[1][2] It is based on fundamental misconceptions about the anatomy and physiology of the human skull and is promoted as a cure-all for a variety of health conditions.

[3][4][5] Medical research has found no significant evidence that either CST or cranial osteopathy confers any health benefit, and attempts to manipulate the bones of the skull can be harmful, particularly for children or infants.

[15] This review concluded that the evidence base surrounding craniosacral therapy and its efficacy was sparse and composed of studies with heterogeneous design.

[4][21] From 1975 to 1983, Upledger and neurophysiologist and histologist Ernest W. Retzlaff worked at Michigan State University as clinical researchers and professors.

They assembled a research team to investigate the purported pulse and further study Sutherland's theory of cranial bone movement.

[22][23][24] Later, independent reviews of these studies concluded that they presented no good evidence for the effectiveness of craniosacral therapy or the existence of the proposed cranial bone movement.

[25] The fundamental concepts of cranial osteopathy and CST are inconsistent with the human skull, brain, and spine's known anatomy and physiology.

"[5] In common with many other varieties of alternative medicine, CST practitioners believe all illness is caused by energy or fluid blockages which can be released by physical manipulation.

[27] Comparing CST to cranial osteopathy, Upledger wrote: "Dr. Sutherland's discovery regarding the flexibility of skull sutures led to the early research behind CranioSacral Therapy– and both approaches affect the cranium, sacrum and coccyx– the similarities end there.