What Is Inflammation?

An Essay on the Body’s Repair System and the Medical Industry Built on Suppressing It

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a division of the U.S. federal government, publishes the following definition on its website: “Inflammation is a normal part of the body’s defense to injury or infection, and, in this way, it is beneficial.”¹

The same page continues: “But inflammation is damaging when it occurs in healthy tissues or lasts too long.”¹

The National Center for Biotechnology Information, also a federal resource, goes further. Chronic inflammation, it states, “is the cause of most chronic diseases and presents a major threat to the health and longevity of individuals.” It lists the conditions: cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disease, and more.²

Read those two positions together. Inflammation is the body’s beneficial response to injury. Inflammation is the cause of most chronic diseases. The same institutions hold both positions simultaneously, in the same literature, sometimes on the same page.

One of these positions must be wrong. If inflammation is a beneficial response to injury — a repair process — then it cannot also be the cause of the diseases it is responding to. The establishment has identified the smoke and declared it the fire.

The distinction matters because it determines treatment. If inflammation is the cause, suppression is logical. If inflammation is the response, suppression is catastrophic. The entire architecture of modern pharmaceutical intervention for chronic disease rests on which of these two positions is correct.

The global market for anti-inflammatory drugs tells you which position the industry chose. NSAIDs alone — ibuprofen, naproxen, aspirin, diclofenac, celecoxib — constitute a market valued at over twenty-two billion dollars annually.³ Humira, a single biologic anti-inflammatory drug prescribed for conditions labelled autoimmune, generated $238 billion in lifetime revenue before biosimilar competition began eroding its dominance, peaking at $21.2 billion in a single year.⁴ Corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and the expanding catalogue of monoclonal antibody drugs add tens of billions more. The anti-inflammatory supplement market — turmeric, curcumin, omega-3 concentrates — adds further billions from consumers who have rejected mainstream medicine but accepted its foundational premise.

Every one of these products — from the cheapest ibuprofen to the most expensive biologic — rests on a single shared premise: the body’s repair response is the enemy.

Support This Work

This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.

Paid subscribers get access to all books — including The DMSO Book, The Kitchen Remedies Guide, Chlorine Dioxide, The PSA Trap, Breast Cancer, and more — with 1-2 new books added each month. Plus the Deep Dive Audio Library: 180+ in-depth audio book summaries and discussions.

Pricing Update: The annual subscription moves from $50 AUD to $50 USD on May 1 — the first change in five years. Current paid subscribers keep their existing rate. Free subscribers can lock in the current price by upgrading before May 1.

What Inflammation Actually Is

Herbert Shelton, the most systematic articulator of the Natural Hygiene tradition, stripped inflammation to its mechanical reality: “Inflammation is simply a great increase in the amount of blood in a circumscribed area of the body.”⁵

The familiar signs follow from this definition. “The pain, the redness, the swelling, the heat and the impairment of function are all due to the local excess of blood.”⁵ Nothing in this description requires a pathogen, a genetic predisposition, or a malfunctioning body. The process is hydraulic. Blood is directed to a site requiring repair. The volume increase produces the four classical signs that medicine since antiquity has called calor, rubor, tumor, dolor — heat, redness, swelling, pain.

Shelton’s position on the function is equally direct: “Inflammation, whether in a wound or in a so-called disease, is a remedial, a reparative and, also, a defensive process.”⁵

The purpose is delivery. Increased blood supply carries repair materials to damaged tissue. When the damage has been repaired, the blood supply returns to normal and inflammation ceases. This is the default behaviour. Inflammation that does not resolve indicates that the damage has not been fully repaired — or that the cause of the damage is ongoing.

Thomas Cowan, in his April 2026 webinar, translated this into a metaphor that makes the mechanism viscerally clear. Imagine a kitchen that doesn’t work. The counters are wrong, the layout is broken, the appliances are failing. The first step in getting a functional kitchen is demolition. You cannot build the new kitchen without tearing out the old one. The demolition phase is loud, messy, and disruptive. It makes the kitchen temporarily worse. But without it, renovation is impossible.⁶

“If you don’t do the demolition step,” Cowan said, “you can’t create a new kitchen. You can’t create a new joint. You can’t create a new thyroid. You can’t create a new pancreas. The demolition step is what we call inflammation.”⁶

The body identifies tissue that has been damaged — by toxic exposure, by nutritional deficiency, by deposits from synthetic supplements, by pharmaceutical residues. It sends in the demolition crew. Inflammatory mediators dissolve what shouldn’t be there and prepare the site for rebuilding. The redness, swelling, heat, and pain are the demolition in progress.

