Cranial Sacral Therapy - whats do you think?

http://upledger.com/home.htm CST

http://www.natsta.org/index.asp Dr Black

Hello everyone,

I was talking with Dr. Vince Black and Kim at the last Kajukenbo gathering I went to, and he turned me onto the Upledger Institute.

I have been looking into it and started to research it on my own.

I was just wondering if anyone else on this site had any comments or input.

I would like to get a discussion going on the subject, however it is very new to me at this time.

I added the links above for everyone.

Respectfully,
Dean

 

Welllll.....over on student doctor network there was an interesting discussion about it in their osteopathy forum. It seems that the (future) osteopaths are divided three ways on the issue: 1. It, along with other forms of osteopathic manipulation aren't worth the amount of time spent training it (especially craniosacral, which some see as some form of quackery). 2. That craniosacral therapy works--as taught at an osteopathic school and not by Upledger. The difference being, from what I can infer, that at some osteopathic schools the techniques are taught without the reference to a cranial pulse. 3. That craniosacral therapy works, period. So, I guess I have just made you more confused, sorry.

As for me, I'm still a bit skeptical about craniosacral from the standpoint of locating a cranial pulse. Mind you, I'm just a massage therapist-not an osteopath-and I have no experience with that particular modality. However, there was a study on interexaminer reliability on locating the cranial pulse published in the Journal of Bodywork (which you can find online), that showed that the practitioners involved had some difficulty locating the same cranial pulse on the same clients as their colleagues. This study was not one done by the article's publishers, but rather a collection of smaller studies.

I think that the techniques in and of themselves may have value--something akin to myofascial release for the cranium--but my jury is still out on the cranial pulse/rhythm. Not sure if I helped you much, but I hope so.

paz,

dormindo

 

I haven't looked at your link, but have had this therapy done to me... and have practiced it a bit with the person who taught me and proformed it on me... basically I think this is very much like the Taoist unwinding techniques of free movement only focused on head movement and its relationship to it supporting muscles while laying on one's back...

In relation to Osteopathic or Chiropractic adjustment I think cranial sacral (head floating) is a soft release (follow the body) technique... I think this technique can help to correct some structural alignment issues related to muscle tightness or stress when the spine itself has healthy motion, but it doesn't correct chronic issues or well developed misalignments... basically it helps to maximize nerve impulse flow based on the current state of the spinal structure. In some instances this technique might create more misalignments because of the tug of war effect of having muscle inflamation around the spine creating subluxation... this technique could cause another point in the back to sublux to improve nerve function... then this new state would be seen by the cranial sacral pulse (which monitors nerve flow and balance) as the new normal state and the muscles would work to maintain it even though they would be unbalanced... in short, this therapy might only help optimize a misaligned state... to correct the misalignment would require manual manipulation supported by setting the muscles in a neutral state so the muscles and bones together reach a corrected structural baseline which would optimize overall structural equilibrium and function...

take care, steve

 

Well, I have been treated by two cranio sacral therapists, both of which missed the fact I had seized vertebrae in my neck. I was not best impressed by the effects, but it could be that I had bad luck as the theoretical basis seems sound.

 

It's tough to say. My general appreciation of CAM (complimentary and alternative medicine), especially Traditional Chinese Medicine, leads me to not want to dismiss it outright, as there are many things that work that modern medicine simply hasn't research or has yet to explain.

However, in this case I am more skeptical, as the medical student side of me rears my head. The fluid around your nerves is on the inside of the spine, not the outside, and the disks that allow/support articulation are filled with fluid (I think, just about to get into anatomy now, but a quick scan of literature is what I am basing this off of). Thus I am skeptical that such low force (as they claim) will have any appreciable impact on the fluid as they claim, given that it is surrounded by dense bone.

 

Here is a bit that sums up the bunk of cranial sacral therapy nicely.

If you do enough reading on the subject you'll find that one of the most common terms associated with craniosacral therapy is fraud. The other word most commonly associated with it woudl psuedoscience.

Another bit:

 

Here is study showing the CS doesn't cut the scientific mustard published in Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 6(1):23-34, 2002.:

http://faculty.une.edu/com/shartman/sram.pdf

 

Here is an interesting abstract about CS:

source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8090842&dopt=Abstract

 

Thoughts on Craniosacral

This is an old thread, yet I would like to say a few words for those, like myself, who might find themselves disappointed by what they read.

loyalonehk, the initial creater of the thread, had what seemed to be a kind of beginner's mind on the subject. He had just been introduced to cranial work, and thought it a bit fascinating. Then, a few others shared their personal experiences with the work, and even the medical student offered what was his own research and opinions.

