Legislating Naturopathy 101 - Florida Naturopathic Bill 2025 "HB 223: Naturopathic Medicine"

here, excerpts from the proposed Florida naturopathy licensing law for AANMC-AANP-CAND type NDs.  Same old false labels and opacity shenanigans!

001. at Florida's legislative site flsenate.gov, regarding "HB 223: Naturopathic Medicine" [full text PDF here; archived here] we're provided in:

001.a. science claim:

"has obtained a passing score on Part I - Biomedical Science Examination and Part II - Core Clinical Science Examination of the competency-based national Naturopathic Physician Licensing Examination administered by the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners [...]";

beware!  It is, of course, NABNE's NPLEX that falsely labels homeopathy, on that Part II, science. 

001.b. coded vitalism:

"'principles of naturopathic medicine' means the foundations of naturopathic medical education and practice as set forth by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians or the board and embodied in the education offered by naturopathic doctoral degree programs accredited by, or having candidacy status with, the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education or another accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the board, and including all of the following principles: (a) The healing power of nature [HPN]. (b) Identify and treat the causes. (c) First do no harm. (d) Doctor as teacher. (e) Treat the whole person. (f) Prevention [...] 'naturopathic therapeutic order' [TO] means a principle defined by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians to guide naturopathic doctors in resolving a patient's symptoms and addressing the root cause of a patient's disease while using the least therapeutic force necessary";

of course, HPN is naturopathy's vitalism, coded, and build into their TO.  And so now we're into the blanket label of science upon what isn't.

001.c. definition of naturopathy:

"'naturopathic medicine' and 'practice of naturopathic medicine' mean the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment by a naturopathic doctor of any deformity, disease, injury, pain, or other physical or mental condition using botanical or fungal extracts, clinical nutrition, counseling techniques, dietary supplements, environmental medicine, homeopathic remedies, imaging studies, laboratory testing, lifestyle medicine, natural substances, physical exam, or physical medicine in a manner consistent with the education offered by naturopathic doctoral degree programs accredited by, or having candidacy status with, the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education or another accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the board, and applied in a manner consistent with the principles of naturopathic medicine and the naturopathic therapeutic order defined herein";

informed consent be damned! This is not a definition, it is a veneer.  Institutionalizing by licensing...falsehood marches on... 

002. thanks to "David Smith Renews Effort to Fully Legalize Naturopathy in Florida" wherein we're told:

"Rep. David Smith has refiled a bill that aims to repeal Florida’s long-standing restrictions on naturopathy. Smith, a Winter Springs Republican, filed a measure (HB 223) that seeks to establish regulatory frameworks to ensure naturopathic doctors [...] Smith filed an identical measure (HB 533) in the House during the 2025 Legislative Session. Doral Republican Sen. Ana Maria Rodriguez filed a similar measure (SB 470) in the Senate, which was cosponsored by St. Petersburg Democratic Sen. Darryl Rouson. Both measures stalled in committee";

The 2025 Barry Williams and Bent Spoon Awards – Australian Skeptics

here, some active skepticism in this day and age [rare!]:

001. at skeptics.com.au, in an 2025-10-06 post titled“Banned Naturopath Barbara O’Neill Wins 2025 Bent Spoon”, Tim Mendham writes:

“Barbara O’Neill, the banned ‘naturopath’ – who has no medical qualifications at all – has won the Australian Skeptics’ Bent Spoon award for 2025. The Spoon is given annually to the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of pseudoscientific or paranormal piffle. It has been given every year since 1982 and is one of the least sought-after prizes in Australia. O’Neill has earned the ‘honour’ after years of promoting pseudo-medical nonsense and dangerous claims of supposed and debunked cures for serious ailments";

hear, hear. 

"The Skeptics awards were announced at the gala dinner for Skepticon, the Australian Skeptics national convention, that was held in Melbourne on October 4”;

Just a mention and caution: naturopathy in Australia, unbanned and institutionalized, is quite the misrepresentation. For instance, a web search >site:.au naturopathic victoria iridology science< yields the first result of "Kerrie Lean, Naturopath Elwood" whose bio. page states she has a "Bachelor of Health Science in Naturopathy" and on her page "Iridology Analysis" we're told "iridology is the science of analyzing the delicate structures of the eye, mainly in the iris.  It is a form of anaylsis [sic, analysis] used in conjunction with other modern and traditional diagnostic techniques to help facilitate a more complete understanding of a patient’s health care needs [...] how can iridology tell me anything about my internal state of health? Nerve fibers in the iris respond to changes in body tissues that correspond to specific changes in tissue and location.  This gives us the ability to ‘read’ internal tissue conditions in the most remote parts of the body and more incredibly gives an entire view of our internal responses to health challenges in a single view."  As I've often said, 'the science that ain't science.'

