ATTENZIONE
This article isn’t medical advice, but a critical take on a study linking tattoos to lymphoma.
It doesn’t replace professional consultation. The data mentioned herein is public and verifiable; opinions are entirely personal.
In recent weeks, the media have bombarded the public with alarmist headlines claiming that tattoos increase the risk of malignant lymphoma. The story has been hyped up to an absurd degree for clickbait, often with journalists not even bothering to read the study. A closer look at the document – available here (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(24)00228-1/fulltext) – reveals a research effort riddled with holes and contradictions, incapable of proving anything substantial. This article breaks down the claims point by point, showing why there’s no reason to let these shaky conclusions scare you.
What is this study about?
Published in eClinicalMedicine (part of The Lancet), the study is titled “Tattoos as a risk factor for malignant lymphoma: a population-based case-control study”. It’s based on a retrospective survey: a group of people with lymphoma and a control group without lymphoma were asked about tattoos. The findings suggest that those with tattoos have a 21% higher risk of lymphoma. At first glance, that might sound serious, but one just has to dig a little deeper to notice that correlation doesn’t mean causation. Claiming two things happen together doesn’t prove one causes the other – it’s like saying most Italians who crash their cars drank coffee (9 out of 10, if not more), so coffee must cause accidents. Ridiculous, right?
Point 1: Correlation isn’t causation and speculative language
An association isn’t proof of causation. The study found a slightly higher percentage of tattooed individuals among lymphoma cases, but that doesn’t mean tattoos are the cause. Other factors – like smoking, drinking, or lifestyle – weren’t properly accounted for. Plus, the text is littered with vague, speculative terms: “might”, “suggests”, “we hypothesize” pop up everywhere. For instance: “further epidemiological research is urgently needed to establish causality” and “causality cannot be conferred from a single epidemiological study and more research is needed”. If causality isn’t proven, why publish something that stirs up panic?
Point 2: Contradictions and unproven assumptions
The inconsistencies in the data are glaring. The study states: “We found no evidence of an increased risk with a larger total tattooed body surface area”, yet it adds: “We observed the highest risk of lymphoma in individuals with tattoos smaller than a palm of the hand.” It’s an obvious contradiction: if tattoos were dangerous, a larger surface area should mean more risk, not less. Yet they find the opposite, with no explanation why. It’s a baseless hypothesis: if ink were truly toxic, the more introduced into the skin, the greater the risk should be. Instead, it reads: “It seems intuitive that a larger tattooed body surface area would infer a greater health risk than a small tattoo; however, we found no supporting evidence for this in our study.” “It seems intuitive”? Science doesn’t run on intuition—it runs on facts. The text is riddled with guesswork: “It can be assumed that solid-state material is deposited in lymph nodes” and “It seems reasonable to assume that the risk of exposure misclassification would be the same in cases and controls.” Assuming isn’t proving. Look at reality: tattoos have been everywhere for decades, and among lymphoma patients, there are tattooed people, often with small tattoos, now commonplace. That proves nothing, except that the study clutches at random correlations without rhyme or reason.
Tatto Info
A DIAMOND IS NOT FOREVER! A TATTOO IS!
Those who are about to get a tattoo always have a number of questions.
Here below you will find some fundamental and pretty exhaustive information that hopefully will help you avoid making the most common mistakes, they will make us save time and will make our meeting more productive.
Even those who are not new to tattoos will probably find some interesting info.
Point 3: Very small risk and more guesswork
Point 4: Laser removal, metals in needles and other absurdities
Another shaky claim involves laser tattoo removal. The study notes: “an intriguing finding was that laser treatment for tattoo removal modified the exposure effect and yielded a substantially higher risk estimate”. “Intriguing”? There’s no real evidence, just “estimates” – statistical guesses from questionnaires, not chemical or biological analysis of lymph nodes or ink. It’s a hypothesis, not a fact. Then there’s this gem: “needles may release metals such as nickel and chromium into the skin”. Seriously? There’s zero proof, just another baseless guess. Tattoo needles have been made of surgical steel – a safe material used in medical tools like scalpels and implants – for at least 20-30 years. These aren’t sewing needles scavenged from grandma’s drawer! Sure, a 0.3mm needle might wear down slightly, but the idea it releases dangerous particles is pure fiction. Finally: “there has been a global increase in malignant lymphoma incidence that remains largely unexplained”. If it’s unexplained, why blame tattoos instead of pollution, industrial food, or mass injections?
COVER-UPS & REMOVALS
Although there are still people who struggle to accept them and job sectors where it’s not advisable to have any visible ones, it is undeniable that, compared to the past, in the last couple of decades tattoo has become a common and acceptable practice.
Point 5: Practical experience
Since 2000, tattoos have taken off (millions tattooed), but lymphomas? Down. From 19.6 per 100,000 in 2000 to 18.6 in 2021—no rise in twenty years. If tattoos were a risk, the numbers would speak for themselves, not with “it seems”.
Note: Incidence trend 2000-2021.
SEER Cancer Stat Facts: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Conclusion
Tattoos done by professionals with quality inks and proper hygiene are safe. Studies like this, brimming with guesswork and lacking evidence, seem more about grabbing attention than advancing science. It’s not uncommon for research groups, possibly funded by public or private money, to churn out flimsy papers to justify their existence – think about studies on whether pigeons recognize Picasso paintings or if toast always lands jam-side down. There’s nothing funny about it, one has to wonder why this nonsense is even being published. If you have any doubts about tattoos or want to get one, request a consultation to turn your idea into art, without letting baseless scare stories hold you back.