Microchips

[Staranais]

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.

And that's even more interesting. Thanks for ferreting that out, Luke W!

[Erny]

Yes - interesting. Thanks LukeW

[Sheridan]

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.

This topic reminds me of this bit from The West Wing episode 'Ellie':

MARGARET: Red meat has been found to cause cancer in white rats. Maraschino cherries have been found to cause cancer in white rats. Cellular phones have been found to cause cancer in white rats. Has anyone examined the possibility that cancer might be hereditary in white rats?

DR. GRIFFITH (Surgeon-General): Let me tell you something, I'm not 100% sure we've ruled that out.

Everything causes cancer or prevents cancer depending on the study, it seems, from news stories.

[Quickasyoucan]

I just found this on the AVMA website:

What are some of the problems associated with microchips? How common are they?

A: The British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) maintains a database of adverse reactions to microchips. Since the database was started in 1996, over 4 million animals have been microchipped and only 391 adverse reactions have been reported. Of these reactions, migration of the microchip from its original implantation site is the most common problem reported. Other problems, such as failure of the microchip, hair loss, infection, swelling, and tumor formation, were reported in much lower numbers. For a chart summarizing the BSAVA reports, read the AVMA's backgrounder on Microchipping of Animals.

Q: I've heard a lot lately that microchips cause cancer. Do they?

A: There have been reports that mice and rats developed cancer associated with implanted microchips. However, the majority of these mice and rats were being used for cancer studies when the tumors were found, and the rat and mice strains used in the studies are known to be more likely to develop cancer. Tumors associated with microchips in two dogs were reported, but in at least one of these dogs the tumor could not be directly linked to the microchip itself (and may have been caused by something else). For more details on the studies, read the AVMA's backgrounder on Microchipping of Animals.

Q: I don't want my pet to get cancer. Should I have my pet's microchip removed?

A: We do not recommend that you have your pet's microchip removed, for two reasons. First, based on our review of the studies, the risk that your animal will develop cancer due to its microchip is very, very low, and is far outweighed by the improved likelihood that you will get your animal back if it becomes lost. Second, although implanting a microchip is a very simple and quick procedure, removing one is more involved and may require general anesthesia and surgery.

Bolding is mine. I think the odds of your pet being lost v the odds of them developing cancer from this source are worth it for me.

I mean where do you drawn the line. Everything has risk. There is a risk that when your dog has an anaesthetic for say teeth cleaning, it may not survive, but there is also a risk that if bad dental disease is allowed to progress that could cause systemic infection. I think you just have to weigh both up.

I mean there is a risk that every time I get in my car or on a plane there may be a crash but the odds are good enough and the benefits for me to do it.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Quickasyoucan

[sas]

What a load of rubbish, seriously people.

[felix]

There were many claims about microchips causing cancer in the last 10 or so years. They were mostly linked to microchips having a low level of radioactivity. There were also many studies about this, but none of them actually provided any proof for these claims. Pretty much like mobile phones and brain tumours.

The actual level of radioactivity is so low, that dogs (or cats) get exposed to much higher dose just living in our modern, appliances equiped homes.

So me thinks, just another try to get a load of money from big pharmaceutical companies. Not surpisingly coming from good old USA.

Edited November 17, 2010 by felix

[AmandaJ]

Microchip-induced tumors in laboratory rodents and dogs: A review of the literature 1990–2006.5514622 abstract

.

Access The Full Text

Sign In:Full text access may be available with your subscription

User Name Password Forgot Username/Password? Athens/Shibboleth Sign In

.