Vitalism as Defunct - Philosophically and Scientifically via Perplexity 2025-10-15

here, a nice little table regarding best reasons for vitalism's demise in terms of philosophy and science:

001. the question to Perplexity was:

"Can you create a table that lists in column one the best philosophical reasons and in column 2 the best scientific reasons as to why vitalism is a discarded idea?"

002. the answer:

"Vitalism is considered a discarded idea in both philosophy and science because it failed to provide coherent, rational, and testable explanations for living phenomena. The table below lists the strongest philosophical and scientific reasons, respectively, for why vitalism is rejected.

Philosophical Reasons (Column 1)	Scientific Reasons (Column 2)
Vitalism is an argument from ignorance — it proposes a “life force” simply to fill gaps in understanding, offering no meaningful explanatory power beyond labeling our ignorance.	Vitalism was falsified by experiments showing that organic matter (like urea) can be synthesized from inorganic compounds, disproving the "living force" requirement.
It invokes supernatural or metaphysical forces fundamentally incompatible with methodological naturalism and rational analysis, rendering its claims unfalsifiable and beyond reasonable debate.	Mechanistic and biochemical explanations successfully accounted for all observed biological phenomena, with biochemical discoveries (e.g., cell-free fermentation) showing non-vitalistic processes.
Vitalist explanations are circular — effects of life are used as evidence for a “vital force,” but this only re-labels the phenomenon rather than explaining it (e.g., “dormitive virtue”).	Vitalism failed to yield testable hypotheses or experimental progress, and could not provide a basis for experimental program in biology, unlike mechanistic theories.
Vitalism is an unnecessary hypothesis according to Occam’s razor, since naturalistic and materialist explanations suffice to explain living systems.	No evidence for any “vital energy” has ever been found, despite centuries of scientific investigation and technological advances.

Each point in this table captures the enduring reasons — both philosophical and scientific — that led to the rejection of vitalism in favor of mechanistic, naturalistic, and evidence-based biology."

And yet naturopathy maintains vitalism as a basis for both its science and its philosophy.  Therein, one could then speak of the science that isn't science, and the philosophy that isn't philosophy.

And as regards "what then is it?" if vitalism fails scientific and philosophical processes and rigors, Perplexity has this great answer:

"Vitalism serves as a reminder of how science evolves by replacing mystical and supernatural frameworks with testable, naturalistic ones rooted in evidence and logic."

ND Sensenig didn't teach me that in Fall of 1998 when my naturopathy indoctrination began... 

Naturopathy is to Philosophy AS Circles are to Corners

here, some thoughts [perhaps philosophizing!] on the appropriateness of terms the essentially naturopathic both scientific and a philosophy by way of a Perplexity task:

001. the task to Perplexity was:

“Is it appropriate to term a science-ejected idea falsely posed as science a ’philosophy’?”

Unpacking: So, naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected idea of vitalism, at its foundation.  Naturopathy also states that this survives scientific scrutiny and is science-based.  Finally, naturopathy states that all this is a philosophy. 

I generally find Perplexity to get to the heart of a pointed matter in a very unbiased manner, and the answer provided for this question is quite unbiased.

002. the answer:

“It is not appropriate to call a science-ejected idea, falsely posed as science, a "philosophy"; such ideas are more accurately termed "pseudoscience" rather than philosophy. Philosophy is a distinct intellectual tradition that prioritizes critical reasoning and conceptual analysis, and while it sometimes engages with questions science cannot answer directly, it does not claim scientific authority or misuse scientific language to appear legitimate.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

Philosophy versus Pseudoscience

Philosophy involves rigorous reasoning, conceptual analysis, and sometimes reflection on scientific findings, but it does not present itself as science or adopt scientific trappings to claim legitimacy. Pseudoscience, by contrast, consists of ideas or doctrines that attempt to masquerade as science but fail to adhere to scientific methods or evidence. A science-ejected idea—one that has been rejected by the scientific community because it fails tests of evidence, falsifiability, or peer review—remains pseudoscientific if its proponents continue to present it as scientific.^{[2][4][5][7][6][1]}