Many people will attest to the fact that if their pets had not been micro-chipped they might never have been recovered. What they mostly likely haven’t considered however, or even conceive is a possibility is that they could lose their pets in an entirely different way because of the microchip!
Recently a lawsuit that was brought against the big pharmaceutical giant, Merck brought to the mainstream light a different spin on micro-chipping our pets. The lawsuit alleges that the HomeAgain ID chip that is produced by Merck, is the culprit behind the malignant tumor in the micro-chipped cat in this suit. (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/10/13/suit_alleges_tracking_chip_caused_cancer_in_cat/, http://www.chipmenot.org/mercksued.htm)
For the past several years there have been quite a few people and organizations that are publicly speaking out against micro-chipping our animals. This new lawsuit is giving them a good foot or rather paw hold on unmasking the dark side of pet micro-chipping. Many of those opposed to pet micro-chipping see it as a violation of their civil and property rights. Others are opposed for health reasons, in particular due to the various cancers occurring such as in the case of the lawsuit against Merck.
One veterinarian I know, Dr. Stephen Blake, feels similarly to micro-chipping as I do, stating that they aren’t safe (having no real safety studies done on them) and fail 30% of the time or that the scanners being used didn’t match up to the brand microchip in the pet. The dangers about microchips are downplayed due to the lack of reported documentation, with many veterinarians stating they are safe and have seen no problems.
I’d venture to say that the truth about the dangers has been suppressed – mostly because microchips were thrust upon the public as the panacea for lost pets before any safety studies were thoroughly conducted or possible long-term consequences and dangers were known. Now that microchips are so widely used, the pharmaceutical companies that produce them not only don’t want the backlash of possible lawsuits, but they also more than likely don’t want to have to pay for extensive and long-term testing (not to mention that using them on pets is a form of testing prior to unleashing a campaign for widespread use in humans).
Let’s also not forget the governmental role in all of this because the world governments (local, federal, and international) are the ones that have been pushing for the draconian mandatory micro-chipping of all privately owned animals. I suspect their concern is not for our animals, but rather as a way of tracking all animals, sales of animals, and of course tracking those who own them. While that might sound a bit too Orwellian for comfort, it does appear as though our governments are moving in this direction.
I recently found out from a dog breeder in Belgium on Facebook for instance that it is mandatory for ALL puppies born there to be micro-chipped. I simply can’t imagine that their government is overly concerned about stolen or missing puppies or dogs. So why make micro-chipping mandatory unless for the aforementioned reasons?
I also believe that the veterinary community and media are being used to push this agenda. Advertisements featuring lost pet posters, sad children, and shivering, scared pets have become the catalyst for encouraging people to get a microchip implant in ALL of their pets. The reason they can also inform pet owners that adverse events are so rare ( or rather APPEAR to be) as to outweigh the benefits of keeping your pet safe (a favorite word used to be able to freely institute draconian laws), is because the majority of adverse events go unreported by both the pet owners AND the veterinary community because they aren’t connecting the dots between these events and microchips. (http://www.louisville-pets.com/microchip_cancer_study.html, http://www.naturalnews.com/030108_microchips_animals.html)
But thankfully there are exceptions: Melvin T. Massey, DVM from Brownsboro, Texas, brought this to the attention of the American Horse Council when he wrote, “I am a retired Equine Veterinarian and still breed a few horses. Because of migration-infection-increased risk of sarcoids I will not want to have microchips in my horses.”
The following quotes I obtained from Dr. Stephen Blake’s website on microchips (http://www.thepetwhisperer.com/MicroChips.html ):
The Institute of Experimental Pathology at Hannover Medical School in Germany reported, “An experiment using 4279 CBA/J mice of two generations was carried out to investigate the influence of parental preconceptual exposure to X-ray radiation or to chemical carcinogens. Microchips were implanted subcutaneously in the dorsolateral back for unique identification of each animal. The animals were kept for life span under standard laboratory conditions. In 36 mice a circumscribed neoplasm occurred in the area of the implanted microchip. Macroscopically, firm, pale white nodules up to 25 mm in diameter with the microchip in its center were found. Macroscopically, soft tissue tumors such as fibrosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma were detected.”
(Note from Dr. Kim: Granted these animals were raised unnaturally in a laboratory setting with extreme exposure to x-ray radiation or to chemical carcinogens BUT the microchips certainly can’t have helped that situation!)
Ecole Nationale Veterinaire of Unite Anatomie Pathologique in Nantes, France, reported, “Fifty-two subcutaneous tumors associated with microchip were collected from three carcinigenicity B6C3F1 mice studies. Two of these 52 tumors were adenocarcinoma of the mammary gland located on the dorsal region forming around the chip. All the other 50 were mesenchymal in origin and were difficult to classify on morphological grounds with haematoxylin- eosin.”
Marta Vascellari of Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie at Viale del’Universita in Legnaro, Italy reported examining a 9-year-old male French Bulldog for a subcutaneous mass located at the site of a microchip implant. “The mass was confirmed as a high-grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma, with multi focal necrosis and peripheral lymphoid aggregates.”
“Even the limited research available clearly indicates that implantation of microchips within an animal is gambling with the animal’s well being.” For additional information, go to www.vetpathology.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/4/545 says Dr. Blake.
The National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, www.pubmed.gov, can be used to find more information on microchips and health issues plus you can also Google “microchips and associated cancers; sarcomas“.