This is not a metaphor imposed on the biology. The establishment’s own wound-healing literature describes the identical sequence: injury, inflammatory phase, proliferative phase, remodelling phase. The inflammatory phase is recognised as the necessary precondition for tissue repair.⁷ Medical schools teach this sequence. The pharmaceutical industry then builds its revenue model on interrupting it at step two.

What Causes the Damage

Shelton identified the underlying driver with characteristic directness: “Inflammation in any part of the body arises out of the same cause — toxemia.”⁵

Toxaemia — the systemic burden of retained toxins that the body cannot efficiently eliminate. Under the terrain framework, the causes of tissue damage fall into four exhaustive categories: toxic exposure (industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, pesticides, food additives, environmental pollutants), nutritional deficiency (absence of the substrates required for tissue integrity and metabolic function), electromagnetic radiation (non-native EMF that disrupts cellular function), and psychological and emotional strain (sustained stress physiology that suppresses restorative processes).

These categories are synergistic. EMF exposure increases blood-brain barrier permeability, allowing more toxins to reach neural tissue. Nutritional deficiency impairs the liver’s capacity to process toxic load. Stress suppresses the body’s restorative work and diverts resources from repair. In most chronic inflammatory conditions, multiple categories are operating simultaneously.

The establishment’s own molecular research confirms the sequence. A 2014 paper stated: “Mitochondrial alterations, oxidative stress and inflammation are inextricably linked and play major roles in the onset and development of non-communicable diseases.”⁸ A second 2014 paper made the causal direction explicit: “In recent years, evidence has emerged that oxidative stress plays a crucial role in the development and perpetuation of inflammation.”⁹

The order matters. Oxidative stress sits upstream of inflammation. Oxidative stress is generated by toxic exposure, nutritional deficiency, electromagnetic exposure, and stress physiology. The inflammation follows. The establishment has documented the sequence in its own literature. It has chosen to treat the downstream event — the inflammation — rather than the upstream cause.

A June 2000 article observed: “Perhaps the most noteworthy observation concerning the role of oxidative stress in human disease is the commonality of it.”¹⁰ The commonality runs across cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, neurodegeneration, arthritis, and the conditions labelled autoimmune. The shared mechanism points to a shared origin: environmental and toxicological insult. The documentation exists. The action does not.

Andrew Kaufman, reviewing the mainstream literature on chronic inflammation, identified the specific mechanism by which acute inflammation fails to resolve. The establishment’s own research describes this as “resolution failure” — the body’s inability to complete the repair process and transition from inflammation to tissue regeneration. The causes of resolution failure, documented in the same literature, are precisely what the terrain framework predicts: environmental chemicals, industrial toxicants, and dietary factors that damage tissue faster than the body can repair it.¹¹

A government testing programme examined more than 9,000 chemicals using over 1,600 assays and found that numerous chemicals commonly encountered in daily life — phthalates, PFAS compounds, bisphenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, flame retardants — alter the molecular signalling pathways that regulate inflammation.¹¹ Two thousand new chemicals enter commercial use every year.¹¹ The body’s repair system is attempting to keep pace with an ever-expanding toxic burden. When it cannot, inflammation persists. Medicine calls this chronic inflammatory disease. It is chronic poisoning with the repair response still running.

The Pharmacology of Suppression

The pharmaceutical response to inflammation is suppression. Three drug classes dominate, and all three operate by the same logic: stop the demolition crew.

NSAIDs — ibuprofen, naproxen, aspirin, diclofenac, celecoxib — block prostaglandin synthesis through inhibition of COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes. Prostaglandins are not the problem. They are part of the repair cascade. Blocking them provides symptomatic relief — less pain, less swelling — while the underlying damage continues unaddressed.

