Talk:Craniosacral therapy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Statement contradicted by actual research

The claim that CST "can be harmful, particularly if used on children or infants." is incorrect considering 5 studies and 2 systematic reviews on treating (NICU) infants that report that infants treated with CST can leave the hospital days earlier and they do not report any adverse effects....

Articles:

1. Pizzolorusso G, Turi P, Barlafante G, et al. Effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on gastrointestinal function and length of stay of preterm infants: an exploratory study. Chiropr Man Therap 2011;19:15.
2. Cerritelli F, Pizzolorusso G, Ciardelli F, et al. Effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on length of stay in a population of preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatr 2013;13:65.
3. Pizzolorusso G, Cerritelli F, Accorsi A, et al. The effect of optimally timed osteopathic manipulative treatment on length of hospital stay in moderate and late preterm infants: results from a RCT. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2014;2014:243539.
4. Cerritelli F, Pizzolorusso G, Renzetti C, et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of osteopathic manipulative treatment on preterms. PLoS One 2015;10:e0127370.
5. Haiden N, Pimpel B, Kreissl A, et al. Does visceral osteopathic treatment accelerate meconium passage in very low birth weight infants?—a prospective randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2015;10:e0123530.

Reviews:

1. Lanaro, D; Ruffini, N; Manzotti, A; Lista, G (March 2017). "Osteopathic manipulative treatment showed reduction of length of stay and costs in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Medicine. 96 (12): e6408. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000006408. PMC 5371477. PMID 28328840.
2. Parnell Prevost, C; Gleberzon, B; Carleo, B; Anderson, K; Cark, M; Pohlman, KA (13 March 2019). "Manual therapy for the pediatric population: a systematic review". BMC complementary and alternative medicine. 19 (1): 60. doi:10.1186/s12906-019-2447-2. PMC 6417069. PMID 30866915.

Yes, some of these articles are in so-called unreliable journals, but the data and meta analysis in the first review speaks for itself. KFvdL (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The only potentially reliable source is PMID 28328840. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Good, then it needs to be included.

"RESULTS: 5 trials enrolling 1306 infants met our inclusion criteria. Although the heterogeneity was moderate (I = 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&OV0556;, -1,888.03&OV0556;, -1,203.29&OV0556;, 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."

"CONCLUSIONS: The present systematic review showed the clinical effectiveness of OMT on the reduction of LOS and costs in a large population of preterm infants."

Results and conclusions added. It actually shows that the smallest pre-term infants benefit the most.... KFvdL (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Doubtful for inclusion, it's a low-impact journal, the opposite of the kind of sourcing we need since a WP:REDFLAG is fluttering, due to the inherent problems of CST (as I wrote above at least twice already). Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That review is about osteopathy, rather than feeling head bumps. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

At least three of the included studies are about CST. CST studies are often lumped under OMT.... KFvdL (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw what you write. All based on many older sources that poorly understand CST and that dismiss all of CST because of the underlying mechanism. These reviews are not about the mechanism. Efficacy and mechanism are two aspects that do not need to be proven both in order to proof that efficacy is there. If there is efficacy, it means something is working and you can then subsequently try to figure out the mechanisms. That is how scientific research is done. You first show that it works, you then find the mechanism. If it does not work, no need to proof the mechanism. Been there, got the T-shirt to to speak.KFvdL (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the state of human knowledge. The book was closed on CST several years ago: it is settled that it is implausible and does not work (says our good RS). Reputable science, and the sources it produces, have now moved on to more profitable areas of enquiry, and CST remains a pathological rump confined to predatory and marginal journals, and the nonsense carousel that is altmed research, pursued only by true believers. We see this with many altmed topics, from acupuncture to homeopathy. As to safety, following-up the sources, the concerns seem real, as reported in PMID 19469218 and reviewed in PMID 30271572. Alexbrn (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so reliable sourced data that comes out after “the book is closed” is not to be included because the book is closed. Got it. Btw, the technique that caused the death of that little girls are not taught anymore for children and thus no longer a risk. Which is reflected by recent research in good journals including plos one. KFvdL (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As I keep writing, in effect, the book would only be "re-opened" with super strength sources (and PLOS One is certainly not that). Come back when NICE recommends CST, or systematic reviews appear in the BMJ, Lancet or NEJM. Since anybody can call themselves a craniosacral therapist, it's impossible to know precisely what they are supposed to do - but we have evidence of what they actualy do do and say, rather than what they theoretically might in some ideal world. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that statement. KFvdL (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m glad that the NICUs in the US and other countries who are implementing these procedures are not basing it on the old RSs that Wikipedia deems the golden standard to judge CST. KFvdL (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The book might be closed here, but not in the real world. KFvdL (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh indeed. The book is never closed on any form of SCAM as long as there's money to be made, hence the entire field of "integrative medicine", where bullshit is integrated with legitimate practice in order to claim the benefits of legitimate practice as validation for the bullshit. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Only one of those journals is anything other than unreliable, as identified by Alexbrn, and not one of the studies contained a sham control. Four of them are basically by the same people. Do you know how big a red flag that is, when a systematic review finds only five studies that meet basic quality criteria, and all but one have authors in common? More importantly, this focuses on what is essentially scalp massage in infants, so is completely irrelevant to the grandiose and preposterous claims of CST more generally. It also does not contradict the finding of risk. None of the studies included was big enough to identify rare adverse events. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. KFvdL (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

To add, I think it is amazing that just some “scalp massage” results in the infants being released from the NICU days earlier. KFvdL (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Motivated reasoning is a thing - it's hardly surprising that osteopaths find osteopathy effective. Anyway, in the absence of adequate sourcing I think we are done. On the positive side, the article has improved a lot over the last few days. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I obviously disagree as reliable sources are kept out of the article. But I understand why the majority of the editors feels that they need to be kept out. KFvdL (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for the use (I assume) you intend. Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge and given the context for CST (as I keep repeating) we need a strong source if what is established knowledge is to be challenged. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I accept that for now things won’t change. Yet, it is my opinion that reliable sources are kept out of the article in favor of demonstrable incorrect older sources that often have only a partial understanding of CST but keep parroting outdated ideas about cranial bone movement and such that have been shown incorrect. Bones do not ossify, NASA knows that, but those so-called reliable sources here seem to be still think that is the way. KFvdL (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Then for goodness sake stop prevaricating and show us some sources that support your belief, or just edit something useful instead of trying to justify your SCAM. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m showing those sources but because the editors of Wikipedia has concluded that CST cannot work, those are all invalid. But I got what I needed here and I will keep bringing things to the talk page that I think need to be included and are based on reliable sources. KFvdL (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that your impression of reliability is coloured by ideological consonance. Clue: a chiropractic journal is not a reality-based source. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I know, by WP standards, a chiropractic journal is not reliable. The article gets judged by the cover, not the content. As a researcher of 20 plus years in the biomedical and biology fields and with close to 30 published articles I judge an article by its content. I’ve seen absolute trash articles published in the journal Science that missed the obvious and I’ve seen good articles in journals that WP excludes. And I will remain true to being a scientist first. KFvdL (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

But what you're calling "actual research" is - according to reputable independent sources - entirely a field of pseudoscience. Which is why it appears in junk journals. Wikipedia does not indulge pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of their opinion. KFvdL (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand your need to manage cognitive dissonance, but discounting facts (e.g. the fact that cranial sutures have nothing to do with gills and do not move once fused) as "their opinion" just makes you look like a cultist. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. You have been a long-term editor and admin, you know better. Especially this one: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. KFvdL (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:SEALION. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

policy >>> essay KFvdL (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternate hypothesis: 15 years, over a hundred thousand edits, top 500 most active Wikipedians of all time >>>>> interpretation of policy by a single-purpose account pushing content directly linked to their commercial interests. Also Sinclair's Law. The core issue is well described on this page by now: CST was concievd in obvious error, its core claims and doctrines are ridiculous, and practitioners appear to be engaged in an attempt to retcon a definition of CST that - conveniently for them - is not so self-evidently bogus. If you want to help document that, feel free to make suggestions, but rewriting the article to reflect the modern bullshit rather than the bullshit as invented and popularised probably isn't going to work. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

