backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by NT78stonewobbl.. on Sep 18 at 2:59 AM


Blogger Amal Gustfra shows off his first RFID implants.  (Source: http://amal.net/)
Numerous studies linking RFID implants to cancer in animals, are gaining significant attention

Last week, Dailytech reported that California's State senate had blocked employers from requiring their employees to get "chipped"--implanted with an RFID chip that would allow for radio identification and tracking.

Now in addition to the privacy concerns, a new report by the Associate Press has brought to light serious doubts on RFID implants' medical safety.

The report details how numerous studies on RFID implants in animal test subjects, starting in the mid-1990s, revealed that the implants led to a significant increase in malignant tumor growth.

Keith Johnson, a retired toxological pathologist who led one of these studies, in 1996 at Dow Chemical Co., when interviewed in the report stated that he had no doubts about whether RFID was to blame for the increased incidence of cancer.  He is quoted as clearly stating, "The transponders were the cause of the tumors."

The findings were reviewed by top cancer specialists, who found the results disturbing.  They cautioned people that these tests were performed on animals, so that they were not necessarily applicable in humans, however, most felt additional research was a necessity.  Some went as far to say that they would not allow family members to receive implants.

Currently about 2,000 people worldwide have received RFID chips implants, according to VeriChip, the leading manufacturer of FDA-approved RFID implants, including a couple who were ordered to do so by their employer.

Verichip commented that they were "not aware of any studies that have resulted in malignant tumors in laboratory rats, mice and certainly not dogs or cats."

The company also, sells RFID chips for animals.

A significant detail to these studies is that many of them were not intended to study the correlation between RFID chip implanting to cancer--rather, during research on a separate topic the increased cancer rates were high enough to catch the researchers' attention and allow them to draw a clear conclusion that the chip was causing the increased cancer rate.

The AP report goes on to discuss the suspect nature of the FDA's approval of VeriChip's human RFID implant.  The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Sciences, which at the time of the approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson.

Just two weeks after the Jan. 10, 2005 approval of the device, Tommy Thompson resigned his post with the department and within five months assumed a position at VeriChip.  He received stock options and cash compensation for his newly acquired position.

Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, recently denied in an interview having any familiarity with VeriChip before his resignation.

The FDA refused to comment on which studies it reviewed when approving the device.

A recent AMA report which lauded RFID implants, claimed to be entirely unaware of the studies correlating the implant to cancer.  Dr. Steven Stack, an AMA board member, said he had never heard the studies ever mentioned before.

As Dr. Stack had knowledge of the Department of Health and Human Sciences committee's review of the implant, pending FDA approval, this statement would indicate that the Committee did not take these studies into account during its approval process.

More research needs to be done before final conclusions are drawn, but as its dirty laundry comes to light, the controversial practice of RFID implanting and its FDA approval has received another major setback.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just gather the data....
By oTAL on 9/10/2007 1:40:13 PM , Rating: -1
It can't be hard to have a study on this with pets. Most pets now have chips implanted, while 10 years ago none had. Just compare the cancer incidences, correct for any other abnormalities, and if the data seems to be either unclear or pointing towards cancer increase, then do a thorough study on this!

My dog has a chip and I'd like to know if that thing harms his health. To be honest I seriously doubt it.

Something tells me that in 10 years time we will have a lot more data on human use of RFID implants and we still won't know a damn thing...

On a similar issue, I find it amazing that after so many years, nobody can state conclusively (or with a large amount of certainty) if cellphones cause cancer....




RE: Just gather the data....
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2007 2:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
Pets with implanted chips haven't seen any increase in cancer rates, which is why these results are a bit surprising.


RE: Just gather the data....
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/10/2007 2:14:46 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Pets with implanted chips haven't seen any increase in cancer rates, which is why these results are a bit surprising.


Actually there has been at least a slight increase, as there have been reported cases of this:

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=120&a=3470

"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."

I am not aware if information on dog and cat cancer rates has been compiled for the last few years. I imagine it might have on a small scale, but I am not aware of such an effort on a large scale, such as with human cancer patients.

