Hmmm, excuse my low level of knowledge but I thought I had seen somewhere one of the reasonable theories regarding fibromyalgia was it was a low level of inflammation within the body. Maybe a historical item since disproved?? I am early in my journey of understanding so I apologise if I am barking up the wrong tree.
No worry, no apologies, always good to re-think things, and it's seldom black and white.
After trying to think it thru I think the bottom line is that inflammation may seem to be a part of fibro in many of us, but can't help
diagnose it.
It's true, people have suggested fibro might have "to do" with inflammation, and the fact that some pro-, but also some
anti-inflammatory cytokines are associated with fibro, means it can't be excluded as a
factor. But association isn't
causation, and also means only
some people have it, which then can't be used diagnostically, like Gillis does. (Dreadful for someone diagnosed with fibro doing Gillis' test and getting told it's not fibro, as I read a few times.)
For that reason, they stopped calling it fibrosi
tis in the 70s. Cytokines aren't usually even measured, similar to all the other biomarkers. Any normally detectable inflammatory markers would suggest we have something else than fibro, and that's something that has never been different.
Of course many of us may have some inflammation, but that's then from some co-morbidity or can't be explained, cos there's no pattern. And NSAID (AI = anti-inflammatory) meds may be tried, with greatly differing success.
Presently, two main "reasonable theories" about causation are that it's "central sensitization"(CSS) and "autoimmune". CSS means our pain needs to be defined as "nociplastic", neither nociceptive nor neuropathic, so without injury or inflammation. (We may also have the other pain types, but these aren't distinctive for fibro.) Autoimmune does have to do with inflammation, but there again the mechanism is unclear, also whether that theory holds true. The 2021 study isn't particularly convincing.