And all that allows you to violate WP: NPA? KFvdL (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It means that if you were to report Guy for violating policy, you would be the one to get blocked. Speaking from experience. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicion.... KFvdL (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything particularly wrong in the current version of the article, but there is one very slightly misleading statement, on the non-movement of cranial bones. Of course they can move. Anyone with a bit of science background probably knows that there is no such thing as a 100% literally inflexible material, and "no good evidence for... the existence of cranial bone movement" is as true as the statement "water is an incompressible fluid". Blah blah NASA ultrasound studies on cadaver heads, blah blah micron-scale movement of cranial bones relative to one another. The refutation of CST is not that cranial bones are magically immovable rigid objects, it's that the bones barely move, and those movements not proven to be: A) What osteopaths claim; B) detectable to human touch; or C) manipulable by CSTherapists. What is most telling of course is that the entire theory and practice of CST was developed before the technology to detect the alleged phenomenon. I'll quote one of our sources, "minute movements between cranial bones are possible. However, none of the identified research demonstrated that movement at cranial sutures can be achieved manually." [1]. As for the remaining objections, there is a reason this article is mostly stuck describing refutations of older research: the mainstream stopped caring enough. Once it became crystal clear that CST was a scam, interest was lost. Due weight is given to the aspects of a topic that are covered in reliable sources. If an actor retires from the stage and goes on to have a second career that literally no one ever talks about, it's not going to presented in the article as if it's significant. But there is something true about that hypothetical as well as here: future developments don't change the past. The actor's new career doesn't mean he retroactively was not an actor before. The same, this article is written from the viewpoint of reliable medical sources refuting the CST research that had been published when they were written. That viewpoint doesn't stop being valid simply because the scammers have moved on to new variations of their skull massage and new pseudoscientific explanations of why it works. This is not a game of no true Scotsman where Wikipedia's definition of CST changes with every generation of scam artists and we have to purge the old content until new MEDRS sources review the new pseudoscience, until we repeat the cycle again. Sorry for the wall of text. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your long response. I think the "there is no movement" error you identified needs to be addressed as it would be incorrect for WP to keep such a false claim in the article. And you are correct, the past wont change because of future developments. However, that dos not imply that new research cannot change what we know and paradigm shifts do occur. And yes, before those are accepted into WP more water will have to flow under the bridge (aka more research needs to be published). I'm patient. This has been an excellent experience in gauging what is needed before changes will be accepted to this page. So, thank you. KFvdL (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not an error, any more than it's an error to say that the movement of the stars has no effect on Earth. Of course there's an effect, it's just virtually unmeasurable and completely irrelevant. The tiny movements that exist, are as irrelevant to the purported legitimacy of CST as gravitational waves are to the validity of astrology. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Some constructive criticism on the quality of collaboration here

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 don't have Guy's 15 years an hundreds of thousands of edits, but I do have 13 years and about 13,000 edits and I wish I had kept track of the number of hours I spent reading WP:RS and time/dollars spent to acquire difficult to find books and journal articles on topics I've written on... but I can tell you those numbers are not small. I want to say, while I recognize that KFvdL has a CoI here and markings of a SPA, reading the discussion on this talk page it strikes me as unduly contentious and feels like a bit of an anti-KFvdL mob who strikes me as editing in good faith. Quality RS for a medical article is essential, and we should be sticklers for it, but the tone could have been more congenial and collaborative. - Scarpy (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You want us to collaborate nicely with somebody whose aims here do not appear to be in good faith. OK. An example of one of their edits here. Note the really reliable source.-Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a shred of evidence of bad faith editing there. Wikipedia has MEDRS standards that not everyone will be immediately aware of. Moreover, it's non-trivial even for researchers to judge the quality of journals. Will also draw your attention to WP:SARCASM. - Scarpy (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:CIR if you cant see a shred of evidence there. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you're unaware of just how determined proponents of pseudomedicine are to get their nonsense reflected as fact in Wikipedia. You can't collaborate with people unless they are at least capable of admitting that their views are out of step with mainstream thought. That's why we have banned people like Dana Ullman. Guy (help!) 20:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I am. But for the matter at hand, I get the impression from reading the talk page that KFvdL is very aware that their views are outside of mainstream thought. We can't paint everyone with non-mainstream views with the worst of the bad actors with non-mainstream views. Wikipedia has guidelines that favor the status-quo and mainstream, and I support those because without them we'd have a compassless anarchy of a wiki. But I personally don't have an inherent bias against things not mainstream, and I will say if you believe there's malice towards things non-mainsteam Wikipedia's guidelines, you're wrong. It's more of an editorial necessity than a preference. - Scarpy (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "biased" against fringe theories; it is not like we say "hmm, maybe the holocaust didn't happen", or "you know, maybe the moon landings were faked". These nonsenses are described as the nonsenses they are. Editors that engage in WP:PROFRINGE editing face stricter scrutiny too, in the form of discretionary sanctions (because, in general, they are a fucking nuisance). Alexbrn (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

KFvdL is just the latest in a long line of editors who make money from pseudomedicine, who have sought to downplay the reality-based consensus by reference to in-universe sources, special pleading and cherry-picking. The reaction depends on how tenacious they are in promoting their agenda. The more assertive they are, the more assertive we become in return. See WP:SEALION. Guy (help!) 10:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you chiming in. I’m very aware of the limitations at Wikipedia with regard to judging the quality of journal articles. And it should be that way as many editors are not scientists who actually can judge the research on its merits, and thus need to establish rules based on journal titles and such to know what is acceptable and not. WP is not determining what happens in the real world, it determines what has been solidified in sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia editors. Tertiary sources like WP run generally years if not decades behind what happens out there. I’m not impressed with 20 year old articles that say that CST is not working, I’m interested in that premature babies have a higher change of surviving the NICU and can leave earlier with less developmental delays compared to premature infants who do not receive CST. That is the world I move in, not the world of “this source is not WP:RSMED reliable”. And when I bring a reliably sourced article it is rejected because the editors here because there is no known mechanism. Who cares. The techniques saves premature babies lives or helps them to start life with less developmental delays. That is the world I live in. KFvdL (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You should try the real world, it’s full of fantastic things. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it is full of fantastic things.... KFvdL (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

KFvdL, Your problem is, and always has been, trying to refactor the article into a fringe worldview that - amazingly! - happens to support your commercial interests. You have indeed cherry-picked a few reliable sources, but you have tried to use these to offset much larger bodies of work that show CST to be fringe and pseudoscience, which is, incidentally, exactly as expected given its pseudoscientific origins. Guy (help!) 14:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has proven it does not work. People are saying it is physiologically implausible according to their knowledge of the human body, but that is not the same as proven not to work. KFvdL (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you should find a better place to express your beliefs, because we wont be reporting them as fact here. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The opinion that the mechanism of CST are implausible is nicely reported as fact here. KFvdL (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

KFvdL, Nobody has proved there isn't a dragon in my garage, either. Guy (help!) 16:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Reversed burden of evidence - a classic WP:PROFRINGE ploy (of course in medicine, it is almost impossible to "disprove" the efficacy of anything). Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

True, the burden of proof is on those who suggest it works, not the other way around. And so far, the available evidence is quite unconvincing. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen the review in Medicine (Baltimore) showing that infants in the NICU can leave days earlier when treated with CST? KFvdL (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

KFvdL, head massage of babies has nothing to do with CST as originally dreamed up by Upledger. We already covered that. It's an attempt to retcon legitimacy in the highly restricted area where the claim of skull movement is not obvious bollocks. It barely rises above the idea that weaving aluminium threads into a magic carpet will allow it to fly, because aircraft are made of aluminium. Guy (help!) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, we report what reliable sources say things are, and reinterpreting research in reliable sources as not being CST is original research KFvdL (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No, we also take into account undue weight. Especially in situations like this, because this is far from the first time practitioners who have invested in learning pseudomedicine have reacted to refutation by trying to find some tiny part of it that is not obvious bollocks and then claiming that (a) this is the One Tru Form of the pseudomedicine, or (b) that this somehow validates the bits that are obvious bollocks. Or sometimes both.

There's nothing novel about head massage, and it has nothing to do with CST as plucked out of Upledger's fertile imagination. Guy (help!) 18:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, you will keep insisting that it was not OMT/CST despite what the review says..... KFvdL (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not surprising that even a bogus intervention will yield positive results in a clinical setting. Mechanism aside, the death knell for CST is that the measured population benefit trends toward zero as study size and study quality improve. It is telling that practitioners continue to conduct studies that are fundamentally incapable of drawing conclusions, while simultaneously insisting that more research needs to be done. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

And the review is still WP:RSMED KFvdL (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really. One of major arguments against CST from the best sources is that the introduction of sham controls tends to abolish all apparent benefits. The review you're talking about only considered trials conducted without sham controls. It doesn't matter that the review is recent, and bullshit doesn't become neutral or true simply because the scam artists continue to repeat themselves. In fact, the review only considered shamless trials because there weren't any trials on the specific question that actually used the best known controls. As I was implying previously, the fact that these scam artists continue to generate studies that they know cannot be used to draw scientific conclusions is proof that they have no intention of even trying to prove it. Because then they might prove themselves wrong, and as Sinclair said in 1935, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I’m glad that adoption of CST in NICUs does not depend on what Wikipedia editors deem reliable, but based on the positive effects it has on premature babies. KFvdL (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This no longer seems like a particularly productive conversation. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:57, 7 September 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

The article quotes a statement by some Edzard Ernst. It must be explained, that he is a fierce opponent of many kinds of alternative medicine. Therefore, noncritical citation of his opinion will bias the objectiveness of this wikipedia article. 109.197.109.106 (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please only use this template for requests for which consensus ahas already been achieved, per the instructions. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Unregulated trade is incorrect

In the article, it is stated that: “Craniosacral therapy is an unregulated trade. Practitioners do not have to have completed a defined training program and are not answerable to a professional body.[16]”

