Pediatric Osteopathy

Pediatric Osteopathy: A Scientifically Unfounded Approach with Underestimated Risks

1. No Demonstrated Scientific Efficacy

Infant osteopathy is based on claims unsupported by research. No rigorous study proves its effectiveness in treating colic, reflux, or congenital torticollis. A 2023 Journal of Clinical Medicine meta-analysis notes that reported positive outcomes are often attributable to the natural resolution of symptoms or placebo effects. For example, colic—common in newborns—typically resolves on its own by 4 months without intervention.

Health authorities, including France’s Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), state that scientific evidence does not justify its use, particularly for plagiocephaly or sleep disorders. The French Academy of Medicine even describes cranial and visceral techniques as having "no proven scientific basis."

2. The Pseudoscientific Legacy of Viola Fryman

Modern pediatric osteopathy draws heavily on the unvalidated work of Viola Fryman (1921–2016), an American osteopath who popularized the concept of "cranial blockages" in infants. Her claim that 90% of newborns require osteopathic manipulation has never been substantiated by evidence.

Her theories, still taught in some osteopathy schools, rely on flawed anatomical assumptions:

The alleged mobility of cranial bones in infants is unsupported by modern medical imaging.
The concept of "mobility restriction" remains purely subjective.
Her treatment protocols have never undergone rigorous double-blind studies.

3. Real Risks for a Vulnerable Population

Relying on osteopathy can delay essential medical diagnoses. Cases of congenital torticollis mismanaged until surgery was required illustrate this risk.

4. Pseudoscientific Concepts and Invented Syndromes

Pediatric osteopathy often employs dubious diagnoses like "KISS syndrome," framed as a cervical blockage causing crying or reflux. This syndrome, invented in the 1990s by a German surgeon, lacks medical recognition. Symptoms attributed to it (colic, feeding difficulties) are normal and transient in infants.

The practice aligns with a pseudoscientific holistic tradition, invoking concepts like "self-healing" or "mind-body unity" rejected by modern neurophysiology. The mobility of cranial bones—central to cranial osteopathy—is contradicted by imaging showing progressive suture fusion.

5. Aggressive Marketing Exploiting Parental Anxiety

Maternity departments and social media have become promotional platforms for unscrupulous practitioners. Videos of osteopaths manipulating infants garner millions of views while promising miracle solutions. These campaigns target desperate parents, often lacking proper medical support due to healthcare shortages.

High session costs coupled with no insurance reimbursement, exacerbate healthcare inequalities.

6. A Practice in Need of Strict Regulation

In response, the French Academy of Medicine and Pediatric Society urge:

Banning osteopathy promotion in maternity wards.
Better training for perinatal professionals to address parental concerns.
Prioritizing evidence-based approaches (e.g., physiotherapy for torticollis, pediatric guidance for functional issues).

Conclusion

Pediatric osteopathy presents a paradox: despite lacking scientific validation and being rooted in pseudoscience (e.g., Viola Fryman’s theories), it thrives on reassuring promises. Its routine use in healthy infants reflects sociocultural trends more than medical necessity. Though risks are statistically low, the potential harms and financial burdens warrant strict precautionary measures. The focus should shift to parent education and expanded access to trained medical professionals—not unregulated alternative practices.

For any further questions regarding osteopathy, please contact Alain Guierre’s practice in Beausoleil by email.