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.

---

Nice job explaining the study! It’s good you showed the 21% increase, but the risk is still pretty small overall. Maybe you could add that scientists need to do more research to figure out why tattoos might raise the risk, like if it’s the ink or something else. That way, people know it’s not 100% sure yet.

---

I really liked how you showed that People Magazine was exaggerating their claim and showed a study from The National Library Of Medicine, which is a much more valid source when it comes to anything medical.

---

I really appreciate the acknowledgement of the overexaggeration of this claim, as well as the lack of reliability of the original source, and therefore the lack of validity of the claim in context.

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.

---

Yeah, I agree. This study doesn’t really prove tattoos cause lymphoma because it just watched what happened, not a real test. Plus, there isn’t much research yet, most stuff just talks about this one study. The laser removal part is important too.

Answer 4

I checked this out and it looks like the claim is mostly true. The study from Lund University says people with tattoos have a slightly higher chance of getting lymphoma, which affects your immune system. The People Magazine article matches what the study says, so the source seems pretty reliable. But the increase is small, and scientists aren’t exactly sure why tattoos might raise the risk. Plus, other things like your genes or environment matter a lot too. So, having tattoos doesn’t mean you’ll definitely get lymphoma, just that the chance might be a little higher.

Answer 5

After receiving a tattoo, people reported feeling less anxious about their appearance and having more self esteem, according to research published in the International Journal of Dermatology. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/31/ink-positive-how-tattoos-can-heal-the-mind-as-well-as-adorn-the-bodyAnother study showed that women who have lower body image and self-esteem usually have more tattoos as an"expression of emotion" instead of "self-creation". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40684345/Tattoos are not a universal "cure" for mental or physical health issues, but for some they may help people feel stronger, unique, or in control of their bodies.

The Medusa tattoo for example is a very intriguing representation of symbolic healing through tattoos. According to ancient mythology, Medusa was a woman who was changed into a Gorgon with snakes for hair by the goddess Athena, whose eyes made people turn to stone. Her story has been reclaimed over time, with many people viewing her as a symbol of female empowerment, survival, and protection. Some people use a Medusa tattoo to symbolize their journey from victim to strength, their recovery of their own bodies and to even tell other women that they’re not alone and they’ve went through a lot as well. 

Answer 6

The study that People magazine references has credible findings, but the findings are being construed to a misleading level of factuality. The study finds that tattooed individuals have a 21% increased risk of overall lymphoma, but it also states that “causality cannot be conferred from a single epidemiologic study, and more research is needed” (eClinicalMedicine). An analysis of the study done by Harvard Health Publishing explains that an association study like this one can’t prove a causation of disease. This is because there can often be other confounders: unrelated factors that are more common among tattooed individuals that might impact lymphoma risk (Harvard Health Publishing). 

There have been many conflicting results in other studies. For example, in a study in BMC Public Health, they found that evidence of a tattoo's effect on risk of lymphoma was only present in tattoos larger than the palm of your hand. (BMC Public Health). Experts have also pointed out that if tattoos directly increased risk of lymphoma, there would be a directly correlated increase of lymphoma cancer as there is with tattoos in the U.S. Because of factors like these, I would argue that there is no strong research on the direct causation between tattoos and lymphoma, and that this claim from People magazine is very misleading. 

Answer 7

This claim is exaggerated/misleading. An article from Harvard Health Publishing analyzed the study mentioned in this claim and said that “lymphoma was 21% more common among those with tattoos” but that  “There was no correlation between the size or number of tattoos and lymphoma risk” and “if tattoos significantly increase a person's risk of developing lymphoma, we might expect lymphoma rates in the US to be rising along with the popularity of tattoos. Yet that's not the case.” https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/do-tattoos-cause-lymphoma-202407193059

It is common to see statistics like this and automatically believe it is true but it should be noted and remembered that correlation does not equal causation. In this case that means that just because more people who had tattoos also had lymphoma, it doesn’t mean that tattoos caused that lymphoma. Also, there are very few studies on this issue and many more would need to be conducted to confirm any real correlation. 

However, it should be noted that tattoo ink does contain potentially harmful chemicals that can travel to the lymph nodes but the health effects are unknown. https://www.sierrahemonc.com/blog/is-there-any-link-between-tattoos-and-increased-lymphoma-risk/

So as of right now, this information and claim should be taken under speculation and not taken as 100% factual. Much more information needs to be collected and studied to determine a strong conclusion.

Answer 8

In the context of the study published in May of 2024, with a sample size of 11,905 Americans, which compared 1,398 people ages 20-60 with lymphoma to 4,193 people without lymphoma, lymphoma was found to be 21% more common in those with tattoos but 18% more common in the control group. The data is supported by an article from Harvard Medical as well as an article from the PubMed National Library of Medicine. This difference of 3% is therefore not statistically significant. The primary thing to note in claims like this is that correlation does not imply causation. This claim was definitely intended to clickbait/scare people into not getting tattoos. Since the sources I have listed are scientifically accredited, and they both receive federal funding, they are credible sources. There is not a lot of research on this specific topic, meaning that in order to check if this claim is reliable, the study would need to be repeated and yield the same, if not similar, results.      

Answer 9

After researching more about this claim, my findings suggest that we cannot confidently say that this is true at all. When examining actual studies on lymphoma vs. tattoos, there are only two that have been conducted on this subject. The first study, listed here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699076/, compared 1,518 people with lymphoma to those who don't, and found no correlation between the two at all. The second study, listed here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38827888/, is the one that people will reference for this claim or misinterpret. In this study, with a population of 11,905 people, they had 1,398 people with lymphoma and 4,193 people without. The results of this study found that 21% of people with lymphoma had tattoo(s), while only 18% of people in the control group had tattoo(s). The study shows a 3% higher chance of having lymphoma with tattoos. However, this number is not large enough to be considered statistically significant, nor has it been studied or looked into any further. It is a large stretch to jump to conclusions based on that study alone. Correlation does not always mean causation. According to Harvard Health Publishing https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/do-tattoos-cause-lymphoma-202407193059, the connection made between lymphoma and tattoos could have been made by chance. This article brings up the point that if they are truly connected, we would be seeing an increased number of people with lymphoma along with the increased popularity of tattoos, which is not what is happening at all. Additionally, there are no known official "causes" of lymphoma https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lymphoma/symptoms-causes/syc-20352638. There are risk factors, such as a family history of lymphoma or an autoimmune condition, but no evidence of any direct cause, as some articles may convey. Overall, there is not enough evidence or studies done to say that tattoos actually increase one's risk of lymphoma.