Science-Failing, CSF-Failing, and Historical-Rejection Tables for My "CGA PHC Testimony #2 - 2025-12-22"

here, a compression of said testimony/petition into tables highlighting science-failing and CSF-failing aspects of naturopathy, and the time span of such failings, plus/yet the ct.gov false claim of it all being science:

001. via Perplexity, the entire "CGA PHC Testimony #2 - 2025-12-22" was evaluated through the task:

"For the attached document on naturopathy, create a scoring rubric table which complies to the following: column 1 title - "parameter" with boxes below being each aspect/parameter measured/judged within the document; column 2 title - "scientific integrity" which will be measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being the highest in terms of modern scientific preponderance. For each scientific integrity box, provide a specific reason in terms of either science-ejection or science-inclusion." [I may have overridden the rubric aspect of the task with the subsequent directions!]

002. results [the scores are lower than I anticipated!]:

 "Below is a scoring rubric table synthesizing the attached testimony and the Cullen-Snyder Framework for Evaluative Analysis of Naturopathy. Each parameter represents a central aspect judged within the document’s analysis of naturopathy. Scientific integrity is rated 0–10 for modern scientific preponderance, with justification in terms of either science-inclusion (supported by contemporary evidence) or science-ejection (excluded/disproven by current science).

parameter	scientific integrity (0–10)	specific reason (inclusion/ejection)
Vitalism (natural healing force)	0	Science-ejected: concept fundamentally rejected in modern biology and medicine
Homeopathy	0	Science-ejected: lacks plausibility, repeatedly disproven in controlled studies
Phytotherapy	5	Mixed: some plant-based treatments have empirical support, many do not
Colon hydrotherapy	0	Science-ejected: no scientific validation, known risks
Electrotherapy/Phototherapy	3	Mixed: some modalities (outside ND use) are evidence-based; context here is mostly unsupported
Articular manipulation	4	Mixed: overlaps with evidence-based chiropractic, but ND usage often lacks rigor
Diagnostic authority (by NDs)	2	Science-ejected: authority granted without commensurate training/expertise
Institutional legitimacy (licensure)	2	Science-ejected: state licensure and board oversight confer legitimacy despite poor evidentiary basis
Patient autonomy	3	Ejected: autonomy compromised by misinformation and misleading presentation of pseudoscience
Treatment unpredictability	2	Ejected: individualized care leads to inconsistent and unpredictable outcomes
Mobility (care continuity)	3	Ejected: licensing expands alternative care but undermines scientific consistency in treatment
Factuality of information	1	Ejected: high degree of blending factual/scientific info with disproven claims
Solidarity/community health	2	Ejected: undermined when public health is influenced by widespread non-evidence-based practices
Education program content	2	Ejected: curricula incorporate pseudoscientific topics as if science-based
Advertising/science-equivalency claims	1	Ejected: promotional and licensure language frames unscientific modalities as scientific
Public warning/disclosure	0	Ejected: laws and regulations fail to inform public of pseudoscientific underpinning or hazards

Notes on Parameters

• The scientific integrity rating follows evidence standards as presented in biomedical literature and meta-analytic consensus.
• The “reason” column directly summarizes how each parameter aligns with (or departs from) scientific consensus as documented and analyzed in the testimony.
• Items with “mixed” ratings reflect partial inclusion of evidence-supported practice alongside major pseudo- or unverifiable content.
• This rubric encapsulates the documented phenomenon of “science camouflage” and institutional endorsement described in the Cullen-Snyder Framework."

003. the results through a historical lens:

003.a. so a follow-up was asked, "Are these science failings due to recent developments or are they longstanding? How longstanding, for each parameter?";

003.b. results:

"These science failings in naturopathy are longstanding—most have roots dating back to pre-modern medicine and the scientific revolution of the 17th to 19th centuries. The rejection or lack of acceptance by modern science is not a new development, but rather a persistent historical fact that continues into the present. Below, each parameter from the rubric is summarized with its historical context and how long it has been science-ejected or unsupported.

