sure now. Will definitely NOT have the other three done. Why do they keep these findings from us again and again?

  11. Velvet's Dad says:

    To JJ in IL:

    I had the same experience in OR. The shelters automatically microchip cats and dogs and will not let them be adopted without them. That is what I was saying in my previous post. These animals still need to be given loving homes. Only thing I can think of, is ask your vet (or another vet if they won’t do) to surgically locate and remove the chip.

  12. Mia says:

    I have chipped my dog but never activated it. I dont plan on ever doing so upon reading this latest outrage. I m sick of this cr*p! Mia

  13. Jenny Bark says:

    These bas!!!!!, they control everything, even the information about everthing, about the truth of what is really going on.

    All my babies are chipped. The ones who wern’t chipped she did them. She is the only one who chips then if they arn’t already chipped. Her girls are good & well trusted but she is the only one to chip. I believe on the other thread some people didn’t believe me because their vet or area didn’t do it the same way. EVERYTIME I bring 1 of my babies in as part of the exam she checks the chip, now I beginning to understand why. I don’t know if she still chips or not, my youngest 2 are almost 5 years old.

    Kevin thanks for the link. You posted that before & I took it in to her & she knew about it. I will take this in to her too. I will give her a couple of weeks to study it & talk with her other friends & then make an appoiment on what to do. She will tell me the pro & cons. We will have to take into account what everybody KNOWS about our dog catcher & what she really knows about our kill shelters. Right now I’m betting she will say let’s get them out starting with the oldest.

    Thanks Itchmo again.

  14. MaineMom says:

    Three years ago our now deceased Maltese developed a mast cell tumor in the general location of her Avid chip implant. The tumor was surgically removed (no radiation or chemo follow up) and did not recur prior to her death. She did, however, develop an agressive squamous cell carcinoma in her mouth.

    Our cats get a daily “rub” of neck, shoulder blades and whole general area but, since these chips have been know to migrate, will consider removal.

    For the real skinny on the lack of ethics, greed and competition between the three chip/scanner manufactures see dolitter.com’s multi-part article.

    Last, but not least, be aware shelters and most rescues DO check for chips, but vets DO NOT unless the caregiver asks!

  15. Jenny Bark says:

    Imo I think we should drop this information off at our vet’s office right away before it goes by- by. Imo we can’t trust the AVMA to do what is right by us or our babies.

  16. Cathy says:

    I have chipped my dog but never activated it. I dont plan on ever doing so upon reading this latest outrage. I m sick of this cr*p! Mia

    What do you mean when you say you didn’t acitvate the chip? When I worked at the SPCA where I used to live we chipped all the dogs & cats with Home Again chips. The chips didn’t need to be activated. A chip right out of the package will scan.

  17. Traci says:

    Sigh.

    Let’s not start attacking well-meaning vets and shelters, whatever the reality of these studies are for cats and dogs.

    The vets and shelters have had one idea in mind about microchipping, and that is to save pets lives and be able to return them to their families. Don’t go attacking the wrong people, especially since they were never informed of any dangers in the first place.

    I am not telling people to be unconcerned but to step back and see how many pet lives have also been saved. And what is this about not adopting so you don’t serve “the pet industry”? Fact, there are homeless animals who need homes and far more love besides the little they can get in the shelters they languish in. What’s your solution? So we shouldn’t adopt these beings because we might have to support “the pet industry”? Someone, you or the shelter, will have to. Unless of course we just euthanize them all.

    Studies come out all the time saying this or that causes cancer. Life is the cause of death. I imagine, though I am not a vet, that your cat or dog might have to go under anesthesia to surgically remove these things. And be aware that shelters are not just going to stop chipping because of these studies–because we don’t want animals being lost to euthanasia when no one comes to get them. Every animal whose chip is registered to the rescue I volunteer at comes back to us from animal control whether or not the adoptee of the pet can be located. Oh, and collars and attached IDs can get lost.

  18. JJ in IL says:

    Traci we all are aware that shelters will continue to chip the animals before adoption. Those people who do not want the chips in their animals will adopt elsewhere then since we all have a choice and those animals who otherwise would find loving homes will be killed simple as that. Sorry but have you spent $12,000.00 on a dog to treat the cancer? What good does it do any of us to feed the most healthiest of diets to our pets when a micro chip will give them a death sentence anyway? Chipping is not a mandatory law or any kind of law except one invented by people who believe in the death sentence for pets thru slow death from cancer.

