Point #60 President’s Corner: Elayne Angel

Comments Off on Point #60 President’s Corner: Elayne Angel read President's Corner


Elayne Angel
APP President
Yucatan, Mexico

Our yearly conference marks the culmination of a massive amount of preparation and effort by the organizers and also the attendees. Sometimes the aftermath of a highly anticipated experience can be a downer, but I feel elated and effusive about the whole thing. Since I didn’t write the review of Conference or the other coverage about it that appears in this issue, I feel that our crowning achievement is deserving of additional consideration.

I’ve been to many piercing conferences over the years, but there was something special and different about this one. From my personal perspective, it felt magical to spend a week in huge rooms filled with others who share my calling and passion for piercing. It is a high contrast to the isolation of being the only piercer in any given crowd during the early part of my career. From a professional standpoint, I’m impressed with the apparent development and maturation of our industry.

This year’s Conference had a palpable vibe of positivity that ran like an electrical current throughout the venue. Being in the presence of so much upbeat energy was moving and inspiring. During other conferences, I’ve felt that I was simply at a gathering where piercers from various places had assembled. This time, unspoken barriers came down and there was a notable atmosphere of genuine community. It was great to watch piercers form connections and excitedly communicate about vocational matters with their contemporaries. I also noted heightened tolerance and respect for differences in the piercing methods and styles of others.

The fact that over one hundred piercers traveled from other countries speaks highly of our organization and our reputation. (Come to think of it, I was one of them!) Living in Mexico is fabulous in numerous ways, though I don’t pierce when I’m at home. Between guest-piercing visits I’ll go for weeks or even months having no live interaction with other piercers. I don’t realize how much I miss the company of my own kind until I get back into a studio. But there’s no place like Conference to get a colossal dose of fellowship with a throng of like-minded associates.

Piercers of varying skill and experience levels were present, as always, yet there was an overall tone of dedication as compared to previous years. It seemed that higher numbers of studious pros were taking their craft more seriously than before. These piercers are not just going through the motions of making holes in peoples’ bodies; they are aware of the need for safe practices and honoring our clients’ trust with integrity. They applied themselves by attending as many classes, round table discussions, and workshops as they could, and obtained a lot of valuable knowledge in the process.

Another thing I noticed is that we’re starting to realize our potential and take our place in the world as legitimate professionals, and acting in ways that command the respect that we deserve. This progress was demonstrated during our interactions with others—hotel staff and the guests who were not part of our cadre. I saw a lot of heavily modified body artists comfortably conversing with everyday folks from around the country. As individuals and as a group, we handled ourselves with decorum, and we were treated accordingly. I didn’t witness a single incident involving any negative reactions as I have in the past.

In a society that does not always honor its elders, I also loved seeing the enthusiasm and reverence the attendees showed for my colleagues at the authors’ table—a new feature at Conference. Industry pioneers Jim Ward and Fakir Musafar, along with veteran photographer Charles Gatewood, posed for countless photos and exchanged an abundance of hugs and handshakes with their admirers.

One other aspect of the convention I want to touch on is the vendor Expo. When I first began my career, we didn’t even have curved barbells; styles were simple and extremely limited, so I never envisioned there could exist the vast variety of body jewelry that is available now. It was a delight to see innovation in this field continuing to expand. Not only was the selection at the Expo truly incredible, but also the quality produced by many manufacturers was superb.

Yet another aspect of the event that deserves recognition is the excellence in overall organization, pre-conference planning, and preparation. This was handled phenomenally well. It may sound like I’m tooting my own horn, but that is not the case. Though I am President, I’m not a member of the Conference committee, and the accolades are theirs.

The amount of labor that goes into putting on such a multi-faceted happening is outrageous: from coordinating pre-registration to developing the curriculum and wrangling the instructors and their course materials to arranging for catering; dealing with room blocks; designing and ordering signage, programs, and APP merchandise; generating raffle rules; designing the expo floor layout; scheduling volunteers; and on and on and on. The enormous number of tasks—and the details that must be dealt with—is beyond overwhelming, yet the Conference committee hashes it all out. What we see at Conference are the results of thousands of small decisions made and duties handled.

You know what they say about the “best laid plans,” so it also bears mentioning that the on-site execution was equally outstanding. A large crew of tireless volunteers contributed tremendously and reaped the gratifying rewards found in providing such service.

