It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
My interest in asking questions of the Humane Society was from having two rescued pets from one of their shelters die of cancer which formed at the exact location of an RFID Chip implant they put in. It is now thought the lubricant and not the implant caused this. The Humane Society remained mute on the subject when I tried to get a response. My Vet was so interested that he had the lab work done on tissue samples and paid for it out of his own pocket. He too went mute on the subject shortly after.
The report evaluates eleven articles previously published in toxicology and pathology journals. In six of the articles, between 0.8% and 10.2% of laboratory mice and rats developed malignant tumors around or adjacent to the microchips. Two additional articles reported microchip-related cancer in dogs. See Original Research Articles section below for details.
In almost all cases, the malignant tumors, typically sarcomas, arose at the site of the implants and grew to surround and fully encase the devices. These fast-growing, malignant tumors often led to the death of the afflicted animals. In many cases, the tumors metastasized or spread to other parts of the animals. The implants were unequivocally identified as the cause of the cancers
Incidence of VAFS—The true incidence of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats is unknown. Sarcomas develop at vaccination sites at rates ranging from 1 case/10,000 cats to 10 cases/10,000 cats and develop primarily after administration of rabies virus and FeLV vaccines.3,4,16 These estimates are based on retrospective epidemiologic studies and surveys of biopsy specimens submitted to diagnostic laboratories and, in conjunction with current estimates of the US cat population and the number of annual visits to veterinarians, suggest that between 2,200 and 22,000 cats will develop vaccine-associated sarcomas each year.
In a retrospective study4 of 345 cats with vaccine-associated sarcomas, the risk that a cat would develop a sarcoma after administration of a single vaccine in the cervical-interscapular region (a site not recommended by the VAFSTF or AAFP guidelines) was 50% higher than the risk that a cat not receiving any vaccines at this site would. In the same study, the risk for a cat given 2 vaccines at the same site was approximately 127% higher, and the risk for a cat given 3 or 4 vaccines was 175% higher than the risk for a cat not receiving vaccines at that site. Time to tumor development in cats following vaccination was as short as 3 months and as long as 3 years or longer.4
Ball et al., 1991 Evaluation of a microchip implant system used for animal identification in rats. Laboratory Animal Science. 1991;41(2):185—186.
Murasugi et al., 2003 Histological reactions to microchip implants in dogs. The Veterinary Record. 2003(Sept 13);328.
Rao & Edmondson, 1990 Tissue reaction to an implantable identification device in mice. Toxicologic Pathology. 1990;18(3):412– 416.
Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
Since the primary objective of the three criticised studies was not cancer detection, I don't share your opinion. These three studies were probably not commissioned “tobacco science”. But they were certainly unsuitable to detect a relation between implants and cancer.
Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
(currently their company is called Gibraltar, Verichip is now called PositiveID