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).

In both, the central theoretical move is to reframe illness as an expression of disordered “vital force” and toxic overload, with symptoms interpreted as purposeful eliminative or compensatory acts, and with health conceived as a holistic equilibrium between multiple “systems” rather than as discrete pathophysiology.

Science claims and relation to evidence

• WNFM positions naturopathy as increasingly evidence‑based: it enumerates RCTs and other studies on acupuncture, yoga, and other modalities; it stresses thousands of hours of training, WHO bench­marks, and international surveys of naturopathic education. However, many core constructs (vital force, humors, emunctories as a systematized detox architecture, Hering's Law of Cure) are presented as historically and philosophically grounded, not as hypotheses subject to falsification.
• In WNFM, “modern science” is said to “explain” traditional theories (e.g., Emunctorology as a synthesis of classical emunctory theory with genetics, systems biology, and detox literature) but without clearly separating metaphor from mechanism.
• The CT document repeatedly asserts that naturopathy is scientific, modern, and research‑based while simultaneously relying on pre‑scientific constructs and unvalidated diagnostics. Examples:
• “Body's inherent self‑healing capacity” plus “healing power of nature” as primary causal agents; conventional medication is framed largely as suppressive of those processes.
• Claims of “so much science” behind botanical medicine and food‑as‑medicine used to justify a broad therapeutic remit, from pediatric chronic illness to autoimmune disease, Lyme, endocrine disorders, neuropsychiatric problems, and “never well since” patterns.
• Strong rhetoric that conventional medicine “does not recognize” natural healing and that many naturopathic methods were abandoned not because they failed but because of pharmaceutical marketing.

In both texts, science functions rhetorically: positive trials are used as confirmatory support for longstanding doctrines, while the doctrines themselves are insulated from serious empirical risk by being cast as holistic “paradigms” rather than testable models.

Supernaturalism and quasi‑spiritual framing

• WNFM generally stays in professional and quasi‑secular language: “vital force” and “vis medicatrix naturae” are treated as philosophical principles with historical pedigree, not explicitly spiritual entities, though they clearly draw on vitalist metaphysics.
• The CT material is more openly spiritual/energetic:
• Frequent references to “vital force,” “innate wisdom,” “body’s wisdom,” “awaken the wisdom within,” “source,” “energetic healing,” “frequency therapy,” and “Healy” devices “balancing the body’s energetic field” with individualized frequencies [Stamford ND clinic].
• Integration of Ayurveda, yoga, flower essences, “low dose immunotherapy” framed in terms of “tolerance” and “energy,” and “complex homeopathy” described as addressing subtle nervous‑system and miasmatic disturbances.
• Appeals to nature as morally and metaphysically authoritative (“nature cure,” “nature and time,” “natural state of your body and mind is health and vitality”).

Neither document invokes explicit deities or religious systems, but both operationalize vitalism as a functional supernaturalism: an immaterial organizing principle that directs healing and is not reducible to known physiology. The CT material makes this more explicit via talk of energy fields and frequency devices; WNFM keeps it implicit in its philosophical sections.

Diagnostics

• WNFM's diagnostic picture is broad but abstract: naturopathic assessment includes evaluation of emunctory function, humoral imbalance (qualities hot/cold, dry/wet applied to patients, foods, herbs), vital force, “triad of health” (mind–body–spirit), complex systems interactions, and conventional laboratory testing.
• WNFM accepts lab tests, imaging, and physical examination but insists that core naturopathic diagnosis fundamentally involves pattern recognition in a humoral/energetic and systems sense (e.g., “eucrasia vs dyscrasia,” emunctory overload, toxaemia stages)
• CT materials concretize this with a long list of specific diagnostic practices:
• Conventional and “functional” labs, “nutritional genomics,” and “epigenetics” explicitly tied to individualized diet/supplement plans.
• Whole‑body thermography as a “screening” of organ and detox function via autonomic responses to cooling, proposed to detect lymphatic or dental foci, early cancer risk, gut dysbiosis, and “detoxification ability.”
• Extensive emphasis on gut as central diagnostic anchor: “you are only as healthy as what you eat, absorb, metabolize, and excrete,” with gut status causally linked to allergies, autoimmune disease, headaches, high cholesterol, etc.
• Diagnosis of Lyme and co‑infections via alternative testing (Vibrant, IGeneX, others) plus clinical judgement, with explicit rejection of mainstream serology’s sensitivity and strong reliance on broad symptom clusters and “never well since” narratives.

