Home
  Introduction
  Léon's Letters
  Layman's Literature
-Microchips
-Vaccines
-Other
  Advanced Literature
-Microchips
-Vaccines
-Other
  Reporting Adverse Reactions
  Gallery
-Photos of Léon
-Graphic Designs
  Acknowledgments
  Terms and Conditions
Leon's letters



Microchipping Lies, Legislation and Lawsuits

References Section

The creators of this website are not responsible for any information contained in other documents, publications or websites. Please research all material thoroughly and draw your own conclusions.

Also, as documents may become difficult to find, it is advisable to save a copy of the documents that you are interested in.



Important information about animal and human microchipping

(1)“Advanced Literature: Microchips,” Noble-Leon.com -- www.noble-leon.com

Published scientific studies prove that microchip implants can cause cancer, spinal cord injuries and death from the microchip implant procedure. Microchips can stop working, move from the original site of implantation, and impede MRI diagnostics. Furthermore, scanners (including “universal” scanners) cannot detect or read all microchips.

(2)“The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Radio Show,” 16 December 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com (Radio)

Dr. Katherine Albrecht interviews Jeanne, co-founder of www.noble-leon.com and caregiver of the French Bulldog named Léon, whose published scientific document was instrumental in publicly exposing the microchip-cancer risk.

Katherine and Jeanne discuss health risks associated with microchipping, migration of microchips, failure of microchips and scanning devices, microchips entering the animal and human food chain, the lack of reporting of adverse microchip reactions, the new release of the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” and much more.


(3)“Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers,” Noble-Leon.com, May 2012 -- www.noble-leon.com

“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.’”

(4)“Are Pet Owners Being Misled Regarding the Safety and Reliability of Microchip Implants?” Noble-Leon.com, April 2011 -- www.noble-leon.com

“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.”


(5)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

“[T]his 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.

Microchip implant technology is not about the safety and well-being of humans and animals. Microchip implant technology is about making money and controlling people. Clearly, the grave problems posed by this invasive and potentially lethal technology cannot be ignored. The microchip menace must be faced head on and it must be faced now.”


(6)“Fibrosarcoma with Typical Features of Postinjection Sarcoma at Site of Microchip Implant in a Dog: Histologic and Immunohistochemical Study” by Vascellari M, Melchiotti E and Mutinelli F. Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Histopathology Department, Viale dell'Universita 10, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy. Veterinary Pathology. July 2006; 43(4): 545-548 -- www.vet.sagepub.com

“A 9-year-old, male French Bulldog was examined for a subcutaneous mass located at the site of a microchip implant. Cytologic examination of the mass was suggestive of a malignant mesenchymal neoplasm. Histologically, the mass was confirmed as a high-grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma, with multifocal necrosis and peripheral lymphoid aggregates. …

Furthermore, neoplastic growth at the site of microchip implant in dog and laboratory rodents has been described.” (Abstract: Page 545.)


(7)“Gallery - Photos of Léon,” Noble-Leon.com -- www.noble-leon.com

Photos of Léon, the French Bulldog who has been the inspiration for the creation of the website www.noble-leon.com.

(8)“Uncovering The Truth,” 03 December 2007 -- www.noble-leon.com (Radio: Hour 1)

Dr. Katherine Albrecht interviews Jeanne, co-founder of www.noble-leon.com and caregiver of the French Bulldog named Léon, whose published scientific document was instrumental in publicly exposing the microchip-cancer risk.

In the first hour of “Uncovering The Truth,” Katherine and Jeanne discuss the microchip-cancer risk, reasons that microchips can cause cancer, the challenge of reporting Léon’s adverse reaction, the importance of reporting adverse reactions, the publication of Léon's scientific document “Fibrosarcoma with Typical Features of Postinjection Sarcoma at Site of Microchip Implant in a Dog: Histologic and Immunohistochemical Study,” and much more.


(9)“Uncovering The Truth,” 03 December 2007 -- www.noble-leon.com (Radio: Hour 2)

Dr. Katherine Albrecht interviews Jeanne, co-founder of www.noble-leon.com and caregiver of the French Bulldog named Léon, whose published scientific document was instrumental in publicly exposing the microchip-cancer risk.

In the second hour of “Uncovering The Truth,” Katherine and Jeanne discuss a variety of health risks, environmental concerns and other serious problems caused by microchipping.


(10)“Microchipping Lies, Legislation and Lawsuits - References Section,” Noble-Leon.com, February 2017 -- www.noble-leon.com

The “References Section” for the document “Microchipping Lies, Legislation and Lawsuits” provides a detailed and extensive list of information about microchip implant technology.

(11)“Layman’s Literature: Microchips,” Noble-Leon.com -- www.noble-leon.com

The “Layman’s Literature: Microchips” section of www.noble-leon.com provides an extensive list of articles, radio interviews and videos regarding animal and human microchipping.

(12)“Microchips: Sample Letters with Cover Pages,” July 2010, Noble-Leon.com -- www.noble-leon.com

“[S]ample 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.”

Microchip implants are advertised as safe, reliable, permanent identification that cannot be removed or lost. Advertisements also claim the chip lasts the lifetime of an animal and has a unique identification number that cannot be duplicated or become impossible to read

(13)24PetWatch: “Why Microchip Your Pet?” -- www.24petwatch.com

“Microchipping offers pet owners the security and peace of mind that comes from the only permanent pet identification technology and a safe and secure way to reunite you and your pet, via our Lost Pet Recovery Service.”

(14)24PetWatch: “Lost Pet Recovery FAQs” -- www.24petwatch.com

“Q. Is there a scanner that reads all microchips?

A. Yes. The 24PetWatch (Allflex) reader is an example of a universal reader designed to scan and detect both ISO compliant and non-ISO compliant microchips.”


(15)AKC: “Be Prepared: Microchip Technology” by Dr. Carmen Battaglia, American Kennel Club, 27 April 2015 -- www.akc.org

“This technology can be used in any kind of animal at any age and it will last for their life. The microchip is an effective form of permanent identification. It is slightly larger than a grain of rice and is placed just under the skin by a veterinarian. It is unique because it has an anti-migration cap that helps prevent movement within the pet's body. Each chip is encoded with a unique and unalterable identification code that can only be activated when read by a scanner. For these reasons, the AKC recommends the HomeAgain® microchip, which is marketed by the Schering-Plough Animal Health Corporation. …

We know from experience that microchipped pets have the best chance of recovery because the microchip is a permanent form of identification, which is easily scanned.”


(16)AKC Reunite: “What is a Microchip?” -- www.akcreunite.org

“A microchip is about the size of a grain of rice and is encoded with a unique ID number that will be assigned to your pet. No two microchips have the same ID number.”

(17)AKC Reunite: “All About The Importance Of Microchipping Your Pet” -- www.akcreunite.org

“[A] microchip permanently identifies your pet to help your pet get back to you if it’s lost or stolen.”

(18)AKC Reunite: “Products You Can Trust” -- www.akcreunite.org

“Our stringent, ISO compliant, quality control manufacturing process ensures that AKC Reunite microchip ID numbers are unique and will not be duplicated.”

(19)AKC Reunite: “The ProScan 700 Universal Scanner” -- www.akcreunite.org

“The ProScan 700 is an essential tool for shelters and veterinary offices with a large read range to read all brands of microchips. Choose the ProScan 700 for the ultimate in microchip ID detection.”

(20)AVID: “Microchipping 101” -- www.avidid.com

“The AVID® Microchip is an implantable medical device that safely and permanently identifies your pet. …

The microchip is encapsulated in bioglass to prevent tissue irritation and microchip migration. The microchip is not a GPS, does not use batteries and becomes energized by a microchip scanner. The microchip is permanent and will last the life of the pet. Each microchip has a unique identification number encoded into its integrated circuit. …

The microchip provides a safe, permanent form of identification. It’s like getting a vaccination against being lost!”


(21)AVID: “AVID FriendChip” -- www.avidid.com

“Microchipping your pet is the most safe and effective solution to permanently identify your pet. …

• The AVID FriendChip provides safe, lifetime identification for companion animals.
• The AVID FriendChip has a 9 digit number that clearly tells the finder it's an 'AVID' MicroChip.
• The AVID FriendChip provides unique identification that cannot be duplicated or altered.”


(22)Datamars: “Standard Microchip T-IS” -- www.datamars.com

“How Does Microchipping Work? …

Microchipping is the only unique, unalterable, tamper-proof, permanent form of identification that owners can provide for pets. … A microchip that is registered gives your pet a silent voice, and gives owners peace of mind that your beloved pet will find its way home. …

It can’t be removed or fall off. Giving a pet an electronic ID is like giving them their own passport.”


(23)Datamars: “FAQ - Animal ID” -- www.datamars.com

“Companion animal microchips are passive – they have no power supply, battery or moving parts. The microchip contains nothing that will burn, irritate or otherwise harm a pet. Microchips are completely biocompatible. As animal professionals, we would never suggest a treatment or course of action that would potentially harm an animal.  Microchips are proven to be safe and effective. …

A microchip cannot be removed, falsified or otherwise altered. A microchip registry also keeps your personal information safe and secure; your name, address and phone number are password-protected online.”


(24)Home Again: “FAQ” -- www.public.homeagin.com

“[T]he process has been proven to be very safe. The microchip is made out of an inert, biocompatible substance, which means it won't cause an allergic reaction or degenerate over time. In addition, HomeAgain® is the only microchip on the market today that has the Bio-Bond™ patented anti-migration feature to help ensure that the microchip stays in place. Extensive testing and long-term use have shown the HomeAgain microchip is a safe and permanent method of identification for pets. …

A microchip is the only form of pet identification that is permanent, with a unique number that cannot be altered or removed. …

The microchip will last your pet's lifetime. …

The HomeAgain WorldScan™ scanner reads all known microchips that are currently sold in the U.S., including the 125 kHz (non-encrypted), 125 kHz (encrypted) 128 kHz, and 134.2 kHz radio frequencies.”


(25)Home Again: “What Is A Microchip” -- www.homeagain.com

“A HomeAgain microchip is a permanent pet ID. The microchip itself has no internal energy source, so it will last the life of your pet.”

(26)Home Again: “Get The Facts On Microchipping” -- www.homeagain.com

“FACT: All pets should wear collar tags imprinted with their name and the phone number of their owner, but only a microchip provides permanent ID that cannot fall off, be removed, or become impossible to read. …

FACT: Microchips carry only a unique identification number.

If your pet gets lost and is taken to a vet clinic or animal shelter, your pet will be scanned for a microchip to reveal his unique ID number.”


(27)Identipet: “Frequently Asked Questions” -- www.identipet.com

“Tell me about this [microchip] number.

It is totally unique and from a series of 34 billion unique numbers. It is never duplicated, altered or erased. Its uniqueness will stand up in a court of law. Identipet supplies the companion animal world in South Africa with 10 digit (alpha-numeric) microchips and 15 digit microchips. …

Can the microchip migrate?
Identipet microchips do not migrate.  They are the ONLY microchips with the patented BioBond™ technology of an anti-migration cap. This sets us aside for all other microchips that cannot claim this essential feature.”


(28)Microchip ID Systems, Equine Division: “Equine Training & Breeding” -- www.microchipequine.com

“The EquineChip™ is a unique number for a unique stallion, mare or foal.  No duplications, no mistakes – the EquineChip can be relied upon for proof of pedigree and ownership.  It is the one permanent unique identifier, combined with or without DNA, that serves many purposes for the life of the horse.”

(29)Microchip ID Systems, Equine Division: “The EquineChip™: One Chip | One Horse” -- www.microchipequine.com

“Eliminate mistakes by using this accurate, dependable and permanent method of ID. …

A microchip is permanent, inexpensive, unique identification that can’t be lost or removed from an animal.”


(30)Microchip ID Systems, Equine Division: “Keeping Horses Safe” -- www.microchipequine.com

“The chip number is unique - no other animal has that number. … Microchipping is an inexpensive way to insure that there will be no dispute over ownership of the horse.”

(31)Microchip ID Systems, Equine Division: “Equine Rescue” -- www.microchipequine.com

“The tiny chip is the perfect tool to monitor the horse and to send him along his way with permanent identification – second to none!”

(32)Microchip ID Systems, Equine Division: “Frequently Asked Questions” -- www.microchipequine.com

“The chip is invisible. How can it benefit my horse?

Microchips provide the most reliable (and cost effective!) form of instant permanent ID.  Rather than being on the outside of the horse, where ID can be removed or altered, the chip is safe and secure in the nuchal ligament.  If your horse also has a brand, the chip and the brand can work together for double protection.

The EquineChip™ is always there; able to be checked and verified immediately by a nationwide network of scanners in place at vet offices, rescues, brand inspectors and regulators.  When the chip number is recorded on documents, it immediately confirms… with the pass of a scanner… that the horse on the paperwork is the correct animal.  Microchip numbers can be used as proof-positive when transporting, buying, selling, breeding, competing, insuring, and protecting from disease.”


(33)Microchip ID Systems, Equine Division: “The EquineChip™: Mini or Standard” -- www.microchipequine.com

“All EquineChips are universal and can be read by all universal scanners. All EquineChips are ISO Approved.”

(34)Microchip ID Systems, Equine Division: “Microchip Scanners” -- www.microchipequine.com

“Both scanners are universal and will read all microchips.”

(35)Microchip ID Systems, Equine Division -- www.microchipequine.com

“Identification for Life”

(36)PetLink: “PetLink FAQ’s. Find Answers To Your Questions Here” -- www.petlink.net

“Why should I microchip and register my pet with PetLink?

Microchipping allows you to provide your pet with a lifetime ID number. An ISO-compliant microchip contains a unique and unalterable identification number that is recognized in most countries around the world.

Microchipping is a reliable, permanent, one time service that helps give you peace of mind for your pet's lifetime, but it is nearly useless if the microchipped pet is not registered in a database such as PetLink. The microchip only contains an identification number; without accurate registration associated with the microchip number, a lost, microchipped animal that is scanned might not be returned to its owner.”


(37)Ibid.

“Will the microchip wear out and need to be replaced?

The microchip does not have an internal battery or power source. In fact, it's completely passive. When a microchip reader is passed over it, the microchip receives enough power from the reader to transmit the pet's ID number. Since there is no battery and there are no moving parts, there's nothing to wear out or replace. The microchip will last throughout your pet's lifetime.”


(38)Virbac, BackHome: “The Importance of Microchipping with Virbac” -- www.virbac.co.uk

“Microchipping provides a swift, safe and permanent means of accurate identification, allowing an animal to be re-homed if it strays or is lost or stolen.”

(39)Virbac, BackHome: “The Smart Way to Microchip Your Pet” -- www.virbac.co.uk

• “It's a reliable, versatile system suitable for many species

• Just one application/implant for a lifetime of protection

• It's a clean and sterile method with no harmful side effects
”


(40)Virbac, BackHome: “Why Microchip?” -- www.virbac.co.uk

“It provides permanent identification for your pet and gives them the best chance of being reunited with you should they happen to go missing.”

(41)Virbac, BackHome: “How It Works?” -- www.virbac.co.uk

“The microchip carries a code unique to your pet. …

Once fitted, any vet, animal warden or police station in the UK or across Europe will be able to read the microchip number with a quick scan.”


(42)Virbac, BackHome: “BackHome FAQ’s” -- www.virbac.co.uk

“The chip will last the lifetime of your pet. So once it’s done, that’s it for life! …

It’s very quick and completely harmless to your pet.”


(43)“Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Microchips: Tout Sur Les Implants Electroniques” by Walter Ingwersen, CVMA Microchip Advisory Committee, The Canadian Veterinary Journal, November 1996; 37(11): 667-671 -- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

“As there is no need for an internal battery, they [microchip implants] enjoy an exceptionally long lifespan, which far exceeds that of the animal in which they are implanted. …

As they are manufactured with biologically inert materials that have been sterilized and individually packaged, they do not cause any local short-or long-term discomfort. In essence, they are extremely safe.” (Page 670.)


Published scientific data, veterinary literature and official documents prove that misleading, false and unsubstantiated claims by the microchip industry endanger the lives of microchipped animals

(44)“Advanced Literature: Microchips,” Noble-Leon.com -- www.noble-leon.com

Published scientific studies prove that microchip implants can cause cancer, spinal cord injuries and death from the microchip implant procedure. Microchips can stop working, move from the original site of implantation, and impede MRI diagnostics. Furthermore, scanners (including “universal” scanners) cannot detect or read all microchips.

(45)“Layman’s Literature: Microchips,” Noble-Leon.com -- www.noble-leon.com

The “Layman’s Literature: Microchips” section of www.noble-leon.com provides an extensive list of articles, radio interviews and videos regarding animal and human microchipping.

(46)“Microchipping Lies, Legislation and Lawsuits - References Section,” Noble-Leon.com, February 2017 -- www.noble-leon.com

The “References Section” for the document “Microchipping Lies, Legislation and Lawsuits” provides a detailed and extensive list of information regarding microchip implant technology.

(47)“Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers - References Section,” Noble-Leon.com, December 2012 -- www.noble-leon.com

The “References Section” for the document “Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers” provides an extensive list of resources regarding animal and human microchipping.

(48)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare? - References Section” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

The “References Section” for the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” provides an extensive list of data regarding animal and human microchipping.

Health risks

(49)“Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Implantable Radiofrequency Transponder System for Patient Identification and Health Information,” United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 10 December 2004 -- www.fda.gov

The United States Food and Drug Administration “has identified the risks to health generally associated with the use of the Implantable Radiofrequency Transponder System [microchip implant system] for Patient Identification and Health Information… .”

Identified risks are: “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.” (Page 3.)

NOTE: The FDA recommends (but does not mandate) measures to mitigate the aforementioned health risks. It says:

“FDA's guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in Agency guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.” (Page 2.)


(50)“Advanced Literature: Microchips,” Noble-Leon.com -- www.noble-leon.com

Published scientific studies prove that microchip implants can cause cancer, spinal cord injuries and death from the microchip implant procedure. Microchips can stop working, move from the original site of implantation, and impede MRI diagnostics. Furthermore, scanners (including “universal” scanners) cannot detect or read all microchips.

(51)“Microchip-Associated Fibrosarcoma in a Cat,” Carminato A, Vascellari M, Marchioro W, Melchiotti E, Mutinelli F. Veterinary Dermatology. December 2011; 22(6): 565-569 -- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

“A 9-year-old, neutered male cat was presented for a subcutaneous mass on the neck. After surgical removal of the mass, a pet identification microchip was found within the tumour. Histological examination of the mass revealed typical features of the feline postinjection sarcoma. The cat had never received injections at the tumour site; all routine vaccinations were administered in the hindlimbs.” (Abstract: Page 565.)

“[V]eterinarians should be aware that tumours can develop at microchip sites, and owners should be educated to monitor these sites for long periods of time, in order to promote early detection as well as better definition of the incidence of tumours.” (Page 567.)


(52)“Subcutaneous Microchip-Associated Tumours in B6C3F1 Mice: A Retrospective Study to Attempt to Determine Their Histogenesis” by Le Calvez S, Perron-Lepage MF, Burnett R. Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology. March 2006; 57(4): 255-265 -- www.antichips.com

“One of the most potentially serious disadvantages of the microchip implantation is the possibility that foreign-body-induced tumours may develop in long-term rodent studies. Such tumours have been described in one recent article in F344 rats (Elcock et al., 2001) and in publications in various laboratory mouse strains (Blanchard et al., 1999; Johnson, 1996; Palmer et al., 1998; Tillmann et al., 1997). The tumours were all diagnosed as malignant and mesenchymal in origin. In F344 rats, they were noted in order of frequency as malignant schwannoma, fibrosarcoma, anaplastic sarcoma and histiocytic sarcoma confirmed by immunochemistry (Elcock et al., 2001). In mice (strain not identified), these sarcomas were described as typical foreign-body-induced sarcomas, generally fibrosarcomas (Johnson, 1996), or in CBA/J mice (Tillmann et al., 1997) as fibrosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma and in B6C3FI mice (Palmer et al., 1998) as fibrosarcoma, and in heterozygous p53+/- transgenic mice (Blanchard et al., 1999) as undifferentiated sarcomas.” (Page 256.)

“In all three carcinogenesis studies, the overall occurrence of the microchip-associated tumours was 4.1 % with 52 animals bearing a microchip-associated tumour out of 1260. Some differences were noted from one study to another; 34/550 (6.2%), 4/110 (3.6%) and 14/600 (2.3%) (Table 1). As these were only sampled and examined histologically when gross abnormalites were noted, it is possible that early reaction could have been missed. These incidences may therefore slightly underestimate the true occurrence. …

Most of the animals (33/52 = 65.4%) with microchip-associated tumours died prematurely; 28/33 mice were sacrificed for ethical reasons due to the size of the masses, and in 5/33 cases the deaths were spontaneous and attributed to the masses.” (Page 258.)

“Microscopic metastases were detected in four mice; two had metastases in the lungs only; one in the lungs and liver and another in the wall of the stomach and in the pancreas.” (Page 261.)


(53)“Foreign-Body Tumorigenesis: Sarcomas Induced in Mice by Subcutaneously Implanted Transponders” by Keith A. Johnson. Veterinary Pathology. 1996; 33:5 -- www.antichips.com

“Mice used for oncogenicity studies developed subcutaneous sarcomas that incorporated an implanted glass encapsulated microchip used for individual animal identification. … These tumors appeared typical of foreign-body induced sarcomas (reviewed by Brand et al., CRC Crit. Rev. Toxicol., 4:353-394: 1976). These investigators found that both the surface area of the foreign body and a quiescent reaction to be essential to the development of foreign-body sarcomas. … Investigators using similar types of implanted devices need be aware of foreign-body tumorigenesis when evaluating the results of longterm studies using mice.” (Page 619)

(54)“Chip Implants Linked To Animal Tumors,” by Todd Lewan, The Associated Press, 08 September 2007 -- www.washingtonpost.com

“When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients' medical records almost instantly. The FDA found ‘reasonable assurance’ the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005's top ‘innovative technologies.’

But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had ‘induced’ malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.

‘The transponders were the cause of the tumors,’ said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich. [www.antichips.com] …

Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous ‘sarcomas’ _ malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants. …

Still, after reviewing the research, specialists at some pre-eminent cancer institutions said the findings raised red flags.

‘There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members,’ said Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. …

Dr. George Demetri, director of the Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, agreed. Even though the tumor incidences were ‘reasonably small,’ in his view, the research underscored ‘certainly real risks’ in RFID implants.

In humans, sarcomas, which strike connective tissues, can range from the highly curable to ‘tumors that are incredibly aggressive and can kill people in three to six months,’ he said.

At the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, a leader in mouse genetics research and the initiation of cancer, Dr. Oded Foreman, a forensic pathologist, also reviewed the studies at the AP's request.

At first he was skeptical, suggesting that chemicals administered in some of the studies could have caused the cancers and skewed the results. But he took a different view after seeing that control mice, which received no chemicals, also developed the cancers. ‘That might be a little hint that something real is happening here,’ he said. …

Meanwhile, the animal study findings should be disclosed to anyone considering a chip implant, the cancer specialists agreed.

To date, however, that hasn't happened.”


(55)“Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990–2006” by Katherine Albrecht, Ed.D, 19 November 2007 -- www.antichips.com

“This paper reviews literature published in oncology and toxicology journals between 1990 and 2006 addressing the effects of implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchips on laboratory rodents and dogs.”

(56)“Uncovering The Truth,” 03 December 2007 -- www.noble-leon.com (Radio: Hour 1) and www.noble-leon.com (Radio: Hour 2)

Dr. Katherine Albrecht interviews Jeanne, co-creator of www.noble-leon.com and caregiver of the French Bulldog named Léon, whose published scientific document was instrumental in publicly exposing the microchip-cancer risk.

(57)“The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Radio Show,” 04 March 2010 -- www.noble-leon.com (Radio)

Dr. Katherine Albrecht interviews Howard Gillis and Linda Hawkins regarding the cancerous growths that developed around the microchips that were implanted in their dogs, Seamus and Scotty.

(58)“The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Radio Show,” 14 October 2010 -- www.noble-leon.com (Radio)

Dr. Katherine Albrecht interviews Steven M. Wise, the lawyer representing Andrea Rutherford in a lawsuit filed against Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. and Digital Angel Inc., regarding the case of Bulkin, a cat who developed cancer at the site of his microchip implant.


(59)Microchip-Cancer Lawsuit, Docket No.: 1052CV1147, Andrea Rutherford vs. Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Digital Angel, Inc., Trial Court of Massachusetts, 01 October 2010 -- www.noble-leon.com

The lawsuit filed against Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Digital Angel, Inc., regarding a fibrosarcoma (cancer) that developed at the site of a “Home Again” microchip implanted in a cat named Bulkin says:

“5. On February 2, 2005, Dr. Paul Constantino of the South Bay Veterinary Group implanted a ‘Home Again’ chip in Bulkin’s body, which Rutherford purchased. …

6. At no time did Dr. Constantino, Schering-Plough, Digital Angel, or anyone else advise Rutherford that the ‘Home Again’ chip could cause cancer in Bulkin or had ever caused in any living organism.

7. Had Rutherford known that the ‘Home Again’ chip could possibly cause cancer in Bulkin, she would not have purchased it and would not have had it implanted in Bulkin.

8. Bulkin developed a lump in the area of the implanted chip.

9. On October 17, 2007, a veterinarian at the South Bay Veterinary Group excised the lump and sent it for analysis to Antec Diagnostics, Lake Success, New York.

10. On October 18, 2007, Antec Diagnostics determined that the lump was a fibrosarcoma of moderate malignancy, and located the implanted microchip in the center of the excised tissue. …

12. On November 7, 2007, Dr. Michelle Silver, of the New England Veterinary Oncology Group, assessed Bulkin as having suffered a fibrosarcoma ‘likely from microchip’ and recommended both chemotherapy and radiation to treat Bulkin’s cancer.”


