Full disclosure: I've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner. I would not describe it as massage, and it was not limited to the head. The sessions were very soothing, my posture improved and my breath became freer, and I even felt (as I tend to do after a good simple sports massage, or did after Alexander technique and Rolfing) that my eyes grew sharper. After a couple of days, the effects faded. One particularly weird thing: at the last session, she reached into my mouth (with sterile rubber gloves on) and gently manipulated my vomer. A bone I hadn't even known I had. It was an amazingly weird feeling. I'm going again at some point.
I realise that it could all be placebo effect, although I am quite critical, really, and while I have found these three techniques helpful, I have found others to be sometimes honest, sometimes malicious scams.
I have looked at two metastudies, one (http://www.iahe.com/images/pdf/systematicreview.pdf) from 1999, and one (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2042-7166.2012.01174.x/abstract;jsessionid=1ADD8460C21E4ECC45B40FD86CD8809C.f01t02) from 1012. Both seem to suggest that there is no evidence that this form of treatment works rather than there is evidence that it doesn't work.
The theory behind craniosacral therapy is not particularly wooey. Given that a rhythmic (though daily, rather than more frequent) process of cranial fluid managed to be missed until 2012 (see Nigel's Neuroscience Nook), I think it is possible that the autonomous rhythm, pulsation of the craniospinal fluid that Osborne described is not mythical. I don't know if anyone has conducted studies on the degree of immobility of cranial sutures in living individuals, but I would be very interested to see any such research. If there is one thing I am sure about in this respect, it is that human beings are chaotic systems, i.e. some very tiny changes have massive consequences.
Another thing I am pretty sure about is that the effects of bad posture on the nerves passing through the neck can be massive. So if it improves posture, it could contribute to an increased sense of well-being simply by relieving chronic muscle tension in the neck, even if the autonomous craniosacral pulse turns out to be a myth.
I feel that Muscle Effect Therapy (http://www.catalase.com/met.htm) is somewhat similar. Neither of these are that much of a great deal... but sometimes a precise and light touch is necessary and sufficient.
These things resonate with my feeling that health and healing are concepts and activities not entirely within the remit of science, and perhaps they ought not to be, either. Responding to the hidden, unspoken, unspeakable needs of another asking for help has, I feel, an irreducable element of art to it.
QuoteThese things resonate with my feeling that health and healing are concepts and activities not entirely within the remit of science, and perhaps they ought not to be, either. Responding to the hidden, unspoken, unspeakable needs of another asking for help has, I feel, an irreducable element of art to it.
The body is a closed-loop biological machine. It differs from a toaster or a pickup truck only in it's complexity and our understanding of it's operations. It is completely describable in scientific terms and, when it's finally described in it's entirety, it will be handed over to engineers and technicians. Art has nothing to do with it, aside from muddying the waters with pseudoscientific gobbledygook.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:25:46 AM
The theory behind craniosacral therapy is not particularly wooey.
Quote from: RationalWikiPractitioners claim there are small, rhythmic motions of the cranial bones, which they attribute to cerebrospinal fluid pressure, or perhaps arterial pressure. The therapist places their hands on the patient's head and (apparently) tunes into the craniosacral rhythm, the regular flow of the cerebrospinal fluid, allowing cerebrospinal fluid to move through the spine more easily. They then lightly palpate the patient's body and focus on the communicated movements. After this, the theory becomes wildly inconsistent between different authorities and practitioners.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:25:46 AM
Given that a rhythmic (though daily, rather than more frequent) process of cranial fluid managed to be missed until 2012 (see Nigel's Neuroscience Nook), I think it is possible that the autonomous rhythm, pulsation of the craniospinal fluid that Osborne described is not mythical.
Quote from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2173359Abstract:
After having outlined the theories of cranial osteopathy (SUTHERLAND, KARNI, UPLEDGER, and, more recently, CLAUZADE and DARRAILLANS), the authors refute the latter point by point. "Primary respiration" is in fact a way of thinking, and the various bones making up the calvaria and base of the skull, which are solidly synostosed in the adult, are clearly incapable of the pretended rhythmic displacements "described" by the osteopaths. Moreover, the C.R.L., like any liquid, is incompressible and mildly pulsatile. Conversely, although the brain clearly shows rhythmic pulsations, which every neuro-surgeon notes every day, the latter are exclusively connected to the vascular system.
Pent: before I respond, what do you mean by closed loop machine?
LMNO: Thanks for those! Will check.
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 01:20:27 PM
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
:lulz:
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:25:46 AM
Both seem to suggest that there is no evidence that this form of treatment works rather than there is evidence that it doesn't work.
Bro, do you even science? What would "evidence that it doesn't work" look like, other than lack of evidence that it does work? WTF?? :lol: :lol: :lol: Please read that sentence again and tell me if you can figure out what's so horribly, horribly wrong with it.
