[Chicagocanine]

The title is very misleading: "Merck Sued: HomeAgain® Pet Chip Implicated in Cancer"

Actually the chip/company were NOT "implicated"-- all that has happened is that a lawsuit has been filed claiming a cancer was caused by a microchip. The case was just filed, there has been no evidence submitted and no ruling.
Just because someone sues a microchip company does not mean there is any real proof the chip was the cause of the cancer.

 

[Dainerra]

I've read over the research that "proves" that the chips cause cancer. All of the info has been 1) very biased and 2) insubstantial at best - deliberately misleading.

I don't doubt that it is possible that chips can cause cancer in certain cases. ANYTHING that you put in your body (or your pets) could have the same result. The bodys natural reaction to a foreign substance is to encase it with scar tissue. It would be very easy for an animal with an extremely active system to carry this too far and lead to out-of-control growth.

However, I think that the benefits outweigh the risks in this case. It's more likely that my dog will get lost than develop cancer from his chip.

 

[Smiling_Shepherd]

The title is very misleading: "Merck Sued: HomeAgain® Pet Chip Implicated in Cancer"

Actually the chip/company were NOT "implicated"-- all that has happened is that a lawsuit has been filed claiming a cancer was caused by a microchip. The case was just filed, there has been no evidence submitted and no ruling.
Just because someone sues a microchip company does not mean there is any real proof the chip was the cause of the cancer.

Actually what you posted is not accurate

"Andrea Rutherford v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Digital Angel, Inc." (case # 1052CV1147) was filed last week in Cambridge (MA) District Court. The complaint named implant maker Digital Angel Corporation as a
co-defendant.
http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/rutherford-v-merck-complaint.pdf

REFERENCE:
"Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990*2006,"http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/P074.pdf

 

[Montana Scout]

Actually what you posted is not accurate

"Andrea Rutherford v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Digital Angel, Inc." (case # 1052CV1147) was filed last week in Cambridge (MA) District Court. The complaint named implant maker Digital Angel Corporation as a
co-defendant.
http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/rutherford-v-merck-complaint.pdf

REFERENCE:
"Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990*2006,"http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/P074.pdf

isn't this redundant?

 

[Smiling_Shepherd]

isn't this redundant?

I'm not sure I understand why you think it is redundant.

If you could be more specific that would help me answer your question.

 

[Montana Scout]

I'm not sure I understand why you think it is redundant.

If you could be more specific that would help me answer your question.

sorry,... posts between you and chicagocanine

 

[Smiling_Shepherd]

The title is very misleading: "Merck Sued: HomeAgain® Pet Chip Implicated in Cancer"

Actually the chip/company were NOT "implicated"-- all that has happened is that a lawsuit has been filed claiming a cancer was caused by a microchip. The case was just filed, there has been no evidence submitted and no ruling.
Just because someone sues a microchip company does not mean there is any real proof the chip was the cause of the cancer.

Actually what you posted is not accurate

"Andrea Rutherford v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Digital Angel, Inc." (case # 1052CV1147) was filed last week in Cambridge (MA) District Court. The complaint named implant maker Digital Angel Corporation as a
co-defendant.
http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/rutherford-v-merck-complaint.pdf

REFERENCE:
"Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990*2006,"http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/P074.pdf

sorry,... posts between you and chicagocanine

OIC now I understand. No, I would not say it is redundant. I should have addressed ChicagoCanine's points more specifically

1. Smiling_Shepherd - The company and chipmaker are both named in the complaint filed with the court. The PDF of the complaint is linked.

Chicagocanine - "Merck Sued: HomeAgain® Pet Chip Implicated in Cancer"- Actually the chip/company were NOT "implicated"-- all that has happened is that a lawsuit has been filed claiming a cancer was caused by a microchip.

2. Smiling_Shepherd - The comment below is true but incomplete and therefore misleading. There are various steps in a lawsuit. The "pre-filing" is complete and "complaint" has been filed by the plaintiff with the court. If the case is not "dismissed", then both parties in the suit will go to "discovery" and each party will obtain information, including from each other, to best prove their points and win. As you can see in document P074.PDF the plaintiff has obtained information that would help bolster their fight to take this to trial and prevent a "dismissal" of the case. It could allow it to go forward into "discovery" and through the remaining steps of the lawsuit to a final judgement.

