Well, I think the pros outweigh the potential cons. How many dogs have died because they weren't returned to their owners but would have if they had had a microchip? Countless dogs. Far more than any dogs that may have had a tumor caused by the microchip itself.

One thing that I find interesting in the first article is that all the "evidence" is found in mice and rats, but no research has been conducted on dogs/cats...at least none that was provided.

I think that the fact that vaccines are regularly given around the neck is a far more likely cause of the cancer. The fact that the article states that tumors are found *near* the microchip doesn't mean that it was caused by the microchip. That isn't to say that microchips can't cause cancer, I just think that life situations are far too multifactorial to be conclusive one way or another. I mean, there is also research showing that tumors grow on incision lines...so does that mean we should stop spaying and neutering our animals? Just some food for thought.

If microchips really caused enough cancer to make it not worthwhile to have them implanted, then I think we would hear more about it since a LOT of pets are microchipped these days.

Will this keep me from microchipping my pets? Probably not.

 

If microchips really caused enough cancer to make it not worthwhile to have them implanted, then I think we would hear more about it since a LOT of pets are microchipped these days.

What would be the purpose of that? These companies want to make a profit. They are not going to announce that their product can cause cancer. You won't hear them talk about it. Ever.

It is a rare occurrence except if your dog or cat is the one suffering with cancer.

I had to pressure the manufacturer for an answer. My vet had to pressure the manufacturer for an answer.

 

3RingCircus lost her first Leo to cancer caused by a microchip.

copied from 3RingCircus' sig: Behr 5/24/97 - 4/30/05, my first velcro boy. Died from cancer caused by his microchip.

One of my dogs is microchipped, the other two are not. I actually have not considered getting the other 2 dogs microchipped.

 

i have to ask how it could have been determined that the microchip caused the cancer? cancer occurring near the site of the implant does not equate to the chip causing cancer.

 

All of my dogs are microchipped now. The second article is very sensationalist and not written from a scientific perspective. The person writing it has a doctorate in Education and a web site devoted to antichip and privacy legislation. I would have liked to have seen actual scientific research backing up any claims besides anecdotal evidence of animals dying from microchips being injected into their brain stems while on the table.

I have had a dog that was lost, and I have had 2 dogs with dogs with mammary cancer, 2 with splenic cancer, and 4 with cancer of unknown origin. None of them had microchips. Believe me, having the dog that was lost, and never knowing what happened to them or where they ended up was the worst for me. At least with the others I knew that I did the best I could for them and that they had peaceful endings.

I will always put a microchip in all my animals. The potential risk of cancer (and we still are not sure if it is from the chip or from a vaccine in the same spot) when you consider the quantity of animals with microchips, is outweighed by the peace of mind.

 

i know i say this everytime someone bring up cancer but.....

orange juice is PROVEN to cause cancer in rats. so i guess we better stop drinking orange juice?
rats die of old age at 2 1/2 3 yrs old.
most die of cancer.

 

I weigh the pros and cons. I microchip.

I have yet to find any information that convinces me this is the case. I'm more convinced that vaccines would be the culprit over microchips. But my opinion may be skewed having had a few negative vaccine issues, and no negative microchip issues.


That being said, seems like everything causes cancer these days. I'll take my chances on microchips.

 

You know, there was one sentence that stuck out to me in the first article, something I had been wondering about while reading it before I had even gotten to that part.

Trauma and inflammation at the site where the microchip is implanted could be responsible for tumor development, rather than anything inherent to the microchip

It makes me wonder if, perhaps, the trauma of always having vaccines/microchips/movement inside the skin of that area could be causing an internal reaction?

So, perhaps, everyone is right about it, in a way. I mean, if that's the case, then certainly, over-vaccinating and microchipping could be a factor in why these dogs are getting cancer, and perhaps it's just one more reason to get as few vaccinations as possible to just protect your pets, and...well...only one microchip.

I'm just uneducated about these things, but it could be a theory.