The talented magician who pulled the levers and knobs behind the curtain at Bally’s was the remarkable Caitlin McDiarmid, APP Administrator. She is worth her weight in gold. Possessed of a peerless skill set, cast-iron commitment, and flair for multi-tasking, she kept it all rolling smoothly. I want to also express my appreciation and admiration for Bethra Szumski, APP Secretary and Conference Committee Chair. She negotiates our contracts with the hotel, which is a tough job. I don’t know whether she was naturally blessed with the talent or if she developed her expertise, but we are so lucky to have her. I have one final shout-out going to Sarah Wooten, the previously mentioned wrangler of instructors. Thanks for your patience and diligence.

Congratulations team, on a job remarkably well done! Attendees also deserve acknowledgment since the majority of people in our industry did not make it a priority to be there.

The 2012 APP Conference was thoroughly enjoyable, but more importantly it delivered a substantial amount of vital information for piercers to do a safer, superior job. Additionally, it provided a setting for us to interact and socialize, and a terrific expo, too. Having used every superlative I could think of, I’ll finish by encouraging you join us at next year’s event if you weren’t already planning to attend. I hope to see you there!

Point #59: President’s Corner – Elayne Angel

Comments Off on Point #59: President’s Corner – Elayne Angel read President's Corner

Recently someone asked me about what it was really like back in the “good ol’ days,” when I first started piercing professionally in the 1980s. Reflecting on the ensuing discussion, I am reminded of how truly new our industry is in the scope of history, yet how far it has come since that time.

Think about it: Body piercing is so young that there are still many areas without any legislation on the subject. One must study and practice for hundreds or even thousands of hours to qualify for a license to cut hair in the United States, but in plenty of locations you can pierce the body without any training or oversight whatsoever. This is because our fledgling field and the agencies regulating it are still getting their footing and figuring it all out—but it really doesn’t make sense. I expect that piercing laws will become the norm in the coming years—and the APP is actively assisting body artists and lawmakers to see that only appropriate legislation is enacted—but it simply hasn’t been prevalent long enough for this to have happened yet.

It is hard to appreciate the widespread acceptance of piercing in modern culture if you don’t know how misunderstood and ostracized it once was not so long ago. Any piercing other than the ears (or sometimes a nostril) was a rarity, and was considered disturbing and aberrant.

For young people today, piercing has always been around. They grew up with it as an ordinary and unremarkable part of the world—just like computers and the internet. It can be difficult to imagine a reality in which these were uncommon, or didn’t even exist. I have a number of clear memories that can help to clarify what a different world it was where piercing was concerned.

Imagine this: In 1981, even though I was legally an adult, my gynecologist broke the ostensibly sacred pact of doctor-patient confidentiality to call my parents and tell them that my nipples were pierced! Why? Because they thought I might need to be institutionalized for harming myself. Piercing was so foreign then there was grave concern for my mental and physical health—over something that has become commonplace today.

One of my other favorite illustrative accounts from that era is how easily I was able to convince people that my tongue piercing was an acupuncture stud for weight control. No one doubted me, since tongue piercings were unheard of at that time, and they couldn’t fathom the idea of doing it for fun. The public had not yet been exposed to body piercings, and when I began my career nipples were by far the most prevalent spot to adorn. It was several years before the navel outshined all the other pierceable body parts put together.

One of the biggest challenges I experienced in my early years working at Gauntlet (the first piercing specialty business in the world, founded in 1975) was that I couldn’t procure enough steel body jewelry to satisfy the fastgrowing demand for piercings. There was just a single supplier for it then, so the quantity of manufacturers now making body jewelry is astonishing. There is an overabundance of the stuff, really—especially if you include the mountains of cheap junk that are being produced, mostly overseas.

I can still remember the moment I saw the first steel 18 gauge 3/8” fixed bead ring. Up until that point, all of the small rings Gauntlet produced were white or yellow gold. It was novel and, well, adorable. I knew with that first glimpse I needed to put it somewhere on my body. I came up with the idea of a horizontal eyebrow piercing, which I’d never seen before. It actually healed well (even with the small ring for initial jewelry), and I had it for many years. I only removed it to get my eyebrows tattooed, and didn’t reinsert it afterward. Now this was before curved bars were available. Imagine doing navel, eyebrow, and other body piercings without curved bars as a jewelry option! Yes, it really was quite primordial in a way, but the world of piercing was just starting to evolve.