Then came several posts of articles from others. One makes fun of Dr. Upledgers experience of learning of the cranial rhythm and how he began to trust his intuition. I wish the article would have evaluated its own research, and not call foolish the experiences of others.

"If the skull bones really could move as much as one-sixteenth of an inch, it would be easy enough to measure and prove it," the article says. There are many kinds of knowledge and experiences in the world; I am only me, but I think that what matters is not whether something can be "proven" to skeptics and critics.

However, here is my personal experience of craniosacral manipulation:

Almost two decades ago, I took a craniosacral workshop taught by an osteopathic physician. We had split up into pairs, and with my partner on the table and me palpating the greater wings of the sphenoid at the temple region. The goal of the exercise was to sense the responsiveness of the sphenoid complex to movement, such as lateral gliding, or torquing.

The instructor came around to my partner's feet and while imperceptibly touching my partner's toes, proceeded to describe exactly what I was sensing with my hands.

Then, I did the unthinkable. I became a skeptic and challanged the teacher.

My partner had large sideburns, so I took my fingertips off my partner's temples and hid them in his hair. I continued to imagine I still had contact and honestly tried to sense from a distance what I had previously felt with contact.

The instructor continued by describing exactly, exactly (yes, I typed that twice) what I was imagining I was feeling.

This was my real experience, and I have continued to practice this therapy almost every day for the last two decades, and believe I have helped many thousands of patients.

"Anatomists can demonstrate that the skull bones are fused together in adulthood and cannot move." so says the "wired to the kitchen sink" post. In a living being, there is connective tissue between the plates of the skull, even in adulthood; in death, they ossify. Movement, therefore, is a possibility, and it is also a possibility that mechanical transmission of the fluctuations in fluid pressures within the dura may be felt at the periphery of the body.

The rest of the article is unworthy of comment because it goes on to be critical of shamanistic forms of healing, transformational psychology, cellular memory and other concepts. Ask any rape or torture victim about cellular memory or the need for deeper forms of psychological and spiritual healing. Of course, one does not have to go to such extremes of experience to find everyday examples.

It is interesting to me that the most scathing critics offer only other people's words, and do not speak from their own experience. Finding a qualified, skilled healer, whether of modern medicine, or of classical methods is the key.

 

Your welcome to believe this but then you can hardly complain that people would criticise the practice for not having any convincing evidence. The reason this is an alternative treatment is exactly due to the fact that no evidence can be produced under clinical conditions that support the claims that the practitioners make as to what is happening. If the evidence was there it would be recognised as a valid treatment and promoted in mainstream medical establishments.

The personal experience you cite while convincing to you highlights the common problem with alternative treatments i.e. that the only offer personal testimonies and anecdotes to their veracity and when tested under proper conditions the claimed effect does not appear.

If you are interested in a sceptical persons reading of your account... it seems unlikely that you were highly sceptical when you went on your course as taking a course tends to suggest that the person has some prior interest in what they are taking the course in. Next your account seems to suggest that the practitioner was able to detect what you were feeling by touching your partners toes... first off this seems entirely unrelated to the claims of craniosacral therapy as it has nothing to do with massaging the head and more to do with telepathy and second you seem to have immediately leapt to a fantastic conclusion without considering the more mundane i.e. the practitioner was describing something that you thought was the same as what you felt a moment ago. The fact that you would refer to trying to trick or testing a claim as the 'unthinkable' also suggests to me that you yourself recognise you are hardly the greatest sceptic. I'm not saying any of this to put you down or deny that you had an experience you were genuinely shocked and impressed by but I think you should realise that your experience really is not convincing evidence at all for the effectiveness of craniosacral therapy.

Sounds like interesting theories but has any of it ever been proved? The possibility of something working to me would suggest that you need to test it to see if it's true not believe it because its possible and it sounds plausible. If scientific evidence shows what you claim is not possible or cannot cause a therapeutic effect would you just dismiss the evidence because it conflicts with what you have already know to be true?