The toxicity of NSAIDs is not incidental. Dr Carolyn Dean, in Death by Modern Medicine, reported the result of a French general-practice survey: NSAIDs rank first among commonly prescribed drugs for serious adverse events.¹² The most dramatic case study is Vioxx (rofecoxib), a COX-2 inhibitor withdrawn from the market in 2004. FDA scientist Dr David Graham estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks in the United States during the five years it was sold, with a fatality rate between 30 and 40 percent.¹³ Graham described the outcome as “a disaster unparalleled in the history of the United States” and testified that the FDA “as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx.”¹³

Vioxx was an anti-inflammatory drug. It was prescribed to suppress the body’s repair response in arthritic joints. It caused tens of thousands of heart attacks. The drug designed to stop inflammation produced cardiovascular catastrophe — adding a new category of damage to bodies already struggling with the original insult.

Corticosteroids — prednisone, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone — suppress inflammation systemically. The suppression is powerful and rapid. The price is catabolic: muscle wasting, bone thinning, elevated blood glucose, psychiatric symptoms, adrenal dependence. Long-term use produces the iatrogenic condition medicine calls Cushing’s syndrome — a disease manufactured by the drug, then listed as a side effect.

One feature of corticosteroid use reveals the nature of the conditions being treated. During the COVID-19 event, dexamethasone was recommended for severely ill patients and appeared to improve outcomes. Medical students learn in their first year that steroids make infections worse — so if dexamethasone helped, the condition was not an infection. Cowan identified the implication: “Since dexamethasone may make Covid-19 better, this demonstrates that the illness can’t be an infection.”¹⁴ The condition was an inflammatory response to environmental insult, and the steroid suppressed the response.

DMARDs and biologics — methotrexate, azathioprine, the TNF-alpha inhibitors (adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept) — are prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and the full catalogue of conditions labelled autoimmune. Methotrexate is a chemotherapy agent repurposed as a maintenance drug. Azathioprine was developed to suppress organ rejection after transplantation. TNF-alpha inhibitors carry documented risks of serious infections, lymphoma, and heart failure.

Each of these drugs produces new symptoms that require management with further drugs. Methotrexate damages the liver; a hepatoprotectant is added. Corticosteroids thin the bones; a bisphosphonate is added. NSAIDs damage the stomach lining; a proton pump inhibitor is added. The proton pump inhibitor impairs nutrient absorption; supplements are added. The cascade is the mechanism by which a single inflammatory condition becomes a multi-drug, multi-organ, chronic patient profile — every suppressive intervention adding toxic burden, every added burden provoking further inflammatory response, every response treated with further suppression.

How Acute Becomes Chronic

The sequence is explicit in the Natural Hygiene literature, and it operates with mechanical predictability.

An insult — toxic, nutritional, electromagnetic, or stress-related — damages tissue. The body initiates an inflammatory response to deliver repair materials to the site. The inflammation produces symptoms: pain, swelling, heat, redness, impairment of function. Pharmaceuticals are deployed to suppress the symptoms. The suppression interrupts the repair process and adds new toxic burden — the drug itself. New symptoms emerge, either from the incomplete repair of the original insult or from the drug’s direct toxicity. These new symptoms are suppressed with additional drugs. The cumulative toxic burden exceeds the body’s elimination capacity. The acute condition becomes chronic. The chronic condition is labelled progressive. The patient is placed on lifelong medication.

Shelton described this mechanism in the context of catarrhal inflammation — the body’s response to toxic inhalation. The acute response (nasal inflammation, mucus production, congestion) is the body’s attempt to expel irritants from the airways. Antihistamines and decongestants suppress the response. The exposure continues — household chemicals, fragrances, volatile organic compounds. The suppression is repeated over months and years. The acute inflammation becomes chronic catarrh, then ulceration, then the conditions labelled allergic rhinitis, hay fever, chronic sinusitis.⁵ Each stage represents the body attempting to manage the same underlying toxic burden, with the response increasingly compromised by the drugs deployed to suppress it. The patient accumulates diagnoses. The diagnoses accumulate prescriptions. At no point does anyone identify and remove the irritant that started the sequence.