This is incorrect. In many countries and states in the United States, you only can practice craniosacral therapy if you have a touch license, aka, a license that allows you to touch people. Often this are Masaage therapists or physical therapists or OTs or doctors and dentists. These are all regulated trades and they regulate CST in that way. Please fix this falsehood. KFvdL (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The statement is well-sourced. Your counter-assertion is not sourced at all. Alexbrn (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The claim is incorrect. What sources would be acceptable? State government massage boards for example? Also, see this: https://www.upledger.com/therapies/faq.php KFvdL (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A source which says there is a defined training program and that practitioners are held accountable to a professional regulatory body. What we have seems fine. Alexbrn (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I just gave you a link that says that what is in the article is wrong and that people do need to be in a regulated profession to practice craniosacral in most states and countries. KFvdL (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's a quackery link. A quick google shows loads of disparate bodies all offering their own training to be a "CST practitioner"; and so far as I can see there is no governing body that has (for example) removed accreditation from wrongdoers. I'm going to go with the expert source on this, rather than the POV-pusher (you). Alexbrn (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I’m at least familiar with the rules around it and the fact that I needed a touch license before I could practice craniosacral therapy. But because I’m labeled a POV pusher, everything I say is rejected even when it is correct. Here is another source: https://jobshadow.com/interview-with-a-craniosacral-therapist/ KFvdL (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And here is another. Just think for $3,000 I could, in just 120 hours, be a fully-fledged CST practitioner ready to start squeezing babies' heads! A "touch license" has nothing to do with professional regulation in the sense our good source uses. You're a POV-pusher because you keep trying to override our sane, well-sourced content with self-serving BS. It is starting to get disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And that does not change the fact that in most states craniosacral therapists need some for, of licensing by a state board for their profession. KFvdL (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Idaho: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title54/t54ch40/sect54-4003/ KFvdL (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

{{citation needed}}. Guy (help!) 14:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit, prevent or restrict: ... craniosacral therapy. That statute is literally stating that craniosacral therapy is not regulated. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops, my fault of no t reading the whole thing. I withdraw this link. I will search further as I do know that we are regulated in most states.... KFvdL (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ineptly trying to fit the evidence to a preconceived notion. How very CST. The incompetence/disruption level here is now pretty much at the point where the OP needs be sanctioned for everyone's benefit. Alexbrn (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I will make a list of states in the sandbox before coming back here with the information. KFvdL (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice WP:OR. What you actually need is a WP:RS that makes the claim you're trying to advance. Guy (help!) 14:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Would state states count as reliable source? KFvdL (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Would need a good secondary source, not some interpretation of a "state state" (?) Alexbrn (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

State statutes. We are regulated in most states in the US with documentation to proof it, yet because it is not a secondary source, it is not accpatable.... Awesome.... KFvdL (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh! What is your source for "regulated in most states in the US"? Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

State statutes and regulations. But those are considered a primary source and thus not acceptable and so we have the situation that wikipedia proclaims on a faulty secondary source that we are unregulated while in fact we are regulated. I had to go back to massage school so I could work as a CST practitioner because in Florida, anything touch not regulated elsewhere falls under the board of massage therapy. Even reiki because you touch the person... No worries, I am having a blast with this.... KFvdL (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No source has been produced (except one which said the exact opposite of what you claimed). Your "having a blast" with zero evidence continues to be disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on getting all the State statutes and regulations in one place before I come back with those here. Just be patient. KFvdL (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Likely just more disruption unless there is a source which directly bears on the point that "practitioners do not have to have completed a defined training program and are not answerable to a professional body". Everything (including all types of quackery) can be subject to statute, which is an irrelevant truism. Alexbrn (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I wont bother.... We are answerable to state regulation bodies but not a professional body just as all massage as there is no professional body for them either. KFvdL (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

KFvdL, bear in mind you need to show not just that there is a scheme that you can opt into, but that registration is mandatory in order to be allowed to practice. In the UK, homeopaths are "regulated" by the Society of Homeopaths, which falls under OfQuack, but in the unlikely event that the SoH ever did discipline anyone for making fraudulent claims (spoiler: this doesn't happen), they can carry on practicing without any hindrance to their business. Guy (help!) 18:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually went to the bother of searching the codes of literally every state. Though it's possible the commercial databases I searched are incomplete, the only statutes I could locate that even mention CST are excluding it from regulation (some good lobbying work there). If the only "regulations" of CST are requiring practitioners to get massage licenses, that is only more reason to insist on secondary sourcing, and also stinks of some kind of diversionary tactic. It would be like claiming that my pizza delivery service is "regulated" because I have a driver's license. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not optional to have a massage license or another license to touch in Florida before you can practice. And yes, they can sanction you. KFvdL (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Jurisdiction/geography scope is missing in the "unregulated trade" passage

Alexbrn, David Gerard: You both recently reverted my tagging in search of specific necessary information that has to be added. It seems you may have been confused and in your minds have collated my tagging with the above discussion on "unregulated trade". Seeing how that discussion is very recent it's no wonder. This is a separate issue though.

I'm quoting the sentence here for the avoidance of doubt: "Craniosacral therapy is an unregulated trade: practitioners do not have to have completed a defined training program and are not answerable to a professional body."

I'm not questioning the veracity of this statement per se – I don't have any view or position on the subject. But this statement is meaningless without mentioning jurisdiction(s). In essence, what needs to be done is to limit the scope of this statement (e.g. "in the US", or "in Sweden", or "in the following jurisdictions: X, Y, Z", or even "everywhere in the world"). Without such further clarification, the statement now reads as if it applies without exception to every jurisdiction in the world. I doubt it is so stated in the source provided. And so whatever the source actually states needs to be specified here. (I don't have access to this book, so can't correct the article myself – hence I tagged it for other editors to do this when able.) If the source is vague or mute about this, then this cannot be considered a reliable statement as it lacks essential information – because this statement is meaningless without considering a jurisdiction: any regulation, by definition, is necessarily limited by scope to a given jurisdiction to which it applies. cherkash (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The source doesn't restrict the scope of its statement, and we mirror that. It's fine as is. What makes you think craniosacral therapy has defined training programmes or oversight bodies anywhere? Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if that wording is even necessary? It's currently unverifiable unless one owns the book, and the wording isn't in quotes. Why not just leave it out? As I recall, it's an osteopathic technique taught by the Upledger Institute. Practitioners get their training and certification from the Institute. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Source availability is not a problem (WP:SOURCEACCESS). There is nothing to stop anybody designing and teaching a CST course – which is what (I assume) the source is getting at. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn: Do you have access to the source? As this seems to be implied in your comment above, please quote from it here. If the source doesn't specify the jurisdictional scope of the statement in the specific passage, then it's either specified implicitly (e.g. by the source covering the US only in the whole book/chapter) – or otherwise it's not a source one can truly rely on. So it'd be useful for those of us who don't have a ready access to it, to see what the book actually says. cherkash (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at it, Ernst is writing about a UK DoH document called "Complementary Healthcare: a guide for patients" which means his scope is the UK. Alexbrn (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The actual text:

The reader is exhorted to use only ‘complementary healthcare provided by a qualified competent practitioner’, which implies that such practitioners exist for every therapy, but this is not true. For every therapy shown in italics above there is a paragraph which reads thus:

Finding an aromatherapist At the moment there is no single body that regulates the aromatherapy profession. There are a number of professional associations that practitioners can choose to belong to but an aromatherapist is not required by law to belong to a professional association nor to have completed a specified course of training, although many do belong to the organisations listed below.

For other types of CAM therapist substitute craniosacral therapist etc. for aromatherapist. Otherwise the text is exactly the same.

This is an extraordinary situation. For seventy-five per cent of CAM therapies the practitioners cannot claim professional status since they need not complete a specified course of training, and are not accountable to a single regulating body.

— Ernst, Edzard. Healing, Hype or Harm?: 8 (Societas) (p. 102). Societas.

Seems clear to me. Guy (help!) 08:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

So it looks like we need to add either "In the UK," or "As an example, in the UK," in the beginning of the sentence. We also need to change "pp. 141–142" in the reference to read "p. 102". Did I summarize your findings correctly? cherkash (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No need to restrict the claim to the UK in the absence of evidence for regulation elsewhere. The presented sources doesn't restrict the scope to the UK as you describe. VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The presented source (the singular) does restrict it to the UK: see above. So yes, there is a need to say "in the UK" – anything else is not supported by the source given. cherkash (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and made the correction. This discussion section is pretty much closed now. cherkash (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah adding a check mark doesn't let you dictate a conclusion when literally no one agrees with you. VQuakr (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's clear from the discussion above and from the source quoted that it applies only to the UK. The claim may be true for other regions, but there is no source for it, and so claiming otherwise violates Wikipedia rules on sourcing/references. If you disagree, and want to claim the whole world (as is done without geographic qualifier) then please find a source for this. cherkash (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Just saying you're right doesn't mean you are. Perhaps see WP:1AM? Alexbrn (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, WP:1AM has nothing to do with this. Wikipedia editing is not done by voting, etc. I'm objectively trying to improve the article that uses vague and overly broad statements when they are clearly not supported by sources given. Nothing in what I proposed contradicts the sources. In fact, it makes the statement scoping just right by the source given. I've also added to the structure by adding a section – which better serves the content. And so what are you actually trying to do – how does your revert edit actually improve the article?

By sticking to the source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The source doesn't claim what you try to imply it claimed. The sentence as it reads now, implicitly means everywhere – which is not what is or could be claimed by the source. So you are essentially trying to manipulate a reference to give you not what it actually set out to claim. cherkash (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The source does not say "UK only"; the source does not say "everywhere". We are aligned with the source in leaving this open. Alexbrn (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If the source leaves it vague, then it's not a good source for the statement at all: the jurisdictional scope is necessary for any statement about regulations. Without such a qualifier the statement is meaningless at best, and grossly misleading at worst. cherkash (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Not really, as discussed at length above this seems a commonplace claim well-aligned with reality. Readers wanting the fine detail can pursue it themselves but in lieu of more detailed sources we cannot say more. Alexbrn (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn: Regulations don't exist in a vacuum: in particular, they are always tied to a jurisdiction. So refusing to clearly state the jurisdiction that's either explicitly or implicitly mentioned by the source given, perverts and distorts the claim which this source is meant to support. cherkash (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

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 happen to be of the opinion that craniosacral therapy is not evidence-based, and I don't fundamentally disagree with most of the article. However, much of the language comes across as defamatory. For example: "CST is a pseudoscience, and its practice quackery." The phrase is parroted again later in the article "it is a pseudoscience,[6] and its practice quackery.[5]" While this may be true, this phrasing sounds like the author has an axe to grind rather than the wish to inform with neutral, well-resourced information.