Being critical of alternative treatments or claim that have no evidence or directly contradict known scientific fact is understandable. The fact that you would advocate accepting claims such as shamanistic healing suggests to me that you have simply bought into all alternative medicine claims and evidence is largely irrelevant.

 

The lack of scientific evidence even at the very basic levels to back up any of the claims made in regards to CS makes me incredibly skeptical. I've yet to see any of the claims made by CS practitioners backed up by credible scientific evidence. Until then I'll remain a skeptic.

 

I'm happy people have replied. I guess the whole point of my post was that skepticism is fine, but it seems that there were some pretty harsh words about Dr. Updledger's personal experience.

You mentioned, "If the evidence was there it would be recognised as a valid treatment and promoted in mainstream medical establishments." Please, there are many valid treatments that have been helping people for a long time. And are you going to tell me that mainstream medicine is actually helping anyone who doesn't need emergency medicine? This medicine is just not designed for preventative or ongoing care. It's tools are too harsh, and too heroic, and don't get me started about the number of people killed and harmed daily by mainstream medicine - and yes, there are valid statistics.

But my reply to you is not about the problems with mainstream america, or its medicines.

What about my description of how the bones in the skull do not become immobile, ossified, until death, so that studying cadaevers is like "looking for dropped changed under a street lamp even though you dropped it down the road, just because the light is better?" Also, what about my disscussion of the properties of fluid filled containers? I would like to hear what you have to say after you have done your own research into this. To me, skeptics are like a bad student who question what the teacher teaches without looking deeply into their own minds first. Even modern scientists agree that CSF surround the spinal cord and with the meningies act as a fluid filled container, even if it is not fully isolated.

You stated, "first off this seems entirely unrelated to the claims of craniosacral therapy as it has nothing to do with massaging the head and more to do with telepathy...."

There is much more to cranialsacral therapy than just whether or not there exists a cranial pulse, and it has nothing to do with "massaging the head." I wish you would take the training yourself, and then comment on its efficacy. It is like people banning a movie without ever seeing the movie.

There was a special on television recently (public tv, I believe) about a man who sought to trace the stories in the bible by visiting them. He when to visit a man who was reported to have seen a piece of wood on the mountain where moses is reported to have parked the ark. When questioned, the man said he saw it. But that isn't proof, the visitor said. The man just shrugged and said he didn't care whether the visitor believed him.

Eventually, they went up the mountain together and the visitor turned to his companion on the journey, a translator, and expressed his dissatisfaction and frustration with not being able to find real proof about the stories in the bible. "I am here to discover these answers," he cried. His companion simply said, "No, you're not." The visitor just looked at him confused.

By the end of the series, the visitor understood exactly what his companion had meant. The visitors journey had started off on one foot, in one direction, to find the answers he thought he was looking for. In the end, he really did discover what we has looking for: a deeper connection to the biblical stories and a sense of their true meaning and power in his own life.

Over time, practitioners gain incredible sensitivity and begin to discover a whole world of experiences hiding beneath their everyday consciousness. Skepticism is good, I guess, but if you are only willing to respect something based on the what the latest proof says is true, aren't you also missing a whole world of fun (meaning a deeper truth)?

I'm not saying you should become a cult memeber, because I have never seen a cult member who I thought was really having fun. Even with all their smiling, they all seem so worried, reproachful and obsessive. That's the kind of proof I desire; based on observation and the wisdom of experience. Its like watching runners doing their daily run; they never look like they're having fun. Ancient chinese theory suggests that such exercise is actually bad for your health. No, they haven't prooved it by modern scientific methods, but in general, for most people, in most contexts, what they are saying can be considered truthful. Just look at what occurs in the body from the repeated stress of excessive exercise. They said this before modern science, and not modern science now says this as well, though even today gym teachers and coaches tell their athletes to suck it up, and even train while sick. It just takes time to catch up with the insights of yesteryear.

String theory is, I believe, one of the latest proofs in physics (study of the physical world), the very basis of the modern scientific method. Yet, doctors and scientists do not base their medical treatments or research upon this theory, or quantum physics, or even E=MC2, but upon slowly evolving accumulated data. Its like when you go to other countries and see them copying american customs, but from 40 years ago - kind of comic. Hey, scientists have just proven that there's a connection between what you eat and your health! Come on, really!

