The Cullen-Snyder Framework (v.1.0) Application #005 – "British Columbia Naturopathy 2025-08"

here, the fifth application of the C-S Framework:

001. The Source Documents:

 This single PDF set was titled "British Columbia NDs 2025."  The contents include:

"British Columbia Naturopathy 2025 document. Table of Contents: pp. 2-136 - Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine “2024-2025 Catalog”; pp. 137-138 - Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors “About Naturopathy”; pp. 139 - Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors “Who Does What”; pp. 140-145 - British Columbia Naturopathic Doctors “FAQs”; pp. 146-238 - British Columbia “Health Professions Act”; pp. 239-249 - British Columbia “Naturopathic Physicians Regulations”; pp. 250-259 - British Columbia Complementary Health Professionals “Code of Conduct”; pp. 260-263 – ND Tamburic “TCM & Acupuncture”; pp. 264-267 - ND Holewa “Principles”; pp. 268-276 - ND Sraw “Naturopathic Medicine”.

002. A Word on the Framework and Its Application: 

The Framework is a fusion of my critical epistemology / scientific skepticism and Tim Snyder’s 'freedom to' / political philosophy.  The Framework version used is 1.0.  The application is achieved through a task by way of Perplexity 2025-08:

"Can you apply the attached framework docx to the contents of the attached pdf on British Columbia naturopathy and generate a detailed report? Please itemize the naturopathy science posturing and the science-unsupported contents including those for vitalism and homeopathy. Answer, too, these four questions: Does British Columbia law adequately inform the public about naturopathy's transgressions and hazards? When naturopaths base their activity on a science-ejected vital force / healing power of nature and poorly supported procedures, yet claim science as a basis, what is this usually considered as in terms of commerce and medicine? Does the British Columbia naturopathy scene meet the description of a state-sanctioned, predatory, licensed falsehood?  In what ways does naturopathy violate its own code of conduct?"

In large part, my interest in using this method is to see if what is generated jibes with my knowledge of the sources.  Overall, I find the results robust and poignant.

003. The Report: 

"Application of the Cullen-Snyder Framework to British Columbia Naturopathy

1. Science Posturing and Science-Unsupported Contents

 Itemization:

Aspect	Science Posturing	Science-Unsupported / Pseudoscientific Elements
Program Content	Claims to deliver education "rooted in evidence-informed practice" and biomedical sciences[1].	Integrates vitalism ("healing power of nature"), homeopathy[1].
Modalities	Includes nutritional advice, physical medicine, some lab diagnostics, lifestyle counseling[1].	Uses and teaches homeopathy, “energy” balancing, TCM theory, and vital force[1].
Accreditation	Accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, subject to provincial oversight[1].	Accreditor and curriculum directly enshrine vitalism, “first, do no harm” underpinned by pseudoscientific theory[1].
Patient Claims	Uses scientific language: “diagnosis and treatment,” “primary care,” “evidence-informed”[1].	Emphasis on "self-healing," treatment of "imbalances," and unproven therapies[1].
Regulation	Licensed under historic and modern health profession acts; must pass pharmacology exams[1].	Licensing does not screen out science-ejected practices; regulation permits misleading claims[1].

Examples from the PDF:

• Vitalism ("healing power of nature") is enshrined as a core principle: “recognition and support of the inherent self-healing ability of the individual...”.^[1]
• Homeopathy is deeply integrated in both education and clinical application, including practical case management and prescribing.^[1]
• Traditional Chinese Medicine/Acupuncture: taught as equivalent to biomedical modalities, despite limited scientific plausibility for foundational concepts.^[1]
• Physical Manipulation, “energy balance,” and botanical remedies are integrated without robust scientific support for claimed efficacy in many cases.^[1]

Naturopathic education emphasizes critical application of clinical theory and evidence-informed practice, yet makes routine reference to modalities and concepts (vitalism, homeopathy, TCM) that have been ejected from, or never established in, science.^[1]

2. Cullen-Snyder Framework Table: British Columbia Naturopathy

Freedom Dimension	Naturopathy Evaluation in British Columbia
Sovereignty	High patient autonomy for choosing ND care; elevated risk of decisions based on misinformation (e.g., pseudoscience) due to science posturing[1][2].
Unpredictability	Substantial variability in diagnostics/treatments; therapies range from regulated (nutrition) to unregulated (homeopathy)[1]. Inconsistency in scientific standards.
Mobility	Broad access (over 700 NDs), alternative to MDs; but may funnel patients away from evidence-based care for serious conditions[1].
Factuality	At the regulatory and educational levels, factual disclosure compromised by use of language implying scientific legitimacy for unproven methods[1].
Solidarity	Community health at risk when population-level decisions are influenced by non-evidence-based approaches; possible downstream harms via vaccine hesitancy, alternative cancer care, etc.[1].

