Cranial osteopothy - any recommendations locally?

[Widdy]

Hello

I've recently had a baby, which needed a bit of help out with a ventouse. I've heard cranial osteopothy can be really good and beneficial for babies born with assistance and my midwife also said this. Has anyone used anyone locally that they would recommend? Also any idea of likely cost?

Many thanks

Widdy

[lenster]

Hi. I saw Elaine Gregory at Dulwich Therapy Rooms for the same thing. Seemed to work well on my little one.

Afraid I can't remember the cost.

[oimissus]

I went to The Vale Practice on Grove Vale, I think she was called Rebecca? Or Rachel? It was around ?40. Miss Oi was ventouse but I didn't take her for that as such, I took her because she was dreadfully farty and we'd been using Infacol for ages which I was getting fed up of. One treatment and the wind was gone!

[swagstar]

My little one was forceps so we went to Katie Sedgwick when she was only 4 days old. We had 2 treatments of about ?40 each and she was much happier afterwards. I would definitely recommend doing it.

[MrsAk]

A couple of my friends have taken their babies to the OCC in Wandsworth. I think it operates on a donation system though not sure.

[Annie456]

I thank Lizzie lomax at dulwich therapy rooms for giving me the most chilled out baby! Of course it could be coincidence but I'll be paying her a visit if I have another one. A few friends have seen her too. She was recommended to me by Clare Kedvers at Kings as DS was a bit tense after being a big baby in a tiny bump!

[amydown]

Can someone explain to me in simple terms how cranial osteopath works? Clare Kadvis also recommended it for our baby who had a tongue tie. I'm a bit sceptical about it though - perhaps because I don't know enough about it?

[hellosailor]

Another big thumbs up for Lizzie Lomax at the therapy rooms

[mollydoodle]

Another recommendation for Rachel at the vale practice I took my daughter first when she was a baby and the whole family ended up seeing her for different things - she is great as if it only takes one session to fix that is all she recommends

[Fidgetsmum]

Simon Turgoose at the Vale Practice. Excellent.

[swagstar]

I go to Lizzie for my own problems, and she is amazing (lovely person too)

[Annie456]

I can't help on the 'what actually is it' as I'm still slightly baffled but it might reassure you to know that there is almost no pressure applied to the baby at all, think of it more like reiki healing than massage - I know that will be doing it no justice at all but I had thought it would involve some sort of realignment of the skull (!) but actually they use very soft touch on different points of the body to set off a chain of movements within other parts of the body. Maybe searching YouTube would put your mind at rest if you are worried?

[Widdy]

Thanks everyone for your recommendations - really helpful!

Amydown - I wasn't sure what it was either, but googling it bought up some useful pages.

Widdy

[david_carnell]

amydown Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can someone explain to me in simple terms how

> cranial osteopath works? Clare Kadvis also

> recommended it for our baby who had a tongue tie.

> I'm a bit sceptical about it though - perhaps

> because I don't know enough about it?

Amydown - I'm going to be controversial here. And no doubt alienate many. For that I'm sorry but it needs to be said.

It doesn't work.

At best it is a harmless head touching practised by the naive. At worst it is a con run by charlatans taking money from stressed and desperate parents whom, often, are at the end of their tether with screaming babies.

The idea it could cure tongue-tie is utterly delusional. And that's not attacking you Amy - nor the person who recommended it (unless they are a medical professional) but is certainly attacking anyone practioner who claims it can.

You'll often read that practitioners claim to feel a subtle pulse in the fluid surrounding the brain and claim that there is some research to suggest that these pulses are related to slow, regular changes in blood pressure in the brain. This is wrong.

First, cranial osteopaths don?t even think the pulses are blood pressure; their theories revolve around the ?inherent rhythmic motility? of the brain and spinal cord, mixed with breath and cardiac cycles, causing rhythmic fluctuation of the brain and surrounding fluid, which they think they can feel through the bones of your (or your baby's) skull, and fix up with a bit of wiggling. They write long articles about actin and myosin (the things in muscle cells that make them move) being present in brain cells; unfortunately, they always forget to mention that brain cells lack the dense arrays of those filaments which are necessary to generate any significant movement.

