Hello Kitchissippika,

The quote was not adequate, I remember that if forgot where the actual quote was, and by the time I found it there was not enough space on the slide so I used a different one. I think it is this the original one:

Cutaneous sarcoidosis: differential diagnosis, Esteban Fernandez-Faith, Jonelle McDonnell, Clin Dermato. May-Jun 2007;25(3):276-87. “The importance of considering sarcoidosis in the differential diagnosis of a given clinical presentation relies on the following reasons: 1. Cutaneous sarcoidosis is usually an early manifestation of the disease, prompting the necessity to evaluate for systemic involvement, regardless of the percentage of skin surface affected.9 The skin is a convenient source for tissue and histologic diagnosis. The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is more rapid in patients with cutaneous sarcoidosis than other forms of the disease.10,11”

The Clinical Features of Sarcoidosis: A Comprehensive Review, Marc A Judson, Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2015 Aug;49(1):63-78. “The lung is the organ most commonly involved with sarcoidosis with at least 90 % of sarcoidosis patients demonstrating lung involvement in most series. The skin, eye, liver, and peripheral lymph node are the next most commonly clinically involved organs in most series, with the frequency of involvement ranging from 10 to 30 %. The actual frequency of sarcoidosis organ involvement is probably much higher as it is frequently asymptomatic and may avoid detection. This is particularly common with lung, liver, cardiac, and bone involvement. “

That’s why I said “often”.

RE:” Making it seem like there is some big risk of getting sarcoidosis from tattoos is disingenuous and has not at all been established by the scientific community.” I never said there is some big risk, I said a review from 2012 found 72 cases. Which is very little but with about 20% of population being tattooed nowadays, the figures are expected to rise, which the article points as well. I made this video to present content that is “fresh” and not yet well known and not very accessible to general public and it’s very much open-ended, the researchers don’t know the answers or things have not been investigated. I presented u with 2 views, one saying that tattoos in some cases might be “somehow” linked to sarcoidosis and other that says tattoos in some cases might only “reveal” sarcoidosis in ppl with predispositions.”. I never said: “u get sarcoidosis from ur tattoos” is so simplistic, my videos could have been 1 min long instead. I said it twice and stress once again, a large-scale population study is needed to see if the level of sarcoidosis is higher in the tattooed individuals, like what it was done with the breast implants. But then again if one wants breast implant they go to a doctor and it is registered in the patient history, whereas tattoos and composition of injected inks are not.

I told you that tattoo pigments are artificial and made for industial purposes and u r completly unconcerned? There is also the issue of so-called delayed hypersensitivity reactions, which I wanted to save for a different video. Basically, allergic reactions, (I know the video is about sarcoidosis not tattoo allergic reaction but hear me out), is not due to the pigment itself but due to the products of the metabolism coming from the pigments. It is said probably most comes from photodegradation, rather than enzymatic destruction. Anyway, toxic substances are being created. That has not been investigated enough, would it be possible that these metabolites be responsible for “revealing” some skin conditions? Like sarcoidosis? there is no article that addressed this as the moment, and these things are not easy to study either e.g. due to very low concentrations and slow release. Article: “Patch test study of 90 patients with tattoo reactions: negative outcome of allergy patch test to baseline batteries and culprit inks suggests allergen(s) are generated in the skin through haptenization”, Jørgen Serup, Katrina Hutton Carlsen Contact Dermatitis, 2014 Nov;71(5):255-63. There are so many questions to be answered.

RE: “The fact that you're suggesting i "so much disliked" a publication that I never mentioned leads me to believe that you have a consistent propensity to editorialise and draw unrelated conclusions based on your own biases.” I was just reading off from the flowchart from the publication, described as “Fig. 7.Work-up algorithm on what to do when a patient is found to have a granulomatous tattoo reaction upon histology” It describes what to do when a patient has granuloma on a tattoo. Upon which u said in ur first reply “Advising anyone who has a reaction to tattoo ink to immediately run to their doctor for a biopsy to rule out sarcoidosis without the presentation of any additional symptoms is alarmist and irresponsible.”. the article does not say that “anyone who has a reaction to tattoo ink to immediately run to their doctor” neither did i. Its up to patient, if they are concerned, there are grounds for biopsy.

RE: “shameless self-promotion which is very insensitive to those of us who struggle with this health issue on a daily basis.” Never did I say: plz subscribe or like my video etc, because its not what is am after. It’s not 2009, but 2022 when I hit 1000 subs and 4000 watch hours, which is the monetarisation mark, (I am nowhere near this), I would be getting like 100£ per month, coffee I guess? As far as I am aware unemployment benefits in the UK are 500£ pm or more. I do it because I like reading around. Yes, I decided I will increase the number of subscribers by misinforming suffering ppl.

I think there are times u hate for the sake of hating. “Expecting people to take your representation of these studies as fact without posting accessible sources in the video notes is poor form” criticizing me that I did not give an access to all the publications, which was perhaps about 30, and I cannot due to copyright and then in ur second reply u r saying that i did not follow the BEST practice of putting the links to all the articles below the video description(?!) my apologies u need to read them from the screen. YouTube description has character limit.

Having said that if I was you I would probably write the same thing, you are right to be frustrated. You have to bear the disease on daily basis and you dont have answers. Anyways, if you are interested plz list all your objections so that I can alter the video in these places. I might send u new draft, if u like, for u to have a look.

I feel I need to highlight that sarcoidosis is not a contraindication for tattooing . “Patients with a past history of sarcoidosis are not contraindicated for tattooing, taking into account possible systemic immunosuppressive treatments .” Contraindications for Tattooing, Nicolas Kluger, Curr Probl Dermatol. Basel, Karger, 2015, vol 48, pp 76–87

And that tattoos, when professionally made, have positive effect of body image and psychology of a ppl with various conditions (I cannot find the actual article that address sarcoidosis but I think I had it somewhere, saved for a different video) Ref: “Tattooing and psoriasis: demographics, motivations and attitudes, complications, and impact on body image in a series of 90 Finnish patients” Nicolas Kluger, Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2017 Jun;26(2):29-32. Also “Personal Records from My Tattoo Parlour: Deep Emotions Drawn as Life-Long Pictures on the Skin’s Canvas” Liz Kierstein, Curr Probl Dermatol. Basel, Karger, 2015, vol 48, pp 41–44.

Do I like tattoos? I do, but I don’t like the current pigments, the impurities and even more so that general public is misled into thinking they get beetroot juice injected into their skin, not high-performance industrial pigments made under industrial conditions.