Léon – French
Bulldog
Canine Fibrosarcoma - Vaccines/Microchip |
Thank you for your interest in the story of my little dog, Léon. While I could not save Léon,
he and I hope that by sharing this information, others will be spared
the unnecessary pain and suffering that we endured.
Léon was microchipped on September 1, 2003. Even though Léon
had a readable tattoo and a current passport, I was told that in order
for him to fly with me, he also needed a microchip. Before microchipping
Léon,
I asked a sales representative of the pharmaceutical company whose
microchip was to be implanted in Léon
about the safety of microchips. The sales representative told me that
extensive testing had been done and assured me that microchips are
perfectly safe.
It wasn’t until after Léon was microchipped that I learned that he did not need a microchip. It wasn’t until Léon
developed a fibrosarcoma (cancer) that I learned that microchips,
like so many products, are not nearly as safe as we have been led
to believe.
Léon was also vaccinated on the same day that his microchip
was implanted.
In April 2004, a lump developed at the site of Léon’s microchip. The biopsy report says, “Diagnosis: Fibrosarcoma.” The pathology report confirms that it is a “High-Grade Fibrosarcoma.” This report also says, “the tumor…is
histologically identical to postvaccinal sarcomas in cats.”
Although the microchip was attached to the fibrosarcoma, the pathology report says there is not enough evidence to prove that the microchip is responsible for the fibrosarcoma. Bear in mind, however, that in order to have enough proof, tissue samples must be submitted, extensive testing must be done and papers must be published. While this should be a simple, standard procedure, one soon learns that samples are rarely submitted, extensive testing is time consuming and expensive, and papers can take years to be published.
In Léon’s case, additional testing of his tissue samples was requested. But, as stated in the pathology report, “I have contacted three laboratories, including the University, and no one is willing to do that laborious stain.” Would you not think that laboratories would be more than eager to examine a canine fibrosarcoma that is vaccine and/or microchip-induced, particularly if it is truly so “rare?” Perhaps it is due to this “laborious” mentality that few papers have been published and, therefore, according to the “experts,” insufficient
evidence exists that microchips cause tumors.
When I spoke with a representative (who is also a veterinarian) of the pharmaceutical
company whose microchip was implanted in Léon, the gentleman verbally
admitted that they are well aware of the vaccine-induced sarcomas in cats, but
said that their company had never experienced any problems with their microchips.
Not long after, I found the paper entitled, “
Liposarcoma
at the site of
an implanted microchip in a dog.” (
1) The microchip mentioned in this
article is from the same company whose representative told me that they have
never had any problems with their microchips, even though
representatives of other pharmaceutical companies verbally admitted to me that
they have experienced problems with their microchips.
It is interesting to note that the microchip implicated in the paper “Liposarcoma at the site of an implanted microchip in a dog,” is the same brand that was implanted in Léon. This paper was written before Léon
was microchipped.
It is also interesting to note that Léon’s microchip is from the
pharmaceutical company that boldly writes the following about its microchip (electronic
identification): {
http://fr.merial.com/companion_animals/cats/announcements/indexec_gp.asp}
(
2)
| |
“Des études scientifiques
montrent que ce système, totalement indolore,
est parfaitement
bien toléré par l’animal, et ne présente
aucun risque de démangeaison, d’allergie ou d’abcès.
De même, la longue expérience européenne confirme que l’organisme
ne manifeste aucun rejet.”
This essentially says, “Scientific studies show that this system, totally
painless, is perfectly well tolerated by the animal, and does not present any
risk of itchiness, allergy or abscess. Extensive European experience confirms
that the body does not reject the microchip.” |
|
The latter statements are grossly misleading, completely false and throw the
door wide open regarding the accuracy of their “scientific studies” and “extensive
experience.”
Léon’s fibrosarcoma led me to think further regarding the “safety” and “logic” of
microchipping. I learned that there is currently no universal microchip scanner
available that is capable of reading all brands of microchips. I also learned
that not all vets even have microchip scanners. So what is the purpose of implanting
a microchip that the vet, or whomever scans the animal, may not even be able
to read?
