Saturday, April 2, 2011

the Nightingale Collaboration's April 2011 Focus: Craniosacral Therapy Nonsense

here, I cite from the Nightingale Collaboration [TNC] in the UK which is focusing this month on craniosacral therapy nonsense [see 001., below]:

001. TNC writes:

"our first Focus of the Month has been a remarkable success and thanks to everyone who has supported our focus on homeopathy by submitting complaints to the ASA and particularly to those who've let us know about the complaints they submitted [now CST]."

"craniosacral therapy (CST) was invented in the early 1900s by American osteopath  William Sutherland [...] the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the UK [...calls it] 'a subtle and profound healing form' [...] CST practitioners believe that they can 'listen with their hands' to up to three separate cranial rhythms (the alleged movement of cerebrospinal fluid [...] around the brain and spinal column) and by doing so, diagnose a wide range of conditions — both physical and emotional and many of a serious medical nature [...then they treat] by [supposedly] gently manipulating the bones that make up the skull and sometimes the spine [...] to help to heal these conditions [...] the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the UK (CSTA) [...] has a code of ethics and state[s] that all registered members are bound by this code. In relation to advertising, it states 'all advertising in any medium must be legal, decent, honest and truthful and must conform to the guidelines such as the British Code of Advertising Practice' [...] what's the evidence? [] is primarily anecdotal in nature [...] the mechanism by which CST practitioners claim they can detect the rhythms of cerebrospinal fluid and by which they claim to influence the body into healing itself are biologically implausible [...and] no robust evidence has been produced that would validate these claimed mechanisms [...] there is no good evidence that CST is effective for any condition [...] there is little doubt that many CST practitioners use gentle techniques that are unlikely to cause any direct harm [...] there may be indirect harm caused by someone visiting a CST practitioner instead of consulting a registered medical practitioner, which may delay or dissuade someone with serious medical conditions from seeking proper and possibly urgently needed medical advice and treatment [..see] The Skeptic's Dictionary [entry...] Quackwatch: Why Cranial Therapy Is Silly."

Note: "subtle and profound" recalls naturopathy's description of homeopathy.  Coincidentally, I'd posted about CST  recently.
Post a Comment