This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, 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 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 Medicine Low‑importance 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 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 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is a research article explaining the procedure of a meta-analysis and the evidence that Craniosacral Therapy has beneficial effects on particular conditions. https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-019-3017-y

Here is a research article regarding evidence of movement of cranial bones. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2743699/ 97.212.115.35 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a request for an edit. - Roxy the dog 17:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased and completely misinformed beginning with the first sentence "Craniosacral therapy (CST) or cranial osteopathy is a form of alternative medicine that uses gentle touch to feel non-existent rhythmic movements of the skull's bones and supposedly adjust the immovable joints of the skull to achieve a therapeutic result." Any review of literature on the history and current practices of craniosacral therapy will confirm that the original ideas of bone movement was discarded and the light touch used in practice has no intention of moving bones. The purported influence on the flow of cerebrospinal fluid likely has little to no evidence and the influence on the "life force" would be impossible to detect using physical measures. Despite this, labeling it as "quackery" is not appropriate for Wikipedia content. Hubertjim (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, as no request was made. - Roxy the dog 15:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the words "non-existent" and "supposedly" from the introductory paragraph. 2600:8804:1608:2400:76AF:8BEA:B72D:3519 (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources that support an assertion of efficacy, as opposed to the well-sourced statements that the treatment is not. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]