Over the years, I have noticed an interesting pattern in patients beginning treatment.
Sometimes I recommend a medication or supplement and the patient is genuinely excited to start it. They understand why we're using it, feel hopeful about what it might accomplish, and are ready to move forward.
Other times, I recommend essentially the same treatment and can immediately sense fear.
The patient may have had bad experiences with medications in the past. They may have read frightening stories online. They may have become accustomed to reacting poorly to almost everything they try. Sometimes they simply have a feeling that their body won't tolerate it.
And I've noticed that these two patients often have very different treatment experiences.
The patient who feels comfortable and optimistic about the treatment often seems to tolerate it more easily. The patient who is frightened may notice symptoms almost immediately, struggle to continue, or become increasingly convinced that the treatment is harming them.
For years, I thought about this primarily as a clinical observation.
But there is actually a growing body of science that helps explain why this might happen.
Because fear isn't simply an emotion.
Fear creates a physiological state.
Your Brain Is Constantly Trying to Keep You Safe
One of the brain's most important jobs is predicting danger.
It doesn't simply wait for something bad to happen and then respond. It continuously uses previous experiences, information from the environment, and signals from within the body to predict what might happen next.
Most of the time, this is incredibly useful.
If you once became violently ill after eating a particular food, simply smelling that food again may make your stomach turn. If you've been bitten by a dog, seeing an unfamiliar dog approaching may cause your heart to race before you've consciously decided whether the animal is dangerous.
Your brain learned from experience and is attempting to protect you.
The same learning can occur with medical treatment.
Many people with complex chronic illness have spent years trying medications, supplements, diets and protocols. Some have experienced genuine adverse reactions. Others have repeatedly started treatments only to feel worse. Eventually, the nervous system begins to recognize a pattern:
Treatment might mean danger.
So the next time a new bottle appears on the kitchen counter, the physiological response may begin before the first pill is even swallowed.
What Happens When the Brain Expects Something Bad?
Once the brain perceives a threat, the body prepares accordingly.
The sympathetic nervous system becomes more active. Muscles tighten. Heart rate can increase. Digestion changes. Sleep can become more difficult. Attention narrows toward potential danger.
The stress-response system and immune system are also intimately connected. Signals from the autonomic nervous system and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis influence inflammatory and immune activity throughout the body.
This means the nervous system's interpretation of an experience can influence very real physical processes.
It also changes what we notice.
Imagine starting a medication you're convinced will give you a headache. You swallow the pill and begin watching.
Twenty minutes later, your forehead feels a little tight.
Is it starting?
An hour later, you're tired.
Is that the medication?
Your stomach feels slightly different after dinner.
Am I reacting?
These sensations aren't imaginary. The question is whether they would have attracted the same attention—or carried the same meaning—if you weren't expecting something to go wrong.
When the nervous system believes danger may be present, it becomes exceptionally good at finding evidence of it.
The Nocebo Effect
Medicine has a name for part of this phenomenon: the nocebo effect.
Most people are familiar with the placebo effect, in which positive expectations and the context surrounding treatment can contribute to improvement.
The nocebo effect is essentially its counterpart. Negative expectations surrounding a treatment can increase the likelihood that someone experiences symptoms or side effects beyond what would be expected from the pharmacologic effects of the treatment alone.
This has been demonstrated repeatedly in clinical research.
In blinded medication trials, for example, people receiving an inactive placebo frequently report side effects they were warned could occur with the actual medication. Research has also shown that what clinicians tell patients, what patients have experienced previously, and even what they observe happening to other people can influence their subsequent experience.
That doesn't mean the symptoms aren't real.
The symptoms are real. The pathway producing or amplifying them is simply more complicated than the chemical contents of the pill.
And that distinction matters enormously.
Why This May Be Especially Important in Complex Chronic Illness
I think this phenomenon becomes particularly relevant in people who have been sick for a long time.
By the time many patients arrive in my practice, their bodies have been through a lot. They may have experienced years of symptoms, multiple diagnoses, unsuccessful treatments and frightening reactions.
They have learned to pay extremely close attention to their bodies because, at some point, they had to.
A new symptom mattered.
A food really did make them sick.
A medication really did cause a reaction.
Their nervous system didn't become vigilant for no reason. It learned vigilance through experience.
But eventually that protective system can become too good at its job.
The threshold for detecting potential danger becomes lower. New foods, medications, supplements, environments and physical sensations may increasingly be interpreted as threats.
And once the brain predicts danger, the physiological stress response that follows can create additional symptoms—which then seem to confirm the original prediction.
A feedback loop develops.
I expect this to make me feel bad → my nervous system prepares for danger → I experience more physical symptoms → those symptoms confirm that the treatment is dangerous.