(60)“Implanting Doubt” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, June 2010 -- www.dogsmonthly.co.uk

“It took vets years to work out that vaccines could cause vaccine-site cancer in cats, and even now many vets are unaware of the research which shows vaccine-site cancer in dogs. Vaccines and chips tend to be given in the same place on the shoulder/neck; this means that should microchips be shown to cause unacceptable levels of cancer, those who stand to make money out of chips could say ‘not my problem – it’s the vaccine,’” says Catherine O’Driscoll of Canine Health Concern. (Page 14.)

(61)“Spinal Cord Injury Resulting from Incorrect Microchip Placement in a Cat” by Platt S, Wieczorek L, Dennis R, De Stefani A. Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery. April 2007; 9(2): 157-160 -- www.sciencedirect.com

“A 2-year-old, male neutered domestic shorthair cat was presented for investigation of an acute onset of tetraparesis immediately following the implantation of a pet identification microchip. A left-sided C6–T2 spinal segment localisation was suspected from the neurological examination, with spinal cord trauma being the primary differential diagnosis. Myelography demonstrated obliteration of the contrast columns by the microchip at the C5–C6 intervertebral disc space. A dorsal laminectomy was undertaken and the microchip was successfully removed. Eleven months after the surgery, the cat was able to weight bear in all limbs but with mild residual paresis in the left thoracic limb.” (Abstract: Page 157.)

(62)“Delayed Spinal Cord Injury Following Microchip Placement in a Dog” by Joslyn SK, Witte PG, Scott HW. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 2010; 23(3): 214-217 -- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

“A three-year-old female, entire Yorkshire Terrier dog was examined because it had progressive non-weight-bearing left forelimb lameness and tetraparesis of two weeks duration. Clinical signs were first observed following mating. Examination confirmed non-weight-bearing left forelimb lameness and tetraparesis. Left forelimb muscle atrophy was also noticed. Survey radiography revealed a metallic foreign body consistent with a microchip in close proximity to the left articular facets between the fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae. Computed tomography identified the exact location of the foreign body encroaching on the left dorsolateral vertebral canal, and osteolysis of the lamina of the sixth cervical vertebra. Surgical removal of the foreign body was performed via a dorsal approach to the caudal cervical vertebral column. Two weeks following surgery the dog showed return of left forelimb function and resolving tetraparesis. Microchip implantation had been performed three years previously.” (Abstract: Page 214.)

(63)“Six-Week-Old Rescue Kitten Left PARALYZED 'After L.A. Vet Implanted Microchip Into Its Spinal Cord' Will Undergo Life-Threatening Recovery Surgery” by Alexandra Klausner, Daily Mail Online, 28 October 2014 -- www.dailymail.co.uk

“A rescue kitten will undergo a life-threatening recovery surgery today after it underwent a routine microchip surgery last week that left him paralyzed.

Muffin, who was just six-weeks-old when Loren Slama rescued him, was taken to Downey Animal Shelter after being found wandering the streets of Los Angeles last week.

After taking Muffin home from the shelter for routine medical microchip implantation, Slama made the horrifying realization that something went very wrong. …

Slama said that as soon as she took Muffin home, his adorable little face started to dangle then crash towards the floor all together. She decided to get to the bottom of what was ailing her new pet after leaving the vet.

An X-ray showed that a microchip that doctors implanted as part of the routine process had gotten lodged into the kitten's spine, reports CBS. 

Now the six-week-old Muffin has to drag its entire left side when it moves.

‘I noticed after 30 minutes his head started to dangle and it started to kind of crash. On the X-ray it was clearly demonstrated that the microchip was inserted all the way into the spine. That’s why he was paralyzed,’ Slama said.

‘I was in a total state of shock,’ Slama added.

Muffin has a surgery scheduled for Today [sic] at the Angels Veterinary Specialty Center where a neurologist will attempt to remove the chip.

The surgery is very risky and Muffin might die during or shortly after but Slama has no choice if she wants Muffin to have a chance at surviving free of pain.

Slama asked Downey Animal Control to pay for the surgery since it was their doctor who implanted a microchip but they declined.

‘It’s a highly risky procedure. He might die during the surgery and even a few days after the surgery.

However, we need to do the surgery because the longer the microchip stays into the spine the more damage it can cause,’ Slama said.

The Los Angeles Department of Animal Control and Care released a statement about their reasoning for not funding the surgery.

‘This was an anomaly. We acted in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines in terms of whether the kitten should be micro chipped for its age and size.

‘We have never had an incident like this before. However, we are conducting an investigation and determining whether or not any corrections need to be made,’ they said.”

NOTE: The aforementioned article by Daily Mail Online includes Muffin’s X-Rays which show the microchip implanted in his spine, along with a video and photographs of Muffin.


(64)“‘Muffin’ Receives Surgery to Remove Paralyzing Microchip,” by Robert Holguin, ABC Inc., KABC-TV Los Angeles, 28 October 2014 -- www.abc7.com

“An orange kitten named ‘Muffin’ that became partially paralyzed after an apparent microchip implantation underwent surgery Tuesday to fix the mistake.

Muffin spent more than two hours in surgery Tuesday to remove a microchip that was lodged in its spine. And Muffin appears to be doing well. …

‘So this is actually a pretty risky surgery,’ said Clarisa Robles, the neurologist who operated on Muffin's spine. Robles says she has never seen a microchip that ends up in an animal's spine.

‘I talked to the company with the microchip and I think they said there's been about five cases in their history of this,’ said Robles.”


(65)Veterinary Report regarding a Warmblood mare, Lady Santana, who experienced nerve damage due to her microchip implant. The report is signed by Drs. E.G.A. Laarakker, Drs. C. Willekens, Drs. M. Kelfkens and Drs. F. Kokke. Den Hoek, The Netherlands, 28 June 2005 -- www.invisio.nl (Dutch vet report) and www.invisio.nl (English translation of Dutch vet report)

An English translation of the Dutch veterinary report says:

“28-6-2005 miss K. from S., owner of the horse [Lady] Santana, asked us to give her horse a medical check-up because she was shaking her head excessively, also tilting her head and lowering her head so much that her nose was practically rubbing the ground. In short: she did not know where to put her head. Miss K. already had her horse checked out in several clinics specialized in horses but no vet could find the cause of this behavior.

After medical examination it became clear that the horse could practically not bend her neck to the left. Further examination showed that she had a very painful spot and nerve damage at the exact place where the chip had been injected.

The owner told us that the problems had indeed started after the horse had been chipped. During the microchip procedure the horse reared with the chipping needle still in her neck.

All together we came to the conclusion that the chipping procedure resulted in nerve damage (again we state that the spot where the chip has been injected is the exact spot where the defect shows). The horse is now in treatment at our clinic and it seems like there is a bit of improvement in her situation.

This is not the first time that we've seen a horse with problems as a result of chipping.



All vets in our clinic share the opinion that chipping horses is anything but safe. There is too little evidence that chipping horses is safe, short-term or long-term. We argue in favor of thorough research to see what consequences exist before chipping is applied extensively.”


(66)“Schenkelbrand Ist Vertretbar,” Pferd+Sport, March 2012 -- www.diervriendelijkeidentificatie.files.wordpress.com

“[D]r. Volker Steinkraus, professor of dermatology, examines skin particles of horses. A brand does not damage the immune system. It does not cause infections. Chipping, however, perforates the skin and infections or encapsulations can develop. The researched tissue samples showed distinct muscle changes. Therefore [Swiss professor and veterinarian Urs] Schatzmann regards thigh branding a justifiable alternative to chipping. The Holsteiner Verband feels confirmed by this judgement. ‘We want to give breeders a choice between chip or brand plus DNA-analysis’, said Dr. Thomas Nissen, who supports the State’s initiative at the Bundestag.”

(67)“Compulsory Microchipping of Dogs Regulations in the UK,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), March 2016 -- www.bsava.com

“These [microchip implantation reactions] usually occur relatively soon after implantation and are commonly linked to the implantation procedure e.g. haematomas (bleeding under the skin) or infection (an abscess near the site or an infection spreading systemically, making the animal ill).”

(68)“Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme: Review From Voluntary to Compulsory Reporting April 2014 to December 2015,” Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), 07 June 2016 -- www.gov.uk

“The rabbit developed an abscess at the implant site, which became necrotic with a mucopurulent discharge.” (Page 9.)

(69)Ibid.

“Of the 21 reports associated with cats, 11 described the development of lumps, swellings or a mass. In one of these cases, the microchip was surgically removed with the mass. The cat was re-chipped 2 months later, and another mass rapidly developed. This was also removed with its associated chip. In another, the microchip was expelled through the skin, together with a mucopurulent discharge.

Two other reactions that occurred were a local infection, requiring treatment, and dermatitis that developed due to the cat scratching the implantation site.” (Page 9.)


(70)“Comparison of Noncontact Infrared Thermometry and 3 Commercial Subcutaneous Temperature Transponding Microchips with Rectal Thermometry in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta)” by Marla K. Brunell. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. July 2012; 51(4): 479-484 -- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

“As social animals, rhesus macaques should be housed in stable pairs or groups. Single housing should be the exception and justification provided based on experimental reasons, social incompatibility, or veterinary concerns for animal wellbeing. Therefore, before microchips are placed in macaques, researchers should consider that these devices may be removed or broken by cagemates.” (Pages 482-483.)

NOTE: Figure 1 on page 483 shows a radiograph and says: “Dorsal–ventral thoracic radiograph of a rhesus macaque. The left and right microchips are in the correct positions and appear to be intact. The center microchip appears to be broken, as indicated by the 2 smaller fragments.” (Page 483.)


(71)AKC Reunite: “Best Quality Microchips” -- www.akcreunite.org

“Microchips made from different plastic parts, including sheaths, that are melted together run the risk of leaking.”

(72)“Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers” Noble-Leon.com, May 2012 -- www.noble-leon.com

The document “Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers” provides a comprehensive examination of microchipping. Please see the section titled “Health Concerns” regarding health problems caused by microchipping.

(73)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

Please see the following sections in the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” for information regarding the microchip-cancer risk and other health problems caused by microchippping:

• “Warning: Microchip Implants Cause Cancer”
• “Exposed: Microchip-Cancer Risk Receives International Media Coverage”
• “FDA Approval Process of VeriChip Microchip Implant System”
• “Scott Silverman’s ‘Myths’ About Microchip Implants”
• “Microchip Companies Attempt to Dismiss Microchip-Cancer Risk”
• “FDA’s List of Potential Health Risks Associated with Microchip Implants”
• “A Closer Examination of the FDA’s List of Potential Health Risks Associated with Microchip Implants: Adverse Tissue Reaction and Migration of Implanted Microchip”
• “More Potential Health Concerns Associated with Microchip Implant System.”


(74)“It’s Official: A Rare Orca Has Been Killed By Satellite Tagging Complications” by Fiona MacDonald, 06 October 2016 -- www.sciencealert.com

“A rare male orca that died earlier this year was killed by an infection caused by satellite tagging, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has confirmed.

The 20-year-old orca, called L-95, washed up near Vancouver Island in Canada in March, just over a month after NOAA scientists had tagged it to find out more about its migration patterns.

Fragments of the tag were found in the orca's dorsal fin, causing suspicion that the device had had something to do with its death. This has prompted the NOAA to put a temporary ban on the tagging of endangered orcas.

Now the NOAA has released a report and autopsy results concluding that a fungal infection killed the animal, after entering its bloodstream through the satellite tag. An expert panel of five independent researchers reviewed and confirmed the report's findings.

The report also suggested that human error might have contributed to the death of L-95. During the tagging process, the tag allegedly fell into the water, and was only cleaned with alcohol before being inserted into the animal - according to NOAA protocol, tags need to be cleaned with both bleach and alcohol.

The tag was also attached near blood vessels at the base of the fin, which could have allowed the fungal infection to enter the orca's bloodstream more rapidly. …

The tag is made of a small satellite-linked transmitter, roughly the size of a 9-volt battery, that's applied to the dorsal fins with two 6-cm-long titanium darts.

The darts are designed to detach over time, leaving nothing behind in the whale - but the researchers have had to redesign the tags in the past due to complaints that orcas were being found with traces of darts still in them.

‘Go back to the drawing board. Apply it less invasively,’ Kenneth Balcomb, senior scientist with the Centre for Whale Research in Washington, told Phuong Le at Phys.org after L-95's body was found.

Balcomb has been particularly outspoken on tagging, publicly calling the practice ‘overly barbaric’. 

‘It's injuring the animals, and they're leaving pieces of hardware stuck in them that festers and causes tissue damage,’ he told Le.

Orcas aren't the only species who might suffer from satellite tagging.

A study back in 2011 found that king penguins in Antarctica that wore tracking bands had a 16 percent lower survival rate and 39 percent fewer chicks over a 10-year period. But there hasn't been much research done into the long-term effects on species such as sharks and whales. …

Brad Hanson, who leads the orca tagging program for the NOAA, is concerned about the animals' wellbeing, but believes that the tags provide such valuable conservation information, they're still worth using. …

However, Balcomb, along with other scientists, argue that the NOAA already has enough data to improve conservation efforts in the US, and doesn't need anymore information from tagging.”


(75)“NOAA: Satellite Tag Infection Killed Orca” by Alison Morrow, King 5, 05 October 2016 -- www.king5.com

“A male orca died due to an infection caused by satellite tagging, NOAA announced Wednesday.

L-95 was found dead about a month after NOAA scientists tagged the Southern Resident orca in February. Pieces of the hardware were found in the orca's tissue. A necropsy, recently finalized, revealed that the injury caused a lethal infection leading to the whale's death. …

‘The NOAA/NMFS tagging program is certainly injuring and disfiguring these Endangered icons of the Pacific Northwest, and it is my subjective opinion that it is adversely altering their behavior toward benign vessel interactions to approach them for photo-identification,’ wrote Center for Whale Research Senior Scientist Ken Balcomb soon after L-95 was found dead. ‘I discussed these shortcomings with Dr.’s Mike Ford and Brad Hanson several years ago and was told the sat tagging program would proceed in spite of my concerns; and, I was instructed to simply document tag healing and report any issues to them, which I have done. I do not know if these problems have been reported up the chain of command to the NOAA/NMFS Permit Office, but the feedback I have been receiving is that the hardware issues of yesteryear have been “fixed”.’

Balcomb said for the last two years he has been talking with government officials about barbs remaining in orcas after tags have fallen off. He said he has seen infected flesh around the barbs on orcas and calls the practice ‘barbaric.’

Balcomb also raised concerns about the purpose of tagging the animals. He said the research of where the orcas are traveling isn't needed because it has been documented for years. Balcomb said resources need to be reallocated to provide more food for the animals, such as removing damns [sic] and culverts.

‘I was showing the researchers and the permit office the photographs of hardware left in whales, the infections that festered, the injuries that were not minor, the potential invasive agents that could get in there through a wound. It was like, this is unthinkable really. You wouldn’t do this to your kids,’ Balcomb said Wednesday. ‘It doesn’t make any sense to me to be stuck on more and more study, research, and statistical mumbo-jumbo when we know that they’re predators, they need food and we know what food they need. All we need to do is provide it.’

NOAA stopped tagging orcas after L-95's carcass washed ashore. They will not continue with the research in the near future.”


Death due to the microchip implant procedure

(76)“Microchip Insertion in Alpacas” by van der Burgt G, Dowle M. Veterinary Record. 2007; 160(6): 204 -- www.veterinaryrecord.bmj.com

“The alpaca collapsed and died within 5 min of insertion of the microchip. Postmortem examination showed that the microchip was located in the spinal cord between C2 and C3 vertebrae.” (Abstract: Page 204.)

(77)“Dog Bleeds to Death After 'Routine' Microchip Implant Procedure,” 03 February 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

“‘I wasn't in favor of getting Charlie chipped, but it was the law,’ said Lori Ginsberg, citing a Los Angeles county ordinance that requires all dog owners to chip their dogs once they reach four months of age. Dog owners who refuse to comply face a $250 fine for the first offense and up to six months in jail for continued non-compliance. ‘This technology is supposedly so great until it's your animal that dies,’ she said. ‘I can't believe Charlie is gone. I'm just beside myself.’

Dr. Reid Loken, the board certified veterinarian who performed the chipping, confirmed on Friday that Charlie died from blood loss associated with the microchip. He cited ‘an extreme amount of bleeding’ from the ‘little hole in the skin where the [microchip implant] needle went in’ as the cause of death. He said he was both saddened and puzzled by Charlie's death.

‘I just don't know what happened to him. We put the chip in the back in the shoulder blades, the standard place where we put them, and there really aren't any major blood vessels in that area,’ he said. ‘I don't think it went in too deep; it was a pretty routine chipping.’

Dr. Loken suspected the needle may have nicked the muscle around the scapula, causing blood to ooze from the muscle. However, his efforts to stem the bleeding with pressure bandages were unsuccessful. The bleeding could not be attributed to a congenital clotting problem, he said, since Charlie had undergone a neutering and tooth extraction without incident just weeks before. …

‘Tragedies like what happened to Charlie Brown are probably more common than we like to think,’ said [Katherine] Albrecht. ‘But it takes courageous people like the Ginsbergs to come forward and talk about it.’”


(78)“The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Radio Show,” 03 February 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com (Radio: Hour 1) and www.noble-leon.com (Radio: Hour 2)

Dr. Katherine Albrecht interviews Lori Ginsberg regarding the tragic loss of Charlie Brown, a purebred, long-haired Chihuahua who bled to death because of the microchip implant procedure.

(79)“Microchip Report 2004,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA); Fred Nind, Chariman MAG (Microchip Advisory Group) -- www.noble-leon.com

“The most disastrous report received during 2004 concerned an attempt to implant a struggling kitten resulting in sudden death. During the post mortem examination the microchip was found in the brainstem.”

(80)“Chip ’n’ Spin?” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, July 2010 -- www.dogsmonthly.co.uk

“Conflicting adverse reaction report

We were interested to read the June 2010 chipping feature in Dogs Monthly and wondered if the ‘struggling kitten’ case mentioned was, in fact, referring to our kitten, who died in similar circumstances.

Our kitten’s name was Neo. In October 2003 we adopted two eight-week-old kittens from the RSPCA Hyson Green branch in Nottingham; one of the conditions of adoption was neutering and chipping. As the kittens were too young at the time we had to take them back to the RSPCA to be chipped [at 12 weeks]. We returned to the Hyson Green branch in January 2004 where the procedure took place.

Although there was a treatment room with work surfaces and benches, the person who carried out the chipping said it was a simple procedure and proceeded to do the chipping on top of a cat enclosure that was about 1.2m high; Neo’s head would have been approximately 1.35-1.4m off the ground. It was my opinion that the implanter was over-reaching to chip Neo and was not in control of him. As she inserted the chipping needle he moved back.

Neo then started shaking. First the implanter used the chip detector to see if the chip had been inserted, then she put Neo on the floor where he went into a fit. Then he fell over with blood coming from the back of his neck.

The branch manager was called in and then took Neo off to a vet saying that Neo was in shock. We headed off to the vet’s knowing that Neo was already dead.

The vet asked if he could do a post mortem to establish the cause of death and confirmed that the chip had been inserted into Neo’s brain stem.

The circumstances are different to the adverse reaction report in that Neo was not ‘struggling’ at the time of implant – he moved back as the chip was inserted.

I wrote letters to the RSPCA but never received a satisfactory answer to why it had happened; it was called a tragic accident, we were sent a key ring and a pen with an apology letter. At no time did the RSPCA contact myself, my wife or our daughter and her friend who were present at the time to obtain the facts of what happened.

At the time I contacted many people involved with chipping and they all said they had never heard anything like it before. Chris Griffin, Nottingham

Editor’s note: It seems likely that Neo and the ‘struggling kitten’ comprise the same case, since that was the only incident of that type reported to MAG at the time.” (Page 45.)


(81)“Microchipping of Animals,” American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), 30 July 2013 -- www.avma.org

“The improper implantation of microchips can result in potentially life-threatening sequelae.”

Equipment failure

(82)“Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme: Review From Voluntary to Compulsory Reporting April 2014 to December 2015,” Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), 07 June 2016 -- www.gov.uk

“There were five reports that described equipment problems. In three of these cases, the rod of the implanter partially inserted into the cat, but it was possible to remove it easily. In the other two cases, the rod of the implanter was fully implanted; in one case the rod was removed as the cat was already under general anaesthetic for another procedure. It is not known if the rod was removed in the other case. These reports were not all linked to a particular manufacturer.” (Page 10.)

Microchipping humans

(83)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

In the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” important information about human microchipping is discussed in the sections “Tagged from Cradle to Grave” and “The Holocaust: NEVER AGAIN!”

“Note: Because the threat of mandatory human microchipping is so serious, some U.S. states have already passed laws against mandatory human microchipping. These states include Wisconsin, North Dakota, California, Missouri, and Oklahoma. (6-16) Other states, such as Pennsylvania, are working to ban mandatory human chipping. (17-18)”


(84)“Outlawing Microchipping Humans Not So Far-Fetched, Nevada Senator Says” by Sandra Chereb, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 13 February 2017 -- http://www.reviewjournal.com

“State Sen. Becky Harris said a bill to prohibit forced microchipping of people is not as far-fetched as it might seem, because it happens in some places around the world.

Senate Bill 109 would make it a Class C felony to require someone to be implanted with a radio frequency identifier, such as microchips placed in pets.

The idea for the bill came from a constituent, the Las Vegas Republican said.

‘As I began to look into the issue, I was surprised with the merit that I believe the issue warrants,’ Harris told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.

She said sales of radio frequency identifiers are escalating around the world, and a company in Australia as of June 2016 sold more than 10,000 implantable chips with do-it-yourself kits.

‘Each kit costs about $100 and includes a tag and an injection tool,’ Harris said.

The Wall Street Journal has reported an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 chips have been sold globally, she said.

Harris said the technology is used by companies in Belgium and Sweden to identify employees.

‘Itís done under the idea to unlock doors or use copy machines or maybe pay for lunch, you could use your hand,’ she said.

Besides privacy concerns, Harris said the concept raises ethical questions, such as who owns the chip or the information contained on it, and how does someone get ‘de-chipped’ if they are no longer employed by the company that required it. She also wondered if a chip could be hacked to harass or stalk someone.

Harris said the Nevada bill is modeled after legislation passed by at least 10 other states.

‘It wouldnít prohibit the voluntary decision of a person to be microchipped,’ she said, adding that a nightclub in Europe offers microchipping to customers so the establishment can provide tailored service.

There was no total opposition to the bill, though some witnesses said the technology could help patients with dementia.

‘Some Alzheimerís patients wander away,’ said Jonathan Friedrich of Las Vegas, adding the technology could be used to help find them quickly.

State Sen. Don Gustavson questioned whether military pilots are microchipped so rescuers can find them if aircraft crash or are shot down.

Harris said she would check with military officials.

No action was taken on the bill by the committee.”


(85)“Gohmert on House Passage of Bill to Track Those With Disabilities,” U.S. Congressman Louie Gohmert, Texas, Press Release, 08 December 2016 -- http://gohmert.house.gov

“Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement on his decision to vote against H.R. 4919, Kevin and Avonteís Law, which establishes a federal program to chip individuals with autism and developmental disabilities:

‘While this initiative may have noble intentions, “small and temporary” programs in the name of safety and security often evolve into permanent and enlarged bureaucracies that infringe on the American peopleís freedoms. That is exactly what we have here. A safety problem exists for people with Alzheimerís, autism and other mental health issues, so the fix, we are told, is to have the Department of JUSTICE, start a tracking program so we can use some device or method to track these individuals 24/7.’

‘I know the feeling of having someone I love dearly having degenerative mental abilities that create concerns for her getting lost. It is immensely heart-breaking. But, the answer is not more federal money and a federal system in place for monitoring peopleís location all day every day. It is yet another well-intentioned program that catapults America down the road toward a Big Brother Ė more invasive than Orwell could have imagined.’

‘Sponsors of the bill tell us not to worry, because they got language in there that says the tracking device cannot be invasive, it is totally voluntary AND it is only a couple of million dollars to get it started Ė so it is not all that much money. That is exactly how the most insidious, invasive, overreaching, governmental control bills start. I just would never have dreamed that my own party would lead the way in rushing a bill to the floor that was not brought up in a subcommittee nor committee hearing with witnesses and experts including Constitutional experts to debate this, nor did we have a subcommittee or committee vote on this bill, nor did we have any chance to amend it.’

‘It is absolutely staggering that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate could be so blind to government overreach that they would allow a federal tracking program, not for criminals in the U.S., not for terrorists, not for illegal immigrants or even immigrants who commit crimes, but for people with “developmental disabilities” a term that is subject to wide misinterpretation. The Senate Republican leaders even brought it to the floor with almost no one there and asked that the new Big Brother program be passed without even having a vote at all - someone just asks for “unanimous consent.” Since no one is advised about the bill being brought up, no one who would object knows to be there, so it passes without anyone ever actually voting for it.’

‘It is not unreasonable for a doctor or prosecutor to suggest that a chip just under the skin is non-invasive, because there is no entrance into the brain or body cavity. Japan is just a hair ahead of us, but they have found that putting a barcode on a personís fingerprint is certainly non-invasive. As for voluntary, a parent or guardian is SUPPOSED to consent, but once the program is in place, it is also reasonable to anticipate prosecutors demanding it for someone they have a “reasonable belief” or “probable cause” to believe might be a problem and that a judge should order someone involuntarily into the program, though they would not get the federal funding in this specific bill.’

‘Benjamin Franklinís attributed quote is, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.” The government is not supposed to be our “big brother.” We must examine other ways to help those who cannot help themselves. There is nothing in the law anywhere that I am aware of that would prevent a parent or guardian from having some reasonable tracking measure right now before this new law is even signed.’

‘Once again, Republicans can feel good that 167 Republicans out of 246 in the House joined with the Democrats to create a way for the Attorney General of the United States to track their children when the government gets ready to include them in the program.’

