Category News

Point 75: President’s Corner – Brian Skellie

July 1, 2016 Comments Off read Conference, Issue 75, Membership, President's Corner, Science & Body Modifications

As I eagerly anticipate our next meeting, the gratitude that I feel towards my colleagues in this organization is responsible for a reliable renewal of enthusiasm. The APP mission, presence, and conscientiousness are core to my personal experience, education, and priorities. My purpose remains the same although my responsibilities change after this Conference.

Getting to know the membership better over these years working within the organization and at the helm has been a privilege. By making certain sacrifices and spending a lot of time on the road, I have appreciated real life meetings with quite a few of you. It has been both informative and delightful to visit with you, your studios, and manufacturing facilities.

These days, it is much easier (via the myriad of technological advancements available) to find out more about our colleagues and their work and attitudes. I’m convinced that this friendly professional espionage/stalking following is one of the best things for collegiality in our business. Evermore accessible technology has facilitated a greater sense of familiarization and a willingness to communicate. This development has provided a foundation for friendships and interaction with people who I may have otherwise been more reserved with, and I live with a daily appreciation of how online translation provides access to the world.

Our community seems to be rising, bolstered by social media and a culture of sharing among peers. Access to current information and peer review alongside beautiful examples of our work have created a level of accountability for achieving our goals and is keeping this trade lively. Aptitude and quality are continually improved upon and excellence may be recognized.

Even as I step down from Presidency this summer, we have committed to participate internationally to keep the momentum with fellow trade organizations going. I find it refreshing to see the progress of LBP and the UKAPP, along with the continuing success of our Associate Corporate Members, APTPI, ASAP, BMXnet and meetings in Germany, Spain, and France. Let’s make this happen!

Point 74: 1st Italian Conference on Piercing Practice – Bruno Valsecchi

April 12, 2016 1 Comment read Conference, Industry History, International, Issue 74

1° Convegno italiano
su LA PRATICA DEL PIERCING

Roma, 28-10-2015
Organizzato da Istituto Superiore di Sanità

A Roma, mercoledì 28 Ottobre 2015, il centro ONDICO dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità ha organizzato il primo convegno sulla pratica di body piercing.

Durante il Convegno sono state analizzate interessanti argomenti inerenti la pratica di body piercing.

Di seguito il programma del Convegno:
– Dott. Renzoni e dott. Pirrera—La pratica del piercing: stato dell’arte e questioni aperte
– Dott. Ciccaglione—Rischi infettivi nella pratica del piercing
– Dott. Berardesca—Rischio dermatologico, complicanze e aftercare per il piercing
– Dott. Tammaro e dott. Persechino—Controindicazioni alla pratica del piercing
– Prof. Liguori e dott. Gallè—Aspetti epidemiologici e rischi igienico sanitari tra i giovani
– Bruno Valsecchi, body piercing e rappresentante A.P.T.P.I. ( associazione piercers e tatuatori professionisti italiani)—Introduzione alla pratica di Body Piercing e il ruolo del Piercer
– Dott.ssa Marchetto—Vigilanza e controllo delle attività di piercing:criticità riscontrata sul territorio

Come si può vedere dal programma, è stato un Convegno interessante e, per quanto riguarda la realtà italiana, pionieristico.

Si sono susseguite tutta una serie di statistiche, ricerche e proiezioni che hanno mostrato chiaramente che l’Istituto Superiore di Sanità ha ben chiaro in cosa consista l’attività del piercer, cosa sia concretamente il body piercing e come viene eseguito.

Ciò ci fa pensare che si sta procedendo verso la giusta direzione per la tutela degli operatori e per la salute del cliente.

Il fatto che abbiano contattato un piercer, per prender parte a questi lavori, fa altrettanto trasparire la sensibilità e l’interesse nei confronti di questa attività, quanto mai controversa.

Durante i lavori si sono susseguite tutta una serie di informazioni che hanno messo in evidenza la discrepanza sulla qualità e sulla durata del percorso formativo per operatori di body piercing su tutto il territorio italiano. Infatti, per fare un esempio, nonostante il fatto che le linee guida del Ministero della Sanità del 1998 mettano in evidenza e demandino la facoltà di organizzare corsi professionalizzanti per operatori di piercing e tatuaggio alle regioni, ad oggi, ancora 4 regioni non si sono adeguate a tale documento.

Per non parlare del melting pot di regolamenti, ordinanze, leggi, normative sull’attività di tatuaggio e piercing che vigono su tutto il territorio italiano.

Durante la mia presentazione, ho sottolineato, tra i vari argomenti, anche il concetto di deontologia professionale.

Spero che ciò sia servito per dare una più chiara idea sul fatto che, come categoria, noi cerchiamo di migliorare la nostra attività optando per la formazione autonoma, attraverso enti o associazioni del settore che si adoperano a tale scopo.

Ho altresì evidenziato l’importanza, per quanti desiderano intraprendere questa attività lavorativa, di integrare la parte teorica, appresa durante i corsi di formazione, con un serio tirocinio da svolgere in uno studio con un mentore di riferimento.

E’ indiscutibile, però, che occorre prestare particolare attenzione alla reputazione e alla professionalità degli insegnanti e dei relatori ai quali ci si affida.

Spero che la mia presentazione esposta durante il Convegno sia servita a dare una più chiara idea sulle possibili procedure di sicurezza utilizzabili durante la pratica di body piercing.

Dette procedure sono ritenute da noi, APTPI (Associazione Piercer Tatuatori Professionisti Italiani), gli standard minimi igienici sanitari per la salvaguardia della salute del cliente.

Mi reputo lusingato ed onorato di essere stato chiamato a svolgere questo incarico in occasione di quello che è stato un primo evento specifico sul piercing.

Spero ardentemente ne facciano seguito altri e spero che vedranno coinvolti, sempre più, operatori professionisti del settore. E’ mio personale convincimento che solo con la consulenza di seri professionisti si potrà arrivare ad ottenere una congrua, moderna, efficace e, speriamo, unificata normativa di regolamentazione della formazione degli operatori e della attività di body piercing.

Stay tuned.

1st Italian Conference
on PIERCING PRACTICE

Roma, 28-10-2015
Organized from Superior Institute of Health

Organized from the Superior Institute of Health in Rome, Wednesday October 28, 2015 at the center ONDICO.