What I am trying to say is that it is ok to be skeptical, yet how about offering the other side of the argument, and offering the possibility that although documentation about the frequency or amplitude of movement of the cranial sutures is sketchy, if you look a little deeper, it seems highly possible that what is being felt is the soft tissue tension resulting from fluctuations in fluid pressure, and the fact that this occurs on an eight-second interval (average) suggests a "cranial pulse". I could go into the physics of fluid-filled containers, but I leave that to you. I could also go into more science on the movements and rhythms in the body, as well as the scientific basis for many seemingly magical results, such as that found in taiji when masters are able to send people flying with what appears to be just a touch. Again, I leave that to you. If you are truly interested, like the man who took a great effort to retrace the stories of the bible, then I look forward to speaking with you at the end of it.

Dr. Upledger, like a lot of leaders in their field, say a lot of crazy things. People throughout history have said a lot of crazy things, and been assasinated, killed, crucified, tortured, ridiculed and otherwise made to feel bad. If you research traditional cultures, you will find that the healers, and wise men and women were always considered to be crazy. These cultures put these people on the fringe of their society, yet continued to visit them when in psychic distress. It is because these people had some insight that changes their consciousness and concepts about "reality". One native american society believed that such people had "seen the great spirit" and therefore went a little crazy from the overload. Whether true or not, I really don't care. I guess I just didn't hear you skeptics offer another side of the picture, speaking harshly as you did not just about cranial work, but about all kinds of traditional healing methods.

You know, skepticism to me is like watching a fantasy movie and going, that's not real - it ruins all the fun. What's so important about life that every thing must be documented fully or we don't respect its contribution to humanity and our growth as beings in a world we have yet to fully comprehend?

On the other hand, see the big picture of how the anatomy is put together as a whole. For example, we say that when we walk, it is like a second heart which pumps blood back to the heart. Of course you would be skeptical if I said there exists a heart in the legs which does this. Yet if we look at the shape and structure of the gastrocnemius, soleus and the whole complex of the posterior leg compartment, we see in fact, that there exists muscles and structures which mimic the shape of the heart.

I agree with you that the documentation is lacking, but the initiator of this thread was only interested in a discussion of something he found interesting. Like me. You've missed the point of his post, I think. Notice the evidence: he has not returned to this thread....

If you've ever known someone was calling before you picked up the phone, you've experienced some greater connection. Love exists, but how can you proove it? You do so by describing your experience of it. It sounds crazy, as every poet has said through the ages, but it still exists as a common experience. Classical healing techniques, such as classical chinese medicine, shamanism, et. al. have a lot of "crazy" ideas about the world, yet with each generation, modern western scientists are one by one, beginning to find theories that prove what was written thousands of years ago in flowery, metaphorical language.

 

Again... personal experience doesn't equal credible scientific evidence. It's anecdotal at best. No point in getting upset because people aren't buying anecdotal evidence being passed off as scientific evidence.

We're not discussing 'many valid treatments' we're discussing those are backed by scientifically credible claims and those that aren't. As it stand... CS therapy doesn't make the grade. Sorry. Until you can post up some credible citations or evidence that bear this out... don't expect many to really take it on board just because of anecdote.

 

Thanks again for your post. I appreciate your efforts in replying and look forward to enjoying the rest of the forum.

 

Yes I would. The notion that modern medicine aka 'mainstream' can only deal with emergency trauma is popular in alternative medicine circles but it's not true. I don't attempt to argue that modern medicine is perfect or that it is applied perfectly across the board but the notion that it is overall harmful to individuals is just silly. Every single country were modern medicine has been established has statistics showing increased life expectancy, lower infant mortality and so on.

This is not because traditional treatments are useless but because evidence based modern medicine is simply more effective- generally because it is better rgulated and is based on the real causes of illness. A shaman dispelling demons may make someone feel better emotionally but in reality illnesses are not caused by demons but by things like bacteria and viruses.

Running is good for you as long as you do it right- which is common sense really. Any exercise is good for you as long as you don't injure yourself- that's not ancient wisdom that's common knowledge. Excessive exercise is by very definition harmful... look up 'excessive'. Which 'ancient Chinese theory' do you believe suggests otherwise by the way? And again the notion that because an idea is old that it is somehow wiser is just an unfortunate trait of human pyschology... there are many bad ancient ideas and suggesting that civilisations of the past were better off with their medical knowledge than we are today to me is remarkably silly. Have you studied the history of countries like China? Because I cannot imagine how someonw who actually looked into medical history could come to the conclusion that we are only starting to catch up now with ancient medical knowledge.