Relative to WNFM, the CT document is more aggressive diagnostically, using a mix of conventional tests, special send‑out panels, and energetically framed diagnostics (thermography, “complex homeopathy” assessment logic) to justify very broad disease coverage.

Therapeutics

Shared naturopathic framework

Both documents share the Therapeutic Order hierarchy, though WNFM states it systematically and CT sources quote or adapt it:

• Remove “obstacles to cure” (diet, sleep, stress, “spiritual disharmony,” toxins).
• Stimulate the vis (nutrition, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, acupuncture, other “gentle modalities”).
• Strengthen weakened systems (herbs, nutraceuticals, homeopathy, etc.).
• Correct structural integrity (manipulation, posture, exercise, bodywork).
• Use “natural substances” to address pathology.
• Use pharmaceuticals when “needed,” often by referral, framed as more forceful and potentially suppressive.
• Use invasive treatments (surgery, chemo, radiation) as last resort, with naturopathic support.

WNFM emphasis

• Heavy emphasis on classical naturopathic tools: dietary and lifestyle counseling; hydrotherapy; “emunctory” stimulation (sweating, cupping, lymphatic drainage), herbs, homeopathy, manual therapy, acupuncture, yoga, and a suite of other traditional practices.
• Emunctorology as a codified discipline: systematic treatment of lungs, kidneys, bowels, skin, reproductive organs, voice, and “secondary emunctories” to enhance toxin elimination.
• Substantial space devoted to acupuncture and yoga research, with detailed tables of RCTs and case series for pain, dysmenorrhea, cancer‑related fatigue, metabolic disease, mood disorders, etc., presenting these therapies as scientifically validated components of naturopathic care.

CT ND emphasis

• Very wide therapeutic ambit, often more eclectic and personalized:
• Food‑as‑medicine and “nutritional genomics” to build individually tailored diets, sometimes with blood‑type/Genotype Diet code borrowed from D’Adamo–style frameworks.
• Botanical medicine cast as central to virtually all conditions; heavy marketing emphasis on in‑house apothecaries and “highest‑quality clinical supplements.”
• Homeopathy and “complex homeopathy” (drainage, miasms) as key tools for chronic, “complex” illness.
• Low Dose Immunotherapy (LDI) framed as safe, clinical‑experience‑based immune‑tolerance therapy for allergies, Lyme, autoimmunity and “post‑infectious” syndromes, explicitly noted as not FDA‑regulated and lacking RCTs but claimed to have decades of positive clinical observation.
• Healy frequency devices and “frequency therapy” to “restore cells” and “activate self healing” via microcurrents and energy field balancing.
• Therapeutic ambitions are correspondingly expansive: CT NDs claim to treat or co‑manage a very long list of conditions (autoimmune diseases, MS, Parkinson’s, psychiatric conditions, Lyme, chronic Lyme, PANS/PANDAS‑like pictures, endocrine disorders, pediatric chronic illness, etc.).

Compared to WNFM’s more profession‑level tone, the CT document’s therapeutic claims are more maximalist, often implying that naturopathy can address nearly any chronic disease if the right mix of detox, gut repair, energetic work, and individualized plan is applied.

Depictions of conventional/standard medicine

• WNFM is relatively diplomatic but still frames naturopathy as filling gaps left by standard care: it emphasizes prevention, person‑centred care, multi‑system thinking, and non‑pharmacologic strategies for chronic disease where biomedicine is portrayed as reductionist and over‑focused on acute/biomedical endpoints.
• CT authors are much more explicit in opposing narratives:
• MDs are said to mostly suppress symptoms with drugs and surgery, not recognize or respect the body’s innate healing, spend little time on diet or lifestyle, and regard patients as healthy if lab tests are normal.
• Naturopathic medicine is described as treating “incurable” conditions and achieving results where conventional medicine has “nothing to offer” beyond symptom control, especially in chronic, multi‑system disorders.
• For Lyme, mainstream doctors are portrayed as under‑diagnosing, misinterpreting tests, and mislabeling patients as psychosomatic or depressed, while naturopaths and “Lyme‑literate” clinicians are represented as more knowledgeable and successful.
• Conventional “preventive” care (vaccination, screening) is contrasted with naturopathic prevention defined as building vital force and removing toxic/lifestyle obstacles.