The Institute of Health organized the first conference on the practice of body piercing.

During the conference the following interesting topics related to the practice of body piercing were presented.

– Dott. Renzoni and dr. Pirrera—The practice of piercing: current status and issues
– Dott. Ciccaglione—Risk infections practice of piercing
– Dott. Berardesca—Risk dermatological complications and aftercare for piercing
– Dott. Tammaro and dr. Persechino—the practice of piercing
– Prof. Liguori and dr. Gallè—Aspect epidemiological and sanitary risks
– Mr Bruno Valsecchi, body piercer and representative APTPI (Association Piercers and Tattooists Professionals Italian)—Introduction to the practice of body piercing and the role of Piercer
– Dott.ssa Marchetto—Watch and control of piercing: critical found on territories

As you can see from the program, the conference was planned to be interesting and cover a wide range of topics. We have followed a number of statistics, research, and projections that showed clearly that the National Institute of Health has very clearly decided what constitutes the activity of the piercer, what is considered a body piercing, and how it is to be completed.

This makes us think that we’re heading in the right direction for both protection of our workers and the health of the clients. The fact that the Health authority has contacted the piercing industry, to take part in this work shows us the importance of it.

During this work, we have followed information that has highlighted the discrepancies of the quality and duration of the training courses for body piercing and piercers as a whole in Italy.

In fact, despite that, the guidelines of the Ministry of Health in 1998 suggest the right to organize professional training courses for piercers and tattoo artists by regions. However to date, four regions still do not have adequate training available. Combined with the melting pot of regulations, ordinances, and laws on the activities of tattooing and piercing that apply throughout Italy, creating standards is of utmost importance.

In my presentation, I pointed out, among other issues, the concept of professional ethics. I hoped to give a clearer idea on the fact that, as a group, we need to improve our businesses and skills by promoting education, either through agencies or industry associations. I also highlighted the importance of integrating the theory part and practical lessons, to be learned during these training courses.

I hope that my presentation during the conference served to give a clearer idea about the possible safety procedures used during a body piercing. These procedures are considered by us, APTPI (Association of Professional Tattooists Piercer Italian), the minimum standards for sanitary safeguarding the health of the client.

I am flattered and honored to be called to speak at what was the first event specific to the body piercing. I very much hope it will be the first of many, and that others will get involved. It is my personal conviction that only with the advice of serious professionals can we have a fair, modern, effective and, hopefully, unified legislation and regulation for the training of the body piercers of my country.

Stay tuned.

Point 74: Italian SusCon 2015

April 12, 2016 Comments Off read Conference, International, Issue 74, Lifestyle

Sunset beach suspension at Italian SusCon 2016

ITALIAN SUSCON 2015

(Italian Original)

Dal 20 al 22 settembre 2015 si è svolta a Tirrenia (Pi) italia l’11ma edizione dell’italian suscon, seminario sui rituali di trazione e sospensione corporale. anche quest’anno i partecipanti sono stati numerosi, circa 75 persone, provenienti da diverse parti del mondo come italia,norvegia,stati uniti,israele e germania.

Quest’anno abbiamo avuto come relatori un pionere delle sospensioni corporali come Fakir Musafar e il dott. Franco di palma. Fakir Musafar padre delle sospensioni e modifiche corporali moderne dagli usa e per la prima volta in Italia, ha presentato il viaggio personale che lo ha portato a sperimentare e sviluppare antiche pratiche rituali antropologiche portandole nella cultura contemporanea. Il dott. Di palma, neurologo, invece ha trattato nella sua lezione “il dolore” spiegandone il significato, i suoi benefici e come il nostro cervello reagisce ai suoi stimoli.

Durante l’evento sono state effettuate 35 sospensioni e a differenza delle edizioni passate quest’anno e’ stata data un’impronta piu’ rituale vista la partecipazione di fakir. E’ stato organizzato un rituale, “moon dance”, sulla spiaggia al quale hanno partecipato circa 40 persone. Ogni partecipante dopo essersi fatto inserire due ganci nel petto e dopo una meditazione spirituale personale ha partecipato in primis ad una preghiera collettiva, poi in fila indiana, tutti si sono diretti in spiaggia al tramonto dove ogni partecipante e’ stato agganciato ad un unico anello centrale. Ognuno poteva cosi’, sentirsi legato materialmente a tutti i partecipanti. L’atmosfera era magica e spiritale e il pulling di gruppo e’ durato circa un’ora con un sentito sottofondo musicale di 12 percussionisti.

Le sospensioni corporali come ogni anno si sono tenute indoor outdoor sotto gli alberi e infine anche direttamente in mare. Fortunatamente, nonostante fosse il penultimo weekend di settembre il tempo e’ stato bello e soleggiato con una temperatura estiva.

La crew era composta da 29 persone provenienti da diversi team: aptpi suspension team (italy), wings of desire (norway), superfly ( germany) e release flesh suspension team (usa).

Il tutto si e’ svolto in completa armonia tra i partecipanti e anche in quest’occasione si e’ potuto interagire sia a livello tecnico che artistico per elevare la conoscenza di queste procedure in sicurezza e sperimentando nuove possibilita’ di sospensione.

Vi aspettiamo per la 12ma edizione che si terra’ sempre a tirrenia il 18-19-20 settembre 2016.

—APTPI Staff

ITALIAN SUSCON 2015

(English Translation)

From the 20th–22nd of September 2015, in Tirrenia, Pisa, Italy, the Italian association of professional piercers and tattoo artists (A.P.T.P.I.) organised the 11th edition of Italian SusCon, a three day seminar on body suspension rituals. Italian SusCon 2015, as from previous editions, continued to attract a considerable number of participants, 75, coming from different parts of the world: Italy, Norway, USA, Israel and Germany.

Guest of honours of this year edition of Italian SusCon were: pioneer of body suspension Fakir Musafar and the neurologist Dr. Franco di Palma. Fakir Musafar (USA) father of modern suspension rituals and body modifications, for the first time in Italy, presented the personal journey that led him to experiment, develop and bring ancient body rituals to contemporary culture. Neurologist Franco di Palma, in his lecture entitled “The Pain”, explained the benefits of pain and how our brain reacts to it.