The suppression impulse extends beyond pharmaceuticals into basic first-aid practice. The universal recommendation to ice an acute injury — a sprained ankle, a strained muscle — originates from the observation that cold slows the decomposition of dead tissue in cadavers. Kaufman identified the logical gap: this finding from dead tissue was extrapolated to living tissue without evidence that it aids healing.¹¹ The acute inflammatory response to a sprain — increased blood flow, capillary dilation, delivery of repair substances, removal of waste material — is the body’s healing mechanism in action. Applying ice constricts the capillaries, reduces blood supply, and provides symptomatic relief (less swelling, less pain) by cutting off the delivery system. The symptom improves. The repair is impaired. The logic of suppression operates at every level, from the billion-dollar biologic drug to the bag of frozen peas.

What the establishment calls disease progression is the suppression cycle operating across years. The trajectory is not biological destiny. It is the predictable outcome of continuous poisoning combined with continuous suppression.

Cowan offered the clinical test. Walk into any rheumatologist’s office and ask: how many patients have you cured? Not managed. Not stabilised. Not maintained on medication with reduced symptoms. Cured — as in, the inflammation completed its work, the tissue was remodelled, the condition resolved, the patient walks away with a functioning joint and no prescription.⁶

The answer is zero. It is always zero. It has to be zero, because the treatment model is designed to prevent the cure. The demolition crew arrives and the drug sends it home. The broken kitchen remains broken, the patient returns, the drug is continued, and a stronger drug is added when the condition progresses. Everyone agrees the disease is getting worse. Nobody asks why the body was never permitted to finish the repair.

Shelton described the failure mode: “Death or mortification of the inflamed part represents the unsuccessful termination of the remedial effort.”⁵ The body tried to heal. It was prevented from healing. The tissue died. Medicine recorded a disease outcome and prescribed ongoing management.

The Health Freedom Trap

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are pharmaceutical drugs. They are manufactured by pharmaceutical companies. They are chemical compounds with documented pharmacological effects. One of those effects, shared by both drugs, is the suppression of inflammation.

During and after the COVID-19 event, these drugs were adopted by the health freedom movement as alternatives to the mainstream pharmaceutical response. They were promoted by dissident doctors, naturopaths, and independent media as safe, effective treatments that the establishment was suppressing for financial and political reasons. The narrative positioned hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as the good pharmaceuticals — the ones the corrupt system didn’t want you to have.

Cowan identified the structural problem: these drugs do exactly what prednisone does. They stop the inflammation. They send the demolition crew home. The kitchen remains broken. The patient feels better because the redness, swelling, and pain subside. No healing occurs. When the drug is stopped, the condition returns — often worse, because the body’s repair attempt was interrupted and the underlying cause was never addressed.⁶

“As soon as you stop the hydroxychloroquine or the ivermectin or the steroids,” Cowan observed, “it will come back worse than ever, because you’ve tried to fool your body, trick your body into not doing the inflammation. And your body is not that stupid.”⁶

The zero-cures test applies equally. Ask any doctor prescribing hydroxychloroquine for conditions labelled autoimmune: how many patients completed the course, stopped the drug, and never had a recurrence? The answer is the same answer the rheumatologist gives. The drug manages. It does not cure. It cannot cure, because it operates by the same suppressive logic that prevents curing.

Cowan extended the critique to the practitioners themselves: “90-some percent of the so-called holistic or functional or alternative health freedom doctors basically think exactly the same way. They just use different pharmaceuticals to have their suppressive, anti-inflammatory effect, which will have no way of actually resolving the issue.”⁶

The implication is uncomfortable for the reader who has already made the journey from mainstream medicine to the health freedom space. That journey was real and took courage. The problem is that it stopped one step short. The dissident doctors rejected the establishment’s specific drugs but accepted the establishment’s foundational premise — that inflammation is the enemy and suppression is the strategy. They substituted one set of suppressants for another. The patient’s trajectory remained the same.

The same logic extends beyond pharmaceuticals. The “anti-inflammatory diet” trend, the curcumin supplement industry, the marketing of foods and supplements on the basis of their anti-inflammatory properties — all of it rests on the same premise. If inflammation is the body’s repair response, then designing a dietary programme around suppressing it is working against the body, even if the substances used are plant-derived rather than synthesised.