Congressman Gohmert is the Vice Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and the Chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Prior to being elected to serve in Congress, he was elected to three terms as District Judge in Smith County, Texas and was appointed by then Texas Governor Rick Perry to complete a term as Chief Justice of the 12th Court of Appeals. He knows well the capabilities of the government.”


(86)“Gohmert Passionately Speaks Against ‘Federal Tracking Program,’” 07 December 2016 -- www.youtube.com (Video)

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) expresses concern and disapproval of H.R. 4919 Ė Kevin and Avonteís Law of 2016.

Rep. Louie Gohmert says:

“Thank you Mr. Speaker.

And, I rise. But I actually do so with a heavy heart.

The level of respect I have for the people involved in this Bill is really off the charts. These are wonderful people. I appreciate their mental clarity, their, their [sic] intellect and their big hearts, all involved in pushing this legislation in Congress. Canít attribute motive outside Congress but in Congress I know itís with the best of intentions and the best of heart.

But when we start a federal program, things that will be only temporary, things that were going to be only temporary come to mind like the income tax. And it was going to be small and temporary. Well itís still going on and itís gotten bigger.

And Iíve read the Bill and I want to thank the people involved. My good friends: I have ultimate respect for both Chairman Goodlatte and my friend Chris Smith. I just couldnít have stronger feelings for these people. And my friend across the aisle. [It] surprises some people, but we get along quite well and I appreciate the care she has for people.

But though there have been provisions added, thereís been, you know, changes made to try to deal with some of the concerns that people like me have had, itís still a problem.

If you look at page 20, page 21, the last page of the Bill, it has this language added: ‘Voluntary Participation. - Nothing in this Act may be construed to require that a parent or guardian use a tracking device (or use of a tracking device) to monitor the location of a child or adult under that parent or guardianís supervision if the parent or guardian does not believe that the use of such device is necessary [or in the interest of the child or adult under supervision].’

However, and, and [sic] frankly, I looked at making a provision like that and asking that it be in the Bill. And then I realized, wait a minute, thereís back doors. Thereís things the Attorney General could do that could satisfy the language we have for ‘voluntary.’ …

But we have the system in place. Itís a federal system. So now we have the capability to monitor and track people. So you know, gee, this person is a problem. The definition of who, of whom, could have this procedure or implement used is [not clear. We] are told [it is for] people with Alzheimerís, people with autism, people who may wander off, or and the words are a ‘developmental disability.’

Well, developmental disability, thatís a severe or chronic disability of an individual five years or older that is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of those. And so then we get over into the Diagnostic Statistic Manual and weíve seen the evolution of the DSM through one, two, three major changes at 3, 4 and 5. Personality disorders like anti-social disorder were once called sociopath or psychopath. But thereís an argument that they are a developmental disorder, and they are chronic for so many people.

And so then you begin to see, well, we donít have a very tight definition of what a, a [sic] mental, sorry, a developmentally disabled person is.

And we look to the Bill and, of course, in trying to make this Bill broader so it would include autism and other developmental disabilities, we see page 2 in the section header. We want to make clear this isnít just Alzheimerís disease patients, so we insert the word ‘Americans’ which is a little broader than Alzheimerís disease patient. Again that is in the header, so itís not necessarily language and people like me that have, have [sic] had to review language as a Judge or a Chief Justice and write opinions on what words mean, how they apply to these circumstances, I see where this goes.

We will have a federal tracking program. But itís only for people with Alzheimerís or autism that wander off. Well, yeah, or developmental disabilities and that is pretty far-reaching where we go with that. But, itís just for, itís a mental health issue and itís a physical issue because we know, and I know this is whatís driven my friends supporting this Bill, we have had people wander off and be found dead. All of us have seen stories like that.

The question is: Is it the job of the federal government to start a tracking program [which applies to those who have a] mental disease?

Obviously the person that would be in charge of such a wonderful program that would help us track people with Alzheimerís, autism, or other developmental disability; it would be the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

But wait. The Bill gives the authority to the Attorney General of the United States. Weíre talking Department of Justice. The Department of Justice, and it does say a couple of places that the AG will get with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and, and [sic] collaborate. But ultimately these decisions are the decisions of the Attorney General. The Attorney General will make the call.

The Bill specifically says that the Attorney General will also basically make all the rules and regulations with regard to this tracking system. And then it also says that the Attorney General will formulate the, and I quote in quotes, ‘best practice.’ So, maybe to me or someone in this body, ‘developmental disability’ would mean one thing. And we do have definition in federal law. But there too, itís quite broad.

And I so much appreciate the insertion of the word, hyphenated word, ‘non-invasive’ for the tracking device or system, but then, and ‘non-permanent.’

Well I know tattoos are non-permanent if you go through what I understand is a pretty painful process. I had Judge friends, felony Judge friends who would order people to have tattoos removed. So I guess you could say those were non-permanent. But when you look at definitions of what non-invasive is, and I donít find it in the Bill, perhaps itís somewhere in federal law. But even then you have the word ‘non-invasive’ subject to interpretation. Whose interpretation? The Attorney General, the Department of Justiceís head, to make the determination of what is non-invasive.

A definition in medicine, this or some similar are often used, that non-invasive would be a process that does not violate the integrity of the mucocutaneous barriers. So, well, if you insert a chip just under, the, well above the subcutaneous barriers, would that be non-invasive? If you go a little bit under the subcutaneous barriers, would that be non-invasive? Well thereís only one way to find out, and that is once the Attorney General formulates the regulations and the ‘best practices.’ Then we find out what is actually non-invasive.

And there is a procedure. And this, and this [sic] indicates that people that prepared this Bill, Iím not being sarcastic, they were really trying to figure out a way to protect an over-oppressive government.

You have to have a procedure of appeal. And the Attorney General will help set that up. An Attorney General will help set that up if you have a complaint, you think something is not being done properly. Well, the Attorney General is going to help create the rules that allow you to complain or appeal on that. But as weíve seen over and over, oh and by the way I, um, I, I never wanted to be in a football, basketball or baseball game, and I love all those sports and played Ďem all, I never wanted to be in a game where the referee is the one that wrote the rules for our league because they didnít yield and their opinion was better than the rules on the page no matter what the page said. But the Attorney General can tell us what he really meant, or she really meant.

So, ‘voluntary,’ I appreciate that part. …

But nonetheless, we have government officials that think that religious beliefs are a problem. And that the even bigger problem is if youíre a veteran. Thatís what Homeland Security has said. If youíre a veteran and you believe in the, the [sic] strict interpretation of the words on the pages of the Constitution, that makes you a bigger threat.

So, when weíre talking about terms that we have seen change over the years, weíve seen the Diagnostic Statistic Manual have massive change. Why? Sometimes itís because of medicine or psychology or psychiatry has made great discoveries and improvements. And sometimes itís because one group has a better lobbying group than others.

Mr. Speaker, I would humbly submit that to start, oh and by the way, other good language in here is that none of the money can be used for conferences that may cost more than $20,000, unless they do certain things. And another provision is, none of the money may be used to create a federal database. But the money will be used for state, local, non-profit organizations.

There, I canít find anything that says that we in the federal government cannot fund state and local databases of tracking individuals that have developmental disabilities, such as theyíre too religious and therefore, theyíre deemed to have a developmental disability, excuse me, disability, anti-social personality.

Now, itís just too open. And there are too many loopholes. I like the idea. [But] the more I thought about it, the more I read the language, the more I saw the open loopholes that could result in a federal tracking system that George Orwell would have been embarrassed about.

And so, with brotherly love and appreciation for those pursuing this Bill out of the best of intentions just wanting to stop death and harm to oneself because you have autism, Alzheimerís.

Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit: This is a dangerous door for any government to open; a door that Orwell would have warned about.

People told me, well, gee, thereís ink that you can use in a tattoo that can be tracked. I donít know.

There, itís a door that we should not open at the federal level, to begin a program of tracking, no matter whether itís state or local officials that have the database and we get looks at it or what.

So, I hope that the Bill doesnít pass and we can work together to find ways to help those who cannot help themselves.”


(87)“Personal Tracking And Recovery System,” United States Patent #5,629,678, Gargano, et al., 13 May 1997 -- www.patft.uspto.gov

“Apparatus for tracking and recovering humans utilizes an implantable transceiver incorporating a power supply and actuation system allowing the unit to remain implanted and functional for years without maintenance. The implanted transmitter may be remotely actuated, or actuated by the implantee. Power for the remote-activated receiver is generated electromechanically through the movement of body muscle. The device is small enough to be implanted in a child, facilitating use as a safeguard against kidnapping, and has a transmission range which also makes it suitable for wilderness sporting activities. A novel biological monitoring feature allows the device to be used to facilitate prompt medical dispatch in the event of heart attack or similar medical emergency. A novel sensation-feedback feature allows the implantee to control and actuate the device with certainty.”

(88)“The Implantable Microchip,” 15 May 2006 -- www.youtube.com (Video)

In a Fox News interview, Scott R. Silverman says:

“We are working on a product that we have called internally a PLD. PLD stands for personal locating device, which is an implantable GPS for which our company owns a patent and can be implanted surgically in the clavicle area of a child or someone that you are interested in tracking. It is the first implantable microchip for humans. It has multiple security, financial and health-care applications.”

Information about Scott Silverman and his work with the microchip industry can be found by researching: Applied Digital Solutions, Digital Angel Corporation, VeriChip Corporation, Steel Vault Corporation, PositiveID Corporation and VeriTeQ.


(89)“RFID Implant - Verichip. CNBC Squawkbox,” 07 July 2014 -- www.youtube.com (Video)

Mark Haines of CNBC’s Squawk Box interviews Tommy Thompson (former Secretary of Health and Human Services) and Scott Silverman (Chairman and CEO of Applied Digital Solutions) regarding the use of the VeriChip human microchip implant.

Mr. Thompson joined the board of directors of VeriChip, subsidiary of Applied Digital Solutions, with the goal of accelerating the use of microchip implants for health care and security applications.


(90)“Microchipping People: Associate Professor Katina Michael at TEDxUWollongong,” 20 June 2012 -- www.youtube.com (Video)

“[Associate] Professor Katina Michael from the University of Wollongong, speaks at the 2012 TEDxUWollongong on the moral and ethical dilemmas of emerging technologies. The 3 scenarios she performs raise very interesting social implications for our humanity.”

Michael concludes her talk by saying:

“We must be mindful. These same technologies will be misused by individuals and those agents in authority, potentially. And we will lose our ability to make decisions for ourselves. These are just some of the moral and ethical dilemmas.

We are sleepwalking into a world that has become over-reliant on technique [technology]. Soon we will not just be talking about the social implications of technology but about how society has become technology. We, who created the computer, will invite it into our body to govern us and the machine itself will rule over us.

Ladies and gentleman, I leave you with one final question: ‘Who will control this emerging new, smart surveillance infrastructure and what will be the rights of the controlled?’”


(91)“The Human Microchipping Agenda” by Greg Nikolettos, 22 February 2015 -- www.youtube.com (Video)

“The human microchipping agenda – Hypnotised into the mainframe by the science of gradualism.”

(92)“Katherine Albrecht - Spychips THREAT! Resist RFID & Electronic Surveillance!,” 09 May 2012 -- www.youtube.com (Video)

Dr. Katherine Albrecht discusses human microchipping and the Mark of the Beast.

(93)“RFID: Every Step You Take … They’ll Be Watching You,” by Todd Lewan, 30 July 2007 -- www.rinf.com

“To some, the microchip was a wondrous invention — a high-tech helper that could increase security at nuclear plants and military bases, help authorities identify wandering Alzheimer’s patients, allow consumers to buy their groceries, literally, with the wave of a chipped hand.

To others, the notion of tagging people was Orwellian, a departure from centuries of history and tradition in which people had the right to go and do as they pleased, without being tracked, unless they were harming someone else.

Chipping, these critics said, might start with Alzheimer’s patients or Army Rangers, but would eventually be suggested for convicts, then parolees, then sex offenders, then illegal aliens — until one day, a majority of Americans, falling into one category or another, would find themselves electronically tagged.”


(94)“Chip Implants Linked To Animal Tumors,” by Todd Lewan, The Associated Press, 08 September 2007 -- www.washingtonpost.com

“To date, about 2,000 of the so-called radio frequency identification, or RFID, devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp. The company, which sees a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips, insists the devices are safe, as does its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, of Delray Beach, Fla. …

Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous ‘sarcomas’ _ malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants. …

[A]fter reviewing the research, specialists at some pre-eminent cancer institutions said the findings raised red flags.

‘There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members,’ said Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. …

‘I mean, these are bad diseases. They are life-threatening. And given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there's definitely cause for concern.’ …

At the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, a leader in mouse genetics research and the initiation of cancer, Dr. Oded Foreman, a forensic pathologist, also reviewed the studies at the AP's request.

At first he was skeptical, suggesting that chemicals administered in some of the studies could have caused the cancers and skewed the results. But he took a different view after seeing that control mice, which received no chemicals, also developed the cancers. ‘That might be a little hint that something real is happening here,’ he said. He, too, recommended further study, using mice, dogs or non-human primates.

Dr. Cheryl London, a veterinarian oncologist at Ohio State University, noted: ‘It's much easier to cause cancer in mice than it is in people. So it may be that what you're seeing in mice represents an exaggerated phenomenon of what may occur in people.’ …

Nonetheless, London saw a need for a 20-year study of chipped canines ‘to see if you have a biological effect.’ Dr. Chand Khanna, a veterinary oncologist at the National Cancer Institute, also backed such a study, saying current evidence ‘does suggest some reason to be concerned about tumor formations.’

Meanwhile, the animal study findings should be disclosed to anyone considering a chip implant, the cancer specialists agreed.

To date, however, that hasn't happened. …

VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been marketing radio tags for animals for more than a decade, sees an initial market of diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer's disease, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The company is spending millions to assemble a national network of hospitals equipped to scan chipped patients.

But in its SEC filings, product labels and press releases, VeriChip Corp. has not mentioned the existence of research linking embedded transponders to tumors in test animals. …

Asked if it had taken these studies into account, the FDA said VeriChip documents were being kept confidential to protect trade secrets. After AP filed a FOIA request, the FDA made available for a phone interview Anthony Watson, who was in charge of the VeriChip approval process.

‘At the time we reviewed this, I don't remember seeing anything like that,’ he said of animal studies linking microchips to cancer. A literature search ‘didn't turn up anything that would be of concern.’

In general, Watson said, companies are expected to provide safety-and-effectiveness data during the approval process, ‘even if it's adverse information.’

Watson added: ‘The few articles from the literature that did discuss adverse tissue reactions similar to those in the articles you provided, describe the responses as foreign body reactions that are typical of other implantable devices. The balance of the data provided in the submission supported approval of the device.’

Another implantable device could be a pacemaker, and indeed, tumors have in some cases attached to foreign bodies inside humans. But Dr. Neil Lipman, director of the Research Animal Resource Center at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, said it's not the same. The microchip isn't like a pacemaker that's vital to keeping someone alive, he added, ‘so at this stage, the payoff doesn't justify the risks.’”


(95)“Chip ’n’ Spin?” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, July 2010 -- www.dogsmonthly.co.uk

“Is the promotion of microchipping dogs (and other pets) really for the good of the animals: or is it only a form of scientific experimentation? And is this experimentation on the effects on the dog, or on the length of time people will need to become accustomed to this technology – with the universal chipping of humans for collation of valuable data and surveillance being the intended future result?” (Page 44.)

“There have been recurrent attempt to introduce mandatory chipping of humans, but these have been defeated due to public reaction. Chip-implanting all dogs may make the public accustomed to the idea of routine implants, thus less resistant to chip implants for humans,” [says Nathan Allonby, co-founder of www.chipmenot.org.uk]. (Page 46.)

“The claim that chipping humans may be next on the agenda is not as far-fetched as you may think.

In addition to PositiveID developing a chip designed to keep tabs on forgetful patients, as mentioned previously, giant pharmaceutical company Novartis has been developing a chip for humans designed to remind them when to take their pills (in this case the blood pressure drug Diovan).

In trials, a ‘compliance’ chip was implanted into the shoulders of 20 patients, while another chip is inside the pill and sends a message to the chip in the shoulder; if the next pill is missed, the shoulder chip nags you on your mobile phone!” (Page 46.)


(96)“Microchip In Hand Allows You To Pay For Goods In UAE” by Shoshana Kedem, 7 Days, 18 October 2016 -- https://7days.ae

“It might sound like something from a dystopian science fiction fantasy but you could soon be able to pay for goods and services with a microchip that is embedded in your hand, according to Etisalat officials.

The UAE telecoms giant unveiled new injectable microchips, which store all your credit card, ID and business card data inside, for the first time in the Middle East at GITEX 2016 in Dubai.

The technique is called bio-hacking, where an alien device is embedded on the back of the hand between the thumb and forefinger using a special syringe, medical tattoo artist Hazim Naori told 7DAYS.”


(97)“Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers,” Noble-Leon.com, May 2012 -- www.noble-leon.com

The document “Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers” provides a comprehensive examination of microchipping. For information regarding human microchipping please read the answer to the question: “Why should the general public be concerned about animal microchipping?”

Microchip implants can stop working

(98)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

Please see the section “Failure of Implanted Transponder and Potentially Lethal Implications” in the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” for information regarding microchip failure.

(99)“Thousands of Pet Microchips ‘Faulty’” by Natalie Nazzari, WA News, 06 September 2013 -- www.watoday.com

“Thousands of pets across the country could be walking around with microchips that do not work. …

One WA veterinary surgeon said in the past month he’s had about six pets come in with faulty microchips.

‘The chips have been failing over the past two years and we think there’s been up to 5000,’ said the Wembley Veterinary Hospital’s Garry Edgar. …

The faulty microchips are manufactured overseas and distributed by Virbac Animal Health in Australia, costing about $60 each.

Virbac general manager Bruce Bell said he was aware of the faults. …

Cats or dog [sic] microchipped with a Back Home BioTec chip after June 2010, may have a faulty chip and owners are advised to have them checked.

It will be compulsory for all new WA dogs to be microchipped by November 1, 2013.”


(100)“Hundreds of Pet IDs Defective” by Yvette Batten, North Taranaki Midweek, 24 July 2013 -- www.stuff.co.nz

“Microchip failures have served as a warning to pet owners to have their animals scanned regularly.

Many Virbac BackHome brand microchips have become inactive.

Not all vet clinics in North Taranaki use the brand, but two that do said they'd discovered between 50 and 80 cases of failed chips each during the last few months.

Furthermore, the pound and the SPCA have both had cases where animals were microchipped but it didn't come up when scanned.

It was only by sheer chance, and switched-on staff, that two SPCA animals made their way home. In the pound's case, they'd used the animals' registration tags.

Virbac became aware of the problem late last year, said national sales manager Grant Vermeulen. …

The fault occurred in the manufacture process, and the company is aware of more than 2000 microchip failures nationwide.

‘It's a really concerning problem,’ spokeswoman Jackie Poles Smith said. ‘We've all anticipated that these chips would last a lifetime.’

Shelter statistics, between 2011 and 2012, indicate no significant difference in return-to-owner cases. …

Laws dictate that dogs born after June in 2006 have to be microchipped, unless they are working dogs.”


(101)“URGENT NOTICE: BackHomeBiotec Microchips – Recall,” Virbac, Harry Edwards, Companion Animal Range Manager, 01 October, 2012 -- www.identipet.com

“In February 2012 Virbac identified that there may be a functionality issue with certain Back Home Biotec chips distributed since June 2010. Immediately Virbac instigated a close consultation with its third party manufacturer to investigate this issue further. Since then, there has been some evidence that the scanners are not able to read some of the microchips within batches of chips with the prefix 9000880 and the prefix 9000088 up to 900008800259208. The result of this is should your pet be inserted with one of the faulty chips, the pet details would not be accessible on the database.”

(102)“Urgent Update on Virbac’s Faulty Microchips! DEFRA Recommend That A New Chip Is Inserted In Case The Existing Chip Fails At Some Point In The Future,” 02 October 2012 -- www.vetsgetscanning.co.uk

“Virbac have identified a functionality issue with some microchips distributed since 2010. A small number of these microchips have recently malfunctioned. …

In the event your vet is unable to scan and read the original microchip, the pet must be re-chipped. If the pet has been previously prepared for travel, then it must be re-prepared in accordance with pet travel rules and a new pet passport issued. …

What should I do if the microchip has not failed?
We recommend that a new chip is inserted in case the existing chip fails at some point in the future. …

Previous information on the Virbac microchip was that the fault happened once the microchip heated up to the dogs or cats body temperature.  Virbac have given a deadline for replacing microchips that are not working up to the 31st October, 2012.”


(103)“Best Quality Microchips,” AKC Reunite -- www.akcreunite.org

“Microchips made from different plastic parts, including sheaths, that are melted together run the risk of leaking. Moisture or any leakage can lead to microchip failure in the future.

A microchip with clear glass is not made with bioglass. Instead of laser sealing the capsule, the entire transponder is heated during the sealing process. Overheating the electronic transponder can impact the longevity of the microchip. There’s also a likelihood clear glass contains lead. Yes, lead.”


(104)“Chip ’n’ Spin?” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, July 2010 -- www.dogsmonthly.co.uk

Charles Farrier, co-founder of www.chipmenot.org.uk, says:

“Chips are not a silver bullet. Just because a dog has a chip does not mean that it will work. Chips can fail, can move from their original location or might be missed by someone with a chip reader. Is this failure rate not comparable to the failure of mandatory dog collars and tags?

If collars and tags really do suffer from an excessive failure rate, as is mooted by pro-chippers, then why not encourage owners to consider having their dogs tattooed on the inside of their hind legs rather than implanting a chip? This is a much simpler solution – but of course there is a lot less money to be made then by chip manufacturers, chip reader companies and other related businesses.” (Page 45.)


(105)“Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme: Review From Voluntary to Compulsory Reporting April 2014 to December 2015,” Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), 07 June 2016 -- www.gov.uk

“Failure is a matter for concern, as it means a dog [or other microchipped animal] cannot be identified if lost, may have to be quarantined on arrival in a new country and may involve further expense to have the animal rechipped.” (Page 5.)

(106)“Compulsory Microchipping of Dogs in the UK – A Quick Reference Guide,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), March 2016 -- www.bsava.com

“If the microchip has failed and the dog has a Pet Passport, Defra states that a new compliant chip must be inserted, the dog re-prepared (rabies vaccinated) and a new passport issued… .”

(107)“Advanced Literature: Vaccines,” Noble-Leon.com -- www.noble-leon.com

The “Advanced Literature: Vaccines” section of www.noble-leon.com provides scientific documents regarding vaccine-induced sarcomas (cancer) and other problems caused by vaccines.


(108)“Layman’s Literature: Vaccines,” Noble-Leon.com -- www.noble-leon.com

The “Layman’s Literature: Vaccines” section of www.noble-leon.com provides helpful information regarding health problems caused by vaccines.

(109)“Microchips, Microchipping and Animals Without Microchips,” Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), Updated 11 March 2016 -- www.rcvs.org.uk

“Microchips and pet travel
29.20  Given the potential implications should a microchip fail on entry to the UK (for example, time in quarantine at the cost of the owner) veterinary surgeons should encourage their clients to have their pet’s microchip checked before travel.

Removing microchips


29.21 Because of the importance attached to the accurate identification of animals and the potential for fraud, a microchip must only be removed where this can be clinically justified. This justification should be documented and where required another microchip or alternative method of identification used.

29.22 Removal of a microchip in any other circumstances would be an unnecessary mutilation. While the insertion of a second microchip may be problematic, this in itself does not justify removal of a microchip and an audit trail must be maintained.”


(110)“Dog Left in France After Microchip Pet Passport Fails,” BBC News, 20 September 2010 -- www.bbc.com

“A Berkshire family say they are devastated at beig forced to leave their pet dog in France after his pet passport microchip failed.

Matt Roberts and his family returned to Arborfield, near Reading, without their dog Indy because the technology had stopped working.

Indy has undergone surgery costing £1,000 to remove the chip.

If his identity cannot be confirmed it could take up to six months for him to be issued with a new pet passport. …

A Defra spokesman said: ‘Around 100 pets a year have a failed or missing microchip on arrival to the UK.’”


(111)“Coco’s Story,” 15 April 2007 -- www.vetsgetscanning.co.uk

“Coco, the chocolate Labrador, who risked facing 6 months quarantine in the UK due to a failed microchip. …

In line with the Pet Travel Scheme, Coco had been vaccinated against rabies, blood tested, had a valid pet passport and was fitted with a microchip. She had a pre travel health check up prior to leaving the UK.

Sunday 15th April 2007: My husband, Richard, our nine month old son, Joshua and myself arrived with Coco at the Eurotunnel Pet Passport Control Point. Coco was refused re-entry into the UK as her microchip could not be read. Every effort was made to read the microchip. A number of officials attempted to scan Coco, and several scanning machines were used. We were issued with a Pet Travel Scheme Failure Return, Unique Reference Number: ET00011692.

In line with DEFRA’s current guidelines for faulty microchips, we were advised to either make arrangements for Coco to be put in quarantine when we arrived in the UK or delay Coco’s journey back to the UK until she met the conditions of the Pet Travel Scheme. We were informed that if Coco’s microchip number could not be found, she would have to begin the Pet Travel Scheme’s 6 month process all over again.

We took Coco to a local French Vet, as recommended by staff at Eurotunnel: Coco was sedated and an X-Ray was carried out in order to attempt to locate her microchip. The microchip was located between her two shoulder blades. The French Vet still failed to get a reading from it and confirmed that Coco had a failed microchip.

In considering Coco’s health and welfare, we faxed the Animal Health Office in Dover, who work under the umbrella of DEFRA [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs], from the Vet’s Surgery. Our aim in sending this fax was to try and find an alternative, more humane and less traumatic solution to identifying our dog as Coco (DNA testing, identifying features such as scars from previous operations that could be verified by our UK vet) as opposed to our dog undergoing surgery for non medical purposes, but simply to remove the microchip.