During Italian SusCon the crews suspended a total of 35 people. Thanks to Fakir Musafar’s participation, this edition of Italian SusCon, gained a more ritualistic and mystical atmosphere. The famous “Moon Dance” ritual, held on the beach at night, was attended by 40 people. After a collective prayer, each participant was inserted two chest hooks and given some time for a personal spiritual meditation. Then the group, queued to the beach at sunset, where each participant was hooked to a central circular ring, given the feeling that everyone was physically connected. The ritual of collective pulling was accompanied by twelve percussionists and lasted one hour.

The September weather in Italy during Italian SusCon 2015 was warm and sunny allowing indoor and outdoor on trees and on the sea!

The Italian SusCon 2015 crew of 29 featured members from: A.P.T.P.I. Suspension Team (Italy), Wings of Desire (Norway), Superfly (Germany), and Release Flesh Suspension Team (USA).

Italian SusCon 2015 fostered complete harmony between the participants and allowed them to interact and exchange both technical and artistic skills and expertise to extend the knowledge of body suspension procedures safely and to experiment with new possibilities.

We look forward to seeing you for the 12th edition that will be in Tirrenia again on 18th–20th September, 2016.

—APTPI Staff

Point 74: In the Office – Caitlin McDiarmid

April 12, 2016 Comments Off read Business Practices, In the Office, Issue 74, Membership, Technology

Caitlin McDiarmid
APP Administrator

I’ve been asked to write an article about how technology has changed over the course of my tenure with the Association.

When I first started working for the Association, I worked exclusively on a desktop computer in my home with a phone line, a credit card machine, and a small closet full of supplies and brochure stock.

That is how it remained for many years. During those years we contracted out our Registration Staff (and processes) at Conference and each instructor brought their own computer for their class. It was a great leap forward a few years down the road when we bought laptop computers for both the registration desk and our classrooms.

Back at home in the office I went from a desktop computer to a combination of desktop and laptop computers. Now I work solely on a laptop computer which moves with me whether working in the office, at home, or at Conference.

We have certainly utilized programs such as Cvent for registration in the past few years and have added to the Cvent family of programs with the CrowdCompass app starting last year. These programs have allowed us to register people ourselves, and even have them register themselves onsite. With these advances, we have also been able to compile statistics over a period of years which help us make decisions about each year’s Conference. We’ve gone from stamping cardboard cards, to collecting paper tickets, to bar code scanners, to scanning with smartphones (OnArrival) at our classroom doors. This has made the collection of data in our classes more accurate and streamlined the certificate production process.

However, in the office, software has stayed fairly consistent for us until this year. We have continued to manage our databases exclusively with Excel. As we have grown, this has become increasingly cumbersome. Information is transferred from one spreadsheet to another or maintained on multiple documents, which not only takes a lot of time, but comes with an increased risk of error.

After Conference last year I became frustrated with the problems facing us in the office and the overwhelming amount of time devoted to tasks which I felt could be automated. I did some preliminary research and began pitching the idea of the Association adopting a management system. Jef Saunders was also looking for ways to automate the application process by taking it fully online. While it took a lot of work and we looked at a lot of systems, we were able to narrow it down and select one (with approval of the Board) which we feel very excited about.

I am happy to announce that the APP is on the cusp of implementing an Association Database Management Software system. When fully active, this program will change the way we do our “day to day” work. It will streamline almost all of our office processes, consolidate all our databases into one, provide a structure for committees to work from, establish a member portal where members can access their record, upload documents, pay dues, get member notices, provide an online application process, automate many of our communications, and more!

This is a big undertaking and will result in big changes. At this point in the office pretty much every day, I think to myself “this would be so much easier if the system was already in place.” I was probably about a year later than I should have been with my push for us to look at an overhaul of how we manage things in the office and with our membership documents applications and other matters. I know that Jef also cannot wait for these processes to be fully active. Like with all the projects this will take time; we want to do it right the first time.

The office has already taken its accounting program online. Members are experiencing the benefits by being able to pay their dues directly from their invoices. We see the benefits as those payments get recorded in real time, saving Paul King, Emily (our clerk), and me a lot of data entry. Paul and I can also both work in the program whenever we want, which keeps us from getting too behind on the growing workload.

So while it has taken us 13 years to really change how we handle our daily tasks, our databases, and our office procedures, we ARE doing it this year. I am happy to help steer the Association to this new level of efficiency and growth. I am sure that every member and every potential member will benefit from this new system – this new technology – and the changes that result.

This management software system will change my job. How it will change my job is not yet fully known. I am prepared however to go with the flow and tackle new challenges that come with new systems and any kind of change. I hope that those who are reading this will watch as the Association takes this great leap forward. We encourage our membership to provide feedback on how these changes affect the Association, its members, potential members, and the greater community of the piercing industry.

Point 74: “FDA Approved” – Let’s Get Real – Pat McCarthy

April 12, 2016 Comments Off read Issue 74, Medical, Public Education

Pat McCarthy
Owner of Piercology

“Approved by the FDA” is a claim we’ve all seen on corporate websites or mentioned in marketing literature and online ads. Salespeople sometimes refer to the products they promote within the body art community as being “FDA approved”. Clients who come to Piercology often ask me or my piercing staff if the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the products we use. I’m sure many of you have faced similar questions or simply wondered yourselves.

I’ve done some research in order to clarify the issue and answer in a fair and honest way the following questions. Does a manufacturer or distributor have the legitimate right to claim a particular product was approved by the FDA? If the product has an Over-the-Counter (OTC) drug label and a National Drug Code (NDC) number what does that really mean?

This is what I’ve discovered:

The classification of cosmetics and drugs are defined by law, based on their intended use. Each classification has associated laws and regulations. There is a lot of information available, so let’s start with a few excerpts directly from the FDA website:

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) defines cosmetics by their intended use, as “articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body…for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance” [FD&C Act, sec. 201(i)]. Among the products included in this definition are skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, cleansing shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, and deodorants, as well as any substance intended for use as a component of a cosmetic product.

The FD&C Act defines drugs…as “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease” and “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals” [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].

Under the FD&C Act, cosmetic products and ingredients, with the exception of color additives, do not require FDA approval before they go on the market. Drugs, however, must generally either receive pre-market approval by FDA through the New Drug Application (NDA) process or they must conform to a “monograph” for a particular drug category, as established by FDA’s Over-the-Counter (OTC) Drug Review. These monographs specify conditions whereby OTC drug ingredients are generally recognized as safe and effective, and not misbranded…(and) state requirements for categories of nonprescription drugs, such as what ingredients may be used and for what intended use.