Overall, WNFM seeks coexistence and formal recognition (licensure, WHO T&CM positioning) while arguing for philosophical distinctiveness. The CT materials tend more toward boundary work: conventional medicine is often portrayed as incomplete, suppressive, or misguided, and naturopathy as the path to “true” causative and holistic healing.

Depictions of naturopath / ND expertise

• WNFM emphasizes:
• Size and global reach of the workforce, educational hours (2,500–4,000+), existence of doctorate‑level programs, regulatory regimes, and alignment with WHO benchmarks.
• NDs as primary care practitioners in some jurisdictions, with competencies in diagnosis, labs, and person‑centred chronic disease management.
• NDs as producers of research, particularly in acupuncture, yoga, integrative physiology, and naturopathic therapeutics.
• The CT document focuses on:
• Individual biographies: multiple degrees, years of herbal practice, MBAs, marketing backgrounds, teaching roles, personal healing journeys (e.g., chronic Lyme experiences).
• Claims that NDs have “the most training in the medical field” on food as medicine, botanicals, lifestyle, and functional testing, plus a stronger commitment to patient education (“doctor as teacher”) and long, holistic visits.
• Assertions that NDs are general practitioners who treat acute and chronic disease, but in a way that honors “root causes,” “owner­ship of your body,” and “empowerment.”

Both sets of documents portray NDs as epistemically privileged in the domain of natural/holistic care: uniquely equipped to integrate modern diagnostics with traditional wisdom, and more attuned than MDs to causation, lifestyle, and patient narrative.

Medievalisms and pre‑modern inheritances

WNFM explicitly thematizes its medieval and pre‑modern roots, whereas the CT document embeds them more implicitly.

• WNFM explicitly rehabilitates ancient and medieval frameworks:
• Empedocles’ four elements and Hippocratic humors; Galen’s humoral medicine; Hildegard of Bingen's humoral herbalism; temperaments and “qualities” (hot/cold, dry/wet) applied to patients, foods, and herbs.
• Humoralism is described as a core, still‑useful theory for diagnosis and treatment, with explicit endorsement of treatments like sweating, purging, urination, and herbal strategies that adjust qualities, while distancing from bloodletting but preserving its logic.
• Historical figures such as Priessnitz, Kuhne, Tilden, and Kneipp are presented as founders of detox and water‑cure traditions that are positioned as still relevant, now reframed via “emunctories” and “emunctology.”
• Fever is valorized as a beneficial, healing engine, in direct continuity with Hippocratic and Sydenham‑style views.
• The CT file adopts the same motifs but in a more seamlessly blended, practice‑oriented way:
• Repeated emphasis on fevers as therapeutic, detoxification as primary, and disease as a manifestation of internal toxicity echoes humoral and “toxaemia” narratives even when not named as such.
• Gut‑centric and “terrain” doctrines, “never well since” events, and miasmatic language in complex homeopathy closely parallel pre‑germ theories of internal imbalance and constitutional taint.
• Some practices (whole‑body thermography interpreted through regulation and “drainage” frameworks) function as modernized analogues of medieval doctrines of subtle signs and systemic dyscrasia.

If you zoom out, both documents are participating in a conscious medievalist revival:

ancient/medieval cosmologies (elements, humors, temperaments, vital forces, fevers as purgative) are preserved, selectively modernized with references to systems biology, psychoneuroendocrinology, genetics, and epidemiology, and then positioned as a legitimate alternative paradigm rather than as historical curiosities."

Note: I was interested in the determination of Connecticut, yes Connecticut, NDs as employing humoralism. It turns out it is, without going into point by point detail, gleaned: "humoralism in the Connecticut material is present as an inherited framework — in how disease causation, fever, elimination, and “toxins” are conceptualized and linked — rather than as an overt, named theory with the classical four fluids spelled out."