The significance of the latter question is tragically demonstrated in the article
entitled, “
Pet’s death rekindles Electronic ID debate.” This article tells the story of Lisa Massey’s American Pit Bull Terrier, Hadden, who slipped out of his collar and ended up at the Stafford County, Virginia, Animal Shelter. According to the article, Hadden was scanned for a microchip “but the shelter’s scanners failed to detect the short-range radio frequency emitted by the dog’s microchip.” Unfortunately
this story does not have a happy ending. Hadden
was euthanized shortly before
Massey was able to locate him.
There are many questions that must be answered regarding the “safety” and “logic” of
microchip implantation. For example, before administering any injections or performing
surgery, shouldn’t the vet check the location of the microchip? What potential
risks exist if an animal receives an injection at or near the site of its microchip?
What problems may arise if surgery is required at or near the microchip site?
What are the potential problems if an animal is bitten or injured at or near
the microchip site? And, even though many companies claim that their microchips
cannot migrate, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) “
Microchip
Report 2004” says, “Migration remains the commonest problem with
the elbow and shoulder being the favourite locations of wayward microchips.”
The BSAVA Microchip Report 2004 continues by saying, “The most disastrous
report received during 2004 concerned an attempt to implant a struggling kitten
resulting in sudden death. During the post mortem examination the microchip was
found in the brainstem.”
Once we step back and begin asking the right questions, the floodgates open to
more unanswered and thought-provoking questions. For example, what short- and
long-term problems exist when diagnostic tools such as radiographs, ultrasounds,
computerized axial tomography (CAT scans), magnetic resonant imaging (MRI), or
nuclear medicine is used on those who are microchipped? Also, what happens if
therapeutic tools such as laser, light emitting diodes (LED’s), magnetic
treatments or acupuncture are used on those who have a microchip implant? We
assume that these and other questions have been thoroughly investigated, but
have they? And if so, by whom?
Let us not forget the Hippocratic Oath that
states, “First
Do No Harm.”
While some people appear to have forgotten the Hippocratic Oath and argue
that adverse reactions to microchips are rare, perhaps one should ask oneself
if adverse
reactions to microchips are “rare” or “rarely reported.” The
BSAVA “
Microchip
Report 2003” says:
| |
“2003 saw a marked increase in the number of
reports received through the Adverse Reaction Reporting Scheme. It is significant
that several reports were received from some quite small practices while many
larger practices filed no reports at all. This suggests that there is an element
of under reporting which may be happening for a variety of reasons.” | |
While on the topic of “rare” or “rarely reported” adverse
reactions to microchips, (or to any other product for that matter), please bear
in mind that Léon’s case has been reported, documented and made
available to the public due to my efforts to learn the truth and to share his
story with others.
After waiting for over two years, I am pleased to say that
Léon’s case has finally been published in the journal “Veterinary
Pathology” (July
2006: 43: pp. 545-548). Léon’s paper is entitled, “
Fibrosarcoma
with Typical Features of Postinjection Sarcoma at Site of Microchip Implant in
a Dog: Histologic and Immunohistochemical Study.”
Léon’s particular case should be a major wake-up call regarding the potential risks for those animals who have been, and will be, vaccinated and microchipped in the same or nearby bodily location. As vaccines have clearly resulted in feline sarcomas, (and there are also documented cases of vaccine-related sarcomas in dogs and ferrets), aren’t
we adding fuel to the fire by microchipping and vaccinating at or near the same
location?
The pharmaceutical company whose microchip was implanted in Léon, says, “Mieux
que le tatouage, il y a maintenant l’Identification Electronique. {
http://fr.merial.com/companion_animals/indexel.asp}
(
3)
According to this statement, “electronic
identification (referring to its microchip) is better than a tattoo.” Upon
reflection of some of the information discussed in this letter, you may be asking
yourself, “for whom is the microchip better? My animal? Myself? Or,
for those who will profit from the sale and implantation of the microchip?”