In other words, the FDA does not approve cosmetic products or formulas. It is essentially left up to a manufacturer to insure their product complies with the standards, packaging, and label requirements. We all want to think “natural”, “botanical”, and “herbal” formulas are safer and better in some way. Maybe they are, but I remain skeptical until I know where the ingredients come from and if they have certificates of authenticity. I want answers to questions such as where was the formula developed and manufactured, is there a scientifically based and tested preservative system to prevent bacterial growth, is there stability testing, and has the product been tested against the type of bacterial concerns we face in our professional lives such as Staph, E.coli and MRSA? I’ve often wondered how some non-OTC products on the market have “healing claims” yet despite their intended use they are not registered as an OTC drug with an NDC number?

Contrary to what some people hope or believe, the FDA does not have a system in place to approve the vast majority of non-prescription OTC drug products intended for human use either. It is up to the manufacturer to insure their product(s) follow the existing monographs and prove their products are both safe and effective. At first glance it seems as if the government is relying on an “honor” system they believe responsible companies will follow.

Unfortunately, the result of leaving it up to others is that some claims seem “too good to be true”. Is it possible for example that a single product can be effective as a “skin prep” and gentle enough for “aftercare”? The concept of “electrified water” seems promising, but if sealed packaging is required to prevent a reduction in efficacy how do we know if the product works as promised after it’s opened, or after a few weeks or months. Critical questions should be asked regarding how a product is manufactured and if the prevailing monographs are being followed. Also important to question: how has the product been tested and where can the test results be found?

The FDA issues “Establishment Licenses” to manufacturing facilities that comply with rigorous standards that include “Current Good Manufacturing Practices” (cGMP) so it is important to know where the products we use and recommend come from. Topical antiseptics for example should be manufactured following cGMP regulations to insure the facility has appropriate procedures in place to prevent the presence of objectionable microorganisms in drug products that are not manufactured as sterile. A licensed facility typically has the staff, equipment and procedures in place to validate the raw materials, formulas and every stage of the production process.

Incredibly, there are documented cases of companies using “NDC-like” numbers on their labels without ever applying for or obtaining the legitimate NDC. Typically however, the vast majority of companies file an application to obtain the NDC prior to offering the product for sale to the public. Does this mean all OTC drug formulas are approved in advance? NO! Does it mean the FDA has approved the product because an NDC number has been assigned? NO! Obtaining an NDC number means the manufacturer has provided the required information and followed the correct steps during the application process. This includes stating the intended use of the product and confirming the active and inactive ingredients are not restricted or used in amounts beyond the established limits. Also, the OTC drug label structure and claims must all fall within the prevailing FDA monograph.

A section of the FDA website supplies a frequently updated NDC directory, which clearly states: “Assignment of an NDC number does not in any way denote FDA approval of the product. Any representation that creates an impression of official approval because of possession of an NDC number is misleading and constitutes misbranding. (21 CFR 207.39)”

So why do some companies claim their products have been “FDA approved” when in fact it’s not an accurate statement? Do they think we are easily fooled? Maybe…

The FDA website explains the drug application of OTC classified products, which states: “OTC drugs are defined as drugs that are safe and effective for use by the general public without seeking treatment by a health professional. Because there are over 300,000 marketed OTC drug products, FDA reviews the active ingredients and the labeling of over 80 therapeutic classes of drugs. OTC drug monographs are a kind of “recipe book” covering acceptable ingredients, doses, formulations, and labeling. Once a final monograph is implemented, companies can make and market an OTC product without the need for FDA pre-approval. These monographs define the safety, effectiveness, and labeling of all marketing OTC active ingredients.”

DailyMed is a website operated by the US National Library of Medicine (NLM) to publish up-to-date and accurate drug labels to health care providers and the general public. The contents are provided and updated daily by the FDA. As a handy reference source that lists individual OTC drugs that have been assigned an NDC number, it is important to know the information provided usually comes with this disclaimer: “Most over the counter (OTC) are not reviewed and approved by the FDA. However, they may be marketed if they comply with applicable regulations and policies. FDA has not evaluated whether this product complies.”

Food and Drug Administration headquarters — FDA headquarters

The bottom line is this, don’t be fooled by marketing claims that a particular product has been “approved” by any government agency, including the FDA. My best advice is to look up the NDC number on a site like DailyMed, find out the origin of the product, and ask the manufacturer or distributor for documented test results from a recognized and trusted lab to substantiate their claims of safety and efficacy. It always pays to ask questions, for your sake and for the sake of your clients.

Many products used in our industry may be well intentioned, including those meant for aftercare, but it’s important to know if the manufacturer follows aseptic cGMP techniques and the FDA monograph rules that cover acceptable ingredients, doses, formulations, and labeling of an OTC drug product. “Natural” does not automatically mean it’s better, safer, or more effective. Ask to see bona fide test results.

I’ve seen enough in my 22+ years in this business to know it’s OK to be skeptical. It’s OK to question what you do as a professional and strive to be the best you can be. It just makes good sense to protect yourself and your clients in order to grow your business. Because your friend or another artist uses a product does not prove anything! Before you choose to work with any product, or recommend it for your clients, find out where it comes from, and what testing has been done to prove it is both safe and effective for the intended purpose. Good luck and may your business grow and prosper in the future.

Some background: Pat is the owner of Piercology in Columbus, OH, one of the oldest and most successful piercing studios in the USA. He was the first elected President of the Association of Professional Piercers. He is the founding and current President of the Association of Body Art Professionals in Ohio. Pat has been working with Ohio legislators on body mod studio regulations, and he frequently lectures Ohio Health Inspectors on bloodborne pathogens and best practices in piercing and tattoo studios.

Point 74: Our Industry Mourns; A Memorial to Mark

April 11, 2016 Comments Off read In Memorium, Industry History, Issue 74

Ryan Ouellette
Precision Body Arts

Mark Siekierski on titanium: ‘Gold is not an upgrade from titanium. Titanium cannot be upgraded; it is its own upgrade. That last part makes no sense, but titanium cares not what the Homo sapiens brain can or cannot comprehend. Titanium is named after the Elder Gods of Greece, the Titans. TITANIUM HAS A HIGH STRENGTH TO WEIGHT RATIO. You can make a jet fighter with titanium; a jet fighter made of gold would be soft, heavy, and wouldn’t fly.’

