Talk:Craniosacral therapy

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Craniosacral therapy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 90 days

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chiropractic Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Autism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Craniosacral therapy.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Wildly biased article

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Why? Why is Upledger NOT a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

Regulation:

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

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

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

This should be taken down

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

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