Do they still teach "cranial therapy"?

[liverfingers]

I'm just a pre-med student, possibly considering osteopathic medicine, but I've been reading some things that make me wonder.

In particular, a friend suggested I look at the following link, and it really raises some questions.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cranial.html

Is "cranial therapy" taught at all DO schools? Is there any scientific basis for it?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bkpa2med]

Yes it is still taught. I don't think I can really say there is any form of basis for this. I think what you feel is just fascial movement due to respiration. But, it's only taught for a few weeks ... the rest of OMM is pretty good.

 

[sexyman]

Our OMM professors definitely think it works...

 

[Pegasus1731]

Not sure if it's still taught. I don't think it's got any scientific basis though. Definatly dont base your decision to apply osteopathic or not on this!! 🙂

 

[bkpa2med]

 

[4Doc4]

Looks like it should work to me! 😉

 

[rddoms]

They still teach it a little here, and give you the opportunity to take a summer elective after first year.

 

[theraball]

I'm just a pre-med student, possibly considering osteopathic medicine, but I've been reading some things that make me wonder.

In particular, a friend suggested I look at the following link, and it really raises some questions.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cranial.html

Is "cranial therapy" taught at all DO schools? Is there any scientific basis for it?

This has been discussed to death. Search for "quackwatch" and "cranial". Lots of fervent pro- and con- arguments by mostly uninformed premeds and 1st and 2nd years. The short answer is that it's used by some DO's and DC's, not by others, and some people swear by it while others think it's bogus. It's almost impossible either to confirm or disprove this modality.

While Barrett's Quackwatch website does fill a useful niche, he somewhat discredits himself when he entitles his article "Why Craniosacral Therapy Is Silly". It would sound a little less biased if he said "Challenges to Craniosacral Therapy's Efficacy" or some such. He presents himself as a skeptical scientist, then publishes a paper with "silly" in the title. Not very scientific if you ask me.

 

[DrMidlife]

Not very scientific if you ask me.

Nor is craniosacral. I think "silly" is rather appropriate. This "modality" is a HUGE anomaly in an accredited medical curriculum and sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Does anyone else hate Stephen Barrett?? I just find him to be a complete ass, etc (could go on for a long time, but won't bc I'm sure people love him).

 

[Cp22kjer]

Does anyone else hate Stephen Barrett?? I just find him to be a complete ass, etc (could go on for a long time, but won't bc I'm sure people love him).

Can't stand him or the website. He manipulates everything to fit his own agenda in my opinion. It's certainly not as objective as he makes it seem.

 

[zmeister22]

DMU's main professor holds a certificate from The Cranial Academy and she thinks it is absolutely amazing. She speaks of feeling the "primary respiratory mechanism" through the cranial bones, a.k.a. the movement of the waves of the CSF against the inside of the skull. I have never heard anyone make a counterpoint against the fact that cranial has an inter-examiner reliability of almost zero and cranial bones are 100% fused by the early twenties and have a margin of movement less than 10% of the threshhold of human sensation. Whatev, though. Whatever I have to do to get through school.

I see how it could work in a psychological sense. You actually take the time to put your hand on somewhat, show them you are genuinely trying to help and they feel better.

 

[cyclohexanol]

I'm just a pre-med student, possibly considering osteopathic medicine, but I've been reading some things that make me wonder.

In particular, a friend suggested I look at the following link, and it really raises some questions.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cranial.html

Is "cranial therapy" taught at all DO schools? Is there any scientific basis for it?

Yes, it's taught. During the first lecture at COMP, we were told about Sutherland and his epiphany regarding cranial.

He said that upon examining the interarticulations of the skull bones, he noticed that the temporal bone was "beveled like the gills of a fish" and therefore must be designed for motion (not kidding).

That's pretty much all you need to know in order to determine there is any scientific basis for it.

Some people vehemently promote its use and efficacy, while others dismiss it as quackery. Either way, there aren't many (any?) well designed studies to suggest... anything about its basis, use and/or efficacy.

 

[group_theory]

whether you believe it or not (or if there is a scientific basis for it) - that's up for debate

however, hopefully all DO schools should be teaching it since the topic is fair game for the COMLEX

(now whether COMLEX should include craniosacral is yet another debate)

 

[bkpa2med]

Just remember where your thumbs are in the Vault hold lol

 

[Tenacious DO]

Here is the available research that I have found for/against CS. Enjoy

http://manualmedicinecraniosacral.blogspot.com/

I don’t have a huge opinion on the matter, but this may be an instance where an absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence .

 

[Bleurberry]

Does anyone else hate Stephen Barrett?? I just find him to be a complete ass, etc (could go on for a long time, but won't bc I'm sure people love him).

Jagger,

It's always appeared to me...for years now, that Mr. Barrett's illustrious career as a de-bunker is just as suspect as that which he de-bunks. He strikes me as the type that has "sunk to the enemies level" and has made the mistake, on more than one occasion, of blasting good medical practice based on his biases.
I'm with you, pal, he's a wing-nut calling a screw "loose".

 

[Bleurberry]

DMU's main professor holds a certificate from The Cranial Academy and she thinks it is absolutely amazing. She speaks of feeling the "primary respiratory mechanism" through the cranial bones, a.k.a. the movement of the waves of the CSF against the inside of the skull. I have never heard anyone make a counterpoint against the fact that cranial has an inter-examiner reliability of almost zero and cranial bones are 100% fused by the early twenties and have a margin of movement less than 10% of the threshhold of human sensation. Whatev, though. Whatever I have to do to get through school.

