|
Interview
MoCRA 2022 - The End of Tattoo (maybe)...unless...we
are not prohibited from practicing our usual and normal tattoo businesses
both in tattooing techniques and using what we have always used for many
decades. Our inks are safe
and effective synthetic organic pigments proven safe by use in hundreds of
millions of tattoos by millions of tattooists.
Authoritative source materials tell a
relatively benign story about pigments in general. It would take a huge
amount of ingested pigment to be dangerous. Workers when making pigments at one time
were harmed when exposed to inhalation over a long period of time. The
pigment industry immediately ceased production of the offending pigments.
MoCRA is a nail in our coffin, and "they" don't care if it is moral, immoral
or hypocritical to destroy our lives by removing pigments from the
market, nit because they are harmful, but because they cannot be removed by laser.
The pigments we have been using safely for
50 years are headed for prohibition. Tattoo removal is hugely profitable, mind
boggling opportunities to cash in. And so a Congresional Act is created to
allow the FDA to regulate this customary and usual
American practice.
The FDA is showing they are being influenced by the Brits. We
have
the evidence.
Our Synthetic Organic Color Pigments are to be removed from the market so
that Lasers can more easily remove all tattoos.
The Legislature passed MoCRA to do that, giving the FDA deniability.
Laser removal is the problem that needs
addressing.
300 degree boiling of pigments in the skin by
lasers creates toxic substances. We call on the CDC for a study of those who
have had laser removal to prove laser removal is safe before the FDA makes a
terrible mistake banning our safe and effective colorants.
We have Rights protected by our Constitution:
Constitutional rights that are being denied us.
Dermatology teaches that tattooists use toxic chemicals in their inks, like mercury.
They teach would-be dermatologists
to memorize the names of those harmful substances to dissuade their future patients from being tattooed.
Surprise,
even now the CDC suddenly makes an about face, dredging up fictitious warnings about infections (a lie
because there is no such argument) there are no greater numbers of
infections after a tattoo. The CDC used to give tattoo
a clean slate. I remember distributing several batches of cards printed by
the CDC assuring that tattooing is safe. What happened? A sudden change without evidence.
Dear Friends,
How (??) the legislature got it into their heads to pass an Act fo Congress, MoCRA
of 2022 to
enable the FDA to make rules for tattoo is a good question. Tattoo does not
fit the 80 year old definition of a cosmetic because it is not removable.
Tattoo is not a cosmetic like every other FDA defined cosmetic.
The Act is esigned to seize every aspect of tattoo from needles as medical
devices, to tools, training and licensing, even for purchasing ink and
prohibiting small batch ink mixing. MoCRA of 2022 is Pandora's Box ending Tattooing.
Here are the words the FDA uses to destroy what belongs to the people:
"Products
that are intended to alter appearance for more than 24 hours under customary
or usual conditions of use and removal by the consumer is not part of such
conditions of use."
All cosmetics, by definition by the FDA, have the same characteristic of being
removable!
MoCRA of 2022 was created to $eize control of
tattoo by expanding the similarity-notion of all cosmetics, their historical
essential characteristic: removableness, by declaring the obvious and known
non-removableness of tattoos. This is Orwellian double-speak: the Emperor is
naked.
The money to be made by
removal (of all tattoos)
is too big to have the "rougher sort"
of uneducated and medically untrained practitioners make all that money.
Investor groups have
bought ink companies, equipment makers and even tattooing shops and want to
change tattoo to require FDA control. They use double-speak to make tattoos removable so
they fit the definition of cosmetics. Congress is using Orwellian language manipulation to make it happen.
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-lawsregulations/modernization-cosmetics-regulation-act-2022-mocra
Laser
removal interests decry tattooists as "people with little or no medical
training injecting unknown substances into people. New dermatologists are
being taught to regard a tattoo as a self-inflicted wound in need of a cure.
This is a standard insider joke and the class laughs on cue.
The end of
Independent Tattoo Ink Producers.
MoCRA 2022
will monopolize the tattoo ink market by large scale producers (now
going on).
It is calculated that forcing tattoo ink
producers to meet large scale FDA cosmetic product standards will be necessary
o eliminate the small producers. The reason given is the order of magnitude of the tattooed who can be
affected by their products.
There are several independent small batch (400 to
800 oz. per lot) tattoo ink producers who cannot afford the costs to meet
current FDA cosmetic regulations and
would not even be able to obtain the pigments which will only be available by licensing.
As an aside, it will cost millions forcing compliance, and then
violence against dissenters.
The reason to regulate tattoo used to be based on the
horrors of "infection" with HBV, Hepatitis C, and other strange sounding
diseases. Today, this
argument is all
but abandoned because infections are rare and most easily treated. But, it is being used, as step one in a 2-step
propaganda
technique for public support (though a known lie).
