Medical Reasons NOT To Microchip
POSITION STATEMENT ON MANDATORY MICROCHIPPING
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States opposes any mandated
microchipping of privately held domestic pet animals. The choice of
whether to or whether not to microchip should be based upon all
available information; and left strictly up to the owner to make for
his/her animals. Our research has discovered potential health risks that
are posed to domestic pet animals from microchip emplacement. Due to
space only two of several findings will be cited:
(1) www.Vet Pathology.org 43:545-548 (2006) (c) 2006 American College of
Fibrosarcoma with Typical Features of Postinjection Sarcoma at Site of
Microchip Implant in a Dog: Histologic and Immunohistochemical Study -
M. Vascellari, E. Melchiotti and F. Mutinelli Abstract
A 9-year-old, male French
Bulldog was examined for a subcutaneous mass located at the site of a
microchip implant. Cytologic examination of the mass was suggestive of a
malignant mesenchymal neoplasm. Histologically, the mass was confirmed
as a high-grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma, with multifocal necrosis and
peripheral lymphoid aggregates. By immunohistochemistry, the sample was
investigated for vimentin, smooth-muscle actin (SMA), CD3, CD79, and
All the neoplastic cells
were positive for vimentin. Scattered cells at the periphery of the
lesion were also positive for SMA, highlighting a myofibroblastic
phenotype. The lymphoid cells were positive for CD18 and CD3. No
aluminum deposits were detected by the aurintricarboxylic acid method. A
diagnosis of fibrosarcoma morphologically similar to feline post
injection sarcomas was made. Fibrosarcomas at the site of injections
have been reported in dogs and ferrets. Furthermore, neoplastic growth
at the site of microchip implant in dog and laboratory rodents has been
(2) Tumors in long-term rat studies associated with microchip animal
implanted microchip animal identification devices were noted in two
separate chronic toxicity/oncogenicity studies using F344 rats. The
tumors occurred at a low incidence rate (approximately 1 percent), but
did result in the early sacrifice of most affected animals, due to tumor
size and occasional metastases. No sex-related trends were noted. All
tumors occurred during the second year of the studies, were located in
the subcutaneous dorsal thoracic area (the site of microchip
implantation) and contained embedded microchip devices. All were
mesenchymal in origin and consisted of the following types, listed in
order of frequency: malignant schwannoma, fibrosarcoma, anaplastic
sarcoma, and histiocytic sarcoma. The following diagnostic techniques
were employed: light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and
immunohistochemistry. The mechanism of carcinogenicity appeared to be
that of foreign-body induced tumorigenesis.
Centre national de la recherche scientifique: www.cnrs.fr
(21/09/2000) 2001, vol. 52, no 6, pp. 569-575 (24 ref.), pp. 483-491
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States (RDOWS)
Why NOT To Microchip
MICROCHIP IMPLANTS CAUSE FAST-GROWING,
MALIGNANT TUMORS IN LAB ANIMALS.
AKC's Companion Animal
Registry entered the microchip distribution business in 2007 with Trovan
About the same time there was damning research on VeriChip, which the
AKC has considered.
The Associated Press issued a story Sept. 2007 revealing
that microchip implants have induced cancer in laboratory animals and
dogs, says privacy expert and long-time VeriChip opponent Dr. Katherine
AP reports a series of research articles spanning more than
a decade showing that mice and rats injected with glass-encapsulated RFID
transponders developed malignant, fast-growing, lethal cancers in up to
1% to 10% of cases. The tumors originated in the tissue surrounding the
microchips and often grew to completely surround the devices, the
Albrecht first became aware of the microchip-cancer link when she and
her "Spychips" co-author, Liz McIntyre, were contacted by a pet owner
whose dog had died from a chip-induced tumor. Albrecht then found
medical studies showing a causal link between microchip implants and
cancer in other animals. Before she brought the research to the AP's
attention, none of the studies had received widespread public notice.
A four-month investigation turned up additional documents, several of
which had been published before VeriChip's parent company, Applied
Digital Solutions, sought FDA approval to market the implant for humans.
The VeriChip received FDA approval in 2004 under the watch of then
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson who later joined the
board of the company.
Under FDA policy, it would have been VeriChip's responsibility to bring
the adverse studies to the FDA's attention, but VeriChip CEO Scott
Silverman claimed the company was unaware of the research.
Albrecht expressed skepticism that a company like VeriChip, whose
primary business is microchip implants, would be unaware of relevant
studies in the published literature.
"For Mr. Silverman not to know about this research would be negligent.
If he did know about these studies, he certainly had an incentive to
keep them quiet," said Albrecht. "Had the FDA known about the cancer
link, they might never have approved his company's product."
Since gaining FDA approval, VeriChip has aggressively targeted diabetic
and dementia patients, and recently announced that it had chipped 90
Alzheimer's patients and their caregivers in Florida. Employees in the
Mexican Attorney General's Office, workers in a U.S. security firm, and
club-goers in Europe have also been implanted.
Albrecht expressed concern for those who have received a chip implant,
urging them to get the devices removed as soon as possible.
"These new revelations change everything," she said. "Why would anyone
take the risk of a having cancer chip in their arm?"
Dr. Katherine Albrecht -
Founder and Director, CASPIAN Consumer Privacy -