We were soon contacted by an Animal Health Officer, Chris, who stated that DEFRA refused to consider DNA testing or verifying Coco’s identifying features. We were advised to surgically remove Coco’s microchip, insert a new one, then send the failed microchip to the manufacturer’s in order to try and retrieve her unique microchip number. We were informed that she would be able to re-enter the UK in approximately a fortnight if the manufacturer could retrieve her number. If not, she would have to face quarantine in the UK or kennels in France for 6 months, whilst the Pet Passport Scheme procedure was started afresh.

Reluctantly, we agreed for the French vet to go ahead and surgically remove Coco’s failed microchip. …

Thursday 19th April 2007: Coco’s plight was covered by GMTV. Article published in The Bury Times and the Whitefield and Prestwich Guide ‘Dog chip fault leaves Coco stuck in France’. Mr Cassidy from Quarantine Kennels in Chester, got in touch following GMTV’s footage and informed us that in his professional experience, it is not rare for microchips to fail and that although the microchip companies give a lifetime guarantee, he had found them to become unreliable after 5 years. …

We feel that as responsible dog owners, we could not have done anything more to prevent this difficult situation with Coco arising. Despite a last minute pre travel check to the vet, Coco’s microchip still failed a short period of time afterwards.


We would not wish to face such a problem again, nor would we wish for any other British family holding a Pet Passport to go through such a traumatic experience.


It has caused the whole family a great deal of emotional stress to witness Coco undergo a risky surgical procedure carried out for non medical purposes and then be separated from us for what could have resulted in a period of up to 6 months. It has also caused us a great deal of financial stress.


We feel strongly that DEFRA’s current back up procedure, concerning the surgical removal and analysis of faulty microchips, is simply unsatisfactory as the devastating impact that this has on both the animal’s and the owner’s health and welfare cannot be ethically justified.


Microchips will continue to fail, as all technological devices have a failure rate.”


Microchips can be expelled from the body and they can migrate from the original implant site

(112)“Uncovering The Truth, ” 05 December 2007 -- www.mp3.wtprn.com (Radio)

Dr. Katherine Albrecht interviews John Centola, an Atlanta firefighter whose microchip fell out of his arm within days of implantation.


(113)“Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme: Review From Voluntary to Compulsory Reporting April 2014 to December 2015,” Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), 07 June 2016 -- www.gov.uk

“[T]he microchip [of a cat] was expelled through the skin, together with a mucopurulent discharge.” (Page 9.)

(114)“Subcutaneous Soft Tissue Tumours at the Site of Implanted Microchips in Mice” by Tillmann T, Kamino K, Dasenbrock C, Ernst H, Kohler M, Morawietz G, Campo E, Cardesa A, Tomatis L, Mohr U. Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology. 1997; 49(3-4): 197-200 -- www.antichips.com

“During the lifespan of the mice, 1.5 % of the implanted microchips had to be substituted by new transponders. Either they had ceased to function after a maximum of 6 months in the animals and were still palpable under the skin or the microchips were lost by the animals and found in the softwood of the cages. These losses occurred mostly in the first two days but also 7 months after implantation.” (Page 198.)

(115)“Subcutaneous Microchip-Associated Tumours in B6C3F1 Mice: A Retrospective Study to Attempt to Determine Their Histogenesis” by Le Calvez S, Perron-Lepage MF, Burnett R. Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology. 2006; 57(4): 255-265 -- www.antichips.com

“Grossly, all the masses contained the microchip (Fig. 1A) or were adjacent to it. 80.7% masses were located at the implantation site (dorsal, thoraco-dorsal, lumbo-dorsal and thoracic regions). The other 19.3% tumours were located in the region of the limbs (4/52), the abdominal region (4/52) or dorsal head (1/52) which confirm the potential for the microchip to migrate from the implantation site.” (Page 259.)

(116)“Adverse Reactions,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), 2016 -- www.bsava.com

“Migration from the site of implantation is now classed as an adverse event, and there is some logic in this in that it enables problems with certain brands or batches of microchips, or with the technique of certain implanters, to be detected.”

(117)“Microchip Implant Manual: Cats/Dogs,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), Spring 2006 -- www.bsava.com

“Microchips that have been incorrectly implanted in the scruff are likely to migrate around the neck and onto the front of the shoulders or chest. Chips wrongly implanted over the side of either shoulder (instead of in-between) are likely to migrate down either respective leg, so it is important that these areas are thoroughly checked.”

(118)“Microchip Report 2003,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA): Fred Nind, Chairman, Microchip Advisory Group (MAG), September 2004 -- www.noble-leon.com

“Migration remains the commonest problem with the elbow and shoulder being the favourite locations of wayward microchips. In one dog a microchip that migrated was removed and replaced with another microchip from the same manufacturer. The new microchip migrated along the same route as its predecessor. The owner declined to have a third microchip implanted! The time between a microchip being implanted and the new location being identified can vary between a week and 10 years. It is surprising how quickly some microchips migrate.”

(119)“A Focus on Animal Electronic Identification,” United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) -- www.fsrio.nal.usda.gov

Australia - National Livestock Identification Scheme: “RFID injectable transponders or subcutaneous implants are not commonly used for livestock identification due to device migrations, rejection, breakage and recovery problems.”

(120)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

In the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” helpful information about microchip migration is discussed in the section “A Closer Examination of the FDA’s List of Potential Health Risks Associated with Microchip Implants: Adverse Tissue Reaction and Migration of Implanted Microchip.”

(121)“Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme: Review From Voluntary to Compulsory Reporting April 2014 to December 2015,” Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), 07 June 2016 -- www.gov.uk

“The remaining 302 reports [279 dogs, 22 cats, 1 tortoise] appear to be true migrations. In the case of the tortoise, the microchip was poking out of the skin. In 6 cat cases, the microchip either exited through the skin or its absence was confirmed by imaging. There were also 6 similar cases in dogs. …

For cats, migrations were most often detected within 1 year of implantation, but some were detected between 5 and 10 years later. For dogs, migrations were most often detected between 6 months and a year after implantation, with others being detected over 10 years later.

Apart from those cases in which the chip migrated out through the skin, the furthest migration reported was to the left groin of a dog.” (Page 12.)


(122)“How To Make A Safe, Inexpensive Cat Collar,” Noble-Leon.com -- www.noble-leon.com

“Step-by-step instructions that explain how to make a safe collar that gently slips over your cat’s head.”

Contrary to advertising, microchip scanners may not be able to detect or read a microchip implant

(123)“Lost Pet Recovery FAQs,” 24PetWatch -- www.24petwatch.com

“Is there a scanner that reads all microchips?

Yes. The 24PetWatch (Allflex) reader is an example of a universal reader designed to scan and detect both ISO compliant and non-ISO compliant microchips.”


(124)“The ProScan 700 Universal Scanner,” AKC Reunite -- wwwakcreunite.org

“The ProScan 700 is an essential tool for shelters and veterinary offices with a large read range to read all brands of microchips. Choose the ProScan 700 for the ultimate in microchip ID detection.”

(125)“Pocket Reader HS 9002B (ver 37) with Bio-Thermo™,” Identipet -- www.identipet.com

“This ‘World Scanner’ is the ONLY scanner that can read every microchip in the animal market.”

(126)“The EquineChip™: Mini or Standard,” Microchip ID® Systems, Equine Division -- www.microchipidequine.com

“All EquineChips are universal and can be read by all universal scanners. All EquineChips are ISO Approved.”

(127)“Sensitivity of Commercial Scanners to Microchips of Various Frequencies Implanted in Dogs and Cats” by Lord LK, Pennell ML, Ingwersen W, Fisher RA. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA). December 2008; 233(11): 1729-1735 -- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

“Objective—To evaluate the sensitivity of 4 commercially available microchip scanners used to detect or read encrypted and unencrypted 125-, 128-, and 134.2-kHz microchips under field conditions following implantation in dogs and cats at 6 animal shelters. …

Procedures—… Scanner sensitivity was calculated as the percentage of animals with a microchip in which the microchip was detected.

Results—None of the scanners examined had 100% sensitivity for any of the microchip brands. In addition, there were clear differences among scanners in regard to sensitivity.” (Page 1729.)


(128)Ibid.

“In addition, extra care should be taken when scanning heavier animals, in that in the present study, every 2.3-kg increase in body weight was associated with a 5% increase in the odds that a 125-kHz microchip would be missed and a 8% increase in the odds that a 128- or 134.2-kHz microchip would be missed. Lastly, although it may not be realistic in a shelter setting, in a veterinary office, it is ideal to scan animals without collars to avoid interference from any metal in the collar or tags.” (Page 1734.)


(129)“In Vitro Sensitivity of Commercial Scanners to Microchips of Various Frequencies” by Lord LK, Pennell ML, Ingwersen W, Fisher RA, Workman JD. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA). December 2008; 233(11); 1723-1728 -- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

“Objective—To evaluate sensitivity of 4 commercially available microchip scanners used to detect or read encrypted and unencrypted 125-, 128-, and 134.2-kHz microchips under controlled conditions. …

Procedures—Each microchip was scanned 72 times with each scanner passed parallel to the long axis of the microchip and 72 times with each scanner passed perpendicular to the long axis of the microchip. For each scan, up to 3 passes were allowed for the scanner to read or detect the microchip. Microchip and scanner order were randomized. Sensitivity was calculated as the mean percentage of the 72 scans for each microchip that were successful (ie, the microchip was detected or read).

Results—None of the scanners had 100% sensitivity for all microchips and both scanning orientations, and there were clear differences between scanners on the basis of operating frequency of the microchip, orientation of the microchip, and number of passes used to detect or read the microchip. … None of the scanners performed as well when only a single pass of the scanner was used to detect or read the microchips.” (Page 1723.)


(130)Ibid.

“Results of the present study indicated that even under ideal controlled conditions, none of the scanners examined had 100% sensitivity for all microchips and both orientations.” (Page 1727.)


(131)“LifeChip®: Equine Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) Microtransponder System,” Destron Fearing -- www.destronfearing.com

“Not for use in cats or dogs as pet rescue shelters may not have the ability to scan this variety of LifeChip.”

(132)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

Important information about microchip scanners is discussed in the sections “Failure of Electronic Scanner” and “Electromagnetic Interference with Microchip Implants and Scanning Devices” in the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?”

(133)“Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers,” Noble-Leon.com, May 2012 -- www.noble-leon.com

Please read the “Overview” section in the document “Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers” for important information about microchip scanners.

(134)“Microchip Identification Guidelines,” World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) -- www.wsava.org

“Readers emit and receive electromagnetic energy and therefore can be affected by other electronic equipment or metallic objects. In this regard, shelters and veterinary clinics can be regarded as ‘hostile environments’ due to the presence of computer terminals, fluorescent lights and stainless steel tables to mention a few. Try to maintain a distance of at least one meter (three feet) from electronic equipment. Ideally, one should not scan on stainless steel tables and remember to remove metal collars from the animal prior to scanning.”

(135)“Compulsory Microchipping of Dogs in the UK – A Quick Reference Guide,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), March 2016 -- www.bsava.com

“Dogs imported from outside Europe may have a chip which cannot be read by standard UK scanners. If a dog is over 8wo by 6th April 2016 and has a non-compliant microchip (including FDX-A microchips with 10 digit numbers, encrypted chips, or those unable to be read by an ISO compliant transceiver reading at 134.2 Hz), then it must be re-implanted with a compliant chip and registered. This also applied to imported dogs imported within 30 days of arrival.”

(136)“Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme: Review From Voluntary to Compulsory Reporting April 2014 to December 2015,” Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), 07 June 2016 -- www.gov.uk

“It is important to remember that certain microchips cannot be read by the currently approved UK scanners.” (Page 11.)

(137)“16 Reasons Why the US Microchip System Is Broken (and How Our Pets Suffer For It) Part 1” by Dr. Patty Khuly, VMD, MBA, 13 September 2015 -- www.drpattykhuly.com

“I implant additional microchips in pets all the time. Because I live and practice in Miami, where plenty of people travel to Europe regularly, I have to do this fairly often. Clearly this system is broken if I have to keep two kinds of microchips in my arsenal at all times.”

(138)“Pet’s Death Rekindles Electronic ID Debate,” by R. Scott Nolen, JAVMA News, 01 July 2004 -- www.avma.org

“Lisa Massey knew little about the electronic microchip her local Banfield, The Pet Hospital, implanted in Hadden, Massey's 8-month-old American Pit Bull Terrier.

Like other pet owners who opt for the added precaution of microchipping a pet, Massey found a measure of comfort knowing that the rice-size chip increased her chances of being reunited with Hadden, were he to become lost.

So when Hadden disappeared after slipping his collar on the morning of April 12, Massey assumed she would be notified if the wayward terrier were picked up. The Stafford County, Virginia, Animal Shelter did, in fact, have custody of Hadden. But the shelter's scanners failed to detect the short-range radio frequency emitted by the dog's microchip.

After observing the mandatory, six-day holding period for stray animals, shelter staff waited four additional days for the owner to turn up. Michael Null, the shelter's chief animal control officer, explained why. ‘We normally try to hold onto every animal as long as we can.’

On April 21, after 10 days with no inquiries about a missing American Pit Bull Terrier, Hadden was euthanatized. 

Tragically, Massey called the shelter 30 minutes too late. She described Hadden in detail and mentioned his microchip. At that point, the dog's body was scanned again, this time with a scanner the shelter had received in January but had stored away. ‘Chip found,’ the scanner read. …

This is the first documented case in the United States of incompatible microchip technologies resulting in the unnecessary death of a pet. So what happened?

A matter of compatibility
For nearly a decade, American Veterinary Identification Devices and Digital Angel Corp. (formerly Destron Fearing) have dominated the U.S. electronic pet identification market with the AVID and HomeAgain microchips, respectively.  

More than two million of the country's cats and dogs are estimated to have an AVID or HomeAgain implant, the latter microchip being distributed by Schering-Plough Animal Health Corp. 

In January of this year, Banfield announced its veterinary clinics would soon begin distributing the Crystal Tag microchip, created by Swiss-based DATAMARS. Along with letters of explanation from Banfield and the manufacturer, approximately a thousand free scanners were sent to animal shelters nationwide.  

Since February, ‘tens of thousands’ of animals have been chipped with Crystal Tag, said Alex Schrage, Banfield's vice president of business development.  

Unlike AVID and HomeAgain chips that emit a 125 kHz frequency, the Crystal Tag chip operates on a 134.2 kHz frequency, which complies with standards for electronic pet identification set by the International Standards Organization. …

Although AVID chips are encrypted for security reasons, the HomeAgain scanner still detects its presence in an animal. These scanners are not designed to read Crystal Tag chip or any other 134.2 kHz microchip, however.

‘What we have here is a different, foreign chip that's being brought in and it's caused a lot of confusion with pet owners, with shelters, and veterinarians,’ Dr. Knox said. ‘Microchips will save an animal's life if (they) can be found.’

The fallout
‘I wasn't even aware there were several different chips. I wasn't even aware there was a controversy,’ she said. AVID has filed a suit of its own, alleging Banfield misled consumers with false claims that animal shelters across the country are equipped with scanners that read the ISO microchip. …

The Virginia Animal Control Association warned that Banfield was distributing microchips ‘not compatible with scanners currently (used) in almost every Virginia animal shelter.’ Banfield, in turn, faulted the Stafford County Animal Shelter for not using the new scanner. …

A duopoly?
Soon after Banfield began offering Crystal Tag, the Humane Society of the United States, along with a host of other animal care and control organizations, proposed a summit. The idea is to bring together microchip manufacturers to resolve the incompatibility of the ISO and non-ISO technologies.

A similar resolution was sought in the early 1990s. But the process fell apart when manufacturers failed to reach a compromise. As of press time in late May, there were no takers of the latest offer. …

But the debate isn't really over. Not for the competing microchip manufacturers, nor for the proponents and critics of the incompatible technologies. In that sense, nothing has changed. And for animal control officers such as Michael Null and everyone else responsible for scanning stray animals, there can't help but be a tinge of doubt when no microchip is detected.

‘We've got a difficult enough task out here. I don't need anything else hampering that, especially with an item that's supposed to help,’ Null said. ‘I just wish they would all come to some type of mutual agreement where they're manufacturing a product that we can all use.’”


(139)“Banfield The Pet Hospital Stops Marketing ISO Microchip,” RFID News, 14 May 2004 -- www.rfidnews.com

“A spokesperson for Banfield The Pet Hospital, which has locations in PetSmart stores throughout the United States, has confirmed that the company has stopped marketing their ISO FDX-B microchips.

On April 21, a pit bull was euthanized in a Virginia shelter, because the animal’s Banfield-supplied chip was not compatible with the shelter’s reader. Inquiries by journalists confirmed that none of the area’s shelters was using compatible readers.”


(140) “Jury Awards $6 Million Plus in Avid Pet Microchip Trial; Avid Prevails on Claims of False Advertising and Patent Infringement,” BusinessWire, 05 June 2006 -- www.businesswire.com

“A leading maker of microchips for pets – Avid Identification Systems, Inc. – scored a significant litigation victory last week when a jury found two competitors liable for infringing Avid’s technology and making false advertising claims that harmed consumers. The jury awarded Avid more than $6 million in the lawsuit against European-based Datamars SA and its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Crystal Import Corporation. …

Additionally, Avid claimed that statements made by Datamars and Crystal in advertising their products were false and harmful to consumers, and Avid sought damages under the Lanham Act. Datamars and Crystal made several false claims in promotional materials including, ‘if your pet becomes lost, any animal care facility can scan your pet,’ despite that the majority of scanners in use in shelters in the U.S. were unable to read the Datamars microchips.”


(141)Ibid.

Dr. Hannis L. Stoddard III, president and founder of AVID as well as a practicing veterinarian and hospital owner says:

“Consumers trust that microchips will improve the probability of a safe return of lost animals and if a product doesn’t do that, pets are put at risk.”

(142)Ibid.

Juanita Brooks, lead trial counsel for AVID says:

“Pets are an important part of most American families and pet owners must be protected against false advertising particularly when their pets’ lives are put at risk.”


(143)“The Microchip Wars and How They Affect Your Pets' Safety (Part 3: Microchip Readers/Scanners)” by Dr. Patty Khuly VMD, MBA, 01 July 2007 -- www.petmd.com

“AVID, first-mover in the pet microchip market, encrypted its microchip information so that only facilities with an AVID reader could both detect the chip and read the pet’s identifying digits. You might think that’s because AVID has superior technology… but it’s not. It’s so they could maintain their lead in the game when other players wanted in… by making sure their reader was the most universal available. …

AVID even manufactured and distributed a reader (in 2006!) that couldn’t even detect the presence of HomeAgain microchips, much less a pet’s ID numbers. Many vets and shelters that received these readers weren’t even aware that HomeAgain chips wouldn’t be detected (or read). Sure, it says so on the packaging, but that doesn’t translate to effective user-understanding.

How many shelters euthanized HomeAgain-chipped pets after this 2006 reader’s introduction? How many AVID-equipped shelters and vets even know that the reader currently in their hands can’t identify a HomeAgain-chipped pet at all? Dunno. AVID doesn’t say how many they distributed; only that they did and that they still offer this marvelous tool.”


(144)“Microchip Identification Guidelines,” World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) -- www.wsava.org

“However, although standardized implantation sites are critical, one cannot overlook the importance of a functional reader in the identification of an implanted transponder - without this, the system fails.”

(145)“AVID Scanners,” AVID -- www.avidid.com

“When a scanner fails to detect the presence of a tag, the animals identification number cannot be recorded. Failure to detect and record the animals identification number can invalidate important research and monitoring programs.”

Intentional and unintentional duplication of microchip numbers

(146)“Update on Microchips’ Connection to Database” by Rachel Crowe, BSc, PhD, ACIM of Virbac Ltd UK, Letters to the Editor in Vet Times, 08 March 2010, Page 47.

“Virbac has become aware of a potential problem regarding some microchips, prefixed 978, being sold in the UK, which are not logged on the Virbac BackHome database.

These are not BackHome microchips. The prefix number 978 refers to the manufacturer of the microchips, rather than to Virbac as such. As this manufacturer also provides these microchips to a distributor other than Virbac, some microchips that bear the prefix number 978 on the UK market, cannot, therefore, necessarily be considered as having been distributed by Virbac. All Virbac BackHome branded microchips are registered under the BackHome database, which is linked to the central database. Therefore, Virbac cannot be liable for these other microchips, even if they start with the prefix 978.”


(147)“Fifty-Five Companies Use the Three Digit, 900 Shared Manufacturer Code Numbers on Their Tags,” Microchip-Implants.co.uk, 11 April 2011 -- www.microchip-implants.co.uk

“Fifty-five companies use the three digit, 900 shared manufacturer code numbers on their tags. Having bought a few tags from different suppliers it struck me that production runs of tags could accidentally repeat numbers.”

(148)“RFID Devices In Conformance With ISO11784 And ISO11785 Registered By ICAR In Its Capacity As The Registration Authority Of ISO. The Registration Is Valid For The Lifetime Of The Device,” International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) -- www.service-icar.com

NOTE: The three-digit manufacturer code, 900, is shared by multiple manufacturers. As a result, unintentional duplication of identification numbers can easily occur.

(149)“The Microchip Question - NAIS & Horse Identification” by Heather Smith Thomas, The Equine Chronicle, September/October 2006 -- www.equinechronicleonline.com

Barbara Masin of Trovan® Electronic Identification Systems says:

“A person could keep several look-alike animals and register only one, or claim health insurance coverage for 10 animals while taking out a policy on only one. … By using a WORM (write many, read many) chip that can be reprogrammed as many times as desired, the same animal can change identities throughout its life. …

The flaws have been well documented, as far back as 1995, says Masin. ‘It’s very unfortunate that when the discussion at USDA was happening for the livestock standard, it wasn’t an open discussion. Listening sessions were crowd control type; USDA didn’t want to see any information against the system and didn’t respond to efforts to show them what was actually going on in other countries,’ she says. There are still many people who are not aware that this is a poor system and that other countries are unhappy with it.”


(150)Ibid.

“The ISO 11784/85 committee has been involved in addressing the problems that have arisen over the past several years due to use of these chips for animal ID, since numbers on these chips can be easily duplicated. This particular chip system was originally developed in Russia to microchip tractor parts. …

But within the ISO standard there are reprogrammable chips and some can be reprogrammed multiple times. … ISO allowed for OTP (one time programmable) ‘blank’ microchips that could be programmed with the number of the lost tag. …

In a May 31, 2001 ISO document describing their recommendations for replacing lost animal transponders, they stated it would be disastrous if OTPs fall into the wrong hands… .

As [Barbara] Masin [of Trovan® Electronic Identification Systems] points out, problems arise when we begin using this technology for something it was not designed for—such as an open loop approach where there are lots of different animals. …

‘The problem with using a published open standard like ISO 11784/85 for something that’s needed to provide unique or secure ID is that it won’t work.’ … explains Masin.

THE PROBLEM OF DUPLICATE NUMBERS AND EASE OF COUNTERFEITING AND DUPLICATING ISO CHIPS
The drawback in using this type of chip in a national system for purposes of disease trace-back, bio-security or unique ID for proof of ownership or theft prevention/loss recovery is that there is no guarantee of uniqueness of ID codes. …

Since this is an open standard, even if the NAIS gets its chips from selected manufacturers and distributes them through a single entity, this would not prevent ISO chips with duplicate ID numbers from entering the market, since ISO does not enforce compliance with its standards. …

In the ISO system, corruption of the ID numbering system is practically built-in.  And even for manufacturers who adhere to the ISO honor code, ID numbers can be recycled every 33 years. This is no problem for cattle or pigs but might be a problem for longer lived animals such as horses. …

This spring Barbara Masin attended a USDA/APHIS hearing on microchips for pets … After the meeting she gave a demonstration showing how it is easy to reprogram the ISO standard chip with any number you want. …

She showed that the ISO chips—whether programmed from the factory, or the OTP (one-time programmable chips that come blank and can be programmed once) or the reprogrammable ones where you can change the number after it’s in the animal—are visually indistinguishable; they look identical.  You also can’t tell them apart with a scanner because they all read the same way. …

‘There are ads in various European publications and websites stating they can supply reprogrammable microchips and low-cost programmers. There are classified ads in newspapers offering low cost confidential provision for duplication of ID numbers,’ says Masin.”


(151)“The Controversial ISO 11784/11785 Standard,” RFID News, 2009 -- www.rfidnews.com

“The ISO transponder-based standard was originally intended for agricultural use to identify agricultural equipment and livestock. During the evolution of the standard, it was expanded to include companion and exotic animals as well as endangered species. The standard has a number of serious flaws which make it unsuitable for its intended applications. …

The essential requirement for RFID to do its job for companion animal identification is that positive identification of each animal must be assured. On a global basis this can only be achieved by unique, unduplicated ID codes. The uniqueness of the code numbers must be assured. In both read-only and read-write systems, the code number must provide unique and positive identification of animals in the manner of a license plate number. The presence of duplicate code numbers compromises the integrity of the identification system. RFID with duplicate numbers provides very little in the way of improvement over existing identification methods for animals (such as tattooing). The existence of duplicate code numbers opens the way to rampant fraud and record-keeping problems. …

Due to the fact that the ISO standard is an open standard, even obtaining transponders from selected manufacturers and filtering all these ISO-conforming transponders through a single hub would not prevent ISO-conforming transponders with duplicate ID numbers from entering the market. …

In the ISO system, as currently specified, corruption of the ID numbering system is virtually built-in.”


(152)“RFID Animal Implant Cloned,” Microchip-Implants.co.uk, 23 February 2011 -- www.youtube.com (Video)

Video that shows how to clone a microchip implant.

(153)“Demo: Cloning a Verichip Yourself” by Jonathan Westhues, September 2006 -- www.cq.cx

Instructions that show how to clone a microchip implant.

(154)“Demo: Cloning a Verichip” by Jonathan Westhues, January (and updated July) 2006 -- www.cq.cx

Instructions that show how to clone a microchip implant.

