Talk:Craniosacral therapy

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)

Agreed. I noticed it straight away, despite having zero interest in or feelings of support for whatever this thing is.

Even if it's true that 1. It uses gentle touch in an attempt to feel rhythmic movements, and 2. there is no actual evidence for these rhythmic movements...

"uses gentle touch to feel non-existent rhythmic movements" is still just a nonsensical description. It doesn't work. No practitioner of this thing is looking for "non-existent rhythmic movements". Same goes for "adjust the immovable joints".

Phrasing like this comes across as snarky and silly. It's simply an appeal to ridicule rather than a genuine description. People can add whatever relevant information they like regarding how thoroughly disproven or discredited it is, so resorting to rhetorical devices seems completely unnecessary. ~2026-37798-93 (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Then please suggest an improvement. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:19, 5 August 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)

A systemic review that contradicts the sentiment of the wiki article.

PubMed article ~2026-38264-05 (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Medically Reviewed Cleveland Clinic Link Shows Benefit

While it certainly doesn't cure cancer, CST can have actual therapeutic benefits, as stated in this medically-reviewed article from Cleveland Clinic:

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/17677-craniosacral-therapy ~2026-42075-96 (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not a review article, as defined at WP:MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)