Also, the section Technique doesn't actually describe the technique. "Craniosacral therapy is an unregulated trade: practitioners do not have to have completed a defined training program and are not answerable to a professional body.[16]" This is both untrue and not supported by the reference. The truth is they do need to be practicing osteopathic physicians, and they are answerable to a professional body. This does not mean the technique is valid, but supporting a statement with falsehood does not assist with informing the reader. "The therapist lightly palpates the patient's body, and focuses intently on the communicated movements. A practitioner's feeling of being in tune with a patient is described as entrainment.[17]" Not neutral, and does not actually describe the technique to somebody who would want to be informed. "Tests show that CST practitioners cannot in fact identify the purported craniosacral pulse, and different practitioners will get different results for the same patient.[18] The idea of a craniosacral rhythm cannot be scientifically supported.[19]" Wrong section for this information.

There are numerous other such instances. The bottom line is that this article could benefit from additional work to make the article more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktaco (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't agree with any of that. If you contend CST is a regulated profession, then what source supports that contention. Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

By definition, the neutral point of view is the one that accurately reflects the views of reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree I agree with Darktaco – and I've specifically tried to improve the sentence about "unregulated trade" – see discussion above; and I've added an extra section to the structure to address my own concern similar to what Darktaco raised. Both were reverted by the editors that seem to hold extreme views on the subject and who clearly push the article in the direction of non-neutral tone. So I'm backing up the neutrality dispute raised by Darktaco – I think the recent reverts have gone too far: the actual legitimate concerns and attempts to address them are being summarily dismissed by the editors who seem to be overly invested in their individual points of view on the subject and hold them above what is being objectively claimed by the sources provided. cherkash (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Cherkash, Which website is driving it this time? Natural News? Guy (help!) 23:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

And note that claiming something is not neutral without identifying sources is simply editor bias, which is what WP:POV is meant to prevent. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've clearly mentioned before that I have no bias or opinion on the subject. But seeing how you are attacking editors (incl. myself this time) absent any reason JzG, and maintaining no good faith in the process, is a reason enough for me to question neutrality of this discussion (and by extension, of the article's content).

Ronz: the section directly above which I've started shows a good example of biased editing and twisting the source(s) to support claims which are much wider in scope than the sources quoted. I've tried to balance it with careful delimiting of the scope of the statement (again, see the discussion in the previous section) after being reverted a couple times. But it seems that non-neutrality is the way of predominant editing of this particular article, at least for the time being. cherkash (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Cherkash, we are biased towards reality. CST is bollocks. Neutrality is not the average between bollocks and reality. In science, any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement, is an incorrect statement. Guy (help!) 21:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:FALSEBALANCE - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Patronising but meaningful comment agreeing with these guys. ^^^^^ points ^^^^^ Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Cherkash, I agree with you that the article is biased, but until the better articles are published, the regulars here will keep the article in its current biased state despite the fact that there are some solid articles in mainstream scientific journals that show that it works. In due time, when more articles ar published and it gets wider acceptance, things might change. Maybe the article about adding CST to the treatment plan of premature babies result in them leaving the NICU up to more then a week earlier, ventilation time goes from 2 days to 2 hours, and developmental milestones are no longer missed. Until those results of the Italians are published and repeated (three NICUs in the US are implementing it), nothing will change in this article. KFvdL (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

KFvdL, I always enjoy it when people whose livelihood depends on a form of quackery come here to repeatedly assert falsehoods.

The studies do not validate any significant part of Upledger's claims, which are, and always were, bollocks. Guy (help!) 17:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• My livelihood depends on my programming skills, not CST.
• By trade, I’m a biomedical/biological/neurobiology researcher with publications all the way up to nature and other major journals.
• If you consider the reduced mortality rate of CST NICU premies a falsehood, you are correct.
• i personally can care less whether the proposed underlying mechanism is correct or not, I’m interested in how it helps people.
• we have an apparatus that can measure skull shape changes an after subtracting the effects of heart beat and breathing, we find also the CST rhythm (to be published soon).
• Anyway, with all that, do you really think that repeatedly telling me that it is all quackery and bullocks is making me suddenly reject the solid data that we have? No, not really. KFvdL (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  KFvdL, Are you saying that you're not the Research Coordinator for the Upledger Institute International? Guy (help!) 13:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that that is not my primary source of income. And when I accepted that position, I made clear that I am a researcher, and if our research shows it does not work, that I would publish that equally.KFvdL (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

KFvdL, so you have a vested interest. The history of researchers employed by quack organisations, turning in research that does not validate the quackery, is poor. I look forward to being pleasantly surprised for once. Guy (help!) 15:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

My vested interest is to do solid scientific research. Nothing different from when I worked for universities or the Florida Department of Health on a CDC project. Don’t worry, I cringe when I see some of those articles, they really suck. My standard for research is the same as for the articles I wrote while working for the university. KFvdL (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

If I may inject an outside view as someone who is attempting to gain usable information from Wikipedia... I wanted to know what was being proposed when my Son was recommended for CST. What I found here is a poorly informed, poorly organized rant against what appear to be at least two (possibly three) different therapies that have been conflated. I do not come to Wikipedia to be told what to think. I come here for basic information. Get over yourselves and work together to fix this article. Trfeick (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Trfeick, compared with what? The propaganda you were given by a CST practitioner? We're not telling anyone what to think, we're just summarising what reliable independent secondary sources say, which is that CST is bollocks. Guy (help!) 13:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Trfeick Yes, it is a sad state of affairs here. What is considered a reliable source is rather biased, and they disqualify whole categories of journals rather then allow evaluation of individual articles on their merits. Also, there is considerable weight given to assertions made by critics in favor of actually research data that does not fit the world view of the main editors of this article. Very unscientific. KFvdL (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

KFvdL, we are indeed biased towards reality. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (help!) 17:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I am convinced that you think this is true. Unfortunately, that does not make it true. When journals are excluded categorically not based on the quality of the content, but by topic, bias is introduced. I get that the WP community is patting itself nicely on their back for this and on how they keep everything out of wikipedia that does not suit their ideas. KFvdL (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This conversation no longer appears to be geared toward improving the article and isn't going anywhere fast. Perhaps a close is warranted. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 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.

Craniosacral therapy

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.

---

What Wikipedia says about CranioSacral Therapy couldn’t be farther from the truth. Whoever wrote that obviously has never experienced a good therapist or even looked into it at all. What a shame. Olittacy11 (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The article - the work of over 400 editors - merely reflects what good sources say. That's what encyclopedias are for. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You are so correct. Unfortunately the rules that govern Wikipedia are rigid rejecting categories of articles and not on actual content quality and this results in good articles in alternative journals being rejected and opinions lacking substantiation published in mainstream journals being promoted. KFvdL (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Wikipedia does not swallow fringe views of any kind, which is why we don't mirror the content of "alternative" publications on a range of topics, from aliens to dowsing to the Holocaust. On all such topics we have disgruntled advocates coming here to tell us Wikipedia is wrong. CST sits in there somewhere too. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming the categorical rejection instead of rejection based on actual quality of the sources. KFvdL (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You are confused in thinking the two concepts distinct. Anyway, this page is for proposing improvements to the article, so this is all off-topic. Alexbrn (talk) 04:33, 21 November 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.

Meta analysis in regular non-alt medical journal

Just published:

Methods PubMed, Central, Scopus, PsycInfo and Cinahl were searched up to August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CST in chronic pain patients were eligible. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain intensity and functional disability (primary outcomes) using Hedges’ correction for small samples. Secondary outcomes included physical/mental quality of life, global improvement, and safety. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.

