Talk:Craniosacral therapy

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)

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)

Please address the valid point regarding biased language. The article has been written in considerably biased and emotive language. It is important to remember that, in order for Wikipedia to remain a credible resource, the articles should be accessible to everyone. However, the language in this particular article, and the handling of it by administrators, is making a mockery of the whole institution. 51.7.8.88 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE applies to this topic. Wikipedia isn't a medium for the promotion of pseudoscience, regardless of the views of enthusiasts, and Wikipedia will not describe ineffective or potentially harmful treatments for serious conditions or diseases as effective or as serious alternatives to effective peer-reviewed medical therapies. Acroterion (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm lost on this conversation. I've never commented on Wikipedia. Why are you presenting CST as force like chiropractic care? You've never practiced or received this therapy and you control the page? That's like a heart surgeon running a chiropractic page. Or vice versa. I'm shocked you get to singlehandedly pass judgment on thousands of practioners and their livelihood. And when you are shown research, well, that's just no good. You are judge, jury, and executioner. That's beyond comprehension. 97.188.121.218 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

As stated above by DMacks, Wikipedia is based on reliable medical sources. See WP:MEDRS. ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a source of information. That the practice exists is a fact, be it pseudoscience or not. It lacks the proper explanation of what this practice entails, what its origin is, who the founder is and when, etc. It is not Wikipedia’s job to judge but simply to inform and let people make up their own minds. Obviously a warning that one should seek medical advice if serious illness or injury is at hand, but other than that it should be factual. Please note this page in Dutch, which is unbiased and neutral. 2001:1C00:C583:F600:BC08:B527:BC5C:B5C0 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia’s job to judge but simply to inform about how experts judge this practice. You will not censor that.

this page in Dutch, which is unbiased and neutral If the Dutch Wikipedia applies false balance, that is their problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Please add references to the measurement of the CranioSacral Rhythm

While I respect Wikipedia's stance on unsubstantiated medical claims, the language here is embarrassingly biased and throws the objectivity of the entire website into question. Please correct to more neutral language.

The following recent journal articles should be referenced as peer reviewed data relevant to the existence of a third biological rhythm (in addition to cardiac and respiratory rhythms), and the possibility of this rhythm being palpated manually:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360859220301716

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-33644-8

Additionally this recent study which shows an effect on heart rate variability, which is associated with parasympathetic activation:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-34093-z WalksWithin (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Those are WP:PRIMARY sources and therefore not usable here. You need secondary scientific sources that put them in context and draw conclusions from them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Tonal Choices Feel Below Wikipedia Standards

Apologies that I'm not a Wikipedia editor. I'm a massage school student looking to pick electives and was glancing at this page just to make a decision.

I generally agree with the sentiment that Craniosacral is unscientific quackery, and was already leaning away from it, however I also agree that the article itself uses biased, unprofessional language to convey this.

There are other pages on forms of quackery that read as more professional and well researched on the subject while also remaining critical of the efficacy (see ex. Ayurveda for a page on a pseudoscientific form of massage that uses what this reader feels is more unbiased language that nevertheless succeeds in conveying the general unscientific nature of the practice.)

__________________

Ex. "non-existent rhythmic movements of the skull's bones and supposedly adjust the immovable joints of the skull to achieve a therapeutic result."

Response: Craniosacral therapy is a form of massage, and isn't focused on bones at all. Discrediting it by claiming the goal is to move something immovable is ill-informed at best and disingenuous. Craniosacral reports to manipulate fascial tissue which very much is manipulable.

__________________

It's relatively fair to state that the technique is unproven and considered quackery, that *is* broadly used Wikipedia language.

__________________

"Practitioners particularly advocate the use of CST on children."

This statement feels anecdotal, the citation seems to link to a devout critique of CST who claims without citation that this is true that practitioners of the method advocate using it dangerously. Does that truly feel like an unbiased source? Surely that doesn't actually pass standards for who to use to say something?

__________________

Like. I don't want to be unclear here. I think there's criticism to be made about CST, but I feel like this article feels more like someone set out to be rude and dismissive rather than present the objective lack of science and efficacy professionally.

Apologies in advance if this post itself doesn't follow some kind of standardization, I assume the Talk area is less formal though. ~2026-96167-6 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Seconding. Never before have I seen such obviously biased language on Wikipedia. Bfa comm unity (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I love to read evidence-free assertions over breakfast. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 09:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Article not factual

This article lacks factual basis.

It only includes a very limited number of one-sided,outdated references.

It combines completely different health therapies based on word similarities or random associations. This article looks as though it has been copied and pasted from various sources, without any real knowledge of the therapeutic fields it is referencing.

Whilst it is very important to debunk useless therapies, this article uses rhetoric and very little substance to try to make its point. The cross-referencing of various unrelated therapies and articles further reduces the credibility of this article.

It needs to be re-researched to include real academic, scientific, and clinical/medical research from more sources, and beyond 2011. ~2026-19339-77 (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Any of the WP:BESTSOURCES the article is missing? Bon courage (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreeing. Bfa comm unity (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Glymphatic system and how cranial sacral therapy interacts with it.

I would like a discussion of t the glymphatic system (first accepted in 2012!) and how CST thrapy may be interacting with it added to the page. Also, Craniosacral therapy does not work exclusively with the skull; the incorrect and biased language can inhibit new discoveries and understanding on how our bodies work ~2026-31475-49 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

How would you like to start the discussion? Do you have any new sources to discuss? - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 17:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I just came upon this source: . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)