This is the script and hypertext links for the second half of the two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 016, aka s02e06, titled “The Cullen-Snyder Framework and AI-LLM Applications of That Framework”:
001. Script and annotations:
Standard Introduction
Welcome to, as that robot voice says, The Naturocrit Podcast, and thank you for boldly listening.
What ARE we even talking about?
Well, this podcast series is my take on naturopathic medicine, an area I've been studying for about thirty-three years, including my time in so-called 'scientific nonsectarian naturopathic medical school'.
My approach is a pairing of scientific skepticism and a deep knowledge of naturopathy's intimate details.
In previous episodes of this series, I established that naturopathy is, essentially, a kind of knowledge blending, misrepresentation, and irrationality.
I have termed naturopathy both 'an epistemic conflation falsely posing itself as an epistemic delineation' and 'the naturopathillogical':
the science-exterior is mixed with what is scientific, then that whole muddle is absurdly claimed to be science as an entire category, while particular sectarian science-ejected oath-obligations and -requirements are coded or camouflaged, therein effectively disguising naturopathy's system of beliefs in public view.
Naturopathy's ultimate achievement is a profound erosion of scientific integrity and freedom of belief packaged in the marketing veneers "natural, holistic, integrative and alternative" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".
Synopsis
In this second part of the Naturocrit Podcast Episode 016 titled “The Cullen-Snyder Framework and AI-LLM Applications of That Framework,” I will cover:
- A new 2025 submission to the State of CT, which includes:
> The CSF;
> And Application #004;
- Reflecting on 25 Years and an oath that made me vomit;
- AANMC Emails’ patterns of opaque communication of naturopathy’s essential vitalism;
- The NUNM admissions pamphlet and school catalog from 1994-1996;
- And Part 2’s conclusion.
of My Past 2003 Submissions to ct.gov and USDE
I’ve likely previously mentioned and/or published December 2003 complaints I’d sent to both the State of Connecticut and the United States Department of Education regarding the University of Bridgeport in terms of what was offered and what was experienced.
So, about 28 years ago in terms of the year 1997 when I received the UB Catalog with the naturopathy program within it by USPS that I used in Application #003, and about 23 years since I stopped at UB…disgusted.
I tasked Perplexity with creating a detailed summary of that archived 2003 stuff, a 24-page collection I’ve uploaded to archive.org.
The task was:
“Can you summarize the attached document in detail regarding the complaints that are mentioned, the examples of naturopathy, and the adequacy of the response.”
This is what was generated from that material by way of that tasking this August 2025:
“The attached document contains a series of complaints filed by Robert J. Cullen regarding the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine (UBCNM) and his experiences as a student.
The document also provides examples illustrating the philosophical and scientific foundation (or alleged lack thereof) of naturopathy as promoted by the institution, and it includes the institutional and government responses to the grievance.
Summary of Complaints
- Nature of Complaint: Cullen alleges that the naturopathy program at the University of Bridgeport was misrepresented in two key ways: the program is neither science-based nor nonsectarian, as claimed in its advertising and university materials.
- He argues that the curriculum and practice are rooted in spiritual or metaphysical concepts rather than empirical science, and that these elements amount to a form of attempted religious conversion under the guise of science education.
- Specific Allegations:
Examples of Naturopathy Highlighted
- Philosophical Foundations:
> The document contains institutional materials and website content emphasizing "Vis Medicatrix Naturae" (the healing power of nature) and “treating the whole person”—concepts rooted in vitalism rather than evidence-based medicine.
> A section describes the naturopathic oath, which commits practitioners to act “in cooperation with the healing power of nature,” “to heal the whole person,” and to use methods aligned with spiritual principles. The materials openly reference vitalistic, metaphysical, and spiritual concepts (e.g., force, spirit, "life energy") rather than conventional biomedical science.
- Curriculum and Modalities:
> Cullen provides documentation that courses and clinical training heavily feature homeopathy and other "spiritual healing modes," characterizing these not as scientific but as spiritual or sectarian practices.
> A glossary and other program materials document the use of terms and practices derived from pre-scientific, religious, or metaphysical traditions, such as “vital force,” “chi,” “prana,” and many others traced to spiritual doctrines from around the globe.
> Reference is made to a list of therapies and concepts (e.g., homeopathy, applied kinesiology, energy medicine) described as having little or no scientific basis and often explicitly linked to spiritual or vitalist belief systems.
Adequacy of the Response
- Institutional and Regulatory Response:
> The University and its materials are documented as claiming a scientific and nonsectarian identity in their official mission statements and advertisements. However, the internal content and promotional statements from university leadership and faculty appear to juxtapose this with spiritual and vitalist language, raising questions about the alignment between public claims and actual content.
> The State Department of Consumer Protection received the complaint but did not provide a substantive resolution visible in the record. The court system reportedly declined to try the case due to its educational context.
> The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General forwarded the complaint to the Federal Student Aid's Case Management division but did not undertake immediate action themselves, instead passing responsibility onward with no guarantee of substantive review or redress.
Evaluation
- The document shows a multi-year, multi-agency attempt by the complainant to address what he sees as systemic fraud and misrepresentation in naturopathy education; yet, each institutional response is either a redirection, non-response, or a stated lack of jurisdiction.
- There is no evidence in the document that any agency or regulatory body found in favor of the complainant or intervened to change policy or offer restitution, raising issues of regulatory adequacy and oversight, especially regarding the protection of students in non-mainstream health education programs.
In summary:
The document details a student's allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and sectarian content at a Connecticut naturopathic program, with extensive examples of program content rooted in vitalist and spiritual traditions rather than modern science.
Complaints to consumer, accrediting, and federal agencies resulted in no substantive relief, highlighting systemic regulatory and legal gaps in oversight and accountability.”
[End of answer.]
I can’t contest the depiction.
Now, I also did an accuracy check at ChatGPT of the Perplexity report and that found no significant errors.
And yes, the CNME was not recognized by the USDE until 2003 according to the Education Resources Information Center.
And regarding “the court system reportedly declined to try the case due to its educational context”, I had sued UB but, as they say, ‘what can a poor boy do.’
Despicable.
