studies that have some less direct bearing on the question that we are discussing, and
many of these studies will be genuine experiments which do permit cause effect
conclusions. I am thinking in particular of experiments that may demonstrate that
ingredients found either in grapes or in wine have a certain physiological effect. With
respect to such other studies, I make the following observations: (1) Your chief
conclusion was based not on such experiments, but on one or more correlational studies.
(2) An experiment in which subjects ingest an ingredient of grapes or of wine may
witness a certain effect, even while actually eating grapes or drinking wine produce a
different or an opposite effect. This could happen because in whole grapes or in real
wine, the ingredient with the beneficial effect could be offset by some other ingredient
which has a harmful effect, as by pesticides or nitrates that might be found in wine, or by the alcohol itself in wine. Unless an experiment actually has subjects drinking
wine, no conclusions concerning drinking wine are possible. (3) An experiment
demonstrating a physiological effect of something ingested is likely to be of short
duration, and is not likely to measure the effect on longevity. However, demonstrating
a physiological effect that appears to be beneficial (say a heightened level of HDL, as
mentioned by Kim Marcus above) is not the same as demonstrating increased longevity,
since the relation between the observed effect and longevity is speculative.
In short, the only research that can prove that prolonged drinking of three to five
glasses of wine per day can extend life is the non-feasible experiment that we have
already discussed above in which subjects are required to drink different amounts of
wine over an extended period of time, and the effects on longevity noted.
The Harm That You May Have Done.
What the above reasoning leads us to, then, is that you were without justification for
promoting the conclusion that you did - that drinking three to five glasses of wine each
day extends life. Quite possibly, your conclusion had the effect of increasing the
consumption of alcoholic beverages, particularly wine, and possibly, the effects of this
increased consumption have been uniformly bad.
These may be among the damaging effects of your advice. The level of alcohol
consumption that you advocate slows reaction times and interferes with coordination and
impairs judgment, and therefore invites accidents. Certainly no airline pilot would be
permitted to consume a fraction of your recommended daily intake and still be allowed to
fly, and certainly every driver should recognize that he is putting himself at risk
drinking as much as you advocate. We recognize the damage that your advice may have
inflicted when we take into account that except for infants and the aging, accidents are
the leading cause of death.
The level of alcohol consumption that you advocate interferes with, or makes quite
impossible, difficult mental work. Thus, a university student who follows your advice
and has a couple of glasses of wine with his dinner is finished for the day - he might
as well head out to a pub after that, because he will find his calculus homework quite
incomprehensible. A chemistry professor who follows your advice and has a couple of
glasses of wine with his lunch will find himself making mistakes as he tries to lay out
the electron configuration of aluminum for his class - he had better find some simpler
topic to treat in that lecture if he doesn't want to embarrass himself in front of his
students. A lawyer arguing a complex case who follows your advice and has a couple of
glasses of wine with his lunch will find himself losing the thread of his argument in
court - he had better let his junior take over that afternoon if he wants to maintain
his reputation.
The level of alcohol consumption that you advocate may damage health. The level of
alcohol consumption that you advocate possibly saps energy and depletes motivation,