Dog bleeds to death from mandatory chipping

[~flower~]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87945

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Dog bleeds to death from mandatory chipping
'This technology is supposedly so great until it's your animal that dies'

----------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 03, 2009
8:32 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A couple in California, required by law to have their dog implanted with a microchip in order to take him camping, swallowed their objections . and watched their Chihuahua named Charlie Brown bleed to death from the procedure.

"I wasn't in favor of getting Charlie chipped, but it was the law," said Lori Ginsberg, the Chihuahua's owner, citing an ordinance that requires all dogs over the age of four months in unincorporated Los Angeles County be microchipped. Dog owners who refuse to comply face a $250 fine for the first offense and up to six months in jail and $1,000 fine 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."

Charlie was implanted with a Radio Frequency Identification capsule, or RFID, which consists of a microchip and electronic components tucked inside a capsule of glass about the size of a grain of rice. Ideally, when people or pets implanted with an RFID under their skin are lost and then found, a device made for reading the chips can identify them and enable them to be returned home.

Charlie's case, however, was far from ideal.

"I just don't know what happened to him," said Dr. Reid Loken, the board-certified veterinarian who performed the implant. Dr. Loken also confirmed that Charlie began bleeding from the implant site, and despite efforts to stop the flow, died from extreme blood loss.

"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," Loken said. "I don't think it went in too deep; it was a pretty routine chipping."

Lori and Ed Ginsberg are grieved, but they don't blame Dr. Loken.

"He's a great vet and this was not his fault," say Charlie Brown's owners. "The real blame is with the people who forced us to implant our dog against our better judgment."

News of Charlie Brown's death broke when the Ginsbergs heard consumer privacy advocate and Harvard-trained researcher Dr. Katherine Albrecht on the radio and decided to contact her for help.

"You always here of people being reunited with their dog because of the microchip implant," Albrecht told WND, "but you don't hear of someone who lost their dog or whose cat was paralyzed because of the microchip implant. So I think it's important that we get both sides of the story on these chips."

Albrecht pointed WND to AntiChips.com, where she has posted an 85-question FAQ on microchip implants, both in humans and animals.

"We're looking to caution people that these microchips are not as safe as they've been reported to be," said Albrecht, relating stories of paralyzed cats, chips migrating through pets' bodies, and dogs stricken with cancerous tumors after receiving the implants.

An Associated Press story two years ago also reported a 1996 study on lab mice and rats, where toxicologic pathologist Keith Johnson, who led the study at Dow Chemical Co., blamed the implants for inducing malignant tumors on the rodents.

VeriChip, a major manufacturer of the RFID chip, however, claims the mice tests don't translate into similar results in people or pets.

"Over the last 15 years," states the VeriChip website, "millions of dogs and cats have safely received an implantable microchip with limited or no reports of adverse health reactions from this life-saving product, which was recently endorsed by the USDA. These chips are a well-accepted and well-respected means of global identification for pets in the veterinary community."

The World Small Animal Veterinary Association, while admitting a pair of cases in England in which dogs developed tumors from the implants, nonetheless endorses the microchips.

"While it is not possible to claim that the reaction to an implanted transponder in a companion animal will NEVER induce tumor formation," reads a WSAVA policy statement, "the Committee is unanimously of the opinion that the benefits available to implanted animals far outweigh any possible risk to the health of the animal concerned."

Albrecht told WND, however, that even more important than arguing the danger of the implants is fighting against government mandate of the controversial microchips.

"We think it is totally inappropriate to require people to do this," Albrecht said. "If people want to microchip their pets and understand the risks, that should be their right to make that decision themselves."

She continued, "Given that this is a very controversial technology - not just because of the medical risks associated with it, but for many people who have a moral, philosophical and even religious objection to these technologies - to mandate that someone has to do this really is an example of the government as an evil nanny state."

Further, said Albrecht, stories like Charlie Brown's need to be publicized so that the public hears more than just the positive propaganda about the chips and has the opportunity for an open, public dialogue.