I'm not saying that there are no benefits to craniosacral therapy. I think there are real, physical benefits to almost any kind of positive human touch. Massage is wonderful and beneficial in general.
There is no question that cerebrospinal fluid pulsates. This is known to be true. However, the lack of evidence that touching the head and neck can affect that pulsation is a lack of evidence.
Please do also note that the nightly washing of the brain is not merely something that "managed to be missed", but a discovery that is a product of now having the technology to look inside living brains. Being able to observe living processes is a huge advancement in biomedical research.
You know what? I think I see at least part of the problem here. It's related to the problem that Food Babe has, which is that many people lack a foundation in science, to the extent that it seems like a big, opaque mystery; that new discoveries mean that anything is possible, and that there are absolutes, like "Nitrites above certain intake levels are bad for you, therefore anything that contains nitrogen must be bad for you".
Science, from that perspective, seems like a big nebulous maybe.
But in reality, that is not at all how it works. It is very rare for a new discovery about the world to supplant old discoveries; instead, usually, new discoveries fit into and modify old discoveries, expanding the knowledge base we already have rather than contradicting it. This is why claims that seem to contradict our existing knowledge must be examined carefully and skeptically; as the saying goes, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.
For the most part, there are two frontiers in scientific discovery; the macro frontier and the micro frontier. Craniosacral therapy is definitely not on the frontier of discovery at the macro level, as it contradicts our knowledge of the body on that scale. It is possible that it has effects on the micro level (beyond the known chemical benefits of friendly touch) but so far, there is no evidence to support that. If there are specific benefits, it is quite clear that they are not arising from the mechanism proposed by its practitioners, because that mechanism contradicts existing knowledge.
The fact that studies found no evidence that it has an effect makes further research highly unlikely. That's what those kinds of studies are for. The NIH, which is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, is very interested in researching alternative medicine, and what that takes the form of is studies that first examine a method and look for efficacy. IF EFFICACY IS FOUND, there is then a basis for further research. This is why there is a lot of funded research into meditation, but not into homeopathy.
This is also why certain things remain stuck in the realm of woo, and will likely stay there forever. Because like the old saw goes, you know what doctors call alternative medicine that works?
Medicine.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:25:46 AM
Both seem to suggest that there is no evidence that this form of treatment works rather than there is evidence that it doesn't work.
And this is why you'll always be a sucker for witchdoctors.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 13, 2014, 03:32:39 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:25:46 AM
Both seem to suggest that there is no evidence that this form of treatment works rather than there is evidence that it doesn't work.
Bro, do you even science? What would "evidence that it doesn't work" look like, other than lack of evidence that it does work? WTF?? :lol: :lol: :lol: Please read that sentence again and tell me if you can figure out what's so horribly, horribly wrong with it.
I honestly think that Holist would get a lot out of the LessWrong sequences (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences). Not being sarcastic, I think they would help sharpen up some of his thinking on subjects like this, and help him approach these things in a more systematic and rigourous fashion. Plus I think the overall topics and style of writing might appeal.
Basically, nobody is going to give a million dollars to a researcher who wants to do additional research into something that previous studies have found no effect for.
It's sort of like someone trying to sell you a car that won't start. A couple of previous buyers brought mechanics around to look under the hood, and both times the mechanics said "there's no engine". Are you going to buy the car on the premise that maybe there really IS an engine? After all, just because the previous two mechanics said there is no engine doesn't mean that there is for sure no engine.
Quote from: Cain on November 13, 2014, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 13, 2014, 03:32:39 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:25:46 AM
Both seem to suggest that there is no evidence that this form of treatment works rather than there is evidence that it doesn't work.
Bro, do you even science? What would "evidence that it doesn't work" look like, other than lack of evidence that it does work? WTF?? :lol: :lol: :lol: Please read that sentence again and tell me if you can figure out what's so horribly, horribly wrong with it.
I honestly think that Holist would get a lot out of the LessWrong sequences (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences). Not being sarcastic, I think they would help sharpen up some of his thinking on subjects like this, and help him approach these things in a more systematic and rigourous fashion. Plus I think the overall topics and style of writing might appeal.
I think that is a very, very good idea.
It might help him with the "lack of evidence for does not equal evidence against" line of reasoning, which is
true in some cases and false in others.
It is the difference between "hey, nobody has looked into this, I wonder if there's an effect?" and "people have looked into this in at least a couple of soundly-designed studies and found no effect". That right there gives you the branch point for two possibilities, one of which is "maybe" and the other one of which is "probably not".