At this point you might well ask - "but are there real 'cranial pulses' to be felt, however they may be generated?"

It?s easy to find out: ask a couple of cranial osteopaths to write down the frequency of the pulses on the same person?s skull, and then see if they give the same answer. There have been five papers published doing just this, and in none of them did the osteopaths give similar answers. Which suggests to me that (a) this is not a reliable biological phenomenon, and (b) perhaps these cranial osteopaths are, er, imagining it. So: the discipline is based on a misunderstanding, they can?t measure what they claim to measure and work with, and there?s no evidence to say it works.

As a parent of a new born baby myself, I can understand the appeal. My little one was a forceps delivery and midwives and others were quick to tell me how I should sign the little chap to have his head rubbed by a medically unqualified voluntarily-regulated quack to help cure him of such things as "crying".

Babies cry. They have colic and reflux. They go through growth spurts. They cry some more. They stop. Often this occurs most in the 2-6 week old period. Funnily enough, cranial osteopaths and cranialsacral therapists will often offer sessions running across this time frame at the end of which your baby has miraculously stopped crying nearly as much as before.

In short, it's woo. Please don't hand over your hard earned money to people who claim it is anything other than a rather pleasant head rub. Stroking your baby yourself will be just as effective.

Remember, the plural of "anecdote" isn't evidence. It's anecdotes.

[Ramble66]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> amydown Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Can someone explain to me in simple terms how

> > cranial osteopath works? Clare Kadvis also

> > recommended it for our baby who had a tongue

> tie.

> > I'm a bit sceptical about it though - perhaps

> > because I don't know enough about it?

>

> Amydown - I'm going to be controversial here. And

> no doubt alienate many. For that I'm sorry but it

> needs to be said.

>

> It doesn't work.

>

> At best it is a harmless head touching practised

> by the naive. At worst it is a con run by

> charlatans taking money from stressed and

> desperate parents whom, often, are at the end of

> their tether with screaming babies.

>

> The idea it could cure tongue-tie is utterly

> delusional. And that's not attacking you Amy - nor

> the person who recommended it (unless they are a

> medical professional) but is certainly attacking

> anyone practioner who claims it can.

>

> You'll often read that practitioners claim to feel

> a subtle pulse in the fluid surrounding the brain

> and claim that there is some research to suggest

> that these pulses are related to slow, regular

> changes in blood pressure in the brain. This is

> wrong.

>

> First, cranial osteopaths don?t even think the

> pulses are blood pressure; their theories revolve

> around the ?inherent rhythmic motility? of the

> brain and spinal cord, mixed with breath and

> cardiac cycles, causing rhythmic fluctuation of

> the brain and surrounding fluid, which they think

> they can feel through the bones of your (or your

> baby's) skull, and fix up with a bit of wiggling.

> They write long articles about actin and myosin

> (the things in muscle cells that make them move)

> being present in brain cells; unfortunately, they

> always forget to mention that brain cells lack the

> dense arrays of those filaments which are

> necessary to generate any significant movement.

>

> At this point you might well ask - "but are there

> real 'cranial pulses' to be felt, however they may

> be generated?"

>

> It?s easy to find out: ask a couple of cranial

> osteopaths to write down the frequency of the

> pulses on the same person?s skull, and then see if

> they give the same answer. There have been five

> papers published doing just this, and in none of

> them did the osteopaths give similar answers.

> Which suggests to me that (a) this is not a

> reliable biological phenomenon, and (b) perhaps

> these cranial osteopaths are, er, imagining it.

> So: the discipline is based on a misunderstanding,

> they can?t measure what they claim to measure and

> work with, and there?s no evidence to say it

> works.

>

> As a parent of a new born baby myself, I can

> understand the appeal. My little one was a forceps

> delivery and midwives and others were quick to

> tell me how I should sign the little chap to have

> his head rubbed by a medically unqualified

> voluntarily-regulated quack to help cure him of

> such things as "crying".