I feel like I should be recounting these historic tales from a rocking chair on a porch, my head crowned with gray hair. Yes, I am an “old-timer” in this industry—somewhat ironic since I’m just one notch into my fifth decade of life and by no means elderly. I’m the next generation down from our industry’s founders Jim Ward, Fakir Musafar, and Doug Malloy. (If you want to learn all about the formation of Gauntlet and the launching of our industry, read Jim Ward’s amazing memoir, Running the Gauntlet, available at safepiercing.org.)

Since its humble origins, thousands upon thousands of people worldwide have joined the ranks of “professional piercers”—but I do use the term loosely. Some are hacks who cast a shadow over the whole field, but others have advanced it to an art, melded with science and practiced with fervor and expertise. President’s Corner ElaynE angEl APP President Yucatán, Mexico one of my other favorite illustrative accounts from that era is how easily I was able to convince people that my tongue piercing was an acupuncture stud for weight control.

High-tech materials and production methods have made body jewelry available that approaches true perfection. Innovations in design have brought countless new styles to the market. Now there is even a profusion of aftercare products specifically designed for our customers. (I shudder when I recall the instructions for care of my new nipple piercings: apply rubbing alcohol liberally and rotate the rings. Ouch!)

I’m incredibly thrilled that this “wild and crazy” fringe activity I engaged in back in the 1970s and 80s has become, more-or-less, normal thing to do, and I’m proud to have played a role in that. At the same time, I must admit I have a particular disappointment about the subsequent generations of piercers who are working today.

As the nascent business of piercing began to spread and mature, I expected that piercers would join their industry’s professional organization as an ordinary matter of course. I envisioned piercers becoming members of the APP as a natural part of working in the field, the way professional librarians join the American Library Association. And so I address this message to the piercers who are not (yet) members of the Association of Professional Piercers:

Obviously you’re acquainted with the APP because you’re reading this publication. But in case you are unfamiliar with our precise nature and purpose, I’d like to clarify it and elaborate a bit. We are an international non-profit health, safety, and education organization. The APP is the professional organization for those in the piercing industry. We are a respected and reliable resource that has set the standards for the industry.

Piercers who are “Professional Business Members” uphold a safety agreement that encompasses minimum standards for using quality jewelry, maintaining cleanliness, and behaving professionally. They meet certain personal criteria, such as training with certification in First Aid, CPR, and bloodborne pathogens exposure. Their studios must also pass specific environmental requirements, such as having a separate sterilization room and a spore-tested autoclave.

I can’t help but wonder, and want to ask any piercer who is not a member of the APP, “Why not? Do you fail to come up to the organization’s standards, are you unfamiliar with your industry’s professional association, or are you apathetic?” All of those are poor qualities in a piercer.

Since the publication of my book The Piercing Bible, the number of consumers seeking APP members has skyrocketed, as the public is becoming more educated about what constitutes a competent, qualified piercer. If for no other reason than an increase in business, I’d think more piercers would want to become members.

Perhaps you believe some of the rumors and misconceptions I’ve heard about the organization; I would like to debunk them. We are a group of very diverse piercers who are passionate and caring about our work; we are not an elitist clique! If you place importance on what you do, join up. If you don’t feel that being safe, hygienic, and doing a good job are important, please find another field of endeavor.

The APP is not the piercing police. We do not dictate which piercings our members do, what particular aftercare they are to suggest, or whether our members also practice other forms of body art (where they are allowed by law).

The organization is run by volunteers who are elected by the members. If you are dissatisfied with aspects of how the APP operates, you can join, get involved, and change things if enough other members agree with your perspective. That’s what I did.

Below is some of what the APP does:

  • Provides information to consumers, piercers, health inspectors, medical and dental professionals, legislators, and anyone who wants to learn about safe body piercing.
  • Hosts an amazing annual educational conference for piercers (and you do not have to be a member to attend).
  • Offers piercers, legislators, and the public support and assistance in drafting appropriate legislation for the industry.
  • Disseminates educational and informational materials, including numerous brochures and a Health and Safety Procedure Manual for piercers.
  • Attends health-related conferences and body art conventions to share information.
  • Conveys information and professional opinions to the media when requested and in response to erroneous articles and press about body piercing.
  • Presents lectures to students, health care professionals, and other groups.
  • Publishes The Point, which is dedicated to sharing piercing-related news and information.
  • Staffs an email and phone response system for individuals with questions regarding piercing.
  • Maintains a comprehensive website with information for anyone with questions about body piercing, safepiercing.org.

