Tattoo Ink Moves Through the Body, Killing Immune Cells and Weakening Vaccine Response
-
… This is the internet. You can always be like the rest and pretend you know everything and are multi discaplined, instead of taking the proper, less fun, honest route.
Why make this comment encouraging bad behavior? This feels like injected negativity for negativity sake. Idk man, be the change you want to see in your community.
-
There are far too many humans with tattoos that could have been researched extensively, but they chose mice. Mice do not have the same kind of skin density as humans, and I doubt a tattoo artist or researcher would have the talent to tattoo a mouse’s skin.
There’s just so many things wrong with using mice in this study. So many bad ratios with the size of the animal. I mean, for fuck’s sake, tattoo artists already practice on pig skin. Pigs would have been a better analogue, but honestly, they should have picked the millions of humans who were already tattooing themselves.
Of course, if they did that, they wouldn’t get the same result and be able to push this sensationalist science news title, now would they? Except, in this case, we’ve gone from research paper to straight to sensationalist news title in one step! Just let the institute PR department push the narrative for you, without having to wait for that pesky news cycle to crawl through the telephone game.
Human subjects are crazy to work with for a few reasons
- People don’t follow instructions perfectly
- Research subjects often don’t take the research project very seriously.
- It’s not uncommon to have dropouts, thus you either have to find more subjects or have less data.
- It’s impossible to know what the subjects are doing to cause data variability (diet, vices, etc)
- You can’t lock subjects in a room and force them to eat and drink the same food every day.
- There’s a financial (time) penalty to many research studies that can get in the way of enthusiastic participation.
Laboratory mice literally live 5 to a cage with almost no diet variability, in a controlled environment. Yes shit does happen with research mice, but it’s something that is easy to control overall.
-
would it be possible to solve this problem by making different inks? or would any ink that doesn’t have this problem just inherently be non-permanent
Not a biologist but I believe the latter. If the ink could be broken down by the macrophages in your lymph nodes it would likely be broken down in its intended location in your skin too, as there are lyphatic capillaries and vessels throughout our skin.
-
There are far too many humans with tattoos that could have been researched extensively, but they chose mice. Mice do not have the same kind of skin density as humans, and I doubt a tattoo artist or researcher would have the talent to tattoo a mouse’s skin.
There’s just so many things wrong with using mice in this study. So many bad ratios with the size of the animal. I mean, for fuck’s sake, tattoo artists already practice on pig skin. Pigs would have been a better analogue, but honestly, they should have picked the millions of humans who were already tattooing themselves.
Of course, if they did that, they wouldn’t get the same result and be able to push this sensationalist science news title, now would they? Except, in this case, we’ve gone from research paper to straight to sensationalist news title in one step! Just let the institute PR department push the narrative for you, without having to wait for that pesky news cycle to crawl through the telephone game.
You are generally not wrong but where can you find people who are tattooed, not yet vaccinated, but happy to get vaccinated for this study? It is wrong to say this definitely works the same in humans, but it is not easy to setup such a study.
-
Humans have been tattooing each other for over 5000 years. I would argue that it’s not really a case of “they need to be proven to be safe”. That ship has sailed. If they are unsafe, we should know, but I think the burden of proof has definitely shifted on tattoos given their extensive history without obvious negative repercussion
What you’re missing is that the ingredients of tattoo ink have changed dramatically in the last 100 or so years.
Prior to then tattoo inks were made mostly with soot or black ash mixed with plant oils.
Nowadays the inks are almost entirely synthetic, sourced from the same companies that make industrial paint, and have been tested and some found to contain carbon black nanoparticles, Texanol, BHT, 2-phenoxyethanol, and various other things that are confirmed (or reasonably suspected) to be toxic and which definitely wouldn’t be in historical inks.
The proof should be entirely on the suppliers and administrators (tattooists) to confirm their ink and tattoos are safe, not the users. Yet their regulations are very lax in most countries, requiring no pharmaceutical testing even though they are injected into people’s skin.
Some refs: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25833640/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38387033/
https://theconversation.com/whats-in-tattoo-ink-my-teams-chemical-analysis-found-ingredients-that-arent-on-the-label-and-could-cause-allergies-22481 -
There are far too many humans with tattoos that could have been researched extensively, but they chose mice. Mice do not have the same kind of skin density as humans, and I doubt a tattoo artist or researcher would have the talent to tattoo a mouse’s skin.
There’s just so many things wrong with using mice in this study. So many bad ratios with the size of the animal. I mean, for fuck’s sake, tattoo artists already practice on pig skin. Pigs would have been a better analogue, but honestly, they should have picked the millions of humans who were already tattooing themselves.