005. "A side‑by‑side table [...] focusing on how closely each item tracks recognized biomedical models versus pre‑modern or spiritual frameworks":

Category	[2023'a] WNFM PDF (global naturopathy text)	2026‑CT‑NDs PDF (Connecticut NDs)
Core theories	Formal list of “naturopathic theories”: Therapeutic Order, Emunctory Theory, Theory of Complex Systems, Vital Force, Unity of Disease, Theory of Toxaemia, Humoral Theory, Value of Fever, Triad of Health, Naturopathic Cures.	Same ideas reframed as practice slogans: “vital force,” “healing power of nature,” “health is simple, disease is complex,” multi‑step “Naturopathic Cures” and “obstacles to cure,” terrain/gut focus.
Worldview & metaphysics	Presents vitalism (vis medicatrix naturae) as central but couched as professional philosophy; leans on “complex adaptive systems” and systems biology language to modernize holism.	More openly vitalist and spiritual: “body’s wisdom,” “vital force,” “innate self‑healing,” “awaken the wisdom within,” “source,” Ayurveda and energy language integrated into clinical pitch.
Science positioning	Claims theories are “amalgamated, codified, and expanded to incorporate scientific advancements,” cites RCTs and observational studies on acupuncture, yoga, integrative physiology, etc., and highlights WHO benchmarks and hours of training.	Uses “science‑based,” “research institute,” “so much science behind botanicals,” functional genomics, and “evidence‑informed” rhetoric to legitimize a wide therapeutic ambit, but core constructs (vital force, miasms, drainage) remain non‑falsifiable.
Use of biomedical models	Accepts anatomy, physiology, pathology, labs, imaging; integrates them into a broader causal map where systems interactions, emunctories, and vital force are primary explanatory layers.	Emphasizes conventional labs plus “functional” testing, nutritional genomics, advanced Lyme and gut panels, but interprets results through naturopathic frameworks of toxicity, dysbiosis, and constitutional imbalance.
Supernatural / energetic elements	Vital force and vis medicatrix naturae are posited but not elaborated in energetic‑device terms; spirituality is implicit, expressed as “healing power of nature” and holism.	Explicit energy framing: Healy device “balances the body’s energetic field” via microcurrents and individualized frequencies; “frequency therapy,” homeopathy, flower essences and miasmatic notions as key tools.
Diagnostics: general stance	Diagnosis = combination of conventional assessment with evaluation of vital force, emunctory function, humoral qualities, and complex systems interactions; toxaemia and terrain emphasized for chronic disease.	Diagnosis blends conventional/functional tests with energetic and terrain‑focused heuristics: gut status, “detoxification ability,” thermographic regulation, Lyme clinical patterns, and “never well since” events.
Diagnostics: specific methods	Lists lab and diagnostic testing as part of naturopathic medical knowledge; emunctorology explicitly includes assessing primary (lungs, kidneys, bowels, skin, reproductive organs, larynx) and secondary emunctories (nasal discharge, eruptions, etc.).	Details: whole‑body thermography as organ/immune/detox screen; extensive Lyme/co‑infection testing via specialty labs; functional stool, food‑sensitivity, endocrine and micronutrient panels; homeopathic and energetic pattern assessment.
Diagnostics vs biomedicine	Frames its approach as complementary and more complex‑systems oriented than reductionist biomedicine, but avoids direct attacks; stresses person‑centred and multi‑system assessment for chronic disease.	More oppositional: conventional “normal labs” said to miss disease, MDs portrayed as under‑diagnosing Lyme and psychosomatizing patients; naturopathic and “Lyme‑literate” diagnostics presented as more insightful and causally focused.
Therapeutics: hierarchy	Codified Therapeutic Order (7 steps), prioritizing lifestyle, vis stimulation, system support, structural work, then progressively more forceful natural, pharmaceutical, and surgical interventions, with referral when needed.	Uses the same hierarchy conceptually (remove obstacles, support foundations, then stronger measures) but articulated via practice marketing: detox, gut repair, botanicals, energetics, then collaboration with MDs for drugs/surgery when necessary.
Therapeutics: modalities	Emphasis on: nutrition and lifestyle, hydrotherapy, herbal medicine, homeopathy, naturopathic manipulation, acupuncture, yoga, mind–body practices, emunctory‑stimulating therapies (sweating, cupping, lymphatic drainage).	Very broad toolbox: food‑as‑medicine and genomic diets, botanicals, homeopathy and complex homeopathy, LDI, thermography‑guided detox, Ayurvedic lifestyle, hydrotherapy, Healy frequency therapy, and a wide range of supplements.