Results Ten RCTs of 681 patients with neck and back pain, migraine, headache, fibromyalgia, epicondylitis, and pelvic girdle pain were included. CST showed greater post intervention effects on: pain intensity (SMD = -0.32, 95%CI = [− 0.61,-0.02]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [− 0.92,-0.24]) compared to treatment as usual; on pain intensity (SMD = -0.63, 95%CI = [− 0.90,-0.37]) and disability (SMD = -0.54, 95%CI = [− 0.81,-0.28]) compared to manual/non-manual sham; and on pain intensity (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [− 0.89,-0.16]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [− 0.95,-0.21]) compared to active manual treatments. At six months, CST showed greater effects on pain intensity (SMD = -0.59, 95%CI = [− 0.99,-0.19]) and disability (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [− 0.87,-0.19]) versus sham. Secondary outcomes were all significantly more improved in CST patients than in other groups, except for six-month mental quality of life versus sham. Sensitivity analyses revealed robust effects of CST against most risk of bias domains. Five of the 10 RCTs reported safety data. No serious adverse events occurred. Minor adverse events were equally distributed between the groups.

https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-019-3017-y?fbclid=IwAR3xPM7k0FgJ2eTW0lq7gXDKySAYl_0pR5yBbH2tSrzNgkQkfXLjcg4JrFI

Meta analysis published in a mainstream journal = WP:RS Please include.... KFvdL (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A low-impact journal, so hardly enough considering the WP:REDFLAG flying. We might add something suitably caveated per the source itself. Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

KFvdL What do you think of the quality of this analysis? Have you read it yourself? You appear to have scientific chops, have you formned an opinion? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I will get back to you on this in a few days. KFvdL (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

KFvdL, it's all down to the controls. Unless they compared "real" CST with scalp massage and mumbo-jumbo, they did not properly blind the treatment. I note that one of the source "studies" contains no protocol information, and is just a conference abstract. The second has no sham arm, just NT/wait, so no blinding. The third claims to be itself a review, but its source papers are in journals such as the "journal of craniosacral therapy" and it investigates a biologically entirely implausible effect on low back pain, so is worthless. The fourth looks as if they selected the endpoints post-hoc, because they are random. The fifth is in a SCAM-specific journal but actually did randomise between CST and non-woo massage. The effect size was, according to the results, random, indistinguishable between the two treatments, and consistent with placebo. The sixth was standard of care v. standard of care plus CST, which is a blinding failure. The seventh was self-reported subjective (like almost every positive result of SCAM treatments) so worthless. The eighth is in the oxymoronically-titled Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a journal known to publish complete bollocks. The ninth has nothing to do with CST, it's standard osteopathic manipulation. Is this the best you have? Guy (help!) 19:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst has commented on this review on his blog here. Brunton (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Brunton, I love the way SCAM reviews frame the thing under test.

"Derived from osteopathic manipulative treatment, CST consists of mindful, non-invasive fascial palpation techniques applied between the cranium and sacrum [8, 9]. Besides releasing myofascial structures, CST intends to normalize sympathetic nerve activity, often increased in chronic pain patients, by modifying craniosacral body rhythms [10, 11]."

The fact that "craniosacral body rhythms" don't exist is a mere detail... Guy (help!) 23:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Except that we have the article in review that conclusively shows the rhythm exists..... KFvdL (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You said that before! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no rhythm in the CSF fluid...... Science article shows obviously that that claim is incorrect. https://www.sigg.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/News_sleep-Futz-science-19-allegato.pdf KFvdL (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

KFvdL, I do love pseudoscientists and their attempts to retrofit data to confirm an obviously incorrect hypothesis. 'Sutherland was struck by the idea that the cranial sutures of the temporal bones where they meet the parietal bones were "beveled, like the gills of a fish, indicating articular mobility for a respiratory mechanism."'

That's obvious bollocks, so off you go to try to find some biological construct which, if you squint and look at it sideways, fits more or less with the idea of rhythms, and Bob's your uncle.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the sutures of the skull have fuck all to do with gills and play no part in any respiratory mechanism. Sutherland was simply wrong, as most medical practitioners of his day were, about pretty much everything.

You remind me of homeopaths. Guy (help!) 20:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

How predictable. You not even addressed the article and how it shows that your previous statement 'The fact that "craniosacral body rhythms" don't exist is a mere detail', but you shifted the goal post to another argument. The point is, CSF fluid pulsates as predicted. KFvdL (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

KFvdL, See WP:SEALION. The core premise of CST is that because cranial sutures look like gills, so they are involved in a form of respiration. That's bollocks. Pseudoscientific pareidolia doesn't affect that. Guy (help!) 23:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

See my previous remark. Jumping from one argument to another is rather typical behavior of creationists, flat earthers, etc when they are confronted with facts that are inconvenient for their POV. Unfortunately, some people in science do the exact same thing. You are very reliable in your way of responding, you do not disappoint. KFvdL (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

KFvdL, indeed. CST is predicated ont he idea that the skull sutures function as a respiratory system because they look like gills. That's bollocks. CST practitioners use whatever thay can find (e.g. "scalp massag makes people feel better") to try to validate CST when the entire premise is nonsense. Guy (help!) 23:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad that we agree that you are jumping arguments in order to prevent inconvenient facts. KFvdL (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

KFvdL, inconvenient fact: skull sutures have nothing to do with gills and have no part in any respiratory system.

The conjecture is simply wrong. But as always with lucrative alternative therapies, advocates will do anything they can to insulate themselves from refutation. Guy (help!) 09:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in the recently announced discovery to address. The implausibility of CST never rested on the absence of detectable rhythms in the movement of cerebrospinal fluid, but more importantly in the lack of evidence that A) You can detected it with your hands; B) Meaningfully change any such rhythm by palpation; or C) that 'A' has diagnostic merit or 'B' has therapeutic merit. This is so far from establishing a basis for CST I simply don't know what to say. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Let the reader make up their own mind?

I'd like this article to improve. It's clearly biased, and seeks to persuade rather than inform. There are legitimate, high-quality sources which show benefit. My attempts to add said reliable sources get immediately reverted by certain editors who appear to have a personal interest in the topic. There's no question CST is controversial, so why not say that, leave out the references to opinion pieces, stick to peer-reviewed science, and let the reader make up their own mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enabler 77 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS for what constitutes reliable sources for health claims, and WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI for guidance on neutrality for fringe topics such as this. Also see this Talk page (and its archives) for a discussion of the Haller review you tried to add. Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the author of this article is sharing personal resentments, and it shows, objective analysis is badly needed. People with chronic pain are suffering and might benefit from more exploration of this ---> : "According to the American Cancer Society, although CST may relieve the symptoms of stress or tension". Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.17.224.53 (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The article has 476 "authors". Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

New data - is this acceptable to remove the "quack" label?

Excuse my ignorance about the biomedical standards required to meet the editor consensus on here. Does the following source qualify in refuting some of the claims of quackery with CST? - Complimentary Therapies in Medicine: Volume 58, May 2021 "The use and benefits of Craniosacral Therapy in primary health care: A prospective cohort study" Heidemarie Haller, Gustav Dobos, Holger Cramer. Department of Internal and Integrative Medicine, Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Faculty of Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. Received 4 January 2021, Revised 22 February 2021, Accepted 24 February 2021, Available online 26 February 2021. Published online on ScienceDirect. Thanks for any reviews or information. Mjeddy (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not. You would need a WP:MEDRS complying source that showed efficacy. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Who to believe? Actual top doctors and hospitals or a bunch of randos on the interwebs who couldn’t get into medical school?

User was blocked for personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I guess that doesn’t include the “quacks” at the Cleveland Clinic. Legalize heroin instead!!! So welcome to Wikipedia, where they bash supported medical treatments from respected institutions like the Cleveland Clinic but then want illegal opiates legalized to deal with their medical and pain issues. Cleveland Clinic - or quacks according to randos on the Wikipedia. ProtectYourFamily (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Studying medicine will teach you how to apply the science other people did. Only a small percentage of doctors know how to do science themselves. They publish their results in scientific journals, where they are checked by other experts who know how to do it. Then the results of several studies are analyzed by other experts, who summarize them, weighting them by quality. The result of that is what Wikipedia uses as reliable sources for medical subjects. So, it is not decided by "randos on the Wikipedia", like you, but instead by top experts. Doctors who apply craniosacral therapy, on the other hand, do not belong to the small group of doctors who actually do science, and they do not even apply the science other people did. We know that because they ignore the science other people did. Go away, you are not competent enough to contribute here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Why don’t you go away, you illiterate lowlife? I trust actual doctors, rather than some random moron like you who pretends to be an expert when you have no credentials. ProtectYourFamily (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC) This is not how valid reasoning works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Valid reasoning is trusting actual experts who disagree with you like at Duke Nursing. But hey, why trust actual credentialed professionals when I can just read the uninformed opinion on the Wikipedia of unemployed losers who failed out of community college and live with their parents begging for another stimulus check? As long as they say they’re a PhD professor on the interwebs like Essjay, other randos will believe them here. This is why any university student who cites the Wikipedia as a source fails their assignment. ProtectYourFamily (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Yes, no student should cite Wikipedia in assignments, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We know this. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Medical information needs very good sourcing. See WP:MEDRS. Just someone with the minimum requirement saying something is not enough. I tried to explain this already, but... well, WP:IDHT is another page you should have a look at. But there is probably no point in telling this to someone whose idea of reasoning is inventing random stories about people he knows nothing about. Oh yes, you should also read WP:FRINGE because craniosacral therapy is a fringe idea. And WP:NPA. BTW, because fringe ideas lack sound reasons, their proponents are often so extremely helpless that they cannot think of anything to say in discussions except vulgar abuse. That situation must sound very familiar to you. Can we stop this now? You do not seem to have any workable suggestions for improving the article based on reliable sources, and that is what this page is for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for a more balanced representation of the topic

This article seems overly weighted with refutation and dismissive language. While I haven’t checked the sources sited here, I am aware that many peer reviewed sources have repudiated the validity of CST as form of therapy. That being said, I think it bears mentioning that some peer reviewed studies have demonstrated that CST does indeed have therapeutic benefits. Also it seems fair to note that this is a relatively under researched topic.

Perhaps opening the article with a frank, unbiased and more rigorous description, while developing the criticisms and concerns(hopefully balanced with a little counterpoint) in subsequent sections, would make this article a little more informative.

I personally suffer from mild scoliosis. From the standpoint of conventional medicine the options for treatment are pretty invasive. Alternative forms of therapy, including CST, have been greatly beneficial to me. I’d like for others who aren’t seeking a treatment for something as serious as cancer or traumatic head injuries to be able have a fair look at something that might enhance their lives and help avoid invasive surgeries or prescriptions to potentially addictive pain medications. Heraldgeist (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for starting a discussion.

