334
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by King@blackneon.net to c/science@mander.xyz

Study

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 39 points 22 hours ago

The full paper is here and, as usual, it's hardly anything and decontextualized in order to get a publishable result.

This one is so bad that it doesn't use established baselines or do any form of statistical analysis on the results instead opting for their own "baseline" measurements using very small sample sizes. It also plays a smoke and mirrors game where it shows a result for short term immunological response and then uses that to insinuate the 'slightly reduced but still likely well within the error of the poor control' long term effects are worth noting.

Other major flaws:

  • As others have mentioned, mice are a terrible model for this as their skin is very thin and proper tattooing is near impossible.
  • They mention verifying with human cadavers but don't include any data from those.
  • There was no control group, the baseline was an untreated mouse, not one with an acute foot trauma.
  • Mice age very quickly, best I can tell the immunological markers weren't age controlled. 2 months out of a <2 year lifespan is a lot of aging. Again, if there was a proper control to measure against.
  • The obsfucation of the raw data into cheesy and unreadable box and whisker plots is hella suspicious.

At best it's a very poorly communicated and poorly designed experiment but I suspect that's due to it result hunting.

[-] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 1 points 8 hours ago

Thanks for chiming in, but I'm not sure I understand the implications. It's not trustworthy ? I shouldn't listen to the conclusions ?

[-] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 21 hours ago

What the hell? Was this even peer reviewed?

[-] P1nkman@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago

Probably by LLMs.

[-] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

Oh honey... This is barely below average.

this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
334 points (91.1% liked)

Science

5606 readers
810 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS