here, based on the transcript of the recent Connecticut Department of Public Health's Naturopathic Medical Examiners meeting dated 2026-05-22, I continue musing with some AI-LLM muscle. Yet, I am not amused [hint: naturopaths operate with neither an ethical compass nor an epistemic compass ‘he has noted in these 34 years studying naturopathy’, generally speaking]:
Note: I did a doublecheck. I had transcribed the meeting through the program Speech Note [v4.8.4 with Faster Whisper Large-V3 Turbo, for the techies] and then carefully organized that product to delineate each speaker. I also made parenthetical notes at the issues I noticed. This is what I used for the previous initial post on this meeting. To be careful, I grabbed the bare-bones YouTube auto-transcription as a comparison / verification of the very-same video. The results from a Perplexity comparison of the two transcriptions: “After comparing the YouTube auto-transcript with the annotated transcript, there are NO contradictions on substantive matters. The transcripts align on all key problematic statements.”
001. as a reminder:
001.a. the CTDPH video is titled "Connecticut State Board of Naturopathic Examiners 5.22.26" and here was its agenda;
001.b. and I had noted in the first post on this video:
“the names / attendees listed under the live headshots were:
- Stacy Schulman a CT.gov lawyer
- Stacey Munro ND, Maria Mayer of CT.gov
- Dr Lauren Young an ND
- Elizabeth Bannon a CT.gov lawyer
- and Lisa Thomas who seems to be a patient of ND Young and perhaps the public member”;
and I'll add this now, in terms of the statute language: "Sec. 20-35. Examining board. The State Board of Naturopathic Examiners shall continue to consist of three members, two of whom shall be practicing natureopathic physicians [Young, Munro] of this state and one of whom shall be a public member [Thomas]." [Their spelling of ye' olde' nature-o-pathic.]
001.c. and a decent encapsulation of that post could be this section of it:
“Connecticut's .gov presence will continue to say: ‘The state endorses pseudoscience as primary healthcare through sovereign authority, creating institutional harms to factuality, sovereignty, unpredictability, mobility, and solidarity while performing consumer protection theater’."
001.d. the type of theater / performance this whole fiasco most resembles:
the meeting embodies the genre pioneered by Ionesco, Beckett, and Pinter — Theater of the Absurd wherein institutional ritual continues despite a fundamental breakdown of meaning, communication, and logical coherence. But I’m getting ahead of myself... [And I can’t go on, so I’ll go on...]. [Now, ct.gov and such generally ignore me. But, I’ll be optimistic and wonder what interesting clarifications may occur. Which is fittingly absurd.]
002. within the Perplexity thread that covers these two posts about the 2026-05-22 CTDPH meeting:
002.a. a simple question / interrogation was tasked:
“Are there any issues with DPH rules and requirements that are evident from the [annotated Speech Note] transcript?”
002.b. the answer [and I’m going to keep the answer's organizational structure in a basic sense as '10 points'; some of its language is ‘in light of the better details of the Speech Note transcription versus the YouTube auto-generated one’]:
“1. Board Composition Now Clarified - But Raises New Questions.
The revised transcript shows:
Dr. Lauren Young (ND) - Board Chair
Dr. Stacey Munro (ND) - Board Member
Lisa Thomas - Identified as "seems to be a patient of ND Young and perhaps the public member" [that's my notation within the transcription. The ct.gov board member composition page doesn't clearly specify 'public member' and doesn't even state that Munro is an ND though it does so for Young.]
Critical Issue: Public Member Appears to Be Patient of Board Chair.
The annotation states Lisa Thomas "seems to be a patient of ND Young" and is the public member. This creates a massive conflict of interest: Connecticut statute requires board composition to include a public member to represent consumer interests. If the public member is:
A patient of the board chair
Has ongoing treatment relationship
May have financial obligations to the ND
She cannot serve as an independent public representative. The transcript reinforces this with Thomas saying:
"I was curled up in your waiting room on Friday."
This confirms an active patient-provider relationship between the public member and board chair during the same time period as the meeting. [Oddly enough, I appears Thomas herself has a JD.]
Legal Problems [If]
Conflict of interest - Public member has financial/treatment relationship with regulated practitioner
Lack of independence - Cannot represent consumer interests while being customer / client / patient of board chair
Appearance of impropriety - Undermines public confidence in board oversight
Potential violation of conflict-of-interest statutes.
This alone may invalidate board actions.
2. CNME/NABNE Errors Now Documented with Annotations [as covered in my first post].
The revised transcript confirms the errors with annotations:
First Error - Attributed to ND Young: "Um the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners is under some federal scrutiny as is a lot of the accrediting boards in general federally [this is an error, it is CNME]"
Second Error - Also ND Young: "This accreditation board [NABNE] is still very active and is who administers the national exams." Annotation: "correctly that org is CNME"
Third Error - ND Munro's Motion: "I propose to approve the listed accredited NABNE schools for naturopathic medical education"
These annotations confirm:
Board members incorrectly identified which organization is under scrutiny
Board members conflated exam administration (NABNE) with accreditation (CNME)
The official motion approved "NABNE schools" when NABNE doesn't accredit schools
No one corrected these errors during the meeting [that's because nobody holds naturopaths accountable. They're treated with the highest of exclusion from basic rules of truthfulness and competence, IMHO. Like King Théoden under the spell of Grima Wormtongue, there is a cloud of enthrallment about them].
3. Legal Counsel Failed to Intervene - Now Definitively Documented.
Attorney Schulman was present and speaking throughout but never corrected:
ND Young's misidentification of CNME as "NABNE"
ND Young's statement that accreditation board "administers exams"
ND Munro's motion to approve "NABNE schools"
Deputy Legal Director Bannon was also present representing DPH but also failed to intervene.
What Legal Counsel DID Discuss
Schulman asked about the website: "Dr. Young I know I haven't reviewed your website on through the DPH portal do you know if you're listing them on your website?" Annotation clarifies: "she means the CT ND Board site." Schulman was engaged enough to suggest transparency measures but not engaged enough to correct fundamental errors about which organization the board legally relies upon.
4. Minutes Confusion Remains
The transcript still shows:
Members searching for minutes during the meeting
Confusion about whether Thomas attended last meeting
Need to "pull up the video" during meeting to verify attendance
Thomas: "I thought I had missed the last meeting, but if I'm on the video, I was clearly there"
This suggests:
Members aren't reviewing materials beforehand
Attendance records are unreliable
Video review is happening ad-hoc during meetings rather than as preparation
5. Board Chair's Lack of Knowledge - Confirmed.
ND Young states: "I have no idea. I didn't even know I had a website, to be honest with you.” As board chair, she should know basic administrative facts about the board's public-facing presence.
6. Informal "We'll Just Do It" Approach to Website - Confirmed.
After the vote,
- Schulman says: "After you take a vote to accept those schools, we'll just do it. We'll make sure that it falls into the right hands to get it listed."
- Maria (DPH staff) responds: “I'm actually the one who updates all those pages I have access to the back end to do all of that so I'd be happy to do that and just put them right on the main landing page"
No discussion of:
What specific language will appear
What disclosures will be included
Whether listing creates state endorsement liability
How to handle CNME's federal crisis
7. New Issue: Speaker Attribution Shows Board Member Confusion.
The transcript now clearly shows three separate speakers made errors about CNME/NABNE:
Speaker | Role | Error |
ND Young | Board Chair | Named NABNE as under scrutiny (twice) |
ND Munro | Board Member | Proposed approving "NABNE schools" |
Schulman | Legal Counsel | Failed to correct either error |
This isn't one person's slip—it's systematic institutional confusion involving both NDs on the board.
8. Quorum Issue Partially Resolved But Raises New Questions.
The transcript now shows three board members present:
- ND Young (Chair)
- ND Munro
- Lisa Thomas (public member)
Quorum established. But: If Thomas is ND Young's patient, can she participate in votes that affect ND Young's professional interests? The board is approving schools that:
- Define naturopathic scope
- Determine what treatments NDs can offer
- Affect ND Young's practice authority
- Directly impact Thomas as a customer / client / patient of ND Young's services
This is a structural conflict.
9. Thomas's Comments Take on New Meaning.
Lisa Thomas advocates for website transparency:
- "So if you go to the State Board of Naturopathic Examiner site under ct.gov, I think that initial page is where those should be listed"
And:
- "One who often tries to lead the horses to water to drink and I'm not talking about small children Lauren I'm talking about grown- ups" [no idea what the reference pertain to]
If Thomas is ND Young's patient, her advocacy for visibility/accessibility of naturopathic licensure information represents [potential] patient advocacy for her own provider, not independent public oversight [in a broad, principles-based, provider-agnostic sense].
