3,561,596 members
12,429,752 petition signatures
$19,571,785,510 diverted from Big Pharma
Chipped Pets Develop Fast Growing Tumors
Highly aggressive tumors developed around the microchip implants of two American dogs, killing one of the pets and leaving the other terminally ill. Their owners — and pathology and autopsy reports — have suggested a link between the chips and the formation of the fast-growing cancers.
In the town of Paeonian Springs, Va., a five-year-old male Bullmastiff named Seamus died in February, nine months after developing a “hemangio-sarcoma” — a rare, malignant form of cancer that strikes connective tissues and can kill even humans in three to six months. The tumor appeared last May between the dog’s shoulder blades where a microchip had been implanted; by September, a “large mass” had grown with the potential to spread to the lungs, liver and spleen, according a pathology report from the Blue Ridge Veterinary Clinic in Purcellville, Va.
Originally scheduled to receive just a biopsy, Seamus underwent emergency surgery. A foot-long incision was opened to extract the 4-pound-3-ounce tumor, and four drains were needed to remove fluid where the tumor had developed.
When Howard Gillis, the dog’s owner, picked up his pet the following day, the attending veterinarian stunned him with this question: Did you know your dog had been microchipped twice, and that both chips were in or around the tumor?
“While we knew of one chip, which we had put in him at a free local county clinic, we knew nothing of a second chip,” Gillis said. “We believe one of them was put in Seamus by the breeder from whom we bought him when he was about nine months old.”
By December, the cancer was back — and the energetic, playful 150-pound dog was huffing and puffing, struggling to walk. Seamus “was 150 pounds of heart,” Gillis said in a recent interview. “He wanted to live.”
Gillis said he “got the microchip because I didn’t want him stolen. I thought I was doing right. There were never any warnings about what a microchip could do, but I saw it first-hand. That cancer was something I could see growing every day, and I could see it taking his life … It just ate him up.” To keep his beloved dog from suffering further, he had him put to sleep two months later.
In Memphis, a five-year-old Yorkshire Terrier named Scotty was diagnosed with cancer at the Cloverleaf Animal Clinic in December. A tumor between the dog’s shoulder blades — precisely where a microchip had been embedded — was described as malignant lymphoma. A tumor the size of a small balloon was removed; encased in it was a microchip.
Scotty was given no more than a year to live.
But the dog’s owner, Linda Hawkins, wasn’t satisfied with just a prognosis: She wanted to know whether the presence of the microchip had anything to do with Scotty’s illness. Initially, her veterinarian was skeptical that a chip implant could trigger cancer; research has shown that vaccine injections in dogs and cats can lead to tumors.
In a December pathology report on Scotty, Evan D. McGee wrote: “I was previously suspicious of a prior unrelated injection site reaction” beneath the tumor. “However, it is possible that this inflammation is associated with other foreign debris, possibly from the microchip.”
Observing the glass-encapsulated tag under a microscope, he noted it was partially coated with a translucent material, normally used to keep embedded microchips from moving around the body. “This coating could be the material inciting the inflammatory response,” McGee wrote.
Hawkins sent the pathology report to HomeAgain, the national pet recovery and identification network that endorses microchipping of pets. After having a vet review the document, the company said the chip did not cause Scotty’s tumor — then in January sent Hawkins a $300 check to cover her clinical expenses, no questions asked.
“I find it hard to believe that a company will just give away $300 to somebody who calls in, unless there is something bad going on,” Hawkins says.
Having spent $4,000 on medical treatment for Scotty since December, Hawkins accepted the money. But she says it hardly covers her $900 monthly outlays for chemotherapy and does little to ease her pet’s suffering.
“Scotty is just a baby. He won’t live the 15 years he’s supposed to …I did something I thought a responsible pet owner should — microchip your pet — and to think that it killed him … It just breaks your heart.”
Scotty and Seamus aren’t the only pets to have suffered adverse reactions from microchips. Published reports have detailed malignant tumors in two other chipped dogs; in one dog, the researchers said cancer appeared linked to the presence of the embedded chip; in the other, the cancer’s cause was uncertain.
Last year, a Chihuahua bled to death in the arms of his distraught owners in Agua Dulce, Calif., just hours after undergoing a chipping procedure. The veterinarian who performed the chipping confirmed that dog died from blood loss associated with the microchip.
In another case, a kitten died instantly when a microchip was accidentally injected into its brain stem. And in another, a cat was paralyzed when an implant entered its spinal column. The implants have been widely reported to migrate within animals’ bodies, and can cause abscesses and infection.
In 2007, The Associated Press reported on a series of veterinary and toxicology studies that found that microchip implants had “induced” malignant tumors in some lab animals. Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that between 1 and 10 percent of lab mice and rats injected with microchips developed malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants.
For more information on the link between microchips and cancer, please read our report: “Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990–2006″
by Katherine Albrecht, Ed.D.
http://www.antichips.com/cancer/index.html
http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/chipped-pets.html
these are the same chips in OBAMACARE legislation that will be expected to carry your medical records “on-board”. nice end run. OHboya.