I see how it could work in a psychological sense. You actually take the time to put your hand on somewhat, show them you are genuinely trying to help and they feel better.

I'm at work so I can't go into it but cranial sutures aren't ossified in the early twenties, it takes a lifetime.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Wheww thanks to the posters who agree with me. Good to know I'm not hte only one who feels this way.

 

[zmeister22]

I'm at work so I can't go into it but cranial sutures aren't ossified in the early twenties, it takes a lifetime.

But sufficiently non-ossified to feel the movement in between them without having any influence from muscle movement in the face of the patient, inherent movement in the practitioner's hands and without any type of movement from the respirations of either the patient or practitioner, allowing you to feel the brain "breath in and out"? Don't think so. Even osteodoc.com, a proponent of cranial that makes broad statements such as "new theories are becoming more widely accepted" without any sort of evidence or study or information claims that the movement to be around 1/100th of one inch. I just don't but it.

 

[Old_Mil]

I
Is "cranial therapy" taught at all DO schools? Is there any scientific basis for it?

Yes, unfortunately.

No, there's no scientific basis for it.

Yes, most people in osteopathic schools BS their way through it.

 

[bkpa2med]

Sidebending and Lateral strain must be something for the Cranium

 

[Redrox]

If cranial is such a highly skilled and advanced technique that only a minority of pure osteopaths(themselves a minority of DO's) will use, why is it part of my curriculum? My school spends a full month.

And until Comlex stops covering Sutherlandism, schools will never stop teaching cranial. People ignorant or predisposed to call osteopathy quackery will have more ammo for hating; and students will have less time to learn useful osteopathic techniques, i.e. we will have less ammo for healing.

 

[Tenacious DO]

What little I know of this "modality" tells me it is unadulterated nonsense, but I'm not really here to debate that.

I do want to say though, that the argument above, although reasonable sounding, is truly heinous. Once you accept therapies in the absence of evidence, you open the door to every greedy quack snakeoil salesman on the planet.

I don't disagree with your comments in the least. In fact I completely agree...Hence, I don't have much on an opinion on the matter.

The basic principles of cranial just do not lend themselves to rigorous objective measures. The reported cranial rhythms are not picked up on X-Ray, US, MRI, Fluro, or stereophotogrammetric analysis.
(SIDE NOTE: We accept the use of many medications with UNKNOWN mechanisms of action)

Maybe technology will come in to save the day with a scan that is sensitive enough to pick up the cranial rhythms. Anyone else holding their breath???

I have always found it interesting when people make blanket statements like, "There is no research to support XYZ." In my mind, all I hear is two things:
1) "Someone once told me that there is no research on XYZ & I have never bothered to look into it for myself…But I am happy to make statements about the value of XYZ."
2) "I have done extensive research for myself and have determined that there is insufficient evidence to support the claims of XYZ."

I will not defend the quality of cranial research, but people have made attempts to look into the matter. These studies are USUALLY conducted by very SMALL groups of people that are VERY PASSIONATE about the ART of cranial, but have LIMITED access to technology (exception – NASA Studies pg 2 http://www.cranialacademy.org/pdf/PRMresearch.pdf).

I had better stop now and get back to my place sitting on the fence.

TD

 

[Hurricane95]

Reading this reminds me a lot about the "holistic healer"-snakeskin-boot-wearing CAM practicioner who came to talk to my class about ayurveda during first year. Needless to say, we (even as first year students) ripped him a new one. The sad part is people pay for this kind of "therapy." What a load of BS.

 

[laboholic]

Cranial is taught at a lot of schools. However, it is not highly focused on.
It is actually very interesting, and I can see how it could be useful for small children who's cranial bones have not yet fully fused. Unfortunately, a lot of students blow it off because they either have a preconceived idea that it is stupid or they simply cant feel it.
Hopefully you keep an open mind about everything that you learn, whether or not there is a solid scientific basis for it at this current time. That is what makes a good physician and/or scientist. If you look back at medical history, a significant number of discoveries that were blown off as idiotic or inconceivable were later proven as fact and are now generally accepted by society (e.g. vaccination, the ability to break the sound barrier, the concept that diseases are transmitted by microscopic organisms, the idea the the world is flat... etc)
Just keep an open mind and dont listen to people on these forums and you will have a better experience in medical school 👍

 

[sexyman]

Just keep an open mind and dont listen to people on these forums and you will have a better experience in medical school 👍

So do I listen to you or....

just messing around ha

 

[HopefulDoc2007]

We were told by one of our professors that the treatment may works on the fascia but that the cranial bones certainly do not move in an appreciable way. I think this is one of the treatments that you will talk about in DO school and learn how to do but that is not necessarily proven or used by many physicians. I am a huge skeptic by nature so the important thing for me is that no claims of scientifically proven causal relationships are made without sufficient evidence. What I have been told is that many things we do in medicine are not necessarily scientifically proven (and many cannot be) but they are used because clinicians see that they work in the field. I wouldn't make your decision about a school based on this. OMT is only a small part of your medical education at a DO school and is for the most part useful (in primary care anyway).