While I haven’t checked the sources sited here Please do so, and let us know what you think afterwards. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Heraldgeist, we don't "balance" facts with delusional nonsense. Guy (help!) 22:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you remove my NPOV flag? Heraldgeist (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Did you see why it was removed?

Did you read the message I left you on your talk page:User talk:Heraldgeist? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What about adding the following study for example?

I tried and was accused of vandalism because my conclusion would contradict the results of the study which I cannot see. Citing from the publication: "This meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function, which are not exclusively explainable by placebo responses or effects due to non-specific treatment mechanisms. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and safety of CST in patients with chronic pain conditions." Of course, I understand that one study, meta study or not, does not make a scientific fact but omitting all studies showing some efficacy does not make a balanced Wikipedia article.

The citation Gorski D (23 June 2014). "Ketogenic diet does not 'beat chemo for almost all cancers'". Science-Based Medicine. "it is quite obvious that modalities such as homeopathy, acupuncture, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Hulda Clark's "zapper," the Gerson therapy and Gonzalez protocol for cancer, and reiki (not to mention every other "energy healing" therapy) are the rankest quackery" connects craniosacral therapy with quackery in the realm of cancer therapy. This is completely understandable since patients diagnosed with cancer who solely rely on craniosacral therapy put themselves in real danger and any reputable person practicing craniosacral therapy is going to send his/her patient to an oncologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:EE41:4:8139:CDCF:530C:CFFB:E394 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

21:21, 19 June 2020‎ JzG talk contribs‎ 18,457 bytes -1,000‎ Reverted 1 pending edit by 2A04:EE41:4:8139:CDCF:530C:CFFB:E394 to revision 963447112 by JzG: discussion needed, as this contradicts the rest of the article. undo [automatically accepted] It does not completely contradicts the rest of the article. The rest of the article mostly uses references which fight against the use of craniosacral therapy in case of serious illnesses like cancer if it substitutes conventional treatments. Adding a reference which shows that there is some evidence that it might be helpful with chronic pain but more research is needed makes the article a more balanced one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:EE41:4:8139:CDCF:530C:CFFB:E394 (talk)

References

You've now added this three times and it's been rejected by two experienced editors. Since the study would contradict the rest of the article (and all we know about human anatomy and physiology) it needs consensus here first. This does the usual: aggregates several papers written by True Believers, which make often fanciful claims usually based on self-reported subjective endpoints, on a heterogeneous set of conditions (e.g. low back pain, where everything works as well as standard of care, because standard of care doesn't work), and so on. "Besides releasing myofascial structures, CST intends to normalize sympathetic nerve activity, often increased in chronic pain patients, by modifying craniosacral body rhythms" - however, since these don't verifiably exist, have no verifiable connection to organic disease, and cannot be objectively shown to be affected by rubbing the head, the rest of it is tooth fairy science. 100% standard alt-med "further research needed" BS, exactly like the homeopaths and every other quack promotes. Guy (help!) 21:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• The Haller review has already been discussed here at some length. Because craniosacral therapy is a pseudoscience a WP:REDFLAG is flying and we need strong sources for any claims countering that, not questionable stuff in a low-impact journal. Edzard Ernst has commented on this paper, I suppose it may be possible to reference it somehow with a WP:FRIND framing context from Ernst? Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, I'd missed the fact that the total n for the whole set of studies is 681. That's differently "robust". Guy (help!) 07:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is my first visit to this page. Regardless of my (or anyone else's) opinions on the topic itself, I could hear the ax grinding all the way through the lead, and I laughed out loud when I got to the bit about "mutually exclusive diagnoses of the same patients." Does that prove something? If so, then how much does that differ from conventional medicine, which also produces mutually exclusive diagnoses of the same patients? The source is minimally useful. It's fluff to support an agenda, which seems to be virulent scientific fervor that wants to kill anything outside its purview. "We don't "balance" facts with delusional nonsense."?? Is that real discussion? @JzG:, everything you do or say could be wrong. But you knew that, right? I don't mean to single you out, that was just too good to pass up. This is pseudocolloboration on a pseudoencyclopedic article, and I'm cringing away because I can see what we're up against. Have it your way. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэl3 02:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Finding it hard to think of a diagnostic method in real medicine which produces "mutually exclusive diagnoses". But regardless, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. As regards "facts" vs "delusional nonsense", WP:GEVAL is pertinent policy, and per the sources CST is a candidate for the daftest type of health fraud, so yeah, we're bound not to be equivocal. Alexbrn (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Eleven even, Alternative hypothesis: this is genuine collaboration on a genuine encyclopaedia article on genuine pseudoscience. But do tell us: which external forum is driving this constant stream of believers to this article? Guy (help!) 07:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a constant stream of non-believers also! I support a more balanced representation as above, this is a Wikipedia article. 203.10.91.83 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, then propose a change here. Don't forget to cite reliable sources to backup that proposal. --McSly (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

pseudoscience tho it is, the best way of convincing people is to include whatever evidence or purported evidence its has. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. is not a fringe journal. If it publishes an article like this, its for the same reason I would say to publish it--to show the admittedly minimal evidence. No one, I think, will accuse me of being a believer. (and, JzG, from the point of contradicting all of known anatomy, this is nowhere as utterly absurd as homeopathy which has usually been our standard example .--tho you are certainly right as to why alt med tends to show up best for low back pain.--nothing reliably works. So it's impossible to say in this condition that alt med is worse than std med--std med does have theories, but they don't have results. In a case like this, perhaps everything, including std medicine, has no basis for a claim of effectiveness, and is equally self-delusion or fraud). ) DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This is my first time posting on a talk page so I don't know if I'm doing this right. I felt the need to post because I am quite shocked at the tone of this article. I am usually a happy consumer of Wikipedia, particularly due to its unique ability to present both sides of a discussion. Over the weekend, someone had told me about CST and I decided to view this page to glean more info on the topic. Indeed, I think the author of this article has done well to encourage me to research CST further, as his or her (unwarranted) confidence in its lack of value makes me suspect that it may be indeed have value. Please have the decency to save intolerant perspectives for blogposts, not encyclopedias. Judaduda (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentally mistaken: a feature of Wikipedia is that it does not "present both sides" for fringe topics, whether (e.g.) holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories or CST. See WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Supposedly I'm in an edit-war

My edits are repeatedly reversed by someone who has made no secret about their interests. I think this person uses bold accusations and hurtful language to make his point. I call on editors to take a look at this imo poorly written article and at my 'suggested' edits. Thanks a lot. I'm not an edit-war kind a girl ;-)

Here's my white flag, kind regards AknolIikiW (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Your changes have been undone by three different editors. I think your edits removed information and watered down the knowledge presented so it fell afoul of WP:GEVAL. For example, the ideas behind CST are not merely "controversial" they're wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

AknolIikiW, my comments are on your talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

... and yes, you were in an edit war, I do hope you've now stopped. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Alex and Valjean, I've read the information you gave me and will take it to heart. I started editing with good intentions, I didn't know it would turn out into an edit-war. After the first time my editing got reversed, I've tried to follow your advice and edit small bits a a time, but that got stamped on immediately. What I would like to know is what you think about these words used by people on this talk page, the editing section and the article itself. I think that it sets a tone:

• dumbed-down and whitewashed
• delusional nonsense
• Fringe bullshit
• '100% standard alt-med "further research needed" BS, exactly like the homeopaths and every other quack promotes.'
• tooth fairy science
• "People who opt for craniosacral therapy should have their head examined"
• being accused of making "outrageous changes" when they try to contribute (obviously in the wrong way) In my opinion it's not neutral, it's insulting, hostile and it doesn't create a safe invironment to discuss anything and create consensus. Thank you for your time, with kind regards, AknolIikiW (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a talk page, for discussing improvements to the article. If people say silly things, or make odd unsupported conclusions, or try to force through poor edits, there is sure to be a little push back. You have highlighted some of that. Which example of those you provide are in the article? I also thing that the head examined comment is really funny, hadn't noticed it. -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Fallcious arguments from Ernst

- Many of the sources seem to trace back to this Edzard Ernst person. If he says "not based on evidence from RCT" is a scientific equivalent of "bogus", he is not a credible source. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And this point does not fall to "flying spaghetti monster" charges here: the point is Ernst is making a false equivalence between having not demonstrated the effectiveness of a therapy to the most rigorous evidential standards and that therapy having no effect. That's an invalid argument.