Among other things, the APP website contains a complete list of current members (you will be on there after becoming a member piercer), a section on getting pierced, FAQs, our brochures and publications, legislative links to all states, applications for membership, a job board, links, and more.

In other words, the APP shares information and works to help make piercing safe and keep it legal. I frequently hear that piercers (or their studios) aren’t “ready” to join. The good news is that when you apply, the membership committee will work with you by making suggestions on how you can bring yourself and your studio up to minimum standards.

We genuinely do not want to keep piercers out; we welcome you into our community of caring professionals. If you have questions, please contact me at president@safepiercing. org, or our Membership Liaison, Sarvas Berry, at members@safepiercing.org.

As I observe and hopefully foster the next phase of development in the body piercing industry, it would be a dream come true to see more piercers take pride in their work and elevate themselves professionally by joining the Association of Professional Piercers.

Point #59: The Tongue-Drive System

Comments Off on Point #59: The Tongue-Drive System read Science & Body Modifications

By James Weber

Late last February a rather curious news story made the rounds on Facebook and other social media sites and pop culture blogs. Various publications reported on an article about a project from Georgia Tech, one that enables a person with quadriplegia to control a wheelchair through the movement of the tongue by moving around a magnet worn in a tongue piercing. Piercers everywhere were sharing, reposting, and reblogging the article in a variety of places—including on my Facebook timeline. Fortunately, this was not news to me, as I’ve had the unique opportunity to be involved with the project as a consultant for several years. But after a dozen piercers forwarded me the article I realized it was time to write about my experience with the clinical trials of the Tongue Drive System.

In late October of 2009 I was contacted by Dr. Maysam Ghovanloo, Associate Professor at the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Over the phone he explained the project that he was working on, titled in the research protocol Development and Translational Assessment of a Tongue-Based Assistive Neuro-Technology for Individuals with Severe Neurological Disorders. Simply, this is a system that allows persons with quadriplegia to perform a variety of computer-aided tasks—including operating their wheelchairs—by changing the position of a small magnet inside their mouths. The magnet’s changing position is monitored by a headpiece that looks like a double-sided, hands-free phone headset.

His team had, at that point, experimented with different ways to attach the magnet to the tongue with varying degrees of success. Adhesives were only effective for very short periods, and the idea of permanently implanting a magnet into the tongue was not considered a workable alternative1. This left a third option suggested by Dr. Anne Laumann: attaching a magnet to the tongue with a tongue piercing.

He then came to the reason for his call: he asked if I would be interested in being involved in the clinical trials as a member of the Data Safety Monitoring Board. As I listened to him describe the details of my involvement, I thought about the incredible places my life as a piercer—and my job as an APP Board member—have brought me. I enthusiastically and without hesitation said “Yes!”

For those not familiar with clinical trials (and I was not when I initially agreed to be involved with the study), the Data Safety Monitoring Board (or DSMB, alternately called a Data Monitoring Committee) is a group of experts, independent of the study researchers, who monitor test-subject safety during a clinical trial. The DSMB does this by reviewing the study protocol and evaluating the study data, and will often make recommendations to those in charge of the study concerning the continuation, modification, or termination of the trial. The inclusion of a DSMB is required in studies involving human participants as specified by the Common Rule, which is the baseline standard of ethics by which any government-funded research in the United States must abide. (The clinical trial is sponsored jointly by both the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health, but nearly all academic institutions hold their researchers to these statements of rights regardless of funding.2)

I was excited to be part of the project, and the following May I received the full details of the study. The clinical trial was to be performed in three phases, with three sets of participants. The first involved ten able-bodied individuals with existing tongue piercings. These participants were to test the hardware and software created by his team and to quantify the ability of those participants to operate the wheelchair with the specially-designed post3 in their tongue piercing. The second group consisted of ten able-bodied volunteers without tongue piercings. These participants were to be pierced, given time to let the piercings heal, and then monitored operating the Tongue Drive System. The third group of participants was to be a selection of thirty people with quadriplegia—without existing tongue piercings—who were to be pierced and then monitored while the piercing healed. Afterward, they were to be evaluated on their ability to operate a computer and navigate an electric wheelchair through an obstacle course using the magnetic tongue jewelry.

The study was to be conducted in two different locations: in Atlanta, at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Shepherd Center; and in Chicago, on the Northwestern Medical Center Campus and at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, with half of the participants in each phase of the study coming from each location. (Five from each city for the first two phases, fifteen from each for the last.) Drs. Maysam Ghovanloo and Michael Jones were to oversee the trials in Atlanta, and Drs. Anne Laumann and Elliot Roth were to oversee the trials in Chicago.

