Are Microchips Safe?

Recently a post about microchips that was passed around Facebook had everyone in a tither. It basically asked readers to rethink this tried-and-true method of pet ID. I critiqued the article in one of my livestreams to illustrate a point. I wanted to show how people in favor of “alternative” healing methods exaggerate, make stuff up and use fear as a selling device just like the allopaths do. In doing so, they generally make themselves and the rest of “alternative medicine” easy targets for people who use REAL science to find the answers.

The article was called: “Triggering Post on Microchipping your Animal.”

I suppose it’s fair to warn people that if they are easily distressed that they might be upset by this post. In this instance, however, I just think it’s a hint of the melodrama that lies ahead.

The Author(s)

Before I get into the substance of the post, I should say a bit about the writer. She is part of a team made up of two breeders. Besides breeding, they also teach their version of raw feeding. It is not disclosed anywhere which of these two people wrote this article, unfortunately. Their names are Lisa and Lorena.

Here’s the first paragraph:

“Diesel wasn’t some rescue horror story. He came from a reputable, raw feeding breeder. No kibble. No chemicals. No forced vaccines. He was raised right, exactly how we wish every dog started life. The family who bought him? Same deal. They were awake. They fed raw, used herbs, chiropractor care, and homeopathy, never touched a vaccine, and didn’t allow a single pharmaceutical into his system. He had the cleanest damn start a dog could have in this toxic world. But slowly… something was wrong. He grew anxious. Twitchy. He’d pace, flinch at random sounds, act spaced out.”

If you’re familiar with RMF or natural hygiene, you should be able to spot some problems already. Firstly, why would a dog that had such a great start in life require herbs and homeopathy? Granted, the chiropractic care might have been needed due to injury. But I think it’s a stretch to speculate that remedies were used due to injuries. Pain management typically requires much more than herbs and homeopathy.

So we know we have owners who don’t realize that suppressing symptoms is not normal or natural. Instead of fixing the dog’s diet for whatever symptoms were obviously beginning to “slowly” plague him, they suppressed them with remedies.

Nobody knows if that had any role in this dog’s advancing disease, but it sure didn’t help. My point here is that it’s a sign that this dog’s life and health wasn’t as perfect as is being represented.

Toxins are “Everywhere”

Another red flag is that the writer of this article promotes the “toxic world” idea. Our world is not toxic! The “world” we need to be most concerned with is the INTERNAL world inside our dogs’ bodies. We are almost entirely in charge of that! The portion that we cannot control represents a tiny sliver of the pie. What we EAT and feed our dogs is what creates our (and their) internal world. This writer obviously does not recognize that. I repeat: our world is not toxic! Whenever you hear anyone spouting that nonsense, you can be almost certain they’re trying to frighten you into buying something.

The whole idea about the world being “toxic” is purely defeatist. If our world was toxic, nobody would ever have any hope of getting well. And yet people continue to believe this false platitude. Everyday, people and their domesticated animals prove them wrong by getting well when their diets are improved.

The article continues:

“They thought maybe detox was needed?”

Depending on how you interpret the word “detox,” this would of course be central to possibly resolving whatever issues this dog was having. However, the term is not defined here. Without knowing what is meant, we can only assume that these people are making the common mistake of thinking they can “detox” their dog with products.

It’s not a leap. The writer of this article sells a “detox protocol” product for $47 that she says will “prepare a dog for raw feeding and support the body as it heals.” Clearly, she’s not talking about food. She obviously doesn’t realize that all the “detox” products that are out there in the marketplace only further pollute dogs. That would include whatever she is selling.

Real Causes

In addition, hardly ANYONE would know that if this dog is getting a commercially ground raw food, he’s getting too much FAT. Even if he’s home fed, it’s very common for raw feeders to feed excessive fats, thanks to all the KETO nonsense out there about fat being “healthy.” The truth is, the feeding of excessive fats ALONE causes disease. In fact, this could easily have caused this dog’s problems.

More Drama

Next, the writer is going to leave the topic of “detox” and talk about something that is probably irrelevant: the dog’s behavior.

Now, who knows, bad behaviors could be a sign of developing pathology, but not necessarily.

Brace yourself for more drama, emphasized with some gutter language. The article continues:

“He had behavioral issues towards their other intact dog. This was never a problem for years. What came next? Full blown, drop to the floor, body rattling seizures. And the vets? Useless. They tossed out phrases like “genetic,” “idiopathic,” and “it just happens sometimes.” Translation? We have no fucking clue, but here’s a prescription.  That’s when they found me, 4 years ago. They didn’t need another protocol. They needed someone who actually knew what the hell was going on, someone outside the system. Someone who knew what raw feeding was really for, how the body detoxes, and how to look at symptoms as signals, not just slap band-aids on them.”