 

3. British Columbia Law and Public Information

Does British Columbia law adequately inform the public about naturopathy’s transgressions and hazards?

The law establishes licensure, education, and a code of conduct, framing naturopaths as primary care providers equal or similar to MDs. The Health Professions Act and regulatory websites do not explicitly warn the public about the scientific limitations or hazards of core naturopathic modalities, nor do they signal that vitalism and homeopathy are rejected by mainstream science. Instead, language throughout licensure, regulation, and public-facing documents reinforces the impression of legitimacy and scientific credibility—despite the inclusion of pseudoscientific content. Thus, the law fails to adequately inform the public of the risks, scientific controversies, or transgressions inherent to the field.^[1]

4. Science-Ejected Claims and Professional Commerce

When naturopaths base their activity on a science-ejected vital force / healing power of nature, and poorly supported procedures, yet claim science as a basis, what is this considered in commerce and medicine?

This pattern is typically described as fraudulent misrepresentation, quackery, and/or false advertising in commerce, and as pseudomedicine in the medical context. Shifting language from “philosophy” to “science-based” without robust evidence is recognized as a commercial deception, especially when vulnerable consumers make health decisions under the impression of scientific rigor.^[2][1]

5. Is BC Naturopathy a State-Sanctioned Predatory Licensed Falsehood?

A “state-sanctioned, predatory, licensed falsehood” is defined as an entity that —

• is licensed by the state,
• predates on vulnerable clients,
• misrepresents its scientific basis or efficacy,
• is permitted or even promoted by health authorities.

In British Columbia:

• Naturopaths are state-licensed under health acts, regulated, and permitted to call themselves primary care doctors.^[1]
• Core modalities depend on discredited theories (vitalism, homeopathy), yet are legal, taught, and promoted as “evidence-informed,” i.e., the “science washing” or science posturing cited above.^[2][1]
• The law and public materials do not warn consumers about the lack of evidence or potential harms for serious health conditions managed outside medical standard-of-care.^[1]
• This matches the description of a “licensed falsehood” supported by the state, with potential predatory risk for patients seeking care outside conventional medicine.^[2][1]

6. Ways Naturopathy Violates Its Own Code of Conduct

Ethical/Code Provision	Apparent Violation
Do no harm	Endorsing unproven therapies for major health conditions (e.g., cancer, infections)[1].
Educate patients honestly	Implying scientific legitimacy of science-ejected concepts (vitalism, homeopathy, TCM)[1].
Honesty and integrity	Marketing “science-based” approaches, but providing therapies lacking science[1].
Respect for patient autonomy	Autonomy conditional on receipt of accurate, comprehensible information (which is lacking)[2][1].
Competence and excellence	Defining “competence” in part by mastery of pseudoscientific modalities[1].
Public health and welfare	Redirection of patients from standard-of-care treatments, promotion of vaccine hesitancy, etc.[1].

In summary: the code’s call for integrity, competence, patient-centered, and “best available treatments” is undermined when foundational program elements are based on pseudoscience, yet represented as legitimate, evidence-based care.^[1]

Conclusion

Using the Cullen-Snyder Framework, the British Columbia naturopathy system demonstrates science posturing (claiming evidence-based practice, invoking biomedical terminology), while simultaneously enshrining, teaching, and practicing modalities (vitalism, homeopathy) that are directly contradicted by the scientific consensus. Regulation and law fail to signal hazards, instead conferring undue legitimacy, such that the system meets the definition of a state-sanctioned, licensed falsehood that contravenes both public expectations and its own ethical code.^[2][1]

Citations: 

1.      British-Columbia-NDs-2025.pdf

2.      framework.docx."

004. And:

So, Applications #001-004 were accomplished with ChatGPT.  This one, Application #005, was done through Perplexity.  004's ChatGPT report was checked with Perplexity.  Inverting that, in checking this #005 with ChatGPT, ChatGPT summarized its accuracy check as: 

 "The content [PDF] appears internally consistent and factually aligned with the kind of analysis it claims to be — a Cullen-Snyder framework application to British Columbia naturopathy. The document’s claims about vitalism, homeopathy, and other modalities being 'science-ejected' or lacking scientific plausibility are consistent with the mainstream scientific consensus [...and ChatGPT's external fact check with what can be found online includes the language] Claim: Homeopathy and vitalism are 'science-ejected' / lack mainstream scientific plausibility and thus are pseudoscientific. Verdict: Supported as a characterization of mainstream scientific consensus."