I’m in a quandary about the almost-metaphysical Cranio-Sacral Therapy (CST), a manipulative methodology currently represented by John Upledger, D.O., whose books have garnered stellar testimonials from allopathic physicians and PhDs.
I’ve been getting CST from a lady who’s also an LCSW (licensed clinical social worker) here in Missouri (no mean qualification). She is also licensed in Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) for the treatment of trauma/PTSD and has done me good in this regard. She tells me she’s been billing MediCare for the CST sessions and getting paid, and yet I’ve been told they won’t pay for manipulative treatment by a regular D.O. Googling CST produces only one skeptical response, from QuackWatch.com, in all the pages that are returned, amid mountains of positive claims.
The main kicker is Upledger’s assertion that the bones constituting the cranium continue to shift relative to each other throughout adulthood, whereas the main critic on QuackWatch, Stephen Barrett, MD, says simply that all such movement is over by the end of adolescence and that CST is ‘silly.’
I’m wary of the comeback ‘Well, does it work for you?’ which can mean all things to all people, and does not address the objective validity of the technique. I have to add that I’ve changed my antidepressant meds during CST, and so the beneficial effects of whatever it is are probably overdetermined. I tried Cognitive/Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (CBT/DBT) for years, with only fleeting results.
Upledger’s case histories are amazing, and I’ve seen no refutation or claims of fraud or gross exaggeration.
Disclaimer: I’m not an expert in head bones.
If the sutures in the skull were not fused, as would have to be the case for any ‘adjusting’ to be done, then the separate bones could slip around any old way. As far as I know the only thing holding them together is bone growth. What would keep them from becoming loose enough to make an actual hole in your skull?
Moving from GQ to IMHO at request of OP.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I think craniosacral is kind of like chiropractic–the full-blown philosophy is bogus, but there are honest practitioners who leverage some techniques that actually are valid. I know a few skilled LMTs who use CS a la “subtle adjustments to the alignment of the head and spine” without buying into the whole deal.
Just curious, how does one make even “subtle adjustments” to bone?
The skull plates DO fuse. They are held with ligaments until fusion. Think of it as ‘adjusting’ the middle of your femur, for instance. Not likely. Maybe a child’s skull could be adjusted, assuming that seemed like a seriously good idea, but once the sutures are fused they are not supposed to move. Even a serious whack on the skull does not necessarily move them.
The whole thing is bogus. If LMTs are able to help by manipulating the skull plates it’s not because they are moving bones. It’s likely that they are massaging tense muscles.
Exactly what type of quandry are you in? Are you looking to find out whether CST is quackery? Whether traditional Medicare (presumably Part B) or Medicare Advantage should pay for the therapy (not sure why you mentioned that if it’s irrelevant)?
For what it’s worth, it sounds extremely suspicious to me, particularly if your symptoms improved when you switched your meds while you were getting CST. Exactly what sort of problem is CST supposed to alleviate? Depression? Other psychiatric disorders? Pressure in your brain? Seizures? I can’t imagine how moving your skull plates might help that. As pointed out earlier, they should already be fused. Additionally, it seems like moving your arm to get rid of a cold.
Additionally, I’m surprised that Medicare pays for that; they typically don’t pay for medical services that are considered outside the mainstream of medical science. If a service you’re receiving has been deemed silly on quackwatch, I’d wonder if Medicare were truly reimbursing your practitioner or if she was cheating the system. Even chiropractic services are considered suspect medical practices within the Medicare program and, while sometimes paid for, are often denied.
Last time I checked, the sacrum wasn’t a skull plate and there was a bunch of stuff that took up space between the cranium and sacrum.
And apparently it needs to be clarified for some people: Please remember that while Quackwatch has a lot of good material, they do have a habit of focusing on easy targets and conveniently omitting material that makes their positions harder to argue. If you look at their article on qigong, for example, you’ll note that they focus exclusively on the woo-woo claims (which honest qigong teachers will also agree are bogus), and omitting the fact that external qigong is remarkably similar to certain aspects of western-medicine physical therapy.
A previous thread on CST: Craniosacral therapy-- does it work? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
It’s pretty much sheer quackery, IMHO.
Hunterhawk,
I didn’t mention Quackwatch at all and I didn’t know we were discussing qijong. I was discussing CST. Indeed there are many bones between the skull and the sacrum, but if the cranium isn’t involved in this “therapy”, why is it part of the name?
You appear to be defending CST, so what is your explanation for how skull plates are “moved”?
No, but the OP did mention Quackwatch. The folks on Quackwatch have a habit of making sweeping statements which aren’t always entirely justified, and I offered up an example. Quackwatch should be viewed as a useful source of information, not as a final arbiter.
If school Foo teaches techniques “A” through “F”, one can choose to use only techniques B, D, and E and still legitimately claim to be using techniques taught by school Foo. The question “Is school Foo bogus?” is so broad as to not be particularly useful, as an answer of “Yep, it’s bogus” could lead one to discard techniques B, D, and E (even if they’re valid according to the tenets of school Bar) along with techniques A, C, and F. A better approach would be to ask whether there are valid techniques taught by school Foo that can be leveraged appropriately.
They aren’t.
If one is going to edit out the main parts of a particular ‘therapy’ so as to practice the useful parts, which is what I understand you to be saying (?), why involve oneself with the rest of a bogus therapy? Why not, if one is going to use the parts of CST that might have some efficacy, just go ahead and call it massage therapy? Why lead others to believe that one is doing something that one is decidedly not?
Because providing an up-front cue about what styles you leverage provides your clients with useful information about the types of issues you address and the methods of treatment you use.
For example, let’s say I’m a client and I just see a label of “Massage Therapy”, so I go in expecting, say, a combination of Swedish and craniosacral work. The therapist then hits me with a combination of deep-tissue and visceral work, and I end up as decidedly not a happy camper. But if I knew ahead of time what to expect from that practitioner, I could make an informed decision about whether or not to pursue treatment with that provider.