1010 WINS On Naturopathy - Science-Illiterate Journalism:

here we have the very false claim that 'the naturopathic is firmly scientific:'

01. Walter Geis reports for 1010 WINS {2008-08-11}, in "Naturopathic Cancer Care: Not as Crazy as it Sounds":

"naturopathic doctors [...] treat the body naturally and let it use its own healing powers [{this is a code}...] the science has been around since the late 1800s."

Note: we have, clearly stated, naturopathy's coded treatment context of 'the body's own healing powers,' and the claim that 'the naturopathic' is well-established "science."

02. we are referred to Dr. Prego's website, where he explains:

02.a. in "Long Island Naturopathic":

"I work with the philosophy of the healing power of nature [HPN, or as the article states, 'healing powers']."

Note: naturopathy 's overall treatment context is HPN. This is naturopathy's essential premise.

03. some analysis:

03.a. what is the HPN premise, specifically, to naturopathy?

HPN, or as the article states, 'the body's own healing powers,' is, specifically, naturopathy's defining belief in a 'purposeful life spirit' bioagency figmentation.

Note: this figment / article of faith is most-often coded {a form of abuse} -- Prego and WINS are good examples of this -- but, the public should know the truth, so as not to be snookered, and instead be able to make decisions which are well-informed.

03.b what is the scientific status of such vitalism-supernaturalism?

vitalism has been patently science-ejected for at least several decades, while supernaturalisms have not been scientifically supportable for a few hundred years. Naturopathy's 'bait and switch' is about falsely labeling science-ejected and science-unsupported beliefs scientific, and also to label what is supernatural in status as natural. To state, regarding the essentially naturopathic view [which is a vitalism-supernaturalism obligated belief system], that "the science has been around since the late 1800s," is SIMPLY ridiculous -- it is an example of profound science-illiteracy.

what to take away from this:

this article's claim that science supports what is essentially naturopathic -- that science supports naturopathy's vitalistic and supernatural figmentous context -- is PATENTLY FALSE. What kind of journalism is this? Journalism that hasn't checked its facts; journalism that is science-illiterate. When sectarian imaginary conceptions such as naturopathy's 'vitalistic-teleological-supernatural nonscientific principles' are labeled firmly scientific, and then the word "cancer" is stated...that is QUITE CRAZY.