If that’s all TRUE, meeting this person could be the best thing that ever happened to this dog. Is it true? This person may regard herself to be “outside the system” and she probably IS, mostly. But I have reason to think she hasn’t stepped away from it far enough. Not only because of the things she has said in this article but because of the leap she makes with her next question for the owners. She’s going to ignore all the other possible causes for this dog’s seizures and instead focus on a pet theory of hers. Read on:

“And when I heard the whole story, I asked one question: “Is he microchipped?” They froze. Yeah, he was. Came that way from the breeder. They never thought twice about it. But I had. I’d seen it before. Dogs with perfect diets and zero vaccines still falling apart.”

First, I must point out that “zero vaccines” and a diet that this person would characterize as “perfect” are not enough to prevent disease. That’s particularly true of seizures. I’ve known truly properly fed dogs that suffered the onset of seizures after proper feeding began (this can be a feature of detox) OR didn’t recover from preexisting seizures after dietary improvement.

The truth is, nobody knows what causes seizures and nobody has a protocol that reliably reverses them. She goes on:

“…and the only thing left in their system? That damn chip. Here’s what most people don’t know, and what no vet will ever admit…. That chip is a living nightmare. It doesn’t just sit there. It migrates. It can wind up anywhere in the body, chest, neck, legs. Scar tissue forms. Inflammation builds. And because it’s a passive RFID chip, it responds to outside frequencies, WiFi, cell towers, Bluetooth, scanners. It acts like a goddamn antenna inside your dog’s body.”

The ”Migration” Issue

After I finished rolling my eyes at all this unnecessary and baseless fear mongering, I went looking for information on chips “migrating.”

Unfortunately, here we must rely on a bit of mainstream information in order to sort this all out. Migration is one of the very few risks of microchipping, and even when it happens, it is harmless. I hereby invite anyone who thinks they have an anecdote that shows otherwise to bring it to me. But fair warning: I’m not going to look past big potential disease-causing culprits in favor of some little migrating microchip. So, you’d better make sure the dog in question was being properly fed.

There was a comment in my FB group that a dog owner had shared on another group that her dog’s chip had “migrated to his brain.” When I first heard this, I suspected it wasn’t even possible. But apparently there is one documented case (in the millions of microchips that have been implanted) of a chip migrating to the brain stem of a kitten. It had been improperly implanted, and the kitten made a full recovery after having it removed and implanted properly. Personally, one case among millions does not persuade me that microchips are hazardous.

More on microchips migration

It turns out that not only is migration rare, but it is also almost always harmless. I saw one video that showed a doodle whose chip had migrated into his front leg. That might sound scary, but it’s important to note that the dog was perfectly fine. The only harm that came from it is that the vet had a hard time finding it when the dog got lost.

A UK study found only one in 10,000 chips actually migrate from the site they are implanted in. That should console anyone who has doubts about microchipping. I even question that number because I spent many hours looking for cases of a microchip migrating harmfully. I found nothing except the one case with the kitten.

The EMF issue

Unfortunately this paragraph also includes the obligatory warning about EMFs. I say “obligatory” since this writer has so far used many other devices that “alternative health experts” use to frighten dog owners into buying their products or ideas.

EMFs are a common phony threat. Typically, when people hear the word “radiation,” they assume that whatever follows it is going to be over their heads.

Before I share more specifics on why I’m calling this threat “phony,” I need to explain how microchips work. Microchips are passive devices, meaning they do not transmit data unless they are energized by a scanner. They have no power source of their own. When a scanner is passed over a chip, the scanner emits radio waves that activate the chip. The chip receives its power from the SCANNER. This allows the chip to transmit its information to the scanner.

Please refer to the diagram below to understand the relative harmfulness of various types of EMF radiation. Notice that radio waves are less harmful than visible light. If you are not frightened sitting next to a lamp, you should not be frightened of radio waves. Notice also that infrared rays are stronger than radio waves. These are actually used as alternative medical therapy. So, the people who warn us about EMFs coming from microchips are the same ones who promote “red light therapy” for pain relief and other applications.

And bear in mind that in the case of microchips, the dog is only receiving radio waves in the brief few seconds when a scanner is being used. The idea that your dog is walking around with a kind of radioactive or electromagnetic time bomb in his body is beyond ridiculous.

So now the writer is going to get to the only legitimately concerning part about microchips. That is, whether they actually work to reunite dog with owner:

“And if a scanner can’t find it? Good luck. There’s no universal system. No master database. Just a pile of disconnected registries, half of which charge you to update your own info. So no, that chip won’t guarantee your dog gets home.”

It may not be a “guarantee,” but I gather this person doesn’t realize that NOTHING is guaranteed. Microchips simply increase the odds of getting your dog back if she’s lost. The part that troubles me about registries being “unconnected” is that when things like this ARE “connected,” it’s usually via some government authority. If pet owners, shelters and vets ever push for having a national registry of pets that mandates chipping for ALL, much would be lost including the limited freedom we now enjoy to avoid jabbing our dogs with needles. I far prefer the current voluntary system, even with its shortcomings. When you look at the overall statistics, far more dogs with microchips are reunited with their owners than unchipped dogs. The article continues…

“But it will guarantee that foreign tech is embedded in your dog, wrapped in inflamed tissue, disrupting everything. I told them to get it removed. The vet thought they were nuts. Said it was “harmless.” “Standard.” But when they finally found a surgeon willing to take it out, that thing was buried in scar tissue, discolored, and degraded. And once it was gone? Everything changed. The seizures stopped. The nervous system calmed. The sparkle came back. Diesel returned to himself, for the first time in years. This is what real health freedom looks like. If you have a dog with a microchip, remove it ASAP!”

MY questions are: What else changed for this dog? Did the owners really only remove the chip and do nothing else? Even after they finally connected with this dog feeding “expert?”

Even if they did change only the chip, there are other possible explanations for the cessation of seizures that are escaping the notice of this writer. For example, the dog might have lost his appetite for a period of time. That would perhaps allow enough cleansing for his body to resolve the problem. These people don’t even know how powerful fasting is for healing, so they wouldn’t make the connection.

And here’s something else you should be aware of. Please look up ‘spontaneous remission’ in seizure dogs. It happens in up to 24% of cases of diagnosed idiopathic epilepsy in dogs. A full quarter of all seizing dogs stop seizing for no discernable reason at all.

More Questions

I’m wondering how long these owners waited before declaring success. Seizures come and go and are not predictable. Sometimes seizures happen all together or in clusters and other times dogs go weeks or months between events. If no seizure activity is their ONLY marker, they would have had to wait a good long time before being sure the seizures are not coming back.

What about Cancer?

I find it kind of interesting that in her zeal to discourage microchipping, this person didn’t mention the biggest factor that people usually use to argue against it: the risk of cancer. I’d like to think that she realizes that there’s no increased risk of cancer with microchipping.

But she gives me no reason to think that because she seems to be buying in to many other health myths.

Even if there is “evidence” for chips contributing to cancer, it doesn’t mean that any real evidence actually exists. Researchers getting grossly misfed and mistreated lab rats to develop tumors at the injection site does not mean anything. Cancer is a system wide problem. The key question is whether the mere existence of a microchip in a dog or cat increases their likelihood of getting cancer. I put that question to AI and the answer came back “inconclusive” and that “opinions are divided.”

The bottom line on cancer is that we know what the causes of cancer are, and that cancer requires a whole body being in a state of toxicosis or toxemia.

Are microchips painful to implant?

The other argument I’ve heard against chipping is that it is painful. I watched a couple of them being inserted on YouTube, and the animal did not flinch. There’s no reason to think it’s any more painful than the pain involved in drawing blood for blood tests. Everyone seems eager enough to overlook the pain when a vet wants to do blood work. I happen to think the potential benefits of microchipping outweigh the benefits that are enjoyed by most blood tests.

Microchips: to remove or not to remove

People reading this article might actually contemplate having an existing chip removed from their dog or cat. I think those people must give very sober consideration to the minimal risks of letting it stay vs the cost of having it removed. Firstly, it’s going to be difficult to find someone willing to take it out. Secondly, your animal will be subjected to the pain and toxins involved in having unnecessary surgery performed. Vets regard chip removal to be a difficult and risky procedure because the body forms scar tissue around it. So a lot of tissue has to be disturbed and dissected in order to find and remove the chip.

And thirdly, microchipping is by far the most effective way to assure that your dog will be returned to you if he becomes lost. Tattoos fade or aren’t seen, collars and harnesses are removable, and GPS trackers don’t work unless they are properly monitored and maintained.

What about a seizing dog?

If I had a seizing dog that I’d tried everything on with no improvement for months or years, would I remove the chip? The answer is no. In order to subject my dog to that procedure, I would need a lot more information besides this one biased and vague anecdote. It’s just too much of a stretch to think that a tiny object, a tiny amount of resulting scar tissue or even inflammation in the body could create such a problem as seizures. The bodies of dogs are far more provident, resilient and capable of protecting themselves. I think there is ample evidence to show that microchips are far more harmless AND beneficial than is being represented in this article.