Platt versus Pickering: an episode in recent medical history. By J. D. Swales, editor. An essay review.
A. Zanchetti
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300045075
1986-01-01
Abstract:Collected in a finely produced volume, the main pieces of the long and famous debate between Robert Platt and George Pickering about the nature of essential hypertension are particularly welcome and timely. Indeed, the debate has not only a historical interest as if today hypertension research delights in looking back at its roots, in revisiting the battlefields or, more properly, the tourney arenas in which it has developed. The fact is that, consciously or unconsciously, the debate is still going on, and this volume is a good opportunity and a healthy stimulus to discover how much of one side of the debate is yet concealed under the other, though the latter side is now considered as common wisdom and orthodox teaching. Professor John Swales, the editor of the publication, has made an excellent selection from the most important and pertinent writings of the two combatants and has admirably summarized the terms of the debate and its evolution in time. The technical controversy, as is well known, started about the unimodal or bimodal appearance of blood pressure frequency distribution curves, went on to the interpretation of hypertension as a single-gene-inherited disease or a multiple-gene-inherited condition, enlarged over the more philosophical issue of qualitative versus quantitative diseases. The essence of the debate was that in Platt's view hypertension was an inherited disease with dominant type transmission, with a specific (though unknown) defect, with a well-known natural history and with discrete lesions; whereas, according to George Pickering, hypertension was only the upper portion of a continuous distribution curve of blood pressure values, and, as blood pressure, depended on multiple-gene inheritance. In reading again all the arguments of the controversy together, one can see why the debate dragged on so long and was so long undecided. The first reason is that the data were rather scanty and the conclusions somewhat inferential and indirect. The number of Platt's observations was surprisingly small (350 sibs of 178 patients in his last paper), and George Pickering had an easy task in pointing out that any number of peaks could appear by mere chance in the distribution curves of such a small number of observations. Pickering's data were by far more numerous, but their manipulation to obtain age-and sex-adjusted scores, the different number of peaks described when the initial data were recalculated by Platt, the confusing argument of digit preference in measuring blood pressure values, all these aspects …