"Anytime you tell someone that if they care about their pet or their aging parent developing Alzheimer's or their newborn infant, they need to microchip their loved ones - anytime you equate caring with implanting - you're running dangerously close to the line of permitting a mandate of microchip implants in human beings."

"You've got to figure out where your line in the sand is," Albrecht told WND, "and I think mandating microchips into pets is creating a very dangerous precedent for equating microchip implantation with safety. It's clearly not safe. It should not be equated with safety. Ultimately it should be a personal decision, whether human or animal."

Albrecht and the Ginsbergs are now 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."

The Ginsbergs appeared on Dr. Albrecht's live, syndicated radio program earlier today and will be archived as a downloadable MP3 file on Dr. Albrecht's website.

[TrapsMcLats]

flower, you're crazy about this.  shit happens, freak accidents occur in ALL forms of medicine, human or otherwise.  My dogs are both chipped and fine. every dog that comes into the spca is chipped and FINE. 

[~flower~]

I'm crazy about this? Tell that to the owner of Charlie Brown!  I think that article was very fair and it's main point was people should not be forced to something and they should be given all the information INCLUDING RISKS so they can make a decision.   Some places don't have a scanner or may have one that doesn't read the chip in your dog so a chip can be useless.  Or a chip can migrate and the person scanning isn't thorough and misses it.  All this as well as the possible health risks should be told to a person so THEY can decide what risks they find acceptable. 

 And you follow up on every dog that comes through the ASPCA and see if any problems arise years from now from the chip? I don't think so, so you can't make that statement.

[TrapsMcLats]

I'm crazy about this? Tell that to the owner of Charlie Brown!  I think that article was very fair and it's main point was people should not be forced to something and they should be given all the information INCLUDING RISKS so they can make a decision.   Some places don't have a scanner or may have one that doesn't read the chip in your dog so a chip can be useless.  Or a chip can migrate and the person scanning isn't thorough and misses it.  All this as well as the possible health risks should be told to a person so THEY can decide what risks they find acceptable. 

 And you follow up on every dog that comes through the ASPCA and see if any problems arise years from now from the chip? I don't think so, so you can't make that statement.

the ASPCA is an independent organization, based in new york actually.  i've been watching animals get chipped at the east bay spca out of oakland, california, and i can't think of one problems.  chips do migrate, but usually not more than an inch or two.  Most major shelters, where your dog is likely to end up if it gets loose, have a scanner.  the rewards far outweigh the risks.  i agree, no one should be forced into doing anything, but this is an instance where a freak incident occured, not the norm.  i can tell you about dogs that have choked to death on their collars because their ID tags got caught.  should dogs not wear ID tags? 

[Eyeball Chambers]

Fucking crazy to mandate micro chipping.

UNBELIEVABLE

[Vet]

I have literally microchipped hundreds, possibly thousands of animals through the years from horses to cats to dogs to too many birds and reptiles to count to wolves to lions and tigers.   I've seen 4 dogs and one cat with chip migration.  I have also seen a patagonian cavy with a migrating chip.  I've seen two birds where the chips weren't put in correctly and they had to be surgically removed because they popped back out under the skin and the birds were chewing on them.   I've never once seen or heard of a dog bleeding to death from a microchip.  This was a weird, weird outlyer type case.   

And of course the nutjobs have picked it up and are running with it.       Thats really not a big surprise.   

[~flower~]

Yes, it is really nutty to think something should not be MANDATORY that CAN harm your pet.        Since there is NO place that is keeping reports of problems to say that they are rare is not a statement based in fact.  Remember that when they want to make it mandatory for PEOPLE to get microchipped and they use the lack of negative data in use in animals to back it up. 

I have personally heard of dogs having problems with the chip implantation site.  I would agree that the number compared to how many animals have been chipped is not a staggering high number, but people should be told that there IS a risk.  There is also a risk if you don't chip that your dog may get out and not be recovered. Everything should be told to the person. It is also true that different chip manufacturers are read by different scanners.  Your dog may be chipped and picked up by someplace that uses a different scanner.  A person should be told this so they could research who uses what in there area to make a decision on what chip to go with if they decide to.