I really wish that both statistics and chemistry were taught to all children starting at around age seven or eight. Probability and atomic interactions are a fundamental part of our evolving communication but we aren't usually introduced to them until our ways of thinking are fairly concrete, and I think that's why so many people struggle to understand the very basics that are vital to understanding the world around us.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 12:23:12 PM
Pent: before I respond, what do you mean by closed loop machine?
What I was getting at was there's nothing going on in biology beyond the system itself. "Art" has no fucking place in it. It's hard science and any stuff that isn't hard science will be once there's been more research.
I'm a massive fan of the placebo effect, btw, and I'd love to hear of someone keying into that particular psychological feedback mechanism minus the hoodwinking thing but, until they do, it's a massive unpatched exploit for woo peddlars to fill with whatever artistic bullshit they damn well please. This is disingenuous because the effect of crystals and reiki and fucking - insert gobshite here - is limited to the gullible.
I'm just disappointed this thread isn't about the therapeutic effects of teabagging. :sad:
2 things.
Closed systems don't exist.
Cain's tip is very good, Less wrong is a great site for people who like to think deeply about things and aren't afraid to think differently.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 13, 2014, 03:32:39 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:25:46 AM
Both seem to suggest that there is no evidence that this form of treatment works rather than there is evidence that it doesn't work.
Bro, do you even science? What would "evidence that it doesn't work" look like, other than lack of evidence that it does work? WTF?? :lol: :lol: :lol: Please read that sentence again and tell me if you can figure out what's so horribly, horribly wrong with it.
Well, you know...
This is from the 1999 metastudy:
"The available research on craniosacral treatment effectiveness constitutes low-grade evidence conducted using inadequate research protocols."
"Thirty-three studies were identified providing primary data on craniosacral therapy."
This is from the 2012 one:
"Results
Six studies were included. Except for one, all were associated with a high risk of bias. Low quality studies suggested positive effects, while the high-quality trial failed to demonstrate effectiveness."
I can't afford to look at that single study right now, but, as of 2012, 38 studies of variously unacceptable quality that seemed to indicate there was something there, and a
single one that failed to indicate anything is not quite conclusive evidence by any reasonable standard of science.
If there were say half a dozen high quality studies all indicating no positive effect: that would be evidence that it doesn't work.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 13, 2014, 03:34:58 PM
Please do also note that the nightly washing of the brain is not merely something that "managed to be missed", but a discovery that is a product of now having the technology to look inside living brains. Being able to observe living processes is a huge advancement in biomedical research.
How long before it is possible to keep that machine on while somebody is undergoing a session of CST?
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 01:20:27 PM
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
These people train for 4-5 years. That may be sheer masochism, or an extended rite of initiation, but they do.
So do MD's, anyway...
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 13, 2014, 04:06:23 PM
It might help him with the "lack of evidence for does not equal evidence against" line of reasoning, which is true in some cases and false in others.
Could you give me an example of a case in which it is false, please?
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 01:20:27 PM
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
These people train for 4-5 years. That may be sheer masochism, or an extended rite of initiation, but they do.
So do MD's, anyway...
Uhm, Alcoholics train for 8-10 years. Your point?
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 13, 2014, 08:52:35 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 01:20:27 PM
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
These people train for 4-5 years. That may be sheer masochism, or an extended rite of initiation, but they do.
So do MD's, anyway...
Uhm, Alcoholics train for 8-10 years. Your point?
I wouldn't believe you if you tried to pass yourself off as an alcoholic after your first beer?
I guess it's just that that fraud isn't
necessarily involved, the entire organisation may be genuine and possibly mistaken. As I said above, 38 low quality studies indicating positive effect versus 1 higher quality study indicating no positive effect... I would say the jury is still out on that one. Unless somebody comes up with at least a few more high quality studies indicating no positive effect... I will find some time to search for them next week.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 01:20:27 PM
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
These people train for 4-5 years. That may be sheer masochism, or an extended rite of initiation, but they do.
So do MD's, anyway...
Yeah, at what point did I say this service was quick? My Service agreements make Scientologly look downright reasonable.
Look, it's simple: If the mark has given you money once, why not try again? Until they stop. Which seems to take 4-5 years.
I sincerely hope you're implying that they could have become
actual medical professionals in that timespan.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:43:03 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 13, 2014, 04:06:23 PM
It might help him with the "lack of evidence for does not equal evidence against" line of reasoning, which is true in some cases and false in others.
Could you give me an example of a case in which it is false, please?
I did.
I can see that this is going in the "dig my heels in and screech because I want to believe" direction, so I am bowing out for now.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 09:23:10 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 01:20:27 PM
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
These people train for 4-5 years. That may be sheer masochism, or an extended rite of initiation, but they do.
So do MD's, anyway...
Yeah, at what point did I say this service was quick? My Service agreements make Scientologly look downright reasonable.
