Public Warning Regarding the Conduct and Credentials of Shawn Pourgol

This is a public warning concerning allegations regarding the conduct, professional history, and representations of Shawn Pourgol, also known as Shahin Pourgol, who serves as president of the National Academy of Osteopathy.

According to publicly available disciplinary information, Pourgol has faced regulatory proceedings concerning his use of the title or designation “Doctor.” It is alleged that, as part of an undertaking arising from those proceedings, he agreed not to use the title or abbreviation “Doctor” in association with his name. Anyone considering enrolling at or doing business with the National Academy of Osteopathy should independently verify these matters through the relevant regulatory authorities and official records.

It is also important to clarify Pourgol’s professional status. He previously practiced as a chiropractor, but his chiropractic licence was reportedly revoked more than a decade ago following disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, prospective students and members of the public should carefully verify his current professional credentials and licensing status rather than relying solely on titles or designations used in promotional materials.

There are also significant questions that prospective students should consider regarding the National Academy of Osteopathy and the nature and recognition of its osteopathy programs. Osteopathy, as offered through this institution, should not automatically be understood as equivalent to a regulated medical degree or to the professional credentials of a licensed physician. Prospective students should verify whether the program and its credentials are recognized by the appropriate provincial regulators and whether graduates are legally entitled to practice or bill insurance providers for services.

Before spending thousands of dollars—particularly funds obtained through student financial assistance such as OSAP—prospective students should conduct thorough independent research into the program’s accreditation or regulatory recognition, the legal scope of practice available to graduates, employment opportunities, and whether insurance companies recognize the resulting credential.

The purpose of this warning is to encourage prospective students and members of the public to exercise due diligence. Rather than relying on promotional claims or professional titles, verify the relevant information directly with government agencies, regulatory colleges, accreditation bodies, and insurance providers.

Prospective students should carefully investigate the program, its credentials, regulatory status, and the professional standing of its administrators before committing their time or money.

There is an extensive public regulatory record concerning Shahin Pourgol in Ontario. This is not based on rumours, social-media allegations, or personal opinion. The relevant information is published by the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).
Mr. Pourgol was formerly registered as a chiropractor with the College of Chiropractors of Ontario. In disciplinary proceedings arising from a complaint concerning his use of the protected title “osteopath” and advertising connected with the National Academy of Osteopathy, the CCO found that he had used the title “osteopath” and had held himself out as qualified to practise in Ontario as an osteopath even though he was not a member of the CPSO. The CCO expressly noted that, under section 9 of Ontario’s Medicine Act, 1991, the title “osteopath” is protected and may only be used in the manner permitted by that legislation. [Source: CCO 2014 Annual Report]
The CCO record further states that Mr. Pourgol admitted that certain advertising was false and misleading. In particular, the CCO reported that advertising suggested that an organization associated with his school could issue a licence required to practise osteopathy or manual osteopathy in Ontario. The disciplinary record states that he admitted this advertising was false and misleading because that organization could not license people to practise osteopathy in Ontario and such a licence was not required to practise manual osteopathy. [Source: CCO 2014 Annual Report]
The Discipline Panel found that Mr. Pourgol committed acts of professional misconduct, including breaching the CCO's advertising standards and breaching section 9 of the Medicine Act by using the title “osteopath” and holding himself out as qualified to practise as an osteopath when he was not a CPSO member. The CCO described the conduct relating to the advertising and use of the osteopath title as conduct that could reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. [Source: CCO 2014 Annual Report]
The penalty was significant. The CCO ordered a six-month suspension of his chiropractic certificate of registration. Conditions were imposed stating that he was not to use the title “osteopath,” was not to hold himself out as qualified to practise as an osteopath in Ontario, was not to use the title while providing or offering health care and was not to perform specified controlled acts. Most importantly, the order required him to resign his membership with the College of Chiropractors of Ontario within six months. He was also ordered to pay $15,000 in costs. [Source: CCO 2014 Annual Report]
It is therefore more accurate to say that Mr. Pourgol did not simply “voluntarily retire” from chiropractic practice in the ordinary sense. His resignation followed a disciplinary proceeding and was expressly required as part of the disciplinary disposition. The later CPSO undertaking confirms that he resigned his certificate of registration with the CCO in 2014 and was no longer a member of the CCO or any other regulated health profession in Ontario. [Source: CPSO Undertaking]
The matter did not end with the chiropractic regulator. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario subsequently investigated Mr. Pourgol concerning whether he was operating contrary to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 and the Medicine Act, 1991. In the undertaking signed with the CPSO, Mr. Pourgol acknowledged that the CPSO had previously advised him in 2015 that he was operating in contravention of the RHPA. [Source: CPSO Undertaking]
Mr. Pourgol also expressly acknowledged in the CPSO undertaking that he did not provide or offer health care in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada and specifically stated that he did not practise chiropractic or osteopathic medicine in Canada. He acknowledged the earlier CCO discipline proceeding concerning his use of the title “osteopath” and acknowledged his resignation from the CCO. [Source: CPSO Undertaking]
Most importantly, the CPSO undertaking contains permanent restrictions. Mr. Pourgol undertook that he would permanently refrain from using the titles “doctor” and “physician,” including variations or abbreviations such as “M.D.,” and would permanently refrain from using the title “osteopath” or variations or abbreviations of that title in connection with providing health-care services. He also undertook not to hold himself out as a physician or osteopath while providing health-care services. [Source: CPSO Undertaking]

Most importantly, the CPSO undertaking contains permanent restrictions. Mr. Pourgol undertook that he would permanently refrain from using the titles “doctor” and “physician,” including variations or abbreviations such as “M.D.,” and would permanently refrain from using the title “osteopath” or variations or abbreviations of that title in connection with providing health-care services. He also undertook not to hold himself out as a physician or osteopath while providing health-care services. [Source: CPSO Undertaking]
The undertaking went even further. Mr. Pourgol agreed to permanently remove the titles “doctor” and “osteopath” from his website, advertising, brochures, business cards, receipts, letterhead and other documents, including email addresses, and to ensure that other individuals or corporations did not use those titles in association with his name in the circumstances covered by the undertaking. [Source: CPSO Undertaking]
The CPSO also states on its public Unregistered Practitioners page that the CCO Discipline Tribunal found Mr. Pourgol had improperly used the title “osteopath” and improperly held himself out as qualified to practise in Ontario as an osteopath. The CPSO records that he later agreed to resign his CCO membership and that he subsequently entered into the CPSO undertaking imposing permanent restrictions on his use of the titles “doctor,” “physician,” and “osteopath.” [Source: CPSO Unregistered Practitioners]
These distinctions matter when members of the public are evaluating professional credentials. A person describing himself using terms such as “doctor,” “osteopath,” “DO,” or similar terminology may create an impression of professional registration or authority that does not necessarily exist. In Mr. Pourgol's case, Ontario's own health-profession regulators have published disciplinary findings and a signed undertaking addressing precisely these title-use issues. Anyone considering programs, qualifications or services associated with him should therefore read the regulator records themselves rather than relying exclusively on promotional biographies or institutional websites.
Official Regulatory Links
• CPSO – Unregistered Practitioners: Shahin Pourgol — Public CPSO summary of the regulatory history and undertaking.

• CPSO – Shahin Pourgol Undertaking, Acknowledgment and Consent — The executed undertaking containing the title-use restrictions and acknowledgments.
• College of Chiropractors of Ontario – 2014 Annual Report — Contains the CCO disciplinary findings, six-month suspension, resignation requirement, and costs order.
Recommended Wording on the Chiropractic Licence
Preferred: “The CCO Discipline Panel suspended Mr. Pourgol’s certificate of registration for six months and required him to resign his membership with the College of Chiropractors of Ontario within six months. The later CPSO undertaking confirms that he resigned in 2014.”

As a concerned citizen, I believe prospective students and members of the public are entitled to clear and accurate information when evaluating the professional credentials, qualifications, and services associated with Shahin Pourgol, also known as Shawn Pourgol, who is identified as the president/owner of the organization in question.

The information below is based on publicly available records from the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). Readers are encouraged to review the original documents and reach their own conclusions.

CCO Disciplinary Proceedings

Mr. Pourgol was formerly registered as a chiropractor with the CCO. In disciplinary proceedings concerning his use of the protected title “osteopath” and advertising associated with the National Academy of Osteopathy, the CCO Discipline Panel found that he had used the title “osteopath” and held himself out as qualified to practise as an osteopath in Ontario despite not being a member of the CPSO.

The CCO also reported that Mr. Pourgol admitted that certain advertising was false and misleading. According to the CCO’s 2014 Annual Report, the advertising suggested that an organization associated with his school could issue a licence required to practise osteopathy or manual osteopathy in Ontario. The disciplinary record states that he admitted this representation was false and misleading.

The Panel found professional misconduct, including breaches of CCO advertising standards and section 9 of Ontario’s Medicine Act, 1991. The disciplinary disposition included a six-month suspension, conditions concerning his use of the title “osteopath,” a requirement that he resign his CCO membership within six months, and an order to pay $15,000 in costs.

A subsequent CPSO undertaking confirms that he resigned his CCO registration in 2014.

CPSO Investigation and Undertaking

The CPSO later investigated Mr. Pourgol. In an undertaking with the CPSO, he acknowledged that the CPSO had previously advised him in 2015 that he was operating in contravention of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

The undertaking contains permanent restrictions concerning certain professional titles. Mr. Pourgol undertook not to use “doctor,” “physician,” “M.D.,” or “osteopath,” including variations or abbreviations, in connection with providing health-care services. He also undertook not to hold himself out as a physician or osteopath while providing health-care services.

The undertaking further required the removal of “doctor” and “osteopath” from specified websites, advertising, business materials, and other documents.

The CPSO’s public Unregistered Practitioners page also refers to these matters.

Why This Matters

These matters form part of the public regulatory record and may be relevant to prospective students and members of the public considering education, credentials, or services associated with Mr. Pourgol or organizations he owns or operates.

The purpose of sharing this information is not to tell anyone what decision to make. It is to provide access to relevant regulatory history so individuals can review the official records and make informed decisions for themselves.

Official Sources
CPSO — Unregistered Practitioners: Shahin Pourgol
CPSO — Shahin Pourgol Undertaking, Acknowledgment and Consent
CCO — 2014 Annual Report and related disciplinary record

Readers are encouraged to consult the original regulatory documents for the complete context.

You be the judge.

FORMAL PUBLIC-PROTECTION COMPLAINT

Use of “Doctor,” “Osteopath,” “Doctor of Osteopathy” and “DO” Titles in Ontario

To: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO)

Re: National Academy of Osteopathy (NAO), National University of Medical Sciences (NUMSS), and representations associated with Mr. Shahin Pourgol

Dear College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario:

I am writing to raise a public-protection concern regarding the proliferation in Ontario of private and/or online manual osteopathy credentials and, in particular, the use of terminology such as “Doctor of Osteopathy,” “DO,” “osteopath,” “osteopathic,” and “doctor” by individuals who are not physicians registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

My concern relates particularly to the National Academy of Osteopathy (“NAO”) in Ontario and the National University of Medical Sciences (“NUMSS”) in Spain, as well as the manner in which credentials associated with these institutions may be represented to members of the Ontario public.

NAO advertises education in osteopathic manual practice, including an online program leading to a Diploma in Osteopathic Manual Practice. NUMSS advertises an online Doctor of Osteopathy (“DO”) program. Based on the institutions’ publicly available descriptions, portions of the education may be completed remotely or through prerecorded online instruction, with admission pathways and program duration varying according to an applicant’s prior education.

The resulting situation raises, in my view, a serious issue of potential public confusion. A member of the Ontario public encountering an individual displaying the credentials “DO,” “Doctor of Osteopathy,” “Dr.,” “osteopath,” or similar terminology may reasonably believe that the individual is an osteopathic physician, a medical doctor, or otherwise a regulated medical practitioner.

This concern is heightened by the fact that in the United States the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (“DO”) is a professional medical degree. Graduates of accredited American osteopathic medical schools are physicians who undergo medical education, clinical training, licensing examinations and postgraduate residency training. An online or manual-osteopathy “Doctor of Osteopathy” credential is fundamentally different from that medical qualification, notwithstanding the similarity of the terminology and abbreviation.

I understand that section 9 of Ontario’s Medicine Act, 1991 restricts the use of the title “osteopath,” including variations or abbreviations, and restricts persons who are not members of the College from holding themselves out as qualified to practise in Ontario as osteopaths or physicians. I also understand that Ontario legislation contains additional restrictions concerning the use of the title “doctor” in connection with providing or offering health care.

My concern is therefore not simply whether an educational institution is entitled, under the law applicable to it, to issue an academic credential. The more important public-protection question is how those credentials and titles are subsequently used in Ontario’s health-care marketplace, and whether patients are left with a misleading impression regarding a practitioner’s education, regulatory status or lawful scope of practice.

Specific Concern Regarding Mr. Shahin Pourgol and Facebook/Social-Media Representations

I also wish to bring to the College’s attention my personal observation of Facebook content associated with Mr. Shahin Pourgol, who is publicly associated with the National Academy of Osteopathy and National University of Medical Sciences.

I have observed Facebook content in which Mr. Pourgol appears to use and/or present himself using the titles or descriptions “Doctor” and “Osteopath.” To my knowledge, Mr. Pourgol is not registered with the CPSO as a physician or osteopath. I respectfully request that the College independently verify his current registration status and review the relevant Facebook and other social-media material to determine whether the manner in which these titles are being used complies with Ontario law.

This issue appears particularly important in light of the CPSO’s own publicly available information concerning unregistered practitioners. The College has previously published information concerning Mr. Pourgol and an undertaking relating to the use of titles including “doctor,” “physician” and “osteopath” in connection with providing or offering to provide health care in Ontario. I respectfully ask the College to review whether any current representations are consistent with the terms of any applicable undertaking, order, statutory restriction or other regulatory requirement.

If Mr. Pourgol is presently using “Doctor,” “Dr.,” “Osteopath,” “DO,” or similar terminology on Facebook or other social-media platforms, I ask the College to determine whether that usage is permissible, whether it could create a misleading impression for the public, and whether regulatory or enforcement action is warranted.

The broader context is also relevant. Mr. Pourgol is associated with educational institutions that train and credential individuals in manual osteopathy. Public use of terminology associated with regulated osteopathic physicians by persons connected with those institutions may influence students or graduates to believe that similar terminology is appropriate for them to use in Ontario.

Matters I Respectfully Request the CPSO to Review

1. Whether Ontario graduates of NAO and/or NUMSS are using “DO,” “Doctor of Osteopathy,” “osteopath,” “osteopathic,” “Dr.” or similar terminology in circumstances contrary to the Medicine Act, 1991, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, or other applicable Ontario legislation.
2. Whether advertising by the schools, clinics, professional associations or individual practitioners creates a misleading impression that these practitioners are regulated osteopathic physicians, medical doctors, or members of another regulated health profession.
3. Whether use in Ontario of the foreign academic designation “Doctor of Osteopathy (DO)” in connection with the provision or advertising of health care creates an unacceptable likelihood that members of the public will confuse that credential with the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) medical qualification.
4. Whether Ontario consumers are receiving sufficiently prominent and understandable disclosure that holders of these manual-osteopathy credentials are not, solely by virtue of those credentials, physicians registered with the CPSO.
5. Precisely what titles and post-nominal designations graduates of these programs may lawfully use in Ontario, including “DO (Spain),” “Doctor of Osteopathy graduate,” “osteopathic manual practitioner,” “manual osteopath,” “osteopath,” “Dr.” and similar terminology.
6. Whether Mr. Shahin Pourgol’s current Facebook, social-media, website or other public representations comply with Ontario’s protected-title legislation and any previous regulatory undertaking or order applicable to him.
7. Whether additional investigation, enforcement, public education or regulatory guidance is warranted given the apparent growth of manual-osteopathy educational programs and practitioners in Ontario.

My concern is not with legitimate manual therapy itself, nor am I asking the College to make assumptions about the competence of every individual graduate. The concern is transparency, protected titles and public protection.

Patients should be able to distinguish readily between a licensed physician and an unregulated or differently regulated manual practitioner. A credential, professional title, abbreviation or advertisement should not leave an ordinary patient with the impression that an individual has completed medical school or is licensed to practise medicine when that is not the case.

As a concerned citizen, I believe prospective students and members of the public are entitled to clear and accurate information when evaluating the professional credentials, qualifications, and services associated with Shahin Pourgol, also known as Shawn Pourgol, who is identified as the president/owner of the organization in question.

The information below is based on publicly available records from the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). Readers are encouraged to review the original documents and reach their own conclusions.

CCO Disciplinary Proceedings

Mr. Pourgol was formerly registered as a chiropractor with the CCO. In disciplinary proceedings concerning his use of the protected title “osteopath” and advertising associated with the National Academy of Osteopathy, the CCO Discipline Panel found that he had used the title “osteopath” and held himself out as qualified to practise as an osteopath in Ontario despite not being a member of the CPSO.

The CCO also reported that Mr. Pourgol admitted that certain advertising was false and misleading. According to the CCO’s 2014 Annual Report, the advertising suggested that an organization associated with his school could issue a licence required to practise osteopathy or manual osteopathy in Ontario. The disciplinary record states that he admitted this representation was false and misleading.

The Panel found professional misconduct, including breaches of CCO advertising standards and section 9 of Ontario’s Medicine Act, 1991. The disciplinary disposition included a six-month suspension, conditions concerning his use of the title “osteopath,” a requirement that he resign his CCO membership within six months, and an order to pay $15,000 in costs.

A subsequent CPSO undertaking confirms that he resigned his CCO registration in 2014.

CPSO Investigation and Undertaking

The CPSO later investigated Mr. Pourgol. In an undertaking with the CPSO, he acknowledged that the CPSO had previously advised him in 2015 that he was operating in contravention of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

The undertaking contains permanent restrictions concerning certain professional titles. Mr. Pourgol undertook not to use “doctor,” “physician,” “M.D.,” or “osteopath,” including variations or abbreviations, in connection with providing health-care services. He also undertook not to hold himself out as a physician or osteopath while providing health-care services.

The undertaking further required the removal of “doctor” and “osteopath” from specified websites, advertising, business materials, and other documents.

The CPSO’s public Unregistered Practitioners page also refers to these matters.

Why This Matters

These matters form part of the public regulatory record and may be relevant to prospective students and members of the public considering education, credentials, or services associated with Mr. Pourgol or organizations he owns or operates.

The purpose of sharing this information is not to tell anyone what decision to make. It is to provide access to relevant regulatory history so individuals can review the official records and make informed decisions for themselves.

Official Sources
CPSO — Unregistered Practitioners: Shahin Pourgol
CPSO — Shahin Pourgol Undertaking, Acknowledgment and Consent
CCO — 2014 Annual Report and related disciplinary record

Readers are encouraged to consult the original regulatory documents for the complete context.

You be the judge!!