Talk:Craniosacral therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Craniosacral therapy article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents 1 POV? 2 Criticism 3 POV and Uninformative 4 Definitely POV 5 Criticism Subsection 6 Split 7 Tone

[edit] POV?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] POV and Uninformative

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

[edit] Definitely POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Criticism Subsection

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

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

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

---

A few comments on the article :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dictostelium 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

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

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

[edit] Tone

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