Age-Related Hypertension — Part 5
Age-Related Hypertension — Part 5
Where Do the Two Systems Diverge?
Throughout this series, we have examined age-related hypertension
through two fundamentally different perspectives.
Modern medicine measures:
and works to normalize these through measurable values.
Classical Medicine observes:
- the weakening of foundational regulation
- the loss of balance in upward-moving activity
and attempts to restore that balance.
The difference between these approaches
is not merely methodological.
It begins at a more fundamental level.
What Modern Medicine Asks
Modern medicine asks:
“What is wrong?”
This question divides the body into:
- normal
- abnormal
140 mmHg is abnormal.
130 mmHg is normal.
Treatment, then, is the act of returning the abnormal to normal.
Within this framework,
aging can be understood as a form of dysfunction—
a deviation to be corrected.
This approach is powerful.
It is:
- measurable
- reproducible
- testable through large-scale clinical studies
And it has saved countless lives.
What Classical Medicine Asks
Classical Medicine asks a different question:
“What process is unfolding in this person right now?”
In this framework,
there is no strict boundary between normal and abnormal.
Aging is not a malfunction—
it is a process.
An increase in blood pressure
is not simply an error to be erased,
but a signal emerging from that process.
Treatment is not about removing the signal,
but about understanding the conditions that gave rise to it—
and restoring balance.
From this perspective:
Even if blood pressure decreases to 130 mmHg,
if dizziness and insomnia persist,
the process is not complete.
Because what lies beyond the number
is still unfolding.
How Do We See What Cannot Be Measured?
Here, a fundamental tension emerges.
Modern medicine relies on what can be measured.
What cannot be measured is either:
- considered nonexistent
- or not yet measurable
This is both its strength and its structural limitation.
Denis Noble, a systems biologist, has argued that biological regulation occurs through interactions across multiple levels—genes, cells, organs, and the organism as a whole—and that no single level can be considered the primary cause (Noble, 2012).
This perspective suggests that attempting to represent the body’s regulatory state
through a single value—such as blood pressure—
may be inherently incomplete.
Classical Medicine,
without measurement tools,
has observed this complexity for centuries.
It is true that its methods have not been validated
in the modern scientific sense.
But not yet validated
is not the same as proven wrong.
Angus Deaton and Nancy Cartwright have also pointed out that even highly regarded methodologies such as randomized controlled trials have limitations in capturing complex, real-world causation (Deaton & Cartwright, 2018).
This raises an open question:
Are current research methods sufficient to evaluate systems of this kind?
The Two Systems Are Not in Competition
The conclusion of this series
is not about which system is correct.
Modern medicine excels at:
- managing acute risk
- stabilizing measurable parameters
For patients at high risk of stroke,
antihypertensive medication is essential.
Classical Medicine offers a different perspective:
It observes processes beyond measurable values
and asks different kinds of questions—
particularly in areas such as:
- persistent symptoms
- quality of life
- long-term regulation
What This Series Proposes
That these two systems
are measuring different aspects of the same reality.
Recognizing that difference
is the starting point for a more complete clinical understanding.
Not a replacement.
Not a contradiction.
But two ways of seeing—
each incomplete on its own,
and more meaningful together.
References
Deaton A, Cartwright N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine.
Noble D. (2012). A theory of biological relativity: No privileged level of causation. Interface Focus.
댓글
댓글 쓰기