Naturopathy versus Public Perceptions of Medicine, NSB 2014

here, I cite from recently released National Science Board measures [see 001., below]; and then I remind the world what is at the heart of naturopathy, greatly in contrast to what peoples' expectations are regarding medicine [see 002., below]:

001. the National Science Board's "Science and Engineering Indicators 2014", in "Chapter 7
Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding" reveals:

in the 2012 University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center, General Social Survey, fields were rated based upon perceptions of "degree to which scientific."  Medicine, actually, was at the top for those surveyed for being "very scientific" and "pretty scientific", at respectively, 80% and 14%.  So, hugely, 94% of people asked perceived medicine to be scientific.

002. now, at the heart of naturopathy is the SCIENCE-EJECTED, which is hugely at-odds with public perceptions of what medicine is, obviously:

002.a. there's the State of Oregon telling us that naturopathy is based upon the vitalistic and supernatural and are falsely labeling such contents as able to survive scientific scrutiny;

Note: so, perhaps, why naturopathy doesn't usually tell the public truthfully about its science-ejected stuff becomes obvious:

it would put them off, hugely.  So, instead, naturopathy lies about the science-status of its core while hiding its core.