Chicagocanine - The case was just filed, there has been no evidence submitted and no ruling. Just because someone sues a microchip company does not mean there is any real proof the chip was the cause of the cancer.


I hope that answered your question and was not too verbose.

 

[JudynRich]

I decided to micro-chip since the two dogs do not wear collars in the house or yard (the breakaways did not impress me). My first dog Sue died of cancer. She was not chipped and we used no chemicals int he back yard. So many things have been linked to cancer, you have to weigh the risks and benefits.

 

[Jessiewessie99]

I still don't buy the "Chips cause Cancer" thing. One of my previous dogs was put to sleep because of cancer and he was not chipped. My current dogs are chipped and have not had any issues.

 

[Lin]

There's a small chance your dog could get a cancerous growth at the site of the chip implant. There's a much bigger chance you and your dog could get separated and need this chip to be identified and returned to you.

This is my view. You have to weigh the risks. Some people don't allow their dogs to wear collars inside the house because of risk of injury. To me, the risk of losing my pet is higher and so they wear collars 24/7 and are microchipped.

 

[Chicagocanine]

2. Smiling_Shepherd - The comment below is true but incomplete and therefore misleading. There are various steps in a lawsuit. The "pre-filing" is complete and "complaint" has been filed by the plaintiff with the court. If the case is not "dismissed", then both parties in the suit will go to "discovery" and each party will obtain information, including from each other, to best prove their points and win. As you can see in document P074.PDF the plaintiff has obtained information that would help bolster their fight to take this to trial and prevent a "dismissal" of the case. It could allow it to go forward into "discovery" and through the remaining steps of the lawsuit to a final judgement.
.

What I meant was that the chip/company has not actually been implicated. A claim was filed or whatever step they are on in the legal process, they have not proven that the chip caused the cancer which is what the title of the article seems to imply.

 

[selzer]

I have considered this a couple of times. The problem is not the radio frequency being applied to read the chip. That happens maybe three times in a lifetime.

It is possible that the material in the chip could be causeing the issue. And it could be an over active immunity system. Think about it, it IS a foreign object, that could cause white cells to gather and the body to try to attack it. I think that there have been little tumors found on the site I have heard.

I have some of my dogs done with homeagain, and others with avid. I think that while some dogs might have a reaction to the chip, the vast majority will be ok with no reaction at all.

 

[JustMeLeslie]

It seems like everything in life causes cancer. This is an isolated incident.Nothing has been proven. I have two of my dogs microchipped and I would rather be safe than sorry. I would not hesistant to get my other dogs microchipped too.

 

[Montana Scout]

It seems like everything in life causes cancer. This is an isolated incident.Nothing has been proven. I have two of my dogs microchipped and I would rather be safe than sorry. I would not hesistant to get my other dogs microchipped too.

just living daily life we walk around carcinogens and radiation from motor exhaust and cigarettes to granite table tops and also cell phones...

so technically yeah everything does cause cancer, but mainly depends on our DNA to repress or deflect of forming tumors.... let alone you could be born with a random duplicating cell that has no purpose but multiplies to become as we know a tumor/cancer....

 

[GSDElsa]

Oh for the love of...

OK. Since the OP posted the pdf supposedly backing up her point. Let's go to the section "Cancer Found In Dogs." And I quote:

"Two studies evaluated cancerous tumors...in companions dogs. ONE tumor (emphasis added) was found adjacent to the microchip and the OTHER completely surrounded the chip."

That right, folks. Out of the possibly millions of chips sitting in dogs in the United States, cancer has been found in two "studies" in only one dog each. WOW.

I'm not even going to start on the obvious bias that person had that is explicitly obvious just looking at the way she words things.

I'm curious as to all the people purporting the evils of microchips have spent any time in their lifetime smoking? Eating meat fed hormones? Used a cell phone? Gotten and MRI?

My gawd, it's true! I have heard of, like, FIVE people getting brain cancer who used a cell phone! Stop the madness! We're all going to die!! Ahhhhh!

Microchipping is a personal choice. Out of all the people with dogs I know there has been exactly ZERO who have had dogs that have had cancer anywhere near the implant site of a microchip. On the other hand, I know several who have been saved by their microchip.