The DSMB charter specified the eight people who had been drafted to be part of the DSMB: The board chair is a professor of rehabilitation science and technology; one member is a director of a rehabilitation engineering research center; one a professor of rehabilitation medicine. There are two M.D.s: one a neurologist; one an associate professor of dermatology; two biostatisticians (one acting as study administrator); and me. Also included in the documents sent was the full study protocol. This document outlined the finer points of the study, including the protocol for tongue piercings to be performed by the doctors involved with the study. The email also specified the possible times of the first meeting of the DSMB, to be conducted via conference call.

As I participated in the conference call several weeks later it was hard not to feel I was out of my element. While I routinely lecture at several local universities, it’s been quite a while since I’ve been in academia. But I soon realized I was not there for my academic credentials but for my position and experience—and as a de facto authority on piercing. This I could do.

During that first meeting I expressed the concerns I had about the piercing protocol, specifically about physicians performing the piercings—physicians with little or no experience doing so. “Do any of the members on the research team have prior piercing experience?” I wrote. “Even though it is not a complicated procedure, it is better for doctors who are involved in this task to have prior experience with tongue piercing.”

I was told that the physician overseeing the piercings in Atlanta had performed at least thirty tongue piercings in his private practice. And although Dr. Laumann—who was responsible for the tongue piercings in Chicago—had no prior piercing experience, she had conducted extensive research on piercing and tattooing4 and had often observed professional piercers at work. (Furthermore, she is considered an expert among dermatologists in the field of piercing and tattooing.) While my concerns were addressed, I do remember feeling hesitant at the close of that meeting.

The second DSMB meeting was held six months later, in December of 2010. At this time the results of the first and second phases of the clinical trial were to be discussed. Before the meeting I was given information about the second study group and about the tongue piercing method performed at the Chicago location—and including images from both locations. From the images provided, I was concerned that the piercings performed by the physicians looked as if they were done by first-year piercing apprentices—which, in a way, they were.

Of the twenty-one study participants who received a tongue piercing, five were noted as complaining about the placement of the piercing, and three piercings resulted in embedded jewelry. Based on the photos I guessed this was because either the piercing had been placed too far back on the tongue or the length for initial jewelry was improper—or both. I pointed out to the committee this left only about 60% of the subjects who were both comfortable with the placement of the piercing (at least enough to not state the contrary to researchers) and who did not have problems with embedded jewelry. I stated I thought this was far too small a percentage to ensure the well-being of each research participant. Even though it was outside my role as a DSMB member, I further stated the results of the study may be affected by the improperly placed piercings, as more than a few of the study participants had taken out their jewelry and dropped out of the study within a few days of being pierced, saying they were either unhappy with the placement or found the position of the piercing uncomfortable5.

I went on to express concerns about the piercing protocols and to question whether piercers could perform these procedures instead of physicians. Unfortunately, I was told the parameters of the study, and the rules at the medical centers where the piercings were being performed, did not allow non-medical professionals to perform the piercing procedures6.

Despite my concerns, my suggestions and criticisms were well-received. Dr. Ghovanloo agreed to re-evaluate the piercing protocol and I offered him whatever help he needed. Most importantly, I got the impression the two doctors performing the piercings were somewhat humbled by the experience. While there was no doubt that these physicians have anatomical knowledge and surgical experience that far surpasses mine, they were quickly realizing this didn’t make them proficient piercers.

Several months after that conference call, I had the opportunity to finally meet Dr. Ghovanloo in person. The quarterly meeting of the APP’s board of directors was scheduled in Atlanta in February of 2010, and Dr. Ghovanloo arranged for me to meet some of the trial staff at the Shepherd Center. I had the sense he was excited as well, and he also arranged for the physician doing the piercings during the clinical trials in Atlanta to be there: Dr. Arthur Simon. As I was at a board meeting with Elayne Angel (the APP’s then-Medical Liaison, current President, and resident expert on tongue piercings), I asked about having her attend as well. He readily agreed.

When Elayne and I arrived we were greeted by Shepherd staff member and study coordinator Erica Sutton, and we were soon led to our meeting with Dr. Ghovanloo and Dr. Simon. Compared to the necessary formality of the DSMB meetings, it was a friendly and relaxed meeting. Dr. Ghovanloo and his colleagues were somewhat starstruck by Elayne (she often does that to people) especially since her book, The Piercing Bible, was used so extensively in drafting the trial piercing protocols.