Yet, I think the following has more teeth: applying the CSF to the 2003 complaint set.
While, as I’ve said based on my experiences with this matter, you have as much rights in regard to being a consumer of higher education in these modern times in the U.S. as a peasant had in terms of rights in the Middle Ages.
Applying the CSF to the Same Complaint Materials
The task to Perplexity was:
“Can you apply the attached docx framework to the attached pdf collection and generate a detailed report?”
And that report states:
“Here is a detailed evaluative report applying the Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy with Regard to Freedom to the attached PDF collection of complaints and evidence regarding the University of Bridgeport’s naturopathy program.
Direct Application of the Cullen-Snyder Framework
The Cullen-Snyder Framework’s power lies in integrating a critical epistemology (identifying the quality and nature of “knowledge” behind medical claims) with a freedom matrix (how these claims and associated practices impact fundamental freedoms in society).
Below, each core component is systematically applied to the PDF evidence and narrative.
Naturopathy’s Epistemic Profile
Science Camouflage Index
- The PDF contains official complaints and promotional materials from the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine, which repeatedly present science-exterior (pseudoscientific, spiritual, or metaphysical) claims as science-based.
- Examples:
> The materials and statements highlight “Vis Medicatrix Naturae” (the healing power of nature) and “spirit-like vital force” as foundational to “naturopathic medicine,” misleadingly claiming scientific equivalence or evidence basis.
> The Dean’s letter and oath reference vitalism and holism as grounded in “reductionist science” while simultaneously endorsing metaphysical healing, creating an epistemic blend—camouflage—of science with non-scientific philosophies.
- Assessment: The science camouflage index is high; the program covers a significant amount of metaphysical or pre-scientific belief, which is embedded in student training while framed within language implying scientific legitimacy.
Institutional Legitimacy Score
- The program was advertised as regionally (NEASC) and professionally (CNME) accredited during the complainant’s tenure, yet the complaints allege systematic misrepresentation of both the scientific basis and secular character of the curriculum.
- Promotional and institutional documents from the University stress their “non-sectarian” and “science-based" status, while student experiences and program materials reveal violations of both claims (e.g., prominent spiritual healing in curriculum, recruitment of students into spiritual worldviews under the guise of science).
- Assessment: Despite formal accreditations, institutional legitimacy is deeply undermined by systematic blending of religion/spirituality and pseudoscience with science-based messaging.
Freedom Impact Matrix
|
Freedom Dimension |
Naturopathy Evaluation – Evidence from PDF ("CT complaint documents") |
|
Sovereignty |
Student autonomy is compromised: financial, professional, and personal decisions are based on misleading representations; risk of indoctrination (spiritual conversion). |
|
Unpredictability |
High: Outcomes and standards are inconsistent, as education and practice are rooted as much in spiritual dogma and pseudoscience as in biomedical standards. No reliable evidence standards guide practices. |
|
Mobility |
Career, educational, and professional mobility for students is restricted: degrees may lack external legitimacy or recognition due to the pseudoscientific core, affecting licensure and employment. |
|
Factuality |
Serious deficits: information given to prospective and current students is inaccurate regarding both academic content (not science-based) and institutional character (not non-sectarian). |
|
Solidarity |
Risks to public and community health: the embedding of evidence-absent beliefs in healthcare undermines the collective capacity to make informed choices and maintain evidence-oriented health norms. |
Dual Sub-Componentry Assessment
Epistemic Audit
- Claims: The curriculum, recruitment, and professional oath consistently reference spiritual concepts (vitalism, “innate God-given inborn intelligence,” healing by “spirit”) as factual, using scientific-sounding language for cover.
- Knowledge Blending: The blending or “conflation” of spiritual healing modalities and medical/scientific terms is used to create institutional and public legitimacy for practices that would fail a basic scientific audit.
- Negative Outcomes: Students report financial harm, career setbacks, and unwanted spiritual exposure on the basis of their belief that they were entering a science-based, secular program.
Freedom Impact Analysis
- The manipulation of factuality impairs free and informed decision-making (Snyder’s “factuality freedom”), while sovereignty is eroded as individuals are nudged (or coerced) into spiritual commitments through academic processes.
- Regrettably, institutional structures (accreditation, Title IV eligibility) appear to offer insufficient protection against the epistemic and freedom-eroding practices identified.
Institutional Evaluation
- Systemic Enablers: The oversight and policy structures in place (regional/professional accreditors, Department of Education, state consumer protection) have thus far failed to prevent or redress these harms; their standards and processes have been circumvented or lacked rigor in detecting knowledge-blending and harm to “freedom as active construction”.
- Structural Safeguards: The current state highlights a lack of science literacy enforcement and weak countermeasures to “erosion vectors” (the steady infiltration of pseudoscience and spiritual manipulation into academic and professional spheres).
Concluding Synthesis
The application of the Cullen-Snyder Framework to the attached evidence reveals a systematic pattern of science-exterior content masquerading as science, pervasive epistemic conflation, deceptive institutional practices, and multiple, compounding harms to fundamental freedoms—especially the right to truthful information, informed decision-making, and protection from compulsory exposure to sectarian (spiritual) worldviews.
These findings support deep skepticism regarding both the scientific legitimacy of the program and the adequacy of institutional and policy-level safeguards.
This analysis signals the need for urgent policy attention both to scientific integrity in healthcare education and to robust legal/regulatory protection of student and public freedoms as conceptualized by Snyder's framework."
And that’s the end of applying the Framework to those 2003 complaints.
It Could Be Worse
So, I had Perplexity compare that summary report of my complaints from 2003 to the experiences of Winston Smith in 1984, by way of Snyderian freedom concerns.
Let’s be dramatic, for a moment!
You know, concerns about freedom, oppression, serfdom, dumb-assedness and all that.
My experiences can’t be that bad, right?
No, they were not that bad, not as bad as George Orwell’s 1984.
Yet, the institutional mindfucking through lies, fanaticism, and broad false assurances, as I experienced, reminds me so much of 1984.
Of course, one of the issues that defines Smith is that he succumbs to the worldview that Big Brother seeks for him to have.
This is achieved through torture.