Of course, if they did that, they wouldn’t get the same result and be able to push this sensationalist science news title, now would they? Except, in this case, we’ve gone from research paper to straight to sensationalist news title in one step! Just let the institute PR department push the narrative for you, without having to wait for that pesky news cycle to crawl through the telephone game.
Unless we dissect the original paper in its entirety, I don’t think we should dismiss their methods out of hand.
I’ll reserve judgement until peer-reviews can confirm or rebuke the results.
-
Human subjects are crazy to work with for a few reasons
- People don’t follow instructions perfectly
- Research subjects often don’t take the research project very seriously.
- It’s not uncommon to have dropouts, thus you either have to find more subjects or have less data.
- It’s impossible to know what the subjects are doing to cause data variability (diet, vices, etc)
- You can’t lock subjects in a room and force them to eat and drink the same food every day.
- There’s a financial (time) penalty to many research studies that can get in the way of enthusiastic participation.
Laboratory mice literally live 5 to a cage with almost no diet variability, in a controlled environment. Yes shit does happen with research mice, but it’s something that is easy to control overall.
And yet, we manage to have hundreds of thousands of studies written about humans with human subjects. This sounds like a boatload of excuses that could be summed up as “science is hard”. Sure, it’s hard, but it’s better than putting out a flawed study that can’t scale properly.
-
You are generally not wrong but where can you find people who are tattooed, not yet vaccinated, but happy to get vaccinated for this study? It is wrong to say this definitely works the same in humans, but it is not easy to setup such a study.
Within a single city, hundreds of people get tattoos each day. A large cross-section of those probably haven’t refreshed their COVID vaccine, but only because they haven’t gotten around to it.
-
And yet things like asbestos, lead, and smoking all took way longer than you’d expect (given they were a lot more universal).
And yet humans have been tattooing themselves since the dawn of recorded history - significantly longer than any of those other things were around before their harm became evident.
-
The researchers discovered that once a tattoo is made, the ink rapidly travels through the lymphatic system and, within hours, accumulates in large quantities in the lymph nodes — key organs of the body’s defense system. Inside these nodes, immune cells called macrophages actively capture all types of pigment. This ink uptake triggers an inflammatory response with two phases: an acute phase lasting about two days after tattooing, followed by a chronic phase that can persist for years. The chronic phase is particularly concerning because it weakens the immune system, potentially increasing the susceptibility to infections and cancer. The study also showed that macrophages cannot break down the ink like they would other pathogens, wich causes them to die, especially with red and black inks, suggesting these colors may be more toxic. As a result, ink remains trapped in the lymph nodes in a continuous cycle of capture and cell death, gradually affecting the immune system’s defensive capacity.
The study found that tattooed mice produced significantly lower levels of antibodies after vaccination. This effect is likely due to the impaired function of immune cells that remain associated with tattoo ink for long periods. Similarly, human immune cells previously exposed to ink also showed a weakened response to vaccination.
thats why some people get a rash at the tattoo sites, or it triggers shingles. make sense since macrophages clean up melanin pigment produced by post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, a brown spot after a severe pimple or something.
-
I have the opposite problem, my immune system is in overdrive. I should get a tattoo to reign it in.
i feel like that would cause an immediate inflammation, if your immune system is dysregulated, it would have a likely opposite effect of what it suppose to do. ive seen alot of people in tattoo sub said they had a reaction to the tattoo after its done.
-
There are far too many humans with tattoos that could have been researched extensively, but they chose mice. Mice do not have the same kind of skin density as humans, and I doubt a tattoo artist or researcher would have the talent to tattoo a mouse’s skin.
There’s just so many things wrong with using mice in this study. So many bad ratios with the size of the animal. I mean, for fuck’s sake, tattoo artists already practice on pig skin. Pigs would have been a better analogue, but honestly, they should have picked the millions of humans who were already tattooing themselves.
Of course, if they did that, they wouldn’t get the same result and be able to push this sensationalist science news title, now would they? Except, in this case, we’ve gone from research paper to straight to sensationalist news title in one step! Just let the institute PR department push the narrative for you, without having to wait for that pesky news cycle to crawl through the telephone game.
Just use pigs.
Basically the same thing as a human (except for the opposable thumbs, which explains us eating them), but cleaner and smarter on average.
-
I suppose I would be in that crowd. I’m an atheist, but I think the whole tattooing thing is kinda stupid. To each their own of course, I don’t care if anyone gets a tattoo, but the culture around it annoys me and I think it’s a waste of one’s body. I do like some of the art styles, but why not just print it on a shirt and wear it?
That being said, I think it’s petty bad if it turns out the ink causes a higher risk of disease. Like with cigarettes in the past people weren’t informed about the consequences before making their choices. That sucks and I don’t wish it on anyone.
