Talk:Craniosacral therapy

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

I believe this sentence in paragraph 2 under "Effectiveness and Safety" - "As of 2018 at least two deaths had been reported resulting from CST spinal manipulation." Should be removed as it is unsupported by citations provided.

The source cited (11) does not support the statement I believe should be removed. In the source cited, only spinal manipulation is dicussed. The death cited in source 11 is cited from a different source. Though that second paper uses the term craniosacral in the title, the death was actually after spinal manipulation so would fall more into either chiropractic adjustment or other broader osteopathy.

The second source: Holla M, Ijland MM, van der Vliet AM, Edwards M, Verlaat CW. Overleden zuigeling na 'craniosacrale' manipulatie van hals en wervelkolom [Death of an infant following 'craniosacral' manipulation of the neck and spine]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009 Apr 25;153(17):828-31. Dutch. PMID: 19469218. 50.39.222.133 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia follows sources, not the original notions of editors. Bon courage (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying - the source cited does not support the statement. If there is another source that does support that statement, that should be cited instead. 2603:3004:2E:A400:2840:EED3:A050:D45 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually looked into this further. Maybe you want to promote your own brand of misinformation, who knows. If not, and would like to provide citations that support the claims on the article you've been editing, I would recommend looking up the Quackwatch article on craniosacral therapy. Their article cites two deaths that related to craniosacral therapy and provides actual sources that support those claims.

Will I provide the links to those sources? No, because you were snippy and didn't do your due diligence and I am petty. 50.39.222.133 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Altogether too dismissive an article

There's something worthwhile in this practice. The article is too negative. Similar to the article on paracetamol. 2A00:23C8:9FF6:DC01:7018:A24B:DE2D:E3F8 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Good sources say it's a load of rubbish; so Wikipedia follows. Job done. Bon courage (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

This is a very opinionated portrayal of CST. The points about its veracity or effectiveness need to be stated factually as “it is alleged that this practice is focused on non existent criteria or that the existence of such and such are questionable according to some sources 2603:7000:8F0:8BF0:DA4:4F71:95BC:911F (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:YESPOV. Bon courage (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wildly biased article

someone needs to review this. It literally calls CST "quackery". 76.168.165.192 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes CST could be considered a more subjective experience for some but there has been extensive research throughout the world to support rhythmic changes in the body. This review is not only biased but equally misleading when the therapy supports thousands of people around the world. This reflection is one sided, ignorant and dismissive to a 3 dimensional therapeutic support system. RN Bc. Talking 113.163.156.102 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Show us the published science supporting it, using WP:MEDRS as the rule. DMacks (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

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

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

Why? Why is Upledger NOT a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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