Eddie's Blog
About Eddie: I'm a dog on a mission. With your help, I'm going to change legislation in the U.S. to make sure chemicals are safe before they're put on the market. Read more or contact Eddie.
Blogroll:
View posts by tag:
Search the blog:
Recently in Eddie's world:
Allie's dog, Argo, and the microchip dilemma
Eddie says: This post was written by Allie, whose blog Allie's (green) Answers features recipes, news, and daily tips to make your life a little greener. She's a daily read here at Pets HQ!
In March, my dog, Argo, had surgery to remove extra tissue on his shoulder to get wider margins on a biopsied lump that turned out to be squamous cell carcinoma.
In February, after the biopsy came back positive for cancer, we took him to a cancer specialist at one of the leading veterinary hospitals in the country. The specialist could not understand why a dog his age (he's four and a half) would have that type of tumor in that location. He couldn't give us a prognosis on Argo's health, because they'd never seen a similar situation before. My husband and I were devastated. Argo, a German Shepherd, is an amazing friend, a total goofball, and the biggest lapdog I've ever seen. German Shepherds are a working breed and Argo seems to think that cuddling is his full-time job.
During surgery, they found his microchip at the base of the tumor. They removed the chip. Thankfully, the surgery was successful and a second biopsy showed that they'd been able to remove all the cancerous cells. The surgeon told me that Argo's prognosis was excellent. It was also suggested that if the tumor wasn't related to the microchip, it was a very big coincidence.
Later, a vet tech at our local animal hospital told me that she'd heard of two other cases of microchip-related cancers in the past few months. But when I contacted the microchip company, to report the incident and ask that they include information on the risk of cancer in their promotional materials, they acted like microchip-related cancers are an urban legend.
The first person I talked with at the company was rude and combative from the moment we started talking and ended the conversation by hanging up on me.
The second gentleman I spoke with had a lovely British accent that made everything he said sound polite and refined. Unfortunately, the second conversation was no less appalling than the first one. I believe his mission was to not only convince me that the microchip couldn't possibly have caused my dog's cancer, but to get me to re-chip my dog. I told him that I can still see the value of microchipping a dog who has a tendency to run away, but Argo panics if I move out of his sight line, and we are about as co-dependent as a dog and person can get. If I had known there was a risk of cancer, I would never have chipped Argo. He isn't a flight risk.
My phone buddy said that dogs like mine are the ones that have a harder time finding their way home when they get lost and painted a vivid and horrible picture of Argo being put down because I didn't get him re-chipped. During the rest of the conversation, he was very focused on facts and statistics, promising he could show me reports of studies to back up what he was saying (I never received any reports in follow up), but in trying to get me to re-chip my dog, he was specifically appealing to my emotional side and praying on every pet owner's worst fears.
He told me there have only been four reported cases of possible microchip-related cancers in animals using their product. Aside from my dog, I've heard of three other cases. I'm guessing we're not talking about the same pets, and I'm guessing that many dogs die of cancer without further investigation into the cause. In fact, in our meeting with the cancer specialist before the surgery, I asked if Argo's cancer could be related to the microchip. The specialist told me it probably wasn't related, because microchip-related cancers are so rare. If we had opted not to do the surgery to remove more tissue, we wouldn't have found the chip. I am certainly not an expert, but it seems to me that if the reporting is off, and microchip-related cancers are continually regarded as an urban legend, the reporting will continue to be off, and the cycle will continue.
The conversation lasted over an hour and we did not resolve anything. I was fed rounds and rounds of PR-speak and clever rhetoric, and got a lecture about vaccines being a possible culprit as well. Nothing that was said made me feel any better about the situation or convinced me that there wasn't a connection between the chip and the cancer. Finally, the man with the lovely accent had to get off the phone because it was the end of the work day and he was running late to pick someone up.