Like with cigarettes in the past people weren’t informed about the consequences before making their choices.
Yeah, but the tobacco cartels had performed studies which clearly demonstrated how absolutely horrible their shit was and not only not made them public, but used them to maximise addiction (and cancer, as a side effect they didn’t give a single shit about).
I very much doubt the tattoo industry has ever studied anything.
-
The researchers discovered that once a tattoo is made, the ink rapidly travels through the lymphatic system and, within hours, accumulates in large quantities in the lymph nodes — key organs of the body’s defense system. Inside these nodes, immune cells called macrophages actively capture all types of pigment. This ink uptake triggers an inflammatory response with two phases: an acute phase lasting about two days after tattooing, followed by a chronic phase that can persist for years. The chronic phase is particularly concerning because it weakens the immune system, potentially increasing the susceptibility to infections and cancer. The study also showed that macrophages cannot break down the ink like they would other pathogens, wich causes them to die, especially with red and black inks, suggesting these colors may be more toxic. As a result, ink remains trapped in the lymph nodes in a continuous cycle of capture and cell death, gradually affecting the immune system’s defensive capacity.
The study found that tattooed mice produced significantly lower levels of antibodies after vaccination. This effect is likely due to the impaired function of immune cells that remain associated with tattoo ink for long periods. Similarly, human immune cells previously exposed to ink also showed a weakened response to vaccination.
Why not be a professional scientist by:
- adding “in mice” to the title;
- using modern statistical methods instead of continuously discredited procedures like p-values?
-
Why make this comment encouraging bad behavior? This feels like injected negativity for negativity sake. Idk man, be the change you want to see in your community.
I agree with you in sentiment, however; I believe the comment you’re replying to was intended as a joke.
-
Why make this comment encouraging bad behavior? This feels like injected negativity for negativity sake. Idk man, be the change you want to see in your community.
It was sarcasm nerd
-
followed by a chronic phase that can persist for years.
how many years? am I doomed for life because what I did to my body when I was 18
I got a tattoo on my leg when I was 17.
36 now and I’m the past year it’s gotten ridiculously itchy, bumpy and my skin is rejecting the ink and spitting it up in little spots.
-
There are far too many humans with tattoos that could have been researched extensively, but they chose mice. Mice do not have the same kind of skin density as humans, and I doubt a tattoo artist or researcher would have the talent to tattoo a mouse’s skin.
There’s just so many things wrong with using mice in this study. So many bad ratios with the size of the animal. I mean, for fuck’s sake, tattoo artists already practice on pig skin. Pigs would have been a better analogue, but honestly, they should have picked the millions of humans who were already tattooing themselves.
Of course, if they did that, they wouldn’t get the same result and be able to push this sensationalist science news title, now would they? Except, in this case, we’ve gone from research paper to straight to sensationalist news title in one step! Just let the institute PR department push the narrative for you, without having to wait for that pesky news cycle to crawl through the telephone game.
You’re freaking out over over a single study. This is the beginning of a more comprehensive investigation. Chill your cornhole
-
And yet, we manage to have hundreds of thousands of studies written about humans with human subjects. This sounds like a boatload of excuses that could be summed up as “science is hard”. Sure, it’s hard, but it’s better than putting out a flawed study that can’t scale properly.
Sure, the study would be best if we did a randomised double blind study on a sample of 100 people that all are going to get a tattoo anyway but that doesn’t make the mouse study irrelevant.
Mice and humans, although very different in appearance have biomechanics that are very similar. For every human study you could make a 20 mouse studies with the same funding so you could do a lot more exploration.
This study found something, notably that ink in the blood affected the immune system. This just means that future studies are needed like injecting people with tattoo ink and blood samples diagnosis after tattoo to see how much ink is in the blood. If confirmed this will push tattoo ink manufacturers to develop a new ink that eliminates the effect and we can all enjoy safer more effective tattooing.
This study is not flawed, it’s pushing human knowledge forward like it always does.
-
Like with cigarettes in the past people weren’t informed about the consequences before making their choices.
Yeah, but the tobacco cartels had performed studies which clearly demonstrated how absolutely horrible their shit was and not only not made them public, but used them to maximise addiction (and cancer, as a side effect they didn’t give a single shit about).
I very much doubt the tattoo industry has ever studied anything.
Oh definitely, the tobacco industry is way worse. Tattoo artists (at least in my county) have to follow hygiene regulations and aren’t allowed to tattoo minors, and there don’t seem to be any issues with this. There isn’t any incentive for them to cause harm to their customers, on the contrary, so I don’t blame them for this. If tattooing poses serious health risks like this study suggests, it would suck for everyone involved.
