Chip implants linked to cancer

[Kurgan]

For once perhaps the tin-foil hat crowd is on to something...

 

 

As if the privacy issues weren't enough, apparently ignored studies link chip implants to tumors in laboratory animals. And this is something they

want to outfit every human being with? No thanks!

 

http://tinyurl.com/3xj5ns

 

 

By TODD LEWAN, AP National Writer 32 minutes ago

 

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."

ADVERTISEMENT

 

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/

[Totenkopf]

Never did trust people who want to make their jobs easier in the name of the "greater good". Health issues aside (as if they weren't enough by themselves), the idea that you could be "trackable" 24/7 has a pretty high heebie-jeebie factor IMNSHO. If they are so fired up concerned about people's welfare/med history.....let them provide some kind of med bracelet.

[Thor the Bassis]

the idea that you could be "trackable" 24/7 has a pretty high heebie-jeebie factor IMNSHO.

 

I dont think the transmitter is powerful enough to track you as if could only be detected over a few centimeters/inches. If you think how big a wireless router transmitter is and then scale it down to the size of a grain of rice and then think that a router has a 50 meter/150 foot radius there can only be a 10 centimeter/3 inch range.

 

But I can't believe people are about to do this. Anything which transmits data in radio waves can cause cancer - its just our skin (an clothes) stop all but the most high frequency waves. However, if you put this in your body the skin can't protect you.

 

The Alexander Litvinenko case in Britain where he was killed by a dose of radioactive polonium-210 is a classic example of a similar case (though it is radioactive alpha-decay not electromagnetic gamma-decay they both act in the same way). The alpha-decay from polonium-210 isn't strong enough to penetrate skin but when it hits soft tissue there's no defensive layer and it is fatal.

 

I thank the lord for the NHS and my free centralised healthcare and hope this doesn't catch on in Britain.

[tk102]

The chips aren't actually transmitters, they're transponders. External transmitters in tune with the transponder's antenna (at 13.56MHz FWIW) energize the chip which then echo back their data on that frequency and are received by the transmitter. If anything, the cancer was likely caused by the radio frequency fields that the lab animals were being subjected to.

 

This article comes across to me as a bit alarmist.

[Totenkopf]

Given the trend of miniturization, what they can't do now could be done w/in a generation or less. I was thinking more in line with the idea that putting a chip in someone will inevitably lead down that path, even if we're not made aware of it at first. Of course, they could always incorporate it into our clothes, etc.... Oh Brave New World/1984, byte by byte, here we come.....

[Ray Jones]

I think this is the most interesting part about the story:

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.

[Jae Onasi]

It wouldn't surprise me if there are increased rates of cancer--you stick something foreign into the body and it tends to react in some way or another. I suspect for most people a chip isn't going to cause any medical problems (privacy issues aside, I don't like the idea of carrying around a chip either). For a small percentage, it will cause problems, ranging from mild to something as severe as cancer. There are a lot of things that could be causing the cancer, though I suspect the most likely culprit is a reaction to the materials in the chip itself, not the radio signals.

[Kurgan]

I think this is the most interesting part about the story:

 

Of course saying it's mere coincidence that the tumors just happen to be where the chip was seems like a weak excuse to me.

[Ray Jones]

Nah, I'm just saying that without a control group we have less of a scientifically correct result from that study. You cannot just say LF users are more likely to die in an car accident, when you don't even take a look at non LF users.

[Thor the Bassis]

Fact: Tumours grew around the transponders and almost exclusively around the tumours

 

Please explain this?

 

Also i'm curious how a control group could be implemented? Would that just be a rat sitting in a cage with no actual transponder near it? In that case I think that the rats would proberably not get tumours as they would be normal rats and I'm sure that rats would have died out by now if they got tumours as easily as this.

 

So logically rats aren't extinct so normal rats dont get tumours as easily as they do when they have transponders in them.

[Ray Jones]

Of course it would be useless to have some other rats sitting in a cage. The control group should live under the same conditions and must undergo exact the same treatments and procedures as the chip rats. Maybe the non chip rats would have grown tumors too because of the experiments, and not solely because of implanted transponder chips. I'm not saying the chips aren't responsible for the tumors, but we also don't know what would happen to normal rats when they are treated like chip rats. Or can you read a qualified statement regarding that into the articles quoted in #1?