10. The "Dragged On Here by Lauren" Comment
ND Munro jokes:
"We were all dragged on here by Lauren"
This suggests:
ND Young recruited the board members
Possible insider appointments rather than independent selection
Further questions about whether public member selection was independent
Updated Legal and Administrative Violations Summary
Issue | Requirement | Evidence from Revised Transcript |
Public member independence | Must represent consumer interests independently | Thomas identified as "patient of ND Young" |
Conflict of interest | Board members must be free from conflicts | Active patient-provider relationship during board service |
Legal counsel competence | Must ensure statutory compliance | Schulman failed to correct CNME/NABNE errors (now documented) |
Factual accuracy | Board must identify correct legal authorities | Annotations confirm three separate CNME/NABNE errors |
Informed decision- making | Must understand what's being approved | Board approved "NABNE schools" (impossible - NABNE doesn't accredit) |
Minutes accuracy | Must reflect proceedings accurately | Members can't remember if they attended previous meeting |
Board chair competence | Should know basic board operations | "I didn't even know I had a website" |
Most Serious New Finding: Patient-as-Public-Member
This is potentially the most serious procedural violation because [if]:
- It invalidates the "public" oversight function - Thomas cannot independently evaluate ND practice standards while receiving ND care from the board chair
- Creates financial conflict - Thomas may owe money to ND Young, have insurance claims processed through ND Young's practice, or depend on continued access to care
- Compromises voting independence - How can Thomas vote on scope expansions, school approvals, or practice standards when:
- She benefits from broader ND scope as a patient
- She has ongoing relationship with board chair
- She may fear retaliation (loss of care access)
- Violates the purpose of public membership - Public members exist to represent independent consumer perspective, not to be current consumers / patients / clients of board members' services
CSF Report Context
The revised transcript confirms the CSF Report's analysis:
"Regulatory capture through CNME-reference and professional self- regulation...Complaints are adjudicated within naturopathic professional system, not by independent medical board."
The transcript now shows capture is even worse than documented:
- [If] Public member is patient of board chair (not independent)
- Both NDs on board cannot identify CNME vs. NABNE (regulatory illiteracy)
- Legal counsel present but non-intervening on material errors (captured or ineffective)
- Board votes on "NABNE schools" without anyone noticing NABNE doesn't accredit
This is a board that cannot perform meaningful oversight because:
- Its composition is compromised ([if] patient-as-public-member)
- Its members lack basic regulatory knowledge (CNME/NABNE confusion)
- Its counsel doesn't intervene on errors (legal support failure)
- Its procedures are informal and inadequate (minutes confusion, video-checking during meetings)
When this board's school approval appears on ct.gov, citizens will assume:
- Independent oversight occurred
- Public interests were represented
- Regulatory expertise was applied
- Legal compliance was verified
The revised transcript proves none of these assumptions are valid."
002.c. sidebar speculation:
002.c1. now, in answer to the query within the Perplexity thread "Is it appropriate for this board and the CT staff who were present to decide to list ND schools on the DPH ct.gov web site?" we're told [and I regard the 'decide' there as a hypothetical / speculation because the meeting itself like naturopathy itself is quite the 'by choice', dare I pun, 'theatrical and performative perplexity' / befuddlement /discombobulation / bamboozlement / flimflammery; e.g. cui bono / cui prodest / ad cuius bonum?]:
002.c2. "No, it is not appropriate for this board and CT staff to decide to list ND schools on the DPH ct.gov website based on this meeting because:
- The decision was based on a factually impossible motion (approving "NABNE schools")
- No content review or disclosure planning occurred
- The board demonstrated fundamental confusion about regulatory framework
- Legal counsel failed to provide necessary guidance
- The public member has a conflict of interest
- No consideration of CNME's federal rejection crisis
- The decision was made informally without proper deliberation
- It creates state endorsement of questionable quality without independent review
- Rescinded and re-voted with correct motion (CNME, not NABNE)
- Reviewed by legal counsel for authority and liability issues
- Approved by Commissioner per statute
- Drafted with specific disclosures about CNME status and curriculum
- Made without participation of conflicted public member
Proceeding as planned creates legal, ethical, and consumer protection problems that the transcript documents but the board failed to address."
003. well, this is 'a work of understanding in progress' as has been my mission as expressed in the 500th post from 2011 which states:
"It's about science, reason, critical thinking, ethical behavior in terms of the professions, and consumer rights in terms of commerce.
It's about laying bare nonsense disguised as reason- and science-backed, and unfair trade.
It's about the public's right not be be used as cannon-fodder by educational institutions which sell pseudoscience as science and fill their coffers with students' Federal loan money based on those false labels.
It's about recording it all for future engagements, providing an arsenal for whomever ends up needing such."
No comments:
Post a Comment