T

he American perception of the issues of health

and nutrition is, to say the least, filled with
contradictions. Doctors who attempt t o treat
illness withnutrients instead of drugs are villified by
their peers, nutritional "experts", now sprouting from
every organic hole, deliver an abundance of gibberish
unmatched except by guests on the Phil Donahue Show.
The neighborhood pharmacist calls Linus Pauling a
"quack", while the health food store "nutritionist" hails
him as a savior.
The other day we were treated to an article in the San
Francisco Chronicle discussing a recent report of the
National Academy of Sciences entitled, "Diet, Nutrition
and Cancer. " This report, modest as it was, suggested
that we would be likely to reduce our chances of falling
victim to cancer if we cultivated certain dietary habits
and spurned others . The report also noted that foods
high in vitamin C and vitamin A precursor beta-carotene,
could possibly block the formation of certain cancers.
That's all good and well, but the report goes on to criticize
the use of vitamin supplements because of the alleged
risk of side-affects and lack of effectiveness. On the one
hand we should be thankful that the Academy has /
entered the modern era of prevention. On the other, it is .
the height of orthodoxy and ostritchheadedness to J
anticipate that people will not take more vigorous steps "
to protect themselves. Cancer has ri ghtly been described
as ep1aemic. It demonstrates the academic insulation of
the report's authors that they expect us to sit still until
they give us t he official go-aheaa-to-save ourselves from
that fate. It is likely that this group would not even now
be making meager recommendations for consumption of
high vitamin foods had the trail not first been blazed by
such professional pariahs as Pauling. A man who has
been la be led" senile" by his conservative fellow sci en tis ts,
but who is the pied piper for an entire generation of
ascorbic acid devotees.
At the other extreme from the academicians, we have
Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, whose new book, Life
Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach, is selling like hotcakes.
Where the Academy is afraid to nudge us to protect
ourselves by taking supplements, Pearson and Shaw are
perfectly prepared to let us make our own choices on the
basis of the data available. They point out that there are
instances where "proof" is thin, but they are realistic in
assessing the risks of supplementation as tiny compared to
the prospects of degenerative disease. People have and will
be prepared to search out whatever tools for survival are
needed. For academics to ignore that reduces the sum of
their work to tautology.
Life Extension is a microcosm of the most prominent
elements of the nutrition debate. It is bursting with
tremendously exciting information on methods for
reducing and curing diseases, which the authors demon-
strate are available now! Arthritis, cancer, heart disease,
allergies: there are cheap and safe remedies on the shelf of
health food and drug stores today that can make them
obsolete. And these same remedies, it would appear, are
effective at improving our chances of extending our lives for
literally decades. Pearson and Shaw argue that we are
foolish to adopt the temerity of the National Academy of
Sciences when each day which passes without official word
of" cures" is another day lost in our search for immortality.
But there are flaws in the process. Pearson and Shaw are
rapturous in their commitment to pharmacologic invinei-
bility. Little skepticism is in evidence toward the "facts"
made available by drug companies. Not enough mention is
made of the side-effects of drugs recorp.mended in Life
Extension, or of their controversial nature.
The drug Deaner is recommended for a variety of
purposes, despite the fact that the American Medical Association
Drug Evaluations says Deaner is "lacking in substantial
evidence of effectiveness." is ordinarily prescribed
. for "hyperkinesis", a trashcan diagnosis for "probleme'1Tds.
The use of this type of drug is highly controversial and,
despite the claim by Pearson and Shaw to the Drug
Evaluations says Deaner "has not been demon.strated
conclusively" to be effective with behavior problems.
I mention this to give you fair warning that you proceed at
your own guard. I must balance this, however, by
mentioning that I have enjoyed the book immensely, I think
it profound and hopeful, and I am undertaking to use many
of the authors' recommendations. Despite my reservations,
I would highly encourage you to give it a look, be your own
expert, and take a chance on a better life.