Look, it's simple: If the mark has given you money once, why not try again? Until they stop. Which seems to take 4-5 years.
I sincerely hope you're implying that they could have become actual medical professionals in that timespan.
Many kinds of quackery have whole support systems built up around them. People believe in it, so they very seriously study it at great expense for many years. Once you have achieved buy-in -- that is, once someone has invested money in your scheme -- it is remarkably difficult to shift them from the belief that it's genuine. You also see this effect in financial scams, as well as in bad relationships; once people have made a commitment to something, however small, they will have a harder and harder time rejecting it as the commitment grows.
Many religions and marketing departments use this psychological quirk to their benefit, like the timeshare tours that offer a free banquet, or Scientology with their free "personality test".
Look at the tarot card certification scheme, astrology, or homeopathic doctors. People will put a lot of time and money into learning a system that is very thorough and cohesive and takes years to master. The fact that it is also completely made-up and not reflective of the way the world actually works is irrelevant to its ability to achieve buy-in.
Here. I haven't read any of these because it's not my area of interest and I don't have time, but this seems like a good start. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=NIH%20craniosacral%20massage
One interpretation of Kabala is this exactly. You spend years learning these utterly strange rules and associations between letters, numbers, animals, position, color, etc. to the point of mastery. And then it hits you how absurd it all is, your mind breaks, and you see God.
If i barf into a bag of cheetos, and then like, eat it again, i get ALL the vitamin c needs and more nutritious meal, because this guy i know, yeah, he told me that our stomach acid is not strong enough to handle processed foods, so if you eat your barf, the second time around it gets easily digested and all the nutrients SPROUT and you absorb them. But when you need to make poopoo you have to hold it in for 8 hours or longer, so that said nutrients have time to get in the intestinal walls, otherwise they escapes and go to waste.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 01:20:27 PM
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
These people train for 4-5 years. That may be sheer masochism, or an extended rite of initiation, but they do.
So do MD's, anyway...
Well, that's certainly a valid comparison.
:lulz:
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 13, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:43:03 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 13, 2014, 04:06:23 PM
It might help him with the "lack of evidence for does not equal evidence against" line of reasoning, which is true in some cases and false in others.
Could you give me an example of a case in which it is false, please?
I did.
I can see that this is going in the "dig my heels in and screech because I want to believe" direction, so I am bowing out for now.
No! I genuinely don't see it, I must be a dumb bastard, but please point me at it before bowing out.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 09:23:10 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 01:20:27 PM
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
These people train for 4-5 years. That may be sheer masochism, or an extended rite of initiation, but they do.
So do MD's, anyway...
Yeah, at what point did I say this service was quick? My Service agreements make Scientologly look downright reasonable.
Look, it's simple: If the mark has given you money once, why not try again? Until they stop. Which seems to take 4-5 years.
I sincerely hope you're implying that they could have become actual medical professionals in that timespan.
:lulz: So you are offering to provide several years of training in something you don't know anything about? That's amazing! And no, unfortunately they couldn't have become
actual medical professionals (or certified ones, anyway) in that time: medical school is full time, these things you can do part time, at the weekends, etc. So my comparison was pretty unfair, and I hereby retract it: although people qualifying in the more stringent varieties of alt med do put in a lot of work, it's nowhere near on par with the effort involved in genuinely qualifying as a doctor. Although it is possible and not unheard of for people to qualify as doctors using disingenious methods.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 04:41:03 AM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 13, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:43:03 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 13, 2014, 04:06:23 PM
It might help him with the "lack of evidence for does not equal evidence against" line of reasoning, which is true in some cases and false in others.
Could you give me an example of a case in which it is false, please?
I did.
I can see that this is going in the "dig my heels in and screech because I want to believe" direction, so I am bowing out for now.
No! I genuinely don't see it, I must be a dumb bastard, but please point me at it before bowing out.
I think it might be a good idea for you to read the thread again, maybe a little more slowly, paying particular attention to the posts you have not responded to.
Here you go. It is the post immediately after the one you responded to when you asked for an example. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=36965.msg1362730#msg1362730
Let me know if that still doesn't make sense.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 04:47:08 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 09:23:10 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 01:20:27 PM
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
These people train for 4-5 years. That may be sheer masochism, or an extended rite of initiation, but they do.
So do MD's, anyway...
Yeah, at what point did I say this service was quick? My Service agreements make Scientologly look downright reasonable.
Look, it's simple: If the mark has given you money once, why not try again? Until they stop. Which seems to take 4-5 years.
I sincerely hope you're implying that they could have become actual medical professionals in that timespan.
