I contacted Dr. Ingram when this “poster” study was released to clarify the origins of the inks tested. She told me the students conducting the “study” were told by various tattoo supply companies that they would not sell them pigment as they were not licensed tattooist. I then asked where the inks came from and was told “some were bought online…” I probed further to find out that E-Bay was apparently involved.

This would then, of course, open the field up to whatever any kitchen magician could bottle and sell to those who have no official license or training or experience and totally invalidate the data gathered from tainted sources treated as commonly used materials.

The “researchers” also stated that there were no scientific studies of tattoo pigment previous to theirs, missing the only accurate analysis to be published in the last decade by John Lundsgaard of the Danish FDA in 2002. Find it here:

http://www.mst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/FCB88CDC-3C3C-4BF5-AB5F-51E32BA994A8/0/2.pdf

Read that document. That’s responsible science.

The study noted in the above article is flawed from the start, unreliable data from inexperienced students.
This does not science make.