A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM HEARTH SCIENCE, INC. REGARDING THE POLYVAGAL THEORY/ GROSSMAN ET AL. CONTROVERSY

I am personally saddened by the level of vitriol and dismissal surrounding the ALL CAPS paper by Paul Grossman et al. in Clinical Neuropsychiatry labeling the Polvyagal Theory untenable, which has been uptaken into the internets where myriad sensationalist hitpieces are now declaring PVT ‘obliterated’ ‘obsolete’ ‘annihilated’ etc. (the vehemence of this response calls motives into question), as well as the lack of coherent institutional response by the Polyvagal Community to address the larger implications of the public backlash against the work.

I worked with Stephen W. Porges, PhD, for several years, our firms had an intellectual property co-development agreement, I wrote and art directed the Official Polyvagal Posters, and I interviewed him multiple times. I found him to be an impeccable human, as well as an extraordinary trans-disciplinary synthesist. As I have said publicly, for discerning the two vagal systems with differentiated vagal efferent pathways, functional integration, and regulatory roles, which changes our foundational understanding of the organization of the Autonomic Nervous System from a model of autonomic balance (two systems) to a three systems model, I believe he should receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Furthermore

  • the Grossman critique has merit, and the ‘official’ Polyvagal response challenging the terms of the critique is insufficient both in its substance, and in its failure to address the larger discourse beyond the sphere of the Institute’s immediate influence. What is happening in the broader public sphere around the theory directly bears on the reputational equity of the theory itself, and Porges’ and PVI’s refusal to engage directly around this leaves a void in the public discourse that no one else is authorized to fill. Into this vacuum arrives all sorts of sensationalist nonsense that fails to meaningfully advance the science, and sews chaos and confusion for vulnerable populations and those uneducated in the particulars. This is unacceptable.

  • real people have been harmed by ‘Polyvagal’ interventions, including the Safe and Sound Protocol. Unyte, the Canadian neurotechnology company that licenses this intervention was told as much by their original Clinical Advisory Board and responded by disbanding the board. This is not acceptable. People have also been harmed by polyvagal-speak in the broad therapeutic discourse, as well as the way that this discourse and simplified version of the polyvagal ladder have and are being taught on all manner of platform, social media and otherwise, by people with no qualifications whatsoever. This is unacceptable, and also very hard to stop. When a theory goes viral, it is hard to keep its parameters crisp.

  • Paul Grossman has edited the Wikipedia page for Polyvagal Theory, which violates standards of neutrality. The primary antagonist to a theory should not be permitted to author/edit neutral documents about the theory. The page has also been repeatedly algorithmically edited to push it towards being labelled fringe science. This algorithmic editing is beyond the control of either Grossman or PVT, but aligns with Grossman’s interests. This record is publicly available. Grossman’s traceable editing activity occurred in 2017. This is part of a deeper problem with Wikipedia as an arbiter of information, where unorthodox views are being denigrated as ‘fringe’ science. Polyvagal Theory is not the only casualty of this dark editing.

  • Grossman has been successful in shaping and encouraging a false narrative that he is backed by 38 of the world’s leading experts in vagal physiology, while Porges is a ‘lonely psychologist.’ This is not factually correct. I have personally participated in rigorous trans-disciplinary research and clinical discussions, brainstorming, and Q&A with Dr. Porges and a host of the world’s leading experts in a range of medical, neuroscientific, psychophysiological, trauma healing, and basic science fields. Stephen W. Porges has authored 550 peer review articles and regularly collaborates with experts. Why PVI has not published a list of Porges’ thought partners and collaborators is part of a larger pattern of inaction I cannot explain.

  • Finally, Grossman’s observations about limitations of PVT are not unique to him.

Our research team at Hearth Science identified the primary objections in the Grossman et al critique of Polyvagal Theory several years ago (2023 & early 2024), because these were evident to many of us studying autonomic physiology and PVT with rigor. Both the brilliance & the limitations of the theory were visible to many of us in working with clients. I architected the first software platform in the world that utilized PVT’s conceptualization of autonomic state as the diagnostic front-end. And from the inception of the software, we were seeing data from clients whose autonomic state did not fit within the rubric articulated by PVT, and that disconfirmed the hierarchy of nervous system states PVT teaches.

We would also agree with Grossman et al. that RSA (respiratory sinus arrhythmia) is not the best autonomic signal (it is muddied by other feedback loops), that the evolutionary evidence is speculative (in my 2021 interview with Stephen Porges for the Connection Masterclass he said so himself, see from 8 minutes 30 seconds in this interview here), and that ANS is not a ladder. But we did not stop with critique, because although this is academically useful, it is not practically useful. It leaves people confused, disoriented, frustrated, and feeling duped. Instead, we worked diligently to resolve the issues.

In our own work, we use respiration as the primary autonomic diagnostic signal. We have continued to explore alternate/overlapping neurological/ neurochemical pathways, and re-map the system as circle or spiral based on phenomenology of lived experience and clinical observation.

This resulted, in June of 2024, in the publication of a new foundation model in Autonomics – an animist cartography of the living Autonomic Nervous System. You can read the foundation model white paper here. You can see the new foundation model in visual format here.

If we could move the egos aside - both the hyperbolic refutations and the defensive withdrawal - and focus on the science, this controversy could be key to moving the field forward. Polyvagal Theory is incomplete, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have written publicly about a reconciliation framework between the two perspectives in this article: TENABLE: RECONCILING POLYVAGAL THEORY WITH THE UTILITY OF THE GROSSMAN CRITIQUE.

And, if you are interested in an animist cartography of these systems backed by research that has already responded to and obviated the Grossman critique, you have come to the right place. Because that’s what we’ve been working on, diligently, with more than 60 contributors and advisors across 25 disciplines of wellbeing in 24 cultures for the past 15 years.

-Natureza Gabriel

FOUNDER, Hearth Science

4 March 2026