The question is never “how do I reduce inflammation?” The question is “what is damaging my tissue, and how do I stop the damage?”

Cowan described the inverse approach from his clinical practice with rheumatoid arthritis patients — not suppressing the inflammation but accentuating it. He used bee stings directly to the inflamed joint. The venom intensified the inflammatory response, drove the demolition phase to completion faster and more effectively. When the inflammation from the bee sting resolved, the joint was better than before the sting — because the demolition was finished, and the body could proceed to remodelling.⁶ The approach is the exact opposite of every pharmaceutical and nutraceutical strategy on the market. Instead of stopping the fire, you let it burn through its fuel. The fire goes out on its own, and the ground is cleared for new growth.

This is the direction of actual cure, and it explains why the word “cure” is absent from the vocabulary of both mainstream and alternative inflammatory medicine. Cure requires allowing the body to complete a process that the entire treatment industry is designed to interrupt.

The Arthritis Example

Dr Henry Bieler’s clinical work on arthritis provides a concrete instantiation of the framework. Bieler described arthritis as the result of toxic overload and characterised it as “vicarious elimination through the middle skin” — his term for the connective tissues surrounding joints.¹⁵ When the primary routes of elimination (liver, kidneys, bowel, skin surface) are overloaded, the body attempts elimination through secondary routes. Toxins deposit in joint tissues. The body mounts an inflammatory response to dissolve the deposits. The response is labelled arthritis.

The Arthritis Foundation’s official position states: “Right now, because scientists don’t fully understand the causes or mechanisms behind these diseases, true prevention seems to be impossible.”¹⁶

The absence of understanding is not a neutral epistemic fact. It is a structural choice. Investigation of toxic and nutritional causation has been systematically underfunded because the resulting findings would implicate the food supply, the pharmaceutical pipeline, and the chemical industries.

Meanwhile, the same establishment literature acknowledges that statin drugs produce arthritic symptoms. Dean documents that many patients taking statins are unaware that their new aches, pains, and joint deterioration are drug-induced.¹² The condition the Arthritis Foundation declares incurable and of unknown cause is, in a measurable percentage of cases, a side effect of another drug — documented in the prescribing information of that drug, acknowledged by the institutions, and nonetheless presented to patients as a separate disease requiring its own pharmaceutical management.

A 2002 review documented over seventy medications that produce conditions labelled autoimmune — conditions that resolve when the medication is removed.¹⁷ The conditions that resolve when the drug stops were never diseases. They were drug injuries with an inflammatory repair response attached. The label “autoimmune” — the body attacking itself — converted a pharmaceutical side effect into a lifelong diagnosis.

The establishment, confronted by the accumulating weight of its own contradictions regarding autoimmunity, has generated a new diagnostic category. The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases now describes “autoinflammatory diseases” as conditions in which “this innate immune system causes inflammation for unknown reasons.”²⁰ The reason is unknown because the investigation that would reveal it has not been conducted. The terrain framework requires no such holding area. The cause is toxic injury. The body is repairing. The repair is being suppressed. The “unknown reasons” are unknown only to a framework that has excluded environmental and toxicological causation from its investigative priorities.

The Business Logic

In April 2018, Goldman Sachs analyst Salveen Richter published a research note titled “The Genome Revolution” that asked the question: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” The answer, from the perspective of sustained cash flow, was that it is not. Curing eliminates the customer. Richter cited Gilead Sciences’ hepatitis C treatments as the case study — cure rates above 90 percent, followed by revenue collapse from $12.5 billion to under $4 billion as the treatable patient pool shrank.¹⁸

The inflammation-as-cause framework is the intellectual infrastructure of a business model that requires the opposite of curing. If inflammation is the cause, treatment is suppression. Suppression does not resolve the underlying condition. The patient remains on the drug. The prescription renews. The revenue recurs. The condition progresses, requiring stronger drugs and additional drugs. The revenue grows.

If inflammation is reframed as what it is — the body’s repair response to toxic injury — the entire treatment model inverts. Remove the toxin, let the repair complete, and the patient heals. No recurring prescription, no escalating drug cascade, no lifelong management programme. No customer.

