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 is massively 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 (under 2 years). They say this could be a result of antagonising existing tumours, but seems way more likely to be a statistical artifact or a non causal correlation.
If you have other evidence, though, I’d be happy to hear it.
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 is massively 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 (under 2 years). They say this could be a result of antagonising existing tumours, but seems way more likely to be a statistical artifact or a non causal correlation.
If you have other evidence, though, I’d be happy to hear it.