Chronic inflammation...growing awareness of its importance but blindness as to a signficant cause.

The mRNA injections are prime suspects.

According to this WSJ article (also downloadable as a PDF below), there is growing understanding of the harm that chronic inflammation can cause to human health.

Chronic Inflammation Wsj

1.51MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The article reports on how a new buzzword - “inflammaging” - has been coined, to characterise the extremely harmful combination of aging and chronic inflammation.

Of course, as would be expected from an establishment mouthpiece, the first place one should look for strategies to ameliorate this process, ahead of diet, exercise, stress relief, weight loss, or any other widely available and free approach, is:

Anyway, this article immediately made me think of the injections known as covid vaccines, specifically the mRNA products.

In my opinion, as well as some pretty nasty acute side-effects, these also highly likely to cause chronic inflammation.

Given what we know about their mode of action, it’s a virtual certainty:

We know that:

• The products are widely distributed throughout the body.

• The products instruct cells throughout the body to manufacture a foreign protein.

• The protein created has characteristics which make it different to anything naturally occurring (likely making it even more antigenic).

• A technical issue called frameshifting likely results in an admixture of “nonsense” proteins being created, which will also be pro-inflammatory.

• Anti-spike antibodies are detected for months or years after injection strongly suggesting prolonged action.

• The LNPs themselves are pro-inflammatory.

This is such a potent combination, it looks to all the world as if the mRNA injections were designed in order to promote inflammation.

Real-world signals suggest this is a reality.

This paper from South Korea essentially confirms this. I wrote a piece about it, which the Daily Sceptic picked up. Click on the picture to go to the article.

The fact that much harm is mediated through chronic inflammation means it may well go unnoticed.

In this article - again picked up by the Daily Sceptic, I describe how, because of the chronic long-term nature of the harms, it is unlikely that the link between the mRNA injections and chronic inflammation will be made any time soon.

As I wrote in that article:

Much of the harm observed appears to be inflammatory or autoimmune in nature. Both these processes are usually chronic, not acute problems. It is perfectly possible that once started, they continue for months or even years. Notably, chronic inflammation is thought to have a central role in many of the chronic pathologies increasingly suffered by Westerners over the past few decades.

Hence the tail of visible harm could manifest over a long timeframe. Moreover, because chronic inflammatory and autoimmune processes, by their nature, build slowly over time, the individual is likely to become habituated to ill effects, until a critical event occurs after some longer period.

A good example of this is with coronary artery disease. It is thought that inflammation is an important part of the pathophysiology in which a ‘plaque’ builds up in the arterial wall. This may be asymptomatic until it ruptures causing a total blockage resulting in a ‘heart attack’. If the injections are accelerating this inflammatory process, the course of the pathological process may appear identical to that previously seen in many people, although it has been brought on and accelerated beyond what that person would otherwise have experienced; however, because it is within the range of possible or even probable illnesses observed, it gets dismissed as ‘one of those things’.

Cigarette manufacturers used to deny their products caused lung cancer by pointing out non-smokers who suffered the same fate.  It was, in fact, only by rigorous epidemiological analysis that the link could be unequivocally proven. For the Covid injections, it is deeply concerning that authorities seem to be doing everything possible to hinder access to the data which would permit such analyses to be performed.

Another reason why harms may be difficult to identify is that in some cases the pathological processes may be merely reducing physiological reserve, something which can go unnoticed for years or decades. Most of the body’s systems have significant inbuilt redundancy, which is why a kidney, or a significant part of the liver, can be lost while still maintaining good physiological and biochemical control. But if someone loses a kidney, they are more likely to suffer renal failure as they get older and the efficiency of their kidneys declines, and the available reserve falls away. Likewise, if part of the heart is damaged when young (e.g. through myocarditis), the person may well make a full recovery in the short term in the sense of being physiologically normal, but be more vulnerable to suffering from heart failure (where the heart can’t pump blood around the body sufficiently) after losing some more heart muscle tissue after – say – a heart attack in middle age.

Finally, it should be noted that because of the wide distribution throughout the body (something rather obvious given the wide range of reports in the various adverse event databases), the harms appear to be manifesting in an extremely wide variety of symptoms and disorders. These will be problematic to diagnose, requiring lengthy and complex investigation, with multiple pathologies being possible. Such profiles of types of harms have not generally been observed with pharmaceutical products before; in most cases, the adverse effects are more limited in scope, and more closely temporally related to dosing (though there are some exceptions).

In light of the above, it is even more concerning that some people are now on their 10th injection of mRNA, and the program continues unabated.