None of this means the underlying illness isn't biological.
It means the nervous system has become part of the biology of the illness.
This Is Not the Same as "Think Positive"
This is where the conversation can easily go wrong.
If positive expectations influence treatment response, it would be tempting to conclude that patients simply need to have a better attitude.
That's not what the science says, and it's certainly not what I mean.
Optimism cannot turn an ineffective medication into an effective one. Positive thinking doesn't eradicate an infection. A genuine medication allergy isn't going to disappear because someone believes strongly enough that the medication will be safe.
The pharmacology still matters.
The disease still matters.
But the physiological environment in which treatment occurs matters too.
A medication enters a body with a nervous system, an immune system, previous experiences, expectations and learned responses. Those systems don't suddenly become irrelevant because a prescription has been written.
The actual treatment experience is the interaction of all of them.
Why I Pay Attention When Someone Says, "I'm Afraid to Take This"
This has changed the way I respond when a patient is frightened by something I'm recommending.
My instinct isn't to tell them that their fear is irrational or that they simply need to take the medication anyway.
I want to understand what's behind it.
Sometimes the patient simply needs more information. Once they understand why I'm recommending something and what we're going to do if they experience problems, the fear decreases.
Sometimes we start at a much lower dose than usual.
Sometimes we choose a treatment the patient feels more comfortable with and come back to the other one later.
And sometimes the right answer is simply not yet.
I've increasingly come to believe that there is value in helping patients accumulate successful treatment experiences.
A person who has become convinced that their body reacts to everything may need to experience something different:
I tried this and I was okay.
Then:
I tried the next thing and I was okay too.
Little by little, the nervous system receives new information.
Treatment does not always equal danger.
That learning may be an important part of recovery in its own right.
How We Talk About Treatment Matters
This also places responsibility on those of us providing medical care.
Patients deserve informed consent. We should explain meaningful risks and potential side effects honestly.
But honest communication doesn't require frightening people.
There is a physiological difference between hearing:
"This is probably going to make you feel terrible before you feel better."
and hearing:
"Some people notice increased symptoms when they start this. If that happens, we can adjust the dose, slow things down, or take a break. We have a plan."
Both statements acknowledge that symptoms can occur.
But the first prepares the brain for danger.
The second provides information while also communicating safety, control and manageability.
That difference may matter more than we once realized.
Creating the Conditions for Healing
One of the biggest lessons I've learned from treating complex chronic illness is that choosing the right medication or supplement is only one part of treatment.
We also have to consider the body receiving it.
Is the nervous system constantly expecting danger?
Does the patient understand why we're using the treatment?
Do they feel comfortable with the plan?
Do they know what to do if something doesn't go well?
And perhaps most importantly, do they feel that they have some control over what happens next?
These aren't simply psychological considerations. They influence the physiological state in which treatment takes place.
This is also why I place so much emphasis on helping regulate the stress-response system as part of treating chronic illness. It isn't because I believe chronic illness is caused by stress or that patients can think themselves well.
It's because the nervous system, immune system, endocrine system and brain are continuously communicating with one another.
There really isn't a clean dividing line between "physical" and "psychological" physiology.
Fear has biology.
Safety has biology.
Expectation has biology.
And every treatment we give enters that biological environment.
So when a patient tells me they are deeply afraid of a treatment, I've learned not to ignore that information.
Sometimes the best treatment isn't simply the one that looks best on paper.
It's the treatment we can introduce in a way that gives both the patient and their body the greatest opportunity to succeed.
References
- Colloca L, Barsky AJ. Placebo and nocebo effects. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382:554–561.
- Benedetti F, Lanotte M, Lopiano L, Colloca L. When words are painful: unraveling the mechanisms of the nocebo effect. Neuroscience. 2007;147(2):260–271.
- Colloca L, Miller FG. The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2011;73(7):598–603.
- Blasini M, Corsi N, Klinger R, Colloca L. Nocebo and pain: an overview of the psychoneurobiological mechanisms. Pain Reports. 2017;2(2):e585.
- Kaptchuk TJ, Miller FG. Placebo effects in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;373:8–9.
- Benedetti F. Placebo and the new physiology of the doctor-patient relationship. Physiological Reviews. 2013;93(3):1207–1246.
- Wager TD, Atlas LY. The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2015;16(7):403–418.
- Colloca L, Benedetti F. Placebo analgesia induced by social observational learning. Pain. 2009;144(1–2):28–34.
- Dantzer R, O'Connor JC, Freund GG, Johnson RW, Kelley KW. From inflammation to sickness and depression: when the immune system subjugates the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2008;9(1):46–56.
- Tracey KJ. Reflex control of immunity. Nature Reviews Immunology. 2009;9(6):418–428.