My .02:
Cure is not always a one-shot deal, but I would not call it *rare*...
Personally I too still get more than my share of "misses", but the
cures have made it worth it!
Not only that, but also that there was no *worsening* to be found,
along with the local and/or temporary improvement. (Sometimes the
effect of suppression may be delayed and/or inobvious, it's true.)
Usually? That depends!
*If* there was a curative process, that only needed more repetition
and/or higher potency, then what you saw was not palliation, but rather
steps toward cure.
Palliation by definition is temporary improvement *without* any actual
lasting improvement. There too the boundaries can be somewhat
fuzzy--sufficient palliation can give the body "space" to begin working
toward cure--except that, if the disease is chronic / miasmatic, then
the body would not be able to accomplish that on its own *unless* the
deeper weakness is also being addressed.
Suppression means that one thing / area got better *and another got
worse*.
Suppression *by definition* means that the person is now WORSE off than
they were before. If they are better off, then yeah, you could call it
a layer, and you could call it simply a step on the road toward
cure--it's not suppression, by definition.
However--
I do think it's true that if we view suppression with "shock and awe"
and immediately jump to antidote, we may be simply missing the next
best prescribing opportunity. If the "suppressed" state is strong
enough to *need* handling, beyond just letting it pass, then likely it
is presenting symptoms strong enough to be guiding, and they will be
coming from the next-most-compromised part of the physiology.
Confession--I have this opinion / understanding not on basis of my own
experience, but on basis of [my memory and understanding of] talks
years back by Ian Watson. He convinced me, tho.
So, if someone
feels I've misstated this, or that it's simply not true, I'll happily
stand for correction!
The nature of *chronic* disease is that it worsens over time.
So, going back to the "deeper" layer should be to a *less* compromised
state, not a worse one.
Leaving the person overall worse off than they were before--*in spite
of* local and/or temporary improvement. Is it common? No! Does it
happen? Yes, or so I read.
What you're describing sounds like "de-compensation", which seems like
it could also happen in a suppressed state, and I would agree that that
could be useful to the prescriber -- goes, I think, with Ian's
position.
Cheers,
Shannon