Tattoos Increase Risk of Developing Lymphoma by 21%, New Study Finds

Question

This claim is TRUE:

The original article was published on the People Magazine website. It got its data from a study by Lund University in Sweden. When you search for “Lymphoma”, “Tattoo”, and “Lund University”, an article on the university’s website appears. The website is officially affiliated with a real university, and the information aligns with that in the People article.

With evidence, I believe that the claim is true, due to the reliability of the source and the original article not altering the data or making outlandish claims. 

Answer 1

People Magazine published this article making the claim that, "Getting a tattoo, regardless of size, increases the risk of developing lymphoma by 21%, according to a new study"(https://people.com/tattoos-increase-risk-of-developing-lymphoma-by-21-new-study-finds-8654298).  The study in which this supposed information was received comes from sciencedirect.com which is not a government source and has been known to make some mistakes in their articles. However, overall this site is more reliable. 

The obvious misinformation here comes from People Magazine's mistranslation of the information derived from the ScienceDirect article. In the scientific findings, the number 21% comes from the number of people in the experiment who had tattoos. The author of this People Magazine article takes this 21% and labels it as how much more likely an individual with tattoos is to develop lymphoma cancer. Based on the numbers given by the report, it seems like individuals with tattoos are 3% more likely to develop lymphoma (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537024002281). 

The same data can be found in a publishing by The National Library of Medicine, stating that those who had more recently gotten their first tattoo (specifically within two years) had a higher risk of developing lymphoma. Additionally, the findings state that there is no evidence that a larger tattoo would increase the risk of developing lymphoma (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38827888/).

The final interpretation does not claim how much more likely someone with tattoos is to develop lymphoma cancer, rather, it simply claims that there appears to be a correlation of the two. The article even claims that it is not definite and that further research and experiments are needed. 

Overall, the information provided from the science journal was misinterpreted and therefore, the claim is actually false. Overall I would categorize this claim as exaggerated and misleading, as there appears to be some truth in it.

Comments

This is wonderfully done. I like how you’ve found and analyzed the source of the original claim and then gone and debunked it yourself by finding a better, yet imperfect source (as you noted) and analyzing that.

---

I really liked how you broke down the difference between the original study and how People Magazine spun it, your structure made it super easy to follow. Citing both the magazine and the actual ScienceDirect article gave your fact-check more credibility too. One thing that could take it even further: next time, it’d be interesting to see a bit more about the study’s methodology, like who conducted it, how big the sample was, or whether it was peer-reviewed. That could help clarify whether even the 3% increase is something to worry about or just statistical noise. But overall, great job catching how media headlines can exaggerate real data!

---

I really enjoyed how you clarified the discrepancy between the People Magazine article and the original study published on ScienceDirect. The misrepresentation of the 21% figure is a significant issue.

---

I really appreciate all the detail and thought behind this response. From what you've stated, the article by Peoples Magazine is very misleading and is using a very specific piece of data and over exaggerating it to make headlines and news. It's clear that while tattoos can cause a slight increase in the chances of getting Lymphoma, it's not something that should be a major factor for if you get one or not.

---

I agree that this claim is false and also misleading because there is no statement in the actual claim on why it's a higher risk. It's just saying that there is a higher risk, kind of saying just to not get tattoos in general.

---

I really like how you organized your facts and used the research you found to help back up your argument. You did a great job clarifying that the claim is false with your findings.

---

I thought this was a very clear and detailed comment that answers the initial claim very well. You were very organized which lead to a very clear understanding of your point. The sources you chose were reliable and allowed for a credible understanding of why this initial claim was misleading.

Answer 2

This claim is true and the article gets this claim from sciencedirect.com. The original source of the information is pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Comments

Can you elaborate? A strong fact-check provides relevant data, quotes, and contextual information as well as direct source links.

---

Simply stating the claim is true then not doing any further research than finding the original source of the information is not enough to warrant a fact-check. While its appreciated that you found that original source it would be nice to see a bit more investigation and research outside of the given sources.

Answer 3

Possibly could be misleading. 

While that specific study did believe to find a cause in rise in lymphoma from tattoos, it was also an observational study and therefore couldn't chemically prove that tattoos, or what exactly about tattoos, increase chances of lymphoma (health.harvard.edu). There's also the issue that this topic has not been researched enough, so the majority of papers writing about it are repeating the evidence of this single study (sierrahemonc). The study also couldn't connect an increase in chance of lymphoma with a larger tattooed surface. However the article notes a clear increase in lymphoma cases with individuals who have undergone laser removal treatment. Yet doesn't clarify if this could be a determining factor in their statistics and not tattoos themselves.

This is definitely something to be aware of if you're getting tattoos. But it's too soon to say if this is true or not because it was the first real study of its kind (which even the article states) and there are many pieces missing as previously mentioned.

Comments

This comment has a very good breakdown of all the limitations in this study. I do think that the studies show association but not a direct cause, and I think you did a good job highlighting the lack of research. I am curious if the laser removal you mentioned was found separately and could also be a factor. Overall this is a great factcheck.

---

I enjoy the way you format your fact check by breaking down each point in the article. The way you broke down the connection between tattoos and lymphoma was very interesting since researchers can't really find a connection. I also liked the way you gave the reader the benefit of the doubt instead of just saying that it's immediately connected. Overall your use of outside sources was very helpful in conveying your argument.