Microchip implants are NOT proof of ownership

(155)“All Dogs In England To Get Free Microchips,” Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 06 February 2013 -- www.gov.uk

“All dogs in England will need to be microchipped to help tackle the growing problem of strays roaming the streets, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson announced today.

The Government is bringing in compulsory microchipping for all dogs from 6 April 2016 to help reunite owners with lost or stolen pets, relieve the burden on animal charities and local authorities and protect the welfare of dogs by promoting responsible dog ownership.”


(156)Ibid.

“Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, said:

‘It’s a shame that in a nation of dog lovers, thousands of dogs are roaming the streets or stuck in kennels because the owner cannot be tracked down. I am determined to put an end to this and ease the pressure on charities and councils to find new homes for these dogs.’

‘Microchipping is a simple solution that gives peace of mind to owners. It makes it easier to get their pet back if it strays and easier to trace if it’s stolen. The generous support of Dogs Trust will mean that this valuable service can be offered for free to pet owners across the country.’”


(157)“The Kennel Club’s Microchipping Factsheet,” The Kennel Club, 2016 -- www.thekennelclub.org.uk

“Compulsory microchipping is not proof of legal ownership
Microchipping shows who the current keeper of the dog is but this alone is not proof of legal ownership. A microchip relates to the main keeper of the dog i.e. the person the dog lives with and to whom it should be returned if found.

It is separate from Kennel Club registration which lists a 'registered owner'. Kennel Club registered ownership alone is not proof of legal ownership.

Legal ownership of a dog is undefined. In cases where there is a legal dispute over dog ownership, many factors will be considered including perhaps the keeper and KC registered owner of the dog, but also who pays for the dog's upkeep, veterinary treatments etc. and who pays for insurance for the dog for example. Ultimately it will be for a court to decide ownership.”


(158)“Compulsory Microchipping for Dog Owners,” Petlog, 2016 -- www.petlog.org

“Is compulsory microchipping now proof of ownership / keepership?
No, microchipping will not be proof of 'ownership'. The words 'owner' and 'ownership' have been replaced by the words 'keeper' and 'keepership' for this very reason. 

Will compulsory microchipping mean legal 'Keeper / Ownership'?   
The words 'legally responsible' are used if your dog strays, bites or causes any unjust damage. As the keeper of the dog you are 'liable' for the dog that is registered to you. Therefore, as the 'keeper' you will be held responsible if your dog has been found to commit such an act, however the 'keeper' will be protected from prosecution if their dog attacks a burglar or trespasser on their land.”


(159)“Ten More Reasons Why Our Pets’ Microchip System Needs Fixing (Part 2)” by Dr. Patty Khuly, VMD, MBA, 20 September 2015 -- www.drpattykhuly.com

“The microchip is a highly imperfect legal record.

Most pet owners assume that microchipping their pets constitutes proof of ownership. Unfortunately, it does not. Though it’s helpful, it’s not solid evidence. After all, proof of ownership is not required for registration.”


(160)“Police Find Nine-Year-Old Girl's Stolen Puppy ... But Say She Can't Have It Back” by James Tozer, Daily Mail Online, 06 May 2010 -- www.dailymail.co.uk

“After saving up for months for a pedigree puppy, Leanne Stewart did the sensible thing and had her new pet microchipped.

So when the mother-of-two's Chinese shar pei Millie was stolen from her back garden, she at least had the comfort of hoping she would eventually be returned to them.

It took more than six months but, eventually, the £750 puppy was traced. Miss Stewart - and more importantly her nine-year-old daughter Megan - were expecting an emotional reunion with the pet. But this has been dashed by police.

They have been told that they cannot take Millie off the new owner because the man bought the dog in good faith - despite the microchip proving she is Miss Stewart's.

Now she faces the agonising choice between a lengthy - and potentially expensive - legal battle or accepting she will never see her puppy again.”


(161)“Dog-Owner Prevented From Finding Microchipped Pet Under Data Protection Act” by Laura Roberts, The Telegraph, 22 September 2010 -- www.telegraph.co.uk

“Dave Moorhouse's Jack Russell terrier, Rocky, was stolen in 2007 and he was informed earlier this year that the microchip provider had discovered details of his dog's new address.

However, they refused to pass on the animal's whereabouts claiming it would breach the Data Protection Act.

Last week a court refused Mr Moorhouse's request for a court order compelling Anibase, the microchipping database, to reveal the name and address of the new owners.

Mr Moorhouse, 56, from Huddersfield, West Yorks, said: ‘What’s the point of having your pet microchipped if you can’t get him back?’ …

In January this year the Kennel Club recommended to Defra that all puppies are microchipped before being sold on. …

Caroline Kisko, Secretary of the Kennel Club, said: ‘Microchipping is a method of permanent identification and does not provide proof of ownership.’”


(162)“KAYA Was Rehomed And Re-Microchipped To Another Owner By The RSPCA,” 07 January 2014 -- www.vetsgetscanning.co.uk

“Kaya was rehomed after the RSPCA failed to find her microchip and then rechipped to new owners. …

We as yet do not know how KAYA ended up in a London rescue centre, nor have the RSPCA said which one it was. What we do know is that eventually the RSPCA took possession of KAYA and transferred her up to Coventry where she was subsequently rehomed. But they did not locate her micro-chip, why?

It was in December 2013 just after Christmas when Kate was called by the RSPCA in Coventry saying they had Kaya who had just been found running stray. Kate was overjoyed, although puzzled to discover that her dog was in Coventry. A short while later the RSPCA phoned back with some bad news. They said Kaya had been collected by her owners.

Apparently they had inserted a new micro-chip when Kaya was rehomed but unbelievably when they scanned Kaya they did not find the new micro-chip but did find the original one.

At the moment the RSPCA are saying that Kate has no right of claim over her Kaya and should be happy that she wasn’t put to sleep and is with new loving owners. They are also saying that they are not at fault and claim the micro-chip was faulty. Which one? As it seems that they have a bad habit of not finding micro-chips!”


(163)“TIA Is Found Via Her Microchip Details But Owner Can’t Be Told Where She Is?” 09 October 2013 -- www.vetsgetscanning.co.uk

“Julie will have to get a lawyer, who will be able to get the information from the microchip database to start proceedings with the new owners in the County Court to get Tia back home where she belongs!”

(164)“Dog Lover Who Spent Four Years Looking For Her Missing Pedigree Mickey Sues Family Who Found And Kept Him” by Steph Cockroft, Daily Mail Online, 26 February 2016 -- www.dailymail.co.uk

“The officials had scanned the dog's microchip and traced it back to Mrs Minor. But she is still unable to get her dog back. …

It later emerged that, after Mickey went missing in 2011, the lhasa Apso dog had been found by another family, who had been looking after the little animal for several years. 

The family then apparently insisted that they had a right to the dog. Even when Mrs Minor dug out all the documentation proving she had bought the pedigree in 2007, council officials still refused to acknowledge she was the owner.

After trying to resolve the matter with the other family and the council, Mrs Minor has now instructed lawyers to pursue the matter in court. …

‘It's been so stressful and I just don't know what else to do now so I have instructed a solicitor to take the matter to a civil claims court.’

She added: ‘I am baffled by the council decision. What's the point of having dogs microchipped if people just ignore the system?’”   


(165)“Microchips Dump Legal, Ethical Baggage On Veterinarians,” by Jennifer Fiala, The VIN News Service, 07 January 2009 -- www.news.vin.com

“When Dr. Jackie Simon was asked to perform surgery on a microchipped spay with vaginal prolapse due to hyperplasia, she faced a tough decision: wait to get permission from the person who registered the chip or fulfill the new owner’s request to do the procedure. …

Do veterinarians have a legal or ethical duty to scan for microchips and contact owners of record, and if so, what is their obligation to the client presenting the animal?

‘There’s a very big gray zone when it comes to microchips and the responsibility of veterinarians dealing with them,’ Simon says. …

As for ownership disputes, AVMA policy shies away from establishing an absolute duty to get involved by leaving it up to a DVM’s ‘professional judgment.’ …

‘You can sit here and contemplate that the veterinarian is in possession of stolen property, but once again, you don’t know if the animal been stolen, [Greg] Dennis [legal counsel to the Kansas Veterinary Medical Association] says. ‘This gets complicated in the law because people do abandon animals with microchips.’”


(166)“When Microchips Muddle Pet Ownership Status: Laws Outdated; Veterinarians Caught In Middle” by Edie Lau, The VIN News Service, 13 December 2012 -- www.news.vin.com

“The day a new client brought in a friendly terrier mix she’d found as a stray, Dr. Meghan Ellis was just trying to do the right thing by scanning the dog for a microchip.

 …

The incident devolved into a messy conflict that Ellis, owner of Family Veterinary Hospital in Sanford, N.C., had not foreseen.

The situation was not unprecedented, however. Posts on the Veterinary Information Network (VIN), an online community for the profession, show that similar conflicts have arisen for years, and the widespread adoption of microchip identification may be causing ownership disputes to occur more frequently.

Dr. James Wilson, a veterinarian and lawyer who lectures on legal, ethical and business issues at veterinary schools around the country, has noticed that microchip ownership dilemmas are familiar to increasing numbers of students he encounters. …

Unfortunately, ownership questions can arise even with animals that aren’t picked up as strays. A veterinarian in Arizona had a case years ago in which a Yorkshire terrier purchased from a pet store in Indiana was found to have a microchip registered to someone in yet another state.



The clinic receptionist scanned the dog after the new owners made a comment about the strange Midwest pet store where they’d bought it. After detecting a chip, the receptionist learned that the Yorkie had been stolen from its back yard somewhere in the South. ‘Belonged to a lady whose entire life was centered around this dog,’ the veterinarian recalled.



The new owners wanted the keep the dog. The veterinarian doesn’t know how the case was resolved because the clinic receptionist handled it without consulting her. The veterinarian was happy to keep an arm’s length from the situation for the same reason that she requested not to be identified in this story — for fear of drawing the disapproval of her state licensing board.



The microchip ownership question ‘is a huge issue,’ she said. ‘We open ourselves to this huge can of worms.’

Complicating things further, sometimes the registered owner isn’t the rightful owner at all. It could even be someone with questionable intent. Dr. Melanie Moore, owner of Animal Care Clinic in Concord, N.C., related the case of a found Labrador retriever whose chip traced back to a breeder located more than an hour's drive away.



The breeder claimed the dog was his, but Moore suspected differently. Through the dog’s rabies tag, the clinic was able to locate the real owner, who said the dog had gotten out just that morning; it was picked up two blocks from home.



The owner had purchased the 3-year-old Lab from the breeder years before and wasn’t told the dog had a microchip, let alone given information on how to re-register the chip in her name, Moore said.



When the breeder showed up at the clinic to retrieve the Lab, Moore turned him away. The experience was unpleasant. …

VIN lawyer Raphael Moore notes that microchips actually offer no proof of ownership identity.”


Temperature-sensing microchip implants

(167)“Comparison of Noncontact Infrared Thermometry and 3 Commercial Subcutaneous Temperature Transponding Microchips with Rectal Thermometry in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta)” by Marla K. Brunell. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, July 2012; 51(4): 479-484 -- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

“Microchip failure. Of the 50 macaques implanted, 16 had microchips that failed to provide a temperature reading during at least one of the 3 measurement times. These 16 animals were radiographed, and the findings are summarized in Table 3. Among microchips A, 14 malfunctioned: 4 failed to read but were present on radiographs, 2 were missing on radiographs, 6 returned the identification code but no temperature reading, and 2 read intermittently and were present on radiographs. In addition, 4 microchips C malfunctioned: 2 were missing from radiographs, and the remaining 2 were present on radiographs but appeared to be broken (Figure 1). Of the 2 faulty microchips B, one was missing from radiographs, and the other failed to read but was present on radiographs.” (Page 481.)

(168)Ibid.

“[M]icrochip thermometry was not a reliable method of determining body temperature in rhesus macaques: the microchip readings were not consistently repeatable. Subcutaneous temperatures may differ from rectal temperatures because the subcutaneous temperatures may be affected by ambient temperatures or wet fur. In addition, a lag time between changes in core and subcutaneous temperatures could account for some of the disagreement between temperatures. Furthermore, the location of microchip implantation and the amount of subcutaneous adipose tissue could influence temperature readings.” (Page 481.)

(169)Ibid.

“Body temperature is one of the fundamental parameters assessed in determining the health status of an animal in both the clinical and research settings.” (Page 479.)


(170)“LifeChip®: Canadian Companion Animal Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) Microtransponder System With Bio-Thermo® Technology,” Destron Fearing -- www.destronfearing.com

“LifeChip® Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) microchips offer a unique and unalterable means of identifying companion animals of all ages, breeds and sizes. …

Each LifeChip microchip is capped with a patented, bio-compatible material called BioBond®, which secures the microchip to the administration site within 24 hours of placement.

Dogs, cats and horses of all ages, sizes and breeds can receive a LifeChip microchip. Puppies, kittens and foals can receive a microchip at the time of their neonatal examination.

With optimal Bio-Thermo® technology, LifeChip microchips can provide a quick and reliable reading of a pet’s body temperature. …

LifeChip microchips with Bio-Thermo technology give owners, breeders, trainers and veterinarians a quick and easy way to check a pet’s temperature. …

LifeChip with Bio-Thermo technology is one tool that can be useful in monitoring the health of recipient animals. It will not replicate rectal temperature and is not intended to provide specific/isolated diagnostics.”


(171)Ibid.

“Conclusion: The study horse’s actual temperature will be 3º higher than Bio-Thermo readings. Knowing this, the horse’s manager or veterinarian will be able to quickly and easily identify if the horse’s temperature is abnormal by adding 3º to the Bio-Thermo reading.”


(172)“LifeChip®: Alpaca/Llama Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) Microtransponder System With Bio-Thermo® Technology,” Destron Fearing -- www.destronfearing.com

“LifeChip with Bio-Thermo technology is one tool that can be useful in monitoring the health of recipient alpacas/llamas. It will not replicate rectal temperature and is not intended to provide specific/isolated diagnostics.”

(173)Ibid.

“Conclusion: The study llama’s actual temperature was 1º to 2º higher than Bio-Thermo readings. Knowing this, the alpaca/llama’s manager or veterinarian will be able to quickly and easily identify if the animal’s temperature is abnormal by adding 1º to 2º to the Bio-Thermo readings.”

(174)“About The TChip - Microchip & Temperature In One,” 24 Petwatch -- www.24petwatch.com

“Check your animal's Microchip Temperature (MT) accurately, conveniently and as often as you like with minimal stress to the animal.”

(175)“TChip Microchip Temperature (MT) Guide,” 24 Petwatch -- www.24petwatch.com

“The temperature reading from the microchip is different from the temperature measured by a rectal thermometer. The subcutaneous location has lower blood flow and is more exposed to environmental conditions, meaning that a lower temperature threshold is used.”

(176)“Microchipping of Animals,” American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), 30 July 2013 -- www.avma.org

“The use of thermal sensing microchips in horses has been promoted as a potential means of monitoring individual animals' body temperatures while decreasing the risk of disease transmission by rectal thermometers shared between multiple animals. [49] Robinson et al [49] determined that the thermal microchips produced more variation in temperature readings than rectal thermometers and the accuracy of the temperatures obtained by the microchip were strongly influenced by the ambient temperature. The thermal microchip over- or underestimated the animal's body temperature and failed to detect more than 50% of fevers in cooler ambient temperatures and approximately 15% of fevers during warmer ambient temperatures. Overall, the thermal sensor detected only 87% of fevers.”

Microchip implants may impede magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnostics

(177)“Evaluation of the Susceptibility Artifacts and Tissue Injury Caused by Implanted Microchips in Dogs on 1.5T Magnetic Resonance Imaging” by Saito M, Ono S, Kayanuma H, Honnami M, Muto M, Une Y. The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. January 2010; 72(5): 575-581 -- www.jstage.jst.go.jp

“There was significant signal loss and image distortion over a wide range around the area where the microchip was implanted. This change was consistent with susceptibility artifacts, which rendered the affected area including the spinal cord undiagnostic.” (Abstract: Page 575.)


(178)Ibid.

“The repeated exposure of a material to an external magnetic field can make the magnetic susceptibility of the material increase. We should be aware of this because repeated MRI is often necessary in certain patients. We experienced the phenomenon whereby the size of the microchip susceptibility artifact clearly increased on the second MR scan when compared to the first time in the same dog.” (Page 579.)

(179)Ibid.

“There was a significant signal loss and image distortion over a wide range around the area where the microchip was implanted on all MR images. This change was characterized as a central signal void with a high signal rim in T1W (with and without contrast), T2W, FLAIR, and PDW images. The range of the central void was huge, and a high signal rim was not evident in T2*W images. These findings were consistent with susceptibility artifacts, and these artifacts rendered the affected area undiagnostic. ... All sequences had at least one image where the artifact extended over the spinal cord. The effect on the cord was particularly apparent in T2*WI and the artifact rendered the spinal cord undiagnostic in most slices of transverse images in all three dogs (Fig 4).” (Pages 576-577.)

“[I]t is important for veterinarians and manufacturers to be aware of the artifacts on MR images produced by microchips and educate animal’s owners appropriately. The artifact produced by microchips implanted under the skin of the dorsal part of the cervicothoracic junction may cause difficulty in interpretation of MRI in this region, which includes the cervical to cranial thoracic spinal cord. The image of the brain may also be affected when the animal is small in size.” (Page 579.)

“The results of this study suggest that the susceptibility artifact produced by an implanted microchip on 1.5T MRI can be marked if the implant is close to the region of interest. This can become a significant issue especially when the animal is small in size.” (Page 581.)


(180)Ibid.

“It may be possible that the degeneration in the area adjacent to the tip of the implant seen in one dog under-going the MRI procedure was due to local tissue heating. This finding may reflect the fact that human patients with implants which are considered to be safe on MRI often feel pain or heat sensation during the procedure [12]. … Therefore, it may be possible that our subtle pathological changes were caused by a local heating effect of MRI on the microchip… .” (Page 581.)

(181)“RCVS Position,” by Anthony Roberts, Policy and Public Affairs Officer for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), which is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in the United Kingdom (UK). March 2010 -- www.rcvs.org

“[P]oorly implanted chips can lead to severe injuries during implantation, increased risks of microchip migration and may have adverse effects on diagnostic techniques such as MRI.”

(182)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

Please see the section “Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Incompatibility with Microchip Implant Technology” in the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?”

Microchip implants can be infected with a computer virus

(183)“Is Your Cat Infected with a Computer Virus?” by Melanie R. Rieback, Bruno Crispo, Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Systems Group, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2006 -- www.rfidvirus.org

“This paper is meant to serve as a warning that data from RFID tags can be used to exploit back-end software systems. … this paper presents the first self-replicating RFID virus. This virus uses RFID tags as a vector to compromise backend RFID middleware systems, via a SQL injection attack. …

This pervasive computing utopia also has its dark side. RFID automates information collection about individuals’ locations and actions, and this data could be abused by hackers, retailers, and even the government. There are a number of well-established RFID security and privacy threats. …

RFID malware is a Pandora’s box that has been gathering dust in the corner of our ‘smart’ warehouses and homes. While the idea of RFID viruses has surely crossed people’s minds, the desire to see RFID technology succeed has suppressed any serious consideration of the concept. …

Unfortunately, this viewpoint is nothing more than a product of our wishful thinking. RFID installations have a number of characteristics that make them outstanding candidates for exploitation by malware… .

The spread of RFID malware may launch a new frontier of cat-and-mouse activity, that will play out in the arena of RFID technology. RFID malware may cause other new phenomena to appear; from RFID phishing (tricking RFID reader owners into reading malicious RFID tags) to RFID wardriving (searching for vulnerable RFID readers). People might even develop RFID honeypots to catch the RFID wardrivers! Each of these cases makes it increasingly obvious that the age of RFID innocence has been lost. People will never have the luxury of blindly trusting the data in their cat again.”


(184)“RFID Viruses and Worms” by Melanie R. Rieback, Patrick N. D. Simpson, Bruno Crispo, Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Department of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2006 -- www.rfidvirus.org

“A completely different category of threats arises when hackers or criminals cause valid RFID tags to behave in unexpected (and generally malicious) ways. …

Up until now, everyone working on RFID technology has tacitly assumed that the mere act of scanning an RFID tag cannot modify back-end software, and certainly not in a malicious way. Unfortunately, they are wrong. In our research, we have discovered that if certain vulnerabilities exist in the RFID software, an RFID tag can be (intentionally) infected with a virus and this virus can infect the backend database used by the RFID software. From there it can be easily spread to other RFID tags.”


(185)“Human Enhancement: Could You Become Infected With A Computer Virus?” by Dr. Mark N. Gasson, 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society; pp. 61-68 -- www.personal.reading.ac.uk

“While being a clear demonstration of how implantable devices are becoming more complex, capable and potentially vulnerable [26], being susceptible to a computer virus also raises interesting questions linked to the concept of the body.” (Page 65.)

“We are already seeing simple technologies such as passive RFID devices being implanted in humans, and this alone introduces challenging questions. In this paper it has been argued that these implantable devices have evolved to the point whereby we should really consider them as simple computers. This radically improved capability over previous generations of the technology has been demonstrated by the infection with a computer virus of an RFID device implanted in a human. Coupled with our developing concept of the body and its boundaries, this has given rise to the world’s first human infected with a computer virus.” (Page 67.)


Microchip databases

(186)“Bite Put on PetNet for Misleading Consumers,” CBC News, 28 July 2004 -- www.cbc.ca

“From 1991 to 2002, the Markham, Ont.-based company advertised and marketed its identification chip and registry and recovery service as a one-time payment, good for life, with no annual renewal fee. It managed to build a base of 400,000 customers across the country.

In January 2003, PetNet changed its policy and began charging an annual fee of $19.95 for registrants, both new and old.

The Ontario Veterinary Medical Association said that under pressure from veterinarians and upset pet owners, the company agreed to clearly indicate in all future correspondence that the fee did not apply to pets microchipped before Jan. 1, 2003.

When PetNet failed to live up to that promise, the association filed a complaint with the federal Competition Bureau.

The bureau said its investigation confirmed that PetNet sent about 400,000 mailings to pre-2003 clients in several provinces asking them to pay the annual fee and giving the impression that payment was required to keep their pet registered.

‘Enticing consumers with guarantees of any kind, including “one-time charges,” then changing the guarantee raises issues under the act,’ Raymond Pierce, Deputy Commissioner of Competition said.”


(187)“Comprehensive Pet Microchip Registry Data Elusive: One search engine defunct; another incomplete” by Edie Lau, The VIN News Service, 08 September 2014 -- www.news.vin.com

“The confusion arises from the steps involved in trying to identify a lost animal through its microchip. First is getting the animal scanned with the right equipment. Not every scanner is capable of reading every chip. Next is taking the number shown by the scanner and figuring out which registry, out of multiple possibilities, keeps the animal’s identifying information. A final step is determining whether the chip was ever registered at all, and if so, whether the registration information is up-to-date. …

Competition among marketers of pet microchips in the United States historically has stymied efforts to make their application more universal… .”


(188)“Entrepreneur Finds Pet Microchip Problem Unsolvable” by Edie Lau, The VIN News Service, 16 July 2015 -- www.news.vin.com

“A Silicon Valley entrepreneur whose expertise is solving problems for startup companies has abandoned a seven-year quest to improve the convoluted, widely misunderstood system of identifying lost pets through their implanted microchips.

‘It’s still a mess and will always be a mess,’ concluded Olivia White, founder and CEO of Check the Chip Inc. ‘I just firmly believe that it cannot be fixed.’ ….

White and her team discovered that most had no idea with which database their pets were registered. Few seemed to understand that microchip registries are separate entities from the people or organizations that implant microchips. …

Absent microchip companies cooperating to create a single universal registry and considering the apparent disinterest by pet owners, White said she knows of no way to make the identification system more cohesive and easy to use.

‘I’m so convinced that there’s no humanly possible way, unless all of the companies decide they’re all going to work together, which is never going to happen!’ she said.”


(189)“Ten More Reasons Why Our Pets’ Microchip System Needs Fixing (Part 2)” by Dr. Patty Khuly, VMD, MBA, 20 September 2015 -- www.drpattykhuly.com

“A 2008 law mandated universality in microchip and scanner technology. Which was a really, really good thing. Unfortunately, this law said nothing about how the microchip companies were supposed to manage microchipped pets’ data. That’s why registration and data management became the new front on which the microchip wars were fought. 

Once the profitability on the actual hardware (microchips and scanners) was reduced via increased competition, companies had to rely on the registration to make up the difference. Which makes sense. Nothing nefarious about that. Everyone deserves their slice. 

Unfortunately, this turned the microchip registration process (the up-front sign-up and back-end data management) into an unwieldy monster, rife with its own set of competition-thwarting incompatibilities, secrets and convolutions. 

It was predictable, really. Yet so much of our attention with respect to microchipping had been directed towards choosing and managing the actual technology –– microchips and scanners –– that we’d paid little to the back end of the system.”


(190)Ibid.

“‘Unregistered’ animals aren’t necessarily unregistered –– even though a microchip company might tell you so.

Just because a pet doesn’t come up as registered in a certain database doesn’t mean she isn’t registered. This is something I learned only very recently (it was the inspiration for this series, actually). Here’s what I learned:

Remember when I said that finders will assume AVID chipped pets will be on AVID’s registry and HomeAgain on HomeAgain’s? Unfortunately, if you find a pet with a HomeAgain microchip that’s registered on AVID’s database, HomeAgain will tell you it’s not registered. And vice-versa.”


(191)Ibid.

“[T]he problem is that the microchip registration system is fragmented into so many different players that, should you choose a tiny registry that goes poof! at some point, its data might languish inaccessibly in its own lonely place on the internet. …

This industry has shown time and again that it doesn’t play well with others within its own ranks. In a continuation of this tradition, microchip companies may hoard their registration data. After all, the only thing that differentiates their product from any other’s, nowadays, is their registration service.”


(192)Ibid.

