~ Microchip Implants ~

[spoon]

Nice to see pretty much everything has a price. Thanks Tommy Thompson, along with the FDA. I'm getting the chip out of my dog very soon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070908/ap_on_re_us/chipping_america_ii;_ylt=Av9D3mnEAwn9FrFuGU31k5Ks0 NUE

[PapaBear]

Whoa. I was seriously considering getting a chip for my dog. I'm glad you posted this. I don't care what it does to humans. I'll never voluntarily get one myself.

[Bulldogcakes]

Woah! Thanks for posting that Spoon. None of my guys have it, but I'm going to post a copy of that on my local dog run's website and print out another one for the bulletin board.

[TheMojoPin]

I never wanted them because I have a whole thing about not liking the Mark of the Beast and junk.

[angrymissy]

oh crap! Pronto has one... How do you extract the chip though? I thought they were super small.

[sailor]

oh crap! Pronto has one... How do you extract the chip though? I thought they were super small.

i'd assume your vet could remove it.

[TheMojoPin]

Lighter and a pocketknife. Then use gunpowder to cauterize the wound. After that, those POW's are as good as home!

[MadMatt]

Lighter and a pocketknife. Then use gunpowder to cauterize the wound. After that, those POW's are as good as home!

:lol:

You SOB - I was gonna post that joke! Well, not exactly the same, but you hit the high points.

:lol:

On a serious note :ohmy: your vet should be able to remove the chip but it will take minor surgery. They are meant to be easily implanted but "difficult" to remove. That way it can help deter pet thieves, because you need some training and skill to pull the chip. Plus, the idea is to have the pet's info with it for life, so it's meant to go in and stay in.

Don't know about the cost, but if there is a legit concern about cancer there may end yup being some legal recourse or a type of "recall" from Verichip that can mitigate or defray the cost.

[Crispy123]

I told yas. The FDA is crap.:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:

[TheMojoPin]

I told yas. The FDA is crap.:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:

Well, to be fair, as the article points out numerous times, these kind of results in lab rats and mice in no way are a guarenteed translation to health problems in other animals or humans. As it's also pointed out, it's worrisome and raises red flags, but the argument is really just as strong either way. This is pretty far even from "use this and you and your pet might get cancer." More testing, however, definitely needs to be done on more "advanced" animals.

But, like I said before, I don't ever want these damn things in me.

[Yerdaddy]

I told yas. The FDA is crap.:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:

I disagree. But then again I'm pro-cancer.

[Crispy123]

I disagree. But then again I'm pro-cancer.

Yeah...You and your life partner Mojo are probably arguing over who's going to carry Bin Ladens baby.

[Yerdaddy]

Yeah...You and your life partner Mojo are probably arguing over who's going to carry Bin Ladens baby.

That'll be me. Just in case the kid hijacks me and flies me into Mojo's butt. I aint no bottom.

[spoon]

As it turns out, the company is under a lot of heat from multiple sides here. Tommy Thompson's name is all over this investigation as well since it seems he fast tracked the approval and hid some obviously negative results and possibilities. Anything for money right? Who the fuck cares about people and animals right Fred? They should put 20 of these in him right now and have the go set off scanners with the old "Assssshole" chant whenever he walks by price scanners.