A Comparison of 2023's WNFM and 2026's CT NDs Data Sets

here, a large global footprint posture [WNFM - World Naturopathic Federation material c2023] and a regional echo of that global posture [CT NDs' practices language c2026]:

001. the 2023 WNFM dataset is here;

002. the 2026 CT ND dataset is here;

003. the relationship between Connecticut's CNPA and the World Naturopathic Federation. To quote Perplexity's overview:

Note: I had stated in the second upload to the State of Connecticut's PHC "Connecticut’s CNPA is an AANP affiliate and the AANP is listed first on the founding members list of the WNF" [here].  As to whether the WNF is merely a global sock-puppet for North American naturopathy, Perplexity had this to say: "The WNF as a global standardizing and advocacy body built around the North American professional model of naturopathy, which other regions have joined and largely accepted. It is not simply a shell fronting for one country, but its conceptual center of gravity and its leadership history mean that 'global consensus' in its documents is very likely to reflect what is already normative in North American naturopathic institutions and associations (AANP, CAND, the accredited colleges [AANMC]), then validated via surveys and memberships." So there is a little bit of the aspect of a nesting doll that nests itself.

"Putting it together:

• WNF: global federation; sets international narrative and standards for naturopathy; the AANP is its U.S. member.

• AANP: national U.S. association; member of WNF; coordinates national advocacy and provides the template of 'naturopathic principles' that WNF then globalizes.

• CNPA (CT): state‑level association; effectively a 'chapter' in the same ecosystem, feeding into AANP at the national level and, indirectly via AANP, into WNF’s global representation.

So the Connecticut organizations and marketing materials you’re seeing sit at the local end of a hierarchy whose national node is the AANP and whose international capstone is the WNF, all sharing the same underlying definitions and philosophical documents."

004. via Perplexity, a compare and contrast through the task "Can you compare and contrast the theories, science claims, supernaturalism, diagnostics, therapeutics, depictions of standard medicine, depictions of naturopath / ND expertise and possible medievalisms of the two attached PDFs?":

"Both PDFs strongly promote naturopathic medicine, but they differ in scope and how explicitly they systematize and 'theologize' it [interesting word choice!]; the WNFM document functions as a quasi-textbook and profession-building manifesto, while the Connecticut ND material is more of a marketing‑plus‑practice ecosystem for individual and small‑group NDs in a specific jurisdiction.

Theories and core worldviews

• WNFM presents a formal, globally unified theoretical scaffold: vitalism, vis medicatrix naturae, Therapeutic Order, Emunctory Theory, Unity of Disease, Toxaemia, Humoral Theory, Naturopathic Cures, Value of Fever, Integrative “Triad of Health” (mind–body–spirit), and “Theory of Complex Systems.” These are explicitly framed as “naturopathic theories” that structure reasoning and interventions.
• The CT file reproduces and endorses the same ideas, but in more practitioner‑friendly language: “vital force,” “body’s wisdom,” “healing power of nature,” “health is simple, disease is complex,” “you are only as healthy as what you eat, absorb, metabolize, and excrete,” and a multi‑step “Naturopathic Cures” schema (detoxification, revitalization, stabilization, regeneration).
• WNFM is self‑consciously constitutive: it claims these theories are shared across 100+ countries and are what makes naturopathy a distinct global profession, including explicit historical lineages from Empedocles, Hippocrates, Galen, Hildegard, Hufeland, Kneipp, Lindlahr, Tilden, Priessnitz, etc. The CT file uses much of the same history indirectly via copied text and borrowed explanations but deploys them to legitimize local ND practice and training programs (Bridgeport, Bastyr).

A Naturocrit Podcast Episode 017 Teaser

here, some excerpts from a yet-to-be-published episode of the Naturocrit Podcast:

001. draft language from the introduction and conclusion sections:

001.a. focus:

"[...] I’ll also add this, as an extension of the standard introduction’s text.

With these 2026 reports, I’m looking at how the naturopathic muddle gets written into law.

In places like Connecticut, the legislature has literally declared naturopathy to be “science” while outsourcing the definition of that “science” to naturopathic schools and boards, no independent evidence gatekeeping required.

And remember, it is their NPLEX exam for licensure – their being AANP-CAND-AANMC-CNPA – that states that homeopathy is a 'clinical science', which I offer as a representation of how lax their science footprint and science processes are:

anything goes, and nothing is re-evaluated though they claim such persistent re-evaluation through the science label."

001.b. CT data:

"[...] When asked at the end of all this, too, if the data set from Connecticut is representative of Connecticut and how such compares to other states’ ND practice web pages, the answer from Perplexity was:

The Connecticut source set is representative of mainstream naturopathic marketing in Connecticut, and it closely matches naturopath web materials in other U.S. states.

Representativeness within Connecticut

• The Connecticut NDs you analyzed use the standard naturopathic blend: functional medicine, root‑cause, detoxification, extensive functional lab testing, naturopathic primary care framing, and combinations of botanicals, nutraceuticals, acupuncture, and mind‑body services.

• Their sites and materials show the same science‑camouflage patterns your CSF reports describe: mixing legitimate labs and counseling with homeopathy, adrenal fatigue, heavy metal detox, broad stool and urine testing, nutrigenomics, etc., all under 'science‑driven' or 'modern medicine plus tradition' branding. 

• In other words, the sampled practices are not fringe outliers; they display the dominant commercial posture of licensed NDs in the state—especially those integrated into 'integrative' or 'functional' clinics.

Comparison to ND websites in other states 

ND clinics in other states (e.g., Oregon, Washington, Arizona) use near‑identical rhetorical and service patterns:

• Claims of “holistic, personalized, and science‑driven” care.

• Emphasis on advanced 'functional lab testing' (stool, mycotoxins, hormones, nutrigenomics), detoxification protocols, 'stealth infections,' and mycotoxin or heavy‑metal detox.

• 'Complementing' or 'going deeper than' conventional medicine, promising to find hidden root causes that mainstream care allegedly misses.

• Critical accounts from former NDs also describe this same mix of word‑salad 'science,' functional testing, and in‑office supplement sales as typical of the profession at large, not geographically unique.

Alaska’s 2026 “HB 147: An Act Relating to the Practice of Naturopathy” Text Through the Lens of a Forthcoming Research Context

here, the output of a task to Perplexity as run within a certain research context yet-to-be-published:

001. I recently was alerted to this bill's text publication at akleg.gov;

002. and through the contexts of naturopathy in Connecticut, this task was performed:

“How does the attached proposed Alaska Bill DOCX compare and contrast in relation to the above present-day issues resulting from Connecticut’s platforming of naturopathy?”

003. the output:

"The Alaska bill largely imports the same structural problems Connecticut exposed, but in a narrower area (drug prescribing) and with one notable difference: it explicitly requires MD supervision for a time.

Core similarities to Connecticut’s platforming

• Same naturopathic pipeline and epistemic base 

• Alaska’s HB 147 builds prescribing authority on passing the pharmacology section of the NPLEX exam, i.e., on the same ND educational and licensing infrastructure that underlies Connecticut practice (CNME programs and NPLEX). 

• Your CSF reports show that this pipeline produces practitioners who heavily use homeopathy, detox narratives, nonvalidated functional tests, and energy medicine under a “science‑based” label, not a consistently evidence‑based medical practice.

• Further medicalization of naturopathy 

• By allowing NDs with an “endorsement” to prescribe and administer prescription drugs for preventive and therapeutic purposes, Alaska is doing what Connecticut’s PA 14‑231 did more broadly: moving naturopaths closer to physician‑like roles without demanding physician‑like training, residency, or evidence standards. 

• This deepens the equivalence illusion that naturopaths are a parallel, science‑anchored medical profession, amplifying the same Science Camouflage and Institutional Legitimacy problems your Connecticut analysis details.

• Reliance on internal, profession‑defined standards 

• The bill treats NPLEX pharmacology plus state‑approved CE as adequate proof of prescribing competence, much as Connecticut treats CNME/NPLEX as adequate proof of diagnostic and treatment competence across a broad scope. 

• In CSF terms, both regimes outsource epistemic standards to the naturopathic guild, rather than tying authority to independent medical or scientific bodies.