Step one in propaganda presents " a truth " that you already know is
a truth, (you are a "truth-teller") so that you agree that indeed tattoos
could become infected. Add disturbing pictures and it sets your emotions
that
tattoos cause horrors.
Propaganda Step 2 introduces the lie: tattoo inks
possibly contain infectious materials, or the needles, or the artist
can give it and the ink may have toxic substances that are a threat to health, carcinogenic,
toxic, mutagenic. With the pictures you are influenced to accept the lie.
Here is an interview of a very well
respected EU Dermatologist, Christa de Cupyer (deC) (30 years of Permanent
Cosmetics) Board Member of ESTP who is "singled out and credited" with
inspiring the makeover of tattoo inks by her book Dermatologic Complications
with Body Art. She is interviewed
(get he title): "the dangers of Tattoos". The title
proves the subterfuge.
I have made comments indicated by
[ww.]
European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV)
January 13, 2016.
Before you watch the
interview, do be aware that this is designed to
frighten the 'be-Jesus" out of patients asking for advice: if they should get
a tattoo. This is a good example
of "Bias" - overestimating the likelihood of an event that is
actually RARE or practically non-existent; like trying to dissuade a friend from traveling by plane because
she might be killed in a
plane crash.
Watch
the video below to see how rare events are presented as normal and common.
The interview is meant to create the impression that any or all are likely
that they all must be considered happening when you sit for a tattoo.
Nothing in the interview that is true.
https://www.facebook.com/EADV.org/videos/564852857012968/
08/15/23
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=564852857012968
Questioner: How can a
Tattoo get infected?
deC: Oh, there are
different sources for infection.
The tattooist
can just make infection;
[ww. There is no evidence that tattooists
in general can infect a client directly. Only one case is known of someone with no gloves, sores on his
hands, tattooing in a public park. It is plainly not likely so this is an
anecdotal case only.]
deC: the patient
himself can carry some bacteria on his skin
[ww. The bacteria on the skin
has no open skin wound to migrate to, being constantly surface wiped.
Removal is a disinfection technique. Tattoo
inks have alcohol which kills bacteria. Wiping is part of the
procedure. Infections are less than rare.
deC:
and if the skin is not well disinfected he can get infected by procedure;
[ww. There is no evidence that
tattooing inserts bacteria from the skin into the tattoo causing an
infection. This is "made-up" stuff. During an open operation
bacteria can travel into a wound from the edge, but this is "made-up."
And what is meant by "well"
disinfected? The skin either is or is not disinfected. The case cited above
of the person tattooing in a park with guitar string and toner for ink, the
infections he spread are more likely
from rubbing his sores on the tattoo directly, repeatedly.]
deC: the devices can be infected
[ww. Devices don't become infected.
they are sterile. There is no evidence that the device
transfers infection from the surface of a tattoo machine or pen. Another
false
claim.]
deC: especially the needles;
[ww. Needles are
sterile. This is
imagination inventing a possibility that has no evidence of having happened.
Certainly nothing that deserves to even be mentioned,]
deC:
and transmission for example of hepatitis by non sterile (sterile) needle is
possible,
[ww. No case has ever been documented.
In Sweden in the 80s during a wide breakout in the country some Hep was blamed on artists using a common sponge
and bucket technique for cleaning without changing the water. Swedish health care promptly stopped the bucket-washing. The NYC case
in 1950s cited below, again during a wide outbreak, was falsely blamed on tattooing
according to a NYC Council person which led
to the NYC ban in 1959. This is "scare-mongering."]
deC:
and also the inks can be infected
[ww. No known case of
hepatitis-containing ink has been shown. Some bacteria-containing inks were
found by the CDC coming from a single producer of ink that led to a handful
of cases because he used tap water as an ingredient. This is a bizarre case
by a lone actor making ink in the basement, selling it at conventions, which
is condemned by all tattooists.]
deC: especially if the
“novice” for example uses running water to dilute the ink.
[ww. No evidence substantiates "hepatitis"
from tattooing. The only case that can be found in the literature is from a
rural area north of Hong Kong that had no medical personnel, no hospital no
clinic and in the 80s. One other source of infection from tap water but
not Hep,
a bacterial
infection has been documented by a lone actor (#A) of mixing tattoo ink having used
Tap water to mix the ink, and then selling his ink at conventions and his distributor (#B)
selling to others during 2011 and 2012. This was
a bad lone actor cited above. A separate tattooist diluting his ink with tap water
caused a number of infections in NY. This is unique, anecdotal, which is not actionable.]
The Second Question presented to deC in the interview is:
"So tattoo inks are not safe or not always safe."