Though my situation is what I would term demonic, I still refuse, and maintain to this day that 2+2 does not equal 5.
The sad thing is those on the wrong side of what I’m pointing out choose that number 5 without torture and that’s a hell-of-a-lot worse as a behavior in terms of corruption.
There were some interesting encapsulations and labels within the resulting report comparing my experience to 1984 – and this is where I seek to have a little fun with all this – including:
“Truth, the ability to distinguish reality from propaganda or deception, is essential for freedom.
Transparency of institutions and the ability to dissent or challenge power is pivotal […]
A manipulation of language and identity for institutional benefit […]
A form of soft oppression that stifles personal agency through bureaucratic deflection rather than explicit prohibition or violence […a] curtailment of individual agency […]
Sectarian control in Cullen’s story is subtle and market-driven, while in 1984 it is overt and state-enforced […] unlike Cullen, Winston’s world has no recourse for truth-seeking: all pathways to institutional redress are closed, and alternative narratives are violently eliminated […]
Cullen’s case demonstrates how institutional language and structure can gradually undermine freedom by making recourse inaccessible, offering a bureaucratic parallel to Snyder’s warnings about the erosion of truth and freedom.
Winston Smith’s ordeal, by contrast, illustrates the absolute collapse of personal freedom under totalitarianism, directly embodying the endpoint of what Snyder warns against […]
freedom thwarts ideological monopoly […] the fight for freedom is ongoing.”
Now, at least I’m not Winston Smith, so to say.
But, I feel I’m on a shared continuum.
Perplexity was also asked about broad similarities to my experiences and claims.
Disturbingly, the answer was:
“Cullen’s experiences remain relevant today, as students continue to struggle with misrepresentation, lack of transparency, and ineffective regulatory protections in non-mainstream health education programs.”
Yes, a shared continuum.
That continues…
A Submission of Testimony to the State of CT 2025
Though my communication towards the State of CT started in 2003 as just reviewed, I’ve also engaged in that direction this 2025 as inspired by On Freedom.
I will live in truth.
To quote Snyder:
“Science [in terms of positive freedom…encompasses] engagement with the world [p. 276…] from the most basic facts we can build a scaffolding of hope. We need to ground ourselves in history and science to take a turn toward a better future. It is all within our reach [p. 160…] if we have some grasp of natural history, we can imagine structures that would open the future. Confident about the big truths of science, we can resist the apostles of negative freedom and their bogus certainties [p. 162].”
There’s a web page for submitting testimony to the State of Connecticut’s General Assembly titled “Public Health Committee Written Testimony Submission” at cga.ct.gov.
[Here is the current web page for the Public Health Committee roster at ct.gov.]
I titled my submission, of course:
“The Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy with Regard to Freedom (v.1.0).”
That had to be shorted to 32 characters to fit the form’s requirements, so that became:
“Framework Evaluating Naturopathy.”
Then, one specifies a pdf to upload.
This is the uploaded pdf:
“August 28, 2025
Honorable Saud Anwar, Co-Chair
Honorable Cristin McCarthy, Co-Chair
Public Health Committee
Legislative Office Building, Room 3000
Hartford, CT 06106
Dear Co-Chairs and members of the Public Health Committee,
My name is Rob Cullen of Bridgeport, CT and I have deep and persistent concerns about the State of Connecticut and naturopathy.
Consider this testimony pertinent to future legislative considerations regarding naturopathy.
My knowledge on the subject has been accumulating over the course of roughly 33 years.
In those decades, I prepared for and attended naturopathy school here in Connecticut, taught medical assisting for about twenty years, and acquired an extensive number of credits studying Health Sciences at the masters and doctorate level.
To be clear, I am not a graduate of the ND program I attended here in Bridgeport, and my completed graduate degree to date is an M.S. in Health Sciences with a specialty in health professions education from New York State’s Excelsior University.
I carry current healthcare credentials as both an allied health instructor and a medical assistant.
The Code of Conduct of my organization implores:
“AMT professionals shall strive to increase their technical knowledge, shall continue to learn, and shall continue to apply and share scientific advances in their fields of professional specialization.”
The State [also] lists me, accurately, as a member of the AMT Registry.
Thus, I feel it my duty, broadly, due to the standards of behavior of healthcare and education, to share my knowledge specifically about naturopathy with the Public Health Committee.
The knowledge I will share is in the form of a tool I created that is portable, accurate, and meaningful.
I’ve titled the tool “The Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy with Regard to Freedom (v.1.0)” and it is Part A of what follows.
From its synopsis:
“This framework provides a structured method to simultaneously evaluate medical claims’ validity and their implications for societal freedom, operationalizing Snyder’s philosophical constructs through Cullen’s empirical critique.”
Thus, the framework broadly and deeply synthesizes critical epistemology (Cullen) which is the study of knowledge and political philosophy (Snyder) which is the all-too-important need to create a better world for us all through ‘freedom for’.
As a framework and in terms of results, I find it portable, accurate, and meaningful because it is designed to be used through the current AI-LLM models, specifically ChatGPT and Perplexity, and generate a report that is accessible and focused.
Such an application follows as Part B, which I provide as an example.
Expertise in science, healthcare ethics, and logical, rational, nonbiased analysis and evaluation is, perhaps in these times, a rare commodity.
The results, from that Part B:
“Public policy revision is needed to:
• Require explicit disclaimers of non-scientific status.
• Enforce evidence-based practice standards.
• Protect public liberty through transparency, factuality, and institutional integrity."
Thank you for your consideration and for your service
[…]
Part A. The Framework [live here]:
[And I iterate the framework, which I have done earlier in this episode so I won’t repeat that].
Part B. The Cullen-Snyder Framework (v.1.0) Application #004 – "Connecticut Representative Naturopathy 2025-07" [live here].
[And I iterate the Application #004, which I have done already so I won’t repeat that either].”
[End of testimony.]
For what it’s worth.
25 Years and An Oath That Made Me Vomit
It has been a little more than 25 years since – in the year 2000, two-years into naturopathy school at UB in Connecticut – that I realized I was in a really bad position.
Bamboozled, actually [as in tricked].