- The critiques of the therapy are also unbounded. The article criticises the therapy for purporting to be a cure-all and purporting to cure cancer. But therapies don't do those things. Some people trying to sell the therapies might, but that doesn't mean they all do, and what salespeople do is not relevant to what the effects of the therapy are, even if those salespeople are also therapists. What is relevant is what the therapy actually does and what the reported and observed effects are. It might be noteworthy that many people have made false claims about the benefits of the therapy in certain contexts; that's not sufficient evidence that the therapy has no beneficial effect in others. It depends what you are measuring it against, and measuring it against the most ludicrous claims made in its favour is not the way to get to an understanding of it. 2A02:C7F:FCF3:A000:40FC:6759:6CFE:B616 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia regards Ernst as a good source when describing nonsense like this whan no proof of concept exists and real medicine researchers don't want to lose their research grants investigating nonsense. Per WP:PARITY he's reliable for debunking this sort of thing, in fact, he's an expert!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

So you adhere to the dogma that if there is no evidence that something works and no reason why it should work, one is still not allowed to dismiss it. That is your problem, not ours and not that of Ernst. We follow reliable sources. As Roxy says, Ernst is one. And he will not lose that status just because he does not follow your neutrality dogma. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Scientific measure of craniosacral rythm

In a recent scientific study, it was shown that a third (apart from respiratory and cardiac) rythm can be measured:"The third rhythm was observed as a dynamic physiological phenomenon with a narrow range in resting healthy individuals with a mean of 6.16 cycles/minute (4.25–7.07). The significant contribution to the amplitude of the measured movements was the respiratory breathing and this third rhythm, whereas the contribution from the arterial pulsing were minor." "The present study demonstrates the existence, and normative range of a third physical rhythm detected on the human head. Having developed an objective approach to studying this third rhythm might form the future basis for clinical and physiological studies of craniosacral function and dysfunction."

https://www.bodyworkmovementtherapies.com/article/S1360-8592(20)30171-6/fulltext

I think this should be added to this article. Cdubray (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is wildly inaccurate

From the most obvious Upledger did not create cranio-sacral to the most trivial this page was created by someone who has no idea what they are talking about. 2601:601:9F00:F3C0:11CB:8E74:1AE8:FFA7 (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, so what changes to the article are you proposing? --McSly (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

All of the sources are woefully out of date, with clear bias often present in the title. This from more recent RCTs found quickly on Google Scholar, filtered to 2018:

Background & Aim: Chronic low back pain is a common disease among nurses. According to the literature, complementary medicine can reduce low back pain, one of which is craniosacral therapy. This study was designed to investigate the effect of craniosacral therapy on the intensity of chronic back pain of nurses.

Methods & Materials: This randomized clinical trial study was conducted on 60 nurses with chronic back pain. The participants were randomly assigned into intervention and control groups. The intervention group’s participants received eight individual sessions of craniosacral therapy. In the control group, a light-touch in the lumbar region was performed as a placebo. The therapist met each participant separately in a private room of the hospital. The two groups completed the McGill Pain Questionnaire at the baseline, immediately after the intervention, and one month after the intervention. The collected data was analyzed in SPSS (v.16) using descriptive and analytical tests such as t-test, Chi-Square, ANCOVA, and repeated measures ANOVA.

Results: The ANCOVA test results showed a significant difference between the two groups’ mean scores of pain intensity and its subscales (P<0.05). The results of repeated measures ANOVA showed that the mean scores of pain intensity and its subscales (sensory, affective, pain evaluation, and miscellaneous) decreased over the three time points in the intervention group (P<0.05).

Conclusion: The findings affirmed the positive effects of the craniosacral therapy on the intensity of pain in nurses with chronic back pain. Therefore, it is recommended that this approach be performed as a complementary, effective, non-invasive intervention to decrease chronic back pain.

Mazreati N, Rahemi Z, Aghajani M, Mirbagher Ajorpaz N, Mianehsaz E. Effect of craniosacral therapy on the intensity of chronic back pain of nurses: A randomized controlled trial. NPT. 2021;8(4):313-321. [2]https://npt.tums.ac.ir/index.php/npt/article/view/1433

Discussion

In patients with chronic pain, this meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function lasting up to six months. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the effects and safety of CST on chronic pain. [3]https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-019-3017-y?fbclid=IwAR2WysXZocpXVNI54ZjIeqpQLLt6CIdEGpvsj2XKukUQqT9mZSly7XiZnpQ

Conclusions: A protocol based on craniosacral therapy is effective in improving pain, frequency of episodes, functional and overall disability, and medication intake in migraineurs. This protocol may be considered as a therapeutic approach in migraine patients. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/3/759

Results:

The results of this study showed that all three methods of CST, MET, and SMT are effective in postural control in patients with NSCLBP, although it seems that CST is effective on more balance factors. CST has a greater effect on balance in standing position on a single leg with closed eye. It was also found that the effect of CST was continuous after follow-up.

Conclusion:

Moreover, MET and SMT methods were effective in balance control in NSCLBP patients and postural control was more affected by CST. [4]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7113991/

Recent results along the same lines go on and on. It's a shame this article, comprised of some sources that date back to the 70s, is steering people away from what could be a helpful treatment. Great example of why you should never stop at the Wiki article! 2607:FEA8:660:4600:9516:199E:B6F9:5E6A (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

CageyResearchJunky (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC) @cageyresearchjunky

Where's the stress relief?

I understand that many people have misrepresented what CST can do, but this article ended up so heavily biased that it heavily goes against the neutral point of view that is required by Wikipedia.

One of the main things I have seen CST used for is tension, stress, and anxiety. It falls under a therapeutic massage technique in this way. Why is the emotional benefit being removed?

I agree that massage techniques should not be listed as a cure-all or a cancer treatment, but we shouldn't let our personal feelings about that negate the part where it is a legit massage technique and there are some who do feel relief akin to a muscular massage after a session. Emacartoon (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Got WP:MEDRS-compliant sources? VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This entry is biased, unfounded and incorrect

As per the previous suggestions this entry is incorrect, outdated and biased. It offers no foundation of understanding of what Craniosacral therapy is, it’s origins, it’s safety, the evidence base and how it can support people. It needs to be removed. 123.208.199.47 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

We use reliable sources on Wikipedia as defined at WP:MEDRS. VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is very inaccurate and misleading hindering others to recover!

Before anyone has the right to edit this article, needs to look at couple of organisations who practise this! Ridiculous. If I had not found one probably my infant 5 months old would be in wheelchair now after 6 years. Remove the misleading content! 80.1.165.9 (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Which bit do you consider to be misleading?

What we say in the article is based on reliable sources. In order to remove misleading content, we have to know which bits are misleading first, and you haven't told us I'm afraid. What we have at the moment looks fine. - Roxy the dog 14:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Is CST dangerous?

I would like to remove the claim that it is dangerous. In the case of conflicting evidence should we not avoid making unproven claims? Where there are two points of view is in not fair to make reference to both schools of thought and let the reader decide?

This scientific study concludes:

¨CST appears to be overall effective and safe in infants, children, and adults.¨

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33647398/ --Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a fringe journal so not reliable. Yes, CST is dangerous according to the quality WP:FRIND source(s) cited. For background reading maybe see PMID:19469218. Bon courage (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The manipulation described that led to the infants death is not CST. The practitioner mey have called herself a craniosacral therapist. But in numerous school I have attended no one has ever taught a ¨persistent forced deep flexion of the neck and spine¨ that led to this tragic death. CST is a light touch practice and not a forced manipulation. Therefore that particular example is not valid. Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Were they Scots? Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Is CST effective?

When reliable medical studies have been carried out to show that CST does produce positive results would it not be fair and balanced to include those souces too? I recently made an edit to include such publications and it was peeled back.

I know once a subject has been labeled as pseudoscience it has its right to a balanced POV revoked. But the advise above regarding this article says "When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless."

It is not reckless to mention a scientific systematic review that discarded poorly conducted research and included seven studies that met the inclusion criteria. The result of which demonstrate various positive clinical outcomes were reported for pain reduction and improvement in general well-being of patients.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23131379/

Let's try and remove some of the bias in this article, please. And allow reference to well conducted science. Can we try to maintain a balanced yet inclusive perspective? Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine. Your example linked to a review that confirms its uselessness. - Roxy the dog 14:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide a quote to support your reading? I fail to find anywhere that ¨confirms its uselessness¨ in that review. However it did find ¨Positive clinical outcomes were reported for pain reduction and improvement in general well-being of patients.¨

Although they do admit further research is needed. Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Complement Ther Med is a WP:FRINGE journal. CST is pseudoscience so any claims about it being useful would be WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require a lot of super-strong sourcing, not a 10 year old article in an odd journal. Bon courage (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What hope is there if the mainstream dogmatically shuts down debate, and you dismiss a more open minded journal published by Elsiver a respected and successful publishing house? Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you a fan of Homeopathy? There's a long run of Elsevier journals on that. Publishers exist to make money. Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally I am not a fan of homeopathy. But I have heard of many successful treatments of animals where you can rule out the placebo effect. I just think its a shame that your guys who monopolise the content on wikipedia have such a narrow perspective on what should and should not be admitted. Do you have any expertise in the area of medicine or complimentary medicine, or any empirical evidence that qualifies you to make decisions on where or not a therapy is effective? Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not for editors to decide such medical matters, in fact they are prohibited from doing so. They should be skilled in finding the right sources for topics and summarizing their content nicely. Bon courage (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You are starting at the wrong end. Wikipedia articles reflect the mainstream consensus. If the mainstream consensus is wrong, you need to change the consensus, not the Wikipedia article about it. See WP:RGW. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice in theory, however in practice this article and many others in the complementary medicine section express an innate bias that is both derogatory and outdated. There is a real trend out there for doctors recognising there are limits to what they can achieve and refer patients to osteopaths or tell them to start doing yoga. I do not propose flowing over the article to make it all out in favor. However I would like to see the tone altered from outrightly dismissing the effectiveness of a therapy that for many people has had positive results. Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yoga is one thing, but CST is one of the worst health frauds and book was closed on it many years ago. That's what the sources say, and it's not something Wikipedia can alter. Come back when you have WP:EXCEPTIONAL sources (I won't hold my breath). Bon courage (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Now that is a good example of a sceptical preconceived belief, I wonder what made you form that idea? To me it seems like you are constricting wikipedia to conform to your own beliefs. Out of interest whhat would it take to you to open up to a new discovery? Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31892357/

How about this one?