I hope our government will remember the FIRST AMENDMENT and allow Christians to be exempt for religious reasons from taking their MARKING device. First it is a chip for benign reasons — but what is to keep the government from LOOKING for us and invading our privacy in the future? This is DANGEROUS!
Keith Slough
I’m just not understanding how anyone could think that putting something foreign into the flesh of a human or a dog could be safe. And, especially one that emits a frequency. Yes, sometimes the benefits outweigh the risks but never, never in the case of a microchip, EVER. Is there nothing that nags at the person and then what do they do with that nag?
If there is only one thing you ever do or ever object to it is the MICROCHIP…JUST SAY NO!!! It means the loss of freedom, forever.
Wow. This is unbelievable but I can’t say I’m surprised. I only wonder if these microchips being “tested” on pets for later use on humans (voluntarily or not) are actually designed to deliberately cause disease over time.
Unfortunately, all animals adopted from the pound now (NEVER buy from a breeder!) are “required” to have these microchips. I would highly suggest the new guardian take the animal in to the vet and have this deadly tracking chip removed IMMEDIATELY. These animals have such short lifespans as it is, with all the forced mandatory vaccinations. How sad…
As for the link suggested in the article, “Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs,” I’ll definitely take a pass on reading that. I don’t buy into animal experiments of any kind and I certainly don’t want to hear how they were tortured and died to test this invasive device. Apparently these experiments were also a waste of time and lives (as usual), as the microchips were still approved and let on the market.
Read your article and many pet owners agree that this is bad. But what do you do if the state law forces pet owners to micro chip their pets? Can simply using a magnet deactivate the chip? What can we do now?
It has nothing to do what religion you are! If you do not want to have something put in your Body, then you do not have to!
Christians should not be the only people who deserve Rights.
And Christians need to respect the rights of other people who believe in a different religion. And gay people if they do not want to be Chipped they should have the same Choice. Not just the people who think they are the ones who should have it all and condemn the rest who are different.
I just read this today and I am very upset indeed?
Please tell us what we can do now?
Fine, we try and do the right thing and then the vets and shelters do not even try and be honest about the decision to put a foreign objects in pets bodies without testing or research….
This makes me sick!
My dog better not get sick!
With the hackers out there now, I don’t wan’t to carry around information inside that anyone who knows how can get to. Walk by, scan, got all your info, next.
I can’t believe that anyone would believe that Americans would be REQUIRED to put any circuitry, jack, interface, microchip, or whatever, Inside their dadgum body. Where is this paranoid story coming from?
So can the government track me if my pet has one of these?
Imbedding anything that gives off Electro Magnetic Frequencies should be banned. It would be like having your cell phone imbedded in your skull. Electro Magnetic frequencies cause cancers: they are given off by cell phones, microwaves, the new light bulbs, computers etc. etc. We can protect ourselves, but if the device is imbedded then there is no protection.
Both my dogs came from shelters and as other have said – they were required to be microchipped. I’m going to look into what the laws are about having those chips removed.
Were the chips a condition of the healthcare bill going through? I suspected the abortion thing was just a smokescreen.
Rosco: No. The chip is not a long-distance homing device. It can only be detected at close range, typically with a wand designed for just that purpose.
The chips have saved many pets from being lost and probably killed. But there is a risk to consider.
What states have laws that require microchipping? I have never heard of that and highly doubt any states have passed laws like that. Some individual shelters do micro chip as part of their own policy but states do not have laws for it. Many states barely have decent animal cruelty laws! Millions dogs suffer every day at the hands of neglectful owners who chain their dogs, beat them, allow them to have litters, and are later killed at pounds. Microchipping has killed a few dogs but irresponsible owners are the ones who send millions to be euthanized every year!
Debra, I agree. I will never microchip my dog. However, the belief that humans would be required to be micro-chipped is just paranoia fueled by certain political groups. I doubt that owners could be required to microchip their pets either. Any Senators/Representatives would have a heck of a battle trying to get that passed.
What happened to Seamus is absolutely horrible. It was also extremely irresponsible for his breeder to not tell his owner that he was already micro-chipped. I also believe that, like mobile phones and pharmaceuticals, money and greed is the main factor driving sales of such products from irresponsible companies.