The AANP Alliance – comprised of "the AANP, Bastyr University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences" – had promised in “The Alliance Legislative Workbook” that:
"Naturopathic physicians are the modern-day science based primary care doctor [...] it is not a belief system."
And the same page stated:
“The purpose of this Legislative Workbook is to rapidly accelerate the state licensing of naturopathic physicians.”
And that’s from 1999 at archive.org at the teleport.com AANP Alliance pages.
Then, at a fundamental level, I realized I was studying legitimate coursework – such as a year of soup-to-nuts full-body cadaver dissection, which was the actual biomedical course; the biomedical science and health science veneer -- mixed up with sectarian diagnostic and treatment nuttiness.
The naturopathic basis.
It was all being incorrectly labeled, categorically, as scientific, nonsectarian, and health science.
I initially thought I was in a good position in 1998.
I thought I was studying something with integrity within a “division of health sciences” per UB’s categorization of naturopathy.
At the time, George Gunther – who is recorded as Connecticut’s longest-serving legislator and was generally centered around Stratford, CT just east of the campus’s city – was in office and he was a naturopath.
I remember meeting him at a naturopathic school social on campus likely in the Fall of 1998 when I first started at UB.
He was quite gregarious.
So, I thought my future looked bright.
Yet around 2000, I realized it would be required of me to take an oath to a certain kind of deceit: the Naturopathic Physicians Oath, in order to graduate, and therein in order to get licensed, and to behave within in practice both – as the oath says – publicly and privately.
I was, then, thirty years old.
I’d been taught the vitalism and kind basis of naturopathy fall of 1998, and even to this day in terms of deceit that vitalism is not directly declared within that Oath.
The AANMC page for that oath from aanmc.org titled “Naturopathic Medical Doctors\’ Oath” – with for some reason a backward slash between the ‘s’ and the apostrophe of the word ‘doctors’ in the live 2025 August version I’m using – states:
“Adopted at the AANP Annual Convention. 1992. Reviewed HOD PPRC 2011 […] I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of naturopathic medicine.
I will honor my teachers and all who have preserved and developed this knowledge and dedicate myself to supporting the growth and evolution of naturopathic medicine.
I will endeavor to continually improve my abilities as a healer through study, reflection, and genuine concern for humanity.
I will impart knowledge of the advanced healing arts to dedicated colleagues and students.
Through precept, lecture, and example, I will assist and encourage others to strengthen their health, reduce risks for disease, and preserve the health of our planet for ourselves, our families, and future generations.
According to my best ability and judgment, I will use methods of treatment which follow the principles of naturopathic medicine:
First of all, to do no harm, to act in cooperation with the healing power of nature, to address the fundamental causes of disease, to heal the whole person through individualized treatment, to teach the principles of healthy living and preventive medicine.
I will conduct my life and the practice of naturopathic health care with vigilance, integrity, and freedom from prejudice.
I will abstain from voluntary acts of injustice and corruption.
I will keep confidential whatever I am privileged to witness, whether professionally or privately, that should not be divulged.
With my whole heart, before this gathering of witnesses, as a doctor of naturopathic medicine, I pledge to remain true to this oath.”
And on that Oath page, AANMC explains:
“The tie that binds naturopathic physicians is the oath they all declare, in cap and gown, swearing before their peers, their loved ones, and the communities they will serve.
This oath embodies the six principles of naturopathic medicine and the professions’ commitment to the health of our patients and the planet.
The naturopathic profession is a unique one, guided by a strong conviction and dedication to prevention, individualized care and honoring of the individual’s ability to heal.
The [above…] is the oath our graduates commit themselves to uphold.”
Again, nowhere on the page, clearly stated, is naturopathy’s essential vitalism commitment.
It is coded.
The obligation, overall, in terms of the oath, is to a form of trained deceit.
It sets the tone for naturopathy: a hidden underneath, an indirectly indicative veneer above.
The coded vitalism on the page includes:
“The individual’s ability to heal […] the healing power of nature.”
And yet, all them virtues, including:
academic endorsement, public ceremony, service, commitment, health, prevention, service and concern to and for humanity, science, art, medicine, physicianship, knowledge and its communication, planetary concerns, future generation concerns, binding behavioral duty to naturopathy’s principles and the oath itself, not doing harm, getting to etiological bases of disease, comprehensiveness and individualness, vigilance, integrity, freedom from prejudice, not acting unjustly or corruptly, and respecting privacy.
The primary commitment is to disguise and fake indications that do not honor informed consent.
Otherwise, off-the-bat, they would explain the science-ejected nature of their central vitalistic and kind commitment and that they have decided to incorrectly label a whole bunch of science-exterior stuff science anyway.
And they would explain that is the mode you must adopt.
I had a revulsion to becoming someone committed to that.
And I was screwed – Title IV student loan debt slavery and massive diversion…for life.
Anyway, as time has passed, I have refined my understanding of that situation, stuff I’ve called in the past:
cultic mystical weirdness, unethical sectarian pseudoscience, epistemic conflation, disoriented esotericism – and new for this year – deceit and sectarian capture.
In terms of science, the contrasts over the years have only become starker while naturopathy’s categorical transgressions have only become bolder.
Such an ultimate betrayal, as an education consumer, such a demonic world.
Here’s an interesting A.I. or large language model task and report, by way of Perplexity 2025:
“Based upon scientific and healthcare ethics general principles, and the attached Framework docx, are there any issues with the attached ‘AANMC Oath’ pdf in light of the naturopathy contents that are represented by the attached ‘WNFM Findings’ pdf and ‘NUNM Principles’ pdf?”
The ‘Framework’ is the Cullen-Snyder Framework v.1.0 of this year.
The oath is the oath I just read.
The WNFM Findings is the script for The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 015c3 [s02e05c3].
And ‘NUNM’s Principles’ are the present-day principles which state that naturopathy is based on a life force, that it’s an objective observation, and survives continuous scientific scrutiny.
Now, the first part of the Perplexity answer is:
“1. Scientific and Healthcare Ethics Principles. Epistemic clarity: Don’t mix science with unsubstantiated belief.
Patient autonomy and informed consent: Patients should be empowered with accurate information.
