Symptomatic Therapy?

May 8, 2021 Health & Healing No Comments

If the symptom is a symbol of oneself, and one attacks the symptom, one attacks oneself. That doesn’t seem like the best way.

It’s not always bad to tackle the symptom.

While nature inside you heals itself, it may be OK to have fewer symptoms as long as this doesn’t stand in the way of nature’s healing. This is how most medications work. [see: “Most drugs are sheer symptomatic”]

Even more, temporary relief of symptoms may be needed to get past an acute episode that might lead to negative consequences, even death.

Listening to symptoms

In psycho-somatics, the symptom can frequently be seen as an attempt of communication from the deeper mind-body. In such cases – and there are many – it is better to listen. As such, one can also avoid the need for the symptoms to shout even louder. [see: “Those Who Do Not Want to Listen, Will Get Symptoms”]

Of course, listening to symptoms this way is not always straightforward. That is why AURELIS lends much support.

Merely symptomatic therapy

If the goal of therapy is only to get rid of the symptom as easily and quickly – and cheaply – as possible, one may be asking for troubles.

Nature calls ― you don’t listen ― nature calls harder for you to open yourself. Keeping closed may be more comfortable in the short term, but not therefore in the longer term.

Poetically said:

If the flower bud doesn’t open…

You may find two ‘AURELIS metaphors’ about this in free e-book 2 on this website (also on smartphone).

Unfortunately, much therapy is merely symptomatic.

This includes all circumstances in which one relies exclusively on placebo. [see: “Placebo Based Medicine”] Placebo is one-way communication, an instrument that doesn’t intrinsically respect nature. No invitation for the bud to open ― quite the contrary.

In this, it is different from empathy. [see: “Empathy vs. Placebo”]

Patient consent

It is less evident but much more important that patients should know when their treatment is symptomatic and what this means in-depth, also in the long-term.

Scientific studies in this sense are challenging. In other words, we don’t know much about long-term effects ― but we should. In the long term, symptomatic therapy might be dangerous.

This may be a very inconvenient truth in many ways. It may be a healing one if we act upon it.

[see: “Only Truth Can Truly Cure”]

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Can I? Should I? Will I? (in Medicine)

A time of many crises is also a time of many opportunities. In medicine, the challenge is that of a radical turnover. Are we ready? Is medicine ready? ►►►WHY read this? For physicians and patients alike, to go with the flow will lead to a different flow, soon enough.◄◄◄ Physicians used to be magicians. We’re Read the full article…

Psychosomatics in $$

This text contains crude approximations. Nevertheless, the information may altogether give some idea that, according to me, is realistic. (numbers are taken from Health System Tracker, a trustworthy source if ever there is one) Fact: the projected healthcare costs in the US accrue to $17000 per capita in 2027. There are +/- 330 million citizens Read the full article…

Double-Blind in the Balance

Double-blind studies are under siege and rightly so. Let’s heighten the standard. See also my scientific article: Serial Treatment Assumption Testing (STAT) Towards Better Evidence for Evidence-Based Medicine. A double-blind study compares a group of people undergoing an active medical treatment with a group that – apart from the therapeutic effect – receives an almost Read the full article…

Translate »