[ww. This question does not follow from the interview but it shows how a person
can be manipulated into believing by hearing scare tactics by exaggeration.]
deC: There are many concerns in the medical world about safety of tattoo ink
[ww. "Concern" means "NO EVIDENCE"
can be found. The FDA has been lobbied by Laser interests for 20 years to
remove inks that are hard to remove and now that the EU has done so, it
looks like the FDA copied the Brits. That would be a shame especially since
the EU improperly banned 316L Stainless Steel requiring the use of
only Titanium for initial piercing. The FDA should not follow the
politicized EU down this rabbit hole of harmonization of codes. It should be
the other way around, the EU should be following the FDA. MoCRA 2022 has
nothing to do with safety of tattoo inks. Hopefully the FDA will stand by
safe and effective use over time as the criteria for continuing their stance.]
deC:
because it has been demonstrated that tattoo inks contain contaminants
[ww. What is demonstrated is
that if anyone looks hard enough they can find nano size particles of some
things, sometimes, but there is NO LINK to any harm to the body. There is no
evidence of these claims, even after 40 years of watching tattooing and 20
years searching to prove inks are toxic.]
deC: with
carcinogenic mutagenic properties that these tattoo ink’s colorants in
tattoo inks get decomposed in the skin
[ww. This is a lie. No inks are
shown to be carcinogenic, mutagenic. Pigments do not decompose in the
skin,
They are crystal shape, insoluble and are not dyes. Tattoos are permanent.
All these remarks are fiction.]
deC: and that this decomposition makes
other dangerous components
[ww. It is the Laser application that causes the crystal to decompose into
new and different unknown chemicals. Laser interests claim they do not
know about this.]
deC: All these materials are absorbed in the body,
[ww. Colors in
other organs has been reported. But "absorption"? In the tattoo wound, cells
phagocytose foreign bodies when encountered and remain in place. This
isolates pigment crystals from interacting with the body. The claim of being
absorbed is not accurate.
deC: they are drained through the lymph nodes.
[ww. If there were
a problem with pigments, in the Lymphatic system we would expect swelling or
inflammation. But there is none. This is a good sign, further proof that
pigments are not a threat to the body because there is no reaction by lymph
nodes.]
deC: But we know little about the bio
kinetics, about the transport in the body and the action of the different
components on different organs.
[ww.
WOW here it is: the admission:
de Cuyper admits "we" know little about the effects of laser on pigments, - Really,
?? !! -- ]
25th
EADV CONGRESS, 28 September – 2 October 2016, Vienna Austria
YIKES-#2! The
Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022
Quoting from MoCRA
Products that are intended to alter
appearance for more than 24 hours under customary or usual conditions of
use and removal by the consumer is not part of such conditions of use.
Quoting From R. Rox Anderson. MD,
distinguished Harvard Professor and Inventor, who started the idea to
remove from the market those inks that could not be removed by lasers:
"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. ...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.
Tortured language
obscures the obvious: remove tattoo ink pigments from the market that cannot
be successfully removed by Lasers. The words in the Act “removal by the consumer” makes it
clear that Tattoo is the target, an about-face of their historic 80 year
recognition of the peole owning Tattoo. The FDA looks as if it is being used to ban the
use of color pigments in tattoo in the US following the Brits and the EU.
“…the most significant expansion of the FDA's authority…since…1938:
Raise your
voice.
Westley W Wood, Pres.
Unimax Supply Co Inc.
NY NY 10013 (est. 1989)
wes@unimaxsupply.com
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/modernization-cosmetics-regulation-act-2022
07/09/2023 See below for 05/27/23
YIKES!
-1 05/27/23 See -2 Below Updated 07-09-23
YIKES!
Write the FDA – This could be trouble … (MoCRA)
The Modernization of
Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022
The FDA has invited
you to write with questions (Quoted)
though my two inquiries were not responded to.
Inquiries about MoCRA can be directed to
QuestionsAboutMoCRA@fda.hhs.gov
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/modernization-cosmetics-regulation-act-2022
Your Email Subject
line might be something like:
My Question is about MoCRA of 2022 and Tattoo/Piercings.
(Reply must be in the form of a question.)
Will the FDA openly
declare that MoCRA does not and will not
apply MoCRA of 2022 to TATTOO and PIERCING?
Respectfully
submitted.
by
"Your info"
Send CC or BC to
wes@unimaxsupply.com
if you might be interested
in sharing your take.
...or am I wrong in thinking that
controlling Tattoo Ink
is the major intention of this Act?
The Act does NOTHING to enhance the
already very high safety of
Tattoo and Piercing.
Westley W Wood, Pres.
Unimax Supply Co Inc.
NY NY 10013
05/27/2023
Updated February 10, 2025
| 