You'll have to excuse me I replied on my break at work so I didn't have time to do proper in depth research though I did look through several websites and articles and many of the more general arguments you made are common to many forms of alternative medicine.

Anyhow to address the points you highlighted:

1. Your description seems to be a claim with no evidence. Modern research has shown that "the bones of the skull fuse by the end of adolescence and no research has ever demonstrated that manual manipulation can move the individual cranial bones". Here is a link to a paper discussing such issues:
http://faculty.une.edu/com/shartman/sram.pdf

So while there may indeed be minute connective tissue this does not in anyway prove that CS therapy is correct. Not to mention that the notion that such tissue immediately ossifies upon death seems a bit fishy to me... are you sure that isn't just an argument CS practitioners use to try and explain why nobody can ever find the supposed soft tisue that would enable them to make the manipulations they claim possible? Again if this therapy is real and its models of the human body are correct then surely modern scans would be able to reveal the structure (or lack thereof) of the skull (x rays?). Yet from my reading it seems all the evidence suggests the model is wrong and when tested under clinical conditions no pracitioner has ever been able to demonstrate the manipulations claimed to be possible.

2. I'll need to look into this further but once again your discussion seems to basically amounting to having said 'it is possible that ...' without offering any evidence to show that it is possible. If it is possible to feel a part of someones body and sense problems because of fluid filled containers why hasn't it been demonstrated in clinical trials?

3. Great but how does that support CS therapy?

I don't think so I find the world fascinating enough without having to believe in things that have no proof for them. It actually seems like a bit of a waste to me to expend so much energy discussing, debating and practicing something if it turns out in the end that the thing itself doesn't exist. It would be like spending several years trying to tell people's futures from their eyebrows... i could do it, Im sure I could even think up a pseudo scientific plausible sounding reason as to how it worked and maybe some people woule be genuinely helped by my predictions... but in the end I'd be fooling people intentionally or not because you can't predict the future from eyebrows. Maybe I'm strange but the truth matters to me more than what is comforting or fun.

The point of a fantasy movie is that it is not real... anyone watching Lord of the Rings should realise that the world of middle earth does not correspond with reality but that's quite different from the kind of claims your making for CS therapy. Your claiming that science is wrong and that although you only have anecdotal evidence that we should accept this as valid proof. The problem I see with this is that healthcare and medicine is important and so indulging fantasies can actually do people harm. I can respect the contribution of non-scientific worldviews to the rich tapestry of human existence, I even think many of them have good points but still... for medicine Im afraid asking for evidence that the treatment actually works seems like common sense to me. Treatments that are shown not to work in clinical trials (as CS has been shown), which conflict with what modern research has shown about the human body and which are based on an eccentric individuals kooky ideas are quite clearly bad treatments. And I don't exactly see were the benefit is to mankind with continuing to perpuate their supposed effectiveness when its been proven not to exist.

While this may on the odd occasion be true this again is basically a complete myth. I've studied some ancient texts including some relating to medicine and believe it or not even in Asian cultures and many texts are not flowery and metaphorical but exact descriptions of treatments which we would now quite clearly recognise as rubbish. The modern trend I would say is that you take an 'ancient' flowery and metaphorical quote out of context and then attempt to match it with a modern scientific discovery and this in fact happens all the time. I know this because I study East Asian religions and I've read the very kinds of texts people try to link with things like Quantum mechanics when the texts clearly are nothing to do with such subjects and can only be understood as such when translated into modern terminology. You can also see a similiar process in religious groups wereby every modern scientific discovery is linked to a bible quote or the Koran.

There's much more I would like to address in your post but I'm too tired now. Suffice to say once again like slip I would highlight that anecdotes aren't very good evidence as EVERY silly beleif under the sun has anecdotal evidence.

 

Scientific evidence

There's no "scientific" evidence that insisting on "scientific" evidence for everything from craniosacral therapy, to the existence of God, to the beauty of a sunset, to my belief that there will still be ground under my feet when I step out my front door tomorrow morning, will ever change people's minds about what they experience.

This is a "traditional healing" forum, for Chis' sake. If you want to spend paragraph upon paragraph debunking CST on "scientific" grounds, why not start an "Arid Positivism" forum and ply your wares over there.

