Symptom Suppressive and Expressive Conflict

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/01/27/what-causes-heart-disease-part-forty-five/#comment-88693 

While his discoveries or findings were summarily dismissed by dictate of power and not reason, Dr Hamer posited that the activation of the sympathetic response (as a biological extension of psychic shock) is symptom suppressive in disease relating to specific embryonic antecedence of biological function, and only in the resolving of the issue (parasympathetic phase) would the symptoms of disease present.

Hamer's system did not - as I see it - address toxicity and malnutrition so much as the 'disease' events arising from psychic-emotional shocks - which without understanding can be self-looping or expanding.

While his own practice was fundamentally the opening or arriving at such understanding rather than combatting disease, in being brought to prosecution, his patients over many years were investigated to find ANY that could be focussed on to assign death by negligence. Out of 5000 or so no hopers abandoned by the medical system his practice has something over 90% survival after 5 years. Of course Hamer could be deluded - along with his patients - in accidentally undermining the nocebo effect that fulfils its own diagnosis under authority.

But the principle of the suppression (in most cases) of symptom in conflict-active phase is simply known, but when the drama is released - all kinds of other facets of the body-mind have to realign or rebalance.

In modern thinking - if we can ennoble it thus - the idea is to deny and suppress symptoms as if they are the disease, and of course some symptoms are deadly and intervention is called for.

This corresponds with the evading of (responsibility for) psychic-emotional issues that Dr kendrick might assign under 'strain'. Some of which is like the tip of the iceberg - and much of which is hidden but no less active in distorting our lives.

I don't know if vit D is immunosuppressive via activation of the sympathetic response. I have read that echinacea is. When is it desirable to persist in action and defer a necessary rebalancing? Sometimes. But if this becomes a default, do we 'pile up our troubles in hell' to a sudden reckoning, when it all breaks loose?

Conflict aversion is conflict protected against healing. 

But resolved conflicts allow otherwise repressed self (life) to rise to the light of an acceptance, recognition and gratitude. Industries (or identities) depending on conflict - like certain bacteria or fungal infections - work against such a change in environment. Sickness can also work the stick when the carrot failed to lure - and bring back to a sense of safety in the 'devil we know'.