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.

Key difference: formal supervision step, same endpoint

• MD supervision as a transitional check

• Alaska requires a “temporary endorsement” phase where an ND’s prescribing is supervised for about a year by an MD with at least five years’ prescribing experience, who then recommends endorsement, extended supervision, or denial. 

• Connecticut did not build a comparable, statute

• But supervision does not fix the underlying epistemic problem 

• The supervising MD reviews whether the ND can prescribe “safely and in compliance with the law,” not whether the ND’s overall diagnostic framework (functional testing, detox, vitalism, homeopathy) is evidence‑sound. 

• After endorsement, the ND prescribes independently, back inside the same naturopathic epistemic system your Connecticut reports show is structurally pseudoscientific.

So the Alaska bill adds a safety rail around technical prescribing, but leaves the knowledge base and practice model untouched, replicating Connecticut’s deeper problem: state‑sanctioned blending of drugs with pseudoscience under a “doctor” label.

Likely replication of Connecticut‑type harms

Using your Connecticut harms tables as a lens, Alaska’s move to give NDs drug authority is likely to:

• Intensify Sovereignty harms 

• Patients will now be offered prescription drugs plus functional‑medicine tests, detox regimens, and homeopathy by the same clinician, under one scientific‑sounding narrative. This further corrupts informed consent, because the boundary between validated pharmacotherapy and speculative modalities is blurred in a single treatment plan. 

• Increase Unpredictability and clinical risk 

• When ND treatment bundles mix ordinary drugs with unvalidated diagnostics and theories, outcomes become even more provider‑idiosyncratic and less guideline‑anchored, mirroring Connecticut’s pattern of delayed diagnosis, undertreatment, and overuse of nonvalidated tests. 

• Worsen Mobility and exit barriers 

• Once NDs can prescribe, patients are more likely to treat them as full primary‑care alternatives—exactly the diversion effect your Connecticut analysis flags—making it harder to move back into evidence‑based MD/DO care before serious harm occurs. 

• Deepen Solidarity and public‑health harms 

• A naturopathic system already promoting vaccine hesitancy, detox myths, and chronic‑Lyme narratives (as documented in CT) gains the additional authority and persuasive force of drug prescribing, which can further undermine public‑health norms and trust in real medical expertise.

Bottom line contrast

• Connecticut: Already shows what happens when a state fully platforms naturopathy—broad diagnostic/treatment scope, physician‑style titles, and deep institutional integration—under conditions of high science camouflage. 

• Alaska HB 147: Rather than learning from those harms, it moves in the same direction, extending ND authority into pharmacotherapy based on the same naturopathic training and exams, with a modest supervision stage that does not address the core evidentiary deficit.

From the vantage point of your Connecticut CSF work, Alaska’s bill appears less like a cautious correction and more like a partial replay of the Connecticut experiment, with the same structural risks to factuality, sovereignty, and public health, now augmented by prescription‑drug leverage.”