"not that it stops us from doing it"

[Nick]

I was meeting with someone this morning who was defending the use of craniosacral therapy. He was discussing how the recent studies debunking it were flawed for various reasons. He continued on to say that it was like manipulative therapy - supposedly very evidence-based, but we keep having difficulty proving we can feel what we think we feel or that it has the effect that we think it has - "not that it stops us from doing it." His contention was that the problem lay in the research methods, not in the theories or techniques themselves. I actually think many in the manual therapy community are to be applauded for re-evaluating their theories in light of the evidence. Many, however, stick doggedly to theories that really make no sense and have no evidence beyond anatomical constructs. There is so often a leap that assigns implausible physiology to a particular piece of anatomy. Why is so difficult to accept neurophysiology as our evidence-base??? It just makes everything make much more sense.

Nick

[Diane]

People still think that a theory behind some technique is some inextricable essential part of the technique itself - they have the two conflated, joined like conjoined twins. They don't understand that the two have almost nothing to do with each other, that the one does not depend on "believing" the other.

I agree that neurophysiology makes better sense out of pretty much everything.

[Crazy Pole]

Hi Nick,

I agree also about the explanatory capabilities of neurophysiology. I suspect that many practitioners are unaware of this information, which is a shame. Certainly, it was not offered in my Program, and had I not had the good fortune of working with Jon Newman, it is unlikely that I would have ever come across it. However, coming across it must also be combined with a readiness to hear it. For me, that came from feeling that my deep model (not knowing what that meant at the time) didn't explain things well.

Unfortunately (I think), I'm not too familiar with craniosacral. I get the primary tenets/ideas, but I wonder how one explains what happens to a patient who doesn't benefit from it? Anyone know?

Wes

[Diane]

Wes, one would have to find people who don't benefit from "it" (whatever is meant by "it"), and ask them. :)

[Crazy Pole]

Hi Diane,

"it" in this case refers to craniosacral therapy, but I reckon that you could substitute any intervention in. My best guess is that the patient is left to feel at fault (their craniosacral rhythm wasn't responsive, or their bones weren't ready to be realigned, etc...). I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with this.