here, messing around with logo versions through ChatGPT and my musings:
001. from this 'original' c2025:
002. to these this 2026-04:002.a. Viking b&w:
002.b. Viking color:(a freethinking naturopathy apostate's bare-knuckle guerrilla-skeptical musings-overwatch upon the false, erroneous, and misleading {HEA section 487(c)(3) 34 CFR Subpart F, 668.71–668.74, I defer} institutionalized methodological con-fabulation and Title IV-funded science fraud {31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, I defer} known as naturopathy / naturopathic medicine / natural medicine -- aka 'the naturopathillogical')
here, messing around with logo versions through ChatGPT and my musings:
001. from this 'original' c2025:
002. to these this 2026-04:002.a. Viking b&w:
002.b. Viking color:here, with aid from AI-LLM -land [Perplexity], a compare and contrast / relational analysis between the Episode 009 script from 2015 and the 2026 Final Report:
001. sources:
episode script (Part 1, Part 2a, Part 2b);
2026 Final Report.
002. tasking:
002.a. the interrogative and specifications where:
"How does the podcast episode script PDF that's attached from 2015 covering Connecticut naturopathy relate to the attached Final Report PDF on Connecticut naturopathy from 2026? Include reflection on the naturopathy law that was passed in Connecticut in 2016."
002.b. answer:
"1. Overview: What Each Document Is Doing
They are separated by a decade, but they are about the same underlying problem: Connecticut’s legal and institutional enabling of pseudoscientific naturopathic practice under a “physician / science” veneer. The 2015 script is the qualitative, narrative, ground-level critique; the 2026 report is the formalized, framework-driven synthesis that treats those same issues as systematic, state‑created harms.
2. Core Critiques Shared by Both Documents
here, 'we can't help, in terms of our activities: accidentally rhyming with or building upon the past to create / instigate an extension / experiment / idiosyncrasy'!
002. I ran a 'resemblance analysis' task for the CSF v1.1 through ChatGPT out of curiosity. The results, which kind of surprise me [in the uncommon sense: because I created the tool since I needed the tool {improvisation / invention!} and one therein {me!} may think 'of course this need isn't fringe' {but it is!}; in the common / resemblance sense: because it is interesting to see parallel / shared needs in other contexts]:
002.a. the task: "Does the attached framework resemble anything from the past?"
002.b. the answer [my comments are in right aligned bold]:
"Yes. Structurally and conceptually, your framework clearly echoes several prior traditions. It is not derivative in a simple sense, but it does sit at the intersection of recognizable analytical lineages. The resemblance is strongest at the level of method architecture rather than content. Here are the closest analogues, mapped precisely:
Master List of 2026 Reports: