Porges replies to the 39 experts: they criticised a version of polyvagal theory he never proposed
Stephen Porges's 2026 answer to the 39-author evaluation: the critique makes 'category errors', attacks 'a reconstructed proxy of the theory' and never shows where the theory's predictions fail.
Suggestive but preliminary. Not settled. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: The theory's author defending it; it argues the critique misrepresents the theory rather than presenting new experimental data on the disputed physiology. The 39-author evaluation it answers is in this library.
The theory's author, answering the largest critique of it, in the same journal issue.
What the reply says
Porges does not answer the objections one by one. He argues the critique "repeatedly evaluates a reconstructed proxy of the theory shaped by persistent category errors". He names three: treating anatomy as if it were physiology, reducing the theory to one measurement, and treating shared ancestry as if it meant shared function. Disagreements about the heart-rate measure, anatomy or evolution, he writes, "do not engage the theory's specified mechanisms or demonstrate conditions under which its predictions would fail". An appendix argues several of the critics' points were answered in print nearly twenty years ago. His conclusion: the charge of untenability "does not apply to Polyvagal Theory as formulated".
The other direction
The reply defends the theory as a "systems-level" framework and does not bring new experimental data on the disputed points: whether the heart-rate measure tracks vagal output, which brainstem nucleus slows the heart, and whether reptiles show the same wiring. The 39 authors cited physiological studies on each point. A reader can compare the two papers directly; both are in this library.
Disclosures
The reply states "Funding: None." For competing interests it refers the reader to "COI statement for paper published Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 22(3), 175-191." His 2025 review in the same journal declared none. In a separate 2025 paper he writes that the Safe and Sound Protocol and a second listening program "are distributed by Unyte Health"; we found no journal record of whether he is paid by the company.
What this does not show
Neither paper tests whether any therapy works. A theory being disputed does not mean the practices built on it do nothing, and it does not mean they work for the reasons given.
Source
When A Critique Becomes Untenable: A Scholarly Response To Grossman Et Al.'s Evaluation Of Polyvagal Theory — Porges SW (2026)
Indexed peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.36131/cnfioritieditore20260111
DOI: 10.36131/cnfioritieditore20260111
How this was scored
- Study design
- Expert opinion or commentary
- Funding
- No external funding
- Published in
- Indexed peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- not recorded
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- not recorded
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published October 2, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
veisund rates this source "early signal". Suggestive but preliminary. Not settled. It scores 40 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: The theory's author defending it; it argues the critique misrepresents the theory rather than presenting new experimental data on the disputed physiology. The 39-author evaluation it answers is in this library. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
When A Critique Becomes Untenable: A Scholarly Response To Grossman Et Al.'s Evaluation Of Polyvagal Theory — Porges SW (2026). Published in: Indexed peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.36131/cnfioritieditore20260111. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Expert opinion or commentary. Funding: No external funding. Independence from the proponent is not recorded. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.