“Unfortunately, most implanting entities don’t keep good records. Pet shops go out of business frequently, internet shops are fly-by-night affairs, and shelters are to [sic] big and busy to make record-keeping practical.”

(193)“Frequently Asked Questions,” Identipet -- www.identipet.com

“It is a sad fact that when some microchip companies in South Africa have ceased to trade, they have left thousands of microchipped, and consequently unidentifiable pets.”

(194)“Please Read Prior To Purchase – Release of Liability Acknowledgement,” K9Microchips -- www.k9microchips.com

“Please understand that you use pet microchips at your own risk.  K9Microchips.com accepts no liability for damage or injury to any person, animal, or object in any situation.  It is strongly advised that you ask your pets healthcare professional or veterinarian any questions you may have prior to use, and inquire that they perform the implant procedure.  Animal microchips are to be inserted under an animals skin, never in muscle or any other part of the body.  Every syringe, microchip, & package is to be used at your own risk.

Further, please understand that any company information acquired through business transactions, including contact information of company representatives (names, phone numbers, addresses, etc.), is restricted from being shared.  K9Microchips.com & its representatives are in no way obligated to assist anyone in anyway that did not directly do business with K9Microchips.com.  We make no promise to keep information on who purchases microchips, nor to document which microchips are shipped to which customers.” 


(195)“New Entrants To Pet Microchip Market Draw Critics: Are chips with ‘900’ codes unreliable or unfairly targeted?” by Edie Lau, The VIN News Service, 29 July 2015 -- www.news.vin.com

“In general, the pet microchipping system is bewildering, even when everything goes as planned. …

With multiple microchip companies using 900 as the opening sequence, it’s unclear with which company a given 900 chip originated. It’s not even clear how many companies use 900 chips. …

Here’s where more criticism of the 900 chip arises: Not all companies participate with the lookup tool, and some that do reportedly are not necessarily accessible or helpful.



‘With the 900 chips, I can call the company that sold it, and I probably won’t get an answer,’ said John Bowman, supervisor of Norman Animal Welfare, a municipal shelter in Oklahoma.



‘I’ve gone through this before,’ he recounted. ‘I’ve personally called them and there’s no answer. Usually it just rings off the wall. And when you do get somebody, they’ll tell ya, “We don’t track who we sold them to.”’

Three dogs have come through the Norman shelter with 900 chips during the past year, Bowman said. Two made it home after their owners came to the shelter looking for their lost pets. Those owners were unhappy that the microchips failed to work as expected. ‘They were miffed because, they said, “We’ve got a microchip!”’ Bowman recalled. ‘We explained that there’s no registration on the microchip.’



The third dog did not make it home because the shelter couldn’t identify its owner. The dog ended up being adopted by someone else.

Bowman said with frustration, ‘Microchips, they’re not worth the money if they’re not trackable back to somebody.’ …

At least one company selling 900 chips does not participate with petmicrochiplookup.org. K9microchips, which advertises “chips as low as $2.97/ea!” appears to do nothing but sell chips, providing no support or user registry.



A disclaimer on its website states in part: ‘K9Microchips.com & its representatives are in no way obligated to assist anyone in anyway that did not directly do business with K9Microchips.com. We make no promise to keep information on who purchases microchips, nor to document which microchips are shipped to which customers.’

The company did not respond to email and telephone messages left by the VIN News Service.”


(196)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

Helpful information regarding microchip databases is discussed in the section “Microchip Implant Technology May Result in Compromised Information Security” in the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?”

(197)“What’s Wrong With Compulsory Dog Chipping?” ChipMeNot.org.uk -- www.chipmenot.org.uk

“Behind a compulsory dog chipping law would be a database of dogs and dog owners. The database is what a compulsory dog chipping law is really about. Responsible (if uninformed) law abiding owners would most likely be the first in line to get their dogs chipped, believing they were doing the right thing. This would facilitate the construction of a government database.”

(198)“Gohmert Passionately Speaks Against ‘Federal Tracking Program,’” 07 December 2016 -- www.youtube.com (Video)

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) expresses concern and disapproval of H.R. 4919 Ė Kevin and Avonteís Law of 2016.

Rep. Louie Gohmert says:

“I canít find anything that says that we in the federal government cannot fund state and local databases of tracking individuals that have developmental disabilities, such as theyíre too religious and therefore, theyíre deemed to have a developmental disability, excuse me, disability, anti-social personality.

Now, itís just too open. And there are too many loopholes. I like the idea. [But] the more I thought about it, the more I read the language, the more I saw the open loopholes that could result in a federal tracking system that George Orwell would have been embarrassed about. …

Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit: This is a dangerous door for any government to open; a door that Orwell would have warned about. …

Itís a door that we should not open at the federal level, to begin a program of tracking, no matter whether itís state or local officials that have the database and we get looks at it or what.

So, I hope that the Bill doesnít pass and we can work together to find ways to help those who cannot help themselves.”


(199)“Microchipping People: Associate Professor Katina Michael at TEDxUWollongong,” 20 June 2012 -- www.youtube.com (Video)

“[Associate] Professor Katina Michael from the University of Wollongong, speaks at the 2012 TEDxUWollongong on the moral and ethical dilemmas of emerging technologies. The 3 scenarios she performs raise very interesting social implications for our humanity.”

Michael concludes her talk by saying:

“We must be mindful. These same technologies will be misused by individuals and those agents in authority, potentially. And we will lose our ability to make decisions for ourselves. These are just some of the moral and ethical dilemmas.

We are sleepwalking into a world that has become over-reliant on technique [technology]. Soon we will not just be talking about the social implications of technology but about how society has become technology. We, who created the computer, will invite it into our body to govern us and the machine itself will rule over us.

Ladies and gentleman, I leave you with one final question: ‘Who will control this emerging new, smart surveillance infrastructure and what will be the rights of the controlled?’”


Mandatory microchipping

(200)“Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers,” Noble-Leon.com, May 2012 -- www.noble-leon.com

Helpful information regarding mandatory microchipping legislation is discussed in the section “Mandatory Microchipping” in the document “Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers.”

(201)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

“Microchip implants are promoted as safe and lifesaving. They are promoted for use in pets, livestock, and wildlife. The list includes kittens, puppies, ferrets, horses, cattle, baby birds, fish, newly hatched sea turtles, snakes, exotic pets, and many more amazing creatures. (6-11) In fact, several places around the world have already implemented mandatory microchipping of some animals. (12-31)”

(202)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare? - References Section: Introduction,” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

Additional resources regarding mandatory chipping legislation are available in references #12-31 in the “References Section” of the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?”

(203)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

“Note: Because the threat of mandatory human microchipping is so serious, some U.S. states have already passed laws against mandatory human microchipping. These states include Wisconsin, North Dakota, California, Missouri, and Oklahoma. (6-16) Other states, such as Pennsylvania, are working to ban mandatory human chipping. (17-18)”

(204)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare? - References Section: Get Involved,” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

Additional resources regarding U.S. states that have banned mandatory human chipping are available in references #6-18 in the “References Section” of the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?”

(205)“Microchips, Microchipping and Animals Without Microchips,” Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), Updated 11 March 2016 -- www.rcvs.org.uk

“29.3 Dog owners will have a legal obligation to have their dogs microchipped and registered with a microchip database, if they have not done so already. No keeper may transfer a dog to a new keeper until it has been microchipped. 

29.4 Subject to an exemption for certified working dogs (not applicable in Scotland), all dogs older than eight weeks need to be microchipped and registered with their keeper’s details. …

29.5 There are ‘health’ exemptions from the general microchipping requirement:
a) In England, the exemption applies for as long as a veterinary surgeon certifies, on a form approved by the Secretary of State, that a dog should not be microchipped for reasons of the animal’s health. The certificate must state the period for which the dog will be unfit to be microchipped.

b) In Scotland, the exemption applies for as long as a veterinary surgeon certifies that a dog should not be microchipped for reasons of the dog’s health. The certificate must state the period for which the dog will be unfit to be microchipped.

c) In Wales, the exemption applies for as long as a veterinary surgeon certifies, on a form approved by the Welsh Ministers, that microchipping would significantly compromise the dog’s health. The certificate must state the period for which the dog will be unfit to be microchipped.

29.6 A keeper who fails to have their dog microchipped may be served with a notice requiring the dog to be microchipped within 21 days. Only an authorised person (as defined by the regulations) can serve such a notice.  It is an offence to fail to comply with the notice.”


(206)“All Dogs In England To Get Free Microchips,” Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 6 February 2013 -- www.gov.uk

“All dogs in England will need to be microchipped to help tackle the growing problem of strays roaming the streets, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson announced today.

The Government is bringing in compulsory microchipping for all dogs from 6 April 2016 to help reunite owners with lost or stolen pets, relieve the burden on animal charities and local authorities and protect the welfare of dogs by promoting responsible dog ownership.

Support from Dogs Trust, the UK’s largest dog welfare charity, means a free microchip will be available for all unchipped dogs in England.”


(207)“Legislation,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) -- www.bsava.com

“Compulsory microchipping [of dogs].

Legislation related to Animal Health and Welfare is devolved within the UK, therefore there are different regulations for different countries of the UK.”


(208)“Requirement and Exemption,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) -- www.bsava.com

The British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) discusses requirements for microchipping and exemptions from microchipping.

Certificates for exemption from mandatory dog chipping in England and Wales can be downloaded from the BSAVA webpage.


(209)“The Kennel Club’s Microchipping Factsheet,” The Kennel Club, 2016 -- www.thekennelclub.org.uk

“There are two exemptions to the microchipping regulations
The first exemption is where a veterinarian has certified the dog as a working dog and docked its tail in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act 2006. In such cases the time limit for the dog to be microchipped and details recorded with a database is extended to 12 weeks. The dog can be passed on to a new keeper once it has been microchipped. This exemption is applicable in England and Wales only as tail docking is completely banned in Scotland.

The second exemption is where a veterinarian certifies that a dog should not be microchipped because it could adversely affect its health. In such cases a vet would have to certify that this was the case and state when the exemption expired. The dog would then need to be microchipped on the expiry of that time limited certificate unless a veterinarian issued a further exemption certificate because of ongoing concerns with the dog's health. In this case the decision to exempt a dog from being microchipped would be made by the veterinary surgeon. In such a case a breeder may pass the puppy on with a copy of the veterinary exemption certificate and any time limit for microchipping though it would be for the puppy buyer to decide whether to take the dog given this information.” 


(210)“Dog Owners Face £500 Fine For Failing To Microchip Pets,” by Peter Dominicak, The Telegraph, 06 February 2013 -- www.telegraph.co.uk

“The Government on Wednesday announced that all dogs will in future have to be microchipped to make it easier to trace the owners of dangerous animals.

Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, said the moves will ensure that all dogs can be traced back to their owners to ensure that people are held accountable for their animal’s behaviour.

Campaigners have warned that the measures could impact ‘law-abiding’ dog owners, particularly pensioners, who are not aware of the need to have their animal chipped.

The creation of a database of all dog owners in England is certain to prompt accusations of unnecessary Government intrusion. …

‘The issue of dangerous dogs is much more about dangerous owners’” [says Paul Green from SAGA].


(211)“Will Chips Make Dogs Behave Any Better?” by Harry Wallop, The Telegraph, 06 February 2013 -- www.telegraph.co.uk

“Microchipping is being pushed as a means to increase the responsibility of dog owners. In particular, it is meant to cut the number of strays, which cost local authorities large amounts to deal with; to deter thieves from taking dogs, usually prized breeds; and to tackle the rising number of attacks by dogs on people. The proposal is welcomed by an array of charities, animal groups and even the union that represents postmen.

But will it work? …

But the problem is that most strays are not chipped. That is unsurprising – many strays are not beloved pets that have gone missing on a walk; they are abandoned by irresponsible owners. It is hard to see why these owners will comply with a new law to chip their dogs, when previous attempts to foster responsible ownership failed.

The first was the dog licence. This scheme ran for over a century until 1987 and was widely derided as useless, with only half of owners bothering to register dogs. Then, under the 1992 Control of Dogs Order, it became compulsory for dogs to wear a collar and tag with the owner’s name and address. Again, barely half of owners bothered to comply, despite a threatened £5,000 fine for those that didn’t. It is thought that not a single prosecution was brought under this law. …

A chip will not deal with the most problematic dogs – the tiny number that have caused the deaths of eight children and six adults since 2005. In these cases there was never any doubt about who owned the dog, and being registered on a database would not have prevented the attacks. …

Anyway, the character and breeding of an owner are not necessarily any guide to how their dog will behave. In 2002 the Princess Royal was fined £500 by East Berkshire magistrates after her English bull terrier Dotty bit two children in Windsor Great Park. …

Some critics, however, are questioning how the scheme will operate once it becomes compulsory. …

How the database will be managed is also unclear. Currently there are about three main microchip databases – all run by private companies, all of whom charge people about £15 to change their details. Will they all have to merge into one database, and if so, who will win what is likely to be a lucrative contract? ‘Someone is going to make money out of this, no doubt,’ says Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine.

There is a nagging feeling among some critics that this is just the latest, if the most technologically advanced, in a long line of mostly ineffective canine legislation – as well as being another example of the Government choosing the ‘Big Brother’ option, rather than encouraging individually responsible behaviour.

If microchipping will do little to tackle the problem of violent dogs, it will do even less to solve the far wider menace of dog owners allowing their pets to foul the byways, parks and pavements of Britain. As Ms Cuddy says: ‘People think a microchip is a magic pill that will solve all dog problems. That’s a load of nonsense. It won’t change anything.’”


(212)“Chip ’n’ Spin?” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, July 2010 -- www.dogsmonthly.co.uk

“Microchips, mandatory moves and money. There’s much more at stake for campaigners for compulsory chipping than you may be aware of… .

Promoters of microchipping (manufacturers, distributors and implanters) extol the benefits of chipping to the general public and pet owners, but they usually do not inform you of the potential risks connected with this invasive procedure… .” (Page 40.)


(213)Ibid.

Jamie Foster, one of the UK’s leading legal experts in animal welfare, at national law firm Clarke Willmott says: “The whole concept of mandatory chipping is flawed and, if it comes into effect, will only create a raft of legislation.” (Page 40.)

(214)Ibid.

Charles Farrier, co-founder of www.chipmenot.org.uk says:

“As evidence emerges that chips may cause cancer you may think that it might be possible to prosecute those that fit chips for causing unnecessary suffering to animals. However the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (view it at www.opsi.gov.uk) has a provision in Section 4 (3b) – that means that should chipping become compulsory then the suffering will be state-sanctioned and so those that fit chips cannot be prosecuted.” (Page 45.)

“If dog chipping is compulsory then owners will no longer investigate the pros and cons of chipping or the effects on a pet’s health. In other words they will no longer act as a responsible owner should. Compulsion will actually legislate AGAINST responsible ownership. Unthinking obedience is not the same as responsible ownership.” (Page 46.)


(215)“Implanting Doubt” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, June 2010 -- www.dogsmonthly.co.uk

“Is microchipping really the safe and reliable way to get your pet home safely if he strays, is lost or stolen? And should it be made mandatory, as recent government proposals suggested? Promoters of this procedure say ‘Yes!’, but there’s more to it than meets the eye, as Caroline Davis [editor of Dogs Monthly] investigates.” (Page 10.)

(216)“Proposed Dog Law U-Turn” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, May 2010.

“As regards compulsory microchipping, Jamie Foster [one of the country’s leading legal experts in animal welfare at national law firm, Clarke Willmott] says: ‘The proposal to microchip dogs is in reality a tax on dogs rather than a proportionate response to attacks by dogs. This is a very similar idea to the ID cards for people that has fallen out of favour. It would apprear that the current thinking recommends surveillance as the answer to all problems in society.

In my view, microchipping is a method of expending resources rather than a method of solving the problems of badly trained dogs.’”


(217)“What You May Not Know About…Microchipping” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, September 2009 -- www.dogsmonthly.co.uk

“Says Clarissa Baldwin, Dogs Trust chief executive: ‘The one-off cost of microchipping a dog is a small price to pay for a lifetime of security. Dogs Trust is asking for the support and backing of all politicians in our push for compulsory microchipping.’” (Page 10.)

(218)Ibid.

“Richard Bacon MP says: ‘There are important questions over whether making it mandatory to microchip all dogs in the UK would work in practical terms. For instance, the government would need to set up a national dog registration scheme, but this has been tried before. The dog licence was abolished in 1987 because it was too expensive to run and very few dog owners took any notice of it.’” (Page 13.)

(219)Ibid.

“While the earning potential from mandatory pet microchipping is enormous, the potential, in terms of collecting data about people, and possibly from chipping people themselves, is vast.” (Page 15.)

(220)“Mandatory Microchipping Makes Its Way From New York to Australia,” by Dr. Patty Khuly, VMD, MBA, 12 November 2008 -- www.petmd.com

“The government said…
1-Mandatory microchipping means that lost dogs will be returned to their owners as quickly as possible.
2-It means that dogs will be safer and their owners better served by the more efficient system.
3-The government will save the taxpayers money by limiting owned animals’ drain on municipal shelter resources.
4-Public health will be improved by making it easier to ensure that all dogs are vaccinated against rabies.
5-Fewer dogs will be euthanized as a result.

Many dog people said…
1-Pets are not cars. Mandatory microchipping denigrates the role of pets as family members.
2-Our privacy rights are eroded by such legislation.
3-Microchip safety is not sufficiently well-established to carry out such a proposal. We need to be offered the right to decline anything that might hurt our animals.
4-Considering the incompatibility of some microchip readers (scanners) with many brands of microchips (and the general messiness surrounding the microchip industry) such a proposal would be fraught with confusion and/or mandatory double-microchipping.
5-Mandatory microchipping doesn’t help public health—it’s just another ploy to tax pet owners more.”


(221)“Micro Chipping Away At Our Freedoms” by Cymru Sofren, 09 November 2015 -- www.chipmenot.org.uk

“The Welsh Labour Government will be introducing legislation requiring all dogs in Wales to be microchipped by the spring of 2016, and for the information relating to the microchip and ownership of the animal to be recorded on an approved database. …

Quite how a microchip inserted under the skin is going to prevent dogs from being abandoned or stop them from being nasty and dangerous has also not been explained. In fact, rather than risking prosecution or fines, dogs could be killed or chips physically removed by their owners, creating far more dog welfare issues than before. …

The Control of Dogs Act 1992 already requires a collar and tag with the owner's name and address on it for a dog in a public place, as well as a muzzle for breeds considered dangerous. A collar and tag or tattoo does exactly the same job as a microchip and is cheaper, less dangerous and isn’t invasive or so ethically problematic. A collar with a tag is still the easiest and most effective way of reuniting a dog and its owner by far – anyone who can read can use this system. And a microchip won’t make the dog less dangerous whereas a simple lead and a muzzle will. …

The compulsory microchipping of dogs is both draconian, pointless, morally and ethically wrong. And as has been showed, microchipping does not make dogs safer or their owners more responsible.”


(222)“Microchipping,” 7th Heaven Animal Rescue Trust -- www.7thheaven.org.uk

“Under a freedom of Information Request, 7th Heaven has received the statistics from the local council pounds in Northern Ireland for the last 4 years – two years preceding the introduction of compulsory microchipping in April 2012 and the two years after the act was introduced*. …

The most glaringly obvious statistic, and the one that proves the fallacy of compulsory microchipping, is the percentage of dogs re-united with their owners. They are virtually identical for the period before and after compulsory microchipping was introduced.”


(223)“Stop Compulsory Microchipping of Dogs,” Petition by 7th Heaven Animal Rescue Trust -- www.ipetitions.com

“When all the myths have been dispelled, the only reason left for introducing compulsory microchipping is money. The microchipping industry has already stated that a profit of between 200-400% can be made by microchipping for those carrying it out. Who knows what the profit margins are for the manufacturers.”

(224)“What’s Wrong With Compulsory Dog Chipping?” ChipMeNot.org.uk -- www.chipmenot.org.uk

“Behind a compulsory dog chipping law would be a database of dogs and dog owners. The database is what a compulsory dog chipping law is really about. Responsible (if uninformed) law abiding owners would most likely be the first in line to get their dogs chipped, believing they were doing the right thing. This would facilitate the construction of a government database.”

(225)“Dog Bleeds to Death After 'Routine' Microchip Implant Procedure,” by Dr. Katherine Albrecht, 03 February 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com (Article); www.noble-leon.com (Radio: Hour 1) and www.noble-leon.com (Radio: Hour 2)

“A fluffy bundle of life, love, and enthusiasm named Charlie Brown was laid to rest last week, the victim of a microchip implant gone horribly wrong. The long-haired, purebred Chihuahua bled to death in the arms of his distraught owners, Lori and Ed Ginsberg of Agua Dulce, California, just hours after undergoing the controversial chipping procedure.

‘I wasn't in favor of getting Charlie chipped, but it was the law,’ said Lori Ginsberg, citing a Los Angeles county ordinance that requires all dog owners to chip their dogs once they reach four months of age. Dog owners who refuse to comply face a $250 fine for the first offense and up to six months in jail for continued non-compliance. ‘This technology is supposedly so great until it's your animal that dies,’ she said. ‘I can't believe Charlie is gone. I'm just beside myself.’

Dr. Reid Loken, the board certified veterinarian who performed the chipping, confirmed on Friday that Charlie died from blood loss associated with the microchip. He cited ‘an extreme amount of bleeding’ from the ‘little hole in the skin where the [microchip implant] needle went in’ as the cause of death. …

Albrecht and the Ginsbergs are calling for a repeal of all mandatory animal chipping laws nationwide, and for the creation of a national registry to document adverse reactions from the chipping procedure.

‘It's horrible to live in a country where your choices are being take away and you don't get to make decisions about your family and your life anymore,’ said Lori Ginsberg. ‘Politicians should not take away my right to do what I thought was best for my pet.’” (Article)


(226)“Family Traumatised As Dog Needed Surgery Following Microchip Fitting Procedure,” by Jack Furness, The Sentinel, 22 June 2016 -- www.stokesentinel.co.uk

“PET owner Simon Thompson has been left distraught after his dog needed surgery following a procedure to have a microchip fitted.

The 47-year-old took his shih tzu Charlie to Vets4Pets in Festival Park 10 weeks ago to have the chip put in.

But within a fortnight a large golf ball-sized lump had formed on his neck. Charlie has since had to undergo an operation at Stoke PDSA to have the microchip removed.

Now Simon is furious after being told Charlie will need another microchip fitted to comply with a new law which made it compulsory for all dogs aged eight weeks and over to be microchipped. …

‘During surgery the PDSA had to cut from the inside of his shoulder across his back about eight inches. I went down to pick Charlie up and my wife Sharon was shocked at the level of work they had to do.

‘We have to re-chip him because of the new law and the PDSA has said it will do it and monitor him closely. If it happens again, an exemption certificate will be issued but it is cruel we have to put him through this again.

‘My wife initially said that she would be the first to go to prison for this because she didn't want to put him through it again after the vet said we would be prosecuted.’

'Micro-chipping is now a legal requirement for all dogs in the UK from eight weeks of age...'

Vet Cat Roach, who carried out the micro-chipping procedure at Vets4Pets, said it was the first time something had gone wrong. She added: ‘We don't get reactions to microchips, this is the first one I've seen.’”


(227)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

“Legislation that requires animals to be microchipped must be repealed. Legislation that prevents mandatory microchipping of humans and animals must be enacted. And any attempt to create a society in which people are penalized or discriminated against because either they or their animal(s) are not microchipped, must be thwarted.

Please say ‘NO’ to microchip implants, and remember: After all is said and done, an individual must maintain the right to refuse to have a microchip implanted in his or her body, and in the body of any creature in his or her care.”


(228)“Microchips: Sample Letters with Cover Pages,” Noble-Leon.com, July 2010 -- www.noble-leon.com

“[S]ample 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.”

Mandatory microchipping of horses

(229)“FEI Urged to Reverse Mandatory Horse Microchipping,” 22 November 2012 -- www.noble-leon.com (Although this letter was written with horses in mind, the information and unanswered questions are applicable to other animals too.)

“Horses participating in FEI competitions have historically been identified by a FEI-approved passport, which is examined at a mandatory veterinary inspection that occurs at every FEI horse show. This method of identification has been safe and successful.

In addition to having a passport, a new FEI regulation (Article 1011.1.2.3) now requires horse owners to have a microchip (foreign object) implanted in horses that are newly registered with the FEI beginning January 01, 2013. With this ruling, all FEI horses will eventually be required to be microchipped.

Published scientific studies, veterinary reports, adverse microchip reports and other credible data show that there are serious health risks and reliability issues associated with microchipping.

Requiring horse owners to have a potentially dangerous and unreliable microchip implanted in their horses is contrary to ‘The FEI’s Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse,’ which states:
‘The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) requires all those involved in international equestrian sport to adhere to the FEI’s Code of Conduct and to acknowledge and accept that at all times the welfare of the horse must be paramount and must never be subordinated to competitive or commercial influences.’
The Code also states, ‘Any practices which could cause physical or mental suffering, in or out of Competition, will not be tolerated.’”


(230)“Microchipping 101,” United States Hunter Jumper Association (USHJA) -- www.ushja.org

“At the January 2016 USEF Annual Meeting, the USEF Board of Directors approved landmark rule changes for hunter/jumper competition that set forward a microchipping requirement at USEF-licensed and/or USHJA-sanctioned competitions with Hunter, Hunter Breeding, Jumper and Hunter/Jumping Seat Equitation classes not restricted by breed. The microchipping requirement will be implemented in two phases.”

(231)“Thoroughbred Microchipping - Frequently Asked Questions,” The Jockey Club Registry -- www.registry.jockeyclub.com

“Microchips for registered Thoroughbreds born in 2016 and earlier can be purchased through The Jockey Club, or through your veterinarian or supplier. For foals of 2017, owners will be sent a free microchip with each registration and genetic sampling kit.

The microchip should be implanted before or at the same time the DNA hair sample is collected, markings are recorded, and photos are taken. The horse identifier should always scan for a microchip and record the number when identifying a horse. …

The microchip should be implanted in the nuchal ligament in the left side of the animal in the middle third of the neck. The veterinarian will prepare the site by clipping and scrubbing the area before implanting the microchip.”


(232)“DNA Sampling: Taking a DNA Sample,” The Jockey Club Registry -- www.registry.jockeyclub.com

“DNA Sampling: Taking a DNA Sample”

(233)“What Lies Beneath?” by Caroline Davis, Your Horse, June 2011.

“If someone told you they were going to insert a foreign body into your horse’s nuchal ligament – a vital area that affects movement – whether you liked it or not, what would you say?

This foreign body comprises a microchip, and whether you like the idea of one being implanted in your horse or not, in most cases you don’t have a choice.” (Page 102.)

“Even before it was made compulsory, microchipping was hailed by many vets, and exponents of chips, as a safe and permanent means of identification to safeguard equines against theft – and owners from fraud.

In addition, chips combined with passports will, say the powers-that-be, keep the food chain clean (the UK exports horse meat to the Continent for human consumption) by ensuring those treated with certain drugs won’t end up on dinner plates.

However, horse owners were not informed, at the time this law was brought in, of the potential pitfalls of chipping that some people have since been unfortunate enough to experience.

Neither was the option of alternative identification, such as DNA testing, iris scanning, tattooing or freezemarking given in the UK, despite EU legislation stating it could be.” (Page 103.)


(234)Ibid.

“There is currently no exemption within the Regulations for owners who are concerned that the microchips may damage their horses’ health, despite the fact that the Animal Welfare Act makes it an offence to fail to protect their horses from disease or injury,” [says Jamie Foster a solicitor-advocate with the national law firm Clarke Willmott LLP and an expert in animal welfare legislation]. (Page 106.)

(235)“Diervriendelijkeidentificatie” -- www.diervriendelijkeididentificatie.wordpress.com

Dutch website created to educate horse owners about problems caused by microchipping and to stop mandatory microchipping of horses.

Microchip implants will enter the human and animal food chain

(236)“LifeChip®: Equine Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) Microtransponder System,” Destron Fearing -- www.destronfearing.com

“Not for use in animals intended for human consumption.”

(237)“Microchip Identification Guidelines,” World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) -- www.wsava.org

“The implantation site for the bovine, ovine, porcine and caprine or other species used for meat production is subcutaneously at the base of the left ear on the scutiform cartilage. It is strongly recommended that any implanted food producing animal should carry an external identifier to indicate that a microchip is present so that it can be recognised and recovered at slaughter. Local trade or government guidelines must govern the use of implanted microchips in food producing species as in some situations their use may not be permitted.”

(238)“Fish and Chips: RFID Chips Track Salmon Through River Network” by Rosie Lombardi, IT World Canada, 16 November 2005 -- www.itworldcanada.com

“One of the first pioneering applications of RFID technology was not to track goods passing through a supply chain but rather to track living beings moving through an ecosystem.

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), a federally-owned not-for-profit public utility headquartered in Portland, Oregon, has been using RFID since 1986 to track salmon migration patterns through the Columbia River basin’s vast and complex network of 400 hydropower dams and waterways. …

The BPA started tagging salmon with RFID chips during the 1980s, working with RFID vendor Digital Angel based in St. Paul, Minn. to develop a massive tracking system. …

About two million salmon have been tagged every year by the BPA’s corps of biologists and engineers since the system was introduced. …

‘[A lot of] the [RFID] tags were ending up on two main islands,’ said [Scott] Bettin [a freshwater fisheries biologist with the BPA]. ‘Caspian terns eat the tagged salmon and then [excrete] them onto their nests. These islands glisten with RFID tags.’”


(239)“Recall Case Archive: Recall Notification Report 036-2004,” United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Food Safety and Inspection Service, September 2004 -- www.fsis.usda.gov

“Problem/Reason for Recall: Possible presence of foreign material.

How/When Discovered: A customer, further processing company, discovered the device while boning one of the carcasses and the recalling firm followed through with the livestock producer who produced information that revealed their placing of transponders in the live animals. …

Quantity Recalled: Approximately 1,100 pounds. 110 pork shoulder butts.

Distribution: IA, CO, and Mexico

Recall Classification: Class I

Recall Notification Level: Wholesale”


(240)“Iowa Firm Recalls Pork Products that May Contain Foreign Material,” United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Food Safety and Inspection Service, Recall Notification Report 036-2004, September 2004 -- www.fsis.usda.gov

“Sioux-Preme Packing Company, a Sioux Center, Iowa, firm, is voluntarily recalling approximately 1,110 pounds of pork products that may contain foreign material, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.

The products subject to recall are 110 pork shoulder butts that may contain small electronic transponders [microchips]. The devices were inserted in the shoulders of the animals at a livestock production facility and the animals were inadvertently shipped to slaughter. The hogs were slaughtered on September 10 and were shipped to establishments in Colorado, Iowa and Mexico for further processing.”

NOTE: A USDA recall classified as “Class I” says: “This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.”


(241)“A Focus on Animal Electronic Identification,” United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) -- www.fsrio.nal.usda.gov

Australia - National Livestock Identification Scheme: “RFID injectable transponders or subcutaneous implants are not commonly used for livestock identification due to device migrations, rejection, breakage and recovery problems.”

Reporting adverse microchip reactions and events

(242)“Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers,” Noble-Leon.com, May 2012 -- www.noble-leon.com

The document “Microchip Implants: Questions and Answers” provides a comprehensive review of microchip implant technology. Please see the section “Adverse Microchip Reactions” for information regarding the reporting of adverse reactions and events.

(243)“Chip ’n’ Spin?” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, July 2010 -- www.dogsmonthly.co.uk

“What was not put in place at the time of the introduction of microchipping animals, however, was a compulsory adverse reaction reporting scheme, either in the UK or abroad, to help ensure any problems, however insignificant or seemingly unrelated, could be properly monitored and investigated.” (Page 41.)

(244)Ibid.

“The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies sent me [Catherine O’Driscoll, of Canine Health Concern: www.canine-health-concern.org.uk] a flyer, advertising that anyone could attend their course on ‘how to insert a microchip’, which cost £195. When I telephoned and asked if they were covering the cancer potential, they said they’d never heard of it!

If a veterinary college offering microchipping courses doesn’t even know the potential adverse consequences of chips, then what hope is there that anyone else will? Will a vet in practice, dealing with cancer, stop to think ‘Hello, this is where his microchip was placed.’?” (Pages 42-43.)


(245)Lawrance Rafferty interviews Chris Laurence regarding microchipping. 2010 -- www.noble-leon.com (Audio)

In a telephone interview with Lawrance Rafferty in 2010, Chris Laurence (Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust, Chairman of the Microchip Advisory Group, Vice Chairman of the Pet Advisory Committee and advocate of microchiping), admits that adverse microchip reactions are under-reported, that microchip numbers can be duplicated, and that microchipping will not prevent animal cruelty.


(246)“Microchip Report 2003,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA): Fred Nind, Chairman, Microchip Advisory Group (MAG), September 2004 -- www.noble-leon.com

“2003 saw a marked increase in the number of reports received through the Adverse Reaction Reporting Scheme. It is significant that several reports were received from some quite small practices while many larger practices filed no reports at all. This suggests that there is an element of under reporting which may be happening for a variety of reasons.”

(247)“Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme,” Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). First published 03 March 2014 -- www.gov.uk

“If there is an adverse event following the implant of a microchip you can report it to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). …

In collaboration with the Microchip Trade Association (MTA) the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) set up a monitoring scheme to oversee reports of potential adverse events following microchipping.

The VMD does not regulate the animal microchip market, but in view of its existing reporting scheme for veterinary medicines and the need for impartiality, the VMD has taken on this role.”


(248)“Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme: Review From Voluntary to Compulsory Reporting April 2014 to December 2015,” Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), 07 June 2016 -- www.gov.uk

“The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) launched its Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme in April 2014, replacing the scheme previously run by the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA).

Although we do not regulate the animal microchip market in the same way that we assure the quality, safety and effectiveness of veterinary medicines, we agreed to take on this work… .

Reporting adverse events following microchipping of dogs has been a legal requirement in England since February 2015 and in Scotland and Wales since April 2016.

Although there is no legal obligation to report adverse events following microchipping of other animals, you can report problems occurring in any species following microchipping.” (Page 3.)


(249)“Adverse Reactions,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), 2016 -- www.bsava.com

“An adverse reaction is defined in the regulations as a microchip that causes any unnecessary pain or suffering or any pathology that is or seems to be caused by the implantation of a microchip, or a microchip that has migrated from the implantation site or failed. Although the regulation only applies to dogs it would be good practice to report adverse reactions to microchips in other species as well.”

(250)“Offences and Penalties,” British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) -- www.bsava.com

“Failure to report an adverse reaction or a microchip that has failed is punishable on conviction by a fine of up to level 2 on the standard scale (currently £500). This requirement applies to anyone who becomes aware of an adverse reaction relating to microchips, not just veterinary surgeons. However, in the case of adverse reactions relating to suffering or pathology, veterinary advice should be sought before reporting.”

(251)“Vets Unlikely To Face Action Over Microchip Reporting,” Vet Times, 24 April 2015 -- www.vettimes.co.uk

“The draft Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 revealed anyone who identifies an adverse reaction or the failure of a microchip must report that failure or reaction to the secretary of state. …

From February 24, 2015 anyone who finds an implanted microchip has failed or moved, or where a microchip has caused any abnormal reaction in the animal, must report it to the adverse event reporting scheme run by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).

RCVS registrar Gordon Hockey said: ‘The RCVS is likely to amend its supporting guidance later this year to clarify that veterinary surgeons should make appropriate reports, similar to reports for adverse reactions to veterinary medicines.  In each case, reports can be made online to the VMD.’

However, it remains unclear whether vets will face a fine of up to £500 if they fail to report a microchip failure. 

Mr Hockey said: ‘The RCVS is aware of new Defra microchipping guidelines for England that make it compulsory to report adverse reactions (including migration from the site of implantation) or the failure of a microchip.

‘There is some concern in the profession about this requirement, but Defra has said it would not enforce this regulation via the courts or seek to impose fines.’

RCVS president Stuart Reid agreed his colleagues on the preliminary investigation and disciplinary committees would not consider such cases worth pursuing. ‘It is unrealistic to believe they would identify this as a professional conduct matter,’ he added.

However, a Defra spokesman stated vets could be fined up to £500 should they fail to report adverse reactions. The spokesman added: ‘There is no offence for not reporting a dog that has not been microchipped.’”


Lack of strict, objective oversight and regulation of the microchip industry

(252)“Chip Implants Linked To Animal Tumors,” by Todd Lewan, The Associated Press, 08 September 2007 -- www.washingtonpost.com

“When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients' medical records almost instantly. The FDA found ‘reasonable assurance’ the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005's top ‘innovative technologies.’

But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had ‘induced’ malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats. …

‘We stand by our implantable products which have been approved by the FDA and/or other U.S. regulatory authorities,’ Scott Silverman, VeriChip Corp. chairman and chief executive officer, said in a written response to AP questions.

The company was ‘not aware of any studies that have resulted in malignant tumors in laboratory rats, mice and certainly not dogs or cats,’ but he added that millions of domestic pets have been implanted with microchips, without reports of significant problems. …

Did the agency know of the tumor findings before approving the chip implants? The FDA declined repeated AP requests to specify what studies it reviewed. …

Also making no mention of the findings on animal tumors was a June report by the ethics committee of the American Medical Association, which touted the benefits of implantable RFID devices.

Had committee members reviewed the literature on cancer in chipped animals?

No, said Dr. Steven Stack, an AMA board member with knowledge of the committee's review.

No, he said. …

When the FDA approved the device, it noted some Verichip risks: The capsules could migrate around the body, making them difficult to extract; they might interfere with defibrillators, or be incompatible with MRI scans, causing burns. While also warning that the chips could cause ‘adverse tissue reaction,’ FDA made no reference to malignant growths in animal studies.

Did the agency review literature on microchip implants and animal cancer?

Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate and RFID expert, asked shortly after VeriChip's approval what evidence the agency had reviewed. When FDA declined to provide information, she filed a Freedom of Information Act request. More than a year later, she received a letter stating there were no documents matching her request.

‘The public relies on the FDA to evaluate all the data and make sure the devices it approves are safe,’ she says, ‘but if they're not doing that, who's covering our backs?’”


(253)“USDA: No Authority to Regulate Pet Microchips: Standardizing microchip technology would be ‘difficult,’ department adds” by Scott Nolen, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 15 October 2007 -- www.avma.org

“More than two years after Congress directed the Department of Agriculture to weigh in on the debate over incompatible pet microchip technology, the USDA has determined it lacks the regulatory authority to mandate a national standard for microchips or microchip scanners for privately owned pets. …

‘It is important to realize that the AWA [Animal Welfare Act] does not authorize APHIS [USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] to regulate private-pet ownership or the retail sale of pets. Therefore, APHIS cannot mandate a single national standard for pet microchips or microchip scanners,’ Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns stated.”


(254)“U.S. Bill Includes RFID Provision for Pets,” by Mary Catherine O’Connor, RFID Journal, 10 November, 2005 -- www.rfidjournal.com

“Nov 10, 2005—Legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 28 and the U.S. Senate on Nov. 3, and now awaiting President Bush's signature, could make it easier for pet hospitals and shelters to use radio frequency identification to reunite pet owners with their lost animals. Million [sic] of pets in the United States have RFID tags embedded under their skin, but the tags (which animal hospitals and shelters call microchips) do not all operate at the same frequency, nor are they readable by all RFID interrogators (readers) used by vets and shelters.

The provision is included in House Report 109-255, accompanying the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill (HR 2744). If President Bush signs it, the legislation would require the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)—the branch of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture charged with protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health and safeguarding the wellbeing of domestic animals—‘to develop the appropriate regulations that allow for universal reading ability and best serve the interests of pet owners.’ This would ensure that any lost pet could have its implanted tag read and be linked to its owner through a national database.

‘We're excited and delighted, and [we] hope this legislation will resolve a long-standing problem,’ says John Snyder, senior director, companion animals, for the Humane Society of the United States. ‘The biggest user of microchips is the animal shelter community. It tags and scans thousands of animals each years, and lack of interoperability [between tags and readers] has been a major annoyance for many years.’

According to animal hospitals and pet advocacy groups, lost pets with implanted tags are sometimes euthanized before they can be reunited with their owners. This is [sic] happens when facilities holding the animals are unable to access readers with the appropriate protocol required to read the tag. …

Banfield Pet Hospital, based in Portland, Ore., operates a national network of pet care centers. In January 2004, it began offering a pet tagging and registration service using 134.2 kHz ISO tags. It also distributed an unsubstantiated number of 134.2 kHz interrogators to shelters so officials would have a means of reading the tags. In March of 2004, a dog with a 134.2 kHz tag was euthanized in a Virginia shelter because the shelter did not use the proper reader and, thus, did not find the dog's tag. The shelter reportedly had one of the Banfield 134.2 kHz readers, but did not use it on the lost pet. Banfield placed its tagging service on hold in May 2004. A spokesperson says that while the euthanization of the dog in Virgina was not the main reason Banfield stopped tagging, it did highlight a lack of awareness among shelter staff about the use of 134.2 kHz tags and readers.

The two major vendors of 125 kHz tags and readers for pet ID in the United States are AVID Identification Systems and Digital Angel. AVID encrypts the data it encodes to its pet ID tags. If a lost pet implanted with an encrypted AVID tag is brought to a shelter or vet, most readers will read the tag's encrypted ID number but won't be able to decrypt it unless the reader has a special algorithm. This forces the shelter or vet to contact AVID and provide it with the encrypted ID. AVID then provides the decrypted ID number so the shelter or vet can look it up in an AVID-operated database to locate the pet's owner. This workaround is problematic because it requires shelters and vets to spend extra time identifying pets.

In 2004, a number of nonprofit pet welfare organizations, including the Humane Society, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the American Humane Association, formed a group called the Coalition for Reunited Pets and Families. The group began requesting that RFID manufacturers and vendors provide shelters, animal control officers and veterinarians with interrogators able to identify all tags, regardless of frequency and encryption. As such, one reader could quickly and easily identify any tagged pet anywhere in the country. …

The major RFID tag and reader vendors in the pet-tagging market have intitated a number of U.S. lawsuits against each other. Currently, only AVID and Digital Angel interrogators can decrypt the AVID tags. Digital Angel president Kevin McGrath says his firm developed an algorithm of its own, rather than using AVID's algorithm, to enable its reader to decrypt AVID tags. Crystal Import located in Birmingham, Ala., distributes ISO 11784 and 11785 pet ID tags and readers manufactured by DataMars, the Swiss company that created the tags Banfield had been implanting in pets. Crystal Import is suing AVID and Digital Angel, alleging that they are infringing antitrust laws. AVID, meanwhile, is suing DataMars for patent infringement.”


(255)“Pet’s Death Rekindles Electronic ID Debate,” by R. Scott Nolen, JAVMA News, 01 July 2004 -- www.avma.org

“Soon after Banfield began offering Crystal Tag, the Humane Society of the United States, along with a host of other animal care and control organizations, proposed a summit. The idea is to bring together microchip manufacturers to resolve the incompatibility of the ISO and non-ISO technologies.

A similar resolution was sought in the early 1990s. But the process fell apart when manufacturers failed to reach a compromise. As of press time in late May, there were no takers of the latest offer.”


(256)“16 Reasons Why the US Microchip System Is Broken (and How Our Pets Suffer For It) Part 1” by Dr. Patty Khuly, VMD, MBA, 13 September 2015 -- www.drpattykhuly.com

“[T]he US microchip system is now and has always been, by design, a broken thing –– a bedraggled and limping hydra crafted to benefit its many squabbling corporate heads more than the pets it claims to serve. 

By now, almost every seasoned pet owner knows about microchips. At least they think they do. But unless you deal with microchips on a regular basis (and even if you do!), you might be surprised by the dirty little secrets harbored by those who make that little bit of identifying hardware hidden under your pet’s skin.

The truth is disgusting, really. If our human children relied on such an insecure system of identification, the media would’ve long ago cracked skulls and taken names. After the first lost child failed to make it home, after it became irrefutably, unambiguously manifest that the system was built to foster gaping cracks where systemic inaccuracies festered and lost pets languished –– but profits flourished –– it should’ve been an easy takedown. 

But it hasn’t been. The cracked and splintered but shockingly rapacious US microchip industry has gotten its way, time after time, all in the name of free market competition. This, despite attempts by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), World Small Animal Veterinary Medical Association (WSAVA), and American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), among others, to quietly rein in its greed and help reform its pet-sacrificing practices.

All of this may come as something of a surprise to you. Indeed, if you’re like most pet owners (or even veterinarians) you probably assume microchip manufacturers reside within a starry constellation of animal angels who care for nothing but reuniting pets with their people. But that’s simply not so –– not in the US, anyway. …

As a direct result of technological differences, uncounted pets’ microchips were missed when scanned. In a few cases, owners learned, incontrovertibly, that their pets had met their end in shelters. Some civil lawsuits resulted. In the vast majority of instances, however, the tragedy went undiscovered or undisclosed. These pets simply never made it home again. 

#2 Because some companies played dirty. 
As the first mover in a fledgling industry, the AVID microchip gained traction in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Once it had established this foothold in the industry, it thwarted competition in an unprecedented way: AVID encrypted its microchip information so that only facilities with an AVID scanner could detect the microchip under the pet’s skin and decode the microchip. (Early on, most veterinarians and shelters only kept one scanner on hand.)

By refusing to allow its equipment to read other microchips, AVID callously allowed countless animals to effectively remain ‘lost.’ 

But AVID didn’t see it that way. Its take was that its technology was first and best. It had spent the money to lay the groundwork for the industry. It was the victor. It deserved the spoils. In fact, in AVID’s estimation (confirmed by my personal conversations with AVID employees), its competitors were responsible for any lost pets. 

Though this business practice was widely regarded by in-the-know veterinarians as both unethical and immoral, it was the antitrust aspect that earned AVID a lawsuit. One ISO-compatible microchip distributer eventually filed a lawsuit against AVID, claiming its tactics violated US antitrust laws. In 2006, legislation was finally enacted with the intention of ending this confusion once and for all. 

While the legislation required the USDA ‘to develop the appropriate regulations that allow for universal reading ability and best serve the interests of pet owners,’ it couldn’t force the microchip companies to play nice.”


(257)“Committed To Unique ID,” AKC Reunite -- www.akcreunite.org

“ISO Compatible microchips are not required to follow stringent production standards or uniqueness of ID numbers. Oftentimes these microchips are manufactured in China.”

(258)“The Controversial ISO 11784/11785 Standard,” RFID News, 2009 -- www.rfidnews.com

“In an environment where there is uncontrolled manufacture of transponders with ID codes made to order, manufacturer's codes are no guarantee for product origin, quality and manufacturer's accountability.

In the world of the ISO open standard, there is no guarantee that a manufacturer's three-digit ID number ensures that that [sic] this manufacturer has in fact made the transponder in question. Some of the available custom-programmed, OTP and read/write transponders already duplicate ID numbers provided by Destron, Datamars and Texas Instruments.”


(259)“Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme: Review From Voluntary to Compulsory Reporting April 2014 to December 2015,” Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), 07 June 2016 -- www.gov.uk

“The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) launched its Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme in April 2014, replacing the scheme previously run by the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA).

Although we do not regulate the animal microchip market in the same way that we assure the quality, safety and effectiveness of veterinary medicines we agreed to take on this work… .” (Page 3.)


(260)“The Veterinary Medicines Directorate Microchip Adverse Event Reporting Scheme,” Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), 03 March 2014 -- www.gov.uk

“[T]he Microchip Trade Association (MTA) approached the VMD to set up a monitoring scheme to oversee reports of potential adverse events following microchipping. The VMD does not regulate the animal microchip market, but in view of the success of its reporting scheme for veterinary medicines and the need for impartiality, the VMD agreed to take on this role. The scheme has been set up with funding provided partly by Defra and partly by the companies belonging to the MTA.”

(261)“MTA Members,” Microchip Trade Association, 2016 -- www.microchiptradeassociation.org

“The Microchip trade association was originally formed in the early 1990’s by a group of veterinary bodies, microchip suppliers and major users such as large animal charities, to regulate the microchip industry, it was known then as the ‘Microchip Advisory Group’ (MAG) and chaired by the BSAVA.

The group formed around the same time as the FECAVA standard for microchips was introduced in the UK to discuss the compatibility and technical issues as microchipping developed throughout the UK & Europe. The main issues were developing and coordinating databases, standardisation of implantation sites and non-compatibility of the early chips and readers and helping to get the FECAVA standard in place. …

In 2012 MAG underwent reorganisation and became the Microchip Trade Association (MTA) representing the suppliers in the industry who have signed the new code of practice.

The Welfare organisations and veterinary bodies became the Microchip Alliance and the Databases continue to meet independently. All organisations continue to communicate between themselves and DEFRA.

The MTA has been instrumental in developing the adverse reaction scheme formerly held by MAG now run by the Veterinary Medical Directorate (VMD) to monitor the reliability of microchips in companion animals. The group has also played a key role in advising the government in relation to the new compulsory dog microchipping legislation.

The MTA worked with DEFRA on The Microchipping of Dogs Act 2015 and with LANTRA in developing training courses, and now has its own Secretary of State Approved Training Course.”


(262)“Chip ’n’ Spin?” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, July 2010 -- www.dogsmonthly.co.uk

“SELF-MONITORING GROUP
According to the BSAVA, any adverse reaction reports received by them are passed directly to Mr Laurence, who is also the vice-chairman of the Pet Advisory Committee (PAC), which provides information and advice to Parliament and national and local government.

The Microchip Advisory Group (MAG), according to the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), is made up of representatives from companies in the field of microchips, animal welfare groups and veterinary organisations; its members comprise microchip manufacturers, distributors, databases, major purchasers [of chips] and major implanters. Between them they developed a code of practice.” (Page 42.)


(263)“MAG Microchip Advisory Group Self Report Scheme,” Microchip-Implants.co.uk, 06 April 2011 -- www.youtube.com (Video)

An interesting video that discusses flaws in the voluntary microchip adverse reporting scheme developed by Microchip Advisory Group (MAG).

(264)“Conclusion,” Microchip-Implants.co.uk, 06 April 2011 -- www.microchip-implants.co.uk

“Compelling owners to carry out actions like microchipping that cause adverse reactions breaches animal welfare principles. Inclusion of interested parties may be unintentional by John Terrington’s team, but it raises questions about the reliability of oversight in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Someone should have noticed the supply of the only safety data from an organization where the Veterinary Director also chaired an industry group with a material interest. The data itself biased because of the source and under-reported because of the methodology and therefore useless.

Microchip implantation has coincided with soft tissue sarcomas in several species. Strong denials by interested parties such as veterinary surgeons, animal charities and even the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of Northern Ireland do not lessen the evidence. They highlight imbalance in assessment of microchip implantation weighted towards the business case ignoring health implications for animals and the unavoidable high Veterinary bills for some owners. Self-policed risk analysis trumps real science in the corridors of power at Stormont placing profit before democracy and fair play once again. A situation repeated often in Northern Ireland’s recent history.”


The microchip industry has a history of a lack of integrity

(265)“The Microchip Wars and How They Affect Your Pets' Safety (Part 1: Accusations)” by Dr. Patty Khuly VMD, MBA, 25 June 2007 -- www.petmd.com

“You may not know this but…not only are there a variety of brands of microchips available, these brands often represent competing technologies.

Remember the VHS and Betamax wars of the late seventies? (Maybe not.) Back then some of us owned a great piece of movie-watching equipment we couldn’t use. This was after VHS won the war and Betamax-technology based movies disappeared almost overnight.

