Scientific documents reveal that not only Leon but also other animals have developed cancer at the site of their microchip implant. For details, see the Advanced Literature: Microchip section of www.noble-leon.com -- http://www.noble-leon.com/resourcesAdvanced/microchips.html

In addition to the microchip-cancer risk, scientific studies prove that animals have experienced severe neurological damage and even death due to the microchip implant procedure.

Also, as stated by the FDA, other serious health concerns associated with microchip implants include: "adverse tissue reaction; migration of implanted transponder; compromised information security; failure of implanted transponder; failure of inserter; failure of electronic scanner; electromagnetic interference; electrical hazards; magnetic resonance imaging incompatibility; and needle stick.”

And, "there are also serious privacy, legal, ethical, agricultural, religious, and environmental concerns associated with these implants" writes the author of the in-depth microchip report entitled "Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?": (http://www.noble-leon.com/letters/microchip-implants-technological-solution-or-21st-century-nightmare.html)

Perhaps you would be interested in reading the following scientific documents. They can be accessed for free via: http://www.noble-leon.com/resourcesAdvanced/microchips.html

"Microchip insertion in alpacas" discusses the death of a 6-month-old alpaca due to the microchip implant procedure. “Postmortem examination showed that the microchip was located in the spinal cord between C2 and C3 vertebrae. The resulting neurogenic shock was thought to be the cause of death.”

"Imaging diagnosis--spinal injury following aberrant microchip implantation"

"Surgical removal of a microchip from a puppy's spinal canal"

"Spinal cord injury resulting from incorrect microchip placement in a cat"

And let's not forget about little Charlie Brown who bled to death last year shortly after receiving a microchip implant; an implant that was required by law in California!!! (http://www.katherinealbrecht.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3016:dog-bleeds-to-death-after-qroutineq-microchip-implant-procedure&catid=69:press&Itemid=133 )

Dutch veterinarians have also reported neurological damage in horses due to microchip implants. Their report is available here: http://www.invisio.nl/antichip/

The English translation of the Dutch veterinary report is here: http://www.invisio.nl/antichip/tekstlaarakkereng.htm

The British Small Animal Veterinary Association also reports the death of a kitten due to the microchip implant procedure. Here are some of the BSAVA adverse microchip reports: http://www.noble-leon.com/resourcesLayman/microchips.html

It is worth noting that in spite of the serious health concerns associated with microchip implants, mandatory chipping of animals has already been implemented in many countries. Supporting references are available here: http://www.noble-leon.com/letters/microchip-implants-technological-solution-or-21st-century-nightmare-references.html

You mention "the multitudes of lost animals who would face euthanasia without finding their way back home." However, you fail to mention that in order to protect their market share, microchip companies have intentionally created incompatible technologies. In other words, while pet owners believe that a microchip implant will identify their pet if it is lost, the majority of people still do not know that microchip scanners are not capable of accurately reading all microchip implants.

Perhaps your readers would be interested in reading some of the articles that you wrote regarding this topic: http://www.dolittler.com/2009/01/12/Pet-microchip-companies-square-off-in-a-scientific-scan-off-.html)
(Dr. Patty Khuly writes: "But it seems that not all scanners are created equal. Some are better than others at reading a wide variety of microchips. That means your pet may get lost, found, scanned and euthanized if the scanner comes up “empty.”")

See also:
http://www.dolittler.com/2007/6/25/pet.vet.dog.cat.microchip.html (Dr. Patty Khuly writes: "I’ll say it right up front. The more I read about the microchip wars, the more disgusted I get with all the companies involved. Not one has proven that they care more about getting pets home than about their bottom lines.")

Your comments indicate that you are fully aware of the fact that due to the intentional incompatibility of competing microchip technologies, many chipped pets have been euthanized because their chip was unreadable when scanned. One of the most well-known cases is Hadden's: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jul04/040701a.asp

Any effort to justify the deaths of Leon, Charlie Brown, Hadden, and so many other chipped pets is an insult to those who cared for and loved these animals.