parameter	how longstanding?
Vitalism (natural healing force)	Rejected since the late 19th century; experimental biology and thermodynamics disproved vitalism more than 140 years ago. Remains basic to naturopathy in both overt and covert forms.
Homeopathy	Disproven by the scientific community since the late 19th/early 20th century; repeated failures in clinical and laboratory testing for over 100 years.
Phytotherapy	Evidence mixed since the emergence of modern pharmacology (~19th century), with some plant therapies validated and many others remaining folk or tradition-based without empirical support.
Colon hydrotherapy	Criticized and science-ejected since germ theory and modern gastrointestinal physiology (>120 years).
Electrotherapy/Phototherapy	Modern modalities validated sporadically since the late 19th/early 20th century, but ND use generally exceeds what science supports—failings documented for more than 100 years.
Articular manipulation	Historically mixed status; evidence-based chiropractic developed in the 20th century, but ND manipulation often falls outside accepted techniques—science acceptance remains low for decades.
Diagnostic authority (by NDs)	The issue of inadequate training has existed since ND licensing emerged in the early/mid-20th century; recognized as insufficient in mainstream medicine for more than 70 years.
Institutional legitimacy (licensure)	Problems present since statutory carve-outs began in the late 20th century; legitimacy granted without scientific parity.
Patient autonomy	Undermining by misinformation and pseudoscientific framing is longstanding since licensing and public acceptance (~late 20th century onward).
Treatment unpredictability	Present since ND practice began—individualized regimens rooted in pre-scientific and philosophical tradition, not standardized protocols.
Mobility (care continuity)	Licensing enabling mobility for alternative care has enabled continuity of science-ejected practice from state to state since the 1980s-1990s.
Factuality of information	Persistent issue since the institutional blending of science and tradition from 1980s onward; epistemic conflation noted for >40 years.
Solidarity/community health	Erosion of public health cohesion from false equivalence and alternative practice present since ND expansion in late 20th century.
Education program content	Pseudoscientific topics embedded in curriculum since ND school creation (1978 Bastyr, mid-20th century for others).
Advertising/science-equivalency claims	Misleading promotion is longstanding, emerging with ND licensure and expansion over past 35+ years.
Public warning/disclosure	Lack of adequate warnings since state law first granted licensing, typically 1980s onward; regulatory failures recognized for decades.

Historical Overview

• Core pseudoscientific aspects (vitalism, homeopathy, humoral theory) have been science-ejected for more than a century, originating in medieval and pre-modern medicine.
• Institutional failings and epistemic conflation have intensified as ND licensure and educational expansion progressed during the late 20th century, but the basic science rejection persists from the earliest days of modern science.
• Marketing, public messaging, and statutory language have shifted from overt pseudoscientific claims to coded language since 2000, but the underlying lack of scientific support is constant throughout.
• In summary, the majority of these failings are decades to centuries old, with only superficial changes in language or marketing—even as the scientific consensus remains unchanged against their legitimacy.^"

004. and a final task:

004.a. "With all this that is tabulated, is it true that Connecticut law maintains that naturopathy is scientific?"

004.b. answer:

"Connecticut law explicitly maintains that naturopathy is a scientific practice, granting it full professional legitimacy and authority through statutory language and licensure, while embedding science-ejected concepts such as vitalism and homeopathy in both the legal definition and regulatory oversight of the field.

Statutory Framing and Endorsement

• The central Connecticut statute, Chapter 373, defines naturopathic practice as encompassing modalities like "the healing power of nature" (vitalism), homeopathy, and other approaches that lack contemporary scientific support—but are described in law as scientific and evidence-based care.
• State licensure and the authority to diagnose, treat, and advertise medical services rely on educational standards set by bodies such as the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME), which themselves codify and promote these pseudoscientific principles as part of their curriculum and licensure requirements.
• Connecticut’s Board of Naturopathic Examiners, which oversees the profession, is overwhelmingly staffed by licensed naturopaths and enforces standards according to the norms of naturopathy, not conventional science.

Legal and Public Messaging

• There is no statutory requirement for consumer warnings or disclaimers about the lack of scientific basis for many naturopathic practices; laws and public-facing statements actively frame naturopathy as science-based, misleadingly equating it with evidence-based medicine.
• Licensed naturopaths can publicly claim that their services are scientific, despite fundamental contradictions with established biomedical and scientific consensus.

External Evaluation

• The Cullen-Snyder framework analysis and multiple external reviews affirm that Connecticut law creates high “science camouflage,” whereby non-scientific or pseudoscientific practices are cloaked in the language and regulatory protections of science.
• Practices that would be classed as professional misrepresentation or consumer fraud if offered by other healthcare professions (e.g., MDs, nurses, pharmacists) are legally protected under the ND licensure system, solely because statutory carve-outs define their standards independently.

Summary Table

Aspect	Connecticut Law Position	Scientific Reality
Vitalism, homeopathy, colon hydrotherapy	Defined as part of scientific practice	Disproven by modern science
Diagnostic/treatment authority	Granted fully under law	Training/competence not commensurate
Public messaging claims	Framed as science-based, evidence-based	Contradicts consensus and evidence
Board and oversight	Naturopath-only standards	Lacks critical scientific accountability
Consumer protection	No required warning/disclaimer	Public exposed to misleading claims

Despite the use of scientific terminology and regulatory structures, Connecticut law institutionally legitimizes and promotes a system that is not aligned with contemporary scientific standards, maintaining “science” status for disciplines and claims fundamentally rejected by the scientific community."