Microchips

[Erny]

I have received an email today. I receive interesting snippets periodically from this person and from what I can gather, these are passed on to him (ie not necessarily him as the author).

This one is about possible link between microchip and cancer. I don't wish to cause hysteria on the topic, but I am interested to know what anyone else happens to know about it, as it is the first time I've heard that the humble microchip can cause this very serious health issue and something that needs to be followed up on ..... whether that be to rule it in or rule it out (or sit on the fence).

A copy/paste of what I've been sent :

Pharmaceutical giant Merck is being sued. The lawsuit alleges that Merck's HomeAgain pet microchip induced cancer in a cat.

Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a consumer advocate and expert on implantable microchip reactions, said that, "Based on the alarming number of microchip-linked cancers we're discovering, I predict this lawsuit will be just the tip of the iceberg."

Chip Me Not reports that there are:

"... [A] growing number of adverse reactions to microchips, including the chip-related cancer deaths of two dogs within the past year."

Sources:

• Chip Me Not October 13, 2010

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

The reason why this is an important issue is that many predict there will be a massive push by government authorities to microchip humans. Not only will this be a mistake for privacy reasons, but it appears that there are also serious health consequences.

Fortunately, our pets are serving as canaries for this health challenge and providing us with an early warning alert as to what would happen if we choose to get these microchips.

Most humane societies and rescue organizations now require that adopted pets be microchipped, and many veterinarians recommend the chips as well. In all it's estimated that about 5 percent of U.S. pets have microchips, along with countless farm animals, laboratory animals and wild salmon (used to track their movement).

About the size of a grain of rice, pet microchips contain a radio transmitter, an antenna and a computer chip that is read by a scanner, allowing animal control, vets or shelters to obtain owners' information in the event a pet gets lost.

The benefit, of course, is that a lost dog or cat without tags that is picked up by a shelter has a better chance of finding its owner if a microchip is present and scanned. But there are potentially serious drawbacks as well, and chief among them is a concerning number of cases linking the microchips to cancer.

Do Pet Microchips Cause Cancer?

Pharmaceutical giant Merck is being sued over claims that its HomeAgain pet microchip caused cancer in a cat. Two years after the chip was implanted, the cat developed a cancerous tumor at the implant site. The tumor was removed surgically, and the microchip was found embedded in the tumor.

As ChipMeNot.org reported, the cat's veterinarian wrote in the medical record, "The microchip was found at the center of the mass."

This is far from an isolated case.

In 2007, Dr. Katherine Albrecht released an in-depth analysis of animal studies involving microchip implants and found a "clear causal link between microchip implants and cancer in mice and rats," as well as an association with cancer in dogs.

In mice and rats, between 1 percent and 10 percent of the animals developed invasive cancers surrounding or attached to the implant. There have also been two confirmed cases of dogs developing cancer surrounding or attached to the microchip implant.

Dr. Albrecht noted:

"Foreign-body-induced tumors can pose serious threats to animal health. Researchers report that most tumors arising from foreign bodies are malignant mesenchymal neoplasms with a rapid growth rate, killing the animal in a matter of weeks.

Many of the study animals with microchip-associated tumors died prematurely due to the masses. In addition, many of the tumors metastasized, spreading cancer to the lungs, liver, stomach, pancreas, and other organs."

You can read dozens of case histories of dogs, cats, horses and other animals developing tumors at the microchip implant site at ChipMeNot.org.

Pet Microchips Don't Always Work as Advertised

When deciding on any medical procedure, it's wise to weigh the risks versus the benefits. In the case of pet microchips, there appears to be a serious risk of cancer that is still emerging, while the benefit is increasing your chance of finding your pet if they're lost.

But that benefit may be a bit misleading because of the way the chips operate. There are four main brands of microchips used in the United States, and generally each brand requires a different type of scanner to be read. If your pet winds up at an animal shelter without a compatible scanner, the chip cannot be read.

Likewise, the chips must be read at a very close distance of 3-12 inches. Normally the microchip is implanted between the shoulder blades, but on occasion they can migrate under the shoulder blade, up to the back of the neck -- or even all the way down to the belly.

This means that if your pet's chip has migrated, there's a good chance the scanner will not pick up the signal.

Assuming the chip is read, it's imperative that you have kept your contact information updated correctly (if you have moved, changed phone numbers, etc.) with the chip's registration site, or else the chip will again be useless.

What About Microchips Proposed for People?