Non-maleficence ("do no harm") and beneficence: Ensure treatments are not harmful and are likely to help.
Truth-telling and transparency: Accurate disclosure of medical knowledge, risks, and benefits.
Justice and solidarity: Fair access and community health improvement.”
I always think that’s a pretty amazing list; and there it’s a merging of what makes science science and what makes healthcare good.
And I’m in total agreement, having taught a lot of basic physician office staff ethics over my teaching career, and biomedical sciences.
What’s even more amazing is that I didn’t know these things – these ethical stipulations – at the time I was in ND school, specifically.
I never took the ethics and law course that was within the naturopathic curriculum towards the end of all the classes because I stopped.
I’ve no idea what the contents were, or are, therein.
Or to put it more bluntly in relation to that specific ignorance then, about those ethical principles and science stringencies I specifically just listed, my revolt and refusal midway was much more pedestrian as just feeling viscerally ‘wrong’ as opposed to specifically comparative to healthcare and to health sciences in general.
I basically vomited up all the naturopathic tangled garbage they were feeding me – particularly homeopathy – to the point wherein I ceased and walked away from it all.
This is where I say “nux vomica”, taught to me in naturopathy school – the homeopathic ‘remedy’, supposedly, of Strychnine tree seeds.
The homeopathic ritual, most appropriately, of empty remedies in their ‘like cures like’ fantasy world.
The Perplexity report goes on:
“4. Issues Identified.
1. Epistemic Conflation and Science Camouflage
- The Oath’s commitment to “art and science” and “healing power of nature” merges scientific and extra-scientific (vitalist/traditional) philosophies. This risks misleading patients about the scientific basis of therapies, failing the ethical standard of epistemic clarity and truth-telling.
- WNFM Findings directly identify this as problematic (“profound erosion of scientific integrity”).
2. Patient Autonomy and Informed Choice
- Naturopathic frameworks (as described in WNFM and echoed in the Oath) claim to promote patient empowerment, yet do so within an internally defined knowledge system that includes non-evidence-based claims.
- If “individualized treatment” means using non-scientifically validated approaches, it may compromise truly informed consent because patients might not be given clear, factual information about what is or is not evidence-based.
3. Non-maleficence and Beneficence
- “First do no harm” is affirmed, but when the therapeutic modalities (e.g., vitalism, emunctory theory, vis medicatrix naturae) lack scientific validation, it is unclear if the risk-benefit calculation is adequate, and some therapies could be ineffective or harmful through omission of standard care.
4. Institutional Legitimacy and Professional Integrity
- The Oath’s pledge to “support the growth and evolution of naturopathic medicine” signals a stance that may favor professional expansion over strict scientific accountability. [I think that’s a criticism emphasizing loss of fiduciary duty, duty to the patient first].
- WNFM reveals that institutional legitimacy in some jurisdictions exceeds what the evidence actually supports, again raising ethical red flags.
5. Freedom and Factuality (Cullen-Snyder)
- Lack of factuality and clear boundaries between science and tradition (noted by Cullen-Snyder and WNFM) threatens patient sovereignty and the ability to make informed, autonomous choices.
6. Conclusion
There are substantive issues with the AANMC Oath, in light of both universal scientific/health ethics principles and the Cullen-Snyder Framework:- It repeatedly integrates non-empirical philosophies with scientific terminology and claims, which undermines epistemic clarity and factuality.
- The risk of misleading patients regarding the scientific status of assessments and therapies is present.
- The oath pledges professional allegiance without robust protocols for ongoing epistemic correction or evidence-based scrutiny.
- These tensions collectively pose a threat to ethical healthcare practice, patient autonomy, and freedom as described in the Framework and reinforced by the WNFM’s analytic findings.
In sum:
The Oath, as currently phrased, contains epistemic and ethical issues – primarily due to science/tradition conflation – that are flagged by both contemporary research and critical frameworks.”
Now, to be clear, Perplexity’s “profound erosion of scientific integrity” summation is the summarizing language of my podcast introduction, since the WNFM Findings document is a script for an entire episode.
That erosion is in the name of deceit and epistemic conflation.
As in deceit and sectarian capture.
As further example, particular to the AANMC, I’ve had Perplexity analyze all the emails I got from AANMC for the year 2024 for transparency regarding naturopathy's vitalism, which ends up being a 424-page pdf in landscape orientation.
And I’ve had Perplexity search for patterns within my entire web documentation appendix that indexes instances of vitalism by the AANMC.
[Emails].
For the former, the emails, the conclusion is:
“The 2024 AANMC campaigns present a sanitized, patient-friendly brand of naturopathic medicine, deliberately omitting open discussion of the science-ejected doctrine of vitalism that is, in reality, foundational to accredited naturopathic education and licensure.
Prospective students and the public would not be able to discern the true philosophical commitments required of NDs – including vitalism – solely from reading these emails.
The commitment is present by implication in language like “healing power of nature,” but the controversy and scientific status of vitalism are not acknowledged, meeting neither transparency nor informed consent standards for such a foundational professional belief.”
Now, AANMC is more specifically geared towards gaining students for naturopathy universities and colleges in Canada and the United States.And it’s amazing to read that paragraph of ‘not science lots of belief’ in light of the AANP Alliance saying ‘only science not belief.’
I think the usage of the word “brand” by Perplexity is important, as this is marketing…but unfairly presented marketing.
[Web Appendix].
For the latter, the appendix of web vitalism from AANMC, I went further with follow-up questions after the initial question to ChatGPT.
The initial question was:
“What patterns can be determined from the language used in the attached document as concerns naturopathy's vitalism?”
In support of AANMC’s coding and opacity mode, as opposed to informing through transparency as per the ethics of science and healthcare, I offer the summary graph ChatGPT generated which is titled “Shift from Overt to Coded Vitalism in Naturopathy Language 2005-2024”:
Since I can’t show that graph in a podcast that’s audio based, I will have it up in the script.
I will describe it here, verbally.
It’s in the shape of an X with the crossover point in the middle.
The variables are ‘overt vitalism language’ and ‘coded vitalism language’.
The X axis is time in years with the date range 2005 until 2024, and the Y axis is 'relative prominence' on a scale of 0-10.