Because the origins of most cancers are hard to prove, the microchip company won't take responsibility for my dog's cancer. I probably shouldn't go around saying that my dog's microchip gave him cancer if it can't be proven, so I won't. But I would like to point out that my dog has 97 lbs of space for tumors to grow, and his tumor happened to occur in the exact same spot where his microchip, which is the size of a grain of rice, was located.
If your pet is microchipped, don't panic, but be vigilant. Check the chip site for lumps and bumps, and consider asking your vet to check it out as well during annual exams. Chances are, it will never be a problem, but if it is, early detection is key.
If you are considering getting your pet microchipped, keep in mind that there are four official possible cases on file with the microchip company. Also keep in mind that veterinary products are not held to the same testing and reporting standards that human medical products are held to, and statistics don't mean a darn thing if your pet is the one out of however many that gets sick.
Microchips do reunite lost pets with their owners and save lives. I'm not saying they don't have a place and a purpose in some pet's lives. I just think it's important to weigh the risks when you make your decision. Hopefully, more independent studies will be done on microchips and cancer, and in the future it will be easier to make informed decisions.
We are responsible for the well-being of our pets. They can't speak for themselves and they can't make their own decisions about their health care. That's why Pets for the Environment is so important. We need to hold pet product companies responsible for the products they create and the information they disseminate about those products.
Right now, Argo is doing well. We played a mean game of frisbee right before I sat down to write this, and he's lying on the couch next to me, snoring away, chasing frisbees in his sleep.
Hi,
thanks for your story about Argo.
I have 4 dogs, none of them are chipped. I have been debating whether
or not it is necessary. I think your story helped me make my decision.
Thanks!
The AP ran a story in Sept 2007 - studies as far back as 1996 found links between the chips and cancer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR200709...
There is an anti-chip site that has lots of information that the chip company won't tell you: http://www.antichips.com/
I am so happy to read that Argo is now doing well. My cat, Max, is chipped - the local SPCA does it to all pets when they get adopted. At the time it sounded like a good idea. Now I am very scared about the possibility of cancer. When I asked my vet about the chip causing cancer during his annual exam last Nov he hadn't even heard of it but one of the techs had heard about it. They advised me to watch for signs but did not suggest removing the chip since the reports only found chips causing cancer in dogs and rats and not cats. Max is an inside kitty so if he ever did get out he would not know his way around the neighborhood but I would not purposely get him chipped if he did not already have one.
I do remember that the SPCA told me that the chip has a coating on it that encourages scar tissue growth so that it anchors the chip and prevents it from migrating. This sounds like a big red flag to me.
Thanks for sharing your story and I hope Argo remains healthy!
Sue
Why blame microchips? I would say it's not as likely to be coincidence if there was no other likely cause, of course. But at the cancer site, you have one inert microchip implanted, and probably MANY vaccines, filled with various toxins and pathogens in different forms--in the exact same place. Vaccine sarcomas are common and accepted--they can happen at any vaccine site, whether at the microchip site around the shoulder blades, or the tail, a leg, anywhere. If all your vaccines were done on the shoulderblade area, and the microchip was in a leg, I am guessing the tumor would be in the same place. If all your vaccines were done in one leg, and the microchip was at its actual location, I am guessing the tumor would be in the leg.
People are afraid of things that sound like "new technology" and vaccines are old while microchips seem relatively new, but the RFID capsules are completely inert and I have seen no evidence that these are a cause of any medical condition. I would like one done on myself, in case I'm ever in a position that I am lost, am unable to communicate vital information, and no one around me has the knowledge to get me the help I need--say I hit my head and the medics don't know what medications I'm on, the state of my liver, etc, all useful information that they could look up from scanning my microchip. The chances of me being in such a position are even smaller than my scaredy-cat girl (who never wants to set foot outside) getting lost. But life happens and it's better to be safe than sorry.
On vaccines, I'd rather be safe than sorry about disease, and I'd rather be safe than sorry about tumors. Until new information is available, I'm complying with vaccine laws (even if I don't like them, I need to be able to see a vet, take animals with me when I move, and not have them confiscated), looking at the diseases in my area, doing titer testing when that's an option, and only doing boosters--or deciding against boosters--after a cost-benefit analysis. And this is how all decisions regarding your dependents' health should be made.
