Talk:Craniosacral therapy

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

get rid of the word "non-existant" and other claims or there being no palpable rhythm, there has been many studies recording and measuring the movement of the cranial bones and the body's cranialsacral rhythym: https://www.iahe.com/docs/articles/Article__-_CranioSacral_Therapy_Research.pdf 2600:100E:B069:94F0:947:4ED2:5C08:ED34 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Upledger is not a reliable source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? Why is Upledger NOT a reliable source?

I took the class because of how it had helped me, and I found it fascinating. Until the people 'claiming the rights' to this article have actually experienced the therapy, they should not be allowed to be authors or have any say in the rejecting of edits, which pushes a negative view of this type of physical and mental health therapy. What would be nice is to have a neutral article about CST. Redpilltaken (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Normally I would just delete your comment as trolling, but you seem sincere, so I'll take the time to answer you. (I am amazed you didn't get blocked for your first edit and reactions back in 2013.) Now you're back and showing a fringe attitude, and this is your first post? Do better. Do some research about how we work here. Any more stuff like this and your comments will just be removed, and you may face a block as WP:NOTHERE.

You ask "Why? Why is Upledger NOT a reliable source?" Because that source does not pass muster as a WP:MEDRS. It's a promotional source with some opinions and claims. So what?

Your personal experiences are nice for you, but not usable for content here. As a medical professional myself (two medical higher educations), I have some experience too. Is it legitimate content here? No. The educations do give me some insights and abilities to vet sources and claims, but, ultimately, we base all content on reliable sources, not personal experiences and educations, and medical claims must pass the standards of MEDRS. (If you think that Wikipedia bends to the ideas and whims of subject matter experts when they insist their word should just be accepted on a topic, think again. We have blocked an international expert, Nobel Prize laureate, in physics because they would not base all their edits on independent RS.)

I have deliberately not taken the offered course work for CST, largely because I already knew it was bunk, right from the first time I was exposed to it by a teacher in my education. I refused to even answer some questions on it in a final exam and got a lower grade in that class. (Big deal, I aced the rest!) Then I discussed it and learned more from colleagues who did take the course work and exposed its woo-woo, cultish, aspects. It's pseudoscientific junk.

We all have opinions, and it's sometimes interesting to discuss, especially on personal talk pages, but be careful not to get into WP:NOTFORUM territory on an article talk page like this. If you want to make any impact here as an editor, then put your opinions aside and base your content and discussions on reliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

I would like to suggest additional text be added to the following sections:

Systematic review: In studies to try and prove the efficacy of Craniosacral Therapy, the evidence is mixed, though overall they do suggest potential benefits.

A study published in December 2014 found that CST may “effectively reduce the intensity and frequency of pain in patients with non-specific low back pain”.

In a randomized control trial in August 2016, “patients receiving craniosacral therapy experienced greater improvement in pain intensity”.

Regulation:

People who are practitioners of CST may voluntarily register with a professional body. In the UK, Craniosacral Therapy practitioners may be registered with associations including the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the UK or the [& Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC)], a government-supported organisation set up to protect the public by “providing an independent UK register of complementary healthcare practitioners.”

In North America, practitioners may register with the Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy Association of North America (BCTA/NA). Practitioners who are registered with the CSTA or the BCTA/NA use the initials RCST (Registered Craniosacral Therapist) to denote professional accreditation. Laurel Garcia (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done WP:MEDRS is needed for WP:BMI; the regulation stuff appears to have attracted no interest outside its fringe milieu. Bon courage (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This should be taken down

This is incredibly biased. If you want to question the validity of craniosacral therapy, you should be using science to prove that rather than solely throwing stones at a practice that works for many people. It is completely untrue that the rhythm is “non-existent.” It has already been proven that there is a rhythm to the craniosacral system. You can find that with a simple google search, let alone looking at scholarly articles. 2601:183:427E:6120:F152:CA5B:6D10:C63C (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

We await you listing those WP:MEDRS sources for us, since nobody else has been able to find them. The article is based on the reliable sources that have been found. DMacks (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to be neutral

This article needs to be reviewed and altered for neutrality. Neurologyman (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is a component of WP:NPOV. Acroterion (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)