Friend, Breaking up sentences in simple form has its own advantages but when the "thought- process" runs into a seamless communication of "punch" ideas, use of conjunctions is inevitable. You don't simply kill the thought, just to conform to orthodox rules of grammar. You mentioned 3 "ands" but actually the first and the last serve the purpose of combining (a) two nouns and (b)two results that follow in logical order. Nothing wrong with the author's writing style. The second "and" could not have been sacrificed in preference to simple composition because the main and subordinate clause are aptly in place. You have needlessly railed against a distinguished writer, just to raise a point. More important than strict observance of grammar is what I would term a " train of free flow of ideas".
