|
|
|
THE NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM WOULD REQUIRE THAT ALL OF OUR EQUINES BE MICROCHIPPED. THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE SPECIES SUCH AS LLAMAS AND ALPACAS. NAIS APPROVED CHIPS ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE PLAIN GLASS CHIPS FIRST MADE YEARS AGO AND MOSTLY USED IN DOGS AND HORSES IN THOSE YEARS. "IMPROVEMENTS" HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE CHIPS TO KEEP THEM FROM MIGRATING, INCREASE READING RANGES, ETC. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES BELOW BEFORE YOU ALLOW YOUR BELOVED ANIMALS/HORSES TO BE MICROCHIPPED. IF YOU HAVE HAD A CHIPPED DOG OR HORSE THAT DIED WITHOUT BEING AUTOPSIED TO VERIFY CAUSE OF DEATH, PLEASE CONTACT US.
BE SURE TO SEE THE NEW PAGE ON MICROCHIPS CAUSING PROBLEMS IN HORSES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION (DUTCH WEBSITE). IN 2006, WE WERE WARNING PEOPLE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF MICROCHIPS CAUSING SARCOMAS/CANCER IN LAB ANIMALS. SEPT. 2007 THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA FINALLY BROKE THE STORY TO THE WORLD! BUT WE HAD IT AVAILABLE TO YOU HERE LONG BEFORE THAT! IMPLANTED MICROCHIPS CAUSE CANCER By Jane Williams (For Publication in the January 2007 "American Family Voice") At the National ID Expo in Kansas City, Arkansas Animal Producer’s Association President Michael Steenbergen asked, "What safety studies have been conducted on the chips that are inserted into animals?" His question was met with total silence. Did these manufacturers not know, or were they unwilling to admit that research has confirmed that implanted microchips cause cancer? Melvin T. Massey, DVM from Brownsboro, Texas, brought this to the attention of the American Horse Council when he wrote, "I am a retired Equine Veterinarian and still breed a few horses. Because of migration-infections-increased risk of sarcoids I will not want to have microchips in my horses." The Institute of Experimental Pathology at Hannover Medical School in Germany reported , "An experiment using 4279 CBA/J mice of two generations was carried out to investigate the influence of parental preconceptual exposure to X-ray radiation or to chemical carcinogens. Microchips were implanted subcutaneously in the dorsolateral back for unique indentification of each animal. The animals were kept for lifespan under standard laboratory conditions. In 36 mice a circumscribed neoplasm occurred in the area of the implanted microchip. Macroscopically, firm, pale white nodules up to 25 mm in diameter with the microchip in its center were found. Macroscopically, soft tissue tumors such as fibrosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma were detected." Ecole Nationale Veterinaire of Unite d’Anatomie Pathologique in Nantes, France, reported, "Fifty-two subcutaneous tumors associated with microchip were collected from three carcinigenicity B6C3F1 mice studies. Two of these 52 tumours were adenocarcinoma of the mammary gland located on the dorsal region forming around the chip. All the other 50 were mesenchymal in origin and were difficult to classify on morphological grounds with haematoxylin-eosin." Marta Vascellari of Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie at Viale dell’Universita in Legnaro, Italy reported examining a 9-year-old male French Bulldog for a subcutaneous mass located at the site of a microchip implant. "The mass was confirmed as a high-grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma, with multifocal necrosis and peripheral lymphoid aggregates." The Toxicology Department of Bayer Corporation in Stillwell, Kansas reported, "Tumors surrounding implanted microchip animal identification devices were noted in two separate chronic toxicity/oncogenicity studies using F344 rats. The tumors occurred at a low incidence rate (approximately 1%), but did result in the early sacrifice of most affected animals, due to tumor size and occasional metastases. No sex-related trends were noted. All tumors occurred during the second year of the studies, were located in the subcutaneous dorsal thoracic area (the site of microchip implantation) and contained embedded microchip devices. All were mesenchymal in origin and consisted of the following types, listed on order of frequency: malignant schwannoma, fibrosarcoma, anaplastic sarcoma, and histiocytic sarcoma. The following diagnostic techniques were employed: light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and immunohistochemistry. The mechanism of carcinogenicity appeared to be that of foreign body induced tumorigenesis." Additional studies related to cancer tumors at the site of microchip implants have been conduced in China; however, at this time these studies are not available in English. At this time, no long term studies are available covering more than two years. It only seems logical to conclude that if carcinogenic tumors occur within one percent of animals implanted within two years of the implant that the percentage would increase with the passage of time. Additional studies need to be conducted, but don’t hold your breath for the manufacturers of microchips to conduct such research and be leery of any such "research" they may conduct. Even the limited research available clearly indicates that implantation of microchips within an animal is gambling with the animal’s well being. For additional Information: www.vetpathology.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/4/545, National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, www.pubmed.gov, google for "sarcomas associated with implanted microchips". June 3, 2008
CASPIAN RELEASES NEW EVIDENCE OF VERICHIP LIES AND DECEPTION Group's Latest Report Sets Record Straight on Chip Implants, Cancer, and more
Opponents of the VeriChip implant are launching a new offensive against the controversial human microchip this week, amid reports that VeriChip plans to put its chipping division on the auction block. A new report titled "Microchip Implants: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions" released today by CASPIAN Consumer Privacy reveals dirty laundry the company would probably rather keep hidden as it seeks a buyer for its beleaguered product.