The trend for the coded vitalism is the upward slope.
The trend for the overt vitalism is the downward slope, but with a slight uptick towards the 2021-2024 range.
The space between, in terms of relative prominence, is quite on the side of the covert by about three times the amount of overt at the far right of the graph in the year 2024.
And it is completely the opposite at the far left of the graph in 2005.
The report includes this language:
“Overall Trends.
1. Core concept unchanged — from the 2000s to 2024, the vis medicatrix naturae remains central.
2. Shift from overt to coded language — earlier materials unabashedly used ‘vital force,’ while later ones substitute less metaphysical-sounding terms in public communications.
3. Science co-option — from ~2014 onward, pairing vitalist concepts with biomedical or evidence-based rhetoric has become standard.
4. Multi-tradition fusion — in recent years, vitalism is framed as compatible with TCM, homeopathy, and other alternative systems, making it a more versatile brand identity
[…and in broad terms the report states] the data suggest a replacement effect, where coded language systematically supplants overt language within the observed domain over time.”
Again, that term “brand.”
The casting of a wide, vague, marketable net to catch their marks.
To induce through deceit and omission.
The synonyms or idioms used for vitalism and their incidence by AANMC across those years in my 66-entry collection include:
“Healing power of nature 36; vis medicatrix naturae 19; self-healing 18; therapeutic order 14; vital force 8; innate ability to heal 8; qi 5; vitalist 5; innate wisdom 5; nature cure 4; life force 4; inherent ability to heal 3; innate healing ability 3; meridian 2; innate power to heal 2; natural healing process 2; intelligent healing 2, natural healing processes 1; self-healing 1; body’s innate ability 1, obstacles to cure 1.”
So, in terms of the hidden nature of naturopathy, the vitalism and the whacked epistemics, I have no regrets about terming naturopathy in my deposition of 2002 “cultic mystical weirdness.”
It’s just despicable.
Incidentally, similarly, being a collector of naturopathy data, I received for the year 2024 sixteen emails from National University of Health Sciences about their naturopathy program.
So, obviously, ‘science subset naturopathy’, categorically speaking is the claim.
I had Perplexity analyze the batch for naturopathy’s central premise along this parameter:
“In the attached file, can you list the incidences of naturopathic overt and covert vitalism (e.g. healing power, life force, qi, healing capacity, vital force etc.), and determine whether an uninformed reader would be able to understand the vitalism basis of naturopathy.”
After all, at NUHS, we’re told in “How Naturopathic Medicine Can Help Athletes Improve Their Health and Fitness” at nuhs.edu by NUHS alumnus 2022 ND graduate Adams circa April 2023:
“The naturopathic philosophy is rooted in helping individuals become less reliant on external interventions, and instead stimulating the natural potential to heal ourselves […] this awakening of our vital force.”
The results concerning vitalism in the NUHS promotional admissions material, well, there’s nothing overt and regarding the covert:
“The file never defines or mentions any form of vital force, unique healing energy, or other classical vitalist concepts. There is no invocation of ‘healing power of nature’ in the vitalist sense, nor any reference to ‘qi’ or similar concepts […] an uninformed reader would not discern the vitalist foundation of naturopathy from this collection of emails and flyers […] ‘naturopathic philosophy’ is mentioned without explanation […] ‘holistic’ is the most repeated descriptor, but that can mean many things.”
Again, casting a wide net, manipulating.
The NUNM Material from 1994-1996
While I’m reflecting on admissions material as crafted inducements that can’t seem to clearly state the parameters of what naturopathy is all about to neophytes, I have the original paper-based NCNM/NUNM 1994-1995 catalog and other 1995-1996 promotional materials that were mailed to me about thirty years ago.
I was very serious about naturopathy school in the early 1990s when I was an undergraduate, unfortunately.
I still have my NUNM ND-program admissions acceptance letter with its April 25th, 1995 postmarked envelope.
That’s how induced and life-altered my behaviors were by the naturopathy gimmick.
In this section, I will compare the language of the old abridged NUNM pamphlet with its opaque vitalism that was mailed to me which has postmarks on the envelopes of 1995 and 1996, with the language describing naturopathy within the old full catalog with its explicit vitalism.
I’m using my OCRs of this paper-based material.
Obviously, these paper-based communications are ancient.
They are so dated that within the material there are no references, no offerings, no contacts provided in the form of either web pages or email addresses.
The internet or world wide web was just getting up and going.
So, there is no .com, no .edu, and no @ncnm as NUNM was known back then.
Incidentally, the first preservation of ncnm.edu happens at archive.org in December of 1996 as near as I can tell.
One of the alumni contacts within the paper-based material is “Jim Sensenig, ND”, who would later go on to found the UB naturopathy program I entered and became its first dean.
He’d teach me, in my first semester at UB in 1998, that the body runs due to:
“Vital force, innate, life principle, prana, bioplasmic energy, the god power within you [etc.]” as the central naturopathic premise.
His material was covered in the second half of the first Episode of the Naturocrit Podcast.
The 1995-1996 Pamphlet: Opacity
This is an abridged version of the then current 1994-1995 catalog, same art and all, and it was sent with USPS letters from NUNM’s admissions department.
We’re told regarding naturopathy’s basis:
“Six principles of healing form the foundation for naturopathic medical practice […] the six naturopathic principles of healing [include…#1] vis medicatrix naturae. The healing power of nature. The healing process is ordered and intelligent. The body has the inherent ability - the vitality - not only to heal itself and restore health, but also to ward off disease. Illness is not caused simply by an invasion of external agents or germs, but is a manifestation of the organism's attempt to defend and heal itself. The physician's role is to identify and remove agents blocking the healing process, [and] bolster the patient's healing capacity […] stimulate the healing process […#3] primum no nocere. First do no harm. Respecting the inherent ability of the organism to heal itself […] the healing process […#4] tolle causam. Identify and treat the cause […] the body's attempt to heal itself […#6] docere. Doctor as teacher […the] patient's healing process […] the homeopathic remedy gently acts to strengthen the body's healing and immune response.”