As we talked about the clinical trials, it was hard to not be affected by Dr. Ghovanloo’s enthusiasm for the project. We spoke at length about the issues the doctors encountered when performing the piercings. Doctor Simon in particular was humbled after his experience. “How do you hold those little balls to screw on?” he asked at one point during the several hours we met, a little exasperated and only half joking. I can’t speak for Elayne, but I left with an immense respect for Dr. Ghovanloo, his staff, and the whole project. I also left with the impression that they had a lot more knowledge of—and a little more respect for—what we do as well.

Since that time, stage three of the clinical trials has already taken place. I’ve been informed by Dr. Ghovanloo that the third and final meeting of the DSMB will be scheduled in the coming weeks. In fact, trials are being planned using a new prototype that allows users to wear a dental retainer on the roof of their mouth embedded with sensors to control the system (instead of the headset)7, with the signals from these sensors wirelessly transmitted to an iPod or iPhone. Software installed on the iPod then determines the relative position of the magnet with respect to the array of sensors in real time, and this information is used to control the movements of a computer cursor or a powered wheelchair.

I’m looking forward to hearing when the project is out of the trial phase and more widely available to all who can use it. When that happens, I’m sure I’ll be hearing from Dr. Ghovanloo—and seeing the news again posted on Facebook.

More information about the current trials can be found on the Shepherd Center’s web site.

  1. Unlike implants under the skin, the tongue has no “pockets” in which to encase a foreign object, and there was also concern about the need to remove the magnet for surgeries and MRIs. ↩
  2. The history of research ethics in the country is simultaneously fascinating and shameful. Most of the modern rules now in place concerning clinical trials in the U.S. are as a result of the public outcry over the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, a study that ran for four decades, from 1932 and 1972, in Tuskegee, Alabama. This clinical trial was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service and was set up to study untreated syphilis in poor, rural black men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government. The study was terminated only after an article in the New York Times brought it to the attention of the public. more information ↩
  3. In one of my early conversations with Dr. Ghovanloo I gave him the name of several manufacturers who I thought would be willing and/or able to make the jewelry needed for the trials. Barry Blanchard from Anatometal came through by manufacturing special barbells with a magnet encased in a laser-welded titanium ball fixed on top. Blue Mountain Steel also donated the barbells and piercing supplies for the initial piercings. ↩
  4. Dr. Laumann has co-written several published papers on body piercing and tattooing. The most recent is titled, “Body Piercing: Complications and Prevention of Health Risks.” ↩
  5. Dr. Ghovanloo and the other physicians had suggestions for the reasons for the high dropout rate among healthy subjects. In response to an early draft of this article, he wrote, “We simply lost contact with a few subjects after piercing, and cannot say for sure what their motivation was in participating in the trial and consequently dropping out after receiving the piercing.” Dr. Laumann, commenting on the Chicago site, wrote, “We prescreened thirty-two volunteers. Ten of these were screened and consented. Three of these were ineligible due to a short lingual frenulum, or ‘tongue web.’ This would have made the use of the TDS impracticable and for research it would have been considered inappropriate to cut the lingual frenulum. We pierced seven subjects and—you are correct—our first subject dropped out related to embedding of the jewelry and pain on the first day. After that we were careful to measure the thickness of the tongue and insert a barbell that allowed for 6.35 mm (1/4 inch) of swelling. Otherwise drop-outs came much later during the TDS testing phase related to scheduling and unrelated medical issues. One of the subjects, a piercer herself, was particularly pleased with the procedure, the tract placement and the appearance.” ↩
  6. Though the protocols did not allow the procedure to be conducted by non-medical personnel, Gigi Gits, from Kolo, was present during one of the phase-two health subject’s piercings and Bethra Szumski, from Virtue and Vice, was able to offer advice at the first phase-three piercing session in Atlanta. ↩
  7. Dr. Laumann: “The problem with headgear is that it needs to be removed at night, which means that the disabled individual cannot do anything in the morning until the headset is replaced and the TDS recalibrated. With secure intra-oral sensors, recalibration will not be necessary in the morning, nor will the sensors slip during use, which gives the wearer a great degree of independence. Of course, a dental retainer takes up space in the mouth and this may be difficult with a barbell in place.” ↩