Dr. Stephen Blake recommends you not panic and try to have the chip removed. This would be very difficult to do, because of how small these chips are and the fact that they migrate. He recommends you palpate the area from around the neck and shoulders down to the forearms weekly. If you find a swelling in these areas, go to your veterinarian and have your animal checked out. If they find the chip is in the swelling area, he recommends immediate removal and biopsy.
Here is what the AVMA has to say about microchips and one little word really got my attention:
http://www.avma.org/issues/microchipping/microchipping_bgnd.asp, “Differences in animal microchip frequency in the US have led to controversy and several civil lawsuits.2,4,5 There is no agreed-upon ‘American standard’ for microchip frequencies.” (bolding is mine). (https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Pages/Microchipping-of-Animals-Backgrounder.aspx)
The chip has a frequency. Every single living thing has a frequency, although microchips, cell phones, radios, televisions, computers, etc. are synthetic or man-made frequencies that are not compatible with the natural frequencies in living things. (http://cellphonesafety.wordpress.com/2006/09/17/the-frequency-of-the-human-bodyand-your-coffee/,)
I like to use essential oils as an example because not only are they my modality of choice, but they each have their own frequency obviously being the lifeforce of the plants they are extracted from. A healthy body vibrates at 62-68 MHz. The lower the frequency dips, the more out of balance the body becomes allowing illness and disease to manifest. The essential oils (unadulterated, therapeutic grade) have frequencies of between 52-320 MHz with the rose oil being the highest. Now since the microchip has a frequency (an unnatural man-made one) it is most likely interfering with the natural, healthy frequency of each animal that has one. If that animal has been vaccinated repeatedly, fed processed commercial food instead of a natural, raw diet, and inundated with the additional toxins of such products as flea, tick, and heartworm medication, regular de-worming, etc. then it stands to reason that this animal will be much more susceptible to the interference of the microchip frequency. (http://aspenbloompetcare.com/2006/03/frequency-and-how-it-pertains-to-essential-oils.htm, http://aspenbloompetcare.com/2005/06/energetic-properties-of-essential-oils-raise-your-hertz-and-stay-healthy.htm)
Now imagine this – most shelter animals have all of the above done to them AND additionally they are micro-chipped. Many people are adopting pets rather than obtaining naturally reared dogs and cats, and then they continue on with the status quo of conventional rearing further degrading the health and well being of their pets, albeit unwittingly.
If however, the animal is naturally reared their immune system will have more of a chance to not have an adverse event or grow ill. However, eventually that microchip’s unnatural frequency is going to cause the disruption of the normal healthy frequency of the body of even the naturally reared animal – it will just take longer and most likely the pet owner and veterinarian will never associate the correlation between the two.
This is similar to what we’re seeing happen with the use of cell phones, cell towers, etc. The earth itself vibrates at its own frequency so all these man-made devices are upsetting the natural balance of all living things, including the earth itself.
When the natural balance of a life – animal, human, plants – are interfered with enough that life is then set up for dis-ease to occur. A body/lifeforce completely out of balance (homeostasis) is the perfect environment for cancer to thrive in.
I have no “scientific” proof about any of this, but I do hope that the information in this article helps you to think and be better informed about this tiny little chip and what else it might be doing besides tracking a lost pet.
Bonnie Nichols, a Borzoi breeder wrote this to me about this article:
Read your article on microchipping and found it very interesting. I have been using tattoos to identify my dogs for over 30 years. I raise and show a few dogs and usually have one litter a year. When I register my dogs with AKC I tattoo them inside hind leg with their AKC registration number. This provides a positive I.D. for the dogs for life, whoever owns them, and I prefer this to the microchip. I still have a few customers (I also run a dog boarding and training kennel) who prefer the tattoo to the microchip. I really believe the tattoo is a safer way to identify my dogs, and have had them returned with the tattoo.
Even before I started hearing of the potentially negative side effects of microchipping, I was not inclined to use them on my dogs, and never will. I also agree that governments requiring microchips is not something being pushed for the safety of the dogs. You are welcome to use any of my comments and/or links. I did write to another group that publishes a newsletter, when they were writing about microchips, to share with them that tattooing is still being done, by a few of us dedicated “old timers” and that even AKC’s CAR, which people think is only to register chips, does register tattoo’s. The last litter of Borzoi puppies I had, I included with all the other paperwork that went with each puppy, the CAR form from AKC, filled out with the tattoo information. ~Bonnie Nichols, Nickolai Borzoi, Ohio
About the Author:
Copyright © October 2010 Dr. Kim Bloomer. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form without the written consent of the Author. This article is for educational purposes only. The decision to use, or not to use, any information is the sole responsibility of the reader.
Dr. Kim Bloomer is an animal naturopath consulting on canine and feline nutrition and wellness. In addition, Dr. Kim is a proficient blogger, writer, speaker and presenter on natural pet care as well as the Co-Founder of the American Council of Animal Naturopathy. She is the author/co-author of three books including, Whole Healthy for Happy Dogs, Animals Taught Me That and Essential Oils in Animal Care: A Naturopathic Approach. Dr. Kim’s articles have been featured in various publications in both print and online. Dr. Kim is passionate about using and sharing Young Living Essential Oils. Visit her Website:www.AspenbloomPetCare.com