There's a good chance that the data just was simply never compiled.


RE: Just gather the data....
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2007 2:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "Actually there has been at least a slight increase"

The article you quoted refers to studies done on lab rodents, not pets. There have been tens of thousands of chips implanted in cats and dogs. Finding a few of those with cancer isn't surprising...in fact, not finding any in a population that large would be even more surprising.


RE: Just gather the data....
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/10/2007 2:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
I was quoting the comment the article made, which stated that the authors of the study started it after being contacted by a person whose dog (a pet) died of chip related tumor growth.

So there is at least one case. How many others there are, I have no idea.

The studies showed an increase in rates of cancer over a control group, not just that some had cancer.

I think what you mentioned a few comments down about the increase in cancer rates due simply to the physical damage caused by the surgery may well be true, but as to whether this is occuring in pets or not the fact is that there have been reported cases, as mentioned in the article I cited, as well as confirmed studies on lab populations.


RE: Just gather the data....
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2007 3:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "the authors of the study started it after being contacted by a person whose dog (a pet) died of chip related tumor growth."

Read the article again. The "author" in question wasn't the author of a study. It was Katherine Albrecht, the author of the book "Spychips", and a long-time foe of Verichip and implantable chips in general. Until she starts giving some hard facts, I'll take her "chip-induced cancers" with a very large grain of salt.

After all, there are medical items which have long been implanted in the human body. Certainly a glass capsule is inert. So what does that leave? The RF itself...but we all have much stronger RF signals passing through our bodies at all times. For anyone in an urban settings, we have RF doses millions of times stronger striking us 24 hours a day...not just for a couple seconds when an RF tag is scanned.

So in general, I'd be very suspicious of such claims until some hard evidence comes out. Right now, it has all the hallmarks of yet another media-induced scare story, in the likes of Alar and a hundred others.


RE: Just gather the data....
By FITCamaro on 9/11/2007 8:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I find it hard to believe that a low energy device like an RFID chip could cause cells to mutate. Nor would glass. We've got pace makers keeping hearts beating, screws keeping bones together, metal plates over holes in people's heads, etc. You're telling me a tiny glass capsule is going to cause problems but none of the other things are?


RE: Just gather the data....
By CRAZYPET on 9/11/2007 11:20:05 AM , Rating: 1
One thing to consider, is that the chip is a tranmiter of electomagnetic radiation, 24/7, 365 days a year. Granted, higher frequency/amplitude cell phone have not caused cancer, but those devices are used externally and not always on. This device is inside the animal (humans included). There should be concern for mutution due to constant, wholly contained exposure


RE: Just gather the data....
By Misty Dingos on 9/11/2007 11:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
RFIDs do not have an internal power source. They respond only to an external (external to the body in this case) RF signal.

The DO NOT EMIT RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION unless they recieve the correct signal. Then and only then do they emit and RF signal.

Please, please try to understand the technology.


RE: Just gather the data....
By CRAZYPET on 9/11/2007 1:48:31 PM , Rating: 1
I believe you are mistaken. Although there is no internal power source, the device is powered by the mechanical to electrical conversion of energy resulting from the patient's natural movements over the course of the day. Just think of the Sharper Image flashlight you shake up and down to power it on. The natural movement allows the VeriChip to send out a continous low-level signal to outside devices, to signal its presence. If the correct signal activates the device, then the transmission of electromagnetic radiation is increased.


RE: Just gather the data....
By rlindsl on 9/11/2007 3:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
There are two types of RFID chips, neither are powered by movement. One has an internal power source, and is called "active", the chip in question has no internal source and only emits radiation when in an electro magnetic field that induces a current. There will not be a cancer risk with the implanted chips in pets because they are rarely if ever activated. In humans, as a method of id, it will be frequently activated. This report is preliminary, and requires serious followup research. Not all RF frequencies are equally mutagenic, this is an important factor. As with all bio dosage, it is the type, amount and frequency that needs to be examined.