The 42-page report was authored by CASPIAN director Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a Harvard-educated privacy expert and long-time critic of the VeriChip. The highlight of the report is an eleven-page section titled "Cancer Cover-up" that describes a systematic pattern of lies and deception engaged by VeriChip executives in an effort to downplay the fact that implantable microchips cause cancer in laboratory animals.
The report reveals how news outlets like Time Magazine, Business Week, and the RFID Journal were used as unwitting pawns in a VeriChip scheme to spread misinformation about the cancer studies. Since research linking the product to cancer first surfaced last year, each of these publications has repeated misstatements from VeriChip company executives, in many cases printing the inaccurate statements verbatim and unchallenged.
"These were not subjective issues, they were plainly verifiable issues of fact," Albrecht said. "We were saddened to see the misstatements fall through the fact-checking cracks of these respected publications. Now that VeriChip is back in the headlines, we felt it was time to set the record straight." VeriChip's media efforts have done little to salvage the company's public image or its financial performance, both of which plummeted after research linking the implantable microchip to cancer was widely revealed by the Associated Press in September 2007. The same company that once predicted revenues in the "billions" earned just $3,000 from its microchip implant operations in the first quarter of 2008, as patients shun the device that many are now calling the "cancer chip."
Investors have also distanced themselves from the failing company, with VeriChip's stock plummeting from a high of $10.62 last year to just over $2.00 today.
VeriChip's VP of business development, Jay McKeage, acknowledged the implant division suffers from "a substantial cash burn" and is "not sustainable on its own." As a result, he says, VeriChip plans to "shop the VeriMed / Health Link [human implantable chip] business around widely" in hopes that another company will take the unpopular product off its hands.
However, with recent blog headlines like "VeriChip Death Watch" making the rounds, Albrecht has a hard time imagining who, if anyone, will want to buy the business.
"This is a company that has engaged in a consistent pattern of making false and misleading statements," she said. "It has lied to the public, to the media, to its shareholders, and to regulatory agencies," she said, citing additional evidence from the report indicating that VeriChip hid cancer evidence from the FDA when the agency reviewed the implant's safety in 2004.
"We laid out all the evidence in our report," she added. "We want to make sure no one else gets burned by VeriChip."
============================================================= ABOUT THE REPORT
CASPIAN's new report, "Microchip Implants: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions," is a comprehensive reference guide to implantable microchips in animals and humans. It provides thoroughly-researched, footnoted answers to 85 of the most commonly asked questions about the implantable microchip, including religious, privacy, social, and health questions. The report concludes with a list of recommendations for patients, pet owners, and policy makers affected by the device.
The new report is available for free download from the group's AntiChips.com website at: http://www.antichips.com/faq/index.html
While on the website, readers are encouraged to download Dr. Albrecht's comprehensive 52-page overview of the studies, "Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006," and to review scanned copies of the original documents.
MICROCHIP IMPLANTS CAUSE FAST-GROWING, MALIGNANT TUMORS IN LAB ANIMALS http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/microchip-imlants-tumors.html
September 8, 2007
Damning research findings could spell the end of VeriChip
The Associated Press will issue a breaking story this weekend revealing that microchip implants have induced cancer in laboratory animals and dogs, says privacy expert and long-time VeriChip opponent Dr. Katherine Albrecht.
As the AP will report, a series of research articles spanning more than a decade found that mice and rats injected with glass-encapsulated RFID transponders developed malignant, fast-growing, lethal cancers in up to 1% to 10% of cases. The tumors originated in the tissue surrounding the microchips and often grew to completely surround the devices, the researchers said.
Albrecht first became aware of the microchip-cancer link when she and her "Spychips" co-author, Liz McIntyre, were contacted by a pet owner whose dog had died from a chip-induced tumor. Albrecht then found medical studies showing a causal link between microchip implants and cancer in other animals. Before she brought the research to the AP's attention, the studies had somehow escaped public notice.
A four-month AP investigation turned up additional documents, several of which had been published before VeriChip's parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, sought FDA approval to market the implant for humans. The VeriChip received FDA approval in 2004 under the watch of then Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson who later joined the company's board.