You may also be asking yourself if microchipping animals is the testing ground for future mandatory microchipping of your children and of yourself. At a time when many countries will not allow students to attend school unless they have been vaccinated, and in an era of control and paranoia, mandatory microchipping may not be so far in the future.
After all is said and done, the ultimate question may be: do the benefits of microchipping our animals truly outweigh the risks?
Léon also suffered neurological damage, which eventually led to complete
muscular atrophy. In the end, he was unable to walk. Despite our efforts and
the
unwavering faith and courage of Léon,
we were unable to boost his immune system and one problem led to another.
The fibrosarcoma proved that the vaccines damaged Léon’s system.
My research indicates that the vaccines also caused the irreparable neurological
damage and the destruction of his immune system.
Unfortunately I, like so many others, was programmed to believe that vaccines
are essential to maintaining the health of our beloved animals. Sadly, it took
a little dog to open my eyes to the real truth. A little dog who believed in
me and trusted me with his life. A little dog who happened to be one of the best
friends and the greatest teachers that I will ever have.
While we are openly critical of what we believe to be the brainwashing, manipulation and ignorance of citizens of other countries, perhaps we should take a good look in the mirror and see who has been brainwashed, manipulated and taken for complete idiots. It would also be wise to examine the real source of the health problems that are plaguing our animals and us. And it would be wise to focus on preventing and solving our health problems instead of creating more of them.
The article entitled “
Feline
Postvaccinal Sarcoma: A 2004 Update” says:
| |
“Feline postvaccinal sarcoma…was first described in 1991, but cases
had been seen in northeastern United States since about 1987….At least
in the United States, the appearance of postvaccinal sarcomas was linked to three
historical events: legislation making rabies vaccination of cats mandatory, introduction
of high-potency killed rabies vaccine replacing the modified live products, and
introduction of killed feline leukemia vaccines.”
| |
The latter article drives home the tragedy of the vaccine-induced sarcomas when
it says, “Given the long lag time between vaccine administration and tumor
detection, we will continue to see postvaccinal sarcomas for at least the next
ten years even if we were to stop vaccinating altogether!”
The tragedy surrounding the attitude of some towards vaccine-associated sarcomas
continues in another direction. Due to the undisputed documentation of feline
vaccine-induced sarcomas, some vaccination protocols now recommend vaccinating
animals in the limbs. The said reasoning is that if the animal develops a cancerous
growth
as a result of the vaccine, the limb can be amputated. What a frightening “solution” to
vaccine-induced sarcomas--a “solution” that
takes human ignorance and arrogance to another dimension.
It is often said that poor health is profitable for the pharmaceutical companies,
the medical communities and for those who are meant to protect us. But what does
poor health do for you and your animals?
Thanks to the Internet and pet owners/guardians who truly love and respect their
animals, the real truth about the products that we have been led to believe are “safe” and “essential” for the well-being of our animals (and ourselves) is slowly being exposed. While it is an uphill battle and the journey is long, painful and frustrating, the animals’ stories must be told. And the animals’ stories
must be heeded.
I, like so many of you, have watched loved ones suffer and die. While there
comes a moment when we must allow our loved ones to continue on their journey,
commonly referred to as “death,” this heartbreaking period should
not be made more confusing and excruciating by the painful realization that our
blind trust in our veterinarians and our ignorant belief in those who are meant
to protect us actually contributed to the senseless suffering and premature death
of our loved ones.
It took a courageous French Bulldog named Léon to wake me up to the harsh reality of the magnitude of the pure greed and intentional deception of the medical community, the pharmaceutical companies and those who are meant to protect us. Léon
and I hope that his story will wake others up too, and force those who are meant
to protect us to act responsibly and to be accountable for their actions.
Thank you for your time.
All the best,
Jeanne, on behalf of Léon, my fearless friend and noble teacher