RE: Just gather the data....
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 3:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was quoting the comment the article made, which stated that the authors of the study started it after being contacted by a person whose dog (a pet) died of chip related tumor growth.

How did they prove the tumor was due to the implant? To be able to make that connection with a high degree of certainty would require a lot of insight in an area where research probably is completely lacking.


RE: Just gather the data....
By CollegeTechGuy on 9/11/2007 9:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
My mother is a dog breeder, has been for many many years. And she has used micro-chip implants in her dogs since basically when they first came out. And she has never had a dog develop cancer with a microchip in it.


RE: Just gather the data....
By Thoreau on 9/10/2007 10:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
With pets, a single animal isn't getting scanned on a daily/frequent basis either. You put a chip in a human, it's likely going to be used often. With pets, it only gets scanned when the animal is lost, or when visiting the vet.

I severely doubt that the chip itself is causing any health issues, be it in humans or animals. The radio waves being used to read from an implanted chip, on the other hand, could very well be an entirely different story.


RE: Just gather the data....
By oTAL on 9/11/2007 6:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks! That was something I hadn't thought of. I had expressed doubts about the implant causing cancer, but it does make sense that an elevated number of reads *could* harm your cells enough to increase cancer incidence.

I still have my doubts, but that's the best theory I've heard. Best of all, it could explain why pets may not be affected, while cattle in that study seems to provide different data (the cattle was being used for other studies which could have required the tag to be read often).

On a side note, I don't understand some of the people who rate the comments. Why is my original comment downrated? Is it stupid? Is it offensive? Does it state something incorrect? It started an interesting discussion between masher and jason, and they both seem to agree that more data should be gathered/compiled which was my initial suggestion.


RE: Just gather the data....
By eyebeeemmpawn on 9/12/2007 11:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
Got any data to back that up??? Or should we just accept it as fact from extensive Asher "knowledge" base. LOL!

IMO, new technologies such as this should be studied redundantly and independently for a period of at least 5 years, I'd prefer 10. For approval, the studies must show conclusively that there are no negative side effects. But that doesn't fit into the rush-to-market business models of our modern day. The "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy should not apply to products, especially those to be implanted in the body. Unfortunately, corporatism and government incompetence rules the day.


By NT78stonewobble on 9/18/2007 2:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
Imagine if the same procedures had been taking with eg. leaded gasoline or DDT.

Totally agree though.


RE: Just gather the data....
By Martimus on 9/12/2007 3:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
I find it hard to believe that an RF transmitter so close to your body wouldn't cause cancer. It seems like such an obvious source of radiation that could disrupt RNA, that it amazes me that people would even be willing to do this, unless they were ignorant of the physics behind the transmitter, and the physics behind the cellular structure.


RE: Just gather the data....
By Misty Dingos on 9/10/2007 2:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
I am seriously puzzled as to the vector for disease here. Just how does having a bit of glass somewhat larger than a couple grains of rice cause cancer? Glass is an inert substance in the body and the RF portion of the chip is only active when the reader is over it. Unless these things can reradiate other electrical fields they encounter. Which I seriously doubt. I just don't see how these gadgets can cause anything other than controversy and paranoia.

As far as the studies are concerned. From what I read few to none of the studies used control groups. This alone could invalidate most of these studies.


RE: Just gather the data....
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2007 2:15:45 PM , Rating: 1
There have been at least two controlled studies done which demonstrated NO link between microchip implantation and tumors in rodents.

Part of the problem in doing a cancer study on mice is they have an incredibly high tumor rate anyway, especially at the site of any injection or surgery.


RE: Just gather the data....
By eyebeeemmpawn on 9/12/2007 11:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
links? data? proof? no? sounds like opinion to me till I see data...


RE: Just gather the data....
By fshy94 on 9/10/2007 2:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
I can attest to the reason it MAY be harmful. Glass is indeed completely inert, but it IS the RF section which could be causing problems. I know you mention that the chip is completely inactive without a reader, but that only applies to passive chips, and I'm afraid I don't know which type went into the tracked animals or the test subjects. The RF, obviously, can cause a mutation of the DNA, perhaps through a thymine dimer, or something I don't know very much about.


