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 - French Bulldog
Canine Fibrosarcoma - Vaccines/Microchip

Léon was microchipped on September 1, 2003. Even though Léon had a tattoo and a 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, (The Veterinary Journal: 2004; vol. 168; pp. 188-190). 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 published 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)

“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 may not even be able to read?

The significance of the latter question is tragically demonstrated in the article entitled, “” 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) 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 or magnetic treatments 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 Léon’s story with others. After waiting for over two years I am pleased to say that his 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.” It is available online at:

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.” 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 my efforts and the unwavering faith and courage of Léon, I was 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 “” 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 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 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.

(on behalf of Léon, my fearless friend, my noble teacher)