Albrecht, K.;

This paper appears in: Technology and Society (ISTAS), 2010 IEEE International Symposium on

Issue Date: 7-9 June 2010

On page(s): 337 - 349

Location: Wollongong, NSW

Print ISBN: 978-1-4244-7777-7

INSPEC Accession Number: 11484895

Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/ISTAS.2010.5514622

Date of Current Version: 23 July 2010

Abstract

This paper reviews literature published in oncology and toxicology journals between 1990 and 2006 addressing the effects of implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchips on laboratory rodents and dogs. Eleven articles were reviewed in all, with eight investigating mice and rats, and three investigating dogs. In all but three of the articles, researchers observed that malignant sarcomas and other cancers formed around or adjacent to the implanted microchips. The tumors developed in both experimental and control animals, and in two household pets. In nearly all cases, researchers concluded that the microchips had induced the cancers. Possible explanations for the tumors are explored, and a set of recommendations for policy makers, human patients and their doctors, veterinarians, pet owners, and oncology researchers is presented in light of these findings.

----------------

This is the same info I sent to Julie earlier today....

[GeckoTree]

I think any foreign object in the body sets up a natural healing mechanism to reject it, sometimes, not all times, cronic inflamation leads to mutated cells forming at the primary sight, after that if not regected it can become secondary etc etc.

[AmandaJ]

I think any foreign object in the body sets up a natural healing mechanism to reject it, sometimes, not all times, cronic inflamation leads to mutated cells forming at the primary sight, after that if not regected it can become secondary etc etc.

One of my concerns also - Nothing I can find (and there is very little available unless you pay for it - and membership to some of the journals is expensive) looks at an autoimmune response to a foreign body.....Hence - is it RF or is it autoimmune - or worse still - is it both?

edited to say - Don't "Google" it - "Google Scholar" it!

Edited November 17, 2010 by AmandaJ

[Staranais]

One of my concerns also - Nothing I can find (and there is very little available unless you pay for it - and membership to some of the journals is expensive) looks at an autoimmune response to a foreign body.....Hence - is it RF or is it autoimmune - or worse still - is it both?

If you have a uni library near you, you can often get access to many journals even if you're not a student - you can just walk in off the street & look at the hardcopy journals, & sometimes even use the computer database access to online journals.

Even if there is an immune response involved, it wouldn't be an autoimmune response, since it's an immune response to a foreign body.

[AmandaJ]

One of my concerns also - Nothing I can find (and there is very little available unless you pay for it - and membership to some of the journals is expensive) looks at an autoimmune response to a foreign body.....Hence - is it RF or is it autoimmune - or worse still - is it both?

If you have a uni library near you, you can often get access to many journals even if you're not a student - you can just walk in off the street & look at the hardcopy journals, & sometimes even use the computer database access to online journals.

Even if there is an immune response involved, it wouldn't be an autoimmune response, since it's an immune response to a foreign body.

Thanks "Star" - I'm not a uni student - I'm a bean counter and I hate libraries......lol

[Staranais]

Thanks "Star" - I'm not a uni student - I'm a bean counter and I hate libraries......lol

Oh yeah, that's what I mean - it's easy to sneak in to read the journals even if you're not a student. But you didn't hear it from me!

[AmandaJ]

Thanks "Star" - I'm not a uni student - I'm a bean counter and I hate libraries......lol

Oh yeah, that's what I mean - it's easy to sneak in to read the journals even if you're not a student. But you didn't hear it from me!

[Guest belgian.blue]

My Pointer was full of cancer but she wasn't chipped.

I'd much rather not vacc yearly than not have my dogs chipped any day!

[AmandaJ]

My Pointer was full of cancer but she wasn't chipped.

I'd much rather not vacc yearly than not have my dogs chipped any day!

Agreed - far more concerning are the vaccination site cancers and the vaccine mediated auto immune responses than AT THIS STAGE are the "chipping" cancers.

[Erny]

My Pointer was full of cancer but she wasn't chipped.

I'd much rather not vacc yearly than not have my dogs chipped any day!

Agreed - far more concerning are the vaccination site cancers and the vaccine mediated auto immune responses than AT THIS STAGE are the "chipping" cancers.

I agree, although this thread isn't a "vaccination -vs- microchip" topic. Not that I mind anyone stating their preferences, just don't wish the point of my raising about the microchip/cancer theory to be misunderstood.