:lulz: So you are offering to provide several years of training in something you don't know anything about? That's amazing! And no, unfortunately they couldn't have become actual medical professionals (or certified ones, anyway) in that time: medical school is full time, these things you can do part time, at the weekends, etc. So my comparison was pretty unfair, and I hereby retract it: although people qualifying in the more stringent varieties of alt med do put in a lot of work, it's nowhere near on par with the effort involved in genuinely qualifying as a doctor. Although it is possible and not unheard of for people to qualify as doctors using disingenious methods.
He can make it up as he goes along, just like all the other quack certification programs.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 04:53:40 AM
Here you go. It is the post immediately after the one you responded to when you asked for an example. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=36965.msg1362730#msg1362730
Let me know if that still doesn't make sense.
That makes perfect sense! And I think I responded to it. The two metastudies I linked contain 39 studies. One of them contains 33, all of which found some positive effect, and all of which are pronounced to be of low quality. The other one contains 6, 5 of which report a positive effect and is found to be of low quality, 1 is found to be of good quality and reports no effects.
So I think the "at least a couple of" criterion you mention is not met in this case. Or wasn't met as of 2012, anyway.
It is rather marked that you have not responded to any of the longer posts that explain processes and reasoning, Holist. It lends the impression that you are not very interested in thinking the reasoning through, but rather, more interested in argument. If this is just something you are arguing because you enjoy argument, and not because you are seeking knowledge, please let me know so that I can bow out, as I consider that kind of discussion intellectual wankery and a waste of my very limited time.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 04:59:57 AM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 04:53:40 AM
Here you go. It is the post immediately after the one you responded to when you asked for an example. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=36965.msg1362730#msg1362730
Let me know if that still doesn't make sense.
That makes perfect sense! And I think I responded to it. The two metastudies I linked contain 39 studies. One of them contains 33, all of which found some positive effect, and all of which are pronounced to be of low quality. The other one contains 6, 5 of which report a positive effect and is found to be of low quality, 1 is found to be of good quality and reports no effects.
So I think the "at least a couple of" criterion you mention is not met in this case. Or wasn't met as of 2012, anyway.
And I linked you to a bunch of studies that you can pursue, if you're actually interested. You're the one who initially said that you'd read a couple of studies that showed no evidence that supported it. I haven't read any studies, because I don't care.
So what are you arguing, exactly?
It's pretty clear that if craniosacral massage has an effect, it's not via the claimed mechanism.
I have no position on whether it has an effect, I just stated the typical parameters for pursuing further research, and tried to explain how new discoveries fit into the framework of existing knowledge. Do you want to argue whether or not it has an effect? I don't think either of us has enough information to support a claim either way, so it's just monkey noises.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 05:06:29 AM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 04:59:57 AM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 04:53:40 AM
Here you go. It is the post immediately after the one you responded to when you asked for an example. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=36965.msg1362730#msg1362730
Let me know if that still doesn't make sense.
That makes perfect sense! And I think I responded to it. The two metastudies I linked contain 39 studies. One of them contains 33, all of which found some positive effect, and all of which are pronounced to be of low quality. The other one contains 6, 5 of which report a positive effect and is found to be of low quality, 1 is found to be of good quality and reports no effects.
So I think the "at least a couple of" criterion you mention is not met in this case. Or wasn't met as of 2012, anyway.
And I linked you to a bunch of studies that you can pursue, if you're actually interested. You're the one who initially said that you'd read a couple of studies that showed no evidence that supported it. I haven't read any studies, because I don't care.
Well hey, hang on, this is what I said, in the OP:
QuoteI have looked at two metastudies, one from 1999, and one from 1012. Both seem to suggest that there is no evidence that this form of treatment works rather than there is evidence that it doesn't work.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 05:06:29 AM
So what are you arguing, exactly?
I am arguing that there is insufficient evidence that it has no effect.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 05:06:29 AM
It's pretty clear that if craniosacral massage has an effect, it's not via the claimed mechanism.
Yes, I agree with that.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 05:06:29 AM
I have no position on whether it has an effect, I just stated the typical parameters for pursuing further research, and tried to explain how new discoveries fit into the framework of existing knowledge. Do you want to argue whether or not it has an effect? I don't think either of us has enough information to support a claim either way, so it's just monkey noises.
Okay, that's fine. I don't want to argue, I'm interested in whether it has an effect, and if yes, why. I would also be grateful if someone with access could link to the single well-designed study so I could look at it.
My girlfriend learned cranial "sacral" massage while in accredited massage school in Oregon. No woo attached. No "guessing" why it "worked".
Simply "here are the techniques to safely massage the skull muscles" and "oh, btw the skull bones aren't 'static' like the impression you got every skeleton model you've seen, they're all gently joined by cartilage, etc, and get out of position sometimes, so be careful of how you deal with that".