Writing something like this is never easy. How can you really express your memories and feelings for someone with a few lines of text?

Mark Siekierski is someone we have all been impacted by in this industry. Not all of us talked to him in person, or even on the phone, but he left his fingerprint on our industry every day through his hard work and dedication.

The Siekierski family has been making body jewelry for this industry since the Gauntlet days; today most people would know their product by the name NeoMetal. I can’t remember exactly when I started ordering jewelry from NeoMetal, but my guess would be the early 2000s. That was a time when a substantial order for me was $200, rather than $2,000. I would call the NeoMetal line with so many questions that a very nice woman named Sue would hand the phone off to her much more patient son, Mark. After a few months of “NeoMetal, this is Mark” I became accustomed to hearing his voice when I called.

Over the years of the occasional chat after an order or stopping by his booth during the Expo I’d say we became friends. I’m very comfortable with nerd culture, and Mark certainly would fall into that classification. He would give me that wry smirk and force me to give him a split finger Spock-esque high five. At a conference full of 1,000 people being “cool”, it was refreshing to have someone more interested in teaching me the Dothraki language (yeah, from Game of Thrones) than in hitting the bar.

He always had such a calm demeanor. It was like he was researching us so he could write a book someday. He was quiet and composed, but was always quick to crack a sarcastic joke if the right person came within ear shot. He liked to tease piercers by giving them a heads up about a new color or line being released soon. Mark had a gift for giving just enough information to get them interested; just a taste, but never enough. It was easy to get frustrated at how well he could keep a secret until the next Conference, when you would finally get a peek at what NeoMetal was working on.

He really cared about our industry. One thing that always stuck out in my memory was how he seemed to have a photographic memory for any shop anywhere in the world using their jewelry. Someone would come up to the NeoMetal table and say “Hi, I’m from X shop” and he would immediately know the city and start calling them by name. He never talked down to anyone or shrugged anyone off. If they bought one piece or one thousand he was appreciative that someone out there in the world cared enough about what his family was making and wanted to offer it to their clients. At a conference where companies have huge flashy booths fifty feet long, it was really endearing to see Mark and his brother-in-law, John, standing behind one small table, enthusiastically showing off every piece of threadless jewelry they make.

When NeoMetal started vending at the BMXnet Conference, it was Mark who went to Germany to showcase their line. It was great seeing him interact with piercers in that kind of environment. People who only got to see threadless jewelry online had the opportunity to meet someone from the company and have every facet of their line explained to them. Seeing piercers carrying away their first NeoMetal starter pack always put a big smile on Mark’s face. Not because of potential income, as I’m sure most regular customers know NeoMetal has grown so fast they sometimes struggle to keep up with demand. Mark was happy because he took pride in the respect his family’s company has earned worldwide.

At the end of the day he would want to sneak out to a quiet dinner with a few friends, rather than party with the throngs. I was fortunate enough to share a few meals with him and it never felt like I was being wined and dined by someone trying to make a sale. It was just dinner with a friend. No industry talk, just Star Trek or video games or whatever came up. I feel like I’m rambling. Like I said, it is hard to make a salient point when you’re emotional.

Sarah Morgan with Mark Siekierski at APP Prom 2015

Over the coming weeks and months be patient with NeoMetal. I know we all stress out over wait times; we stress out when we don’t have the post size we need. At the end of the day just remember what is really important to you, and know what it really means to not have something, or someone, around when it really matters. Every time you bend that pin for tension, every time you snap an end piece into place, remember Mark. Because he remembered every one of us like we were his family too.

Point 74: President’s Corner – Brian Skellie

April 11, 2016 Comments Off read Issue 74, Medical, President's Corner, Science & Body Modifications, Sterilization

Brian Skellie
APP President

Technology for infection prevention:

Why the introduction of more technological advances help to reduce cross contamination risks

The benefits of thousands of years of advancements in infection control are applied and built upon daily: a brief history of sterilization.

Chamberland’s Autoclave (1880), the first steam sterilizer

Papin’s digester (1680), the first pressure cooker.

Chamberland’s Autoclave (1880), the first steam sterilizer patterned after Papin’s digester (1680), the first pressure cooker.

Asepsis is the most effective technological advancement for a purposeful reduction of microbes to an irreducible minimum. This begins with policy and training, and follows through with checklists, review, and reminders for implementation.

Primum non nocere = above all else we should do no harm.

Antonj van Leeuwenhoek’s microscope (1683)

Physics was the first step in decontamination, using thermal energy: fire and the effects of the sun. Advances have been made in E-beam and radiation, both ionizing and non-ionizing, for sterilization. As a result, new equipment and supplies are now available providing an almost infinite sterilization shelf life. Part of what was found useful from the sun, apart from drying, was the power of short wavelength ultraviolet light to disrupt the DNA of cells. This has been harnessed for disinfection of exposed environmental surfaces, air, and water, but this form of sterilization is not appropriate for initial piercing jewelry. Further study of properties of the sun have resulted in functional plasma etching and cleaning processes and H2O2 gas plasma sterilization. At some point, gadgets for disinfection of procedure rooms such as UV-C robots and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) vapor foggers may have an application in scale for our trade.

Joseph Lister’s antiseptic sprayer (1867)

Chemistry was the next big step in the fight against preventable iatrogenic infection with germicides, from chlorine solutions and carbolic acid to EO gas. Recognizing the potential for stopping infection transmission during procedures by thoroughly cleaning the worker’s hands and the subject site with a germicidal product was an enormous step that has become part of our established thinking. Materials themselves can be used to leverage the natural properties of copper (Cu+) and silver (Ag) that make touch and transfer surfaces inhospitable to microbes, and other embedded compounds have been developed for similar purposes. Some even work with nanotech surface treatments.

Instrument cleaning technology is constantly improving on the basic two fronts of physical action and chemical reaction. Advancements in products safe for the worker and environmentally friendly have brought forth alkaline or enzymatic detergent, or peracetic acid options.

surgical tools from the late 1800s — outmoded surgical equipment from the late 1800s

Consumables have long been a source of worker and client protection and potential oversight. Gloves and other Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) do create a barrier when used correctly, but do not take the place of adequate hand hygiene and application of asepsis. For further protection against exposure to environmental hazards, wearable vapor detectors can be used to alert the worker of chemical hazards from cleaning and disinfecting products. Essential detectors for sterilization or cleaning parameters should be used for validation of each process. Test Soils with protein detection for washing instruments, even manual cleaning should be tested, and Chemical and regular Biological Indicators for sterilization loads.