RE: Just gather the data....
By killerroach on 9/13/2007 9:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
The "vector" is the irritation and inflammation of tissues, same as with all implants.

And yes, identification implants in pets do cause an increased cancer risk as well, despite the anecdotal evidence to the contrary. What it does show, however, is that the associated increase in risk is minimal at best.


RE: Just gather the data....
By Polynikes on 9/10/2007 6:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most pets now have chips implanted, while 10 years ago none had.


Are you kidding? I seriously doubt that. I've never even HEARD of such a thing.


RE: Just gather the data....
By GreenEnvt on 9/10/2007 7:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
Um, Yes.

Vets and humane society/spca have been implanting chips in animals for years. Here the humane society does it to all animals that are adopted (as well as spay/neuter), you don't even have a choice.
Any vets office will have a reader, they wave it over an animal that was found, and get a serial #. That number is looked up to find the owner.


RE: Just gather the data....
By Parhel on 9/17/2007 10:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
QFT. We've always adopted our pets from the local animal shelters, and they are all chipped.


RE: Just gather the data....
By mindless1 on 9/11/2007 12:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of crack are you smoking?

NO, most pets DON'T have chips implanted, you are insane.

What planet do you pretend you live on? Not even 1% of pets have implants, and this only considers that tracked, not the myriad pets never tracked at all.

Something tells ME that in 10 years time, we didn't have the right to subject pets, or humans, to be guinea pigs.

I advocate prison for anyone involved in this senseless violation of human or animal rights. This means YOU TOO. I want you in prison for violating your pet. If you think I am kidding, pull your head out of your ass, this is just not right inserting things into a living organism for your mere convenience.


RE: Just gather the data....
By oTAL on 9/11/2007 1:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Well, for your information it is mandatory in many countries.

I was limiting my observation to the large area around me and I suppose it is not the norm in the largest part of the world (especially in the 3rd world), so I'm sorry if that small mistake offended you.

Where I live, over 90% of the dogs have tags (licensed or not), and the licensed dogs ALL have tags. I don't know about cats, but I think they are also mandatory.

Now I'm sorry if you're having a bad day, or if someone pissed on your cheerios, but from where I'm standing my post was far more useful/thought-provoking than yours, so tone-down the attitude.


RE: Just gather the data....
By emerson85 on 9/13/2007 11:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
An interesting summary (mostly correct, based off my own knowledge of engineering and law), can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_%28...

You'll note that animal implants are all passive.


RE: Just gather the data....
By oTAL on 9/17/2007 10:34:25 AM , Rating: 2
From the article you quoted:
quote:

Microchips are not in universal use, but there are legal requirements in some jurisdictions, such as the state of New South Wales, Australia. Some countries, such as Japan, require ISO-compliant microchips on dogs and cats being brought into the country, or for the person bringing the pet into the country to also bring a microchip reader that can read the non-ISO-compliant microchip. [23]

In New Zealand, all dogs first registered after 2006-07-01 are to be microchipped. Farmers protested that farm dogs should be exempt, drawing a parallel to the Dog Tax War of 1898. [24]. Farm dogs were exempted from microchipping in an amendment to the legislation passed in June 2006.


This supports my point. These are of course passive devices, which is assumed with RFID implants since those are overwhelmingly more popular.

Still can't understand my -1 rating and the 2 rating on an answer to my post with perls such as:
quote:
What kind of crack are you smoking?
NO, most pets DON'T have chips implanted, you are insane.
quote:
I advocate prison for anyone involved in this senseless violation of human or animal rights. This means YOU TOO. I want you in prison for violating your pet. If you think I am kidding, pull your head out of your ass, this is just not right inserting things into a living organism for your mere convenience.


RE: Just gather the data....
By acer905 on 9/12/2007 9:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
... question, where are these rights stated. I don't recall having a right to not be implanted... though if you could please point it out to me where you found that


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki