Quote:
Originally Posted by jp4m2  Sorry I had to disappear for a few minutes, I was in the middle of cooking dinner…..
I know we could trade links showing opposing views concerning safety in using a chip or the risks of cancer/tumor formation. The real problem is that we do not have a mandatory reporting system for these products. Right now it is strictly voluntary. I have seen stats concerning the reporting of adverse reactions of human products to be as low as 1% and at a high of 10%. Even if it is at the ten percent level this is totally unacceptable. The reporting for pet adverse reactions can’t possibly be higher than the rate for humans, so this is just as bad. As of now we really do not know how many cases are out there. Is it one or is it thousands?? At this point in time no one can really answer that, this is an unknown and depending which side the debate goes the numbers quoted will either be minimal or they will be large.
It would take a lot of time to investigate the studies and research papers to see if the author or researchers have any financial ties to the chip company, or if the chip company is funding the studies. That is why I specified that the research has to be done by unbiased parties. These types of things are very common in the medical field, it’s more common than not, sad to say.
I know many dogs have been returned to their owners because they where scanned and the chips where correctly registered. In those cases it worked as it should have. I would venture to say there is most likely many failures of returned pets even though the pet was chipped as in: chip not scanned even though the shelter had a scanner, chip migrated and the person scanning missed it, scanner not compatible with chip, failure of the chip because it’s defective, etc.etc. I am sure I read a couple stories of pets being adopted out and even euthanized because of these failures. I also came across articles raising the question as to what happens to a chip if the pet has to have a MRI , x-ray or a cat scan??? Has this ever been studied?......Are vets making sure they don’t administer any vaccines in the same area as the chip?? I’ve seen articles where this can cause an inflammatory process increasing the risks of tumors or possibly cancer forming. These sorts of things should be considered when opting to use chips.
All I’m saying is there are too many unknowns concerning this product. In the years to come I believe we will see more studies but until then *I* will wait….This is just one of those topics that is not answered with a simple*yes* or *no* answer. For each of us it will take a lot of thought and weighing of all the unknowns with the benefits in their use and then deciding if the reasons for its use is worth it for a our pets health and welfare….. |
There seems to be a notion going around internet forums that if a company pays for research, the research is tainted. You can’t trust dog food companies that do research because they pay for their own research. Who should pay for it? You can design a study to get predictable results, but any first year lab student would see right through it. These studies are reviewed in scientific journals that are independent of any company. Believe me, when I say scientists will pick apart a study that they think is poorly designed. Studies are expensive, and a company would be very foolish to try and sway the results. They would lose all credibility in the scientific world. Futhermore, one study is worthless, it has to be replicated over and over so that they conclude the results weren’t just by chance. Then variables are manipulated to see what else the can learn. Conclusions are exceedingly cautiously prepared. So just because a company paid for a study, it doesn’t mean the study is not valid. Think of all the pharmaceuticals companies, they do plenty of their own testing, do you refuse to believe them as well? Lastly, vets are trained in science and scientific testing, it's there job to know if a certain procedure is safe. The first rule they learn is "First do no harm." They aren't making that much money per microchip, I doubt if my vet cleared $5.00.
Your thoughts on chips migrating have been addressed, and it's said that companies have learned of a way to keep this from happening. Again, have your vet check your microchip every year to see if it's has the data and isn't migrating. Concerning MRI etc. consult your vet, but here's what one place says about MRI's and microchips.
Quote:
|
. . . main contraindication for MRI is the presence of certain metal implants (steel, pacemakers) in the patient. Animals with microchips may have MRI, although a microchip may cause local artifact. If metal is present in a patient close to the area of interest, artifacts might interfere with image interpretation. In very rare instances, a study might be non-diagnostic due to a metallic foreign body in the patient.
|