Cleaning appliances have made validation tests easier and more repeatable, with the availability of small automated instrument washers and medical and dental ultrasonic cleaners. Our last line of defense against cross contamination comes from our environmental air quality, which can be improved with air cleaners equipped with HEPA filtration and UV, thermal or plasma disinfection, and floor scrubbers to vacuum up the dust, wash and dry the floor automatically and robotically.

The health and safety of our clientele and personnel depend on adequate sterilization and disinfection. The advancements listed have changed the way we do our jobs and protect ourselves from risk. As we look towards the future it is impossible to know the impact further technological advancements will have, but they will undoubtedly continue to change how we practice our trade.

Point 73: This One Time at Piercer Camp…

January 20, 2016 Comments Off read Camp, Issue 73, Membership

Point 73: A Parent’s Guide to Safe Piercing for Children’s Ears

January 17, 2016 3 Comments read Issue 73, Medical, Public Education, Science & Body Modifications, Sterilization

Child's ear piercing performed by Becky Dill at Cold Steel Piercing Photo by Danielle Greenwood — Child’s ear piercing performed by Becky Dill at Cold Steel Piercing
Photo by Danielle Greenwood

Proper technique, sterility, piercing placement, aftercare, jewelry material, and style are among the many important factors that go into a successful piercing. First, let’s look at the technique itself. Piercing guns use pressure to force a pointed object, the jewelry, through the skin. While these mechanisms may seem like a quick, easy, and convenient way of creating holes, they can have major drawbacks in terms of tissue damage, inappropriate jewelry designs, and sterility. These concerns have been documented in medical literature over the years and provide proof of these concerns.

Due to the dull nature of the jewelry used in piercing guns, more damage is caused to the tissue when compared to piercings done with quality piercing needles. The effects are similar to a blunt force trauma including significant pain, swelling, scarring, and an increased potential for complications. The gun then pinches the back of the jewelry in place snugly against the skin, allowing no way for the new wound to breathe and heal properly. The customer is often told to turn the jewelry, which only further pushes growing bacteria into the wound, increasing the risk of infection and delaying the healing process considerably.

Additionally, it has not been documented how often piercing guns malfunction. Some operators report that the earring adapter that holds the jewelry often will not release the earring, requiring its removal with pliers. These pliers, which contact contaminated jewelry immediately after it has passed through the client’s tissue, may be reused on multiple customers without full sterilization. Few, if any, gun piercing establishments possess the expensive sterilization equipment necessary for such a process. Occasionally the intense pressure and speed of the gun’s spring-loaded mechanism is not sufficient to force the blunt jewelry through the flesh. In these cases, the earring stud may become lodged part way through the client’s ear. The gun operator, who may not be trained to deal with this possibility, has two options. S/he can remove the jewelry and repierce the ear, risking contamination of the gun and surrounding environment by blood flow from the original wound. Alternately, the operator can attempt to manually force the stud through the client’s flesh, causing excessive trauma to the client and risking a needlestick-type injury for the operator.

Diagram showing the differences in the "cutting edge" of ear piercing studs used in piercing guns. The bottom silhouette is a single use hollow needle. — Diagram showing the differences in the “cutting edge” of ear piercing studs used in piercing guns. The bottom silhouette is a single use hollow needle. Reference: Ear piercing techniques and their effect on cartilage, a histologic study

There may also be a greater likelihood of more serious complications when cartilage or structural tissue such as noses are pierced using a piercing gun. This type of tissue (cartilage) has less blood supply than earlobe tissue and therefore a correspondingly longer healing time; this means that infection in this area can be more likely and more destructive.

Another common concern is sterilization and asepsis. Any kind of procedure which involves contact with blood or bodily fluids requires strict adherence to crosscontamination prevention.

As is now well known, the hepatitis virus can live for extended periods of time on inanimate surfaces, and could be harbored within a reusable piercing gun for several weeks or more. Hepatitis and common staph infections, which could be found on such surfaces, constitute a serious public health threat if they are introduced into even one reusable piercing gun. Considering the dozens of clients whose initial piercings may have direct contact with a single gun in one day, this is a cause for serious concern. Babies, young children, and others with immature or compromised immune systems may be at a higher risk.

Some will argue that the piercing gun never comes in contact directly with a customer’s skin, or is sterilized or disposed of after a single use. This might be true, but the gun operator’s hands do—if they touch the customer’s skin and then touch the gun, the gun is now contaminated. When the gun drives the stud through the flesh— whether or not the skin starts to bleed – there is no way of knowing whether or not tiny particles of blood have been dispersed into the air contaminating everything around it. Piercing guns are usually made with plastic and cannot be adequately cleaned and sterilized for reuse. A quick wipe with an antiseptic pad is not effective in removing disease-carrying blood. Although many manufacturers now make disposable options, these do not negate concerns regarding possible damage to tissue, jewlery quality, or inadequate staff training.

The Association of Professional Piercers does not support the use of piercing guns because the reusable versions can’t be sterilized using APP approved equipment, such as an autoclave. Without proper sterilization, the risk of spreading diseases such as Hepatitis and staph infections increase.

The Bottom Line: Professional piercers use a more modern approach to piercing that’s less traumatic, cleaner, and more likely to result in a smooth healing process.

Point 73: Children’s Ear Piercing – Kendra Jane B

January 17, 2016 2 Comments read Issue 73, Medical, Public Education, Sterilization

Kendra Jane Berndt
April Thomas
Julie Taylor

Most of us receive at least one phone a week— sometimes even a day—from a concerned parent wanting to know the best option to pierce their child’s lobes. We are frequently seeing that the safe piercing message is reaching the masses. However, we are still seeing many piercings done with piercing guns. Whether it is because they are unable to find the information in the places they are visiting or because they are intimidated to visit their local tattoo or piercing studio to have their questions answered, parents are using less than favorable methods to pierce their children’s lobes. Perhaps they are leery of taking their six or seven year old daughter or son into said studio because of things that have nothing to do with piercing, such as the music, a worry of profanity or inappropriate behaviour, etc.

