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.

Overall 

The Connecticut documents you used accurately reflect the mainstream naturopathic brand in Connecticut.

When set beside naturopathic web pages from other states, they match in structure, claims, and epistemic problems: the same blending of real medicine with pseudoscience under a shared “science‑driven, functional, integrative” story."

001.c. rating metrics:

"[...] Three metrics strike me, at the end of all this, from the task to Perplexity:

For this Connecticut naturopathy context, create three different quantification rating scales. On a scale of 0 through 10 [with ten being worst], separately quantify a) the scientific and factual integrity of naturopathy, b) the ethical integrity of naturopathy, c) the governance integrity of the State of Connecticut.

The answer:

• a) scientific and factual integrity of naturopathy in Connecticut: rating 9/10 (very poor integrity) 

• b) ethical integrity of naturopathy in Connecticut: rating 8.5/10 (systemically compromised) 

• c) governance integrity of the State of Connecticut (in this domain): rating 8.5/10 (substantially degraded in this area).

We can do so much better."

001.d. money-money-money-money: 

"By the way, ChatGPT’s patient expenditure range for 'unvalidated specialty testing' within this Connecticut ND context for the year 2025 for all state NDs using a typical integrative practice model, is $75 million to $120 million dollars.

Similarly, when Perplexity is tasked:

Can an estimate be produced for the national / U.S. expenditure for 'unvalidated tests and supplements' through all ND practices for the year 2025?”, the conservative answer, including a caveat, generated is:

Roughly USD 0.5–1 billion in 2025 was likely spent in the U.S. on unvalidated tests and supplement regimens specifically driven by naturopathic (ND) practices.

Because there is no centralized ND specific spending dataset, this estimate should be treated as a plausible range, not a precise figure, but it captures the scale: hundreds of millions of dollars per year, not mere millions, flowing into ND linked tests and products that lack solid evidentiary support."

001.e. biting truthfulness: 

"[...] I’ll update the cover letter’s satirical description of Connecticut and naturopathy in light of this 2026 exploration, analysis, and evaluation of these naturopathic practices in Connecticut:

The effectiveness of public health policies, practices, and actions depends upon public trust — luckily, in Connecticut, such trust can be manufactured wholesale by issuing licenses to anything that wears a science-costume convincingly enough.

Why bother with the slow, tedious work of evidence when you can simply pass a law declaring naturopathy 'the science, art and practice of healing by natural methods' and let the naturopathic schools decide what 'science' means this week.

Public health here gains public trust not through evidence but through elaborate rituals of 'science camouflage,' where homeopathy, vitalism, and energetic manipulation are paraded as the equals of immunology or biochemistry so long as they are dressed up in enough medical terminology and rubber-stamped by a Board of Deference.

In this arrangement, homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, neurocranial restructuring, adrenal fatigue, detox footbaths, bioenergetic gadgets, and IgG food panels do not compete with immunology or oncology — they masquerade as them.

When evidence is lacking — no bother! — Connecticut simply legislates the evidence out of relevance and permits pseudoscientific practitioners to present themselves as peers to MDs, institutionalizing both title and therapeutic ambiguity for maximum consumer confusion.

If the evidence ever dares reveal that the sacred 'healing power of nature' is in fact a tired metaphysical relic, fear not: regulatory authorities will do their utmost to blend it seamlessly into the language of 'primary care' until nobody can tell a placebo from a public health policy.

For practices discovered to be faulty or fraudulent, Connecticut's solution is bold: issue a broader license, build a state board out of practitioners of those very same methods

• then shield the result with statutory language so that neither patient nor taxpayer ever need worry about pesky concepts like scientific validity, factual integrity, and ethical clarity again;

• then, with a straight face, call this ‘consumer protection’ and let the Attorney General nap peacefully under a blanket woven from CUTPA and good intentions.

Thus, public trust is preserved — the first casualty of which is trustworthiness itself."