Craniosacral therapy

Craniosacral therapy (CST) is a form of bodywork or alternative therapy that uses gentle touch to palpate the synarthrodial joints of the cranium. It is based on fundamental misconceptions about the nature of the human skull and is promoted as a cure-all for a variety of health conditions. Craniosacral therapy (CST) is a form of bodywork or alternative therapy that uses gentle touch to palpate the synarthrodial joints of the cranium. It is based on fundamental misconceptions about the nature of the human skull and is promoted as a cure-all for a variety of health conditions. CST therapy was invented in the 1970s by John Upledger, an osteopathic physician, as an offshoot of cranial osteopathy, which had been devised in the 1930s by William Garner Sutherland. CST is a pseudoscience, and its practice quackery. Medical research has found no good evidence that either CST or cranial osteopathy confers any health benefit, and they can be harmful, particularly if used on children or infants. The basic assumptions of CST are not true, and practitioners produce conflicting and mutually exclusive diagnoses of the same patients. Practitioners of CST claim it is effective in treating a wide range of conditions, sometimes claiming it is a cancer cure, or a cure-all. Practitioners particularly advocate the use of CST on children. The American Cancer Society caution that CST should never be used on children under age two. Pediatricians have expressed concern at the harm CST can cause to children and infants. There have been cases of people with head injuries suffering further injury as a result of CST. If used as an alternative for legitimate therapy for a serious condition, choosing CST can have serious adverse consequences. According to the American Cancer Society, although CST may relieve the symptoms of stress or tension, 'available scientific evidence does not support claims that craniosacral therapy helps in treating cancer or any other disease'. Cranial osteopathy has received a similar assessment, with one 1990 paper finding there was no scientific basis for any of the practitioners' claims the paper examined. In October 2012 Edzard Ernst conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials of craniosacral therapy. He concluded that 'the notion that CST is associated with more than non-specific effects is not based on evidence from rigorous randomised clinical trials.' Commenting specifically on this conclusion, Ernst wrote on his blog that he had chosen the wording as 'a polite and scientific way of saying that CST is bogus.' Ernst also remarked that the quality of five of the six trials he had reviewed was 'deplorably poor', a sentiment that echoed an August 2012 review that noted the 'moderate methodological quality of the included studies.' Ernst criticized a 2011 systematic review performed by Jakel and von Hauenschild for inclusion of observational studies and including studies with healthy volunteers. This review concluded that the evidence base surrounding craniosacral therapy and its efficacy was sparse and composed of studies with heterogeneous design. The authors of this review stated that currently available evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions. The evidence base for CST is sparse and lacks a demonstrated biologically plausible mechanism. In the absence of rigorous, well-designed randomized controlled trials, it is a pseudoscience, and its practice quackery.