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 04:47:08 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 09:23:10 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 13, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 13, 2014, 01:20:27 PM
QuoteI've had 4 or 5 sessions with a qualified and certified practitioner
I swear, you'll know when I've gone totally stark staring evil as I'll open up a fucking certification centre for all kinds of shit like this.
It's got to be up there on the scale of evil, taking money of the uniformed to provide a worthless bit of paper certifying them as the Grand High Preist of whatever trendy bullshit is going. Then sending them forth to fleece others on the back of your "Qualification".
Fuck it, why wait?
I WILL CERTIFY ANYONE AS A OFFICIAL QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT WOO YOU CARE TO NAME. ALL PRICES BEATEN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO ANSWERS GIVEN. NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BULLSHIT WOO REQUIRED, I CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU.
Ask about our affiliate scheme.
These people train for 4-5 years. That may be sheer masochism, or an extended rite of initiation, but they do.
So do MD's, anyway...
Yeah, at what point did I say this service was quick? My Service agreements make Scientologly look downright reasonable.
:lulz: So you are offering to provide several years of training in something you don't know anything about? That's amazing! .
Yes Friends, That's EXACTLY RIGHT. I am actually far more suitably qualified and experienced for this role than any others due to my decades long experience with bullshit.
That's right good people, I can give you better bullshit than the next leading guru or your next session is just half price!
You can't IMAGINE the MINUTES I will spend on wikipedia getting a loose enough grasp and a couple of terms to handwave convincingly.
I even supply my own joss sticks.
If you can find a better training provider in any sphere of bullshit pseudo-science that is better than me, they're just peddling PURE FUCKING HOKUM. You want to solve all your problems by shoving nails in your feet? Your Face? How about the art of gently wringing hands until the situation changes? Maybe you want to know the exact sequence you drizzle various oils on your arse to remove that boil?
The secrets of all these and more can be yours.
Members get a lifetime discount.
Sign me up, Mr. Junkenstein!! :lulz:
Quote from: Telarus on November 14, 2014, 08:54:48 AM
My girlfriend learned cranial "sacral" massage while in accredited massage school in Oregon. No woo attached. No "guessing" why it "worked".
Simply "here are the techniques to safely massage the skull muscles" and "oh, btw the skull bones aren't 'static' like the impression you got every skeleton model you've seen, they're all gently joined by cartilage, etc, and get out of position sometimes, so be careful of how you deal with that".
Firstly, it seems craniosacral therapy and cranial osteopathy are distinct but related things, while cranial massage is something rather different.
Secondly (from an article previously linked by LMNO): "After having outlined the theories of cranial osteopathy (SUTHERLAND, KARNI, UPLEDGER, and, more recently, CLAUZADE and DARRAILLANS), the authors refute the latter point by point. "Primary respiration" is in fact a way of thinking, and the various bones making up the calvaria and base of the skull, which are solidly synostosed in the adult, are clearly incapable of the pretended rhythmic displacements "described" by the osteopaths. "
It seems your girlfriend was taught something that's quite contrary to the scientific concensus.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 09:34:49 AM
Sign me up, Mr. Junkenstein!! :lulz:
Need you bank account details, Sort code and you have to move to the commune that you'll be buying and signing over to me.
It's the deal of a lifetime.
Anyway, 3 pages about slapping people in the head to fix their woes. That's depressing.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 14, 2014, 09:41:52 AM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 09:34:49 AM
Sign me up, Mr. Junkenstein!! :lulz:
Need you bank account details, Sort code and you have to move to the commune that you'll be buying and signing over to me.
It's the deal of a lifetime.
I don't got no bank account, Mister!! Them give you cancer! AND hives!
Don't worry, I can use Facial-craniocontact therapy to cure you of all ills.
The ancient art of the backhander has been passed down through 16 generations.
Dodo, here's some stuff.
First the entire Sequence:
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Mysterious_Answers_to_Mysterious_Questions
Then, two relevant articles.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence/
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 14, 2014, 12:27:38 PM
Dodo, here's some stuff.
First the entire Sequence:
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Mysterious_Answers_to_Mysterious_Questions
Then, two relevant articles.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence/
Thanks very much. I did find my way to lesswrong before, but it was dauntingly large. I'll start with these ones.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 14, 2014, 09:44:18 AM
Anyway, 3 pages about slapping people in the head to fix their woes. That's depressing.
In my day, we just DID it.
:lulz:
In any case, this is just another steaming pile of woo, with all of us lined up to taste it to be sure it's bullshit. It's really simple; if Holist proposes it, it's bullshit and he will argue til he's blue in the face that THIS TIME, it's not bullshit. And if we all crowd around to make sure he knows that it is in fact bullshit, then we've all just taken a big bite.
This "craniosacral therapy" brought to you by the letters B and S.