What would you rather have? A 1 in 2,000,000 chance (and I really think I'm probbaly being generous with that statistic) of your dog getting a tumor from it's mircochip? Or them accidentally getting away and ending up in a shelter that is over-filled and uses heartstick after several days to kill your dog?

ETA: Oh, and I'm just going to add that anyone in the United States can file a lawsuit. It takes no proof to do so. I could file a lawsuit against you tomorrow for bashing Merck and possibly endangering my dog by not allowing dogs to be microchipped.

 

[Smiling_Shepherd]

What I meant was that the chip/company has not actually been implicated. A claim was filed or whatever step they are on in the legal process, they have not proven that the chip caused the cancer which is what the title of the article seems to imply.

I understand your point. I believe the implication has already been made. However, the legitimacy of the implication has yet to be determined.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree

 

[Smiling_Shepherd]

Oh for the love of...

OK. Since the OP posted the pdf supposedly backing up her point. Let's go to the section "Cancer Found In Dogs." And I quote:

"Two studies evaluated cancerous tumors...in companions dogs. ONE tumor (emphasis added) was found adjacent to the microchip and the OTHER completely surrounded the chip."

That right, folks. Out of the possibly millions of chips sitting in dogs in the United States, cancer has been found in two "studies" in only one dog each. WOW.

I'm not even going to start on the obvious bias that person had that is explicitly obvious just looking at the way she words things.

I'm curious as to all the people purporting the evils of microchips have spent any time in their lifetime smoking? Eating meat fed hormones? Used a cell phone? Gotten and MRI?

My gawd, it's true! I have heard of, like, FIVE people getting brain cancer who used a cell phone! Stop the madness! We're all going to die!! Ahhhhh!

Microchipping is a personal choice. Out of all the people with dogs I know there has been exactly ZERO who have had dogs that have had cancer anywhere near the implant site of a microchip. On the other hand, I know several who have been saved by their microchip.

What would you rather have? A 1 in 2,000,000 chance (and I really think I'm probbaly being generous with that statistic) of your dog getting a tumor from it's mircochip? Or them accidentally getting away and ending up in a shelter that is over-filled and uses heartstick after several days to kill your dog?

ETA: Oh, and I'm just going to add that anyone in the United States can file a lawsuit. It takes no proof to do so. I could file a lawsuit against you tomorrow for bashing Merck and possibly endangering my dog by not allowing dogs to be microchipped.

First, let me say while you are posting in my threads, find a more useful and constructive way to make your points. Stop the negativity and rude sarcasm. Second, if you can't, don't post in my threads.

You may be able to make a good point but the way you do it leaves a lot to be desired. I want my threads to be open for comment, debate, disagreement and opinion and the type of contribution you made below does not help continue that at all in a constructive way.

The only point I'll address in your reply is your interpretation of the findings. The results (1 to 2 cases of cancer) is from a sample group not an entire population. Just like when they do surveys or polls it is a sample population of the total population group with a +/- percentage variance for error. A hypothetical example: If the total population of dogs with chips is 1 Million and they sample .00001% or 10 dogs and only 1 dog has cancer. Then you actually have 1/.00001 or 100,000 dogs out of 1 Million could have cancer from the chips with some variation of possible error, lets say +/- 5%, of that total. So in reality 1 to 2 dogs could be a huge number of cancer cases in relation to the entire population of dogs with chips.

Any appropriate monitoring and control of my animals that is necessary to safeguard them is better than subjecting their already short lives to ANY increased potential for cancer. I hope others feel the same way I do or will at least consider this strongly before they implant a chip. If they change their minds after it is implanted then they can have it removed.

Animal micro-chipping is the next step before humans. Humans (children, criminals, government workers, new passports, etc) are now being chipped in various ways. Your signature indicates you work with an animal rescue. I'm sure you value the lives of animals. Based on your comments you may also think chips (cell phones or whatever) causing cancer, even in small numbers in humans, is acceptable versus the benefits. I certainly hope that you do not believe this and in turn reconsider your opinion on the risk/benefit in animals and humans.

 

[Jessiewessie99]

First, let me say while you are posting in my threads, find a more useful and constructive way to make your points. Stop the negativity and rude sarcasm. Second, if you can't, don't post in my threads.

You may be able to make a good point but the way you do it leaves a lot to be desired. I want my threads to be open for comment, debate, disagreement and opinion and the type of contribution you made below does not help continue that at all in a constructive way.

The only point I'll address in your reply is your interpretation of the findings. The results (1 to 2 cases of cancer) is from a sample group not an entire population. Just like when they do surveys or polls it is a sample population of the total population group with a +/- percentage variance for error. A hypothetical example: If the total population of dogs with chips is 1 Million and they sample .00001% or 10 dogs and only 1 dog has cancer. Then you actually have 1/.00001 or 100,000 dogs out of 1 Million could have cancer from the chips with some variation of possible error, lets say +/- 5%, of that total. So in reality 1 to 2 dogs could be a huge number of cancer cases in relation to the entire population of dogs with chips.

Any appropriate monitoring and control of my animals that is necessary to safeguard them is better than subjecting their already short lives to ANY increased potential for cancer. I hope others feel the same way I do or will at least consider this strongly before they implant a chip. If they change their minds after it is implanted then they can have it removed.

Animal micro-chipping is the next step before humans. Humans (children, criminals, government workers, new passports, etc) are now being chipped in various ways. Your signature indicates you work with an animal rescue. I'm sure you value the lives of animals. Based on your comments you may also think chips (cell phones or whatever) causing cancer, even in small numbers in humans, is acceptable versus the benefits. I certainly hope that you do not believe this and in turn reconsider your opinion on the risk/benefit in animals and humans.

Sory but you are a not a mod and can't say who can and can't post in this thread. Yes, you started this thread, but this is a public forum and ANYONE can read and post on here. And you really can't tell someone how to post on an open forum.

I agree with GSDElsa, you don't really have much research or other information to back up your claims. There are bunch of other ways for a dog to get cancer, just as there are different ways for humans to get it.

My dogs have the chip(Home Again, the one you started this thread about.), the shelter I volunteer at chips all the dogs that come into their care. It all depends on who created the chip, who implants the chip and many other factors. Don't just assume that because the dog has a micro-chip that they will get cancer. Also they are already have micro chips people have implanted in other people.

 

[Smiling_Shepherd]

Sory but you are a not a mod and can't say who can and can't post in this thread. Yes, you started this thread, but this is a public forum and ANYONE can read and post on here. And you really can't tell someone how to post on an open forum.

I agree with GSDElsa, you don't really have much research or other information to back up your claims. There are bunch of other ways for a dog to get cancer, just as there are different ways for humans to get it.

My dogs have the chip(Home Again, the one you started this thread about.), the shelter I volunteer at chips all the dogs that come into their care. It all depends on who created the chip, who implants the chip and many other factors. Don't just assume that because the dog has a micro-chip that they will get cancer. Also they are already have micro chips people have implanted in other people.

You're right I'm not a mod and I don't think I am either. I have only asked for a friendly, polite and courteous exchange of ideas. I don't see how that contradicts the rules of this forum.

If by "my claims" you mean my opinions then you are right I stated at the beginning of the thread there is not much information available on this topic, especially details of studies. My opinions throughout the posting have indicated my opinions and I have occasionally referenced the linked material. I have shared my opinions but not made separate claims outside of that linked information.

Yes, I agree cancer can be caused from many sources. I don't assume that because an animals has a chip that it will get cancer. Since there appears to be limited information available about the subject I choose to err on the side of caution. Others, including yourself, have chosen to go with an implant and I that is fine. As I had stated before many products had been determined to be harmful, even deadly, after they were released into the public. I hope sharing this information has helped people become aware of more information on the subject and they will in turn share additional information they may come across in the future. That way all of us can make the best and most informed decisions for our pets.

 

[Lin]

First, let me say while you are posting in my threads, find a more useful and constructive way to make your points. Stop the negativity and rude sarcasm. Second, if you can't, don't post in my threads.

You are a member of a very large, and very public GSD forum. If you don't like someones response, ignore it. When you post you are putting it out there for all to read and reply. GSDElsa's reply was not breaking any forum rules, and every member here has the right to reply in any way that they see fit barring it breaking any rules. If you don't like that, then maybe you shouldn't be posting.