>

> Babies cry. They have colic and reflux. They go

> through growth spurts. They cry some more. They

> stop. Often this occurs most in the 2-6 week old

> period. Funnily enough, cranial osteopaths and

> cranialsacral therapists will often offer sessions

> running across this time frame at the end of which

> your baby has miraculously stopped crying nearly

> as much as before.

>

> In short, it's woo. Please don't hand over your

> hard earned money to people who claim it is

> anything other than a rather pleasant head rub.

> Stroking your baby yourself will be just as

> effective.

>

> Remember, the plural of "anecdote" isn't evidence.

> It's anecdotes.

I'm not going to rise to reply to all your message but I will say that Osteopaths are classed as primary healthcare professionals and are regulated by the General Osteopathic Council. Registration and CPD is mandatory.

[JessB]

Cranial osteopathy is recommended not to cure a tongue tie but to help loosen the associated muscles,and help the lower jaw move forward if it is recedes as is common. It is a follow up to having the tongue tie cut.

I have myself been treated by fabiano da Silva on Barry road, and so have my two babies between the ages of 3-4 months and the second one between 6 weeks and 5 months. each of them treated for different reasons, not just the fact they cried. The results were astounding. I'm not going to go into details because that is not the subject of the post.

Fabiano specialises and teaches the masters in paediatric cranial osteopathy. He is amazing. Google his name and his website will come up. I can certainly say that his treatment for my own back and hip problems during pregnancy and after was wonderful and he did a mix of cranial, osteopathy manipulation and dry needling.

Anecdotal "evidence" makes the world go round. If I had followed studies and books only for the baby days and my general life then I think that is denying some of the best advice around.

Anyway, here's to fabiano!

[Annie456]

I didn't take my baby to a cranial osteopath to cure his tongue tie or because he cried but because he had a lot of tension in his jaw as a result of a tongue tie and it was affecting my ability to breastfeed. Feeding became more effective and less painful.

[taper]

David

Congratulations!

You're right of course. There is a difference between osteopathy and cranial osteopathy as far as I can be bothered to tell. The former is limited, but not entirely quacky if the claims for its efficacy are limited. Cranial osteopathy is pretty quacky though, although the direct physical contact no doubt can produce a strong placebo affect.

[hellosailor]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

>

>

> You're right of course. There is a difference

> between osteopathy and cranial osteopathy as far

> as I can be bothered to tell.

Gosh Taper, tell us more, only if you can be bothered of course? Your insights are always so well researched and scientific!

[taper]

Well there's probably more in it than homeopathy, but here you go:

A study by two science professors at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine

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

Key quotes:

"There is little science in any aspect of cranial osteopathy"

and

"We conclude that cranial osteopathy should be removed from curricula of colleges of osteopathic medicine and from osteopathic licensing examinations"

A more blistering and readable assault from Hartman is here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564028/

Key Quote:

"This treatment regime lacks a biologically plausible mechanism, shows no diagnostic reliability, and offers little hope that any direct clinical effect will ever be shown. In spite of almost uniformly negative research findings, "cranial" methods remain popular with many practitioners and patients"

Finally, if you're still awake, there's a very full discussion of the evidence on cranial here (and criticism from within the Osteopathic world):

http://skepticbarista.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/osteopathya-question-of-evidence-part-1/

Key quote:

"I certainly do not think that it can be accepted that Cranial Osteopathy is effective in the treatment of any condition"

Is that alright f'yuz?

[hellosailor]

Yep, no worries you had me at 'a study by two science professors...'

[Earl Aelfheah]

Here's a brief outline of the existing evidence (with links to specific papers):

http://www.brighton.ac.uk/ncor/summaries/Osteopathy%20in%20the%20Cranial%20Field.pdf

[Earl Aelfheah]

hellosailor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yep, no worries you had me at 'a study by two

> science professors...'

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that a scientifc paper must be published under more than two names in order to be valid?