Another experiment that has demonstrated the effectiveness of CST

Is the BMC musculoskeletdisord acceptable to you? Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Does the Cureus journal of medical science also qualify as fringe?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36110479/ Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

for example: The basic assumptions of CST are not true, and practitioners produce conflicting and mutually exclusive diagnoses of the same patients. I suggest removing this sentence. It is conjecture. As we all know the scientific method will test hypothesis and either prove or disprove, there are no absolute truths, if we already knew all there was to know there could be no further discovery. in the past 200 years what was though to be true has been continually rewritten via new discoveries.

The cited article expresses the personal belief of Paul Ingraham, a self-proclaimed science writer not a trained scientist. If we are going to be strict about it let's only include direct experimental sources from respected reviews not one guys own blog site on chronic pain! Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The WP:SBM source provides a comprehensive summary.[5] TL;DR - this is nonsense on toast. If you want to write about it I suggest some other place: Conservapedia, Wiki4CAM or something (but not RationalWiki!) You're just wasting time here without good new sources. Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I do feel like I'm wasting time. But only because you don't even want to consider other points of view. Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You will get the same consensus anywhere in the Project. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean the same consensus that Wikipedia is closed to the possibility of considering other point of view? Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI and if you really still doubt that Wikipedia is correctly applying its rules, complain at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus that we only report what reliable sources say. Nothing more. - Roxy the dog 12:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The bias is in what you guys deem to be or not be a reliable source

https://www.painscience.com/articles/craniosacral-therapy.php

This does not seem to be a reliable source, the guy does reference a few studies but put his own interpretations and draws his own conclusions. Thus he states his opinion which is paraphrased in the sentence ¨The basic assumptions of CST are not true, and practitioners produce conflicting and mutually exclusive diagnoses of the same patients.¨ Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6937867/

Would you consider this to be a reliable source? Please justify your answer. Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is already cited. Bon courage (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35160211/

Would you consider this to be a reliable source? Please justify your answer. Adam Bradley Giles (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No. MDPI is a dodgy publisher AND this is a primary source. Useless. Bon courage (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So you're just glossing over the fact that you didn't even read our article to see if a source was used before jumping to another one? Please also review WP:MEDRS, especially the section WP:MEDPRI since you should be able to answer these questions yourself before attempting to edit in this subject area. VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

American Cancer Society source

Transcript of the source file under heading "Are there any possible problems or complications?": "Craniosacral therapy should not be used in children under age two because the bones of the skull are not fully developed. In one very small study, several adults with head injuries had worse symptoms after starting craniosacral therapy. People who have cancer and chronic conditions such as arthritis and heart disease should talk to their doctors before starting any type of therapy that involves manipulation of joints and muscles. Relying on this treatment alone and delaying or avoiding conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health consequences."

This passage implies that at least at the time of this source, CST commonly consisted of manipulation of joints and muscles. Additionally, under talk topic "Is CST dangerous?" Bon Courage indicates that there's been more than one instance of an infant death due to such manipulation. People who are seeking CST treatment who read this article should be aware of the techniques that are actually dangerous.

The original wording omits "cancer," so while it may not be inaccurate to say that relying on CST alone for treatment of any ailment will have serious consequences, this source does not cover all conditions. ArtsyMarsy (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not commit copyright violations by pasting parts of sources into Wikpedia articles. Several sources are cited, not just the ACS. It refers to other diseases than cancer. Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If that's the issue, my apologies; let's rephrase the wording in the article. But let's not mislead readers into thinking sources say something they do not.

"There have been cases of people with head injuries suffering further injury as a result of CST" is not an accurate reflection of the currently cited material, which says it was a small study. Other parts of the article bemoan the lack of rigorous large-scale double blind studies, so why should this study in particular be weighted more than the others? It also did not say participants suffered further injury, only worsening symptoms. ArtsyMarsy (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This quackery has killed at least two children, per PMID:30271572. Bon courage (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

And the article thoroughly cautions against using CST on children.

Again, it is imperative to know what techniques were used. In [pmid:30271572 PMID:30271572] it states "at least two deaths due to spinal manipulation were reported", similar to the case of [pmid:19469218 PMID:19469218] where "deep flexion of the spine," a manipulation of joints, was the cause of death.

This kind of manipulation is obviously far more invasive and dangerous than a level of pressure that is far less than what is used in Swedish and other massage modalities. ArtsyMarsy (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's what CST vendors do, it's what they do. Bon courage (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about medical jargon

The first line of the article includes some dense jargon in "palpate the synarthrodial joints of the cranium". Are there more commonly understood words that might be more easily understood? Why not use head instead of cranium, for example? ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Cochrane review

There's a 2012 review article which finds (lay summary):

The studies involved too few participants and were of insufficient quality to draw confident conclusions about the usefulness and safety of manipulative therapies.

Although five of the six trials suggested crying is reduced by treatment with manipulative therapies, there was no evidence of manipulative therapies improving infant colic when we only included studies where the parents did not know if their child had received the treatment or not. No adverse effects were found, but they were only evaluated in one of the six studies.

Further rigorous research is required where (a) infants are randomly allocated to receive either treatment or no treatment and (b) those assessing the treatment outcomes do not know whether or not the infant has received a manipulative therapy.

• Dobson, Dawn; Lucassen, Peter LBJ; Miller, Joyce J; Vlieger, Arine M; Prescott, Philip; Lewith, George (2012-12-12). "Manipulative therapies for infantile colic". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Wiley. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004796.pub2. ISSN 1465-1858.

Is this citeable? I'm under the impression that Cochrane reviews are generally reliable meta-analyses. grendel|khan 17:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that it is citeable, but I question what we could really say about it. After all, they end their abstract by saying: "There are inadequate data to reach any definitive conclusions about the safety of these interventions." It basically comes down to a review of a small body of literature that, according to the reviewers, doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. I get the impression that this is a very fancy and dressed-up form of massage, and it would make sense for the effects to be the same, which is to say, subjectively positive, objectively nil.

• Underdown, Angela; Barlow, Jane; Chung, Vincent; Stewart-Brown, Sarah (2006-10-18), Massage intervention for promoting mental and physical health in infants aged under six months, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005038.pub2

grendel|khan 19:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Intrinsic Bias throughout article

Where to start....well, for one the author clearly didn't read or cite all the articles listed. Haller's study for example is a highly regarded study which is but one reason the Harvard Medical School has taken interest in CST and parallel practices. The flippant remarks stated as quackery is the author's bias based upon ancient anatomy knowledge of dead tissue. Living tissue requires a complete paradygm shifst in how we approach in treatment considerations. Cellular communication, interstitial fluid expansion, fascia networks will be studied when technology provides researchers with the right way to study it. We don't have that technology in existance, or available to those of us wishing to study CST. Energy and bioreasoance medicine (with firmly established science to support it, indexed at PubMed) would probably be the best way to study CST. Evidence-based practice allows the inclusion of clinical expertise, volumes of case studies, and value of an intervention to be included with best available emperical research. There exists volumes of low level and some moderate strength of clinical studies. A few studies have reach the strength with double-blind control, with a sham control or control groups. CST has been shown to improve autonomic nervous system function in premature babies, relieve infant colic and reflux, relieve chronic neck pain and fibromyalgia, reduce symptoms and medication use in asthma, reduce patient-reported symptom severity in head injury and concussion symptoms. Cases studies abound of how CST relieved many neurological symptoms. Not a single death or injury has ever been reported from the use of Upledger CST. People continue to use one case (cranial osteopathy on an infant with a pre-existing condition not condsidered before treatment) of a death. When authors use this as their only example it meerly highlights their ignorance of the difference between cranial osteopathy and craniosacral therapy. One is moving bones, the other is holding bones long enough to allow self-corrective fluid exchange of underlying fascia layers (meninges). 75.86.239.185 (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. And yes it kills people but is otherwise quackery per our sources. Bon courage (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:YWAB. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. This article will unfortunately sway people who are in need of real healing

in the head, neck and inside the mouth because of the outdated sources and personal perceptions of the writers. Practitioners who know CST have saved my life and many others. Let’s make room for new evidence, case studies and science. 24.185.147.2 (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Your belief about counterfactuals and about cause and effect is irrelevant. Such things are determined by competent and careful examination of the available scientific evidence, published in reliable sources, and not by anecdotes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

There are two names mentioned who were physicians and deserve to be honored by their title of doctor. Dr. Or D.O. leaving this out is an intentional affront and shows clear bias against DOs who are licensed physicians. 174.177.16.101 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per MOS:DOC. These are the persons' names, and Wikipedia, by convention, does not normally add the degree simply as an honorific. The practice is the same for those with MDs, so there is no intended slight. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:DOCTOR we generally avoid using these titles - you'll note here that we also do not write Dr. Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD when we mention him. Wikipedia policy/guidelines aside, do you really want to more closely tie today's DOs with this sort of pseudoscientific alternative medicine? Part of them gaining legitimacy and acceptance among the US medical community has been their movement away from this sort of shenanigans and toward evidence based medicine. Cannolis (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Study from 2021 proving the existence of the cranial rhythm

Besides being generally insulting and containing many links to opinion articles just claiming CST is quackery, this article claims that the existence of the cranial rhythm believed in by practitioners has never been proven, and that there is no evidence it exists. There was a study in 2021 proving that it does, in fact, exist.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360859220301716 151.197.3.138 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Primary research in a fringe journal. Not useful for Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)