The Alaska Landmine recently published an opinion piece titled “Bills giving more power to naturopaths are a prescription for quackery” that conflates modern licensed naturopathic medicine with fringe wellness practices and makes several inaccurate or misleading claims about Naturopathic Doctors (ND), naturopathic medical education, regulation, and clinical practice.

Let’s use the author’s analogy of someone asking about a newly constructed bridge to actually make the analogy more accurate. Imagine you are about to drive your family across the author’s imaginary newly completed bridge. You ask the construction worker whether there was a project manager overseeing the entire build. Someone coordinating the engineering systems, stress loads, environmental conditions, maintenance planning, safety redundancies, and long-term structural integrity. “Oh no,” the worker replies. “The engineers were excellent at fixing visible cracks and isolated problems, but nobody was responsible for evaluating how the whole system functioned together.” 

This analogy better reflects the growing divide in modern healthcare than the author perhaps realizes. Licensed NDs are not “alternative engineers” relying on mystical forces; they are medically educated healthcare professionals trained to evaluate the broader systems influencing human health — prevention, lifestyle, metabolic function, chronic disease drivers, and whole-person care — alongside modern diagnostics and evidence-informed medicine.

The article also makes a point to characterize licensed NDs as “anti-scientific,” suggesting they are equivalent to untrained alternative healers, implying that modernizing licensed NDs scope to include prescribing authority would endanger patients. These assertions ignore the statutory and educational framework governing licensed NDs in regulated jurisdictions across the United States and Canada. 

First, licensed NDs are not unregulated wellness practitioners. In the 26 U.S. jurisdictions that license NDs, it is required they graduate from a four-year, in-residence doctoral program accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) or its equivalent. They complete extensive biomedical and clinical training, and pass national board examinations (NPLEX). NDs complete an average of 4,100 didactic hours, including anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, diagnostics, and supervised clinical training. While naturopathic medical education is distinct from MD/DO education, it is inaccurate to portray it as devoid of medical science or equivalent to “witchcraft,” as the article suggests.

Second, the article attempts to discredit the entire profession by focusing heavily on homeopathy. Regardless of differing opinions about homeopathy, it is misleading to imply that homeopathy defines naturopathic medical practice or that all licensed NDs rely upon it as a primary therapeutic modality. Modern naturopathic practice in licensed states commonly includes evidence-informed nutrition, lifestyle medicine, preventive care, laboratory testing, physical medicine, and in many jurisdictions, pharmaceutical prescribing authority.

Many NDs do not utilize homeopathy at all, while others may incorporate it adjunctively, similar to how some conventional physicians incorporate complementary therapies such as acupuncture, meditation, or integrative medicine approaches. The author could not be more incorrect in asserting there is no evidence behind homeopathy. The American Institute of Homeopathy maintains one of the world’s most comprehensive lists of research studies on homeopathy and related topics. The list contains well over 6,000 research studies. Globally, more Medical Doctors prescribe homeopathy than other licensed providers.

Third, the article falsely frames prescribing authority bills as an attempt to “usurp” medicine from physicians. In reality, scope modernization proposals are regulatory frameworks designed to align statutory authority with existing education, examination, and clinical competencies. Prescriptive authority for licensed NDs in regulated jurisdictions is overseen by state boards and continuing education requirements. Numerous states, had the author bothered to research, allow NDs prescribing authority — many for decades without evidence of systemic public safety crises attributable to naturopathic prescribing. Furthermore, licensed naturopathic physicians are educated and trained to work collaboratively with conventional medicine physicians, often working as a health care team.

The article also suggests that NDs promote “pseudo-religious claims,” “magical energy fields,” and “crystal vibrations” as representative of the profession as a whole. This is a classic guilt-by-association argument. The existence of wellness-oriented services or spiritual programming offered by an individual clinic does not define the legal scope, educational standards, or regulatory structure of an entire licensed healthcare profession. By the same logic, the existence of non-standard practices among some chiropractors, nurses, psychologists, or even medical doctors would invalidate those professions entirely.

The article correctly notes that Alaska statute currently restricts naturopaths from using the term “physician.” However, it inaccurately implies that this terminology dispute somehow proves naturopathic doctors are unqualified or deceptive. Scope-of-practice terminology varies significantly by state statute and political history. In many licensed jurisdictions, NDs are legally recognized as naturopathic physicians under state law. The terminology itself does not determine the legitimacy of education, licensure, or regulation

Importantly, the article entirely omits a central public policy reality: Alaska faces significant healthcare access shortages, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Expanding access to licensed healthcare professionals — including NDs practicing within regulated scopes — does not replace MDs or DOs. It supplements an overstretched healthcare workforce and gives patients additional access points for preventive and primary care services.

Finally, the article relies heavily on inflammatory rhetoric rather than objective policy analysis. Terms such as “quackery,” “snake oil,” “woo woo,” and “witchcraft” may generate clicks, but they do not constitute evidence. Public policy debates regarding scope of practice should be grounded in verifiable facts: accredited education, licensure standards, examination requirements, disciplinary oversight, malpractice data, and patient outcomes — not caricatures or stereotypes.

Reasonable people may debate the appropriate scope of naturopathic medicine. But the assertion that licensed NDs are unscientific frauds masquerading as medical professionals is neither accurate nor constructive.

Linn Wheeling is the director of community engagement at the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. She brings a wealth of experience in strategy development and organizational performance across technology, healthcare, and professional services.