As mentioned previously, subdermal microchips are being developed for numerous human uses, ranging from keeping tabs on your kids to implantable credit and debit cards, allowing customers to make purchases by scanning themselves with special readers at store checkouts. Many of these chips, such as one variety that grants people VIP access at nightclubs, are already in use.

One such brand, VeriChip, is even developing implantable virus detection systems for humans.

These biosensors can allegedly detect viruses such as swine flu, bird flu, SARS, and other biological threats such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The technology will be combined with VeriChip's implantable radio frequency identification devices (RFID) to develop "virus triage detection systems."

According to a white paper published by VeriChip on May 7, 2009, this triage system will provide "multiple levels of identification." The first level will identify the agent as virus or non-virus, the second level will classify the virus and alert the user to the presence of pandemic threat viruses, and the third level will identify the precise pathogen.

To some this may sound like a good idea, but to me this seems like it could be a prescription for massive government intrusion, loss of personal freedom and, as in other animals, potentially increased cancer risks.

As Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said in Dr. Albrecht's paper:

"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 … 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, further noted, also in Dr. Albrecht's paper, that research underscored "certainly real risks" in RFID implants, adding that the tumors can be "incredibly aggressive and can kill people in three to six months."

Stay Informed Before Getting Microchipped

It may be some time before implantable microchips become commonplace for humans, but it will likely become a "wave of the future" well within our lifetimes. Many are already here and in use, but before deciding to take part be sure you are completely aware of all the potential risks posed.

For pets, the microchips are already being widely used and heavily promoted. If you're a pet owner, you'll need to weigh the benefits versus the risks carefully …

For more information, Mercola.com veterinarian Dr. Karen Becker recently reviewed this topic in depth. I highly recommend watching her video to make an educated and informed decision.

Related Links:

• How Safe are Pet Microchips?

• Is the VeriChip the "Mark of the Beast?"

• Under Your Skin Computer Chip Has Now Arrived

There are many links included throughout the email content in the email forwarded to me (from what I gather, it was originally posted by "Dr Mercola" on 3rd November on some other forum (???)) but I can't get them to activate.

[corvus]

This kind of thing has been floating around in the States for years. Most people seem more concerned about the chip migrating, which seems to be not uncommon.

There are a few papers around about it.

http://vet.sagepub.com/content/43/4/545.full

http://jacques.prestreau.pagesperso-orange...-synopsis-1.pdf

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1638/1042...amp;cookieSet=1

http://www.digitalangel.com/documents/arti...0Wustenberg.pdf

That's a fairly random selection. There are others.

[vetrg]

I would be very careful interpreting 2 case studies. Vaccine related sarcoma is a well recognised phenomenon, especially in cats, and the vaccines are often given at the same sites as micrichips. Vaccine related sarcoma is more common with some vaccines and especially in Th US they vaccinae for many more diseases than here. In 16 years of veterinary practice the only issue I have ever had with microchips is migration of the chip. We returned about 10 dogs per week to their owners via the chip details. I would rather chip and get my dog back and run the (exceedingly low) risk of a foreign body related tumour

[fuzzy82]

I heard the same thing recently, but I'm not worried about it. Microchips are silicon coated, which doesn't cause cancer, and they are specifically designed to be biocompatible, so that they don't cause allergies or any other reactions. Not likely to cause cancer, imo.

[corvus]

I would rather chip and get my dog back and run the (exceedingly low) risk of a foreign body related tumour

Agreed. I judge losing my dogs to be the most likely dangerous thing that could happen to them and so minimising that danger is a priority in my mind.

[Staranais]

Erny, I know that bone cancers are more common at sites where implants (bone plates, & bone pins) are. So I guess it's possible that other implants like microchips could raise the chance of cancer at the site.

Like VetG though, I would wonder how if the studies distinguished vaccine related sarcomas (a proven phenomenon in cats, especially with the rabies & feLV vaccines) from cancers caused by microchips, since they'd be found in the same location?

[stormie]

One thing to consider, is that many many dogs are microchipped these days. So if you look at a population of dogs who have cancer and try to find a common link, there's a fair chance that a microchip may be one.

[Mason_Gibbs]

These days they say just about everything causes cancer.... my old dog has cancer and she was never microchipped. I believe its all genetic and certain things trigger it. My dog is chipped, I would rather take the chance and chip him, after all he may get cancer even if he wasnt chipped.

[Golden Rules]

Humans have lots of foreign bodies in them too (screws, plates, pacemakers, stents ....) but I'm not sure they cause cancer.