Just like vaccine reactions are way undereported (maybe 10% get reported I believe?), you can bet so are problems with chips and without a registry no one can make claims on how little problems there are with them.

 No way should it be mandatory that you have to chip your pet.

 

[TrapsMcLats]

Yes, it is really nutty to think something should not be MANDATORY that CAN harm your pet.        Since there is NO place that is keeping reports of problems to say that they are rare is not a statement based in fact.  Remember that when they want to make it mandatory for PEOPLE to get microchipped and they use the lack of negative data in use in animals to back it up. 

I have personally heard of dogs having problems with the chip implantation site.  I would agree that the number compared to how many animals have been chipped is not a staggering high number, but people should be told that there IS a risk.  There is also a risk if you don't chip that your dog may get out and not be recovered. Everything should be told to the person. It is also true that different chip manufacturers are read by different scanners.  Your dog may be chipped and picked up by someplace that uses a different scanner.  A person should be told this so they could research who uses what in there area to make a decision on what chip to go with if they decide to.

Just like vaccine reactions are way undereported (maybe 10% get reported I believe?), you can bet so are problems with chips and without a registry no one can make claims on how little problems there are with them.

 No way should it be mandatory that you have to chip your pet.

 

flower, i present to you a reality check:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece

THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.

The research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children’s conditions.

However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.


Despite involving just a dozen children, the 1998 paper’s impact was extraordinary. After its publication, rates of inoculation fell from 92% to below 80%. Populations acquire “herd immunity” from measles when more than 95% of people have been vaccinated.

Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease.

With two professors, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, Wakefield is defending himself against allegations of serious professional misconduct brought by the GMC. The charges relate to ethical aspects of the project, not its findings. All three men deny any misconduct.

Through his lawyers, Wakefield this weekend denied the issues raised by our investigation, but declined to comment further.

[~flower~]

I don't understand why you posted that?  What does it have to do with anything? ? ?

     

[TrapsMcLats]

because you are crazy about vaccinations.  you believe everything you read and ignore than people have agendas.  it doesn't exclude humans or animals.

[~flower~]

LOL!!  As if no one else has an agenda!      It is a FACT that reactions are under reported, human and animal.  So to place any truth in what is presented is meaningless.  I know for a fact that a vet did NOT report a growth at a vaccine site because "it is not really a common incident".  Hmm... makes you kind of wonder if it is more common than is reported if vets are NOT reporting adverse affects.  The owner went and reported it themselves like SHOULD be done.  That is the ONLY way accurate information will be out there and maybe safer vaccines or whatever can be made. 

 I believe people should be given ALL the information not just some of it.  And that includes the risks if you choose not to vaccinate or microchip.  It goes both ways.  It is a person's RIGHT to make the decision that they can live with knowing ALL the facts.   No one should tell me or you or anyone what risks are acceptable to them.    THAT is the problem with mandatory micro chipping, so nice try trying to muddy the topic.  

[smoothasf]

flower a vet just told you himself that even migrations are as rare as rocking horse shit. your making yourself sound ignorant and well as a tad crazy. no offense

[~flower~]

wow, a vet huh?  Because someone is a vet really doesn't mean much in this instance.  NO RECORDS ARE KEPT ON PROBLEMS WITH MICROCHIPS.  So a vet, or you, or even me can't say how many adverse affects have happened, but we all know that some have.  This thread was about MANDATING that a person has to put something into their pets body that CAN cause a problem.  A person should have a CHOICE.  They should be told all the possible risks of doing it and not doing it and be allowed to make the decision that is best for THEM.  That was the point of this thread.

And many vets don't even read or go by manufacturers instructions as far as vaccinating goes.  They vaccinate unhealthy animals, they vaccinate at the same time as surgery, they vaccinate for multiple things at one time.  I was in a vets office when a person made an appt to have their cat vaccinated, altered and declawed all in the same visit!  Sorry, that should be a crime to do that much harm to an animal at one time.  Vets and Drs are people first, and like anyone can have their own AGENDAS or beliefs even if they go against science.  (none of my comments are directed at VET on this board, I did not use him to try and make a point). 

