to find out at the initial consultation, not brain washed because its popular so thought oh I'll have some of that like Olly K likes to assume or by comparing it to religious beliefs and followings.

Cranial osteopathy, the massage of the small bones of the skull, is a technique more particular to those who have suffered brain injury. You are advised to discuss such interventions fully with your doctor and with people who have experienced the treatment under question before engaging a therapist; these techniques are often expensive and their effects may be disappointing.

P.S. Treatment was covered in full by our medial insurance. So that proves it's NOT quackery then.

Just because something doesn't have conclusive medical evidence does not mean that it does not have any positive effect on the well-being of those who undergo treatment.

Yes there are quacks out there who claim that C.O. will cure AIDS and other such baloney, but there are idiots in mainstream as well.

Belief can be a powerful thing (just look at the mania induced by multiple religions).

Proof to me is based my findings on the results I've seen thorough my own experiences with my boy that were a direct result of cranial osteopathy. I don't know what DBPC testing is, but it hasn't helped my son, whereas cranial osteopathy has. Yes I know. "Prove it" will be your response.

More people in this thread are lending their weight to the fact that this branch of medicine has improved the quality of life for their children.

I suppose that's just down to popularity, hysteria and sheep mentality again in your opinion?

Joolz

Is there any basis to CST?
A basic knowledge of anatomy — including knowing that the bones of the skull
(cranium) fuse during infancy — should be enough to refute CS therapy. But, as is often the case with complementary and alternative medicines, well-established scientific facts are disputed or even refuted, and there is little compulsion to provide scientific evidence to support the alternative theory. So
flying in the face of scientific fact, CS therapists believe that the cranium does not fuse or ossify its sutures until well into later life, suggesting that through the manual manipulation of individual cranial bones they can influence health or disease.

It is of course true that a baby’s head is compressed during the birth process. The skull, however, is designed to adapt to the pressure exerted on it during birth and remoulds into its normal shape in a child’s early months and years. It is also true that some babies suffer brain injuries while still in the womb or while being born, but this is rare.While we can know these things for
sure, evidence that CST can positively influence the outcome of any trauma caused before, during or after birth simply doesn’t exist.
...
There has been little scientific research into CST, and no valid scientific trials
demonstrating its effectiveness have been held. A systematic review of the available evidence was undertaken in 1999, where the reviewers reported that the quality of the literature available was of poor methodological quality, was highly variable, lacked consistency and did not allow any logical ‘positive’ conclusions regarding craniosacral therapy. They concluded that ‘there is insufficient scientific evidence to recommend craniosacral therapy to patients, practitioners or third party payers for any clinical condition’
(Kazanjian et al, 1999).
...
A report published in autumn 2001 on the effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation found that spinal manipulation had no appreciable effect on babies suffering from colic in comparison with babies who receive a placebo (tender loving care) under controlled conditions (Olafsdottir et al, 2001).

Like I say, if heathcare providers in both Holland and Switzerland to my knowledge *do* pay for CO / CS treatment, then what is it that they seem to know that you don't?
Suresh