The global anti-inflammatory drug market — NSAIDs, corticosteroids, biologics, immunosuppressants, and the expanding supplement industry — exceeds $120 billion annually.¹⁹ This revenue depends on a single premise remaining unchallenged: that the body’s attempt to heal itself is the disease.

The One Episode

Cowan offered a clinical observation drawn from decades of practice that deserves its own space, because it explains why most people who attempt to leave the suppression model fail and conclude that the drug was necessary.

When someone has chronically suppressed a condition — recurrent UTIs with antibiotics, asthma with inhalers, arthritis with NSAIDs or steroids — and they do everything right (remove the toxic exposure, correct the nutritional deficiency, change the environmental conditions), they will almost without exception go through one full episode of the original condition.⁶

The body has to complete what was interrupted. The demolition that was halted must resume. The inflammation that was suppressed must run its course. This single unsuppressed episode is uncomfortable, sometimes frightening, and it is the moment most people reach for the drug again. The drug provides immediate relief. The patient concludes: “I tried going without it and the disease came back. I need this medication.”

What actually happened: the body resumed repair. The repair was uncomfortable. The patient stopped the repair. The condition remains unresolved.

Cowan’s observation, from clinical experience, is that this pattern holds in nearly every case: one episode, handled with supportive measures rather than suppressive drugs, and the condition genuinely resolves. The body finishes the demolition, completes the remodelling, and the joint works, the lungs clear, the UTI does not recur. After that one episode, the patient is done — provided the cause has been addressed.⁶

The framework demands something that suppressive medicine never asks of the patient: the willingness to feel worse before feeling better, to let the body complete its work without chemical interruption, to trust a process that every medical authority — mainstream and alternative alike — has told you is the enemy.

Two Trajectories

Consider a woman in her fifties who develops joint pain. An ordinary story. Millions of people live some version of it.

In the first trajectory, she visits her doctor. Blood tests show elevated inflammatory markers. She is diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, a condition labelled autoimmune — her body is attacking her own joints. She is prescribed an NSAID. The joint pain improves. Six months later, she develops stomach pain. The NSAID has damaged her gastric lining. A proton pump inhibitor is added. The joint pain returns, worse. She is moved to prednisone. The inflammation subsides. Her blood sugar rises. Her bones begin thinning. A bisphosphonate is added for the bones. The prednisone is tapered but cannot be discontinued; each attempt brings the inflammation roaring back. She is moved to methotrexate. Liver function must now be monitored. She is tired all the time. She is on four medications. Her doctor tells her the disease is progressing. A biologic TNF-alpha inhibitor is discussed. It costs tens of thousands of dollars a year and carries warnings about lymphoma and serious infections. She is fifty-three years old and she will be on these drugs for the rest of her life.

No one, at any point, asked what was damaging her joints.

In the second trajectory, the same woman with the same joint pain asks a different question. Not “how do I stop the inflammation?” but “what is provoking it?” She discovers she has been taking a statin for eight years — a drug documented to produce arthritic symptoms. She discovers the synthetic vitamin D and calcium supplements she has taken daily are forming deposits in her joint tissues. She discovers the seed oils in her diet are oxidised compounds that provoke inflammatory response. She discovers the household cleaning products she uses daily contain chemicals documented to disrupt inflammatory signalling.

She stops the statin. She stops the synthetic supplements. She changes her diet. She replaces the household chemicals. The inflammation, predictably, does not vanish immediately. It intensifies — the demolition crew, freed from suppression, resumes work. Her joints ache. They swell. She is frightened. She does not take the drug. She uses supportive measures. The episode runs its course. The swelling subsides. The pain diminishes. The joint moves freely. Six months later, she is on no medications. Her joints work. The condition that was labelled progressive, incurable, and autoimmune has resolved.

The difference between these two trajectories is not better medicine. It is a different understanding of what inflammation is. In the first, inflammation is the disease and suppression is the treatment. In the second, inflammation is the healing and the cause of the damage is the treatment target. The biology is the same woman, the same joints, the same inflammatory response. The outcomes are unrecognisable from each other.

The body was never the problem. The body was the solution, working as designed, attempting to repair what had been damaged, asking only to be permitted to finish.