So, the vitalism as coded therein is:
VMN-HPN, inherent ability, vitality, heal itself, healing process, healing capacity, inherent ability of the organism to heal itself, and the body’s healing and immune response.
‘Vitality’ as a synonym for vitalism recalls such use by Australian NDs Sarris and Wardle in their 2014 book as mentioned in Part 1 of this episode which was, as reminder on page two of that book:
“Vitalism. A fundamental belief of naturopathy is that ill health begins with a loss of vitality […] the vital force is diminished by a range of physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and environmental factors.”
‘Spirit’ is within the NUNM pamphlet at least four times.
This includes the statement:
“One of modern science's greatest challenges is to comprehend not only the brain-mind connection, but also the connection between the human mind, body, and spirit.”
Such a statement indicates, for me in retrospect, a misunderstanding of science as a process and a knowledge domain, and the importance of delineating and respecting belief in terms of its extra-scientific knowledge status.
But, there’s the presumption within the naturopathic principles that spirit is absolute or “integral” in terms of “whole”.
They write:
“[#2] Treat the whole person. Health and disease result from a complex interaction of physical, mental, emotional, genetic, spiritual, environmental, social, and other factors […] true healing must involve the whole person. This understanding is integral to naturopathic medical training.”
Ah, what’s “true.”
And there’s the characterization of spirit as a certain kind of spirit – capable of transformability and vague – with the statement:
“Ultimately, the patient must be empowered to facilitate healing through a transformation of his entire being - mind and spirit as well as body.”
Whatever that means.
The supernaturalism is a loose kind of supernaturalism that appears to get no deeper and no more detailed – therein the characteristic vagueness – with vitalism more foundational within the metaphysical paradigm.
Spirit or supernaturalism is never far from naturopathy’s vitalism or vital force.
In 2019, NUNM hosted "2019 Vitalism and the Connection to Spirit Symposium."
All of that, in itself in its looseness but also proximity, is indeed a certain kind of belief and metaphysical system.
And at times, as seen with ND Boice in Episode 015, vitalism and supernaturalism are equated.
That is another characteristic of the belief system.
Similar to ND Boice’s equation, the naturopathic organization in Hawaii, the Hawaii Society of Naturopathic Physicians at hawaiind.org, had up the page "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" in the mid- to late-2000s, which stated:
"How does naturopathic medicine differ from conventional medicine? [...] our practice us guided by the following principles: [#1] use the healing power of nature. The body has the ability to maintain and restore health. Healing occurs as a result of the revival of our 'vital force' - qi, prana, spirit."
A kind of detail like that seems to have been, let’s say, retracted from public view by the organization as I search hawaiind.org this 2025.
There aren’t hits for ‘prana, qi, spirit’ or even hits for ‘principles, philosophy, medicatrix, force’.
So, from transparency to opacity.
An interesting statement occurs within the recent 2024 article “Vitalism and Naturopathy in Psychedelic Medicine” in the journal Integrative Medicine: A Clinician's Journal whose editor in chief is ND Pizzorno.
[Hicks, M., & Giguere, O. (2024). Vitalism and Naturopathy in Psychedelic Medicine. Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.), 23(2), 54–58]
The article states:
“As naturopathic philosophy is guided by the foundational belief in vitalism, the foundation of many psychedelic therapies is a belief in inner healing intelligence: a force that is mobilized inside each person’s psyche and spirit that directs the process of healing […] naturopathy is rooted in the non-materialistic metaphysics of vitalism.”
The authors for that peer-reviewed article are both NUNM graduates.
Within the old pamphlet, naturopathy’s knowledge claims are of the mixed type:
“Art, science, philosophy and practice […] modem and traditional, and scientific and empirical methods […] program of study […] the first two years focus on the standard medical sciences as well as the history and philosophy of naturopathic medicine.”
“Basic science” is mentioned at least 3 times in the curriculum section.
The root ‘homeop’ occurs at least 12 times.
The 1994-1995 Paper-Based Catalog: Overt Vitalism
The badge or logo or crest of NUNM at the time, within the catalog, contains the statement “vis medicatrix naturae.”
For the definition of naturopathy, the catalog states:
“The practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing […] It is the following principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches: [#1] The healing power of nature. vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process […#3] first do no harm. Primum no nocere. Illness is a purposeful process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician's actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis medicatrix naturae […and stated broadly, this is] the vitalistic tradition of medicine […centered on] the inherent healing capacity of the person […aka] the natural healing process [p. 2].”
One large aspect to note: if one is not considering that vital force in this system, first and foremost, one is risking harming the patient.
Naturopaths often say, ‘we do no harm just like regular doctors'.
But, their ‘do no harm’ is quite different – it is sectarian and occult – in the sense of what they are considering and usually what they are not telling you they are considering in terms of harm.
The course HOM 520 Homeopathy 1 states:
“As a result of this class students will be able to understand the principles and philosophy of classical homeopathy. Students should understand vitalistic medicine, history of vitalism, the vital force in health and disease, the nature of medicines, and ways to affect the vital force.”
The course CHM 510 Classical Chinese Medicine I states:
“This course introduces the conceptual parameters of classical Chinese medicine, specifically the concepts of holism (heaven, man, and earth), duality (yin and yang), dynamism (five phases), and spiritual materialism (jing, qi, shen).”
Regarding the naturopathic principles overall, this is claimed:
“These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are continually examined in light of scientific analysis […including that vitalism and the requirement of] spiritual development […wherein] ultimately, the patient must be empowered to facilitate healing through a transformation of his entire being - mind and spirit as well as body […an] integration of mind, body, and spirit […wherein] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social factors […with causes of the] physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual.”
The root ‘scien’ has at least 38 instances.
The root ‘homeop’ has at least 40 instances.
The epistemic conflation aspect is likely best expressed in the phrase “the integration of medical sciences with naturopathic philosophy.”
Clinical science, within the catalog, did not include homeopathy at this time, 1994-1996.
According to NUNM this Fall 2025, in their 2025-2026 catalog, this is what they state about the licensure exam:
“The second exam (NPLEX Part II) assesses an applicant's grasp of the clinical sciences, diagnosis, and the unique modalities of naturopathic medicine, including but not limited to clinical nutrition, botanical medicine and physical medicine.”