Therapeutic scope (conditions)	Discusses many conditions via modality‑focused sections (e.g., acupuncture for pain, dysmenorrhea, cancer‑related fatigue) but at profession‑level; less explicit about “treat everything,” more about contribution to global chronic‑disease care.	Explicitly markets treatment of wide arrays of chronic and acute conditions: endocrine disorders, autoimmune disease, brain/mental health, pediatric chronic illness, Lyme and co‑infections, GI, cardiovascular, skin, neurological post‑Lyme, etc.
Therapeutics vs biomedicine	Presents naturopathy as filling gaps in prevention and chronic‑disease management; conventional care acknowledged as dominant for acute and invasive needs, with NDs supporting patients through such treatments.	Repeated contrast: drugs and surgery = symptom suppression and late‑stage intervention; naturopathy = root‑cause work, earlier disease recognition, and safer, more holistic chronic‑care; conventional preventive framing (vaccines, screening) contrasted with vital‑force‑based prevention.
Depictions of conventional medicine	Biomedicine described as reductionist, organ‑focused, and sometimes poorly adapted to complex, chronic, multi‑factorial disease; language is diplomatic, oriented to coexistence and WHO‑style integration.	Conventional MDs depicted as largely unfamiliar with diet, lifestyle, botanicals, and natural evidence; often unaware of research; inclined to declare patients healthy if tests are normal, and to abandon older natural treatments under pharma pressure.
Depictions of ND expertise	NDs framed as a mature global profession: >110,000 practitioners in 108+ countries, 130+ programs, strong philosophical unity, advancing research, and significant contribution to global health per WHO region analyses.	NDs presented as uniquely trained in food as medicine, botanicals, lifestyle, functional testing, and patient education; long clinical intakes and “doctor as teacher” highlighted; individual NDs’ biographies used to underscore depth of training and lived experience.
Professional identity & regulation	Emphasizes licensure/registration in 34 member states, voluntary and co‑reg regimes elsewhere, and alignment with WHO training benchmarks; positions naturopathy as part of Traditional & Complementary Medicine globally.	Emphasizes Connecticut licensure, UB and Bastyr as rigorous four‑year medical programs, board exams; uses this to argue NDs are primary‑care‑level clinicians (within CT’s scope limits) and legitimate partners to MDs.
Historical roots (ancient–19th c.)	Detailed genealogy: Empedocles, Hippocrates, Galen, Hildegard, late‑medieval/early‑modern humoralists; then Kneipp, Kuhne, Hufeland, Priessnitz, Thomson, Schroth, Tilden, Lindlahr framing hydrotherapy, toxemia, and emunctories as core.	History mostly comes in via borrowed passages and modality histories (e.g., acupuncture history, nature‑cure references), used to lend gravitas to current practice and to link modern ND training to long‑standing traditions.
Medievalism: humors & “qualities”	Humoral Theory explicitly endorsed: Eucrasia vs dyscrasia, four elements/four humors, and qualities (hot/cold, dry/wet) used for people, herbs, and diseases; explicit statement that humoral ideas remain clinically useful when reinterpreted.	Humoral reasoning is implicit: emphasis on internal “toxins,” purification, sweat, stool, urine, rashes, and constitutional tendencies; reliance on fever as a healing process and on broad “toxic terrain” rather than discrete pathogens mirrors humoral logic without naming it.
Medievalism: fever & toxaemia	Fever presented as beneficial and essential to healing; “Value of Fever” listed as a distinct naturopathic theory, and “Toxemia” as a unifying explanation for disease via toxin accumulation and impaired emunctory function.	Fevers and “detox reactions” treated as evidence of healing and elimination; repeated emphasis on detox, drainage, “obstacles to cure,” terrain, and “toxic load” as central explanatory constructs, paralleling older toxaemia and purgative traditions.
Medievalism: cosmology & nature	Naturopathy cast as a traditional European system that preserves a view of humans as integrated into natural and cosmic order; systems and humoral talk effectively update medieval cosmology in systems‑biology language.	Positions “nature” and “natural state” as normative; invokes Ayurvedic cycles (circadian, infradian, yearly), community and environment as health determinants, and a moralized nature‑cure ethos that resonates with pre‑modern cosmologies.
Medievalism vs modern science	Conscious synthesis: medieval/early‑modern ideas are explicitly retained and then said to be supported or reframed by complexity science, genetics, systems biology, psychoneuroendocrinology, etc., without clearly prioritizing empirical tests over venerable doctrine.	Blends medieval/vitalist ideas with modern genomics, functional labs, and device technology; scientific language is used to extend and market an older terrain‑detox‑vital‑force paradigm rather than to replace it when conflict arises.

."