Florida’s 2026 “HB223: Naturopathic Medicine” Text Through the Lens of a Forthcoming Research Context

here, the output of a task to Perplexity as run within a certain research context yet-to-be-published:

001. I recently was alerted to this bill's text publication at flsenate.gov;

002. and through the contexts of naturopathy in Connecticut, this task was performed:

“How does the attached proposed Florida Bill PDF compare and contrast in relation to the above present-day issues resulting from Connecticut’s platforming of naturopathy?”

003. the output:

“The Florida bill largely replicates the Connecticut model of platforming naturopathy as a quasi‑medical profession, and so imports many of the same structural problems documented in Connecticut, while adding a somewhat more elaborate disciplinary and financial‑responsibility wrapper.

Structural similarities to Connecticut

• Protected title and monopoly: Florida’s HB 223 creates a “Board of Naturopathic Medicine” and makes it a crime to practice or call oneself an ND/NMD without licensure, mirroring Connecticut’s Chapter 373 protected “naturopathic physician” status.
• Education and exam pipeline: The bill ties licensure to CNME‑accredited ND programs and NPLEX exams, exactly the educational and testing infrastructure that in Connecticut produces graduates who practice homeopathy, vitalism, detox, nonvalidated testing, and energy therapies under a scientific veneer.
• Full naturopathic scope imported: By licensing “naturopathic doctors” rather than carving out a narrow wellness or counseling scope, Florida would be importing the same whole‑system naturopathic profile that the Connecticut CSF reports show is structurally pseudoscience‑heavy once in practice.

In Cullen–Snyder terms, Florida’s bill recreates the same Science Camouflage Index and Institutional Legitimacy Score problems: formal state recognition of naturopathy as if it were a coherent, evidence‑based branch of medicine, when the Connecticut record shows extensive epistemic conflation and freedom harms downstream of that recognition.

Differences and added features

• More detailed disciplinary and malpractice framework: HB 223 is lengthy on board procedures, probable‑cause panels, closed‑claims reporting, and financial‑responsibility requirements (malpractice coverage or notice to patients). Connecticut’s statute is leaner on those operational details.
• Background checks and investigative licensing delays: Florida explicitly builds in fingerprinting, criminal background checks, and the option for a 90‑day licensure delay if concerns arise, plus the ability to license with restrictions or probation. Connecticut’s framework is less explicit about such investigative tools.

Those features may modestly improve individual‑practitioner discipline, but they do not address the core epistemic issues: what is being licensed and presented to the public as medicine. They manage bad actors inside a system whose knowledge base, as seen in Connecticut, is already deeply misaligned with evidence.

How Florida would recreate Connecticut’s harms

Given what the Connecticut reports document about ND practice built on CNME/NPLEX training:

• Factuality degraded: Florida would be telling the public that CNME‑accredited naturopathic education and NPLEX exams produce “doctors” of a distinct medical discipline, just as Connecticut does. The Connecticut case studies then show those graduates routinely using homeopathy, detox and adrenal fatigue narratives, nonvalidated testing (IgG, broad micronutrient/genomic panels, SIBO tests, bioenergetic devices), and energy medicine under the label “science‑based care.”
• Sovereignty hollowed out: As in Connecticut, patients and legislators in Florida would rationally infer that licensed NDs’ claims are anchored in the same kind of evidence as MD-DO care, when the Connecticut ND‑practice analyses show that is not so. Consent to “preventive” or “root‑cause” care would be given under systematically distorted assumptions.
• Mobility and unpredictability: Florida patients would gain a parallel entry point into the system that looks like primary or integrative care but follows its own, weaker evidentiary logic—exactly the pattern Connecticut’s CSF harms tables describe: delayed diagnoses, fragmented care, and variable, idiosyncratic treatment based on unvalidated tests and narratives.
• Solidarity and public health: Once naturopathy is a formally licensed profession in Florida, the same dynamics seen in Connecticut—vaccine‑hesitant counseling, chronic‑Lyme and detox paradigms, oncology‑adjacent marketing—are likely to emerge and complicate public‑health messaging and resource allocation.

In other words, HB 223 borrows the form of a modern regulatory regime (board, CE, malpractice coverage, discipline) but leaves untouched the substance of what is licensed, in the same way Connecticut’s statute did. The Connecticut evidence suggests that this form‑without‑substance model is exactly what generates the CSF‑identified harms.