And, as I’ve said before, that’s all you get: no mention of the part’s title – Part 2 is called clinical sciences – and the homeopathy that is within that.
That is an evasion, carefully crafted.
Now-a-days, there are more programs at NUNM and not just naturopathy.
In the new catalog, we’re still told:
“These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...while they list] institutional learning outcomes […] #1. Critical Thinking & Clinical Reasoning, 2. Scientific & Evidence-Based Literacy, 3. Cultural Literacy, 4. Ethics & Professionalism, 5. Career Readiness.”
The evasive NPLEX language is also repeated on NUNM’s page “Licensing”.
You have to go to NABNE, the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners, to get this statement from the page “Exam Overview” to achieve clarity:
“The Part II – Core Clinical Science Examination (CCSE) is an integrated, case-based examination that consists of approximately 80 case clusters (400 items) which cover the topics of diagnosis (physical & clinical diagnosis, lab testing and diagnostic imaging, and interpretation and application of research studies), materia medica (botanical medicine and homeopathy), other treatment modalities (nutrition, physical medicine, and psychology), and medical interventions (emergency medicine and pharmacology).”
Now, the Latin materia refers to ‘physical substance or matter’ which homeopathy ain’t in the same way that it ain’t a clinical science.
But isn’t that typical, from past to present, in terms of buried truths and naturopathic manipulations.
Conclusion
Well, actually, I don’t have a great conclusion or a conclusion of note for this Episode because, as entailed in this second half of Episode 016, the grifting does not end.
As more and more material accrues indicating that grift over the decades, naturopathy, in the most Orwellian of fashions, claims, and here I’m referring to those institutional learning outcomes I just listed:
its irrationality is critical [oops, is say 'clinical' in the audio] thinking and clinical reasoning,
what’s profoundly science-ejected or science-exterior is scientific and evidence-based literacy,
that narrow and wayward sectarianism is cultural literacy,
that deceit and the naturopathillogical is ethics and professionalism.
and that a very deliberately constructed knowledge incompetence is career readiness.
But, I hope I have shown within this Episode 016 that there are tools that can be employed, and created, that get beyond the human tragedy of all this and establish factuality.
The Stanford Humanities Center account at YouTube hosts the October 2021 video “Timothy Snyder - The Five Forms of Freedom.”
Therein, Snyder tells us:
“You cease to become free if you believe in a big lie because then you’re living in someone else’s narration.”
There’s something very retrograde about becoming such a thrall.
The Google AI definition of thrall is:
“To become a thrall means to enter a state of subjugation, whether literal
enslavement, mental or moral captivity, or a state of complete absorption by
something or someone, like a person, an addiction, or an idea. The word
originates from the Old Norse word for a person in bondage or serfdom, and
while it once meant literal slavery, it is now mostly used figuratively to
describe being under the control or strong influence of another.”
Yes, old, medieval actually.
I recently posted at Blogger “Musing on Episode 015’s WNMF Findings and Naturopathy’s Essential Medieval Aspects.”
Therein, I tasked this to Perplexity:
“On a spectrum of 0 through 10, with 10 being most and 0 being least, itemize, rank, and quantify the contents of the attached pdf that are similar to the medical ideas of the Middle Ages that have been discarded.”
And that pdf was the WNFM material.
I’ll include the four top-ranked results:
“Ranked Itemization Summary:
- Vitalism/life force: 10/10 — Ubiquitous, foundational, directly inherited from medieval and pre-modern models.
- Healing power of nature: 10/10 — Explicitly positioned as an ancient, supra-empirical tenet.
- Humoral theory: 9/10 — Embraced as a core living theory, not as a case study in obsolete history.
- Emunctory/cleansing theory: 7/10 — Emphasizes bodily purging, a hallmark of pre-germ theory medicine.
- Holistic/spiritual language: 7/10 — Strongly echoes medieval synthesis of body, mind, and spiritual cosmos.”
I followed up with the question: “Are there any contradictory knowledge positions within the attached document?”
The answer:
“Yes, the attached document contains contradictory knowledge positions, especially concerning its simultaneous embrace of traditional medieval medical philosophies and modern scientific claims […] core contradiction. The document claims alignment with rigorous standards of scientific evidence while openly upholding philosophical frameworks (vitalism, humoral theory, vis medicatrix naturae) that are incompatible with or directly refuted by scientific evidence. It suggests that ideas ‘originat[ing] in historic medical books dating to the 1500s... dominant prior to the 17th century’ are not only preserved but are core to the present-day practice and curriculum of naturopathy, while simultaneously claiming a basis in ‘modern research’ and ‘biomedical science’.”
This is morally unacceptable by way of modern knowledge delineations.
But the naturopathy overlords continue to insist, by way of their ur-values -- and I’m using ur- there in the sense of the German prefix indicating ‘ancient and primitive’:
'We are the authority, close your eyes, obey'.
Returning to good values and Snyder’s On Freedom one more time for this episode, to the ‘why’ he spoke of as in “the search for the ‘world of values’” in a quote I’d used in Part 1, I must emphasize that it is not merely enough to have modern technology and therein all is well.
The bright computer screen does not guarantee enlightenment or freedom.
Snyder writes:
“When we forget the why and have only the how, our imagination seeps into the gully of the status quo.
We rationalize, using our residual intelligence to explain that the world cannot be otherwise than it is, and that we cannot do otherwise than we have done.
In so doing, we collaborate in our own unfreedom.
Taking responsibility for past decisions is necessary for constructing future freedom; if we rationalize the past, we are trapped in a story, a narrative of what must be that others will use against us.
Our digital nemesis (and its human acolytes) train us to be ‘rational,’ in just that sense of rationalization, of making excuses for the very process that is humiliating us.
We are to accept the world as the elites and the machines have given it to us, and we are to praise our ascribed place.
Such self-subjugation is a return to a feudal world, in which a divine order has been replaced by a digital one, one sort of priest by another.
This is not enlightenment but darkness [p. 98].”
My naturopathy experience, now in its fourth decade, is such an unfreedom.
Thank you for boldly listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment