Talk:Craniosacral therapy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments from Dec. 2005

A massage therapist of my acquaintance tells me she used to get severe debilitating migraine, and that these were entirely cured forever by a single treatment of craniosacral therapy. A look at the referenced research confirms this article is heavily POV against. -- 70.29.131.204 17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Find some reliable research to show that it works, and add to the article. This article has a NPOV because craniosacral therapy has been demonstrated to be junk science. By the way, did the person who was cured from the migraine live forever? --CDN99 18:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Of course death would cure migraine permanently, but no; she is alive and has never had another migraine, so one step at a time.

The "biological model" on which craniaosacral therapy is based is completely inconsistent with modern biological knowledge, the interexaminer reliability in palpation of the cranial pulse is essentially zero, and no clinical studies have been published that demonstrate efficacy of craniosacral therapy in the treatment of any specific disorder. Sometimes even intelligent people can believe really strange things.

I went down to the Toronto Science Centre to have a look at the Body Worlds 2 exhibit; it certainly appears that sometimes the cranial bones entirely fuse; but not always (and not all of them), as explained here: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/craniofacial/Education/SkullDevelopment.cfm

My own sphenoid bone is not fused to my other cranial bones; I manipulate it myself and can feel the small distortions to my face and head; I've used this to obtain relief from pressure headaches when descending in aircraft. Sometimes they've adjusted on their own, making a loud pop. Its pulse, if there is one (a very tiny movement), is not the same period as my heart rate or breath.

Category:Alternative medicine seems better than Category:Quackery, as alternative medicine just happens to be a supercategory for Quackery that includes homeopathy, which I think of as quackery anyway. -- 70.29.131.204 07:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

POV?

The headaches and popping you hear when descending in an airplane are due to barostriction, not movement of your sphenoid (how do you even know that you're manipulating your sphenoid and not some other bone?). On the Hopkins page it doesn't say which bones are fused and which aren't, and, in any case, even if some aren't fused, craniosacral therapy does nothing (see the References), so it belongs in quackery. Please read the abstracts of the papers...and if you still think that the article is written with a POV, provide some reliable research (not original research). Do not use or provide testimonials for this article as evaluation of a treatment/therapy. --CDN99 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm not an expert, so I can't be sure about all the popping sounds. But the sphenoid is easy to find: it goes through the face and you can touch it on both sides of your head and work your fingers along the sutures; the feeling of its movement is a little weird, but I know when I have it because it's one piece: small circular movements map left-to-right. The diagram, clearly shows that the sutures have a tooth-like interface. They actually articulate against each other. This is not POV but must be documented in piles of places; I am not an anatomy expert, nor do I know where to find references to this stuff, just surprised that you could call this original research?

BTW, I certainly heard a click last time I un-jammed my nasal bone. Tonight when I moved it --it didn't click but it's not jammed-- I felt sinus pressure release as other bones in my face adjusted. How can obviously easily testable stuff like this be so unknown to the world? Is medical knowledge wrapped up tightly into proprietary information silos and therefore found nowhere on Internet? Perhaps, but others may be just too lazy to do their homework.

According to [1], "autopsy from seventeen human cadavers with the age range of seven to seventy-eight years shows that these sutures remain as clearly identifiable structures even in the oldest samples. In no instance was there evidence of sutural obliteration by ossification." -- 70.29.131.204 06:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making the argument that bones in the head can't be slightly moved and that you can feel pressure when you press hard. Massaging your temples may have a relaxing effect. Reliable medical research is widely available to the public (PubMED), you just have to know where to look.

You "un-jammed" your nasal bone? There is cartilage attached to the nasal bone, and I can easily move the cartilage a bit to make a clicking sound. If bones in the head are so easy to shift, why don't kung fu experts (who have no doubt been hit many times in the face) have deformed faces as a result of bones sliding and jamming? Medical research done by a lot of responsible researchers is freely available at places like PubMED, laziness has nothing to do with it.

I went to the site and the first thing I read was the disclaimer, since it's an alternative medicine site:

The material presented by ICNR, its publisher, authors or anyone associated with this web sight is not to be construed as medical or health claims. No claim is made that such products, techniques or devices will cure or improve any health condition.

Personally, I wouldn't trust the logic of anyone who can't spell website and who doesn't take responsibility for what they write. But let's not get too far off topic; this discussion is about the effectiveness of craniosacral therapy, not the mobility of bones in the head. It has been demonstrated that this therapy is ineffective, and the article refers to the those studies, as well as the flawed studies done by proponents, so I don't see where the POV problem is. --CDN99 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh! What that says is "la la la I can't hear you". Discounting a report because of a tyop on the host's disclaimer text is much more than just POV, it says you will happily cull the set of references you will allow, based on some criterion other than what the researcher has shown. That is a curious form of extremism. --70.29.131.204 16:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, considering you're not responding to any of my arguments or any of the articles I'm providing, could that be considered extremism?...the typo was an aside, and the author was saying "I wrote this, but I'm not responsible for it, so it's not reliable." If people want respect for their work, they don't make spelling mistakes and they don't remove responsibility from themselves.

An article can't be completely wrong because a single person has an acquaintance of an acquaintance who may be an exception. --CDN99 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

a novel use of any. Articulation of cranial bones is just one of the claims. Disputed it will remain until opposing sides converge on the set of allowed references. -- 70.29.131.204 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of notability is a completely valid way to ascertain whether to include a reference or not. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 12:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As someone who was once suckered into several months worth of craniosacral therapy, I can attest to it being complete, total, utter baloney. At the time, I was seeing a physical therapist, who later went "freelance" and left the office where she was practicing. She started out doing more-or-less regular PT work on me. However, after a point, she started to see diminishing returns. Instead of saying, "hey, I can't help you," she introduced me to the wonders of Craniosacral Therapy. She was always a little sketchy on the details, and could never answer my "hard questions" to my satisfaction, but I trusted her and went through with the treatments anyway. Big mistake. I should mention that I was in a lot of pain at the time, and I would assume that most people who get suckered into CST are in serious pain. When you're in that much pain, and the traditional therapies aren't working, it is very tempting to try *ANYTHING* that promises relief. Anyway, after several months worth of sessions and a bunch of money down the drain, I finally did my research, and found out why should couldn't answer any of my "hard questions." It's because CST is total quackery. Complete, unrepeatable nonsense. CST is faith healing, people. I'm not saying that faith healing doesn't provide temporary relief, or that it's completely useless, but please, let's call a spade a spade. CST is a placebo, at best. An expensive placebo. To anyone reading this - before you pay someone lots of money to do something that sounds like magic, please do your research. --Afroblanco 05:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done and am doing the research, and I can tell you 100 percent that proprioceptive touch and CST are effective for a variety of issues. I am sorry that you consider it to be faith healing, but it is not so. Craniosacral therapists who have done the anatomical and physiological research and clinical work, can detect and treat fascial restrictions and myriad other things arising from stress, over-stimulation and general tax on the nervous system. Maybe your PT faith healer was new to CST, or did not have the proprioceptive experience or capability. However, I guarantee if you find someone who does it for a living and has studied and become certified through Sills, Upledger, and/or Milne; you will sing a different tune about the work. It is profound, physically, emotionally, and beyond. Matthew LMT May 9 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.133.29 (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your experience, while regrettable for you, in no way addresses the debate as to whether CST is a worthwhile therapy or not. By your account, physiotherapy is an equal waste of time as, from the sounds of it, it did you as much good as the CST. I have a friend who was rendered housebound by back pain. After lengthy and expensive sessions of PT, he was no better. After a matter of weeks doing CST, he had almost completely recovered and would now defend CST vehemently. Unfortunatly, his experience will do as much to appease CST's critics as yours will do to put off its proponants. Blaise Joshua 13:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Blaise, I suggest you read my comment a bit more closely. To quote myself, "However, after a point, she started to see diminishing returns." Diminishing returns, as in "was once effective, but increasingly less so." Physical therapy did help me - my symptoms decreased in intensity. However, physical therapy alone did not solve my problem, and after months of myofacial release, I was still in pain, just less pain. Fortunately, there is a happy ending to this story. I eventually went to a different PT. She noticed that myofascial release wasn't helping. However, since she knew more about my condition then my first PT, she correctly referred me to a doctor who wound up treating me for what turned out to be a known, yet rare disorder. In other words, my second PT, instead of just giving up and resorting to faith healing, referred me to an actual doctor who actually healed me. Your story about your friend falls under the category of "anecdotal evidence," and doesn't prove anything. Sugar pills have been shown to help people who thought they were taking actual medicine. I'm sorry, but there's still no good reason to discard the rigors of science in favor of faith healing and placebos.--Afroblanco 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Afroblanco, I love to learn and would like to know the name of your rare disorder which did not respond to PT or CST.Showmethedata 23:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that my friend's experience is purely anecdotal. That was my point - his is, and so is yours. I perfectly understood what you meant by diminishing returns. Again, though, it doesn't prove anything, as many treatments that would only have a placebo effect would have diminishing returns. As I've said before in other comments on this page, I don't know anything about CST (it's theory, it's practice, it's efficacy, etc) - I just looked it up out of curiosity after my friend's experience. However, what I do know is that (1) a better article is needed on the subject and (2) anecdotes such as yours, my friends and anyone else who has had an experience with CST won't prove or do anything to silence the critics and proponants respectively. Blaise Joshua 08:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Its all very simple, folks. If CST works then the results will show up in trials the same as everything else. Until then it is quite simply not proven, and you can argue until the cows come home.The same as levitation, alien abductions, and colonic irrigation. 18.05 19/12/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribfin (talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

There are two references to research that seem worthy of mention or further inquiry, found on one of Dr. Weil's pages at [2]. Dr. Weil writes: "For decades, mainstream medicine dismissed the notion that the cranial bones could move, an idea first put forth in the late 1930s by osteopath William Sutherland. However, researchers at Michigan State University's College of Osteopathic Medicine confirmed Sutherland's theory in the 1970s by showing cranial motion in x-ray movies of living skulls..." and "...We're also collaborating on a new study at the NIH-funded Pediatric Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine here at the university on cranial osteopathy and echinacea to break cycles of recurrent ear infections in children." I agree that the article seems negative and biased. Clearly this field lacks good research, but all valid 'proven' therapies have been theoretical at some point; lack of scientific proof only indicates more research is needed---it doesn't prove quackery. Humzummer 12:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the criticisms needed to be spelled out. Also, those articles completely demolished the basis for this "therapy", that is not exactly the same as proving it "false". Proving a negative is almost impossible and frankly is unnecessary. It is up to proponents to prove the positive. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed another phrase to clarify what source 5 said about Upledger's research. I think the new phrasing is a little clearer and more NPOV, since we are not directly commenting on the research. If anyone is good with endnotes, we need some help here. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 11:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to just put a short description of the paper in the endnote?--CDN99 14:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just having trouble with the ref|templates, maybe the ref label ones would be better. Before I started it was a mix of the two, and the links didn't work. I am using the ref template, but the numbering is off. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 15:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a new citation style that I've used in some articles, and it seems to work fine: Cite/Cite.php. I'll switch over, see what you think. --CDN99 15:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks much. I am still new at this :) --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} 15:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea wher CranioSacral Therapy is valid or not - But - I have just had a massage (not any kind of thearapy, just a treat) where, during the massage, the masseuse explained that she wasn't "resting" but was using CranioSacral techniques. While I thought that was a bit odd, the after effect of the massage (general relaxation and just plain good feelings) lasted far longer than any massage I have ever had before.

The principal difficulty appears to be that the practitioners of the art cannot agree on the frequency of the cranial pulse; this totally destroys the theory without touching the fact that this type of massage feels really good. A better theory of what's really going on is needed here. --216.234.56.130 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because most practioner's cannot decide doesn't mean that the theory is destroyed. We are not for sure if Pi goes on forever but that doesn't mean Pi is wrong, we cannot see that we are in a spiral galaxy but we are sure our theory that we are is correct. Maxownsworld 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We are sure that pi goes on forever. 210.157.231.145 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We can also see we live in a spiral galaxy...a13ean (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

POV and Uninformative

I don't know anything about craniosacral therapy and, after reading this page, I still don't know anything. This article has a very strong negative tone throughout (started with the loaded adjective 'purported') and is, in my opinion, most uninformative. If you look at other pages on alternative treatment subjects, you see much more information on the theory and practice behind the therapy (for example, on the homeopathy page) which makes for a much better and more encyclopaedic article. This article could well do with the attention of an expert in craniosacral therapy. Blaise Joshua 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see more information on official medical authorities and their positions on this therapy. The most official thing I could find was the American Cancer Institute, whose website says that "[a]vailable scientific evidence does not support claims that craniosacral therapy helps in treating cancer or any other disease". As far as I know, no national or international medical authority endorses this practice but I haven't seen any sources that directly confirm this. 210.157.231.145 (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely POV

I agree with the previous comment; the article is POV due to insinuating language and a lack of those specific details for which this site is usually well-known.

I think the article is good where it has quoted the literature--both for and against--but it needs to include more information about the actual therapy. I suggest: -A more thorough explanation of the mechanics involved (hint: why is it called craniosacral) -Vault hold -Various strain patterns -Various modalities of treatment -Indications and contraindications for therapy

Agreed. Also, why are there no links to craniosacral organisations or governing bodies? Blaise Joshua 08:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As a practitioner, I would say that the first paragraph on the Craniosacral therapy (CST) page is incorrect. Sutherland's original work is still very valid today, but we've also moved on a lot since then. We don't (never did) "press on sutures", we don't exclusively work with the "craniosacral system" (though some Cranial Osteopaths might do that, and then apply osteopathy to everything else), we certainly dont (never did) say that the Craniosacral Rhythm (CSR) is "indicative of breath/heart rate" (though it is in pathological cases, but those people are usually in intensive care or massively medicated already). The author is a layperson talking about that which he knows nuuurthing.

There are lots of readable books (try searching Amazon for the authors Frankly Sills, Michael Kern, John Upledger) - but most of the books don't really give a very good indication of what it is unless you have actually experienced it in practice. CST is primarily an experiential discipline which uses standard medical anatomy and physiology for much of its work. We do disagree with medical textbooks to some degree when it comes to cranial motion, because there is about 70 years of experiential evidence which says "there is palpable motion, and working with that motion in certain ways has quite profound healing effects". The soft underbelly of CST is its theoretical basis which comes after the palpatory experience, and often struggles to account for some of the truly odd phenomena which accompany it. There is a very dynamic interplay between experience and working models, which is leading to a very rapid development of both the practice and the working models we use. Also, CST is one of many bodywork/bodywork psychotherapy/psychotherapy modalities which are presently converging rapidly on a common philosophy of health, healing and treatment for the human being. Exciting times.

One criticism of CST is that adult sutures commonly fuse - this has been laid to rest by a re-analysis of cranial structures which argues convincingly that a) the cranium cannot possibly be totally rigid, and b) sutures are lines of folding rather like pre-folded marks on cardboard rather than necessarily being fully open REF 1.

In practice, as a scientist and engineer, I find CST can only be explained if I start to take on board fringe science - and so in some ways I would agree that it is "pseudoscience". Its experiential subjective nature is not easily fitted into a logical mainstream scientific framework - if I believe that science has pretty well described the universe we live in. In truth, I dont believe science is anywhere close to describing the universe, and certainly not close to describing how living organisms work. I have regular talks with a cell biologist who (though he might disagree with some of my opinions) agrees wholeheartedly with that one. Actually, most skeptical criticism which applies the label "pseudoscisnce" is itself pseudoscientific, precisely because it applies Ockham's razor like Freddy in a slasher movie. William of Ockham would not have approved. Dictostelium 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Subsection

I dont' know what everyone's thoughts are on this, but I don't like the sub-subheadings (so to speak) in the 'Criticisms' section. Not only is it aesthetically jarring but it seems redundant too, as the paragraphs explaining the sub-subheadings are so short that the whole section could easily be condensed into one paragraph under the subheading of 'Criticisms'. What do you all think? Blaise Joshua 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope the new formatting is satisfactory. It is still far too small a section, considering the much larger sections above it where pseudoscience is presented as fact, which is a violation of NPOV policy. That needs to be corrected, but right now this will have to do. -- Fyslee 22:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Some further changes have been made to the PRM section, could you say if it still violates NPOV and hopefully it can be fixed --apers0n 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the criticisms would be better spread throughout the article. Instead of one section at the end of the article saying, effectively, "none of these fact-claims have support from the medical or scientific community", for example, I think it would be better to have each claim in the article addressed individually in the PRM section.210.157.231.145 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest changing the wording of in the abstact. It states that practitioners "manually apply a subtle movement of the spinal and cranial bones to bring the central nervous system into harmony". I argue that the therapy is not manipulative. This wording implies that the practitioner applies pressure to the patient's cranial bones. In the opening of, Franklyn Sills', "Craciosacral Biodynamics", Volume One, 2001, it states, "The heart of clinical practice is listening...From this ground, it is possible to form clear and healing relationships with others"(3). The cranio concept doesn't include manipulation of the patient. I suggest a change of the introduction to cranio in this article.

---

A few comments on the article :

I've edited the first paragraph (below) - **round additions**, and XXaround deletionsXX

Craniosacral Therapy (also called **CST, cranio-sacral therapy**, cranial osteopathy, osteopathy in the cranial field, cranial therapy **or sacro-occipital therapy**) is a method of alternative medicine used by craniosacral therapists or osteopaths to assess and enhance the functioning of the patient by accessing XXtheir primary respiratory mechanism, which consists of the membranes and cerebrospinal fluid of the central nervous system.XX and working with various types of motion inherent in the connective tissue and fluid systems of the body. CST originated as Cranial Osteopathy, and was adapted by Dr John E Upledger based on his clinical experience, and after developing tissue memory models whilst working as part of a biophysics research team at Michigan State University in the 1970's. Upledger went on to found the Upledger Institute, and subsequently CST training courses were started by other people in Europe and the USA. The main differences between CST and Cranial Osteopathy (or Sacro-Occipital Therapy as practiced by Chiropracters) is that CST practitioners work with the whole body using a common treatment philosophy rather than just the head and spine, and they usually work with longer treatments (up to one hour) to allow tissue memory to unfold rather than the 10 or 15 minutes more common with Cranial Osteopaths. These differences are not so clear cut between indivisual practitioners.

Actually, the above information about John Upledger and the origins of CST is not quite accurate. I am an osteopathic physician who trained at Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine while John Upledger was on staff, engaged in the research referenced above. I am presently president of The Cranial Academy, and have been practicing Osteopathy in the Cranial Field for 26 years. John Upledger was trained to perceive cranial motion, and apply the cranial concept in practice by the students of Dr. Sutherland. He was a very talented osteopathic physician who was an enthusiastic educator. While Dr. Upledgers research contributed significantly to furthering the credibility of Osteopathy in the Cranial Field, the truth is that John Upledger's claim to be an innovator as the creator of CST is unfortunately, not exactly honest. John Upledger has successfully re-written history, and created a mythology about himself and Osteopathy. First, Osteopaths are not limited to bones... Dr. Sutherland and his students engaged all of anatomy, working with the Cranial Bones, Dural Membranes, the Cerebral Spinal Fluid and the CNS as a single functional unit. Second, Dr. Upledger's actual contribution was to make cranial work more available to the public. He simplified Sutherland's work, and distilled a "10 Step Protocol" that could be taught to individuals with a non-medical background. He then copyrighted the term "Cranio-Sacral Therapy" (derived from the osteopathic reference to a "cranial sacral mechanism") and claimed that he invented the whole thing. This allowed him to step outside the osteopathic profession and market to massage therapists without fear of legal retribution for teaching a medical practice to non-physicians. For greater clarification of Dr. Sutherland's original contributions, see Contributions of Thought, a collection of writings by William Sutherland (1914-1954) and Teachings in the Science of Osteopathy (1990). Markdo (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The basis of CST was originally the "reciprocal tension membrane system" of the cranial periosteum, falx, tentorium and dural tube, along with palpable rhythmic processes occurring within these (the "Craniosacral Rhythm" or CSR). Developments over the past 25 years have resulted in an increasing sophistication, and CST can be divided into the following skills :

• Working with various forms of CSR within and around the central nervous system, and in the rest of the body. Generally speaking a stronger, more symmetrical, more expansive, more coherent, more extensive and more "potent" CSR is indicative of improved health.
• Working with the connective tissue system in such a way as to elicit spontaneous self-healing movements from the body. These movements are usually quite small, but are sometimes substantial. The connective tissue system behaves like a tensegrity structure from a scale of whole-body structure down to sub-cellular level.
• Light-touch bodywork often elicits tissue memory as physical structures realign and open. therefore, CST includes a range of skills for working with those memories in the most appropriate manner, including various forms of dialoguing such as SomatoEmotional Release, setting appropriate distance and boundaries (analogous to psychotherapy).

Other key concepts and important considerations in the practice of CST include Energy Cysts; detailed anatomy of the bony sutures of the cranium (the skull is considered to move with the CSR); stillpoints, induced stillpoints and stillness; body-mind phenomena; the embryonic midline; and embryonic/fetal/natal development patterns.

The following should be in a seperate section headed "Criticisms" Proponents claim that XXmeasurements of craniosacral motion are a function of the cardiovascular system, and thatXX by working with the body, including the skull they can remove restrictions **in the connective tissue system and** in flow of cerebrospinal fluid; relieving stress, decreasing pain, and enhancing overall health. [1] [2] [3] Opponents claim that the therapy has been shown to be without scientific basis, [4] [5] [6] [7] and some studies that support the therapy have been criticized for poor methodology. [8]

Dictostelium 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Split

I do not know the process, but this article should be split into two articles. Craniosacral Therapy and Cranial Osteopathy are two different professions... both in training and in practice. Though they are based on the same prinicples, know that Craniosacral Therapists are an unlicenced rogue group. They are not doctors. Cranial Osteopaths are licenced D.O.s, having gone to medical school, passed medical boards and are vastly better qualified than a Craniosacral Therapist. Having Cranial Osteopathy forward to this article is misleading. TheDoctorIsIn 23:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with the suggestion of splitting the article in two, your sentiments about craniosacral therapists being an "unlicensed rogue group" appear to be unjustified: there may not be any state registration or government licensing for this therapy, but there are recognised regulatory associations listed in the article with codes of conduct and disciplinary procedures. Outside the U.S. osteopaths are not all doctors, nor do they all go to medical school, but most graduate from osteopathic college, and osteopaths do not have state registration or licensing in all countries. --apers0n 10:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree about splitting based on the huge difference between training; in the USA osteopaths have full 4 years-plus-residency medical degrees, whereas Craniosacral Therapy practitioners' training is as little as 4-16 (Upledger) or as much as 50+ (Sills) days. I think craniosacral therapy is a sort of an orphan child of osteopathy, resulting from osteopathy's rejection of the findings of Sutherland and his colleagues in the 1960's as part of its move into mainstream allopathic medicine. Also I think the article could be much simpler by not tracing the whole history; it could start with the current definition and give an abbreviated history lower down; Sutherland would want to be known by where he finished more than where he started. Finally I think the new (2006) book Cranial Osteopathy by T. Liem could be referenced as it seems to have the most current summaries of (1) attempts to measure cranial movement and (2) hypotheses advanced so far to explain what is causing the movement. For process, with something this controversial, how is a new version developed?Johnchitty 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

John Upledger DO took his knowledge of Cranial Osteoapthy, created a simpler educational format, began teaching non-physicians and changed the name to Cranio-Sacral Therapy. Cranial Osteoapthy and CST should definitely be discussed separately... with Cranial Osteopathy as the primary heading, and CST as a sub reference... The CST discussion should provide only the history of CST, its educational requirements, and the settings in which it is practiced... Attempting to describe other differences between Cranial Osteopathy, only becomes confusing and innaccurate.Markdo 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Any new content or content relating only to osteopathy in the cranial field can be added here: [3]. Other controversial changes could be made on a sub-page such as Craniosacral therapy/Temp --apers0n 12:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Training for one is at 'week-ends' and the other is part of a four year osteotherapy qualification. We could link pediatrics to after school care by using the same rationale.

84.9.38.12 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don't split. This distinction should discussed on this page. But there's little justification for splitting. There's no evidence that Cranial as practiced by DOs is any different from the Cranial practiced by non-DOs. Discuss the difference, don't split.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 18:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• This article should not be split. This is proported to be a treatment. It is not a profession. It is prcticed by a wide range of individuals with wide backgrounds. DoctorDW (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee

Fyslee, this article needs improvement. The writing and content are far too dense for the layperson to understand. I've tried writing to your user page, but have gotten no reply. I'm new to Wiki, but I've been reading up on it, and you do not utilize proper etiquette. Please allow me "the joy of editing". It does not need to be perfect. It is unnecessary to revert a page, unless there has been vandalism involved. I'll get to my citations as I work on the page and add to it. Be a fair person. thank you.Apsedona 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Apsedona

Citations (Sorry, new to this so I didn't know where to edit) Citation 10 is given as supportive evidence, but after reading the abstract it seems very unsupportive. Vidoqo 14:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs a reference

The section titled "Mobility of the sacrum between the ilia" has no references. As far as I know, there are no accepted, peer reviewed studies demonstrating that sacral movement has any effect on occipital movement. The article states this as fact. If a reference cannot be found, this should be removed, or at least mention that this relationship is an unproven theory. Rubbrbndmn 15:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

comment nov2007

This article is unfortunate as a layman's intoduction, although well researched, and is biased in many ways, too long too critical, too narrow, inaccurate in places and grossly deficient in not mentioning the applications in early childhood and refers to the Upledger model too predominantly. The ‘Cranium’ is the skull. The ‘Sacrum’ is the tail bone. ‘Cranio-sacral’ evolved from Craniosacral Osteopathy, "Biodynamic" Craniosacral refers to the models of Franklyn Sills. Since the 1980s Craniosacral therapy has blossomed in Europe and parts of the United States. It emerged out of Craniosacral Osteopathy which existed as early as around 1900 thanks to early pioneers such as Sutherland.

There is a subgroup of people who don't get it or don't need it for some reason. I don't believe that the practice is undermined by the limitations of the theoretical discussions, modern craniosacral works on all the tissues of the body it is highly sophisticated and beyond a priori theoretical assumptions. It works empirically, and controlled research is underway.

Craniosacral is an imaginative bodywork, a way of being with your body, allowing space and stillness and awareness for something to happen. Actually the only way to really know about Craniosacral therapy is to experience it for yourself.

Cranial work can allow you to relax the tension you are holding in an area. Your body may move more freely. If a mirror is held to your face, you may recognise that you are frowning, and might chose stop it. 

What is the craniosacral rhythm? There are various craniosacral “rhythms” or tides that can be palpated. If it’s that simple, Why can’t I do it on myself? When a person is exposed to trauma greater than their ability to eliminate its effect on their body, that trauma is held in one place to limit the damage it can cause, which actually takes up energy. It may be possible to train yourself to eliminate that trauma in yourself, but it takes a lot of practice. Traction and awareness are applied very softly this allows awareness of tissues deep in the body without defences being activated. This work allows the body to process previous neuromuscular response or memory to trauma as well as actual tissue compression and injury. As new states of balanced muscle/facial tension occur there is a sense of ease, spaciousness. This results in resolution of trauma, economy of energy and improved functioning. There is evidence cranial work can induce theta (deep sleep) states, which are very resorative Who is it for? For patients all age groups throughout the life cycle. babies. skull bones are not fused and their tissues are relatively soft and their patterns are not so ingrained Cranial work may dramatically help colicky, hyperactive, unsettled or palsied babies such as may occur after a difficult traumatic, highly interventionalised or caesarian birth process. It is recommended that all babies have a craniosacral checkup after birth, but especially if there are any specific concerns. Children of all ages may be helped with the stresses of development and family life. It may be generally helpful in recovery after normal childhood injuries and illnesses such as bumps and sprains and fevers. It may be helpful in specific problems. In Adults it may similarly help with a wide range of problems and assist in many healing or recovery regimes.It can also be used to improve function and for self development and understanding of one's body. Being gentle it is also suitable for the elderly. The touch employed is mostly very light and non-intrusive. There are no sudden movements or accelerations. Most people feel deeply relaxed a sense of safety and stillness and let go of tension during the session and may drift off into deep sleep or enter dream states. Specific problems in babies or young patients may be successfully treated within one or a very few sessions. Longstanding problems can take more commitment. A rule of thumb in adults may be to allow 5-15 sessions. Of course not everybody can be helped and there are some weaker therapists out there, but the only way to find out is to give it a try Jh1234 13:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

JH1234. Thanks for your opinion. Its a shame the rest of us weaker therapists just dont get it, I shall have to reincarnate as a more complete individual in the next life and might have a better chance. Ribfin 18/12/2007 18.44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribfin (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of select scientific studies

According to a soon to be, previous revision of the article, the study "High Gamma Power Is Phase-Locked to Theta Oscillations in Human Neocortex" somehow suggested "a significant physiological role in CNS rhythmical movement" which in turn, I can only assume, somehow supports craniosacral therapy principles. The actual finding was "The results indicate that transient coupling between low- and high-frequency brain rhythms coordinates activity in distributed cortical areas, providing a mechanism for effective communication during cognitive processing in humans". This finding is completely irrelevant to both the primary and secondary interpretations of the study so I am removing the entire sectionJamesStewart7 (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

The article "High Gamma Power Is Phase-Locked to Theta Oscillations in Human Neocortex" suggests that "an oscillatory hierarchy operating across multiple spatial and temporal scales could regulate this proposed long-range communication", and in turn quotes the following article: An Oscillatory Hierarchy Controlling Neuronal Excitability and Stimulus Processing in the Auditory Cortex, which proposes that "the hierarchical organization of ambient oscillatory activity allows auditory cortex to structure its temporal activity pattern so as to optimize the processing of rhythmic inputs".

The article was quoted because it supports the theory that there is a physiological reason for slow rhythmic brain pulsations: "effective communication between neuronal populations requires precise matching of the relative phase of distinct rhythms to axonal conduction delays".

The statement: "This suggests a significant physiological role in CNS rhythmical movement" should therefore be included in the article, along with the reference to the study. apers0n (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source"

Given the context and implied link to craniosacral therapy which was not evident in the original article, I would believe that this qualifies as original research. The speicific interpretations that you have stated were not present in the original article. You have generalized from the findings of the cited article. Both the type of oscillation and the neural area of question were specified in the original article. These somehow became "CNS rhythmical movement" and "physiological role" These general terms were then applied to an osteopathy context which suggests motility of the CNS so somehow electrical fluctuations (which is what theta rhythm refers to) became physical, presumeably macroscopic, movement. This is a HUGE jump from the original article, a jump that is plainly obvious when phrased in basic english, but very hard to detect when mixed in with a lot of medical jargon. This also raises a lot of interesting questions about what other pseudoscience is hidden in the article under a level of jargon.JamesStewart7 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually here is another example which I just removed. "Still described the inherent motion of the brain as a "dynamo," beginning with the cerebellum, a century before electroencephalography (EEG) studies confirmed the presence of this activity." Lets look at the definition of a dynamo: "In electricity generation, an electrical generator is a device that converts kinetic energy to electrical energy, generally using electromagnetic induction." Kinetic energy is the operate phrase here. Kinetic energy implies movement. The study that supposedly supports this on the other hand essentially found that magnetic fields are produced by electrical currents in the brain. This isn't really surprising as it occurs for every electric field but the point is there is no mention of movement which is essential to the dynamo analogy. Again, to say this study confirms Still's analogy is completely innaccurate. Although a dynamo does use electrical induction, which was confirmed in the study, the essential aspect, movement, is missing. Actually the study found the opposite process to what is used in a dynamo. In a dynamo an electric current is gneerated by moving through a magnetic field. In the brain, a magnetic field is created by an electric current. JamesStewart7 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"The mechanical relationship between motion in the sacrum and the parietal bones has since been confirmed in experiments using electrodes measuring capacitance across parietal sutures of the squirrel monkey" The reference is a 1975 article published in the J Am Osteopathic association. Sorry that doesn't cut it. I don't see how merely measuring capacitance can actually prove cranial bone mobility either. This statement is being removed until more reliable evidence can be found, preferrably from an independent source. JamesStewart7 (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been removed: "Emanuel Swedenborg was the first to discover inherent motion in the brains of living dogs in the 18th Century. His work has since been verified by human physiologists: according to modern radiological observations the pulsatility of the central nervous system (CNS) is a function of the cardiac cycle, as described by Bergstrand in 1985 using magnetic resonance imaging." because the second claim is misleading and the first claim is unsourced. The source did not find that the brains move as a function of the cardiac cycle. They found that CSF moves. While techincally the ventricular system does include some area inside the brain, simply stating inside the brain is misleading as most people will assume the brain itself moves. Also I doubt CSF movement is what Emanuel Swedenborg described although I cannot be sure since there is no reference for what he described. It is inappropriate to say something is verified without a description of what that thing is. (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WARNING

I read some parts of the article and most of the talk page here. It doesn't seem very difficult to manipulate the cranial platess, if any such things there should be. So I balled up my fist and massaged my left jaw, temple, and skull around and above my left ear. I used kind of digging, circular motion with my protruding knuckles, paying particular attention to anything that seemed to move or protrude beneath my skin. I spent about a half hour doing this right before I went to bed. Upon lying down to slee I felt a sore and painful sensation coming from the area in which I treated myself with craniosacral therapy. The result was a sore and painful left side of my head. It kept me awake about an hour before I fell asleep. I do not advise that other people do this. You should probably use the services of a professional. Maybe look in the Yellow Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.157.207 (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This might explain why it is necessary to place warnings on packets of 6" nails to alert the public to the fact that they are no tintended for human consumption. Dictostelium (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If I start punching myself in the head and continue this for about an hour, I later notice a distinct painful sensation. I don't suggest that anyone do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.28.180 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mobility of the intracranial and intraspinal dural membranes - totally disputed

"He attempted to hold the membrane still and found that he could not due to the strength of the action behind the movement." says a book titled Craniosacral Therapy. Somehow I doubt they were completely impartial. I want a historical record before I accept a claim like this or at the very least some evidence that movements of this strngth are possible. This is also unreferenced and I doubt it completely "In craniosacral treatment the membranes act as a fulcrum for fascial restrictions throughout the body, and craniosacral therapists may perceive a change in quality as a result of disturbance such as infection or allergic irritation." JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The section below is also totally disputed as it is completely dependent on the opinion of Lees and one self published source. It should be backed up by information reputable medical journalsJamesStewart7 (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The section below that is even worse. No reference for its controversial claims.JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC) To the user who said he has done cranio sacral training on himself, after reading how to do it: You need to be a trained health professional to understand and utilize specific guidelines and to feel the results you are creating. I hope you had fun digging around with your untrained hands on your skull. I assure you, I would also be in pain and have a headache after you poked around on my head. Training is everything, and if you really want to experience cranio sacral therapy and learn about how it is actually science based then please see a trained practitioner. Ok I've just moved the totally disputed tag to the top of The Primary Respiratory Mechanism because pretty much all the information consists of comments from osteopathy advocates that are not based on reserach, yet it is presented as fact. I've made a few changes in an attempt to present these comments as beliefs as opposed to facts but there is still much to be done. Many of these dubious claims are unreferenced eg. "Traube and Hering in the 19th Century reported fluctuations in the arterial rates of dogs (the Traube-Hering wave) at similar rates to those reported by cranial practitioners." The references consist of sources such as "Interface: Mechanisms of Spirit in Osteopathy" and "The Cranial Academy". These claims in general lack any scientific basis and little to no research is cited. In the cases where research is cited, an extra layer of interpretation has been included to link it back to craniosacral therapy, which I believe qualifies as WP:OR.

If this section is entirely reworked to make it into something like the "Craniosacral treatment philosophy" with no claims of factual accuracy I would consider it acceptable. I would also consider this section acceptable if all claims of factual accuracy were cited with reliable scientific sources (which I can't see happening as most scientific sources say the opposite). The only statement in this section that is supported with scientific research as opposed to just opinion is this one, "Research suggests that examiners are unable to measure craniosacral motion reliably, as indicated by a lack of interrater agreement among examiners.[25]The authors of this research suggest that this "measurement error may be sufficiently large to render many clinical decisions potentially erroneous". If anyone thinks that there is actual scientific support for the rest of these claims please point to the references JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreed mechanism - but there is an agreed phenomenology amongst the several tens of thousand people worldwide who have been practicing this for about 70 years. I've looked at all the possible isolated driving mechanisms, and my experience-based guess is that the rhythms represent a shift to a more synchronised state across several physiological systems - nervous, lymphatic, vascular, etc. Almost unmeasurable scientifically. However, the fact that the system being described is a natural one must mean that it is capable of motion and that it moves, because it is alive. The dispute is (i) whether there are low frequency rhythmic phenomena (ii) that these can be palpated and (iii) that this palpation also allows some feedback by the practitioner into the system. These are three quite distinct issues, and if they are not separated and addressed as separate issues, debate will be futile. Dictostelium (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition

I was a little peturbed that the definition of CT had no cite, so I went to the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the UK (first google result). The definition they give there is...somewhat different to that found in the article. I've changed the article to bring it into line with what the proponents say. Wording is somewhat difficult since they seem to propose a bodily system that only they believe in, and there seems to be a lot of religiosity/spirituality in the snippits of the books that were available on google. Jefffire (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Using Common Sense and Requiring Verification

I work in the realm of traditional healing, but I've never experienced or used this healing modality. However, I've given this matter some thought...

It seems fairly obvious to me that all healing modalities, whether allopathic or otherwise, must be held to account for their efficacy and examined for an understanding of the mechanism through which they work. There are plenty of allopathic assumptions that fail under intense scrutiny. The same is true of alternative healing modalities. The fact that "lots of other people agree" does not make something true, as history amply illustrates. We need more than personal biases and predilections to answer the question of whether cranio-sacral therapy really works -- and how.

I don't see this as an either/or matter in which we must choose between either conventional or alternative medicine. What I see is a need for the willingness to subject ALL approaches to the same methodical observation and scrutiny, to allow time for unbiased exploration, and for a willingness to concede when something works -- even if we do not yet know why.

If an approach works safely and reliably in a reasonable percentage of trials, then we should proceed to determining the mechanics of how and why it works. Not every solution works in all situations. Just because a healing modality is not a panacea does not make it 'rubbish'. It simply means we need to look more closely (and perhaps jettison some wrong assumptions) to understand why and when it works. Sometimes we will discover a different mechanism at work than we expected. Finding an unexpected solution is not failure, it simply requires us to readjust our expectations -- and occasionally our basic definitions of terms -- to accommodate reality.