 I haven't seen one person state why micro chipping should be mandatory? Just comments meant to misdirect.   

[w8m8]

I'm going to try and say this as nice as I can .. hopefully that comes thru


Pet owners all don't have the same compassion for their animals , sure they care for them , feed them , play with them , but don't really show much concern for these things that "could" cause harm . To me it feels like unless it happens to them it doesn't matter that much .

I for one am very interested in seeing their reaction if what happened to Charlie Brown happened to one of their "pets"

Some people have furry and feathered family members , some people have pets , some people have dogs and such .

I appreciate being given knowledge of things like this because it's a possibility of harm or death to my Smudge that I wasn't aware of .. So Thank You ~flower~ .. 


Mandatory chipping is not cool 

[knny187]

I believe people should be given ALL the information not just some of it.  

This is how educated decisions are formed.  No one can just study the positives without studying the negatives.

I'll give you all an example. 

Imagine going to your Dr & he informs you that you are required a flu vaccination.  Although it seems like a normal & regular thing, wouldn't you still ask the Dr..."is there any side effects?"  What would you do if he comes back & said "only in rare circumstances have we seen people get sick or a allergic reaction".  That may prompt you to ask "Has anyone ever died?" 

The point I believe Flower is making....To my knowledge & most people out there, we never heard of an animal dying from a chip insertion.  I've seen allergic reactions or even rejections.  This will now make me more "aware" of possible potential risks, even though the odds could be 1 in a million.  It's no different walking on an airplane knowing that although statistics show it's the safest way to travel, there's still the inherit risk of a crash.

[smoothasf]

Ahh the mandatory side.  In sure most of the people on here taken excellent care of there animals however i know that in the states a million pittbulls alone are destroyed every year alone. That's without all the other breeds that get neglected. Surely making these people HAVE TO put their name and address inside the dog itself   makes them think twice?  With all the euthanisations compared to the odd complication (which is usually down to poor practice) its a good thing in the long run?

[TrapsMcLats]

Chip your dogs.  the chances of losing your dog are much higher than your dog getting cancer/tumor from a chip. the research i have seen points to the possibility of tumors occuring 20 years after implantations.  how many dogs are going to live 20 years?  hardly any. how many dogs get loose every day?  i'm guessing hundreds to thousands.

[Vet]

I really see Flowers issues as not being with microchips or vaccinations or even dog food actually being "bad" for her animals.  Its more of an issue of anything that she interprets as someone telling her she "HAS TO" (meaning something is mandatory by social convention or law) do something with her dogs.  It doesn't really matter what it is, she's going to refuse and raise hell because someone says she has too do it a certian way. 

In some ways its a good thing---we need extremes with pet ownership because they do cause us to question conventional norms.  I think this ultimately ends up in better norms for care for the animal----be it some ass who beats the shit out of their dog and tortures it  to someone who doesn't care at all "its a dog" type owner to some nutcase who's hellbent for leather that EVERYTHING shortens their dogs lifespan (I'm NOT saying Flower is this extreme either, I'm stating that as an example, not a comparison).   At the same time, I've said it before and I'll say it again, if I had Flower as a client, she'd annoy the holy fucking living shit out of me. 

The problem comes when wolf is cried too many times.   This microchip case is absolute extreme.  the report did make me take the time to search the Veterinary Information Network for any anecdotal or published cases of something similar occuring.  I didn't find a single case in the brief search I did.   That said I did find an even more horrifying case---a 12 week old kitten that was microchipped and died.  The chip was identified on radiographs inbetween the cervical spinal canal, literally transecting the spinal cord.   So of all of the discussion on microchips---literally pages and pages, there isn't a single case I could find of a dog bleeding to death from a chip.  There is one kitten who died suddenly.  One.

My point with this isn't to post another story to scare the shit out of pet owners.  Its to point out that exceedingly weird cases do happen on rare occasion.  Being an informed pet owner is the best defense against this.  Ask your veterinarian questions with proceedures that are recommended and develop a working relationship with your pets best interests at heart.  Permenant identification that is very difficult to remove far outweighs the one in however many chance of a chip causing instantaneous death.  Don't panic and be stupid over cases like these. 