Also, although you make reference to Leon's memorial website (www.noble-leon.com), your comments indicate that you were not even aware of the scientific documents regarding adverse microchip reactions. The reports are available for free in the Advanced Literature: Microchip section of Leon's website. It also appears that you have not read the document "Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?" which can be accessed for free via the Home page of Leon's website.

Clearly microchip implants are not nearly as safe as the public has been led to believe. And, anyone who has an understanding of this technology knows that this is a controversial topic.

Dolittler: Why would you assume that anyone who speaks out regarding the health concerns of microchip implants is 'playing up the health risks of microchipping only to further a political position on the subject of privacy?'

I am a concerned pet owner. I also knew Leon. He was an amazing dog who went everywhere with his human mom.

The only reason Leon was chipped was because his mom was told that he had to be chipped (even though he had a collar, readable tattoo, and current passport).

Before allowing Leon to be chipped, his mom asked a representive of the pharmaceutical company whose chip was to be implanted in Leon regarding the safety of the device. She was told that it was "perfectly safe." But approximately eight months later Leon developed a fibrosarcoma at the site of his chip.

When Leon's mom tried to investigate the matter, she learned about the microchip-cancer risk and the other health risks associated with microchip implants. She also ran into one brick wall after another when trying to report her concerns and the scientific microchip-cancer studies that she found .

If it weren't for Leon and his mom, the microchip-cancer risk would probably still be buried. If you read "Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?" that was written in memory of Leon, perhaps you will have a greater understanding of this technology and the problems it poses. (http://www.noble-leon.com/letters/microchip-implants-technological-solution-or-21st-century-nightmare.html)

By the way: Why is there mandatory microchipping of pets yet no mandatory reporting of adverse reactions to these devices? But then again, why don't veterinarians have to report adverse reactions to veterinary products?

As Leon's mom points out, there are far more adverse reactions to microchip implants than the ones that have been reported. Hats off to Leon and his mom for exposing the truth about microchip implants and the microchip industry.

Dolittler: How bizarre. Someone offers scientific and credible supporting references regarding legitimate health concerns associated with microchip implants, and instead of saying "thank you for providing important, factual data" you lash out and accuse the person of using "scare tactics" and "fear-mongering."

I am an animal lover and I am privileged to share my home with many wonderful animals. For a variety of reasons my animals are not chipped and I certainly do not want anyone to force me to chip my animals. If you or others want to chip your animals - or even chip yourselves - then so be it. However, anyone who allows their animal to be chipped has the right to be informed of the risks associated with this technology.

The fact that the microchip-cancer risk was covered up is inexcusable. The fact that chipped animals have died because of the intentional incompatibility of microchip-scanner technologies is inexcusable. The fact that the temperature-sensing microchip implant has been used in animals yet (according to company documents) does not provide an accurate temperature reading is inexcusable. The microchip companies have deceived - no, LIED to - the public on numerous occasions regarding microchip implants.

Pet owners deserve to know the truth about microchips. What one person considers "safe" and "useful" may be considered "unsafe" and "useless" by someone else. Stop the cover-up and allow each individual to make a decision regarding microchip implants (and all other products) based on the facts and on that person's lifestyle and beliefs.

Say "YES" to mandatory disclosure of all potential risks associated with microchip implants.

Say "YES" to mandatory reporting of all adverse reactions to microchip implants (and all veterinary products).

And say "NO" to mandatory chipping!

My 5 year old Yorkie, Scotty, has lymphoma and is undergoing chemo. He had a small tumor on his back that was surgically removed in december. This tumor was attached to another tumor that had the microchip inside. An acquaintance of mine lost his dog in february to cancer....the tumor that was removed had the microchip inside.....I believe there are many stories like this out there but there is not a central 'clearing house', if you will, to report these adverse and deadly reactions to microchips. I also think that there are cases where a pet has died of cancer and the pet owner just never realized that the chip might have been the cause.....the companies that sell these chips sure don't give any warning to look for signs of tumors at the injection sight, according to them there is no danger whatsoever! They should warn pet owners that this might occur! I'll never chip another pet!

The Flickr group thing is brilliant. That way I can also keep track of all the work I've used and the pet artists whose work deserves special-mention props. I'll work on it and let you know once I've set it up. The key is for everyone to agree to allow me use of their pet pics with a credit.

But remember, part of the point is to recognize people who do this job professionally so while I love the photo gallery for all kinds of fun reasons, I'll probably still want to source my pick-of-the-day photos from the pros––but not always, of course, especially if your pics are perfectly apropos to the day's events.

I live in Belfast in Northern Ireland where compulsory microchipping is about to be enacted.

The RFID Industry used very sketchy self report figures to justify the relative safety of Microchips. I say sketchy because as anyone who has ever dealt with self report data will tell you it is always underreported.

Here are two academic articles that confirm the point I am making:

1. One academic article “Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison” Published by A P Fletcher MB BS PhD Post Marketing Surveillance Unit, IMS International Ltd, York House, Queen Square, London WCIN 3BH published in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 puts underreporting at about 98%.
2. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions : a systematic review. Hazell L, Shakir SA. Drug Saf. 2006;29(5):385-96. A review it puts the underreporting figures as shockingly high.

What has really annoyed me here is that vets are very much a trusted group of professionals, and to be honest for the most part and in most cases in my personal dealings I have found them trustworthy.
But in this case you have Chris Laurence, attendee of Auto-Id’s workgroup 3 Identification meeting in Paris 2001, before he even joined Dogs Trust (Auto ID own the patents to RFID tech), Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust, who campaigned for compulsory microchipping extensively in the press and spent a massive amount of money doing so, Member of PAC pets advisory committee who advise Parliaments of safety, and worst of all Chairman of MAG Microchip Advisory Group who oversee adverse reaction reporting for Microchip Implants. MAG Microchip Advisory is listed as a sub group of the BSAVA, but it is also comprised of all the major business interest parties in the RFID business segment.
Is there no vet anywhere who can see this as a major conflict of interests?
If you do could you approach the Department of Environment in Northern Ireland and explain it to them because they seem to find nothing wrong with it.
In this case in the UK Vets have been silent or in worse cases evasive on this issue. There are studies that link Microchip Implants to cancer in dogs, cats, a bat, mice and rats. We have heard much about the many millions of dogs microchipped and low incidences of adverse reactions reported.
I suggest that it is because biopsies or autopsies would need to be conducted in order to find an adverse reaction. Current Blood tests show nothing, X-Rays show nothing. Even when the mass has surrounded the implant the Vet Sub group MAG may not accept that the implant caused the problem. They do not accept that any cancer away from the implant may be due to the microchip despite studies that suggest soft tissue sarcomas do travel via the blood.
Which vet out there would insist an owner has a dog autopsied after it was put to sleep?
There is certainly no legal imperative to do so in the UK.
In a telephone conversation about microchipping I had with Chris he made the following statements (which I taped):

"Undoubtedly, I think drug reactions or anything where you have a voluntary reporting system is inevitably going to be underreported, it would be stupid to deny that, because when your talking about practicing vets they, a proportion will be responsible enough to report reactions, equally there will be a proportion that won’t and we try very hard all the distributors try very hard to get people to report reactions. I have written as chairman a couple of articles, I have one going in next month saying, pointing out to people that they should be reporting reactions. I have written to veterinary record they have been clear that people should be reporting reactions, so there is a positive push to get people to report things, you are always going to get underreporting anyone who tells you are not going to get underreporting is talking through their backside basically." Chris Laurence.

“If the lump is nowhere near the microchip how could it conceivably cause cancer?”, Chris Lurence

I would refer you to the specialist expert opinion in described in Skeletal Metastases From Soft-Tissue Sarcomas, Incidence, Patterns and Radiological features by Hideki Yoshikawa, Takafumi Ueda, Shigeki Mori', Nobuhito Araki, Shigeyuki Kuratsu, Atsumasa Uchida, Takahiro Ochi From Osaka Medical Centre for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases and Osaka University Medical School, Osaka, Japan. THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY VOL. 79-B, NO. 4, JULY 1997. They indicated that STS spreads through the blood. This paper was written in 1997.

