User talk:2A04:EE41:4:8139:CDCF:530C:CFFB:E394

June 2020
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Craniosacral therapy. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Your claim in the article directly contradicts the results of the study cited. Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

It is simply not true that my claim contradicts the results of the study:

''Discussion

In patients with chronic pain, this meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function lasting up to six months. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the effects and safety of CST on chronic pain.''

Obviously, I have not performed the meta study nor studies analyzed so I do not know how valid it really is but I do not feel that adding another valid scientific reference (even if it goes against the general tone of the whole article which by the way does not seem very balanced) should be viewed as vandalism!