[~flower~]

oh Vet     I think I have been pretty levelheaded in my comments for a while now.  I try and push informed consent and not tell people what is best for THEM. If I can give them info, pro and cons for stuff, then I feel they can make a better decision.

  I don't think putting something into ourselves or our pets which CAN have risks should be made mandatory.  Sorry if I believe in the freedom of choice.  Just because some things for me I chose not to do does not mean I don't support another person's right to make a different choice when they have all the information.  The risks I think are acceptable may not be what someone else does.  Or their circumstances may be different. 

And since records are not collected for problems with micro chips when one is made public it should be posted about.  People think everything is so safe and they should be informed that there ARE risks even if small ones. What right does a vet have to withhold informing their clients of that?   When you get surgery, even something minor, you are told all the possibilities even the ones that very rarely happen.  Why?  Because sometimes they do happen and a person has a RIGHT to know about it and give informed consent.  I feel that is lacking with veterinary medicine.  You only hear the consequences if you DON'T do something, not what could happen if you DO do something.  That needs to change. 

People have very reasonable reasons for micro chipping, I just don't think it should be mandatory, but a personal decision.

[Vet]

oh Vet     I think I have been pretty levelheaded in my comments for a while now.  I try and push informed consent and not tell people what is best for THEM. If I can give them info, pro and cons for stuff, then I feel they can make a better decision.

  I don't think putting something into ourselves or our pets which CAN have risks should be made mandatory.  Sorry if I believe in the freedom of choice.  Just because some things for me I chose not to do does not mean I don't support another person's right to make a different choice when they have all the information.  The risks I think are acceptable may not be what someone else does.  Or their circumstances may be different. 

And since records are not collected for problems with micro chips when one is made public it should be posted about.  People think everything is so safe and they should be informed that there ARE risks even if small ones. What right does a vet have to withhold informing their clients of that?   When you get surgery, even something minor, you are told all the possibilities even the ones that very rarely happen.  Why? Because sometimes they do happen and a person has a RIGHT to know about it and give informed consent.  I feel that is lacking with veterinary medicine.  You only hear the consequences if you DON'T do something, not what could happen if you DO do something.  That needs to change. 

People have very reasonable reasons for micro chipping, I just don't think it should be mandatory, but a personal decision.

Flower, I want to take a second to focus on the little bit above I outlined in bold.  First off, if you think that human physician inform you of ALL of the risks with medical treatment, hell if they even inform you with 2/3 of the risks you are seriously, seriously mistaken.  If anything, the veterinary profession in the US is held to a much higher standard for informed consent with owners than human medicine is.  The primary reason for this is insurance dictating medical treatment in the US.  My own hernia surgery was a prime example.  I wasn't told anything about post operative seroma formation, post operative adhesion formation, and post operative drainage.  Things I warned my clients about with every umbilical hernia repair I did when I was in private practice.   DO NOT THINK you are told all of the risks with human medical proceedures.  If the average person was given this information by their physicians, doctors wouldn't be doing half the shit they do.  Another prime example is a friend of mine I've watched become a twitching obcessive compulsive wreck because of the antidepresion medication that was prescribed.  None of the side effects mentioned were told to occur until after they were there.   Then it was poo pooed as a "minor side effect".   If that happened in veterinary medicine, the nuts would come out of the woodwork in full force. 

Second, is it withholding information if its not a documented concern with the proceedure?   I know I sure as hell wouldn't have told an owner that there was a risk of bleeding to death from a microchip.  You don't warn owners about obscure rare side effects.  All that does is scare the owners.  Why?   Informed concent encompasses informing an owner about events that are associate with a proceedure that are considered to be "common".  This means they are something that are statistically likely to occur.   They are things that have occured before and that have been documented.   They aren't some conjecture made by nonscientific individuals based on their opinions.  They are not rare, random occurances that statistically may never occur.   an N of 1 is not a side effect.  Its an anomoly.