Right now we have testimony both for and against the efficacy of cranio-sacral therapy. We don't yet know why. We should be looking at whether it works enough of the time to be more than chance, a question perhaps best left to mathematicians who have no vested interest in the outcome. If it is effective, we still need to know the mechanism by which it works if we're to use it effectively. We need to look at the specifics in each instance where the therapy worked in detail, including examining the client's lifestyle, diet, genetics, other therapies or medicines being applied, etc. to find what is common to all of these situations. Then we need to go through the list of commonalities and look for which factors are coincidental and which are causal.

It's really not useful to judge information based on legal disclaimers when the FDA (on behalf of the pharmaceuticals) and AMA have pushed legislation forcing alternative practitioners to make these statements -- especially when an MD can make the same statements with impunity. Information needs to be judged scientifically, based on observable fact, not on profit margins or other private interests. You have to be objective to see objectively. If we want the truth, we can't afford to be protecting personal agendas. We have to be open to whatever the truth might be, even if we cannot yet explain it.

This is what I would find really helpful. 66.37.88.181 (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Morgaine—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.88.181 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how the efficacy or otherwise of this technique can possibly be "verified" by any means currently acceptable to the scientific establishment. But this stricture also applies to conventional medicine too: if a brain surgeon wanted to test the efficacy of a new technique, he/she is not going to subject it to some double-blind procedure (if one could be devised, which I doubt). Likewise, although a patient can be kept in ignorance about whether a massage is "genuine" CS or random pressure, the practitioner must know whether he/she is applying CS techniques or not, and his/her approach can wash over on to the patient (i.e. double-blind is not feasible here either). If it works as a placebo, it works. The whole point of almost any therapeutic procedure (I exclude trauma surgery), it seems to me, is to induce the placebo effect, which demonstrably works better than anything else. My fear regarding CS is that it might also be destructive, especially where psychological issues are involved.Escoville (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Escoville, I'll just address part of what you say above since I haven't been following this discussion. You write: "The whole point of almost any therapeutic procedure (I exclude trauma surgery), it seems to me, is to induce the placebo effect, which demonstrably works better than anything else." It's the other way around. Ethical practitioners and researchers should (in experiments and clinical encounters) attempt to eliminate the placebo effect (not totally possible) or at least clarify its role as much as possible, since enhancing it will blur what is really happening as to real, objective effects. Exploiting it will cause the practitioner and the patient to be fooled as to what is really going on, rendering accurate duplication difficult or impossible. It is detrimental to any experiment to enhance the placebo effect, and highly unethical to exploit it in clinical practice with real patients. It is based on effectively controlled deception, and therefore it is necessary in experiments and wrong in real life. The results of the placebo effect are vastly overrated, since it produces primarily subjective effects and few (if any) important or lasting objective effects. Please read this section in the Placebo article - Objective and subjective effects - which is the best coverage of the subject to date. -- Fyslee / talk 17:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee : you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. If the Placebo Effect (PE) really exists (try reading the Wikipedia definition of the history and definition of the PE to understand that this "effect" is actually undefinable and therefore in its present form is an unscientific concept) then surely one of the greatest aims of medical science should be to harness the self-healing properties of the human organism. My experience is that CST excels at harnessing and working with that self-healing organic "force" which generates health. The emphasis is on the ability of the body to heal itself rather than on the inability of the body to heal itself. This shift in attitude of the practitioner has a profound effect on the response of the body. It also releases the relationship between consciousness and tissue to work as it should do - we are beings in which consciousness and physical tissue are integrated - it isn't just all in the brain. If one intends to work with this body intelligence instead of egotistically assuming that some predecided formulaic intervention will "cure" a problem, then the tissue-consciousness whole responds. As Andrew Taylor Still often said of Osteopathy, this is a completely rational approach. Dictostelium (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Craniosacral Therapy wiki - overview

Reading through the online article, it is a total dogs dinner of comments. Some appear to have been made by people who practice various versions of it (and who therefore are not really describing something I am familiar with), some seem to be by people who have never practiced it at all (and who therefore seem to be talking about that of which they know nothing but are determined nevertheless to express an opinion), and there are randomly interspersed a few sensible statements. I thoroughly reccommend to anyone who wants to know what CST is - go and look elsewhere, because you won't find worthwhile information here. Actually, you will get a more useful view of what CST is by visiting the Philosophy stub monistic idealism. Dictostelium (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

editing reference #32

The reference Number 32 does not conclusively prove that cranial bones fuse making mobility imposible, its states "PURPOSE: To chronicle the development of ossification centers, sutures, and synchondroses in the chondrocranium throughout childhood by using computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty-nine children (age range, newborn to 18 years; median age, 4.0 years) without skull base deformity were referred for cranial CT. The closure of 18 sutures and synchondroses was graded. RESULTS: In the occipital bone at birth, six components were identified. The Kerckring ossicle rapidly fused to the supraoccipital bone within the 1st month. At age 1-3 years, the posterior and anterior intraoccipital synchondroses began to fuse. The occipitomastoidal, petro-occipital, and spheno-occipital synchondroses remained partially open into the teenage years. In the sphenoid bone at birth, 13 ossification centers were identified; most assimilated into the sphenoidal body during the first 2 years. Pneumatization of the sphenoid sinus appeared at age 1-2 years and advanced posteriorly over the next 3-5 years. CONCLUSION: The complex process of skull base development is chronicled, which provides CT standards for judgment of the patterns and timing of sutural or synchondrosal closure. " This is describing the development and fusion of bones and sutures during early development and is mainly describing ossification centers fusing together to form the mature bone structures. At best It states that the sutures between cranial bones fuse partially "The occipitomastoidal, petro-occipital, and spheno-occipital synchondroses remained partially open into the teenage years" this is not acceptable evidence to support the statement that the fusion of cranial sutures and make mobility impossible. I am changing the following statement to better fit its associated reference, "This research shows that the cranial bones fuse during adolescence, making movement impossible.[32] "

to the following " This research shows that partial fusion between cranial bones occurs during growth and development [32]"
  

as an aside anyone can see that cranial bones do not fully fuse by looking at pictures of the individual cranial bones wich are seperated along the sutures(see link below). Complete fusion along sutures would make this kind of separation impossible. http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Fankhauser/Labs/Anatomy_&_Physiology/A&P201/Skeletal/skull_index.html Holanidop (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holanidop (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your last assertion (complete fusion making complete separation impossible) is broken logic. Completely fused bone (along suture lines) might not necessarily be as strong as "regular" bone. This possibility would mean that when enough pressure is applied that it could well break along those zigzaging lines well enough for those pictures, yet still have been "completely" fused.Tgm1024 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving CSF vs. weird claims

I don't know this subject, but reading the article it seems like there's perhaps an excess of enthusiasm (I'm not sure by which side) to blur the line between simple flow of the CSF and weird stuff like muscle-brains, moving sutures, and so on. I don't think anyone contests that there should be some pattern of natural variation in CSF pressure, though whether it agrees with what is said here should be determined, and its therapeutic use may face considerable skepticism. Of course, you can only use what the sources throw at you, but if any have drawn this line I hope you can make it apparent.

Also, I'm curious whether the practitioners claim any special influence on the inner ear. I mention this because I've experienced that the motion in which I curve only part of my back up from a bed but not all of it, then twist to the side, can sometimes place an uncomfortable pressure on the ear that can last for the better part of an hour - enough that I've tended to avoid the precise motion. I'd speculated that this was the result of some CSF pressure (though I know that outside of Meniere's disease this shouldn't happen much, the cochlear aqueduct is still open in most people), but until today I never knew anyone tried to fool around with this. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This page does not represent an accurate picture of craniosacral work.

I have had additions deleted immediately, several times when posting today. For those of you looking for accurate information about craniosacral work, please do not cite this wikipedia article. It obviously has people who are determined to undermine any quality conversation about it, as you can see from the many comments already posted here.

Meanness is winning out here, and I am no longer going to waste time trying to add good information about this profound work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeeperwell (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Cranial Sacral has powerful effects on people physically and emotionally, and this article, while at face value seems an honest discussion, is deeply biased against the therapy. All of it's primary sourcing is from skeptic sites, ergo, it cannot be reliable. The opening paragraph's language is expressly created to make the reader take the therapy as questionable at best, rather than being an open description of what the therapy is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EleaticStranger (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This page has a very biased view of Craniosacral therapy. It should either be deleted or redone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irongrl (talk • contribs) 02:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ridley

I'm moving some material recently added to the article here for discussion. It doesn't seem to be written in an encyclopedic manner (more like a blurb for a book). I'm also wondering whether it is written in a neutral manner. Here's what I've removed:

"Charles Ridley in his ground breaking book, 'Stillness: Biodynamic Cranial Practice and the Evolution of Consciousness' was the first to clarify the confusion in the cranial field by differentiating and precisely defining the three major approaches to cranial work. Ridley reemphasized osteopathy founder Dr. Andrew Taylor Still's discovery of the importance of the sino-atrial node of the heart as the fundamental spiritual fulcrum of the human being. Ridley in his exploration biodynamic cranial touch as a path of spiritual development has contributed two previously undocumented biodynamic enfoldments: 'Pure Breath of Love' and 'Enfleshment.' These discoveries have been gleaned from his personal encounters, and actual reports from teachers and graduates of his Dynamic Stillness School Mentor Course.

Would someone with a good knowledge of CST, other than the individual who added it, be willing to review it for accuracy and neutrality? Sunray (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Categorization

I removed the category "pseudoscience" from this article. This was reverted by User:Noformation with the edit summary "Therapy is medicinal in nature and as such is a science." Craniosacral therapy makes no claim that it is a science. The article defines CST as "alternative medicine,"—a healing practice "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine."[4] i.e., not medicinal. It seems clear that for it to be categorized as "pseudoscience" there would need to be evidence that it claims to be science, or medicine. In my view, such evidence would need to be presented before using this category. Failing to present such evidence goes against WP:NPOV. Sunray (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well does it claim to do anything? If it claims to do something then it is making a statement of efficacy which by definition puts it in the realm of medicine. To say that something categorized as alternative medicine makes puts it outside the bounds of science is incorrect, it's just special pleading. Many forms of alternative medicine are pseudoscience (some are not). Anyway, I am reverting you again. Per the WP:BRD cycle please continue the discussion here before you revert again as BRD doesn't mean "Be bold, get reverted, start discussion but don't bother waiting for the discussion to close before you revert again." We're not in a hurry here. N^oformation ^Talk 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion continued below under the heading "Pseudoscientific." It has now been resolved. Sunray (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Quackwatch a reliable source?

Someone cited Stephen Barrett's article about cranialsacral therapy."[5]. The use of Quackwatch has been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia [6], [7]. From those discussions, it is clear that, independent reviews have criticized Quackwatch for bias and inaccuracies. Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. Thus, clearly it does not meet the requirements for a reliable source. I've removed the citation. Please do not use Quackwatch as a source unless there is evidence that it is indeed peer-reviewed. Sunray (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

QW has been discussed as an RS on WP many times and it has always passed the bar. Search the archives of WP:RSN. N^oformation ^Talk 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Given that Quackwatch was used in a section discussing opinions on the matter, I would conclude that this source is used appropriately here. Still I would suggest to explicitly state and wikilink the source in text in order to allow readers themselves judge the credibility of information.—Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Czarkoff, I will put together alternate wording to make it more specific later today. Please tell me if you think when I post it. N^oformation ^Talk 18:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this 3O correctly, Czarkoff is saying that since it is a section on opinions, the source is appropriate there. In other words, the article in Quackwatch is an opinion piece. Have I got that right? Sunray (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for late response (I'm in the middle of my vacation, and I don't have much time for Wikipedia activity right now). Anyway, the Quackwatch source is a controversial one. As it was previously discussed several times on WP:RS/N, it is an acceptable source on several question author is considered to be an expert in; in other areas it is a good source of professional opinion, that should be given a proper weight (per WP:WEIGHT "proper" in some cases means no weight at all). In this case it seems fairly appropriate to me, though extra caution by inline attribution with wikilink seems to be a good mean of letting readers judge on credibility of source according to their standards. So, to give a direct answer: yes, I consider this source as a professional opinion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments. I agree that the source is an opinion. I wonder, though, how "professional" it is. The section heading is "Evidence base." My concern is whether this is reliable "evidence." Reasonable questions that arise include the following: How does this article by Barrett conform to usual standards for evidence in the social sciences? What obligation do WP editors have to ensure that sources conform to standards for medical sources? It seems to me that we may have to take a closer look at the use of Quackwatch as a source. Any further comments you have on this would be appreciated. Sunray (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The WP editors have only one obligation: to collect and provide information that is expressed in sources on the topic. This source contains an evidence by professional writer on topic, so it is absolutely right to report it. The reasonable concerns over source's validity should be addressed by providing sufficient information about the source (wikilink), but simply muting it because it lacks peer review is an instance of WP:OR (though it is an arguable point). We shouldn't label sources as valid or invalid on the basis of our personal knowledge; the limit of our influence in this area is just not participating in what we believe to be wrong. That said, if any peer reviewed source provides the same information, it should replace Quackwatch; if any such source argues the credibility of this opinion in Quackwatch, it should be noted and referenced. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes good sense to me. One thing I have suggested is that the Quackwatch source does not provide any substantive information that is not already contained in the source in that section, which is a systematic study published in a peer reviewed journal. Sunray (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Challenging use of source

I am not in agreement with the statement by Noformation that Quackwatch has "always passed the bar" in discussions on WP:RSN. Here are some facts:

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

• RSN December 2007 - Quackwatch not consistently peer reviewed, therefore not a reliable source [8]
• RSN May 2011 - "Barrett's Quackwatch site has been the subject of much debate on RS/N, with no real consensus on it's use as a source ever being reached. The only real advice has been to use it with care on medical/health issues noting it is the opinion of Barrett in his area of expertise." [9]

Arbitration

• In March 2007, Quackwatch was the subject of an arbitration case: RFA/Barrett v. Rosenthal - Quackwatch was found to be a partisan site and an editor cautioned about using it [10]

Court case

In October, 2005 Barrett was involved in a defamation suit. He sued Tedd Koren for describing him as "de-licensed", and "in trouble because of a $10 million lawsuit." Barrett lost the suit. At trial, under oath:

• "Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam." Note: Barrett "had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases."
• Barrett had also claimed to be "a legal expert" despite the fact that he had no formal legal training.
• Under cross-examination it was revealed that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against 40 people in the U.S and had not won any at trial.
• Barrett also conceded his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA). [11]

Conclusion

According to WP:IRS, "the reliability of a source depends on context." Given the discussions at RSN, the arbitration decision and the facts about Stephen Barrett, it is advisable to be cautious about using Quackwatch. Barrett is the author of the self-published essay that Noformation added to the article. Most of the piece is based on Barrett's own primary research. It is not peer reviewed. He calls craniosacral therapy "silly" and based on "weird beliefs." In this section of his writing, he makes no reference to secondary sources. WP articles are not based on opinions, but verifiable facts. We must be neutral.

In the last section of his essay Barrett refers to a reliable source that we have also used in our article—the systematic review by the British Columbia Office of Health Technology Assessment. He mis-characterizes the findings of that study. Since that study is the only systematic review we have, I think we should just stick with that. In accordance with WP:VER I am challenging the Barrett reference as unreliable. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores the source." Sunray (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Barrett is an expert in his field and as such his opinion is quite valid. I did not add quackwatch to the article except when I restored it after you removed it, I'm not sure where you got the idea that it was my addition. Although it is not peer reviewed, there has been consensus in the past that using expert, non-peer reviewed literature is essentially our only option when it comes to fringe and pseudoscience because peer reviewed journals generally do not waste their time with implausible conjecture. Obviously you and I are at an impasse, so I will post to the fringe theories notice board and solicit a third opinion. I'm fine with what ever consensus is decided. N^oformation ^Talk 08:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Barrett is an expert in his field." You will need to back that up with evidence. I've presented evidence to the contrary. I removed that source and am challenging it. You are trying to restore it. I am requesting that you not remove it again. You will need to post this to WP:RSN. Sunray (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I reading the history wrong or is it you who is over 3RR? If you want to turn this into an edit war that's fine, I'll make the report. All I'm asking is that you let consensus form before the change is made. I posted to FTN, I'm sure a couple people will show up shortly and help form consensus, please be patient. N^oformation ^Talk 09:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, fill your boots. Unfortunately you are reading the history wrong. Sunray (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: your points

1. Yes, QW is a partisan site, so are all scientific journals; both are biased towards science
2. I don't see the relevance of his court preceedings. Science is science, evidence is evidence, logic is logic. Attacking him personally has nothing to do with the content of QW.
3. The fact that he has ties to the AMA and the FDA are not points against him. The AMA sets the standard for medical care in this country, the fact that he is involved with them is a plus
4. According to WP:RS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field " Barett has been published in JAMA regarding therapeutic touch, as well as having been published by the AMA on the subject of alternative medicine in general. Those are just two examples from his WP page. N^oformation ^Talk 09:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to doubt it, but according to QW on peer review: "It depends on the nature of the article and how confident I am that I understand the subject in detail. Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts. News articles are not usually reviewed prior to posting. However, the review process does not stop when an article is published. Complaints or suggestions from readers may trigger additional review that results in modification of the original version." N^oformation ^Talk 09:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no peer review of that article by Barrett. I asked you to present evidence. That means diffs, statements of policy or reliable sources. The same will apply to any of your friends who show up. I am not an advocate for CST; I am only interested in a neutral and balanced article. Sunray (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, point 4 regarding expert SPSs. He has been published in reliable sources on this subject. N^oformation ^Talk 09:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I spent some time looking at his article. He may be an expert, but he shows no expertise in that article. It is mostly a rant. It is exactly the kind of thing we do not need in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean he can't be a source in other cases. Just that this reference is not reliable. And I have demonstrated that he has been unreliable in the past. Sunray (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How would you feel about attributing the opinion to him instead of saying it in WP's voice? N^oformation ^Talk 09:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What does his piece add? Is this to satisfy your POV? Sunray (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't comment on my motives; we are both editors on equal footing with the rights to our opinions - not once have I questioned your motivation here or even made comments that were about you. Besides, we are both scientists so I imagine that we share a POV, no? I think it makes a strong statement and helps clarify and support the evidence section. I take it you're against putting it in his voice? N^oformation ^Talk 09:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I do try to assume good faith. That was a question, not a comment. I am curious. You say you are a scientist. Do you have post graduate degrees? In what field? (more questions). Accusing something of being "silly" and "fanciful" (as he does) is not scientific. Please read what I said about his article, above. I spent some time on that. Believe me I do not have to win. If you present evidence I will be quick to recognize it. Sunray (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, tone doesn't convey well across the internet at times. My background is in philosophy of science/epistemology, but in my late 20s I decided to go for a biochem degree, so that is what I'm working on now (though I'm not sure it matters, personally I find the less we know about each other on WP the better). OT: it may be outside of normal academic discourse to use those terms but it doesn't automatically disqualify the article. Regarding what I posted below, is there nothing regarding the mechanism that you are willing to source to this? The statement regarding the bones of the skill fusing at a young age is a good reason as to why the underlying theory is in contradiction with known anatomy and it seems to be an uncontroversial statement. I think it is important to present information regarding both the empirical evidence as well as a critique of the underlying mechanism. For instance, in explaining why astrology is farcical, we can point to studies that show a lack of effect as well as explain that astrology contradicts the laws of physics. N^oformation ^Talk 10:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting comments. I don't think it is about whether you or I think CST makes sense. We should be looking for evidence by reliable sources. Systematic peer reviewed studies are the gold standard, don't you think? Sunray (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that our opinions on the subject itself are irrelevant, but I don't agree that Barett's opinion is irrelevant. I also think that our opinions are relevant regarding what is important information and what isn't (after all, V is sufficient but not necessary for inclusion, so as editors we have to use discretion). I feel pretty strongly about this point as mechanism is an important aspect, and it appears that Barett provides good reason why the therapy doesn't make sense. N^oformation ^Talk 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

An alternative might also be to change the wording to reflect his arguments from the science section, here is something I would consider important regarding the claimed mechanism: "I do not believe that craniosacral therapy has any therapeutic value. Its underlying theory is false because the bones of the skull fuse by the end of adolescence and no research has ever demonstrated that manual manipulation can move the individual cranial bones [11]. Nor do I believe that "the rhythms of the craniosacral system can be felt as clearly as the rhythms of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems," as is claimed by another Upledger Institute brochure [12]. The brain does pulsate, but this is exclusively related to the cardiovascular system [13], and no relationship between brain pulsation and general health has been demonstrated."

