HEY I just realized I’ve never posted publicly about something I think is pretty important, that I try to tell all my loved ones.
Unfortunately I think tattoos might give you cancer. I don’t think we know for certain whether it’s causal, but I think there’s a pretty good chance it is.
I’m extremely grateful that my surgeon alerted me to this study before I got a second tattoo. I’m pretty bummed about not being able to get the huge tower crane chest piece / left sleeve that I wanted, but I’m even more happy not to have a heightened risk of lymphoma. Let your loved ones know!
I would barely update at all on this paper. Effect sizes are very small and don’t show a logical causal mechanism.
Looking at the full paper, in the fully adjusted matched model, smaller tattoos (under one hand palm) give you a higher risk (1.27) than larger ones (1.14). In the unmatched model, large tattoos had no effect. This seems contradictory with their suggested mechanism (ink affecting lymph nodes).
And their results imply that it’s most dangerous getting tattoos before there’s a plausible chemical pathway to harm (risk is highest for those who got tattoos under 2 years ago). They say this could be a result of antagonising existing tumours, but seems likely to be a statistical artifact or a non causal correlation.
If you have other evidence, though, I’d be happy to hear it.
HEY I just realized I’ve never posted publicly about something I think is pretty important, that I try to tell all my loved ones.
Unfortunately I think tattoos might give you cancer. I don’t think we know for certain whether it’s causal, but I think there’s a pretty good chance it is.
Big study on it:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38827888/
I’m extremely grateful that my surgeon alerted me to this study before I got a second tattoo. I’m pretty bummed about not being able to get the huge tower crane chest piece / left sleeve that I wanted, but I’m even more happy not to have a heightened risk of lymphoma. Let your loved ones know!
I would barely update at all on this paper. Effect sizes are very small and don’t show a logical causal mechanism.
Looking at the full paper, in the fully adjusted matched model, smaller tattoos (under one hand palm) give you a higher risk (1.27) than larger ones (1.14). In the unmatched model, large tattoos had no effect. This seems contradictory with their suggested mechanism (ink affecting lymph nodes).
And their results imply that it’s most dangerous getting tattoos before there’s a plausible chemical pathway to harm (risk is highest for those who got tattoos under 2 years ago). They say this could be a result of antagonising existing tumours, but seems likely to be a statistical artifact or a non causal correlation.
If you have other evidence, though, I’d be happy to hear it.
how big is the effect size?