“It is significant to note that microchip companies have sued competitors and won millions of dollars because of false, misleading and unsubstantiated claims about microchipping, which endanger the health and well-being of animals. Nevertheless, the microchip industry continues with the same lies, advocates of microchipping perpetuate the lies, and people are obliged to have a potentially faulty and dangerous microchip (foreign object) implanted in their animals.”
This document provides a comprehensive examination of microchipping. It is written in an easy-to-read question and answer format, and it is divided into five, fact-filled sections entitled: "Overview," "Health Concerns," "Adverse Microchip Reactions," "Mandatory Microchipping" and "Suggestions."
“Microchip implants are marketed as a safe and permanent form of identification that lasts the lifetime of the animal. They are also marketed as a way to reunite lost or stolen pets with their owners, to significantly reduce the number of pets in shelters, to identify and punish owners of dangerous dogs, and to prevent bad breeding practices and cruelty to animals.
Reasons used to promote and sell implantable microchips may sound appealing. However, before being enticed by carefully crafted advertising that is being used not only to convince people to have their animals microchipped, but also to implement mandatory animal chipping legislation, it is important to examine the facts.”
These sample letters are available for public use in order to increase awareness of problems associated with microchip implants and to prevent/reverse mandatory microchipping legislation. Please customize the letters according to the specific microchip policy in your region or country.
“This research demonstrates that there are serious health, privacy, ethical, religious, and environmental concerns associated with microchip implant technology. In spite of these concerns, however, corporate documents, corporate statements, SEC filings, patents, media reports, and other sources of information reveal that the objective is to implant microchips not only in animals but also in humans.
As governments, microchip companies, regulating agencies, and adverse reporting agencies are doing little, if anything, to warn or protect the public from dangers associated with microchip implants, it is imperative that the public educates itself about these devices. It is also imperative that the public takes this opportunity to break the vicious cycle of placing unbridled power in the hands of those who are untrustworthy, incompetent and unaccountable for their actions.”
“After all is said and done, the yearly vaccine protocol is derived from “historical precedence and acceptance” instead of accurate scientific facts. Yearly vaccinations can and do jeopardize the health, and ultimately the life, of the animal. And, more than over-whelming scientific data is required to prove that vaccines are causing a wide variety of devastating illnesses, yet accurate scientific data is not even required to substantiate annual vaccinations!”
“After waiting for more than
four months, no progress has been made with Léon’s
Frankly, I am not interested in anyone passing the buck and using the excuse
of not advancing with Léon’s case because of the alleged division
between Merial Canada and Merial France. I am also not interested in hearing
about Merial’s “bureaucratic red tape” as a reason for not
advancing with Léon’s case. Let’s make progress NOW, not
years down the road when other unsuspecting pet owners find themselves in the
same situation that I have found myself in with Léon.”
“Léon’s particular case forces us to ask other important questions. For example, why was it such a challenge to find a laboratory to do additional testing of his tissue samples? Why was it such a struggle to report his adverse reaction? And, if it was this difficult to document Léon’s case, how many events -- events which will remain forever unknown -- like his exist?”
“In April 2004, a lump developed at the site of Léon’s microchip. The biopsy report says, “Diagnosis: Fibrosarcoma.” The pathology report confirms that it is a “High-Grade Fibrosarcoma.” This report also says, ‘the tumor…is histologically identical to postvaccinal sarcomas in cats.’”
Last Updated: November 2016