There are a couple statements in that passage alone that I think help clarify the subject (I also don't think it sounds like a rant at all). N^oformation ^Talk 09:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Imagine that you had a friend who was well-respected in this field. Then imagine them reading the WP article. Would you not want it to be fair? So, when we already have a systematic, peer reviewed study on the subject why would we want to include a sub-standard piece from a guy with his controversial background? Sunray (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Explained more in depth above. N^oformation ^Talk 10:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sunray, could you provide me with a link to that study? Thanks. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sunray is likely referring to the study currently being used in the appraisal section of the article. N^oformation ^Talk 22:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I could have been clearer about that. Sunray (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To re-cap on this, I challenged the use of this source. WP:BURDEN states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it..." I reviewed the source (Barrett on CS) for suitability. Whether or not Barrett has expertise in this field is, IMO, an open question. However, as I pointed out, he does not write this article in a scientific manner. It is mostly an opinion piece. He uses unscientific terms such as "fanciful," "silly," "weird" which cannot be substantiated and are indicative of bias. My main concern is that this article adds little to our knowledge of craniosacral therapy. In the same section a systematic study published in a peer reviewed journal presents findings about CS. Since Barrett's opinion appears to add little of value beyond what has already been said in the systematic study, I will remove the reference to Barrett now. If someone wants to present definitive evidence that it should be there, we can discuss it further. Sunray (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sunray, you haven't gained a consensus for this edit (and I'm surprised that no one else offered an opinion, so I will probably list it at WP:3O). Yes the burden of evidence lies with he who restores the material, but the part of that quote that's problematic is "lacking a reliable source." I do not believe you have demonstrated that the source is unreliable. Using words like "silly" and "weird" doesn't automatically make something unscientific, it's just more candid than journals are. However, per WP:PARITY: "in an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal." As to bias, well yes QW is biased towards science as is every scientific journal on the planet. The flip side to this is that they are also biased against things that are unscientific. Further, I don't believe you have responded to my idea of using QW to speak about the mechanism. I'm restoring the material again, per WP:STATUSQUO "If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change." N^oformation ^Talk 06:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am challenging this as a reliable source, and the burden is on you to show that it is. I have made a detailed explanation of why this is not a reliable source. You disagree with that but have not shown how it is reliable. To recap the revision history:

• It was added as a source on 17 December, 2011 by JzG.
• I removed it on 24 December stating that it was not a reliable source.
• You added it on 11 January with the edit summary "Actually there is widespread consensus on WP that QW is reliable."

I looked for that consensus but could find none.[12]

You mention WP:STATUSQUO. This is not policy. It is an essay. WP:VER is and it seems clear that you are trying to re-add that source. I am challenging the source, the burden is therefore on you. I am willing to go through the article line by line if you wish. But I find it hard to believe that you see it as reliable in any scientific sense.

WP:MEDRS defines ideal sources for biomedical material as: 1) "general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals," 2) "widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field," or 3) "medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." This source is far from those requirements. Please do not re-add it. Sunray (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a guideline, meaning a well accepted community practice that I see no reason not to follow, especially now that I have initiated dispute resolution. WP:PARITY applies to all fringe articles and this is one, so it need not be peer reviewed. Yes, the burden was on me, I explained my reasoning, you disagree; I disagree with your reasoning - that is why I asked for a third opinion. Now we wait and see what that opinion is and a consensus can emerge. You're an experienced enough editor here to know that you can't force an edit through so just calm down and someone will come along soon enough. N^oformation ^Talk 07:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific

Craniosacral therapy appears to be generally characterized as pseudoscientific or discredited. I'm surprised it's not already listed on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. a13ean (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It was, Sunray recently removed it. I challenged it but could not find a source specifically referring to it as a pseudoscience. N^oformation ^Talk 22:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My question is: Since craniosacral therapy is a therapy, and doesn't purport to be a science. What is the justification for labeling it "pseudoscience," which is defined as "a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status." The theory underlying CST is contested, but not verified one way or another (see Green, et. al., 1999) Sunray (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think therapy is by definition something which makes a claim of efficacy. Is it therapeutic to rub sand in your eyes? I don't think anyone would claim that it is. Therapy is something that purports to achieve a certain affect, and that affect can be equal to, above, or below a placebo but it is certainly testable. Further, if we are to take the claims of fringe proponents that something is not supposed to be a science, we enter the realm of special pleading, and we allow anyone to claim their farcical ideas as "outside science" and therefore not pseudoscience. However, unless we have a source characterizing it as pseudoscience it's kind of a moot point no? N^oformation ^Talk 23:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

These ref's clearly show that practitioners often present it as scientific. This argument surfaces a lot, and and I have yet to see it fly. a13ean (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that these references do indeed show that CS is often presented as scientific and that there is no evidence that supports these claims. Therefore, the "pseudoscience" category may well be appropriate. Sunray (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Logical Deduction and dispute of the author of Craniosacral therapy as posted in Wikipedia

To be simple:

I came to this posting to learn what craniosacral therapy is and I believe I was falsely informed on a very important issue.

The author of the article constantly refers to "mainstream medicine" and how craniosacral therapy lays outside of it. "Mainstream medicine" in America is Allopathic Medicine. To be scientific, something called "mainstream" doesn't mean its correct or the most beneficial or without a ratio of benefit to harm, as the author clearly states. Because something is mainstream does not mean it is effective at creation of some benefit without detriment or satisfactory at reducing or suspending a deteriorating condition.

The author clearly sets forth by tone and delivery that his or her particular view of medicine is superior to the other branches of medicine mentioned in the article and so is clearly not presenting the material from a pure scientific angle. Not only a superiority complex only but wording his/her position that other views are undeserving of validity in any degree. I find this particularly insulting to the scientific body simply due to the well documented benefit of the practice of Osteopathy alone (I do not practice Osteopath for the record). The author has an agenda and carries that agenda by quoting and referencing others with the same view as the author who are validated in turn by quoting each other. An internal reward, praise, validation and praise loop from any organization which is used to validate its views or actions outside of itself is ludicrous and seems to always be on the popular rise in so called "scientific" communities.

I find this person's article very unscientific and agenda driven. Science is the admittance that you do not know enough and would like to know more and that what you seek comes outside of your self and your circle of piers . If this person's attitude was adopted by our prehistoric ancestors the leading thinkers would have scoffed at fire being made by man and simply used what was on the ground after a lighting storm. They would have insisted that the world they knew of and their way of operating in it was all there was to know and do. And that if there was any new information or mode of operating it would come to them and them alone.

Those of us who practice Allopathic medicine with eyes open know that too often we are merely a slower of a downward trend and not a preventer of it; and to our sadness we must see that we are the causation of much too of it. It is the all to rare but shining moments of advancement and help we give when there is only but hope that justifies much of what we do. For that we are justly proud and rightly so. But to think that our study and application of Allopathic medicine is the best there is or can be is unwise and very unscientific. We stuck our proverbial feet in our mouths time and time again as we look backward into history when we said we knew what was best and then later discovered we didn't know as much as we thought we did.

Unfortunately the author has painted his/her position clearly and that is of a member of a self appointing and self authorizing and self praising circle society. No statements of exploration, admittance of unknowing or references in opposition to his view were posted.

As a result I can not accept his article as scientific in any way but merely a surface repeated definition of another organizations reason and method and a bash of it. I have heard no praise or advancement of any institution outside of his/her own. Why this person chose to write this article seems to me to be purely selfish and not serving of others outside his/her own paradigm.

T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6008:18:5D95:2824:85B2:57CE (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird exorcism

Hi, my mum told me that I used to get epileptic fits when I was young and that osteopathy was what she thought stopped them. She didn't know much about it so cant really explain much about it. A couple of years ago I was going through the worst period of my life so far through one thing and another. I went to see a cranial s therapist a couple of times and i came away feeling that I had benefited mentally , I felt much more at ease with my ailments and physically I noticed something like a breathing passage being opened up - so felt like I could breath a little more freely. On the third time after 20 mins I started shaking unrhymically and uncontrolably from head to toe quite violently, and I was sweating hard and this lasted for about 20 mins , I was conscious of this and pretty worried about what was happening but i felt like I was in good hands and encouraged to try and see out what was going on. After I came out of this full on weirdness I think the c-s-t person hadn't seen that type of reaction , and so couldn't really go into it, but she didn't seem fazed. I was but I also know that it did more than contribute to me getting back on my feet and feeling mentally much more at ease - positive- not so moody, much less tense. It definately felt like a physical thing aswel. I know that c-s-t was a big factor in my change, but I haven't seen someone since because I felt sorted enough from that and it is pretty expensive. That was a year ago and ive been thinking about it recently ,so gonna have a couple of sessions. Has anyone had any experiences like that or anyone think they might know why my reaction could of been so full on. ? Not worried either way but intrigued. Thanks for reading , sorry if I sound like a f**kwitt x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.237.102 (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Weird exorcism person

Just realised that this isn't the right place for my personal experience , that took me fxxxking ages to compose aswel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.238.113 (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article was all wrong in my opinion, and I've edited to make it more neutral. The criticisms section in particular was wrong. Each point critical of this therapy was immediately followed with a statement to say "actually this point is rubbish". The reader can make up their own mind. I think it's far to say that most people are sceptical about this therapy. The article in it's present form is more than fair, given the lack of proof of efficacy of craniosacral therapy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.112.68.128 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2006 UTC.

WP:SOAP

CRANIOSACRAL I've made my living for a number of years doing craniosacral work. Like ALL forms of healing, therapy, medicine, meditation, etc... resulst are never 100%. In my experience they are well over 50% - a similar figure that most MDs seem to report for their work - which explains my busy practice. Reading these comments here is confusing. I think the first reason is that most of them seem to be written by people with very little knowledge of and very limited experience of craniosacral work. The second reason is that, like most systems, the theory of this work doesn't entirely make sense. We do feel and experience these Tides in the human bodymind, however we are still at a very rudimentary level of understanding of what we are actually palpating. The fact that we repeatedly have very similar experiences as practitioners, and in relation to most of our clients, suggests that there is obvioulsy something very real and grounded in this work. However, the theories keep changing and it is definitely a work in progress. For all of those disputing this work above: where exactly is all of your antagonism coming from? If this is helping people, who could possibly argue with it? If it doesn't help everyone 100% of the time, how do you conclude that it is not only a hoax but in need of attack? If you want to determine if there is something real in this work then you would have to devote a number of years to studying it deeply and experientially - how else could you possibly form any tangible judgement of it? How could any of us know what was actually involved in Chi Gong, Acupuncture, Yoga, Persian Classical Music, Osteopathy, or any other system unless we actually devoted several years of intense study to it? The same is obviously true for craniosacral. Yes, the theory doesn't entirely makes sense yet, and keeps changing by the year. However, like many things, the theory is an attempt to understand something that people are experiencing. Having ten or twenty sessions hardly qualifies someone to pass judgement on something as involved as this subject is. If i went to a doctor ten times and she didn't entirely cure my symptoms would i conclude that medicine is a sham? If i took my car to a garage and they couldn't fix it, would i conclude that mechanics are all deluded? If an acupunturist cured my headaches but told me they were due to heat in my liver, would i rather have the headaches if the theory didn't make sense to me? [written by Gary Roba] p.s. any typos do NOT suggest a lack of sincerity on my part... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.155.111.85 (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008‎ (UTC)

What is craniosacral therapy? (and other questions)

Greetings to all present editors! I have been editing WP for about six years, though rarely on topics related to this one. I just read through the article, and I don't mean to insult anyone's work, but the article taken as a whole seems rather incoherent. In the lead, I'm not sure whether I'm reading about CST or OCF, only that I am told they are separate but related fields. The reader is never told why this treatment method is called craniosacral therapy (or what that even means), nor what precisely the treatment method is, nor what it purports to do, nor what ailment(s) it purports to treat. I note some mention of the cranium and cerebrospinal fluid, but no mention of the sacrum. (It is, after all, called craniosacral therapy, so where does the sacrum enter into it?) Since the cranium does not attach directly to the sacrum, the term "craniosacral" per se may raise some eyebrows, but no explanation of the term is given in the article. The lead claims this practice is pseudoscience but the article seems quite ambivalent on the issue (understandable, as such claims are always controversial to some degree), but the lead also states it is practiced by "occupational therapists, physiotherapists, massage therapists, naturopaths, and chiropractors." I challenge the inclusion of each of these professions in this list. While some of these are not as strictly regulated as others, I seriously doubt CST is currently practiced by any PTs or OTs in the United States. Most disturbingly, I see no connection between Upledger and Retzlaff's study of cranial joints and any treatment procedure. Who developed this treatment procedure? Upledger and Retzlaff? Did they tour the countryside offering seminars to therapists and chiropractors or what? And what exactly is that treatment procedure? Is the therapist supposed to manipulate the cranial joints in some way or manipulate the cranium in relation to the sacrum (as the name might suggest, and if so how does that differ from simple postural correction)? A final point, I noticed a hatnote stating "still point" redirects here. Why does "still point" redirect here? The term is not used anywhere in the article. If a term redirects here, that term's relevance to the topic should be established in the article. This article, as it currently reads, seems to devote so much page space and energy to wrestling over the idea of whether or not its topic is pseudoscience that it fails to even sufficiently identify or describe what its topic is. I will do some research and try to help out with this, but perhaps some of the editors here can help address some of these questions. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has suffered from having a lot of unsourced material removed. It could do with being expanding on the points you mention (with supporting high-quality sources of course). I too fail to understand why "still point" redirects here. Alexbrn (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources

So, I see a few of the sources in the lead were tagged as possible self-published sources. Based on what I saw at WP:SELFPUB, such sources are usually not encouraged for use. However, I do not have much experience with this particular Wikipedia guideline so I would like editors with more experience on this topic to weigh in on the matter. Should we keep them in the article or remove them and search for better references? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally, self-published sources can be used as a source on the subjects themselves, but not in place of a reliable secondary source about someone/something else. For instance, if Ernst wrote in a self-published blog that he thinks CST is quackery, we can use that as a source for verifying his opinion about it, but not as a source for the assertion that CST is quackery. For those assertions, we need to rely on peer-reviewed journals. Same applies to the other side too. If a CST practitioner has produced self-published material about CST, we can't really use that as a source for anything other than the assertion that So-and-so is a supporter/practitioner/proponent/whatever of CST. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, this source is a blog post written by one of the staff editors of the blog, which states specifically that it is unconnected to the British journal [presumably of the same name], and one of the implicit (and very nearly explicitly stated) goals of this blog is to debunk whatever practices the editors find to be pseudoscience. That does not necessarily make it a completely unusable source, but it does exclude it from reliable secondary sources. Moreover, the sentence citing this source is talking about regulation, and I don't see a word about regulation anywhere on that page, so it does not support the assertion in any case. Searching on the web, I don't see any evidence that CST is regulated by any governing body, and even the regulatory agency for healthcare workers in Colorado does not list CranioSacral Therapists and a search found no results. A search of the Missouri Division of Professional Registration similarly found no results. It seems that CST is entirely unregulated, at least in the United States. There is a Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy Association of North America that offers certification, but they seem to be more an advocacy group than a regulatory agency (much like APTA was early on, before physical therapy gained widespread acceptance as an evidence-based practice). Still, their Standards for Practice statement may be a reliable source for stating what the standards are and how the BCTANA view themselves and their practice. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the passage in our article says cranial osteopathy is regulated by the osteopathic medical profession and its governing bodies, which I suppose is true. Osteopathy is regulated by the osteopathic association, but that's not to say CST is regulated by them. I wonder if the AOA considers CST to be outside the scope of practice of licensed D.O.s. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean osteopathic medicine and the American Osteopathic Association? I can't say I'm entirely certain of the AOA's position but I do know that OCF is controversial within the osteopathic medical field. As for your response, I was really referring to the second source you discussed, not Ernst's blog. There was another source labeled as self-published as well near the beginning of the article that seemed like perhaps it should be removed. It seems to me like the lines that separate craniosacral therapy, biodynamics, and OCF are blurred and that no set of clearly defined criteria has been put forward to distinguish these approaches from one another. My impression is that they are intended to be different and may have some overlap with one another, but I am not sure exactly where the differences occur. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I take it then you are asking about the linked PDF document by Wheeler? I found it listed (on the hosting web site) here, where it says it is a course handout, so yes, I would consider that a self-published source. I think you are right about the conflation of terms. I've been reading up on it, and it all still seems a bit confusing to me too. I get a sense that there just isn't much regulation or standardization in this field at all, so even some of the terminology is inconsistent among different sources. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense that these parts of the field aren't that well-defined since the issue has not received a whole lot of attention and has been the subject of an insufficient amount of research. And to clarify, yes, I was referring to the Wheeler PDF. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Are Craniosacral Therapy and Cranial Osteopathy the same thing?

These terms appear to be used interchangeably in the article, but I am not clear on the issue of whether these are actually synonymous terms or if these terms are inaccurately being used this way.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

They do seem to be different, though I'm still not sure exactly how. The sense I get from some sources I have found is that "cranial osteopathy" is basically osteopathic medicine, practiced by a licensed Doctor of Osteopathy, with a focus on the cranial bones, and that this is just a subset of a "big picture" approach to osteopathy; but CST on the other hand is a specific treatment approach that is practiced by a "certified therapist" (certified by Upledger's school or any other school recognized by the BCSTA/NA). I don't get a sense that most CST practitioners are D.O.s or that many licensed D.O.s practice CST. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the correct term is Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, not Doctor of Osteopathy. From what I understand, very few DOs actively use the OMM that they're taught and even fewer use OCF, so I agree with your assessment that few CST practitioners are DOs and few DOs practice CST as you said. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not an experienced editor, but I have written articles, and this article leaves me questioning why the focus is on cranial osteopathy. Craniosacral therapy is approved continuing education by the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (which is another article that needs work), and currently sets the standard for the practice of massage and bodywork in the states that have regulation, and is governed by the boards of massage, nursing, chiropractic, and others in their respective states. Upledger's model is not the only one approved, and if these medical boards regulate and provide oversight to these practitioners of various disiplines then there must be some recognition of efficacy. I am still interested in contributing as soon as I meet my own CE deadlines. Mbrozz (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mbrozz, we definitely welcome your contributions when you are able to do them. The issue of having these as separate articles has been raised before but I think that conversation just kind of trailed off or got off topic. Perhaps it's time to have it again. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No clear description of the basic techniques of CST

Reading through the article, one of my questions was what is CST?; reading through the reader feedback, it's a question repeated by others. This article has suffered from bickering over the legitimacy of CST as a practice, to the detriment of any description of what CST is. Since I came to this article entirely unacquainted with CST, I have been doing a lot of reading lately trying to get up to speed on just what this practice entails. I have to say, I have had a lot of difficulty getting a clear picture of what CST is, even from reading the proponents' own literature. Perhaps one of the more insightful documents I have found so far has been the Standards for Practice document from the BCSTA/NA web site, but I found this document to be poorly written, with little focus on sound understanding of human anatomy and physiology or evidence-based practice. I have come to realize that part of the reason for this article's lack of focus on describing CST techniques is the lack of reliable published sources about those techniques. I suspect one reason for that lack of resources is that CST has mostly escaped the notice of secondary sources (which calls into question the extent of WP:NOTABILITY of this topic), and another is the proprietary nature of teaching tools for CST certification. We should not resort to inserting original research into the article in order to describe CST techniques, but I am hopeful someone more familiar with the topic can find some published sources. Even self-published sources can be used in some ways (see WP:SPS for guidance). If you have a source but are unsure how to include it in the article prose appropriately, please list that source here so other editors can work on it (include a link if the source is online, or complete bibliographical information if not). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 14:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The 2011 review by Jakel and Hauenschild gives some description of CV-4 in the beginning of the article. http://www.jaoa.org/content/111/12/685.long TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the CST Debate Settled?

User Alexbrn wishes to add the statement that the current scientific consensus is that CST has been officially classified as pseudoscience. However, I believe this statement is too strong given the statements of recent systematic reviews on the topic calling for further evidence and saying they are unable to reach definitive conclusions on this therapy one way or another. This includes systematic reviews from 2011 and 2012 which are referenced in the evidence base section. Though true that consensus is defined as a general agreement, I feel this statement will mislead readers to believe that the debate on this therapy is closed which, from the cited review articles, it is not yet. I rephrased it to indeed acknowledge that a significant portion of the academic community currently views this therapy as pseudoscientific which I feel is a fair compromise and is not misleading and included a sentence saying that recent systematic reviews have called for further study on the topic. I would appreciate feedback from users on this issue so user Alexbrn and I can settle this without going into edit war territory. Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can see there is no "debate": among authoritative sources there is no opposition between those who say "it works" and those who say "it doesn't"; there are only authoritative sources saying there is no evidence, and others who have concluded by now, and on that basis, that this means the practice is pseudoscientific. Witness for example the weight of WP:V sources for the "pseudoscience" term. That being the scientific consensus, CST is pseudoscience per WP:FRINGE, and per common sense. I propose the shifty/POV wording in the article is reverted to the more forthright description I provided. (And, BTW by reverting twice I'd say you were already getting into edit war territory). Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not seem like the systematic review articles are saying there is no evidence, but little and calling for more since the modicum of evidence that does exist suggests it is worth looking into. Otherwise, why would the systematic reviews not have outright said that craniosacral therapy has absolutely no place in medicine? There are authoritative sources saying it does not work, however, they are also slightly older sources dated before these newer systematic reviews. I still think it is too strong a sentence to say that the jury is in on the matter and feel the alternate sentence I proposed was fine. I also take exception to the descriptor "shifty/POV", that comes off like a personal attack, is unnecessary, and a rather inaccurate description of my edit. The edit I wrote still acknowledged that the majority of the academic community views this practice with skepticism/reservations and I added that systematic reviews have called for more research (which is true) and implies that the debate has not concluded. I think I will ask a third person to look at the two proposed sentences and see if they find a middle ground or have an alternate suggestion. Also, edit warring is three reverts I believe and you reverted my edits as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to seeking further opinions, but since the discussion isn't even two hours old that might not be necessary if the editors here have an opportunity to express views before we do that; it might be there's a strong consensus ... Alexbrn (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's fine with me if other editors want to comment but I still believe a third opinion will be useful.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just found the most recent systematic review, by the eminent Edzard Ernst, and am beginning now to think "pseudoscience" alone might be too weak a term. Writing about the review findings on his blog later, Prof. Ernst calls CST "bogus" and informs us "CST has ... been considered by most independent experts to be on the lunatic fringe of alternative medicine." I have added this stuff to the article too ... Alexbrn (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, I am an uninvolved editor responding here to a request for a third opinion placed at WP:3O. I have read through the article and its history and perused the sources in the article and glanced over a few additional articles in PubMed. My opinion, based on this review, is that while there is some ongoing mainstream research into this topic, any contemporary medical application of craniosacral therapy is best described as pseudoscience. WP:FRINGE applies, and sources should come from peer reviewed, reputable journals (tertiary sources such as Quackwatch can be used, but in a limited way and with caution).

On a side note, I think the organization of the article layout with a subsection dedicated to each of five ideas is awkward, particularly since each section is so short. I suggest rewriting these (probably in a single section) with fewer, longer paragraphs following a single paragraph that summarizes all five ideas. VQuakr (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the input VQuakr, thank you.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I find the use of the word "settled" to be presumptuous when it is obvious that this is a controversial subject under scrutiny. "Current" would be more accurate, giving weight to the current mainstream medical position without ignoring the potential of ongoing research. I find the article to be mildly biased and lacking information, viable research, and balance. For example in the first paragraph it is evident that mention of oversight and regulating bodies was only afforded to the most powerful, mainstream medical, group of practitioners, implying by omission that the grab bag of other practitioners have no oversight and regulation?! Craniosacral's weakness in America has been in the lack of empirical evidence and that (currently) most of the data collected has been anecdotal. What about research done in France and Italy? The description of the treatment protocol is slanted to emphasize the esoteric, is full of gaps and not grounded in a clinical paradigm. The still point is not described...basics. Why is Grey's Anatomy referenced instead of an astute medical anatomy book by Clemente or better? Grey is better suited to artists than to health care practitioners. Clearly the CST debate is not settled, and I am considering my own edits after pulling the European data.Mbrozz (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There isn't enough here to justify the clear bias intoned within the article. I began here as an interested third-party, after noting that the wiki entry was inconsistent with papers I was reading online. If they are from reputable sources, and if the central complaint is the lack of evidence for CST effectiveness, and if the UK association for CST professionals cites publicly available material from medical journals, it's really a wonder that none of the edits being proposed here stick. Alexbrn reverts them. Consciouscopy (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits / scientific consensus

I have raised the topic of recent edits regarding scientific consensus on WP:FTN, as I think there are some general issues here about how consensus is presented in the context of CST as fringe science. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As a medical topic it needs to be sourced to extremely high standards - calling something "fringe science" doesn't get something a free pass - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So, what happened with this Alex? I see from FTN that the user who responded to you on that noticeboard did not exactly agree with you though it would be better if more opinions were gathered.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am new to editing pages with so much interest, and wish I had more time to dedicate to this. I am of the opinion that the material available and sources submitted for inclusion on this page have not been reviewed in good faith, having been reverted sight-unseen. What is clear is that the editors are committed to surfacing to high-visibility statements about quackery. That seems to demonstrate a non-neutral POV since the sources cited concluded the CST interventions were effective and clinically demonstrated. The time it took me to gather those was not insignificant; the only I can recall off-hand was the one from the Journal of Gerontological Nursing which I will leave here for the community to review (skip to the conclusion if you like). I do intend to propose a reversion back to the changes submitted, but need time to comb back through them to make sure I did not miss something. In the interim, I'd like to ask the other editors here to justify terminology like "scientific consensus" when this is not provable, as would be, say, the fact that there is scientific consensus that a strand of DNA "is made from alternating phosphate and sugar residues." The responsible thing would be to agree that "There is no scientific consensus on the efficacy of CST" and allow for citations that both prove and suggest there is insufficient evidence to prove its efficacyConsciouscopy (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Conscious, I happen to agree with you in that I don't believe the topic has been studied well enough to conclusively say whether or not craniosacral therapy or cranial osteopathy (if they're the same, I'm not entirely sure from the heterogeneous information present on the web but it seems to be referred to as the same here and in most places). However, I believe the study you are citing has been reviewed by the systematic reviews referenced in this article and the study you are citing is nowhere near sufficient to determine craniosacral therapy's effectiveness. There have been some studies for craniosacral therapy, but they have not been of strong methodological design and overall the studies are far and few in between. Original research also needs to convincingly demonstrate a verifiable biologically plausible mechanism to the academic community and well-designed, randomized controlled trials of high quality are needed to properly assess this issue to determine if this approach has any merit. I do believe there may be some POV editing occurring since I recall seeing systematic reviews call for more research since some studies have suggested benefit, but due to poor methodology, have failed to show benefit. To suggest that there is no question about craniosacral therapy, especially with so little research existing in the literature, seems a bit like injecting one's own opinion and comes off a bit premature at this time ( yes, in my opinion). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen an editor state there is no question about CST. I have seen myself and other editors oppose the use of words like quackary and pseudoscience, especially given the lack of diversity in clinical citations ... which reflect what is finally the lack of clinical evidence to prove OR disprove efficacy. Stepping away from the text is context to keep in mind: lack of funding for trials is not the same as trials which have disproven a therapy's effectiveness. I notice that the professional association in the UK weighed in here, and instead of an edit for more balanced language, a counterpoint has simply added, which makes the page more a debate than a neutralized reference. I must state here that to systematically block the inputs of multiple editors who attempt to insert more objective language here has to be considered an abuse of Wikipedia's function. What is the specific interest in maintaining a slant within this article's intro which is obviously negative? Consciouscopy (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Input from the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the UK

On 2 July, Peoplemapsdavid (talk · contribs) added the following to the article lede:

The Craniosacral Therapy Association of the United Kingdom strongly disagrees with this depiction provided by an anonymous editor. Our research page lists around 50 small studies which, taken together, indicate beneficial changes for participants in the studies. (As the reference list puts the correct reference into the wrong number, the research page is found on the association website www.craniosacral.co.uk).

In addition, in 2012, one of our members was awarded an MPhil from Warwick University Medical School for her qualitative study on the changes clients experience from craniosacral therapy treatments. The outcome, generated by grounded theory methods and the processes of inductive thematic analysis through the study make it possible to claim that CST brings about change; experienced as recovery, relief and reduction of symptoms by fostering new levels of understanding and awareness. An abstract can be found on the association website research page. ( Ditto with previous comment on reference list quoting wrong number).

Nicola Brough, MPhil, under the supervision of Professor Sarah Stewart-Brown of the University of Warwick, Warwick Medical School will be carrying out further research through the medium of a PhD starting in the Autumn 2013.

Craniosacral Therapists regularly treat clients recommended to them by other satisfied clients. Word of mouth endorsement isn’t scientific evidence but carries weight because it shows that people experience sufficient benefit from the treatments to recommend Craniosacral Therapy to their friends and family.

Lastly, there is a group of opinion that regards clinical trials as unsuitable to measure the benefits obtainable from therapies such as craniosacral therapy; and that the use of other outcome measures is preferable. (Same problem with the reference list quoting the wrong number. The references are: Reason and Rowan ed: New Paradigms of Research; Evans, D. (2003). "Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare." Journal of Clinical Nursing 12: 77 - 84; www.Kingsfund.org.uk/publications/assessing-complementary-practice). As a further example the qualitative study mentioned above captured a range of beneficial changes that clinical trials miss.

Yobol (talk · contribs) reverted that addition based on the fact that the CSTA is not a WP:MEDRS. However, despite its soapbox style, I felt that there was a germ of usable information to be had from this addition. In order to try to provide neutrality in the form of a fairly sized proponents' view to offset the skeptics' view, I rewrote David's addition as:

Proponents of craniosacral therapy (notably the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the United Kingdom) disagree with this depiction and point to a number of small studies which, taken together, they claim indicate beneficial changes for participants in the studies. They point to a recent trend of opinion that regards clinical trials as unsuitable to measure the benefits obtainable from therapies such as craniosacral therapy; and that the use of other outcome measures is preferable.

I felt that this version fairly presented the proponents' view, while clearly identifying it as such. Subsequent to this change, Peoplemapsdavid contacted me on my user talk page, saying:

Thanks for your help and your message, Dan. I don't see that there's sufficient balance between opponents and proponents of CST. We're accused of quackery which is a very emotive and derogatory description that clients from my Practice and other CST Practices don't recognize as a result of the help they've received from CST. The part of my edit you've omitted is intended to show that we're committed to research (which is difficult to fund for a member financed organisation); that our research is being carried out in conjunction with a leading UK Russell Group University; and that the approximately 50 studies taken together with the qualitative study undertaken by one of our members in 2012 show that a significant number of clients received a definable benefit from receiving CST. Leaving the word 'quackery' unchallenged does not seem balanced and I do not think your edit leaves my original comment in a strong enough position to balance that derogatory statement.

The main issue is where do we go from here? Can we agree some stronger form of 'balance' as opposed to moving towards using a disputes procedure?

Peoplemapsdavid (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)David.

I am transferring his remarks here to further this content dispute. I invite comment from other editors on the topic. Knowing that Wikipedians tend to be, overall, a fairly skeptical lot, I would ask for suggestions as to WikiProjects that might be particularly knowledgeable and open-minded about this topic. (Perhaps WP:WikiProject Alternative Medicine? Perhaps others?) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• My own take on the issue is that David's original addition was way too long, and gave undue weight to the arguments of one organization. His arguments that certain researchers from CSTA have received degrees for their research is pointless -- it only means that they presented a clinical trial of sufficient quality to receive a master's degree -- not that the clinical trial itself proves any point. By reducing the statement to a single paragraph reflecting this proponent organization's views, I believe I have fairly balanced the single paragraph stating the skeptics' viewpoint. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that neutral point of view does not mandate the balance fallacy - I think it's not prima facie unreasonable as it stands (even if CST is ludicrous rubbish medically and scientifically, the opinions of practitioners are relevant), and your edits are good. So thank you! Though somewhere in someone's copious free time it would be good to go over their claims with a fine-toothed comb - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Writing of an organization in the first person ("Our research page...", "one of our members...") also creates an appearance of a conflict of interest and creates a conflicting tone problem for Wikipedia. I left PMD a note and asked him to refrain from writing in the first person in Wikipedia articles. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not an unreasonable first reaction from someone upset at an article close to their hearts who doesn't know much about how Wikipedia works. I'm not sure it's technically a COI either (since it's about the field, not the organisation), nor even that it would be taken as one by the public ... But they're certainly welcome to participate on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the user has any conflict of interest, I just saw the appearance of COI, and either way he is certainly welcome to continue contributing. I wouldn't even have a problem with a COI account making certain edits to the article, so long as they maintain neutrality and proper tone. I would also point out that WP:COI applies regardless of the article title. Editors writing in a tone that implies representation of their employer or an advocacy organization of which they are a member constitute a COI even if they are writing it into an article only obliquely related to their organization. That's why I generally avoid writing very much about my profession on Wikipedia. That, and I'm pretty sure my business will suffer little no matter what Wikipedia says. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 19:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

References

WP:OR

The sentence, "They point to a recent trend of opinion that regards clinical trials as unsuitable to measure the benefits obtainable from therapies such as craniosacral therapy; and that the use of other outcome measures is preferable" is clear WP:OR, as the sources do not mention craniosacral therapy. It is baffling to me how we can use these sources, in the lead no less, when they don't mention craniosacral therapy. Yobol (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources refer to papers published in well-respected sources discussing the fact that standard research models may not be correct to assess the efficacy of alternative or complementary therapies. Certainly we can agree without calling it OR that CST is an alternative or complementary therapy. Therefore, I don't believe the sources need to mention CST explictly to validly verify the statement at hand. The sources are offered as examples of the research that CST proponents point to to defend their case. Whether or not the research actually intended to include CST in its scope, the CST proponents rely on that research to bolster their case. Whether or not such research actually does bolster their case is a point for argument, but not that the proponents rely on said research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Alternative medicine" is far too large a field to allow any mention of it to also refer specifically to CST. Also the sourcing appears to have problems with compliance with WP:MEDRS (WP:MEDDATE issue?) and uses the same individual twice under two different sources (is that an undue problem?). Also where the content is located is a problem with WP:LEAD, the content and sourcing are used only in the lead and are not developed in the body, the lead needs to summarize the content developed in the body and should not have new sources in it that aren't in the body. Zad68 12:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources listed a published text, a medical journal, and an article by Carol M. Black, a noted figure in British public health issues. How much more reliable do you need? And CST is defined as an alternative therapy in the first sentence of the article. I don't argue that the CST proponents are correct in asserting that these papers validate their claims, but the CST people do point to these papers in their arguments. Whether or not such arguments are valid is not the point, the point is that the CST proponents point to them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: The content is listed in the lead because that's where the paragraph that defines CST as pseudo-science and quackery is located. In order to provide proper balance and neutrality, the proponents' view should be given at least the same visibility as the skeptics' view. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Black is a well-connected FRCP and it's reasonable to expect her views will hold more weight than others' but where do we have anything showing Black has commented on CST specifically? If we don't it's textbook WP:SYNTH, if we can't hammer it out here we can take it to the WP:NORN. Even if she does talk about CST we'd have to attribute it to her specifically, as per WP:MEDRS her view would fall under expert opinion. As for where this is mentioned (in lead and not in body), per WP:LEAD, this needs to be fixed. It needs to be developed in the body first, and then the lead will summarize the body. We can't have three sources used in the lead and not in the body. Zad68 13:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've edited to note their source talks about CAM therapies in general, not CST specifically - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a small step in the right direction but doesn't get us all the way there. To support the current article content "They claim a recent trend of opinion..." we need a source that specifically shows that CST proponents state this. We have what they article says they use, we don't have a source that actually states they do use it, this is still a WP:OR problem, and as mentioned above, still a WP:LEAD problem. Zad68 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is missing the point. The point isn't whether the sources actually mention CST. The point is that the CST proponents use these sources to bolster their argument. So, perhaps the citation needs not to be to the sources themselves, but to the CST proponent position paper that cites these sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

the citation needs not to be to the sources themselves, but to the CST proponent position paper that cites these sources - Yes please... honestly I think the article already covers that well enough in the sentence before the one we're discussing, the sentence reading "Proponents of craniosacral therapy (notably the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the United Kingdom) disagree with this depiction and point to a number of small studies which, taken together, they claim indicate beneficial changes for participants in the studies." Doesn't that cover their view? Zad68 14:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think that does cover their view sufficiently. Their view is twofold:

1. There are a number of small studies that demonstrate some advantage to CST; AND
2. Several major voices in the medical field advocate for a change in the way alternative therapies are evaluated, such that these numerous small studies might validate their claim in the same manner that one large study would.

I don't say that I agree with their claim, but that is their claim. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, got it... So view #2 isn't clearly subsumed (if that's the right word) into view #1? I'd think you'd have to assume view #2 to be true to hold view #1. Are we in agreement now that the sourcing provided for the sentence covering view #2 isn't sufficient? If so, can we either remove or tag the sentence for view #2 until proper sourcing is found for it? Zad68 14:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No, view #2 is not subsumed into view #1. #1 states the record, and #2 states that perhaps this record is sufficient. Without #2, #1 would be a pointless statement. Yes, one must accept #2 in order for #1 to be a valid argument, but one must explicitly state #2 in order to provide the validation of #1. Since #2 is a non-standard point of view, it can't just be assumed, it must be explicitly stated.