BUT ROGER! THERE WERE STUDIES THAT SHOW A SLIGHT POSITIVE EFFECT THAT WASN'T ACTUALLY CAUSED BY THE PROPOSED MECHANISM THAT WAS BEING RESEARCHED!
Sorry, snarky.
Anyway, Holist, Dodo, whatever:
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 05:33:27 AM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 05:06:29 AM
It's pretty clear that if craniosacral massage has an effect, it's not via the claimed mechanism.
Yes, I agree with that.
Here's the thing: The entire
point of science* is to have an idea about how the universe works, find a way to test that idea, and then look at the result. If the results say your idea doesn't work, then you go back to the drawing board and come up with another idea.
The test was if a form of scalp massage can substantially affect the flow of cerebrospinal fluid in a person's body.
The results of the test,
which you agree with in the above quote shows that whatever cerebrospinal fluid movement occurred (which you also agree was minimal), it was
not because of the scalp massage.
So now you have to go back and figure out, if not scalp massage, what was the cause of the movement?
What you
don't do is sit back and claim that because there was a mild effect, Craniosacral therapy has not been disproven.
*Hyperbole. There are other points.
You're wasting your breath. Holist is a man out searching for the woo, because he needs woo. Not sure why. Maybe he feels that he's being "left out" of science and wants to be in the know without doing the work required to understand how the world works. That is why, after all, Pagans and other new-agers constantly go on about how long they've been in the biz...There are no actual credentials, because it's all bullshit. So you claim years or decades of study of something that isn't real, and then pontificate about it to whomever is dumb enough to want to be a disciple.
I think this is odd, because while I have some education in the sciences (physics, mostly), I am not a scientist and I am happy to let scientists do science. I usually gain some benefit from it. I will gain less of it as time goes on, because of irrational people clogging up the system with woo that - while useless and counterproductive - is easier to "understand" than actual medicine or science.
These people have never heard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and they won't listen if you tell them.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 09:37:12 AM
Quote from: Telarus on November 14, 2014, 08:54:48 AM
My girlfriend learned cranial "sacral" massage while in accredited massage school in Oregon. No woo attached. No "guessing" why it "worked".
Simply "here are the techniques to safely massage the skull muscles" and "oh, btw the skull bones aren't 'static' like the impression you got every skeleton model you've seen, they're all gently joined by cartilage, etc, and get out of position sometimes, so be careful of how you deal with that".
Firstly, it seems craniosacral therapy and cranial osteopathy are distinct but related things, while cranial massage is something rather different.
Secondly (from an article previously linked by LMNO): "After having outlined the theories of cranial osteopathy (SUTHERLAND, KARNI, UPLEDGER, and, more recently, CLAUZADE and DARRAILLANS), the authors refute the latter point by point. "Primary respiration" is in fact a way of thinking, and the various bones making up the calvaria and base of the skull, which are solidly synostosed in the adult, are clearly incapable of the pretended rhythmic displacements "described" by the osteopaths. "
It seems your girlfriend was taught something that's quite contrary to the scientific concensus.
Yeah, but what do MDs and anatomists know? They're just like, tools of the system regurgitating the line they've been fed. Massage therapists are on the frontlines, working with patients hands-on, so they'd be in a better position to know what's really going on.
:hippie:
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 05:33:27 AM
Okay, that's fine. I don't want to argue, I'm interested in whether it has an effect, and if yes, why. I would also be grateful if someone with access could link to the single well-designed study so I could look at it.
I linked you to a pile of studies on the NIH website. Is that not good enough? Do you not have Google Scholar where you live? Do you need someone to do all the legwork and spoonfeed the papers to you?
Have you considered going to a library?
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 03:54:35 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 05:33:27 AM
Okay, that's fine. I don't want to argue, I'm interested in whether it has an effect, and if yes, why. I would also be grateful if someone with access could link to the single well-designed study so I could look at it.
I linked you to a pile of studies on the NIH website. Is that not good enough? Do you not have Google Scholar where you live? Do you need someone to do all the legwork and spoonfeed the papers to you?
No, thank you. You are right. I will look at those studies you linked to. (The first one says it needs more research, the second one says it is an effective treatment for migraine. The third one says "it is not medicine" - and the abstract page is totally blank, but I'll find it, it says free full text, so it must be up somewhere) I'll be back later.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 03:59:52 PM
Have you considered going to a library?
Not really an option. Do have internets though, will work harder before bothering you again.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 14, 2014, 01:23:22 PM
What you don't do is sit back and claim that because there was a mild effect, Craniosacral therapy has not been disproven.
I agree with that, too. Firstly, I would like to see and understand the evidence that disproves the theory behind craniosacral therapy. This may be a tall order for me, but I am taking it as a test case, a study case.