How to Explain It to a 6-Year-Old

When you fall over and scrape your knee, something happens to the scraped part. It goes red. It feels warm. It puffs up a little. It hurts.

That’s your body sending its repair crew to fix the scrape. The redness is extra blood arriving, carrying everything your body needs to rebuild the skin. The warmth is the repair crew working. The puffiness is the extra supplies they brought. The hurting is your body telling you to be careful with that knee while the work gets done.

After a few days, the redness goes away. The warmth goes away. The puffiness goes down. The skin is healed. Your body did the whole job by itself. The repair crew showed up, did the work, and went home.

That process — the redness, the warmth, the puffiness — is called inflammation. It’s not a problem. It’s the fix.

Now imagine something different. Imagine someone keeps putting something bad on your knee — a chemical that irritates the skin — every single day. Your body would keep sending the repair crew, every single day. The redness wouldn’t go away because the damage wouldn’t stop.

Now imagine a doctor looks at your red, puffy knee and says: “The redness is the problem. Let me give you a cream that stops the redness.” You put on the cream. The redness goes away. But the chemical is still there, still irritating your skin, and now your body can’t send the repair crew because the cream stopped it. The damage gets worse underneath, where you can’t see it.

The doctor says: “The disease is getting worse. You need a stronger cream.”

That’s what happens to grown-ups all over the world, except it’s not a scraped knee. It’s their joints, or their lungs, or their stomach. Something is hurting them — something in their food, or their water, or their house, or their medicine. Their body tries to fix it. A doctor gives them a drug to stop the fixing. The damage gets worse. They get more drugs.

Inflammation is never the problem. Inflammation is always the repair crew. The only real question is: what’s causing the damage? Find that, and stop it, and the repair crew finishes the job and goes home — just like it did with your scraped knee.

---

References

¹ National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “Inflammation.” https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/conditions/inflammation

² Pahwa R, Goyal A, Jialal I. “Chronic Inflammation.” StatPearls, National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493173/

³ Grand View Research. “Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Market Report, 2030.” Market valued at USD 22.58 billion in 2024.

⁴ AbbVie annual reports; compiled revenue data. Humira (adalimumab) lifetime revenue approximately $238 billion through 2024, peaking at $21.2 billion in 2022.

⁵ Herbert Shelton. Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life. Cited in Lester and Parker, What Really Makes You Ill?

⁶ Thomas Cowan. Wednesday Webinar, April 15, 2026.

⁷ Ellis S, Lin EJ, Tarber D. “Immunology of Wound Healing.” Current Dermatology Reports 7, no. 4 (2018): 350–358. See also PMC review: “Acute Inflammation in Tissue Healing.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9820461/

⁸ “Introduction: oxidation and inflammation, a molecular link between non-communicable diseases.” 2014.

⁹ “The role of oxidative stress during inflammatory processes.” 2014.

¹⁰ “The Evolution of Free Radicals and Oxidative Stress.” June 2000.

¹¹ National Institutes of Health, reviewed in Andrew Kaufman, “Healthy Living” livestream on inflammation. Sources: NIH chronic inflammation review; Furman et al., “Chronic inflammation in the etiology of disease across the life span,” Nature Medicine 25 (2019): 1822–1832.

¹² Carolyn Dean. Death by Modern Medicine. NSAID adverse event ranking from French general-practice survey.

¹³ David Graham, FDA testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, November 18, 2004. Published study: Graham et al., The Lancet 365, no. 9458 (2005): 475–481.

¹⁴ Thomas Cowan. The Contagion Myth (2020).

¹⁵ Henry Bieler. Food Is Your Best Medicine (1965).

¹⁶ Arthritis Foundation. “How to Prevent Arthritis.” https://www.arthritis.org

¹⁷ “Environmental chemicals and autoimmune disease: cause and effect.” December 2002.

¹⁸ Salveen Richter, Goldman Sachs. “The Genome Revolution.” April 10, 2018. Reported by CNBC, April 11, 2018.

¹⁹ Towards Healthcare. “Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Market.” Global market valued at USD 122.32 billion in 2024, including NSAIDs, biologics, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants.

²⁰ National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS). “Understanding Autoinflammatory Diseases.” https://www.niams.nih.gov