Instead of paranoia, I would encourage anyone who believes that, at the least, current safety testing should be published more widely, to use your rights as American citizens to pressure your Representatives and Senators to do something about it. If enough people make it obvious that is what is expected, then it is more likely to happen. Be a broken record if you need to be. Don’t be a jerk when communicating or anyone is more likely to disregard you, but do be assertive, logical and informed. Advocate groups such as Health Freedom Alliance could accelerate the movement even more quickly. Pressuring Representatives and Senators to completely revise the FDA would probably help as well, as the FDA often does a poor job of checking products such as microchips for safety (probably partly due to its ties to corporations). Also, posting this story and/or the referenced articles on sites like Facebook may go a long way in spreading the word. You can even write to/call the companies themselves and express anger over safety issues, and when animals such as Seamus suffer, call TV stations and newspapers! At least the companies might give money out of concern of “looking” bad. Maybe if they receive enough negative feedback they would even issue a recall. You never know…
to inagaddadavega….just remove them, don’t bother checking stupid laws. you think FBI will come knocking on your door or animal police??? There are no laws about that.What’s more important for you, law? or your dogs well being ? So do what you have to do.
too many people trust their vets “advise” for microchipping. If to think a little about what can happen when inserting a foreign object into a body…the body will reject it!!!
Would anyone with healthy state of mind insert a chip into the neck ?
These bastards who “invent” this type of things have only one goal in mind – to make big money, nothing else. That’s the essence of capitalism. Every single thing is created for the purpose of selling. that’s all.
UNFORTUNATELY without a nationwide enforced policy of NO-Kill at shelters, ‘sanctuaries’, hospices, and all other animal-rescue agencies, pet owners are stuck because of the PROFIT-MAKING from murder/’euthanasia’ of lost and stolen pets. Exploiter-hoarders, Class B dealers, and so many others profit from the terrible death-dealing; the no-kill movement grows, but the animal laws in place are terrible, especially for cats, and enforcement of the better laws is rotten especially due to cutbacks and apathy.
My 2 cat are rescues and they are chipped because of fear that if they get out, lost their collars and were caught by others, they would end up at our local Animal ‘Humane’ [sic!] Society which has a relatively high donation/income budget compared to other such agencies in the State, but which has an AMAZINGLY HIGH KILL RATE which has been exposed even in the mainstream news here – to no avail re: changing AHS policy.
If you want to deal with the problem of ‘sick chips’ you have to deal with: (1) the chip ‘product’ itself, (2) the improper insertion of it, and (3) above all the horrendous situation of kill “shelters” that aware people live in fear of re: their pets ending up there. (At AHS my 2 cats would be put down within 2 days without chips to get them home to me – that’s a FACT.)
RFID Microchips do not give off any electromagnetic radiation at all, except when interrogated by a reader (within a few feet of the device)- and then only for a tiny fraction of a second, at _very_ low power.
I could more easily believe that the damage is being caused by chemical agents or materials either present on the external surface of the device or which are introduced into the animals body when the device is inserted.
It is difficult to determine from this article whether these are highly isolated incidents, or if something more sinister is apparent.
At the numbers mentioned, it would seem the chance of a pet developing a chip-related tumor are very low. Risks for tumors from supermarket dog food and animal by-products are much higher, but nobody seems to be concerned?
Of course, by buying these dogs from breeders the “owners” (guardians) are responsible for the death of 4 million shelter dogs.
I don’t know why, when we are killing 20% of the canine population every year, because it is unwanted, we would be focussed on a couple of isolated “chip” incidents.
If you want to help dogs live a longer life, go to a shelter and adopt some and run the puppy stores out of town. Then we can concentrate on the chips and see if there is a better way.
Oh, and by the way, THERE IS NO MANDATE FOR THE MICRO-CHIPPING OF HUMAN BEINGS IN THE 2010 HEALTHCARE PLAN. Just a whole bunch of legislation that stops your healthcare going up and stops you having to pay for other people’s ER visit.
@paul
Stop lying. Nobody is implanting anyone with microchips as a consequence of that or any other health bill. Thou shalt not lie, look it up.
i’m well read. you should try putting down the ny times and try it sometime. i suppose you think oboya has a valid u.s. birth certificate too…or that he’s not going to go to work for goldman sachs when he “graduates”. you live in a dream world. wake up.
do a little search on google for all the people that think the chips and radio collars gave their dogs cancer. we had one of those invisible fence collars on our dog Silkie, poor old guy. we had him on oxygen for over a year because he had a tumor in his neck and couldn’t breath. he was the only dog we had to put to sleep. my dad cried for days. i’m crying now thinking about my dad crying. too bad people can’t be as loyal to people as our pets are.
Does the Health Insurance Reform legislation contain that? Where? Please tell me.
sorry, i read that over a month ago. there’s a debate. washington DC (district of criminals) politicians (like i’ll believe anything they say) that the term tracking medical implants was meant tracking implanted medical devices “for safety”. like they are really interested in our safety. if they don’t getcha by insurance reform they’ll get you by paperless money…
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/Searching-For-Truth/browse_thread/thread/bc8c32c4057b9acc
I have cat. When I took mine to the vet I told them not to implant the chip. I have this in writing. They implanted the chip in anyways and told they were sorry. When I asked to have the chip removed they said “No.” The chip moves around the body and doing surgery to remove it could inure or kill the cat. I have talked to two different vets in my are and they tell me the same thing. I am very angry about it. Why implant a chip against your wishes and then be told it can’t be removed?