Within this article, we have presented similar information in two forms. The first is intended for an audience with a more complete understanding of piercing industry jargon and intricacies. The second presentation has been simplified with our clients in mind. Our intention was to provide something that you are able to print and send home. You can choose which presentation is most appropriate for your target audience. Either way, we encourage you to share the link to this article and repost on every site that questions the safest way to pierce children’s ears.

What is the APP’s position on ear piercing guns?
It is the position of the Association of Professional Piercers that only sterile disposable equipment is suitable for body piercing, and that only materials which are certified as safe for internal implant should be placed inside a fresh or unhealed piercing. We consider any procedure that places vulnerable tissue in contact with either non-sterile equipment or jewelry that is not considered medically safe for long-term internal wear to be unsafe. Such procedures place the health of recipients at an unacceptable risk. For this reason, APP Members may not use reusable ear piercing guns for any type of piercing procedure.

Reusable ear piercing guns can put clients in direct contact with the blood and bodily fluids of previous clients.
Although they can become contaminated with bloodborne pathogens dozens of times in one day, ear piercing guns are often not sanitized in a medically recognized way. Plastic ear piercing guns cannot be autoclave sterilized and may not be sufficiently cleaned between use on multiple clients. Even if the antiseptic wipes used were able to kill all pathogens on contact, simply wiping the external surfaces of the gun with isopropyl alcohol or other antiseptics does not kill pathogens within the working parts of the gun. Blood from one client can become aerosolized, becoming airborne in microscopic particles, and contaminate the inside components of the gun. The next client’s tissue and jewelry may come into contact with these contaminated surfaces. This creates the possibility of transmitting bloodborne disease-causing microorganisms through such ear piercing, as many medical studies report.

As is now well known, the Hepatitis virus can live for extended periods of time on inanimate surfaces, and could be harbored within a piercing gun for several weeks or more. Hepatitis and common staph infections, which could be found on such surfaces, constitute a serious public health threat if they are introduced into even one reusable piercing gun. Considering the dozens of clients whose initial piercings may have direct contact with a single gun in one day, this is a cause for serious concern. Babies, young children, and others with immature or compromised immune systems may be at higher risk.

Additionally, it has not been documented how often piercing guns malfunction. Some operators report that the earring adapter that holds the jewelry will often not release the earring, requiring its removal with pliers. These pliers, which contact contaminated jewelry immediately after it has passed through the client’s tissue, may be reused on multiple customers without full sterilization. Few, if any, gun piercing establishments possess the expensive sterilization equipment (steam autoclave or chemclave) necessary for such a process.

Piercing guns can cause significant tissue damage.
Though slightly pointy in appearance, most ear piercing studs are quite dull. Therefore, these instruments use excessive pressure over a larger surface area in order to force the metal shaft through the skin. The effect on the body is more like a crush injury than a piercing and causes similar tissue damage. Medically, this is referred to as “blunt force trauma.” At the least, it can result in significant pain and swelling for the client, but it also has the potential to cause scarring and increased incidence of auricular chondritis, a severe tissue disfigurement.

Occasionally the intense pressure and speed of the gun’s spring-loaded mechanism is not sufficient to force the blunt jewelry through the flesh. In these cases, the earring stud may become lodged part way through the client’s ear. The gun operator, who may not be trained to deal with this possibility, has two options. S/he can remove the jewelry and repierce the ear, risking contamination of the gun and surrounding environment with blood flow from the original wound. Alternately, the operator can attempt to manually force the stud through the client’s flesh, causing excessive trauma to the client and risking a needlestick-type injury for the operator. How often such gun malfunction occurs has not been documented by manufacturers, but some gun operators report that it is frequent.

When used on structural tissue such as cartilage, more serious complications such as auricular chondritis, shattered cartilage, and excessive scarring are common. Gun piercings can result in the separation of subcutaneous fascia from cartilage tissue, creating spaces in which fluids collect. This can lead to both temporary swelling and permanent lumps of tissue at or near the piercing site. These range from mildly annoying to grossly disfiguring, and some require surgery to correct. Incidence can be minimized by having the piercing performed with a sharp surgical needle, which slides smoothly through the tissue and causes less tissue separation. A trained piercer will also use a post-piercing pressure technique that minimizes hypertrophic scar formation.

Cartilage has less blood flow than lobe tissue and a correspondingly longer healing time. Therefore infections in this area are much more common and can be much more destructive. The use of non-sterile piercing equipment and insufficient aftercare has been associated with increased incidence of auricular chondritis, a severe and disfiguring infection in cartilage tissue. This can result in deformity and collapse of structural ear tissue, requiring antibiotic therapy and extensive reconstructive surgery to correct. Again, medical literature has documented many such cases and is available on request.

The length and design of gun studs is inappropriate for healing piercings.
Ear piercing studs are too short for some earlobes and most cartilage. Initially, the pressure of the gun’s mechanism is sufficient to force the pieces to lock over the tissue. However, once they are locked on, the compressed tissue cannot return to its normal state. This constriction causes further irritation. At the least, the diminished air and blood circulation in the compressed tissue can lead to prolonged healing, minor complications, and scarring. More disturbingly, the pressure of such tight jewelry can result in additional swelling and impaction. Both piercers and medical personnel have seen stud gun jewelry completely embedded in ear lobes and cartilage (as well as navels, nostrils and lips), even when pierced “properly” with a gun. This may require the jewelry to be cut out surgically, particularly in cases where one or both sides of the gun stud have disappeared completely beneath the surface of the skin. Such risk is minimal when jewelry is custom fit to the anatomy of the client, and installed with a needle piercing technique which creates less trauma and swelling. Custom fit jewelry should allow sufficient room for swelling and can be downsized to fit snugly on healed tissue.

Jewelry that fits too closely also increases the risk of infection because it does not allow for thorough cleaning. During normal healing, body fluids containing cellular discharge and other products of the healing process are excreted from the piercing. But with inappropriate jewelry, they can become trapped around the fistula. The fluid coagulates, becoming sticky and trapping bacteria against the skin. Unless thoroughly and frequently removed, this becomes an invitation for secondary infection. The design of the “butterfly” clasp of most gun studs can exacerbate this problem. Again, these consequences can be avoided with implant-grade jewelry that is designed for ease of cleaning and long-term wear.