  19. Traci says:

    “any kind of law except one invented by people who believe in the death sentence for pets thru slow death from cancer.”

    Why are you blaming the shelters? Why do you think that is what shelters and rescues believe in? Apparently you think people who are working the hardest to get animals adopted into good homes and save their lives believe in killing them from cancer. Good grief.

  20. MaineMom says:

    Traci -

    Did not mention in my earlier post that the only cat we have ever lost was Avid chipped. I have literally spent years searching for him. He was a very large, macho, retired-show red Maine. Now over 5 years later, I have pretty much given up hope that his “chip” will ever bring him home.

  21. Geff says:

    Another case of cover ups for capitalism!! Yay, hurrah.

    Ironically I was recently thinking similar to E Hamilton above: while my beloved kitty is healthy today, I would NOT get another pet without having a definitive source of unpoisoned food.

  22. Geff says:

    I emailed this story to my vet.

  23. dogmom says:

    Mia–”I have chipped my dog but never activated it. I dont plan on ever doing so upon reading this latest outrage. I m sick of this cr*p! Mia”

    Cathy–”What do you mean when you say you didn’t acitvate the chip? When I worked at the SPCA where I used to live we chipped all the dogs & cats with Home Again chips. The chips didn’t need to be activated. A chip right out of the package will scan.”

    I’m am glad you clarified this. I’ve seen others post this, but I always understood that the chip is immediately active. People seem to confuse needing to register the chip with it being activated. It’s not some GPS system that can be turned off and on. Registration of the chip is necessary if you expect to be contacted if your pet is ever lost.

  24. Sharon says:

    You can thank the Bush administration again for killing both pets and people. Someone appointed by Bush works for the government when the FDA approves it and then immediately goes to work for the company that makes it and then we later find out the item approved causes cancer. Tommy Thompson ought to go to jail. This particular article on the topic fails to mention the Bush cronie and the money he has made off this deal. Thompson used to be the Director of Health and Human Services before he went to work for the chip manufacturer.

  25. Mia says:

    I implanted a microchip but never activated it. I dont plan to but getting it out wont be easy. Thanks again US Govt!

  26. Cathy says:

    Mia, your microchip is already “activated”. Chips already have a number encoded (or whatever it is called) in it. You just have to keep your information up to date if you move, change phone numbers, etc.

  27. Anonymous says:

    These should’ve been tested before the devices were approved.
    Who bought the approval or submitted faked safety studies?

  28. Anonymous says:

    Traci: “Let’s not start attacking well-meaning vets and shelters, whatever the reality of these studies are for cats and dogs.”

    The fact is THESE are available thru vets and implanted by vets. The fact is they cause cancer. The fact is I don’t care to be sold something that may kill my pet. The fact is this is not the first time products promoted, sold or administered by vets have harmed or killed pets. The fact is, much research is suppressed and much is altered to sell petcare industry products. The fact is more research is coming out every day and the fact is more people want the truth. NO WELL-MEANING VET OR SHELTER SHOULD BE DEFENSIVE UNLESS SOMETHING THEY’RE DOING IS HARMING PETS INSTEAD OF HELPING THEM. IF THEY CAN’T BE SURE THEY AREN’T HARMING THE PET - THEY SHOULD STOP USING THE PRODUCT OR TREATMENT. Since they cannot be responsible for doing that, I, the consumer, will take upon myself the responsibility to find out the facts and protect my pet. If they don’t like it, TOUGH. They needn’t to whine like they’re being “attacked”.

    “The vets and shelters have had one idea in mind about microchipping, and that is to save pets lives and be able to return them to their families. Don’t go attacking the wrong people, especially since they were never informed of any dangers in the first place.”

    It is vest job as professionals to be informed. Petowners pay them and expect informed help, not misinformed harm. How about the vets getting the AVMA to support real tests on these products before approval and before animals are harmed. Instead of collusion with the petcare industry and big pharma to collect profits.

    “Studies come out all the time saying this or that causes cancer. Life is the cause of death.”

    Studies come out all the time showing that some products of the petcare industry harm pets. TRUTH IS THE CAUSE OF GOOD DECISIONS.

  29. Sharon says:

    Dear Anonymous, it was Bush’s pal Tommy Thompson who pushed this through right before he went to work for the chip manufacturer.

    All you have to do whenever something happens like this is follow the money. It ALWAYS leads to Bush and his friends.

  30. jess says:

    I am a little shocked that your readers would be so easily led by rumour and innuendo, but

    thought you might be interested in some of the back story behind the “microchips cause cancer” rumours

    There are a group of livestock farmers (and yes, some dog breeders) that are currently battling proposed government requirements for microchipping animals

    The government wants to be able to track meat animals etc for disease issues, etc

    These farmers fight against microchipping for rthe major reason that not all of them are being honest about their sales, incomes, etc and are involved in underreporting or not reporting income

    Clearly, microchipping could threaten that.

    So they have concocted a mountain of lies, rumours, fake studies, paid-off illegitimate “experts” fake statistics and more to try to create a “microchips cause cancer” fear.

    It’s pretty much like most other propaganda campaigns. The people involved are libertarian type radicals, and the tactics used are unscientific and outrageous.

    It is all without basis. Sadly, there are some gullible journalists that fall for the nonsense.

    Everyone needs to be really careful about what they read online, and believe. The internet can be a great source of info, but also a great way to spread rumors and ignorance on behalf of greedy special interest groups.

    Microchips have been used and studied for decades. They are perfectly safe.

    It is the best way to get your pet back, and Katrina hopefully showed us all that.

    In addition, reasearch labs are now required to scan for chips, and pets stolen by lab animal dealers are being returned to owners rather than being used for research.

  31. Lynn says:

    While I always appreciate news, contrary or not, one needs to read it critically.

    As I understand it, there has been only one possible case of cancer, not proven, that is POSSIBLY tied to the microchip in a dog. Just one out of several million pets that have been microchipped. While it’s true that there have been more reports of malignant sarcomas in lab mice and rats, you should know that these small lab animals frequently develop malignant tumors as a result of ANY kind of injection, microchip or not.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....97_pf.html

    Of course it’s quite possible that in the absence of a core veterinary information network that collects private clinic reports of unusual findings in clinical practice, that sarcomas are indeed more commonplace in the dog or cat. [HINT: MUST GET A UNIVERSAL VETERINARY NETWORK ESTABLISHED!!! THE PET FOOD RECALL SHOULD HAVE INSPIRED THIS.] Time will tell [IF vets will report to a centralized agency].

    I’ve had all my pets microchipped since the technology came out about 20 years ago. I don’t regret it at all. In fact, if it weren’t for that chip, it’s quite likely one of my beloved dogs would never have made his way back home to me after the house had been broken into and he slid out the door.

    Until other findings surface that point toward contraindicating microchipping, I personally would continue to “chip” my pets.

    So think of the odds: What are the odds your pet will get loose and end up at a shelter or in the hands of someone else? More than 1 in a few million?

    I’d go with the microchip.

  32. JJ in IL says:

    For those of you who feel fine injecting your animals with these chips, then do so along with all the other chemically laden shots they want to get ‘into’ your animals. My last dog had a medical tab of $12,000.00 so please excuse me if I feel taken aback that this chip my current dog has (I have yet to lose a dog or have one escape and have to be brought back) may give her cancer too! With all the food recalls we pet owners are reeling from new news of a product/food/toy/treat etc that may harm them or has harmed them. So you people on high perches throwing stones at the rest of us need to step back and consider our feelings in all of this - what may be good and ok for you might not be for many others. You can’t make decisions or impose your will on anyone else that does not ‘fall in line’ with your way of doing or caring for your pets either.

  33. Lynn says:

    To JJ in IL:

    I don’t know that anyone here is on a high perch or throwing stones. I am at a loss as to how you inferred this.

    We are all trying to provide credible or empirical information so that your decision will be an informed one. Like you, we love our pets.

    I never, in all my years of having multiple dogs lost a dog. EXCEPT when my home was broken into and robbed. I NEVER would have expected that to happen. But it did. And I’m sure if you were to review stats on home invasion vs. sarcomas from various injections, you would find that the odds are that your home is more likely to be broken into than your pet will develop injection site sarcoma.

  34. E. Hamilton says:

    As an “easily led” reader, just let me say all this info has me soo confused!
    To chip or not to chip, that is the question, whether to suffer the slings and arrows…

  35. Lynn says:

    I don’t know about a second case [was there a second case?], but I do know about the case of the Leon, the French Bulldog [whose sarcoma was histologically and immunologically examined by two major veterinary labs and was determined to be very similar to the type of post-injection fibrosarcoma seen in mice and rats]. But it was never conclusively determined that Leon’s microchip caused the cancer since he had had Rabies shots in the same location.

    I don’t know about this business regarding the transponders causing the cancer in mice or rats. As I understand it there were never any control groups WITHOUT microchips. It is well known that many mice and rats do in fact develop sarcomas after injections [of anything].

    It’s called risk assessment. You have to decide what the odds are. But make sure you’ve got all the facts first.

  36. JJ in IL says:

    Lynn my dog developed a nerve sheath tumor at injection site for rabies shot (my previous girl) with the total cost at $12,000.00 probably a lil more but quit counting after that figure. So now with current dog will have titre tests as she has had a round of two shots in her short life and well know the future risk assessment of further rabies shots and she has a chip too so thats why in a previous post had stated people would think twice about adopting from a shelter that chips animals when they might not want to deal with the ‘risk’ that a chip could pose. There are shelters that do not chip and my next dog will come from one of those. We deal with enough with all the sad, bad news from the pet food but now this on top of all that is enough to make all of us a lil edgy.

  37. Jillian says:

    That apparently wasn’t the full article–I’ve seen longer versions that warn to take these reports with a grain of salt. From the article above: “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.”

    Without a control, we have no idea whether the percent of rats or mice that would get cancer from the insertion of the needle alone is the same as those who actually get the injection–some lines of rats and mice are prone to cancer and will get it without anything being done to them in the first place. Ultimately, it’s about calculating whether the benefits of the microchip outweigh the risks. Both my indoor-only cats are microchipped and wear collars with ID. I don’t want to take any chances of them getting out and getting lost without having ways they can be reunited with me.

  38. patty l. dunnington says:

    97068

    My Dog nellie has tumors in her hind leg and another one on her stomach., the chip was implanted now 5 yrs ago., at that time she had NO lumps. I wish I’d known better.

    patty dunnington oregon

  39. Anonymous says:

    ON link between RFID chips and cancer -http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/ brief excerpts: VeriChip told the Associated Press that it had not been aware of any previous studies linking RFID chips to cancer in animals, although Katherine Albrecht of Spychips.org had little trouble unearthing three such studies at the Harvard medical library. When the AP asked if the FDA had considered these or other studies before it approved the use of implanatable chips, the agency declined repeated requests to specify what studies it had reviewed for its decision.

    The AP also uncovered an important connection between VeriChip and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, whose agency oversaw the FDA while it was considering the VeriChip for approval.

    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.

  40. Anonymous says:

    TINFOIL ANYONE???
    JESS: “Clearly, microchipping could threaten [farmers].
    So they have concocted a mountain of lies, rumours, fake studies, paid-off illegitimate “experts” fake statistics and more to try to create a “microchips cause cancer” fear.
    It’s pretty much like most other propaganda campaigns. The people involved are libertarian type radicals, and the tactics used are unscientific and outrageous.

    OR YOU CAN TAKE YOUR CHANCES WITH “RESEARCH” PROPRAGATED BY NON-LIBERTARIAN NON RADICALS [CAVEAT EMPTOR: NON-LITERATE]

    In 1998, a Connecticut study including 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent of research animals implanted with microchips.

    A 2006 study done in France showed tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice.

    In 1997, a study in Germany reported cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 mice. The researchers wrote that the tumors “are clearly due to the implanted microchips.”

    For some cancer specialists, seeing these results from lab studies is alarming.

    “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.

  41. JJ in IL says:

    Need info on a holistic vet near chicago, IL that will remove this chip from my dog. Anyone care to offer assistance? Thx!

  42. Joanne says:

    I just lost my 10 1/2 year old Australina Shepherd to mangiosarcomea. The vet thought he may have had a brain tumor because he had two seizures the day before we put him down. I had Murphy microchipped when he was a puppy. Now I’m wondering if I killed my dog! All of your arguments are valid, both pro and con. Howevere, I believe money talks, so I can tell you that I will most likely not have another dog chipped until I am satisfied that it is safe. The thought of a foriegn object in the body doesn’t sit well with me. Why did I have Murphy chipped? Because it was recommended by my vet. Did he have my dogs’ and my best interests at heart? Who knows? I know he likes to make money. That is why he’s a vet. I’m not saying all vets are only in it for the money, but I later found out that my vet didn’t even LIKE dogs, unless they were the size of a cat. Murphy should have lived at least another two years, but now he’s gone. It all happened so quickly! I will never take the chance that this could happen again and that I was responsible for it. Not until it can be proven to be safe for my dogs.

  43. G.Wright says:

    I can offer one thing I know to be true. I have raised HUNDREDS of mice in my lifetime. They don’t live very long. Rodents have an astounding cancer rate. Something on the order of 50%. Seriously. Those lab mice could have gotten cancer from an EMPTY needle stick alone. Really, the information was presented badly. What is important is the difference in cancer rates between the control group and the chipped test group. Anyone see that information here? That right because it wasn’t. In those studies there WAS no control group… I have seen studys where mice were actually given radiactive radon gas, and the cancer rates dropped in the test groups of mice compare to the control group. You can present a study in any way you want, to present any result you want, just by presenting the numbers in a certain way. On a final note, really, if a dog dies of cancer at 27 years old, did he really die of cancer? It sounds to me like old age? Given enough time, the mortality rate for everyone is 100%. So the question is, if these chips did cause an increased cancer rate above the control group, then how many years of life were lost? Because, if chipping your dog takes 7 days off the end of his life, for all the benefits it could offer you, isn’t it worth it?

  44. Kym says:

    I have two dogs, both rescues, and both chipped. One was to be put down the following day , and thanks to the fact that i got him chipped and brought him home, his life has so far been extended by 4 happy years.

    The other was stolen last year from our house, and again, thanks to the chip, he was returned to me 6 months later, after turning up as a stray at the other end of the country. Without that chip, i would NEVER have seen him again.

    So i apologise to anyone who disagrees, but in my view, even if these chips do in some cases lead to cancer down the line, is it worth risking the potential loss of life or the trauma caused by NOT getting the chip?

    Two other points I’d like to make: One is that our old dog, never microchipped, died from cancer in his spine & neck at the age of 12. The other is, i read in one of those “shock scientific report findings” stories you read in the papers, that eating too much lettuce can give you cancer…

    As G. Wright said just there, “Given enough time, the mortality rate for everyone is 100%”

    Pretty much every move we make leads us closer to the end of our time here, and i would rather take my chances and give my dogs 10 or 15 years of love and life maybe ended eventually by cancer, than an untimely end in a dog pound somewhere.

    Think on that.

    Although I’d just like to mention I don’t eat lettuce anymore…It’s just not worth the risk…

  45. tld says:

    i agree with joanne. had my cat chipped and he died of cancer. feel i killed him trying to protect him. my vet should have warned me of the risk associated with the microchip. i would urge anyone to consider a collar with i.d., vs. a chip. it’s hard to accept that if i didn’t have my big beautiful cat chipped he’d still be here. he wasn’t right shortly after, and now as further proof his sister who was also chipped is getting inflammation around implant site and not acting at all like she was before the implant. if this saves even one cherished pet for someone out there and spares them the agony of losing their pet, then it was well worth my time and being at the keyboard researching all this stuff at 3 a.m. instead of sleeping. pity is i didn’t see this site or ones similar to it brfore the microchip of my cat. bigger pity is my vet never even warned me of such a possibility. and i am very sure he is aware of it, but money is more important than our beloved pets. think twice and then tell your vet “no thanks”

  46. Anonymous says:

    As an animal control officer I must say that I feel that the benefit far outweighs the risk. We see animals come into the shelter every day that are never reunited with their owners. I would be more concerned about applying the systemic flea and tick controls in regards to tumors. Think about it logically please, and don’t discount chipping your animal.

  47. Mollie says:

    I was very iffy getting my cat chipped…..now i dont know what to do because my state requires it to be able to take her to the vet…what should i do???
    any ideas?…email me at livelong6@live.com! Please help!!!!


Close
E-mail It