I'd rather microchip than vaccinate any day.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Golden Rules

[Staff'n'Toller]

Never seen a microchip related sarcoma myself.

[poodlefan]

Humans have lots of foreign bodies in them too (screws, plates, pacemakers, stents ....) but I'm not sure they cause cancer.

I'd rather microchip than vaccinate any day.

I'd rather microchip than face the consequences of my dogs straying and losing a collar. Its a better risk IMO.

[Quickasyoucan]

Erny, I know that bone cancers are more common at sites where implants (bone plates, & bone pins) are. So I guess it's possible that other implants like microchips could raise the chance of cancer at the site.

Like VetG though, I would wonder how if the studies distinguished vaccine related sarcomas (a proven phenomenon in cats, especially with the rabies & feLV vaccines) from cancers caused by microchips, since they'd be found in the same location?

Slightly off topic but on the subject of Staranais' first paragraph when I was looking at TPLO on the internet there were a couple of posts about osteosarcoma at the site of plates. I asked my specialist vet about pre-op it thinking he would say that was a myth but apparently the early plates tended to rust (not the right word but you get what I mean) releasing carcinogens and there were cases.

He assured me that the plate that they put in my boy is now made at the same place they make plates for human ops and is much safer. We did have to wait for it to be delivered from Switzerland - its a European spare part

I guess you can never say never though, if you start putting artificial things in the body how do you know how the body will react in each individual case.

I also would rather have my dog microchipped than not.

[ellz]

In my eyes, I class the risk as being comparable with women who have Implanon inserted for contraceptive purposes....you do what you need to do for lifestyle management choices and IF there is a secondary such as cancer then that is really collateral damage.

[W Sibs]

I'd rather microchip than face the consequences of my dogs straying and losing a collar. Its a better risk IMO.

+ 1

[megan_]

One thing to consider, is that many many dogs are microchipped these days. So if you look at a population of dogs who have cancer and try to find a common link, there's a fair chance that a microchip may be one.

but link doesn't equal causation.

[Staranais]

Slightly off topic but on the subject of Staranais' first paragraph when I was looking at TPLO on the internet there were a couple of posts about osteosarcoma at the site of plates. I asked my specialist vet about pre-op it thinking he would say that was a myth but apparently the early plates tended to rust (not the right word but you get what I mean) releasing carcinogens and there were cases.

He assured me that the plate that they put in my boy is now made at the same place they make plates for human ops and is much safer. We did have to wait for it to be delivered from Switzerland - its a European spare part

Oh that's really interesting, thanks for sharing that. I wonder if any of the older style implants are still in use?

[Erny]

Interesting, all of it. Thanks for the informative contributions. I agree that it is a case of weighing risk against benefits and certainly it stands that the benefits win out. Besides which, microchipping is law. I think too it is interesting to realise that yes, the chips are implanted at the same/similar sight of vaccination. I could imagine a vaccination reaction embodying a chip and growing from there - easy to potentially wrongly point the finger at the chip. I also agree - with the information that is available to us, I would think vaccination the lesser of two evils (so to speak - that is if the chip really can trigger cancerous growth, albeit rarely). Still, "rarely" doesn't mean it hurts less, when it is your own dog. So I do hope there is next to nothing in what the email I received incited.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Erny

[Luke W]

For what it's worth...

Albrecht is a Doctor of Education - not a vet or expert in medicine or cancer.

I don't know whether her "study" was ever published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.

Her particular bug-bear is Radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips and consumer privacy. Not animal welfare.

I'd call her dubious at best.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Luke W

[Luke W]

I actually dug out the 'study'.

In the case of 10% of mice getting tumors around the site of the implants...

These mice were genetically engineered mice, created to test chemicals. These mice were genetically engineered to be MORE SUCEPTIBLE to cancer. They had a particlar TUMOR SUPRESSING gene deactivated.

I'll say it again - these weren't your average mice. These were mice genetically engineered to GET CANCER.

This is hardly representative of the average dog or cat.

Of course she doesn't explain that the "Heterozygous p53+l- Mouse" is genetically engineered to GET CANCER.

This throws her whole study into doubt.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Luke W

[OSoSwift]

I have heard it before and I think it is dubious at best.

Everything seems to go in the neck. Wonder why microchips are singled out. yep it turned up in a tumour, well that could be from vaccination or any of the other things that get jabbed into the neck.