Since the statement reflects the CSTA's claims, I propose the following:

They claim a recent trend of opinion, such as Evans (2003) and Black (2009), that regards clinical trials as unsuitable to measure the benefits obtainable from some complementary and alternative therapies, and which regard the use of other outcome measures as preferable..

References

In this proposed change, I have removed Reason and Rowan, New Paradigms of Research, because I can find no listing of such a book in either Google books or Google scholar, and have my doubts as to its existence or legitimacy. I also list the statement as "citation needed" because I can find no such statement on the CSTA website. However, I would prefer not to delete the statement yet until Peoplemapsdavid (talk · contribs) can weigh in on the topic (he is the user who introduced the section in the first place and may have more insight into these sources). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with waiting for more input, from Peoplemapsdavid and others. From my past experience I've had difficulty in convincing those professionally involved with a movement like this to abide by Wikipedia's content guidelines, but hoping it won't be a problem here. Fundamentally I'm very uncomfortable with using an unsourced statement based on advocacy organization's views in the lead like this, especially without attribution. Even with attribution, using the viewpoint of the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the United Kingdom sourced directly to them would probably be an improper use of a primary source. The more we talk about this the more it's becoming clear (to me) that the statement needs to be removed from the lead certainly and from the article altogether probably. Zad68 15:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

They're likely as citable as we're going to get for a proponent's view, which is IMO relevant to the topic. WikiDan61's suggested text is fine by me, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Dan's proposed content change per WP:CHALLENGE as we'd be supporting the placement of challenged unsourced content into the article. It needs to be sourced or come out until it's sourced. Zad68 17:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be OK with removing the proponents' view from the lead if we also remove the skeptics' view, so as to avoid giving undue weight to one side or the other. I would recommend moving both views to a "Criticism" section. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be balance fallacy, not neutrality - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Explain please. What is "balance fallacy"? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

He'll have to confirm but I'm pretty sure he's talking about WP:GEVAL. Zad68 17:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If this were an article on medicine in general, or even on alternative medicine in general, I'd say that providing the proponents' view on CST would be giving CST undue weight. But this is an article specifically on the topic of CST: the skeptics' view and the proponents' view should be given equal weight when describing this specific alternative medicine modality. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid this approach you're describing is really not in line with WP:WEIGHT. We give emphasis to viewpoints in proportion to the prominence found in reliable sources. If there are 10 good-quality independent reliable secondary sources that all say "CST has not been shown to be effective" and none state otherwise, the article needs to express that scientific consensus clearly. We must not give equal validity to poorly-sourced viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. Zad68 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - I think stating the views of proponents (and a national peak industry body would certainly count) and their justifications would do the reader a service. Needs that last bit cited, though - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The heart of the issue is the assertion the skeptics' view and the proponents' view should be given equal weight as that's clearly not found in content policy. If there's overwhelming evidence against the efficacy of CST and there is only the non-peer-reviewed statements from an advocacy group in support of it, the article must not give the two views equal weight. The article can provide the proponents' views but also indicate clearly that the proponents' views are not in line with scientific consensus (if that's indeed what the sources say). Zad68 17:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me, I think the article will be better for having the group's view (which I think is laughably unjustified, but anyway), but am not wedded to it being any particular place in the article - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok... the next question is if we're going to go ahead and pull a statement (as a primary source) from an organization that promotes CST, which organization's statement are we going to use? There's a suggestion to use a statement from the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the United Kingdom but why not the Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy Association of North America? The New England Center for CranioSacral Therapy? This place in Nepal? Barbara De Vito? Gloria Flores? Is there such a thing as an authoritative international body that speaks for CST globally? Without a secondary source to identify the most important pro-CST message from among all the proponents, how do we know which organization's statement to choose as the best, most representative view? Zad68 19:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say start with something as an improvement over nothing (avoid the Nirvana fallacy). This is something, start here, improve later. This isn't a BLP, eventualism is actually OK - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Nirvana fallacy" sounds like a Kurt Cobain cover band... A few steps down from Nirvana is Sufficient, and I'm hoping we also avoid the "Something is better than nothing" fallacy (because it often isn't). But I'm willing to let this go... Zad68 03:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Zad68; notable advocates and their theories should be published in independent sources, per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. I have moved the discussion of the UK group down to the body of the article, but am requesting 3rd party sourcing to show that this group is notable within the the craniosacral community and that this particular view is a notable view in that community. Yobol (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR - Sources

One of the sources is given as "Reason and Rowan (ed.). New Paradigms of Research" This isn't enough for me to identify a particular document. Can a URL, PMID or ISBN be provided please? Zad68 13:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Adding: Is it this? Zad68 13:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Re your 15 July comment about overwhelming evidence against the efficacy of CST, Zad, there isn't any! The negative evidence is mostly about the description of how CST works; whereas Professor Ernst's separate comments express his opinion of the poor quality of 5 of the 6 clinical trials carried out on CST - not on whether CST works. That's why we're not comparing like with like. The small studies mentioned previously show an overall trend towards participants experiencing health and other improvements, whereas the negative sources quoted to justify calling CST quackery are wholly about the description of how it works; not on whether it works. As a general observation on some of the other recent comments on this page, the clinical trial discussion is not about CST as such but whether clinical trials are the right research vehicle for complementary medicine.

There are a number of internet references to Reason and Rowan papers and also an extract from their book Human Inquiry in Action: developments in new paradigm research. Please bear in mind that the discussion is about the suitability of clinical trials for complementary medicine and therapy; not particularly about their use in testing the efficacy of CST. Peoplemapsdavid (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the justification for replacing the 'quackery' comment with something more balanced and in tune with client experience. (Suggested wording to follow my comments):

1. Craniosacral therapists don't diagnose, do not deal with symptoms and nor do they either prescribe or discuss medication. CST is not medical and is a subset of what is usually described as Energy medicine. The science behind energy medicine usually starts with what is described as the living matrix which is a continuously interconnected system comprising virtually all the molecules of the body linked together in an intricate network: the skin, the connective tissue and the cellular structure together act as a semi-conductor providing a communication system and one also capable of storing information such as emotional or traumatic experience. Touching the skin provides contact with the whole of the living matrix.

A detailed explanation of the science behind energy medicine is provided by Dr James Oschmann in two books: 'Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis'; and 'Energy Medicine in Therapeutics and Human Performance'. I find this science much more satisfactory than the hypothesis put forward by the originators of craniosacral therapy, the science of which has rightly been criticised; and which made me decide not to challenge the assertion that CST is pseudoscience.

We haven't carried out any research on how CST works, preferring to concentrate on showing that it does work. Research is very expensive and beyond our means. A large clinical trial costs upwards of £1million and can only really be afforded by pharmaceutical companies who have absolutely no reason at all to want to help find a scientific basis for CST. Available funds have been used to set-up a building block approach to providing evidence that CST works. This will take time but there are now about 50 worldwide small studies (not ours - just carried out independently of each other by interested groups). Taken together, these show that clients receive quantifiable benefit from receiving CST treatments; and that it would be worthwhile setting up much bigger trials. This is where the lack of funding prevents us from doing this; but the collection of small trials and my own and other therapist/client experience is the primary reason I object to the quackery description. It isn't quackery. I've seen too many people helped!

CST takes two year's training in the technique plus a further one year's study of foundation anatomy, so 3 years in all. It's a touch therapy. Clients remain fully clothed; and we use a number of hand holds on various parts of the body to sense where the body is holding tensions. These may arise either from pain, from injury, or from emotional or traumatic experience. There is evidence that 'intent' plays a part in a healing process i.e. the intent to help the client to heal; and placing the hands on the body results in the held tensions relaxing. This is why I find the living matrix science so fascinating because it possibly explains why touching the body can lead to changes within it.

Craniosacral therapists do not manipulate or use any kind of manipulation technique - it's all touch and touch only. It's thought that the internal tensions inhibit the flow of energy and fluids through the body; and prevent whatever healing mechanisms the body has from working. These are primarily the flow of peptides from their source of origin within the body to the receptors for which they're intended. The body manufactures a little over 50 chemicals which jointly enable health and the effective running of the organs and other mechanisms within the body.

2. The handful of examples that purport to show the danger of using CST are not in fact based on craniosacral therapy treatments. They're some kind of cranial intervention used by other modality practitioners who are not craniosacral therapists; and using techniques that are not part of CST training. CSTs never use manipulation; everything is based on touch and only on touch. This so-called negative evidence is used to claim that CST does not work; but none of it is a CST treatment. It can't therefore be said that medical research has concluded that there is no evidence for the therapy's effectiveness.

3. The only research carried out into the effectiveness of CST (which is not the same as research carried out into the scientific explanations put forward by the pioneers of CST - and which I agree doesn't stand-up) shows a trend of improvement either in health and/or in the way in which clients feel about themselves.

4. Craniosacral therapy is not the only therapy for which the underlying science doesn't stack up but from which clients receive definable benefits. Freud's work didn't have a rigorous scientific basis but his theories ruled the psychological world for decades; and is still regarded as a 'useful fiction' in assessing how best to help clients. A particular psychological technique in frequent use with sports 'superstars' is known as the chimp model. Its pioneer, Dr Peters, is the first to admit that the underlying science is suspect but the technique still works. Critics of acupuncture question its underlying science but any number of research studies have been carried out that show it works for specific conditions.

5. Craniosacral Therapy is a complementary therapy (CAM) and while (to answer one earlier critic on this page) no work has been done to show that RCTs are not a suitable research method for CST it seems self-evident that it can only be classified as a complementary therapy. Work has been done to demonstrate that RCTs are not a suitable research instrument for CAM. In fact, some researchers question whether they're entirely suitable for mainstream medicine! For example, have a look at Ben A Williams 'Perils of evidence-based medicine' http://virtualtrials.com/pdf/ebm.pdf. and also Timmermans S,Berg M: 'The gold standard: The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care'. Philadelphia/; /Temple University Press, 2003. As far as CST is concerned, it is impossible to blind the treatment; impossible to 'factor out' the 'non-specific' elements such as the therapeutic relationship and listening skills of the therapist, as these are inherently part of the treatment; and the sessions themselves cannot be standardised.

6. Coming back to the edit of the pseudoscience and quackery section, the words used can't be claimed to be measured; or really provide a sufficient balance between opponents and proponents of the therapy. I suggest something more balanced along the following lines to replace the section that reads: 'The settled scientific consensus...........the therapy's effectiveness' with: 'A number of studies carried out into the scientific explanation of how craniosacral therapy works concluded that important elements of the claimed underlying science do not work. This suggests that the therapy also does not work. [References to be added once the edit is agreed].

Proponents of craniosacral therapy (notably the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the United Kingdom) disagree with this depiction and point to a number of small studies which, taken together, they claim indicate beneficial changes for participants in the studies.[2] They point to a recent trend of opinion that regards clinical trials as unsuitable to measure the benefits obtainable from therapies such as craniosacral therapy; and that the use of other outcome measures is preferable.[3][4][5][Note to wiki editors: not part of the suggested edit: this is wording that WikiDan61 suggested in the last exchange of views on this section's wording. It's been removed from the CST page and needs to be re-inserted as part of the overall edit - once the whole edit is agreed]. Peoplemapsdavid (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

tell me please will this procedure or therapy help my annural bulging disc at my L4-L5 billi-jo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.130.44 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Hi billi-jo, Wikipedia is a great source of general information, but it is not a place to seek medical advice. Keep in mind that you do not know who the editors are, or what their qualifications are (or are not). If you have personal medical questions, you should seek the expertise of a physician. For more information regarding the appropriate role of wikipedia, please see this page - WP:MEDICAL. Rytyho usa (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Experts on craniosacral therapy

Hi folks,

I just noticed that IP user 75.100.39.121 wrote in defense of their removal of sourced content that they are a physician that uses craniosacral therapy often, and has adequate expertise to vouch for its effectiveness and that it is therefore NOT pseudoscience. Unfortunately, a user's status as an expert in any field does not afford them any special privileges in editing on wikipedia. It still all comes down to reliable sources. See WP:EXPERT, the section on "warning to expert editors", specifically #4. Perhaps experts are better equipped to prove their statements and contributions, but it is still necessary for them to do so. Rytyho usa (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

An IP hacked away the critical section of the article, leaving a pile of dangling references, and adding an ill-formatted bit of what appears to be original research. I reverted to the last stable version for now, but before going back we should probably talk about what bits of the cut section may warrant cutting and if any of the new stuff doesn't qualify as synthesis and OR - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why does "craniopathy" redirect here?

Not used or explained in article. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question...I have no idea. Out of sheer curiosity, what prompted you to search craniopathy in the first place? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to define a long list of words for Wiktionary, and find that many of them are inappropriate or mystery redirects on Wikipedia; see my edit history here for further cases! 86.159.197.174 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy should be mentioned in this article

Biodynamic seems to be a major thread within craniosacral therapy and deserves at least a mention, if not its own small section. This springs from Sutherland's late-life work, as well as Jim Jealous and Franklin Sills. This incarnation of CST seems to have an almost spiritual focus, rather than simply the biomechanics of subtle skull bone motion. Here are two websites that discuss the origins of the biodynamic approach. I am *not* suggesting these as sources; printed sources would always be my preference, but this is provided to give other editors a bit of background on the subject so we can discuss the inclusion of Biodynamic CST in this article. Also, let's discuss external links for this article. {https://www.craniosacraltherapy.org/History_06.htm} (The main page for this link is in the current EL section.) {http://www.craniosacral-biodynamics.org/history.html} (This is Franklin Sills' training program.)--Karinpower (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is not a valid source

Removed reference and inflammatory language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakbranch8 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

See

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Wikipedia has this pillar:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. . . . All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, AUTHORITATIVE sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.

By reinserting the inflammatory phrase, the NON-scientifically-valid phrase, you are violating the terms of this site, and being an advocate. Oakbranch8 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to quackery, like CST, QuackWatch is a high-quality source. Our policy on fringe material requires us to be up-front in labelling it as such, to be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the links that you posted to me? It is not a "high-quality source" but rather a suspect one. To use terms like "pseudo science" and "quackery" on this page is highly prejudicial and violates the neutral tone goal. If you want to make sure that Cranial Sacral therapy is properly critiqued here, present peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals, not the words of one man, Barrett, with an ax to grind.

You write, "When it comes to quackery, like CST, QuackWatch is a high-quality source." It is your opinion that CST is "quackery." But Wikipedia clearly states, "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." You are trying to put forth your own point of view. Oakbranch8 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

CST is silly, read the source. We don't indulge WP:LUNATICCHARLATANS here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Alex, you are NOT abiding by the terms of editing this site! From Wikipedia: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." If you have peer-reviewed articles from journals to cite, then do so. The term "quackery" is not even a scientifically valid, verifiable term. You are making Wikipedia in to your own advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakbranch8 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dunno why you're mentioning personal views. Here, we follow the appropriate sources, they give us the info we relay: CST is a load of bollocks practised by quacks. Without new sources this discussion is futile. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Dunno why you're mentioning personal views . . .CST is a load of bollocks practised by quacks." Is that not a personal view, Alex? The article is supposed to have a neutral tone, and you want to add unscientific, inflammatory language to the mix to bolster your own opinion. That is not what Wikipedia is for. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."Oakbranch8 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a perfectly valid source for quackery and related subjects such as this. What a joke it is. Stop wasting our time treebranch, and learn to use colons correctly. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The tone of the article is supposed to be neutral. Do you know that means? A word like "quackery" is NOT neutral. It is not even scientfic. So do not tell me to leave. You and Alexbrn are the ones violating the policies of this site: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." In other words, if you hate cranial sacral therapy (which you know nothing about), then that is not supposed to be part of your editing process. This is not a site for people to come on disparage things they hate. Either be commited to neutrality, or leave. Oakbranch8 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oakbranch8, it is you who misunderstands the policy on neutrality. We are specifically instructed not to attempt to provide "equal validity" - indeed, the policy requires us to identify pseudoscience as such. As noted at the top of this section, quackwatch has been extensively discussed and identified as a reliable source of information regarding what constitutes medical quackery. VQuakr (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a valid self-published source that is reliable for presenting Barrett's opinion, which ought to be identified as such with WP:INTEXT attribution.

I wonder if the amount of attention given to this inflammatory criticism is really WP:DUE, however. Most CST is done by licensed physical therapists, for conditions like pain. I'd never heard that it was alleged to do anything for cancer, so it feels very weird to lead with a statement that it doesn't work for something that nobody uses it for. In fact, the ACS page goes on to say, "Promoters claim this therapy can be used to help relieve headaches; neck and back pain; problems with the temporomandibular joint (the hinge of the jaw, often called the TMJ); chronic fatigue; poor coordination; eye problems; depression; hyperactivity; attention deficit disorder; problems with the central nervous system, the immune system, and the endocrine system; and many other conditions", which doesn't mention cancer at all. So nobody seems to say that CST is used to treat cancer (other than as a relaxation technique, and I imagine that many cancer patients would thereby receive significant psychological benefit from that), and therefore saying that it doesn't kill cancer cells, or namechecking ACS at all, is probably UNDUE.

The quality of most of these sources is low. For "pseudoscience", we're citing:

• PMID 15208545, a letter to the editor
• PMID 15537794, another letter to the editor
• PMID 16762070, a nine-year-old "my opinion" paper in a Chiropractic and Osteopathic journal
• doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515, a nine-year-old opinion survey in a psych journal with an impact factor of 1.2.

That last one, by the way, does contain the word pseudoscientific, but never uses it to describe CST. In fact, it only mentions CST in a very narrow context: the psychologists surveyed, on average, said that CST was probably considered discredited for treatment of anxiety and depression. That's rather different from saying that it's pseudoscience, or even that it's discredited in general (e.g., for pain). What it says about pseudoscience is this: "Recently, several authors have attempted to identify pseudoscientific, unvalidated, or “quack” psychotherapies" and "Psychological science tends to be self-correcting in that its foundation lies in empirical evidence (more than most professions, anyway). As a field, we have made progress in differentiating science from pseudoscience in the prac- tice of psychology."

For "quackery", we're citing:

• QuackWatch, where the label "quackery" comes from a highlighted reader comment(!), rather than from the authors, and
• ISBN 0683301497 from 1999, which doesn't exactly say that. What it actually says is this:
  "Myofascial and somatoemotional release and craniosacral therapy are techniques that are founded on the notion that the fascia spans the entire body. A scar in the fascia can thus provoke pain elsewhere in the body. Craniosacral therapy is based on the idea that the cranial sutures are capable of movement and that spinal fluid has a rhythm of its own that can be felt by the experienced therapist when palpating the cranial sutures. Somatoemotional release is a technique that regresses patients to what is thought to be their initial trauma. Having the patient relive the trauma is considered therapeutic. We found only one study (39) in the peer-reviewed literature on these techniques. The study compared myofascial technique with a conventional technique and found the conventional technique to be superior. At best these techniques can be considered quackery that may provide a relaxation response; at worst they make the patient more dependent and disabled. Somatoemotional techniques in chronic pain patients should be avoided. Tinkering by a physical therapist with a patient's emotional past is dangerous unless the physical therapist is also a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist."
  I can see that the words craniosacral therapy and quackery are in the same paragraph, but I can also see reviews like PMID 10709302 and PMID 9243408 that are listed in PubMed and that ought to have been found by anyone who was asserting that this subject isn't mentioned anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature. I think this 16-year-old book is both too vague and too outdated to be useful.