FWIW, Vince is one of the best CST practitioners I've ever seen, and while there may not be any scientific evidence for the efficacy of his Xing Yi, anecdotal evidence would suggest otherwise.

Best,


Steve

 

The thread was begun by someone else, not us. He has not returned, nor has he replied to our useless competition of words.

And by the way, the Lord of the Rings is not just fantasy or myth, but is a wondrous way in which to look at our psyches, and our journey of experience. That is the true healing power behind symbolism and myth. It is not simply imagination, but a communication of a more complete sort, just as poetry can be read over and over again, and new meanings and new thruths appear to the reader as their own wisdom grows.

This is to me, healing. Whether done by a surgeon's knife or a shaman's drum - does it, in the end, matter how or why? If so, then we are doomed to recreate the mistakes of our past as we continue to search for reasons for our own sufferings.

Life expectancy and infant mortality rates are not only attributable to modern medicine, but simply cleaning up the streets of filth, something nostra damus (sp?) did to help the plaque, with roses and such, herbs and oils, magic shaman stuff, if you will. And again, innoculations and such are great, but they too have their risks, and many have died from them. I am not arguing that modern medicine is not effective; I feel that if the taoists had MRI devices, they would have considered the Qi of these machines amazing and used them all the time. I simply said that modern medicine has tools that are too strong for everyday, preventative healthcare, and if not too many years ago I would have said that children are acting out in schools because of dietary factors I would have had my physician's license taken away. And just a couple weeks ago, modern science came out with a report that, yet indeed, it is now proven that there is a relationship between what we eat and behavior. How is this not proof, if you will, of modern medicine just beginning to catch up to thousands of years of experience (not just because it is old, but because it is wise, and it is also wise not to disregard that which helped millions of people survive the harsh times of ancient days; that is why I listen to and respect it).

Modern medicine is not "more effective" in a wide host of diseases, and classical medicines often treat them well, and without the terrible side effects every pharmaceutical commercial details. Of course, no medicine can cure everything, but you have really, truly lost me when you say modern medicine knows and treats the true cause of disease. You are as entrenched in the mainstream heresay as you say I am in those medicines of the past; this, you cannot deny.

Please do not respond to my post. I offer this post as a courtesy to your involvement and hard work, and I respect the energy with which you have replied, but this is a pointless exercise as it continues to deny the spirit of adventure started by the initiator of the thread. If you consider this to be me avoiding looking at the facts, so be it. As the founder of the piece of noah's ark replied, "I don't care whether you believe me; I know. That's all that matters." Take care.

 

Nice little argument of 1 you have going there.
You do realize that you're arguing something that no one else is right?

No one is trying to say people aren't experiencing certain feelings about whatever they want (you provided a nice little list)... but that doesn't make any of those feelings scientifically credible. For most of what you listed who cares if it does or not... the way you've posed it... no one is even arguing that... but what they are arguing is the difference between anecdotal and scientifically credible evidence to support medical claims.

Subtle (or not so) but crucial distinctions.

lol... don't get your feathers ruffled just because someone posted something you didn't agree with. It's not labeled the warm and fuzzy forum.

Anecdotal evidence can suggest a whole range of things. Depending on who supplying the anecdotes. But again that doesn't make it any more credible than Swiss cheese... and at least Swiss cheese tastes good.

 

Modern medicine is a rather broad term and you're purposefully trying to bend it to fit conveniently into your argument - no one here is arguing that modern medicine's singular role is to be used as preventive medicine as your suggesting.

I gotta hand it to you though... in some mystic hippy way you managed to work Lord of The Rings, Nostradamus and then in the end you crammed in Noah's Ark.

Brilliant!
Abso-fricken-lutely brilliant!!!

 

At work so only have time for a quick response so...

This is the traditional healing forum but that doesn't mean it is a criticism free zone were critical thinking and debate are not allowed. It is a forum for discussing traditional healing- discussing does not necessarily mean agreeing just as the religious forum is a forum not only for religious people but for discussion about religion. Almost every person recognises that not all forms of traditional healing are valid so discussing what they are based on and whether their is any evidence that they work seems pretty reasonable to me. On top of this CS therapy is not really a traditional treatment it's supposed to be a modern therapy based on a theory which is actually supposed to be derived from evidence and have clinical studies to back it up (it doesn't when you look into it).

Still if you're not interested in such discussions I would simply suggest you stay away from them rather than complaining to other people who do wish to discuss them.