Instead of spreading scare-mongering myths, why not spend more of your time and influence providing people with facts and hard evidence so they can make the best decisions they can with the most accurate information available?
I'm not going through all the anti-chip studies ever presented, though. I don't have the time. For anyone who wants to, however, I'd keep the following in mind (and many other factors I haven't thought of, I'm sure):
-Species differences. Something that causes cancer in mice won't for rats, and vice versa, and these are relatively closely related species. You might as well flip a coin if you want to find out whether a new drug is toxic to humans and you tested it on rabbits or monkeys. Many drugs pass animal tests but stop at humans. I'm sure many drugs don't pass some animal tests but would be useful for humans and other species.
-Chip differences. Are they testing the same casing material? It seems pretty silly to say that food overcooked in nonstick is unsafe, so all food must be unsafe.
-Size differences and injection methods. Not just species metabolism etc, but size. From http://www.antichips.com/faq/html/faq-section03.html :
Post-Injection Sarcoma : Inflammation from the chip-injection procedure may give rise to cancer.
If you're using a giant needle on a tiny mouse, that will probably cause more pain, inflammation, tissue damage, etc than if you chipped a cat, dog, or human properly. You might as well avoid anything that might cause inflammation. Even if you avoid all needles, this means vaccines, bloodwork, biopsies...is the chip-paranoia worth it?
-Correlation and causation! Vaccines, shoulderblades, microchip, cancer. Maybe we should breed dogs who don't have a neck, back, or shoulderblades, if the existence of a possible tumor site is the cause of cancer? Maybe we should surgically remove the necks, backs, and shoulderblades of all our cats and dogs? Where does it end? What % of the confirmed cases of household dog and cat cancers around microchips were of animals who never were vaccinated there?
Wow, the last person started off on the right foot, then fell off the deep end. I do agree with them and will reiterate that vaccines (especially frequent vaccines) are of much greater case for concern when it comes to cancer, than microchips. I would suggest ONLY getting the vaccines that will prevent the untimely death of your dog: Distemper, Hepatitis/Adenovirus, Parvovirus, and Rabies. The risks of getting Leptospirosis and Lyme disease vaccines often outweigh the benifits. Bordetella/kennel cough, Parinfluenza (flu), Coronavirus, etc. are not of any concern IF YOUR PET IS HEALTHY. If they are healthy, they will either a.) not get sick in the first place, or b.) get over it very quickly.
Instead of getting your pet vaccinated every year, ask for a titer test. This will screen your dog's blood to see if the immunodefense of each vaccine is still working properly or if you need to revaccinate. Contrary to popular myth, most vaccines last for 3-7 years, not just one year. But of course you should always obey local law - or try to change it!
My dog and cat eat exclusively raw food. They only have the vaccines they truely need, and yes, they are microchipped.
Please do your research, and don't rely on the internet as your only source for information. There are many great books and people out there to help.
Okay, guys, but there IS evidence of problems with microchips -- and from what I've read, it's just as compelling (if not more compelling!) than the case against vaccines. Why make it an either-or proposition? Isn't it possible that vaccines are linked to cancer, and microchips are too? Claiming that it must be one and not the other makes it sound like you've just got a bone to pick.
Allie,
Thanks for sharing argo's story. I hope he continues to do well.
My dog just had his chip removed after 8 months of constant/persistant scratching at the chip site (and *only* the chip site). It took 3 vet consults for someone to take the problem seriously and almost 3 hours to remove the chip and damaged tissue surrounding it.
While I don't want to discourage anyone from microchipping their pet, I do think it's important that people realize there are risks...that things can, and do, go wrong.
Like argo, my dog is like a second shadow and I will not be implanting another chip.
all the best,
amanda
The best thing you can do to protect your dog is to be a responsible owner. Keep current identification tags on your dog at all times and never allow your dog to roam free.
Post new comment