I am as non-accepting of medical quackery and unscientific approaches as anybody else. I've grown up as a card-carrying scientist, and I know the power of science to answer questions, and for many questions I don't know of anything better than scientific approaches to answer them.

In this quote, Dean Ornish expresses a strong stance against medical quackery and unscientific approaches to healthcare. He positions himself as someone who deeply values the scientific method, emphasizing that he is "as non-accepting" of unreliable or unproven medical practices as anyone. Ornish’s background as a card-carrying scientist underscores his commitment to evidence-based medicine and his belief in the power of science to provide answers to complex questions, especially in the realm of health.

Ornish’s statement reflects his trust in the scientific method as the most reliable means of solving medical problems. By identifying himself as a scientist, he highlights the rigor and systematic inquiry that science entails. For Ornish, scientific approaches are the gold standard when it comes to understanding the human body and determining the most effective treatments. He emphasizes that in his experience, nothing provides clearer, more reliable answers than science itself.

The quote also draws attention to the importance of skepticism when it comes to healthcare and treatment options. Ornish is adamant that unproven, alternative therapies, which often lack scientific validation, should not be used in place of treatments grounded in sound research. His refusal to accept anything outside of science-backed methods reflects a broader concern for the potential harm that can arise from adopting treatments that lack evidence of efficacy.

Ultimately, Dean Ornish’s statement serves as a reinforcement of his deep belief in the role of science in solving medical challenges. By grounding healthcare in scientific principles, Ornish advocates for a more reliable, ethical, and effective approach to health—one that prioritizes evidence and critical thinking over anecdotal or pseudoscientific claims.