Curious What the Logical Fallacy is

.  The human mind and body, when confronted with malignancy, reacts with a complex set of physiological and psychological change that cannot be adequately addressed in isolation.   As such, only whole person, multi-interventional synergistic approaches to scientific exploration will lead the way to 21st century personalized, integrative oncology care.

– Glen Sabin, explaining the alternative medical treatment called "integrative oncology."

What is the logical fallacy?

The statement by Glen Sabin regarding "integrative oncology" contains several potential logical fallacies and reasoning issues:

1. **Begging the Question**: The argument assumes that "only whole person, multi-interventional synergistic approaches" will lead to effective oncology care without providing evidence to support why this is the case. It presumes the effectiveness of such approaches without demonstrating their superiority or efficacy compared to traditional methods.

2. **False Dilemma**: The statement implies a false dichotomy by suggesting that the only option for effective cancer treatment is a whole-person, multi-interventional approach, potentially dismissing other legitimate and evidence-based treatments that might be effective in isolation or without the need for a so-called "synergistic" approach.

3. **Appeal to Novelty**: Phrases like "21st century personalized, integrative oncology care" appeal to the idea that newer approaches, because they are contemporary or innovative, are inherently better, which is not necessarily true without supporting evidence.

4. **Ambiguity**: The use of vague and complex terminology such as "whole person," "multi-interventional," and "synergistic" lacks clear, definable meaning and may be used to obscure a lack of empirical support. This can lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the actual claims.

5. **Hasty Generalization**: The claim suggests a broad conclusion about the effectiveness of integrative oncology without providing sufficient evidence or drawing from a representative sample of data or studies. Such a conclusion would require substantial empirical support across diverse cases.

In summary, the statement presents a series of logical fallacies and reasoning issues that undermine the validity of its conclusion about the necessity and effectiveness of integrative oncology.