“What inventions didn’t make the cut over the years?

Dr. R. Rox Anderson: I am an incurable optimist, but not everything we try works. We tried to make removable tattoos 15 years ago. There are hundreds of different inks, and the chemical composition of inks is not controlled by the FDA. People with no medical training are tattooing millions with potentially allergic or carcinogenic ink and bad art. There is a lot of tattoo regret, and we don’t have great ability to remove tattoos. We succeed 75-80% of the time. If the FDA did regulate tattoos and they were made of safe materials, sterile, well tolerated by the skin, and could be removed, it would be a game-changer. It failed because we ended up coming up with a really expensive tattoo ink in 2008 during the economic recession. I still love the idea of a safe removable tattoo. What I learned from this is that when you come up with an idea make sure you understand the ecosystem that the invention has to fit into. The cost of tattoo ink is less than $10.00. Removable ink that costs $300 is not tolerated.”

(ww) Unimax Supply Co Inc.(Reg. NYC 1989), at the time (2008) a large tattoo supply distributor of tattoo ink was trying to sell Dr. Anderson’s Black and a Red “Infinitink” to tattoo artists. What was new was: the ink particles were encapsulated in a medical plastic that allowed the pigment to be more easily laser-removable empowering consumer-choice to allow for eventual removal for newly made tattoos.
Tattoos are termed a dermatologic problem in need of a cure.“ by Dermatologists who are caring for the nation’s skin problems, even those intentionally inflicted.”
This invention did not make it over the years, selling only one ($25 retail) bottle in a decade in spite of Unimax promotion.
https://unimaxsupply.com/tatink/1infinite.htm

What follows are comments on Dr. Anderson’s interview, and parenthetically his “Tunnel” article for Medical News Today (2005).
https://unimaxsupply.com/sitepgs/1toxic_tattoo_ink.htm

Dr. Anderson (DrA): We tried to make removable tattoos 15 years ago.
(ww) We offered Infinitink to tattooists but they did not buy into removable tattoos.

DrA: There are hundreds of different inks.
(ww) But only a few dozen coloristic ingredients (the pigment part) that are responsible for a tattoo’s permanence: a coloristic, indissolvable crystal pigment ingredient which by definition is insoluable in the body, proven over time in hundreds of millions of tattoos as safe and effective. The other ingredients are removed by the body during healing leaving just the crystal in place by phagocytosis. The crystals impart the colors. Some pigments resist laser-removal destruction even at high  (approx) 300 degrees blasting apart of the pigment crystal. The body heals faster than the body can remove the particles. The laser process usually require many sessions. As such, laser removal is not as effective as hoped.

DrA:  and the chemical composition of inks is not controlled by the FDA…
(ww) … the implication is this is a fault. This is an example of “incipient propaganda:” to instill an idea without actually saying it directly: to implant a logical conclusion from the words without actually saying it. It is also a preparatory step to “soften-up” the victim.  In this instance, that the FDA should and could control the content of the ink which would enable successful laser removal of tattoos: also known as manipulation.

DrA: People with no medical training are tattooing millions…
(ww) Again, the incipient propaganda technique the conclusion being drawn is: medical training is needed.

DrA: with potentially allergic or carcinogenic ink
(ww) Again, the incipient propaganda technique. The conclusion the listener or reader draws is that inks can be allergenic or carcinogenic; presented in a context that this is a significant problem.

DrA: …and bad art.
(ww)  An “aside” if this were a lecture for his students. Doubtless he would pause and in a deeper voice shaking his head as a private aside, “…and bad art” you can just imagine it would result in laughter (on que), degrading tattooing without directly saying it. A lecturing Professor is also an entertainer. He is a master at this.
I recall in his presentation to the FDA and permanent cosmetic practitioners he did the exact same thing. He had a photo, staged by an artist and a potential customer, the artist holding a machine in the air, and Dr. A commented that “Apparently tattooists don’t think it’s necessary to wear gloves.” At which point the audience laughed derisively.

DrA: There is a lot of tattoo regret…
(ww) Again, the incipient propaganda technique. It may seem like a lot if you do not see the hundreds of millions of “Happy Campers.”

DrA: … and we don’t have great ability to remove tattoos. We succeed 75-80% of the time.
(ww)   75-80% may “sound” pretty good unless it means partial. We hardly see any 100% removals, if ever.  The word ”remove” is intentional disinformation because the ink is not removed by the laser at all. The pigments are blasted by explosion. The residuals pieces go “who knows where?”  It has beenreported that some pigments after laser treatment are shattered into toxic chemicals. The tattoo position is that laser “removal-from-view” is safe because there is no “fall-out”. Hospitals are npot full of laser patients. The same argument holds for our pigments. There is no drain on public resources.  The pigments are safe.

(ww) It raises the question: Is MoCRA designed to eliminate pigments that lasers turn into toxic chemicals, to benefit the Laser Removal Industry, which is already reaping great incomes from huge profits with little effort.

November 17, 2024
To be Continued.

Any response pr comment is welcome to: wwood36@gmail.com
Westley Wood is solely responsible for the contents of this article.