“Yes absolutely, when we train people they do a one day course, which has all the background and they actually have to implant dogs in front of the instructor. To show that they are competent to do it, they then have to do so many within so many weeks, supervising them and checking them. “ Chris Laurence

Two examples here one is Neo, a cat owned by Chris Griffin, Nottingham. Neo was killed when an RSPCA Implanter put the chip in his head by mistake as mentioned in Dogs Monthly July 2010, ‘Chip ‘n’ Spin‘by Caroline Davies,, it can be found via the Internet in pdf format.

Another is the example of Charlie Brown he was owned by Lori Ginsberg, her dog bled to death after being chipped by a qualified vet, Dr. Reid Loken.

This does highlight that accidents and mistakes happen, anyone who works in any walk of life as a professional can make a mistake. I have made mistakes, everyone does and I am in no way getting at vets for this, you save many animals lives. Sometimes things go wrong but on balance we try to limit the chances of that happening, except, it seems, with microchip implants.

In the UK we are in the bizarre situation of allowing people to chip dogs after a webinar, they can do a three hour course or sit through a webinar (video) and are automatically qualified at the end. The company offering this webinar will then sell you a gun and chips to start implanting.

How many of you remember the first time you gave a vaccination?

Do you think allowing people who don’t know anything loose with a 12 gauge needle after an introductory video will improve animal safety or human safety for that matter?

The company offering this webinar can be found by typing “microchip implanter webinar” into a search engine.

Think about MRSA levels, they will sky rocket due to hygiene issues, market forces will reduce the price of microchipping and the poorest people with no access to insurance will bring their dogs to the cheapest implanter, a webinar trained cowboy. As you know MRSA can be passed from dog to human, so that should be fun. Not only that but by the time the cheap butcher is stopped he will have chipped many dogs, and because poorer people’s dogs will have less access to appropriate screening, this situation may never be caught on.

Possible damage to the health of Veterinary professionals. Another factor is RFID EMF emissions and the damage caused by low level RFID.

In the BBC report on Wednesday, 9 January, 2002, 19:07, "Warning over miscarriage research" It was found women exposed to EMFs of 1.6 microteslas or more were nearly twice as likely to miscarry as women not exposed to such strong fields.

The study was conducted by Dr De-Kun Li, a reproductive epidemiologist of the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute in Oakland, California. In fairness other scientists dispute this study.

That is science though, competing funding creates competing interests, and there is a lot of Orr’s Law in science.

In another BBC News story, "UK plans to lower EMF limits", By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent. Published on Thursday, 1 May, 2003, 15:09 GMT 16:09 UK. The Government suggests cutting EMF levels, I quote,” The exposure of people in the UK to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) should be cut significantly, the government's radiation advisers say."

Veterinary Surgeons, webinar chippers and their colleagues will be exposed to increased levels of EMF through RFID readers; this may be a relatively short term increase while all the dogs that need chipped to comply with the law get caught up.

We just don’t know what damage may be done by firing low frequency RFID at humans for a total of eight hours every day.

Unlike the tags the readers are active in that they stimulate the tag and they will be bombarding the user and people holding the dogs with EMF.

I have not heard of one precaution being taken to safeguard those working in this situation. I only thought of it because I was a technical sales person in telecoms and then a reception advice advisor for a major UK television company.

I would like to be able to go back to trusting vets, some of that is down to the profession itself, I think ethics has a big part to play.

I really didn’t have an axe to grind when I started looking into this issue, the more I look the more I saw and introspected, self interested industry with huge links to the RFID industry trying to make microchip implants compulsory and in effect making me the owner pay for the 20 year study suggested by Cheryl London, DVM, PhD. Diplomate ACVIM (Oncology).

If you feel the risks should be represented by your profession please make your voice heard.

Kind regards

Lawrance Rafferty