What we have traditionally called an adjustment reaction should be more appropriately called an adjustment response. Reaction has a negative connotation. Two of the three responses are not necessarily negative and the third is not the result of the adjustment but of the universal force of the adjustic thrust which may or may not be accompanied by an adjustment.
Hey Joe,
What exactly are the three responses? Reduction of subluxation, restoration of force, and possible micro-trauma?
This is why I would like to have your books on a searchable CD, so I wouldn’t have to bother you so often with what is quite possibly silly questions. PLEASE PLEASE make some CDs
yes, I agree! Adjustment response is better!
Better, worse & no change đŸ™‚
Could they still not remain separate entities with separate definitions?
For example, using “adjustment reaction” (with its negative connotation and all) could be as the “third” example above.
But it would also seem that “adjustment response” is just that. An innate response to the innate adjustment, none of which would be negative, but rather a perfect response for the given situation. Even if that response appears to be “better, worse or no change”, which is a subjective and usually symptomatic outcome. And that “response”, would be directly related to the adjustment because are both innately driven, but may or may not be directly related the universal forces from the adjustic thrust.
Just a thought…
Michael, you are correct. They are seperate entiies. I guess the only problem I would have is defining the ‘third” example as adjustment reaction. There can never be anything negative about what the ii of the body does.(even though we may perceive it as negative e.g.vomiting after an adjustment). If the adjustic thrust is a universal force,(and it is)then it has the potential to be destructive toward structural matter, unless adapted by the PMs ii. The educated universal force is either good educated, exactly what the ii of the Pms body needs, or bad educated,too much force in which case it is more correctly called a universal force or “adjustic thrust reaction”. Good observation/example of why we need a specific and technical vocabulary. Thanks
Where does re-tracing fit into this discussion?
Richie, IMO, retracing iaddresses the symptoms of disease and is not an NTOSC issue but a TSC one. Second the assumption is that retracing is good. I’m not sure we can legitimately make that assumption. It necessitates a diagnosis/prognosis.