Secondly, I would like to see how much evidence there is that the treatment (the ritual) is effective beyond placebo. (My personal experience suggest that it is, but such is the nature of placebo, especially for gullible hippies like me.) If it seems there is something of an effect, I would like to think about other possible underlying mechanisms. I think being touched by a calm individual in relaxed circumstances in itself is pretty damn therapeutic in certain conditions... so that could be it. Back later.
As to the point, entire or otherwise, of science, I think I would like to defer that can of worms.
Um. You already agreed that the mechanism as hypothesized doesn't work. The evidence is in the studies. The study shows minimal movement of cranio spinal fluid, but evidence that the theory behind why scalp massage would do this was not found.
Remember, you agreed to that conclusion.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 14, 2014, 02:49:50 PM
You're wasting your breath. Holist is a man out searching for the woo, because he needs woo. Not sure why. Maybe he feels that he's being "left out" of science and wants to be in the know without doing the work required to understand how the world works. That is why, after all, Pagans and other new-agers constantly go on about how long they've been in the biz...There are no actual credentials, because it's all bullshit. So you claim years or decades of study of something that isn't real, and then pontificate about it to whomever is dumb enough to want to be a disciple.
I think this is odd, because while I have some education in the sciences (physics, mostly), I am not a scientist and I am happy to let scientists do science. I usually gain some benefit from it. I will gain less of it as time goes on, because of irrational people clogging up the system with woo that - while useless and counterproductive - is easier to "understand" than actual medicine or science.
These people have never heard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and they won't listen if you tell them.
No, they are not wasting their breath this time. And I think I only ever pulled the "it's different this time" stunt right at the beginning, with homeopathy. The other things you grew to hate me for were quite different, remember? :)
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 07:29:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 14, 2014, 02:49:50 PM
You're wasting your breath. Holist is a man out searching for the woo, because he needs woo. Not sure why. Maybe he feels that he's being "left out" of science and wants to be in the know without doing the work required to understand how the world works. That is why, after all, Pagans and other new-agers constantly go on about how long they've been in the biz...There are no actual credentials, because it's all bullshit. So you claim years or decades of study of something that isn't real, and then pontificate about it to whomever is dumb enough to want to be a disciple.
I think this is odd, because while I have some education in the sciences (physics, mostly), I am not a scientist and I am happy to let scientists do science. I usually gain some benefit from it. I will gain less of it as time goes on, because of irrational people clogging up the system with woo that - while useless and counterproductive - is easier to "understand" than actual medicine or science.
These people have never heard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and they won't listen if you tell them.
No, they are not wasting their breath this time. And I think I only ever pulled the "it's different this time" stunt right at the beginning, with homeopathy. The other things you grew to hate me for were quite different, remember? :)
I hated you before I met you. You're a human, after all. Stupid hairless apes that are afraid of their own odor.
Your woo is annoying, but you have to remember that I live in the United States, where the majority of people believe we'll never run out of oil because Jesus puts more in the ground while we aren't looking. Our plant's production manager believes that radio waves kill angels (because nobody really sees them anymore since about the time radio was invented). Some people even believe in the existence of our "government".
So, no, that's not why I hate you. Stupid primate.
On the other hand, you have at least acknowledged my existence over the last few days, so I hate you a bit less than the other apes stinking up my planet. At least for the moment.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 07:14:03 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 14, 2014, 03:54:35 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 14, 2014, 05:33:27 AM
Okay, that's fine. I don't want to argue, I'm interested in whether it has an effect, and if yes, why. I would also be grateful if someone with access could link to the single well-designed study so I could look at it.
I linked you to a pile of studies on the NIH website. Is that not good enough? Do you not have Google Scholar where you live? Do you need someone to do all the legwork and spoonfeed the papers to you?
No, thank you. You are right. I will look at those studies you linked to. (The first one says it needs more research, the second one says it is an effective treatment for migraine. The third one says "it is not medicine" - and the abstract page is totally blank, but I'll find it, it says free full text, so it must be up somewhere) I'll be back later.
No, it does not say "it is an effective treatment for migraine". Not to split hairs, but in biomedical research that is an incredibly strong statement and it's important to understand the language used in studies because it is, if the paper is written correctly, very precise and words have very specific meanings. What it says is "The results indicate that craniosacral treatment can alleviate migraine symptoms. Further research is suggested."
It's worthwhile to examine the methods and what was measured whenever you're looking at a study to try to figure out what it means. In this case, it was four self-reports of discomfort from migraine, in two groups (presumably of about ten people each group) one of which received treatment twice before answering the questionnaire for the first time, the other of which received treatment only after answering the questionnaire.
It is a decent preliminary study, although the design is really weird; I would have done a study comparing non-"adjusting" massage with CST, to attempt to corrall the placebo effect. The next step with a small study with results like this would be to conduct a larger study with a more controlled design.