Under FDA policy, it would have been VeriChip's responsibility to bring the adverse studies to the FDA's attention, but VeriChip CEO Scott Silverman claims the company was unaware of the research.
Albrecht expressed skepticism that a company like VeriChip, whose primary business is microchip implants, would be unaware of relevant studies in the published literature.
"For Mr. Silverman not to know about this research would be negligent. If he did know about these studies, he certainly had an incentive to keep them quiet," said Albrecht. "Had the FDA known about the cancer link, they might never have approved his company's product."
Since gaining FDA approval, VeriChip has aggressively targeted diabetic and dementia patients, and recently announced that it had chipped 90 Alzheimer's patients and their caregivers in Florida. Employees in the Mexican Attorney General's Office, workers in a U.S. security firm, and club-goers in Europe have also been implanted.
Albrecht expressed concern for those who have received a chip implant, urging them to get the devices removed as soon as possible.
"These new revelations change everything," she said. "Why would anyone take the risk of having a cancer chip in their arm?"
ABOUT CASPIAN
CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering) is a grass-roots consumer group fighting retail surveillance schemes since 1999 and irresponsible RFID use since 2002. With thousands of members in all 50 U.S. states and over 30 countries worldwide, CASPIAN seeks to educate consumers about marketing strategies that invade their privacy and encourage privacy - conscious shopping habits across the retail spectrum.
Dr. Katherine Albrecht Founder and Director, CASPIAN Consumer Privacy
Host of "Uncovering the Truth" We the People Radio Network, M-F 10AM-12PM EST Listen live: http://www.wtprn.com Archives: http://mp3.wtprn.com/Albrecht07.html
Co-author of "SPYCHIPS: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID" http://www.spychips.com/book/booksales.html
WEBSITES: Human Chipping: http://www.AntiChips.com RFID: http://www.SpyChips.com Shopper Cards: http://www.NoCards.org Bio online at: http://www.spychips.com/media/katherine-albrecht.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997.html
Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors
By TODD LEWAN The Associated Press Saturday, September 8, 2007; 2:04 PM
-- 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.
Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people.
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.
"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.
"In fact, for more than 15 years we have used our encapsulated glass transponders with FDA approved anti-migration caps and received no complaints regarding malignant tumors caused by our product."
The FDA also stands by its approval of the technology.
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.
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. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options.
Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA's approval process of the RFID tag.
"I didn't even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services," he said in a telephone interview.
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.
Was the AMA aware of the studies?
No, he said.
___
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 1998 study in Ridgefield, Conn., of 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent _ a result the researchers described as "surprising."
_ A 2006 study in France detected tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice. This was one of six studies in which the scientists did not set out to find microchip-induced cancer but noticed the growths incidentally. They were testing compounds on behalf of chemical and pharmaceutical companies; but they ruled out the compounds as the tumors' cause. Because researchers only noted the most obvious tumors, the French study said, "These incidences may therefore slightly underestimate the true occurrence" of cancer.
_ In 1997, a study in Germany found cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 chipped mice. The tumors "are clearly due to the implanted microchips," the authors wrote.
Caveats accompanied the findings. "Blind leaps from the detection of tumors to the prediction of human health risk should be avoided," one study cautioned. Also, because none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted.
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. " Before microchips are implanted on a large scale in humans, he said, testing should be done on larger animals, such as dogs or monkeys. "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."
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. 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."
Tens of thousands of dogs have been chipped, she said, and veterinary pathologists haven't reported outbreaks of related sarcomas in the area of the neck, where canine implants are often done. (Published reports detailing malignant tumors in two chipped dogs turned up in AP's four-month examination of research on chips and health. In one dog, the researchers said cancer appeared linked to the presence of the embedded chip; in the other, the cancer's cause was uncertain.)
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.
The product that VeriChip Corp. won approval for use in humans is an electronic capsule the size of two grains of rice. Generally, it is implanted with a syringe into an anesthetized portion of the upper arm.
When prompted by an electromagnetic scanner, the chip transmits a unique code. With the code, hospital staff can go on the Internet and access a patient's medical profile that is maintained in a database by VeriChip Corp. for an annual fee.
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.
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?"
Late last year, Albrecht unearthed at the Harvard medical library three studies noting cancerous tumors in some chipped mice and rats, plus a reference in another study to a chipped dog with a tumor. She forwarded them to the AP, which subsequently found three additional mice studies with similar findings, plus another report of a chipped dog with a tumor.
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."
Silverman, VeriChip Corp.'s chief executive, disagreed. "Each month pet microchips reunite over 8,000 dogs and cats with their owners," he said. "We believe the VeriMed Patient Identification System will provide similar positive benefits for at-risk patients who are unable to communicate for themselves in an emergency."
___
And what of former HHS secretary 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 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.