You should know that microchip companies are just as competitive in their military tactics as the warring factions were when it came to home movies. Only much more’s at stake than what sized square box fits into your TV. In this case nothing less is on the line than whether your pet is found and returned…or locked up and euthanized. …

And lest you think it’s just the difference between the basic technologies that’s a problem, you should also know it’s way more complicated than that. Even microchip companies that use the same basic technology are barring other companies from reading their specific chips—as a way to maintain or capture the market of safety conscious pet owners.

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.

Any microchip company that sets up commercial barriers against other microchip companies by effectively limiting any pet from finding its way back home deserves to be dragged out of the market and drowned in a sea of animal cruelty legal fees.

Moreover, any company or retailer (such a vet, shelter or breeder) that implants microchips without informing clients of the implications of this technology (who can read the chip and who can’t) is looking for a world of trouble.

These are harsh statements—even by my often-cutting critical standards. The last time I was so angry was over the pet food recall. And this setup is just as bad (if not worse) from the point of view of animal welfare.

Arguably, the microchip wars have led to more pain, suffering and euthanasia than ten such pet food recalls…perhaps even more.

But we’ll never know. The death of an unidentifiably microchipped animal is a silent event. It no doubt happens in shelters across the country; but owners of lost pets just assume she was killed by a car or, hopefully, taken in by a loving family when she got so lost she couldn’t find her way back home.

No paper trail and no proof equals no liability. It’s a perfect setup for malfeasance on the part of an irresponsible company. And they’ve all proven they’re willing to sacrifice pet safety to gain a degree’s difference on the microchip-market pie-chart.”


(266)“The Microchip Wars and How They Affect Your Pets' Safety (Part 2: Microchip Technology)” by Dr. Patty Khuly VMD, MBA, 27 June 2007 -- www.petmd.com

“[Banfield] failed to inform their customers of the limitations of their isolated technology. In other words, they sold thousands of microchips without telling their clients that most local shelters and non-Banfield vets wouldn’t be able to read them, thereby rendering these chips ineffective. Now that’s not so smart, is it?”

(267)“The Microchip Wars and How They Affect Your Pets' Safety (Part 3: Microchip Readers/Scanners)” by Dr. Patty Khuly VMD, MBA, 01 July 2007 -- www.petmd.com

“Given the past actions some microchip companies have taken to (1) effectively conceal the presence of other companies’ chips; (2) limit the ability of other companies to read their own chips; and (3) legally or commercially interfere to restrict public access to universal readers, it’s clear that real world commercial machinations often trump technology and the public's demand for best practices. …

AVID, first-mover in the pet microchip market, encrypted its microchip information so that only facilities with an AVID reader could both detect the chip and read the pet’s identifying digits. You might think that’s because AVID has superior technology… but it’s not. It’s so they could maintain their lead in the game when other players wanted in… by making sure their reader was the most universal available. …

AVID even manufactured and distributed a reader (in 2006!) that couldn’t even detect the presence of HomeAgain microchips, much less a pet’s ID numbers. Many vets and shelters that received these readers weren’t even aware that HomeAgain chips wouldn’t be detected (or read). Sure, it says so on the packaging, but that doesn’t translate to effective user-understanding.

How many shelters euthanized HomeAgain-chipped pets after this 2006 reader’s introduction? How many AVID-equipped shelters and vets even know that the reader currently in their hands can’t identify a HomeAgain-chipped pet at all? Dunno. AVID doesn’t say how many they distributed; only that they did and that they still offer this marvelous tool.

AVID also markets a reader outside the US for ISO (134.2) chips. Its website also lists a universal scanner (which detects but doesn't read the ISO chip). AVID's universal scanner doesn't read ISO chips' numbers (in spite of AVID's ability to make it so) and, furthermore, fails to include any ISO detection on its routinely distributed readers. AVID claims it takes longer for chips to be read by universal scanners and therefore aren't ‘safe’ to use. How to establish the veracity of this statement is beyond me since they haven’t answered my emails on getting one of these babies. …

The fact that AVID has held this technology for years frustrates me further—especially in light of their legal action against Banfield, ‘… for the unsafe use of a chip that can’t be detected by the existing infrastructure,’ when they’re the number-one offender to pet safety in the industry. After all, who created the unsafe infrastructure to begin with? Who propagates its limitations with encrypted chips? And who’s got the ultimate power to ensure that safety? Three guesses.

You might wonder: How many vets know about these pet-unsafe competitive tactics? My vet colleagues at work don’t even know why our HomeAgain reader comes up ‘AV’ (sans-digits). The microchip companies haven’t exactly broadcast their tactics. Sure, it’s been in the vet news but, as with faraway wars in Africa, that kind of info mostly flies under our busy-vet radars. Factor in the level of convolution on the technology and the boredom of legal maneuvering and this is one issue most vets gloss over entirely (myself included — until very recently). …

My assessment? AVID and HomeAgain’s protection of the market has put our ugly-American, robber-barron tactics on display for all the world to marvel at. And the AVID/HomeAgain duopoly still claims ‘patent protection’ while the public (and the rest of the pet industry!) clamor for ‘pet protection’.”


(268)“Ten More Reasons Why Our Pets’ Microchip System Needs Fixing (Part 2)” by Dr. Patty Khuly, VMD, MBA, 20 September 2015 -- www.drpattykhuly.com

“Regrettably, however, microchips are far from perfect. As I described in detail in Part 1 [“16 Reasons Why the US Microchip System Is Broken (and How Our Pets Suffer For It) Part 1”], the labyrinthine commercial landscape, rife with competing technologies, resulted in an epidemic of identification failures. Untold numbers of lost microchipped pets were ‘missed’ by veterinarians and shelters when microchip companies competed by forcing vets and shelters to choose between incompatible technologies. …

Ostracize companies who don’t play nice.

I’d love nothing better. Unfortunately, AVID’s not going out of business anytime soon. Too many veterinarians and shelters are in the dark about their underhanded practices. Or they just don’t care.” 


(269)“Banfield The Pet Hospital Stops Marketing ISO Microchip,” RFID News, 14 May 2004 -- www.rfidnews.com

“A spokesperson for Banfield The Pet Hospital, which has locations in PetSmart stores throughout the United States, has confirmed that the company has stopped marketing their ISO FDX-B microchips.

On April 21, a pit bull was euthanized in a Virginia shelter, because the animal’s Banfield-supplied chip was not compatible with the shelter’s reader. Inquiries by journalists confirmed that none of the area’s shelters was using compatible readers.

Mark Kumpf, President of the Virginia AnimalControl Association, said: ‘HSUS, ASPCA, NACA, and other national animal care and control organizations have issued a warning to pet owners that new ISO microchips offered by Banfield and other pet hospitals may place your pets at risk.’ Rick Collord, Former Chairman, Society of Animal Welfare Administrators, Microchip Committee, explained that ‘With the use of this incompatible technology, and without scanners in widespread use that can read all three chips accurately, thoroughly and precisely, the new ISO chip is a detriment.’

Dr. Jamie Rees of Banfield stated that ‘Banfield has chosen the new ISO chip and scanner because it is the new technology that is what the rest of the world is using.’

Although ISO FDX-B microchips are being used in some European countries and parts of Australia, acceptance of ISO FDX-B microchips is not universal and the standard on which they are based continues to generate controversy, in part due to concerns about ID code duplication.”


(270)“New Entrants To Pet Microchip Market Draw Critics: Are chips with ‘900’ codes unreliable or unfairly targeted?” by Edie Lau, The VIN News Service, 29 July 2015 -- www.news.vin.com

“As if the microchip system for pet identification wasn’t complicated and inefficient enough, an influx of new players is adding confusion and stirring tension in the market.



Critics of the newcomers say the problem rests largely with those that sell chips with identification numbers that begin 9-0-0, a prefix shared by multiple companies. Established players use unique prefixes that allow chips to be traced back to their respective manufacturers. With so-called 900 chips, tracing a product to its origin may be more difficult.



Vendors of 900 chips say they’re not to blame for the confusion, and charge competitors with raising criticisms in an attempt to stifle competition. Some say they entered the muddy field of pet microchips precisely because it’s flawed, and they hope to improve it.

An examination by the VIN News Service found that the problem isn’t inherent with 900 chips. The issue is whether the microchip vendor provides ongoing support to customers… .”


(271)“The Microchip Question - NAIS & Horse Identification” by Heather Smith Thomas, The Equine Chronicle, September/October 2006 -- www.equinechroncileonline.com

“When it became clear what some of the problems were with this system—especially for unique animal ID—and where the expansion in this market was heading, there was an official complaint by the Russian standards organization (Gosstandart).  They made a formal motion requesting that IS0 11784/ll785 be repealed.  According to [Barbara] Masin [of Trovan® Electronic Identification Systems], the Russians said, ‘There’s a problem here.  We don’t have unique ID.  This standard is being sold as something that claims to provide unique ID, but it can’t.  It’s two mutually incompatible technologies in one standard.’ …

Other flaws with the ISO 11784/85 standard are its inability to ensure unique ID codes. Being an open standard (in the public domain), it relies on an honor system—with all manufacturers agreeing on who manufactures which numbers, to prevent duplicates. But without legal teeth in the form of patents to thwart production of unsanctioned chips, the ISO standard is susceptible to compromise by manufacturers.  There is no manufacturer accountability.

There is also the problem of transponder performance. Neither IS0 11784 or 11785 stipulates any minimum performance requirements for microchips suitable for use in animals. … Thus being ISO compliant is no guarantee of suitability for any given RFID product for use in animals.

So ultimately this was put to a vote in the SC group for that standard, says Masin.  ‘It was a highly political process and very contentious. … They did revotes and recounts.  Each vote/recount yielded more votes against the standard, but the last count, which we still believe was incorrect, showed 50 percent of the nations for it and 50 percent against.  It was a tie. … We believe that the entities responsible for doing the counting were beneficiaries of one of the companies that was in favor of having the standard stay as it was,’ says Masin.

‘Essentially it was short by one vote of having the standard cancelled. So if people say it’s a great international standard, this is not true.  In the ISO voting group, half the countries at the national standards level said this is a bad standard.  They realize this system is open to fraud,’ explains Masin. …

People who are aware of problems with the ISO system are wondering why the USDA is dictating the use of this particular kind of chip. ‘This chip is really not suitable,’ says Masin.  ‘When this was being discussed for livestock, our ISO board approached the USDA and attempted to communicate with everyone from Anne Venneman (Secretary of USDA at that time) on down, and we got no return calls. They were not interested in hearing this. I went to the USDA listening sessions and offered to show them the problem with duplication possibilities, but they didn’t want to see it. The situation is very political. There are certain people involved within the USDA who have very close ties to certain manufacturers. There is an underlying agenda, unfortunately, and this is not for the good of the country,’ says Masin. …

The flaws have been well documented, as far back as 1995, says Masin. ‘It’s very unfortunate that when the discussion at USDA was happening for the livestock standard, it wasn’t an open discussion. Listening sessions were crowd control type; USDA didn’t want to see any information against the system and didn’t respond to efforts to show them what was actually going on in other countries,’ she says. There are still many people who are not aware that this is a poor system and that other countries are unhappy with it.”


(272)“Chip Implants Linked To Animal Tumors,” by Todd Lewan, The Associated Press, 08 September 2007 -- www.washingtonpost.com

“Did the agency [Food and Drug Administration] know of the tumor findings before approving the chip implants? The FDA declined repeated AP requests to specify what studies it reviewed.

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip's approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. …

When asked what role, if any, he played in VeriChip's approval, Thompson replied: ‘I had nothing to do with it. And if you look back at my record, you will find that there has never been any improprieties whatsoever.’

FDA's [Anthony] Watson said: ‘I have no recollection of him being involved in it at all.’ VeriChip Corp. declined comment.

Thompson vigorously campaigned for electronic medical records and healthcare technology both as governor of Wisconsin and at HHS. While in President Bush's Cabinet, he formed a ‘medical innovation’ task force that worked to partner FDA with companies developing medical information technologies.

At a ‘Medical Innovation Summit’ on Oct. 20, 2004, Lester Crawford, the FDA's acting commissioner, thanked the secretary for getting the agency ‘deeply involved in the use of new information technology to help prevent medication error.’ One notable example he cited: ‘the implantable chips and scanners of the VeriChip system our agency approved last week.’

After leaving the Cabinet and joining the company board, Thompson received options on 166,667 shares of VeriChip Corp. stock, and options on an additional 100,000 shares of stock from its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, according to SEC records. He also received $40,000 in cash in 2005 and again in 2006, the filings show.

The Project on Government Oversight called Thompson's actions ‘unacceptable’ even though they did not violate what the independent watchdog group calls weak conflict-of-interest laws.

‘A decade ago, people would be embarrassed to cash in on their government connections. But now it's like the Wild West,’ said the group's executive director, Danielle Brian.

Thompson is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a Washington law firm that was paid $1.2 million for legal services it provided the chip maker in 2005 and 2006, according to SEC filings.

He stepped down as a VeriChip Corp. director in March to seek the GOP presidential nomination, and records show that the company gave his campaign $7,400 before he bowed out of the race in August.”


(273)“Chip ’n’ Spin?” by Caroline Davis, Dogs Monthly, July 2010 -- www.dogsmonthly.co.uk

“Becoming conversant with all the facts that can be ascertained regarding chipping may help make up your own mind as to whether it is safe and for the greater good of canines (and other pets), or simply a clever smokescreen to cover up one of the greatest test experiments ever, which those who have had their pets chipped have unsuspectingly been a part of and have paid for.

To get your head around the latter, bear in mind that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the implanting of microchips in humans in 2005, and in 2007 a chip trial using VeriChip implants was carried out on Alzheimer’s patients in Florida.

However, an American writer/researcher, Todd Lewan, discovered that neither the company nor regulators had mentioned that a series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the end of the mid-1990s, had stated that chip implants had induced malignant tumours in laboratory mice and rats.

VeriChip (now called PositiveID) saw a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips and it has spent millions assembling hospitals equipped to scan chipped patients.

PositiveID also owns a credit monitoring and identity theft prevention company Steel Vault, and has an alliance with Innovations Avocare to use its chips in Florida’s various healthcare organisations. …

What better way to conduct such a large-scale study than on a population of millions of pet dogs (and other animals) – and get the public to pay for it to boot? Making it mandatory would ensure animals were chipped and also accustom people to chipping.”


(274)“Frequently Asked Questions,” Identipet -- www.identipet.com

“It is a sad fact that when some microchip companies in South Africa have ceased to trade, they have left thousands of microchipped, and consequently unidentifiable pets.”

(275)“Warning: Avoid Cheap Imitations: Identipet (Pty) Ltd. Acts Against FiveStarID for Brand Piracy,” Identipet -- www.identipetcom

“Identipet (Pty) Ltd became aware in February 2013 that the company, FiveStarID, is attempting to market a cheap microchip reader ‘Mini Reader’ with the embedded LED screen product name of ‘Pocket Reader’. …

The cheap ‘Pocket Reader’ offered for sale by FiveStarID in stark contrast, decodes only 1 animal microchip protocol, therefore cannot decode most of the South African animal implanted microchips, and with no auxiliary features, is as such, less relevant to the high demands of the Southern African RFID market. By its name association, lesser relevance, and performance difference, the FiveStarID ‘Pocket Reader’ has potentially harmed the good reputation of the well-established Identipet product in the eyes of consumers who are unaware that two products with the same name exist, and of the marked differences between them.”


(276)“Bite Put on PetNet for Misleading Consumers,” CBC News, 28 July 2004 -- www.cbc.ca

“Anitech Enterprises Inc., which operates under the name PetNet, pleaded guilty in the Federal Court of Canada to a criminal charge of misleading hundreds of thousands of pet owners through a deceptive mail campaign.”

(277)“LifeChip®: Equine Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) Microtransponder System,” Destron Fearing -- www.destronfearing.com

“Destron Fearing is not liable for consequential, incidental, punitive, exemplary, economic, direct, indirect or special damages whatsoever (including but not limited to damages for loss of business or personal profits, business interruption or loss of privacy) arising out of or related to failure of performance, defects, or other events relating to the Microchip.”

(278)“Microchip Trade Association: Suppliers of Microchips for Animal Identification,” Microchip Trade Association (MTA) -- www.microchiptradeassociation.com

“MTA members can only be responsible for the chips they supply NOT for their implantation, when chips migrate or disappear this is generally viewed as implanter technique issues or 'bad luck on the day'. All of our members will reimburse reasonable costs where a chip is shown to be present and non-functioning.

Please ensure that your chosen implanter carries appropriate insurance.”


(279)“VeriChip Photos and Forms: Dog Chip or VeriChip?” SpyChips.com -- www.spychips.com

VeriChip’s “Waiver and Limitation of Liability” says:

“1. Patients acknowledge that execution and delivery of this VeriMed Patient Registration Form 'VPR', and resulting registration is conditioned upon the terms of the Conditions of Use. Patient voluntarily registers by executing and delivering this VPR and is fully aware of any risks, complications, risks of loss, damage of any nature, and injury that may be associated with this registration. Patient waives all claims and releases any liability arising from this registration and acknowledges that no warranties of any kind have been made or will be made with respect to this registration. ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, HOWEVER ARISING, WHETHER BY OPERATION OF LAW OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXCLUDED AND WAIVED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COMPANY BE LIABLE TO PATIENT FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING LOST INCOME OR SAVINGS) ARISING FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THEIR POSSIBILITY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES ARE SOUGHT BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY.

2. THE COMPANY DOES NOT WARRANT THE CONTENT OF THE WEBSITE WILL BE ACCURATE, RELIABLE OR CORRECT; THAT THE WEBSITE WILL BE AVAILABLE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME; THAT ANY ERRORS WILL BE CORRECTED; OR THAT THE WEBSITE WILL BE FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE COMPANY BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES THAT RESULT FROM THE USE OF, OR INABILITY TO USE, THE WEBSITE. THE COMPANY DISCLAIMS ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR CURRENTNESS OF THE CONTENT OF THE WEBSITE.  

3. THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATES AND ANY PROVIDERS FOR ALL CLAIMS, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE AND PRODUCT LIABILITY), OR OTHERWISE, ARISING OUT OF, CONNECTED WITH OR RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE COMPANY’S PRODUCTS OR WEBSITE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE NET AMOUNT PAID BY PATIENT TO THE COMPANY PURSUANT TO THIS VPR.”  

(280)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

Please see the following sections in the document “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” for information regarding a lack of integrity in the microchip industry:
  • “Controversy Surrounds Microchip Implant Technology”
  • “Financial Instability of Microchip Companies”
  • “Microchip Company Leads Public to Believe that FDA Does Not Consider VeriChip Implant to be Registered Medical Device”
  • “Microchip Company Recruits Government Muscle”
  • “FDA Approval Process of VeriChip Microchip Implant System”
  • “Scott Silverman’s ‘Myths’ About Microchip Implants”
  • “Microchip Companies Attempt to Dismiss Microchip-Cancer Risk.”
(281)“Are Pet Owners Being Misled Regarding the Safety and Reliability of Microchip Implants?” Noble-Leon.com, April 2011 -- www.noble-leon.com

“Real-life evidence shows that microchip implants are an unreliable and potentially dangerous form of identification. In spite of the risks, microchip companies and advocates of microchipping continue to mislead pet owners by saying that microchips are reliable and safe. In addition, mandatory animal microchipping legislation continues to be enacted around the world.”

(282)“16 Reasons Why the US Microchip System Is Broken (and How Our Pets Suffer For It) Part 1” by Dr. Patty Khuly, VMD, MBA, 13 September 2015 -- www.drpattykhuly.com

“The truth is disgusting, really. If our human children relied on such an insecure system of identification, the media would’ve long ago cracked skulls and taken names. After the first lost child failed to make it home, after it became irrefutably, unambiguously manifest that the system was built to foster gaping cracks where systemic inaccuracies festered and lost pets languished –– but profits flourished –– it should’ve been an easy takedown. 

But it hasn’t been. The cracked and splintered but shockingly rapacious US microchip industry has gotten its way, time after time, all in the name of free market competition. This, despite attempts by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), World Small Animal Veterinary Medical Association (WSAVA), and American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), among others, to quietly rein in its greed and help reform its pet-sacrificing practices.”


Microchip companies sue competitors for infringing on patents and making unsubstantiated, misleading and incorrect advertising claims that endanger the lives of animals

(283)“Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa,” Ruling of the ASA Directorate in the matter between Identipet SA (Pty) Ltd (Complainant) and Virbac RSA (Pty) Ltd (Respondent), 2003 and 2004 -- www.identipet.com

Read about microchip companies suing competitors for “UNSUBSTANTIATED, MISLEADING AND INCORRECT” advertising that endangers the lives of animals and adversely affects consumers.

(284)“Pet’s Death Rekindles Electronic ID Debate,” by R. Scott Nolen, JAVMA News, 01 July 2004 -- www.avma.org

“Companies wanting to compete in the U.S. marketplace face serious legal challenges, since AVID and Digital Angel hold patent rights on the 125 kHz technology, including the microchip scanners. Just this February, AVID filed a lawsuit in federal court, accusing microchip manufacturer Allflex USA Inc., and Pethealth Inc., a Canadian pet health insurance company, of infringing on AVID's exclusive rights to the 125 kHz scanner. Pethealth is countersuing AVID for false and deceptive advertising and unfair competition.”

(285)“AVID Wins Patent Infringement Suit Against Pethealth,” RFID News, 14 October 2004 -- www.rfidnews.com

“The federal district court in Madison, Wisconsin recently ruled in a suit brought by AVID Identification Systems, Inc., that certain products used and distributed by Pethealth Services (USA) Inc. infringe a patent owned by AVID. AVID and Pethealth settled the remaining portions of the case. …

The Wisconsin ruling is not the first to vindicate AVID’s intellectual property rights. On June 4, 2004, United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of AVID, against infringers Global ID Systems, Inc. and Douglas Hull. The defendants had been found liable for unfair competition, trademark infringement and patent infringement. The infringement was ruled to be willful and unexcused, which doubled the damages awarded to AVID. David B. Abel of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey was the successful lead litigator in the Global ID case. 


In a separate patent infringement case, in May of this year, AVID filed suit in East Texas against Philips Electronics North America Corp., Medical Management International, Inc. dba Banfield the Pet Hospital, Datamars, Inc. and others, related to AVID’s scanning and microchipping technology. AVID is represented by Fish & Richardson P.C. in this matter.”


(286)“Microchip Melee Broaches Monopoly,” by David Frabotta, DVM360 Magazine, 01 April 2005 -- www.veterinarynews.dvm360.com

“The newest battle in the war for microchip market share is being waged via an antitrust lawsuit. The Crystal Import Corp. is demanding $10 million from AVID Identification Systems and Digital Angel Corp. for monopolistic behavior, including preventing competition and discouraging adoption of competing technologies.

‘There are a number of individual acts that when taken together constitute antitrust violations and unfair competition,’ says Larry Drucker, attorney for Crystal. ‘I don't think there is any one single act that you can highlight; it's a cumulative effect of what they are doing.’ …

AVID calls the suit an expected legal counterstrategy and a waste of resources for both parties.”


(287)“Jury Awards $6 Million Plus in Avid Pet Microchip Trial; Avid Prevails on Claims of False Advertising and Patent Infringement,” BusinessWire, 05 June 2006 -- www.businesswire.com

“A leading maker of microchips for pets – Avid Identification Systems, Inc. – scored a significant litigation victory last week when a jury found two competitors liable for infringing Avid’s technology and making false advertising claims that harmed consumers. The jury awarded Avid more than $6 million in the lawsuit against European-based Datamars SA and its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Crystal Import Corporation. …

Last year, a Superior Court in San Diego, California, stopped Banfield, the Pet Hospital from selling the same ISO microchips due to ‘the risk of great, irreparable harm for which legal remedies are inadequate, specifically the increased potential for pets to be euthanized while their owners believe them to be safe.’ …

Additionally, Avid claimed that statements made by Datamars and Crystal in advertising their products were false and harmful to consumers, and Avid sought damages under the Lanham Act. Datamars and Crystal made several false claims in promotional materials including, ‘if your pet becomes lost, any animal care facility can scan your pet,’ despite that the majority of scanners in use in shelters in the U.S. were unable to read the Datamars microchips.”


Obsolete technology

(288)“The Microchip Question - NAIS & Horse Identification” by Heather Smith Thomas, The Equine Chronicle, September/October 2006 -- www.equinechronicleonline.com

“Another thing to consider, in choosing this system for the NAIS [National Animal Identification System], is that by using the ISO microchip system, we are building in impending obsolescence. … If technological advancements become available, the USDA’s NAIS (and people who chip their horses with this system) will be confronted with a difficult choice.  They can continue with out-moded technology or junk this standard and begin a new process of standardization (which took more than 5 years for the current ISO standard) for the new technology for a national system.

Jim Gowan, ESWG [Equine Species Working Group] member representing the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau, says the microchip issue was one of several things his group questioned about the ESWG’s recommendations to USDA and the horse industry.  ‘Chips can be replaced, removed or changed. With today’s technology, how long will microchips be the system of choice? Maybe we don’t want to be locked into this, with chips in all our horses. If something better and more feasible comes along, then we’d have to switch systems and that could be very costly,’ he says.”


Summary

(289)“Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” Noble-Leon.com, November 2009 -- www.noble-leon.com

“Please get involved. Educate yourself and your loved ones regarding the health, privacy, legal, ethical, religious, and environmental concerns associated with microchip implants, RFID technology, and other tracking modalities that are currently in place and/or slated for the future. Look at the big picture. Ask the right questions. Speak for those who are unable to speak for themselves because one day, for whatever reason, you may not be able to speak for yourself.”

   
   
   
   

Please click here to visit the corresponding document
entitled "Microchipping Lies, Legislation and Lawsuits."





February 2017
 
Home | Introduction | Léon's Letters
Layman's Literature > Microchips > Vaccines > Other
Advanced Literature > Microchips > Vaccines > Other
Reporting Adverse Reactions | Gallery > Photos > Graphics | Acknowledgments
Terms and Conditions

Copyright © 2017

   
noble-leon homepage

Top