I think it would be better for the lead to say something like this:

Old	Proposed
According to the American Cancer Society, although CST may relieve the symptoms of stress or tension, "available scientific evidence does not support claims that craniosacral therapy helps in treating cancer or any other disease". CST has been characterized as pseudoscience and its practice has been called quackery.	Craniosacral therapy may be relaxing or relieve symptoms of stress or tension in some patients, but there is no scientific evidence that it is an effective treatment for any specific diseases. The original idea about its mechanism is biologically implausible and has been discarded even by its proponents.

I think we could reasonably cite PMID 16762070 (the opinion-ish paper) for this.

If we've got a truly NPOV paragraph, then all sides should be able to see their POV being fairly described. Does this sound like a plausible compromise to everyone? Do you think that one side is being unfairly described in this proposal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

while i like you proposed language a lot (except for the word "patients" with should be "people") I reject your formulation that "If we've got a truly NPOV paragraph, then all sides should be able to see their POV being fairly described." NPOV does not mean that. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. Also, NPOV does not mean neutral "language". This is a common misunderstanding. It means editors remain neutral and do not censor content. NPOV is aimed at editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As a PT, I must ashamedly admit that some PTs do use quackish practices like CST, but the practice is primarily used by osteopaths. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the proposed suggestions do seem reasonable enough to me. It's important that we do not overly promote self-published sources and only cite them when absolutely necessary. -A1candidate 21:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, that is a brilliant piece of writing. I like your proposed edit. While neither side is going to love that language, I think it gives a very fair nod to both perspectives.

I agree with comments that others have made, the term "quackery" is pejorative and inherently non-neutral. It implies an intent to deceive and defraud; there is little or no evidence of this in most modern alt-med professions, instead there is a lack of evidence which does not equal quackery. I believe that WP is exposed to legal risk if terms like quackery are used. We can be much more accurate and professional by specifically describing the facts. --Karinpower (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Karin, I'm just going to correct some misunderstandings:

There is no legal risk. Free speech allows for far more offensive terms. The courts have long since determined that issue. Also, quoting (even of online defamation) on the internet is protected speech. The original author of the defamation could be held liable, but not someone who quotes them online, and Wikipedia is online. As long as we quote properly, we can print anything (obviously taking into account our BLP guideline). See the groundbreaking decision in Barrett v. Rosenthal. Ironically, this happened to involve Barrett (!), who was being called a quack. (He didn't sue for that, but for other lies being told about him.)

Also, Wikipedia and its editors don't give a flying f@#$ whether content is pejorative, as long as it is properly sourced. Where it can get touchy is whether it is done with Wikipedia's voice or not, so when in doubt, attribute the wording. We are not allowed to censor content! The wording "its practice has been called quackery" is not in Wikipedia's voice, but points to an obvious source, which is provided.

Ergo, most of your and others' opposition here fails to honor our policies and guidelines. This allergic reaction to words like "quackery" and "pseudoscience" needs to stop. It only serves the purposes of those editors who misuse Wikipedia to advocate, promote, and defend such beliefs and practices. Even worse, it prevents Wikipedia from doing its job of documenting the sum total of human knowledge, which includes documenting very non-neutral and pejorative opinions (which are often well-deserved). The exact pejoratives, and the spirit with which they are used, must be preserved in our content. Editors are required by NPOV to remain neutral, and censorship and whitewashing violates that most sacred of all our policies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I think I'm going to try to work out exactly what I'm proposing to add to the article here on the talk page, since I see that this topic is somewhat controversial and I want to make sure that my contributions don't start an edit war. Hopefully everyone will be happy. :)

I think that some examples of facilities that offer or have offered craniosacral therapy might be helpful. I personally know one such facility. It is called Developmental Therapy Associates. It is located in Durham, North Carolina. Interestingly, the craniosacral therapist often mentioned energy fields when she did the therapy, and energy fields are mentioned in the "Bodywork" article. I'm wondering if anyone knows about a connection between the two? If so, it might be added to the article. Surprisingly, the "energy waves" sounded pretty reasonable. Mostly it was about the effect that the therapy caused on the level of heat radiating off of the body. The odd thing about was she mentioned the waves being "blocked". And there was talk about breathing patterns. And a specific type of supposedly "special" music was used. The oddest thing is that it really did seem to have some effects on me, but I was under awful pressure in school and having some personal problems too at the time I was going to craniosacral therapy, so it was probably just the fact that I got to relax. Though this is really getting to be just speculation at this point. :)

Please forgive the fact that my phrasing isn't as good as it could be, but suddenly finding out I spent months being "treated" by a method that is considered as alternative medicine, as my opinion of alternative medicine is generally pretty negative, rather messes with my head and makes it hard to organize my thoughts and write prettily. JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The American Cancer Society

As CranioSacral Therapy has never claimed to cure cancer, I'm unclear why The American Cancer Society leads off as an "expert" source in the first paragraph of CST's definition. And to attribute the 'quackery' label to them is even more perplexing. I've also noticed that several attempts to gently revise this paragraph continues to be rejected. Is there another avenue that we can take to create a more neutral definition? Awmerrell (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Try raising it at WP:FT/N (hint: it's neutral as-is). Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the Talk page Awmerrell. The answer to your question is kind of involved. But here it goes. Everything in Wikipedia must be supported by what we call a "reliable source" - people cannot write whatever they want here - it has to be a "summary of accepted knowledge", as we say, that is based on a.. reliable source (or "RS" for short). We have a guideline that covers general content that you can find here: WP:RS. But for content about health in Wikipedia, we have a slightly different guideline that is here: WP:MEDRS. What that guideline says, is that content about health, needs to be based on an independent, recent review in the biomedical literature, or a statement by an independent major medical or scientific body. For CAM-type interventions like CST, where itis hard to find reviews in the biomedical literature and our usual go-to scientific and medical authorities don't say much, we have found ACS to be invaluable as a reliable, independent source describing these CAM treatments and their relative safety and efficacy. That is why we use it. About what you said, unfortunately some people do say that CST could be used to treat cancer. But I agree with you that those folks are rare. You will notice that that ACS page mostly talks about CST as a complement to medical care - as something to help people deal with pain, etc. Anyway, that is the "why" and as much of the "what" as I can say briefly. We can chat more about how Wikipedia works generally at your Talk page. That would probably be a good thing, while you are figuring Wikipedia out. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The ACS published a book on CAM which is slightly more recent than their archived page(s). I'll dig it out and update the ref ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Time Magazine's "America's Next Wave of Innovators"

I didn't want to wade in when I haven't worked on this article before. But I noticed that an editor that Jytdog is working with in regard to potential COI issues was reverted (here) with the comment "Upledger is not the subject of this article". This factoid about Upledger is repeated many times on the web, and I was able to find a link to the TIME article in question, which was not properly cited in the reverted link. Here's a corrected cite:

Greenwald, John (April 16, 2001). "Alternative Medicine / Craniosacral Therapy: A New Kind of Pulse". Time Magazine. Retrieved April 8, 2016.

I'm not proposing one way or the other whether this is valid content for the article, I just wanted to save everybody some Googling if this claim comes up again. This article was part of a special section titled "TIME 100: The Next Wave/Innovators" which you can see in the table of contents for that issue. Carry on. --Krelnik (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A couple of inserts for Craniosacral Therapy Reception?

1. In 1999, The Upledger Foundation conducted an intensive-therapy research program for 24 combat-scarred Vietnam veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The study employed a scientific protocol co-designed with the West Palm Beach Veterans Administration medical center. Treatment focused on CranioSacral Therapy and SomatoEmotional Release.®

On the first day of the research program, subjects underwent a craniosacral system evaluation, a videotaped psychiatric interview, and psychological testing by an independent licensed psychologist. Each of these evaluations was repeated on the last day of the program.

The psychological assessment battery consisted of five instruments: Mississippi Scale for Combat Related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Mississippi), Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI), Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ), Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS). All five instruments were administered on the first day of the program. The BSI and the BHS were administered on the last day of the program and again one month post treatment. The entire assessment battery is also scheduled to be given again at a future date.

At the program's conclusion, the independent psychologist's report confirmed that the veterans "experienced fewer symptoms, most notably those related to obsessive/compulsive thoughts and behaviors, depression, lack of motivation, feelings of alienation and withdrawal, and in the total number and severity of general symptoms." What's more, the report rated these milestones as statistically significant, noting there was more than a 95 percent correlation between the veterans' improvements and the CranioSacral Therapy they received at UI HealthPlex.

2.The Colorado Board of Medical Examiners vs. W. M. Raemer, D.D.S., Court of Appeals, State of Colorado, Case No. 87CA1589, March 22, 1990. The unanimous ruling of the Appellate Court, in favor of W. M. Raemer, D.D.S., states that CranioSacral Therapy is an effective form of treatment for TMJ dysfunction. As such, it was ruled that dentists in Colorado are allowed to use CranioSacral Therapy for treatment in the scope of their practices. This conclusion was made after enough study to unanimously satisfy the Colorado Supreme Court.Awmerrell (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making a proposal! Small thing - we don't use the registered trademark symbol in WIkipedia. See MOS:TM. Much bigger thing - you didn't cite any sources. Everything in Wikipedia needs a reliable source. For anything about health, the source has to comply with WP:MEDRS (the source has to be a review from the biomedical literature or a statement by a major health authority like the NIH, CDC, or the NHS in the UK); for non-health things the source has to comply with WP:RS - in any case it should be independent - not a self-published thing like the foundation's website. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

New Craniosacral Therapy Research (Document on Regenexx; web site)

We find the term "quackery" used quite often so it was interesting to find this article by an MD that has done significant research on CST. Perhaps we could add this to alexbrn's American Cancer Society's paragraph? Go to:

http://www.regenexx.com/craniosacral-therapy-research/

to read the articleAwmerrell (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Why in the world would you change my Title on a Talk page? Balanced feedback is appreciated but I feel that the following report was more valid than I first thought: http://cbs12.com/news/nation-world/full-measure-the-dark-side-of-wikipediaAwmerrell (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

What, you think "This Duck Doesn't Quack Anymore" was more accurate? One study doesn't establish craniosacral therapy as not fringe. --tronvillain (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's one study: Craniosacral Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Neck Pain, single blinded with "light touch sham treatment", and only one of the therapists did the "sham" treatment. It may indicate that the treatment had some clinical effectiveness (at eight weeks, though not at twenty), but it doesn't establish that CST actually works as described - as the article says It remains unclear whether CST techniques actually affect the indicated fascial structures and joints, and if so, whether these changes in turn would result in quantifiable physiological responses. For all we know, a good neck and shoulder massage might have as much of an effect. --tronvillain (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

not a reliable source per MEDRS; not even close. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

My Inner Physician and my Inner Child are arguing in my inner ear - QUICK ! - call a Cranio !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

User:CranioSacral Knowledge, you have made the following edits:

• diff, adding unsourced/badly sourced promotional content
• diff adding unsourced/badly sourced promotional content
• diff (restoring last edit)
• diff removing sourced content
• diff again removing sourced content, adding unsourced promotional content

Please discuss your proposed changes here. Please base proposals on sources that comply with WP:MEDRS and that comply with the other policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What purported pulse?

At the time of writing this, the third paragraph of the topic, "History and conceptual basis" contains: "...to investigate the purported pulse and further study Sutherland's theory of cranial bone movement.", but this so-called pulse has not been previously mentioned or described, so it hasn't been 'purported' here, nor is there a clear mention of this 'pulse' having been purported elsewhere. If the article is to mention at this point the 'purported' pulse, shouldn't there be something somewhere before that which describes or mentions or purports something about this so-called pulse first? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

See the next paragraph - I've flipped them around. --tronvillain (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Benefit is more than Placebo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Measurable changes occur during and after craniosacral therapy. Agreed, they are hard to spot but I'd rather this said craniosacral realignment. As for the people who have never felt PRM, it's hard to feel something or notice something that's always been there. You know your nose is there but you don't see it any more because your brain filters it out. Same thing happens with PRM. Shtanto (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. Please see WP:SOAP and WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality

Page is not neutral. Appears to be written by a physician or scientist or drug company employee who as yet seems not to profit from complementary medicine. Later they probably will. The same occurred with the Israel and Palestine pages, which revealed terrible bias on the part of Israeli self-promotion, which is deplorable in terms of placing bias as the leading tone and content of a Wikipedia piece. This is why scholars hestitate to refer students to these pages, even though some pages are completely neutral. Clearly, this is a good example of one that is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.55.146 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We describe things as they are, using reliable sources. So nonsense is properly described here, with lots of cited refs that you keep deleting. See your Talk page for some warnings. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@98.27.55.146 I know this is an old section, but I don't think User:Roxy the dog explained it enough. This article remained neutral by adding qualifiers after stating the scientific point of view and not disparaging its subject. Wyrm127 (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wyrm127 don't ping me. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@User:Roxy the dog Sorry. Wyrm127 (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wyrm127 learn to use talk pages properly. indentation rules, OK? furthermore, can you read? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@User:Roxy the dog "learn to use talk pages properly. indentation rules, OK?"

Sorry, no one had ever linked me to the article about indentation guideline, I did find an essay on it though.

"furthermore, can you read?"

How do you get that from "Sorry"? Wyrm127 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It may have something to do with pinging them again immediately after a request to not ping them. --tronvillain (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Two known cases of death

The source for this claim documents:

"* In 2003, a Pennsylvania chiropractor (Joann A. Gallagher) was convicted of insurance fraud in connection with the death of a 30-year-old epileptic woman whom she treated with cranial therapy. Court documents indicated that the patient died of severe seizures after following the chiropractor's advice to stop taking her anticonvulsive medication. The fraud involved submitting insurance claims falsely describing Upledger's "meningeal balancing" as spinal manipulation [8]."

"* In 2012, a Missouri dentist (Joseph H. Kerwin) had his license revoked for contributing to the death of a 2-day-old infant who had been brought to him because of a high fever. Records in the case indicate that instead of referring the parents to a medical facility, he manipulated the child's skull and applied a vibrating machine to his sacrum. The boy died 12 hours later, and the autopsy showed that he died from complications of a subdual hematoma (a blood clot that compressed his brain). The medical examiner concluded that the hematoma could have been present at birth but was more likely caused by the skull manipulation. The dental board concluded that Kerwin had acted outside the scope of dentistry [9]."

The first indicates that the cause of death was not craniosacral therapy but malpractice as the cause of death was seizure after the the chiropractor advised a client to stop taking medication.

So, I think that resource needs to be removed as it is obviously biased and not a reliable source. KFvdL (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

From court documents: https://www.casewatch.net/board/dent/kerwin/order_2012.pdf

1. Parents brought patient to dentist with the following complaints: 103.9 degree fever, and was having suckling issues and otherwise general restlessness The child was born vaginally. This was the parents sixth child. They were likely describing suckling issues and general restlessness accurately. Fever and restlessness are signs of a subdural hematoma.

2. Although an additional chart entry that Kerwin created after J.S. died indicated that Kerwin found "no abnormalities or defects," upon physical examination of J.S. by Ketwin on April30, 2006, Kerwin determined that (1) J.S. had a compressed frontal and occipital side bend; (2) J.S. had slight fluid or edema under the scalp of the forehead area; and (3) J.S. had signs of birth trauma. The Dentists physical examination before treatment revealed signs of birth trauma.

From the signs and symptoms it is a viable conclusion that the patient had a subdural hematoma before the treatment.

As indicated by the medical examiners statement there is no way to tell when a hematoma was created unless there is a specific singular event. Subdural hematomas during vaginal childbirth are not rare.

I think the second case is a grey area. Unless a good source documents this as not being the result of the craniosacral therapy, the best sources link them despite being illogical. That does not change that the first case is obviously not related. KFvdL (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Quackwatch Reference

I removed a quackwatch reference from the article as it is a partisan website. It was reverted. Wikipedia agrees that it is a partisan website, see WP:RSP and scroll down. It was deemed a partisan website by the ArbCom here: [[13]]. On WP:RSP is states: "As it is a tertiary source, it may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered." Based on that, and because it does nto change anything about the content of the article, I think the quackwatch reference should be removed. KFvdL (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

QuackWatch is reliable for commentary on quackery, which CST is. I note that you now admit a direct financial interest in this content. Please do not edit the article again, instead propose changes on this Talk page. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. WP:COI strongly discourage people to edit articles, not says that you cannot. But no worries, I will discuss things here first before I make additional changes. I will ask ArbCom for clarification about Quackwatch. Seems curious that they label it a partisan website and ding someone for it and we are allowed to keep it here. KFvdL (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, you basically say that the ArbCom is wrong when they found that someone used Quackwatch to do something similar in another page? KFvdL (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you've got it wrong. I was previously named Fyslee, IOW that is about me. That Arbcom ruling was later amended. The amendment removed the false charge against me of having used "unreliable" sources (QW), and it vindicated QW by removing the description of it as being "unreliable". Justice was finally done after two years! Note that only the second motion (1.1) passed.

RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery: The consensus is that it may be used as a source under the same rules and precautions that govern the use of any other RS. It is an obviously notable source that is highly regarded by the mainstream (no criticisms) and vilified by the fringe/alternative side, which is to be expected -- it exposes their unscientific practices, scams, and other illegal activities. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of Cancer society quote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I fail to see why the quote from the cancer society is relevant. As far as I know, nobody with any authority about craniosacral has made the claim that craniosacral should be used to treat cancer, and as such it is misleading to add a quote denouncing craniosacral for being ineffective to treat cancer as this would imply that craniosacral makes such a claim....... Consequently, I think those quotes should be removed as they imply a claim about craniosacral that is incorrect. KFvdL (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Read the quote properly. The words “or any other disease” are the ones you need to think about in this context. The quote is fine, just underlining the uselessness of this “therapy” Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:01, August 1, 2019‎ (UTC)
  • I did not know the cancer society was expert on all diseases. regardless of that, the implication for craniosacral being unsuitable for something craniosacral does not claim is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. KFvdL (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, the book in question is a complete guide to altmed, and the ACS is a superb source per WP:MEDRS. NPOV means that we accurately reflect such superb sources, so - there is no issue here. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Interesting. So you are telling me that if the source is good, you can introduce any type of falsehoods into an article..... KFvdL (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't know what you mean. A bit of trivial googling shows the CST quacks make all kinds of cancer claims (and other stuff too). Basically, Wikipedia is going to reflect sensible mainstream sources in this topic area, and not indulge nonsenses. That is core to our neutrality mission. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Okay, so you are basically saying that because some practitioners make wild claims that craniosacral can cure cancer (citations please, not to be confused with assistive treatment), that quote is valid despite that any and all organizations in this field do not make such a claim.... To me that sounds like a violation of neutrality and original research. KFvdL (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to identify any claims made by CST practitioners that are not wild. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that there isn't a timestamp on my post up there ^^^ [points] ^^^. Sorry about that. Hello Guy, havn't seen you for ages. You havn't missed anything. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I will get to those claims. First order of action of s to clean up the Neutrality and Original research and reliable sources violations. KFvdL (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm no seeing any evidence of such problems. We need to avoid a WP:PROFRINGE situation. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And I do see several of these problems. Blogposts, unreviewed website articles, claims about CST that CST does not make but refuted using a reliable source. All signs of bias. KFvdL (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hitchen's Razor applies. Every source in the article is good & accurate. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I've clearly a different idea about that..... KFvdL (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And your idea is influenced by the fact that representing the scientific consensus view as truth, impacts your ability to profit from claiming the opposite to your customers. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Huh, no..... I tell my clients about the medical consensus..... I've no need to lie to them about that.... The results speak for themselves.... KFvdL (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahaha. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mocking editors is not nice. KFvdL (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Defrauding vulnurable patients is immoral. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Wikipedia has a policy on discuss the content, not the editor. I think that applies to you as well.... KFvdL (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Medical fraud. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been long enough here on Wikipedia that you know that what you are doing is a form of uncivil behavior. KFvdL (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Is a systematic review in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine an acceptable source? KFvdL (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The only one I'm aware of is this, and I'd say no. That journal is dedicated to publishing the musings of pseudoscientists, so huge red flag right off the bat. And on that specific review, they are basically trying to squeeze blood from a stone. They do actually admit that none of their conclusions are drawn from high quality reproducible studies. So again, it doesn't move the needle. We have respected medical authorities taking issue with aspects relevant to the entire field of cranisacral therapy research, and no number of chiropractors and osteopaths generating yet more studies with the same problems is going to represent anything other than a fringe POV. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. KFvdL (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Someguy1221. Altmed journals are not suitable for altmed health claims; we need sources outside that fringe milieu. And, considering what our sources say about the inherent implausibility of CST, they'd need to be exceptionally strong ones too (e.g. NEJM, NHS, etc.). Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

EBCAM review

Guy already removed it, but I wanted to state my objections here anyway. The conclusion of that study is "This systematic review and critical appraisal found insufficient evidence to support craniosacral therapy. Research methods that could conclusively evaluate effectiveness have not been applied to date." And of course includes the standard finding of universally "inadequate research protocols." Basically, it's concluding that the available research is worthless garbage that cannot be used to draw conclusions, and naturally concluding that people should waste more time and money researching it. Yes yes, the conclusions are very promising if we completely ignore the methodological deficiencies. Anyway, as with most pseudomedicine, this is precisely the problem that actual reliable sources focus on. So this is simply yet another pile of studies with the exact same problems as all the other ones, and thus does not move the needle in anyway way. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

EBCAM is the quintessential junk journal.[14]. All Hindawi journals are listed in WP:CRAPWATCH, and fall into the category of "never use" for health claims on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarification please: "It is based on misconceptions about the nature of the human skull"

I think it would be good to specify what those misconceptions are as I can think of many but this is so broad that it is difficult to figure out what exactly needs to be addressed by other reliable sources that are more recent then a 20 year old review.... KFvdL (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Read the sources (particularly Crislip). Things like, you know, the skull having tidal phenomena. Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, so basically a whole wide range of claimed misconceptions... KFvdL (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources tell us the whole basis of CST is ridiculous. Wikipedia needs to be clear about that. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's quite straightforward, really. Sutherland's original conjectures were complete bollocks, and everything else has been an attempt to retcon it into something that is at least not inherently laughable. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm familiar with all those claims. And yes, Wikipedia needs to report what is published in reliable sources. We are not arguing about that, I just was asking for clarification what misconceptions the sentence referred to.... KFvdL (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Your misidentification of facts as claims and vice-versa is as predicted by Sinclair's Law. It is a fact that Sutherland's original conjecture was complete bollocks, and any theory or explanation based on the assumption that it is true, necessarily fails. Exactly like homeopaths trying to explain how homeopathy works, rather than accepting that it doesn't. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand that no clarification is to be expected about what "misconceptions about the nature of the human skull" are referred to.... I'm okay with that. KFvdL (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body, and doesn't need distinct citations (WP:LEDECITE). I already answered, but we state in the body that the skull is not amenable to manipulation in the way CST believers say. I think we could expand on the varieties of woo in play maybe? Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think expanding is good as clarity is good...... KFvdL (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Clarifications added. Alexbrn (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I was hoping on more details on what misconceptions, but I think that I’m asking to much there. KFvdL (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not asking too much at all. The misconceptions revolve around the false belief of believers that there is a cranial pulse, and the cranial bones move. Hint - they don’t. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

based on the literature that I know, including research by NASA, I think the claim that the cranial bones cannot or do not move is long debunked. As for the cranial pulse, that research is coming. KFvdL (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That is always the case in pseudosciences: "that research is coming". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

True. KFvdL (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added a bit more (mainly from the Cassileth book). I was surprised by the energy medicine aspect to this. Any more good sources on that I wonder? (It's obviously "out there" in the crankosphere[15] but we'd need decent sources to discuss it further in an encyclopedic context.) Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I scanned through the book, it is full of factual errors, and has no references.... But I guess that it will be deemed a so-called reliable source for wikipedia purposes.... KFvdL (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Biomechanic and biodynamic CST

Edit request: there are two main schools of thought in the CST world. The biomechanic and the biodynamic schools. I think it would be good to add information about that to the article. KFvdL (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Are there any non in-universe sources which cover this? Alexbrn (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Per Alex. We just need a reliable independent reality-based source. Guy (Help!) 06:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering that many so-called reliable medical sources cannot even describe the basis of CST correctly, I doubt you will be able to find a source that y’all find acceptable that properly describes this well. KFvdL (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. But here's what i think is happening: the cultists have largely been pushed out from adult practice in any reality-based hospital (because the core claims of CST are wholly incompatible with adult anatomy) and have focused instead on an area where it's harder to identify the core craziness. So by giving scalp massages to children in hospital and calling it by the same name as the batshit insane idea of cerebrospinal pulse, they claim to have validated the field, when actually what they are doing is "osteopathic manipulation" - and that is a return to the roots of osteopathy as a schism in chiropractic, but removing the reality-based practices of the modern DO and going right back into the mythical life force mumbo jumbo.

Because it is not immediately ludicrous and because it is virtually impossible to separate the effects of massage from the claims actually being made, it will take longer to refute this specific subset of practice, but even if it were not refuted, it would not validate the claims of CST, because they were based on the fact that a lone crank decided that adult skull sutures look a bit like gills. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your reply. Very helpful for my purposes... KFvdL (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

medicine (Baltimore)

Let me guess, systematic reviews in Medicine (Baltimore) are also unacceptable? KFvdL (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Depends what far. It's a low-impact mega-journal but might be usable. But for us to say that craniosacral therapy is effective, WP:REDFLAG applies since we know from good RS it's implausible quackery. So we'd need multiple systematic reviews from top-tier journals, a statement from NICE, or somesuch. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not going to be indulging nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m well aware that older reviews trashed it. Most newer reviews are not as categorical in their judgement as more and more evidence has become available. KFvdL (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this review, which concludes "Meta-analyses found positive effects for manual therapy on pain intensity when compared to usual care and relaxation but not when compared to sham interventions." Or maybe this review, which gives the therapy a big thumbs up, but only considered trials that did not have a sham control. I assume you're not referring to this review, which concludes that control criteria are so inconsistent that all study results must be reviewed with caution. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The second actually covers a few studies that two reviews have judged as good and positive evidence for craniosacral in that specific aspect. The third review is really important scientifically as it highlights the issues of forcing complex manual therapies in a conceptional framework that was developed for pill research. So that you..... KFvdL (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

All SCAM pseudoscience has the same core problem. It is performed by True Believers and falls into one of a very small number of categories: badly conducted, negative and buried, or random positive result because P=0.05 means a one in 20 false positive rate. Homeopathy, especially, is buried under the weight of crappy studies that purport to show benefit.

You have to start with biological plausibility. When you look at that for CST, there is none. The bones of the skull do not move. The entire concept is absurd on its face. All results admit to more parsimonious explanations such as bias, especially in subjective self-reported outcomes, or the relaxing effects of a massage.

Systematic reviews of homeopathy, the canonical fake medicine, can produce a net positive result. Linde et. al. did this, but then revised the estimates downward to essentially zero after the quality of the source studies was pointed out. Unsurprisingly, homeopaths still cite the earlier, unreliable and superseded work, not the revised one with its finding of no proven benefit.

I don't know enough about the pseudoscience surrounding CST to be confident that's what's going on here, but it's far and away the most likely explanation, because you can't get around the fact that the claims of CST are biologically nonsensical. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for you long reply explaining why you think CST is pseudoscience and I am well aware that this is the prevailing opinion in substantial parts of the medical community and obviously here at Wikipedia. I have no problem with that because that is how science works. When there is insufficient evidence, things are put to the side as nonsensical. So, I'm not here to convince you or others. Actually, most of this Wikipedia process is rather amusing to me as a researcher and very enlightening.

The meta analysis of the NICU data showed a far smaller change that that result was obtained by random (5 trials enrolling 1306 infants met our inclusion criteria. Although the heterogeneity was moderate (I2=61%, P=0.03),meta-analysis of all five studies showed that preterm infants treated with OMT had a significant reduction of LOS by 2.71 days (95% CI �3.99, �1.43; P<0.001). Considering costs, meta-analysis showed reduction in the OMT group (�1,545.66€, �1,888.03€, �1,203.29€, P<0.0001). All studies reported no adverse events associated to OMT. Subgroup analysis showed that the benefit of OMT is inversely associated to gestational age.)As you can see, the change of those being random are less then 1000 and 1 in 10,000 respectively. Two independent reviews coming to the same conclusions. The unpublished results that are going to come out in the coming years are even better (premature babies often have developmental delays, and CST treated premature babies do not show these delays). The results have been good enough for other NICUs to start to embrace it. But I'm okay if the editors here determine that those published reviews are not good enough for now.

As for your claim that "The bones of the skull do not move.", I think you need to tell NASA that. They deal with a issue called previously "Spaceflight-Induced Intracranial Hypertension" before it was renamed to "Spaceflight Associated Neuro-ocular Syndrome (SANS)". In the research papers related to that, they do not doubt that the bones move ("“Although the skull is often assumed to be a rigid container with a constant volume, many researchers have demonstrated that the skull moves on the order of a few µm in association with changes in intracranial pressure”). And then there is as of yet unpublished research by MIT and a danish group that show that the skull expands and contracts on breathing, heart pulse and CSF fluid pulsation. The later of course is of no importance to WP as it is not yet published, but the number of published studies showing movement is substantial.

In research, efficacy and mechanism are often treated independently. Many FDA approved medications lack a (well-understood) mechanism. Nowadays that is less likely, but still, plenty of them. The demand that some therapies need to show mechanism prior to being accepted while other are accepted on efficacy alone is an unfortunate reality we in the CST world deal with.  

If it all was just massage relaxation effects, we would just do that (no need for extra training). Considering that most CST therapists are also massage therapists, we would have figured that out a long time ago.

"I don't know enough about the pseudoscience surrounding CST" Thank you for being honest. I do know a lot about the science surrounding CST. Feel free to start a discussion on my talk page on the merrits of this and I gladly share you more information there. I think we should leave the discussions here to the facts and reliable sources. KFvdL (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I know a lot about SCAM pseudoscience, I am just not familiar with the individual studies around CST in the way that I am for homeopathy, acupuncture or chiropractic. That doesn't mean I don't recognise what's going on. CST is a small field so the volume of pseudoscientific literature is relatively low, but, as we clearly identify, the literature is pseudoscience, in the classical sense of the study of things that just ain't so. The bones of the skull simply don't move that way. As with so much of SCAM, someone had an idea and then refused to believe they were wrong, so set about building a cult around it. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The mechanism may be implausible, but I would point you to the pharmacology of antidepressants for which several mechanisms have been proposed, but none have been proven. But we know, however, that SSRIs and other antidepressants work to varying degrees, in some situations better than others. SSC has written some interesting points on the topic. We could perhaps say similar things about meditation. Much of Buddhism strikes me as implausible, but that doesn't mean that practices derived from it are useless. - Scarpy (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Meditation practices, even the woo versions, all share a common plausible mechanism for certain claimed effects. It's known that anxiety can increase blood pressure and heart rate, and may be relieved by relaxation. In addition to these benefits, there are secondary effects that low levels of anxiety correlate with being more likely to exercise and eat healthy. So basically, if you find something relaxing, there are many benefits that could plausibly result, even if your meditation guru is a nutcase. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Your first statement here is not true. Something like maraṇasati (meditation on the process of death) is intended to be far from relaxing. The most popular kinds of meditation that I'm aware of vipassanā and anapanasati are about insight and being present, not about relaxation. Even mettā which is the most benevolent of popular forms is not about relaxation. But... even if what you're saying here was true, and meditation was mostly about relaxation and relaxation has the stated effects on anxiety and likihood to exercise, you still would be proving my point because all I would have to say is "well, isn't it plausible that CST is relaxing?" - Scarpy (talk)

I'll admit I was not aware that there were such intensely upsetting forms of meditation. Ultimately it does not matter what the meditator is supposed to be focused on, only whether they find it relaxing. Even if a patient is participating in something incredibly upsetting, if they're doing it because they are told it will help with a medical issue, they may be relaxed long afterwards. I'll agree that if they do notfind themselves relaxed, then no such benefit would be expected. As for CST, no, it does not work that way. There are objective measures that are not affected by mood, and are essentially immune to the largely exaggerated placebo effect. Feeling relaxed does not improve asthmatic lung function, shrink tumors, speed the wound healing process, or dissolve blood clots, among many other things. Feeling relaxed can cause patients to perceive a reduction of discomfort from such conditions, and if that discomfort was presenting a quality of life issue, obviously it's a good thing. So you can't just consider what the woo consists of in terms of plausibility, you have to consider what it claims to accomplish.

If CST were advertised as a comforting head rub, that would be one thing (and I'd still doubt it). But there are practitioners claiming they can heal traumatic brain injury, cure cancer, reverse congenital neurological disorders, and improve bone density. That plants it firmly in the regime of the implausible. It's the same difference between a bottled water that is supposed to cure thirst, and a bottled water that is supposed to cure cancer. And of course it is worth noting that even woo that makes you feel better has a serious danger: some people feel so much better they don't realize how sick they are (or worse, how sick their kids are). People have been convinced to cease or reduce use of conventional medicine because they think feeling better means they are better. Maybe not such a bad thing if you're quitting opioids, but potentially a very bad thing if you're quitting chemotherapy or your inhaler. As a more general issue of people who claim far more than they can possibly deliver, you could also draw interesting parallels to prosperity preachers who fill people with hope while draining their bank accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find meditation practitioners that make claims about shrinking tumors or other extraordinary things that lack empirical evidence, it would be illogical and untrue to paint all meditators with that brush or to say that if it didn't live up to the most extraordinary of claims that it has no benefit. CST practitioners I'm sure fall on a spectrum of relatively modest claims to extraordinary claims. - Scarpy (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The folly of unstated assumptions strikes me again. For some reason I just assumed when you made reference to meditation, you were referring only to people who vaguely claim that meditation "makes you feel better". In the case of CST we only have the ones who are covered in secondary reliable sources to talk about, and none of them seem particularly modest. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, as is typical within altmed, motte-and-bailey[16] argumentation is used, so that when under pressure the CST advocate may claim it is "just relaxing", but when left to their own devices, the claims are rather more grandiose.[17] Basically, it's health fraud. Alexbrn (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my points here are hard to follow. The initial comment here was a response about the plausibility of the mechanism, and I gave two examples. (1) antidepressants where the suggested mechanisms have been refined overtime and this is considered to be science attempting to correct itself rather than frauds back peddling. (2) meditation which as shown some benefits but comes from a religious tradition that advances implausible things.

I did this to illustrate... Well.. The points conveyed by the examples, to spell it out a bit (1) a suggested treatment where the precise therapeutic mechanism is unknown isn't unheard of and attempts to refine what it could be are not sufficient conditions to call someone a fraud. (2) the inspiration of a therapeutic practice can be dubious and implausible, but that alone doesn't invalidate results from it.

now, we may be able to agree that currently outside of osteopathic journals there very little evidence of CST effectiveness beyond anecdotes. That may change or may not ever change. but if we went back 40 years ago the situation would not be too different for meditation and yoga. One would haven't to go as far back for Ketamine, MDMA, or psyclocibin to treat forms of mental illness, but now they seem promising. Like Carl said, it's important to balance skepticism and wonder. - Scarpy (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That sort of open mindedness has to be tempered by knowledge of what the treatment actually consists of, and which effects are being claimed. A priori, the use of MDMA as a treatment for PTSD is as plausible as the use of any other random psychoactive chemical for the same purpose. A priori, the use of yoga as a stress management technique is as plausible as the use of any other physical activity that people find mild and relaxing. Looking specifically at CST, it is a head rub, sometimes quite rough. The proposed mechanism is known to be total bullshit (the cranial bones do not move the way that CSTherapists claim, those movements cannot be sensed by touch, and the only documented manipulations that may have been performed are head injuries). A priori, the use of a head rub to cure cancer has zero plausibility. That's because it is, again, irresponsible to compare CST to simply "all therapies ever tested". You compare it to the most similar things that have been tested in the past, and indeed this is how the most reliable sources form prior assumptions of new and quack therapies. You can compare it to other osteopathic and chiropractic manipulations, in which case you find extensive evidence of no benefit aside from temporary pain relief. Or you can compare it to other therapies with similar research histories - that is, other therapies that have been practiced for decades without proof of effectiveness despite a vast number of clinical trials. You get a similar result. In terms of logic, this is an example of the association fallacy. "This drug is an experimental treatment without a known mechanism, and is considered plausible. CST is an experimental treatment without a known mechanism, therefore it is plausible." The drug is not plausible because it is cloaked in mystery. It is plausible because similar things have been known to work for similar conditions, which is something that cannot be said for CST. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This or me sounds like original research by Wikipedia editors. KFvdL (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This is simply a description of Bayesian logic, which is commonly used (often implicitly) to address the likelihood that results of clinical trials are accurate. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that you did original research here. KFvdL (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Guy (help!) 12:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst's take on the Ballard stuff (the same list of sources presented above):

are you sure that this has anything to do with cranio-sacral therapy?
Here is the abstract:
INTRODUCTION:
Intracranial pressure (ICP) may play a significant role in physiological responses to microgravity by contributing to the nausea associated with microgravity exposure. However, effects of altered gravity on ICP in astronauts have not been investigated, primarily due to the invasiveness of currently available techniques. We have developed an ultrasonic device that monitors changes in cranial diameter pulsation non-invasively so that we can evaluate ICP dynamics in astronauts during spaceflight. This study was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of our ultrasound technique under the physiological condition in which ICP dynamics are changed due to altered gravitational force.
METHODS:
Six healthy volunteers were placed at 60 degrees head-up, 30 degrees headup, supine, and 15 degrees head-down positions for 3 min at each angle. We measured arterial blood pressure (ABP) with a finger pressure cuff, and cranial diameter pulsation with a pulsed phase lock loop device (PPLL).
RESULTS:
Analysis of covariance demonstrated that amplitudes of cranial diameter pulsations were significantly altered with the angle of tilt (p < 0.001). The 95% confidence interval for linear regression coefficients of the cranial diameter pulsation amplitudes with tilt angle was 0.862 to 0.968. However, ABP amplitudes did not show this relationship. DISCUSSION: Our noninvasive ultrasonic technique reveals that the amplitude of cranial diameter pulsation decreases as a function of tilt angle, suggesting that ICP pulsation follows the same relationship. It is demonstrated that the PPLL device has a sufficient sensitivity to detect changes non-invasively in ICP pulsation caused by altered gravity.

I'd be interested to hear how CST practitioners alter gravity in a clinical setting. Guy (help!) 12:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

References

References