In a TV interview while still on the board, Thompson was explaining the benefits _ and the ease _ of being chipped when an interviewer interrupted:
"I'm sorry, sir. Did you just say you would get one implanted in your arm?"
"Absolutely," Thompson replied. "Without a doubt."
"No concerns at all?"
"No."
But to date, Thompson has yet to be chipped himself.
___
On the Web:
http://www.verichipcorp.com
http://www.antichips.com
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 7:41 AM Subject: Chips Cause Cancer in Animals
Damning research findings could spell the end of VeriChip
Phase II of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is the electronic identification of animals also known as chipping. Today the Associated Press announced that research studies show that this chipping causes cancer in animals. Studies revealed that cancer developed at the chipping site in horses, dogs, mice and other animals says Dr. Katherine Albrecht and co-editor Liz Mc Intyre who wrote the book "Spychips". Studies show that a malignant, fast-growing, lethal cancers in up to 1% to 10% of cases of animals who have been chipped.
A four-month AP investigation turned up additional documents, several of which had been published before VeriChip's parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, sought FDA approval to market the implant for humans.
The VeriChip received FDA approval in 2004 under the watch of then Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson who later joined the company's board and who vowed to take the chip but never did do to his "busy schedule".
Under FDA policy, it would have been VeriChip's responsibility to bring the adverse studies to the FDA's attention, but VeriChip CEO Scott Silverman claims the company was unaware of the research.
Albrecht expressed skepticism that a company like VeriChip, whose primary business is microchip implants, would be unaware of relevant studies in the published literature.
"For Mr. Silverman not to know about this research would be negligent. If he did know about these studies, he certainly had an incentive to keep them quiet," said Albrecht. "Had the FDA known about the cancer link, they might never have approved his company's product."
Since gaining FDA approval, VeriChip has aggressively targeted chronically ill, diabetic and dementia patients, and recently announced that it had chipped 90 Alzheimer's patients and their caregivers in Florida. Employees in the Mexican Attorney General's Office, workers in a U.S. security firm, and club-goers in Europe have also been implanted.
Microchips have also been aggressively pursued for the USDA NAIS animal identification scheme. Agriculture departments across the United States are taking money from the USDA then which contractually requires them to implement mandatory or coercive voluntary premises identification and chipping of animals. The USDA is currently developing the infrastructure for tracking every single animal once the animals have been chipped.
Albrecht expressed concern for those who have received a chip implant, urging them to get the devices removed as soon as possible.
"These new revelations change everything," she said. "Why would anyone take the risk of having a cancer chip in their arm?"
Celeste Bishop, of NoNAISWA, based out of Snohomish expresses great concern over the requirement by WSDA and the USDA to chip animals. "I have always been concerned over the dangers of chipping of my animals because of the electromagnetic radiation produced by RFID chips, privacy and other issues. I am asking our legislators to revisit the issue of the National Animal Identification System." It is time that the Washington State legislature becomes proactive and passes much needed legislation protecting the public from the threat of emerging technologies. Representative Kirk Pearson introduced legislation in the House of Representatives that would have allowed persons who had concerns about the NAIS not to be required to participate. Representative Morris introduced proposed legislation requiring labeling of RFID products and Senator Val Stevens introduced legislation to stop the REAL ID from proceeding in Washington State. Bishop commends these legislators for their efforts and looks forward to the next session now that people are more aware of RFID dangers. "We need legislation that does not require us to implant in our animals flesh cancer causing devices. We also need the ability to legally remove these cancer time-bombs."
Bishop goes on to state, "Why would the USDA or WSDA incur liability for endorsing and promoting a program that causes cancer?"
NoNAISWA is proactive in Washington State opposing the National Animal Identification System and actively promotes Washingtonians purchasing local agricultural products. These are products that you know to be healthy and safe.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/1/62 Debilitating ossifying fibromas of a white-tailed deer associated with ear tagging DE Roscoe, LR Veikley, M Mills Jr, and L Hinds 3rd ABSTRACT A 2.3 kg partially ossified fibroma developed apparently within a 4-1/2 month period near a tag inserted in the right ear of a 5-1/2 year old white-tailed doe (Odecoileus virginianus). This growth caused an abnormal head carriage, disturbed feeding and resulted in emaciation. Secondary partially ossified fibromas developed at the left ear tag and in the right external acoustic meatus. The latter fibroma penterated the tympanic membrane. The puncture wounds in the ears associated with the aluminum tags probably provided sites for virus infection and subsequent fibromatosis. ********************************************************************************************* NOT ONLY IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT INTERNAL FOREIGN OBJECTS (INCLUDING MICROCHIPS) CAN CAUSE TUMORS, EVEN THE EXTERNAL METAL TAGS APPARENTLY CAN ALSO CAUSE ABNORMAL GROWTHS ON ANIMALS.
|
|
|
|