Westley Wood claims copyright for the material contained in this site and is solely responsible for the contents of this presentation, a critique of Part 1 of a 3 Part Article by Claire Chalmers published in the Journal of Infection Prevention, 2009.

Title Page

Preface

Part 1 of Claire Chalmers' article to regulate and control the practice of tattoo and piercing was published in May, 2009.  When Part 2 came out in August I was surprised when she referenced W Wood (myself) and dismissed my statement advocating that the reduction of infection rates should be the goal of regulations and a way to measure success. She claimed my view was unrealistic because, she argued, there are many factors that contribute to causing infection. Though I had much to say about aftercare's role, she points out that though aftercare may play a role, it has not been studied.

Tattooists the world over know things no outsider knows, by lifelong experience, day after day, year after year, that infections are rare, and second, the causes that disrupt the healing processes, infection being but one, originate outside the studio, after the fact, not by industry practices. Cases to the contrary are published precisely because they are not common. They are anecdotal and do not reflect on the practices of the industry.

She admits that the risk of infection is small, citing the lack of association by independent study, and by the US Center for Disease Control and then argues against using infection rates as a standard of measurement for successful intervention by declaring that in health care generally, in spite of "successful" interventions (her term) aimed at reducing infection rates, infection rates do not decline. In spite of this, the threat of infection, though admitted as unlikely, is the key justification for expanded control and regulation of T&P.

Let me repeat what decades of observation have taught: the after-events are where those rare events are happening, a concept developed in my writings but rejected by Chalmers because, as she says, it would be difficult to study.

The motivating factors, the cause for her concern is clear. Chalmers' explains that since the young no longer regard T&P as taboo, policy makers, the guardians of our Christian heritage being handed down through generations, can enact legislation which will reduce the incidence of T&P. This can be accomplished by a complex series of regulations based on a wider view of health risk, such as ideas to combat and prevent negative psycho-social consequences of getting a T&P. For example, she argues that clients need pre-screening and psycho evaluation to judge if they can cope with psychological issues, such as: should she cover a tattoo at a wedding, or can a client deal with the possibility of dissatisfaction. Also, since socially negative consequences may arise because of the content and placement that may hinder upward social mobility those hinderances must be prevented. And most importantly, the practitioners, because they have T&Ps they are risk-takers, likely to take risks with the client. New regulations and expanded regulation in these areas, if stringently enforced on a regular predictable basis, together with monitoring and education will improve this larger view of public health and diminish the popularity of T&P.

Part 2 expands and details the wider health risks.

Part 3 presents an argument that a single national set of rules and regulations are needed.

The misrepresentation of Jane Caplan in the opening two sentence paragraph became the tip of the iceburg. This was followed by definitions that allowed her to include Aztec and Mayan torture, sacrifice, and bloodletting as examples of "body piercing" and acupuncture as belonging in the wider category of body art. Her definition of tattooing excludes any done for medical reasons.

Claire Chalmers’ 3 Part Article, the 3rd part appearing in the September 2009 edition of the Journal of Infection Prevention, was a challenge to unravel and analyze  but in so doing it revealed an overwhelming lack of academic scholarship, numbers of errors, misstatements, distortions, faulty logic, all hinting that she actually sourced only from a few coffee table books, government publications, on-line, even a discredited children's book discarded from libraries. In form and organization the article only looks like a health science paper.

Upon discovering that from the very first sentence there was distortion, followed by faulty definitions, then reading that  "body piercing" as included in the category of body art, as belonging in this discussion, I began to piece together the real story of what was going on and why it was in this form.  Reading closely I picked up that the article is not about "Infection Prevention" but a political narrative to influence policy makers to create a complex set of regulations to reduce the popularity of T&P because they are antithetical to Christian teaching and Western heritage. Appearing in the Journal of Infection Prevention was a brilliant ploy.

Factual errors abound, distortions, false arguments, improper resources, even incorrectly describing how ink gets into the skin, a real key showing no first hand knowledge of the subject but this was an armchair exercise. The opening article's so-called history, that the Editor fell for, is devoid of any real research. It is arrogant for an outsider to consult a few sources, attack tattoo as dangerous, intending to diminish the future of T&P. Nearly every sentence is objectionable; from the very first misrepresentation to the last posture of arrogance. It is amazing and clever that her article made it into print.

I have the books, read the literature, have a unique vantage point by participation and influence on the modern history of T&P and will proceed now to document the outrageous effrontery of Chalmers. This article is a fraud parading itself as a discussion and my response will clearly show that Claire Chalmers' article is to be disregarded in its entirety, unfit for publication.

This writing criticizes an article written by Claire Chalmers, Senior Lecturer, University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton Campus, Almada Street, Hamilton ML30JB
published in the Journal of Infection Prevention, May 2009 VOL. 10 NO. 3, pages 102 - 5

Comments, corrections and objections can be sent to wwood36@gmail.com

Advertisement and Advertisers are not responsible for nor do they endorse the contents of this site.

Advertisements:
Unimax Supply Co Inc. 269 Canal St., New York, N.Y. 10013  www.unimaxsupply.com
Scholarly books on Tattoo, Tattoo Ink, Tattoo Supplies, Tattoo Machines, Piecing Supplies, Body Jewelry, Henna, Books, Magazine


Unimax West, 1055 E Division St, Arlington, TX 70551  www.unimaxwest.com

Sacred Tattoo Studio and Art Gallery, 424 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10013 www.sacredtattoo.com

NEXT