Not all piercing jewelry is safe for prolonged wear.
Most ear piercing studs are not made of materials certified by the FDA, ASTM, or ISO as safe for long term implant in the human body. Even when coated in nontoxic gold plating, materials from underlying alloys can leach into human tissue through corrosion, scratches and surface defects, causing cytotoxicity and allergic reaction. Since manufacturing a durable corrosionand defect-free coating for such studs is extremely difficult, medical literature considers only implant grade steel (ASTM F138) and titanium (ASTM F67 and ASTM F136) to be appropriate for piercing jewelry composition. Studs made of any other materials, including nonimplant grade steel (steel not batch certified as ASTM F138), should not be used, regardless of the presence of surface plating.

Misuse of ear piercing guns is extremely common.
Even though many manufacturers’ instructions and local regulations prohibit it, some gun operators do not stop at piercing only the lobes, and may pierce ear cartilage, nostrils, navels, eyebrows, tongues and other body parts with the ear stud guns. This is absolutely inappropriate and very dangerous.

Although gun piercing establishments usually train their operators, this training is not standardized and may amount to merely viewing a video, reading an instruction booklet, and/or practicing on cosmetic sponges or other employees. Allegations have been made that some establishments do not inform their employees of the serious risks involved in both performing and receiving gun piercings, and do not instruct staff on how to deal with situations such as client medical complications or gun malfunction. Indeed, surveys conducted in jewelry stores, beauty parlors, and mall kiosks in England and the US revealed that many employees had little knowledge of risks or risk management related to their procedure.

Considering that a large proportion of gun operators’ clientele are minors or young adults, it is not surprising that few gun piercing complications are reported to medical personnel. Many clients may have been pierced without the knowledge or consent of parents or guardians who provide healthcare access. Therefore, the majority of the infections, scarring and minor complications may go unreported and untreated. Furthermore, because of the ease of acquiring a gun piercing and the lack of awareness of risk, many consumers fail to associate their negative experiences with the piercing gun itself. They believe that, since it is quicker and easier to acquire a gun piercing than a manicure, gun piercing must be inherently risk-free. Often it is only when complications prove so severe as to require immediate medical attention that the connection is made and gun stud complications get reported to medical personnel.

Despite these pronounced risks associated with gun piercing, most areas allow gun operators to perform piercings without supervision. Recent legislation has begun to prohibit the use of guns on ear cartilage and other non-lobe locations, and the state of New Hampshire has made all non-sterile equipment illegal, but these changes are not yet nationwide. It is our hope that, with accurate and adequate information, consumers and the legislatures will understand and therefore reject the use of gun piercing in the interests of the public health.

References Cited:

Pediatric Emergency Care. 1999 June 15(3): 189-92.
Ear-piercing techniques as a cause of auricular chondritis.
More DR, Seidel JS, Bryan PA.

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 1990 March 19(1): 73-6.
Embedded earrings: a complication of the ear-piercing gun.
Muntz HR, Pa-C DJ, Asher BF.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2003 February 111(2): 891-7; discussion 898.
Ear reconstruction after auricular chondritis secondary to ear piercing.
Margulis A, Bauer BS, Alizadeh K.

Contact Dermatitis. 1984 Jan; 10(1): 39-41.
Nickel release from ear piercing kits and earrings.
Fischer T, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Rystedt I.

British Journal of Plastic Surgery. 2002 April 55(3): 194-7.
Piercing the upper ear: a simple infection, a difficult reconstruction.
Cicchetti S, Skillman J, Gault DT.

Scottish Medical Journal. 2001 February 46(1): 9-10.
The risks of ear piercing in children.
Macgregor DM.

American Journal of Infection Control. 2001 August 29(4): 271-4.
Body piercing as a risk factor for viral hepatitis: an integrative research review.
Hayes MO, Harkness GA.

Journal Laryngology and Otology. 2001 July 115(7): 519-21.
Ear deformity in children following high ear-piercing: current practice, consent issues and legislation.
Jervis PN, Clifton NJ, Woolford TJ.

Cutis. 1994 February 53(2): 82.
Embedded earrings.
Cohen HA, Nussinovitch M, Straussberg R.

Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology. 2001; 30(5): 311.
Does mechanical insult to cartilage trigger relapsing polychondritis?
Alissa H, Kadanoff R, Adams E.

British Journal of Dermatology. 2002 April 146(4): 636-42.
Decrease in nickel sensitization in a Danish schoolgirl population with ears pierced after implementation of a nickel- exposure regulation.
Jensen CS, Lisby S, Baadsgaard O, Volund A, Menne T.

Toxicology In Vitro. 2000 Dec 14(6): 497-504.
Cytotoxicity due to corrosion of ear piercing studs.
Rogero SO, Higa OZ, Saiki M, Correa OV, Costa I.

Journal of the American Medical Association. 1974 March 11; 227(10): 1165.
Ear piercing and hepatitis. Nonsterile instruments for ear piercing and the subsequent onset of viral hepatitis.
Johnson CJ, Anderson H, Spearman J, Madson J.

Journal of the American Medical Association. 1969 March 24; 207(12): 2285.
Hepatitis from ear piercing.
Van Sciver AE.

Journal of the American Medical Association. 291.8 (2004): 981-985.
Outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections caused by commercial piercing of upper ear cartilage.
Keene, William E, Amy C Markum, and Mansour Samadpour.

The Point

Category News

Point 75: President’s Corner – Brian Skellie

Like this:

Point 74: 1st Italian Conference on Piercing Practice – Bruno Valsecchi

Like this:

Point 74: Italian SusCon 2015

Like this:

Point 74: In the Office – Caitlin McDiarmid

Like this:

Point 74: “FDA Approved” – Let’s Get Real – Pat McCarthy

Like this:

Point 74: Our Industry Mourns; A Memorial to Mark

Like this:

Point 74: President’s Corner – Brian Skellie

Technology for infection prevention:

Why the introduction of more technological advances help to reduce cross contamination risks

Primum non nocere = above all else we should do no harm.

Like this:

Point 73: This One Time at Piercer Camp…

Like this:

Point 73: A Parent’s Guide to Safe Piercing for Children’s Ears

Like this:

Point 73: Children’s Ear Piercing – Kendra Jane B

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Technology for infection prevention:

Why the introduction of more technological advances help to reduce cross contamination risks

Primum non nocere = above all else we should do no harm.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: