Iridology
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
Iridology is a method of diagnosing illness by inspecting the irises of the patient for marks and imperfections. Each part of the eye corresponds to a different part of the body, and a flaw in some part of the iris corresponds to illness in that part of the body. So for example diseases of the liver may be located at about 8 o'clock in the right iris. What could be simpler?
[edit] Origins
Iridology was introduced to the world in 1881 by a Hungarian doctor named Ignatz von Peczely, in a book entitled A Discovery in Natural History and Medical Science: a Guide to the Study and Diagnosis from the Eye.
[edit] Quotations
- The iridologist featured in the TV broadcast, Rosemary Hill, also taught at a local holistic health center. During her interview, she stressed that she doesn't diagnose diseases but "reads conditions in organs that could be construed as a weakness for a disease." But if you have a heart condition, she said, it would be obvious in the eyes. She also reported that she was in the process of changing her eye color from an unhealthy brown to a healthy blue.
- When Hill examined my eyes, she reported some constipation (wrong), cardiovascular problems (nope), a high mucus and acid body (l have no idea how to measure this), stress in the foot area (not that I know of) and fatigue (sorry). She did say correctly that I ate lots of dairy, flour, red meat and sugar products, but that assessment would probably fit most Americans. Next I arranged a test with the help of Dr. Robert Bahr of the Rhode Island Ophthalmological Society, who took slides of the eyes of eight people with various medical problems, such as lung disease, headaches, deafness, and a history of cancer. When I asked Hill to match the slides to the health problem, she declined, explaining that "I don't work that way." Instead, she suggested that I try to match her readings to the slides.
- Working under those rules, Hill --- who had said that iridology was accurate at least 75% of the time --- missed the affected organs or body parts in 6 out of 8 slides. That's surprising if you consider the fact that each of her readings included many organ systems. For example, in the case of a nearsighted person with a history of fainting and a pulse of 54 when the slide was taken, Hill noted "severe acidosis," "not digesting proteins," "intestinal tract is a little depressed," "there is a difficult lung problem there," "probably tonsils in there too," "mucus throughout the system," "congestion in the head," "not absorbing nutrients," "esophageal, leg problems," "shoulder problem" and a "somewhat spastic colon."
[edit] Discussion
The original claims of iridology are sufficiently definite to be put to the test, and they have been. It is easy, after all, to test the claims of iridologists by showing them photographs of the eyes of various people, sick and well, and see if they really are capable of diagnosis. They are not: more surprisingly, they do not agree with one another, despite using the same eye charts for diagnosis.
Some iridologists, though, may weaken their claims, as, for example:
- "Iridology ... doesn't pinpoint particular ailments Iridology identifies weaknesses or overactivity in the body so that future problems can be avoided. For example, if the pancreas is seen to be underactive, it could indicate a condition like diabetes."
This, you will observe, leaves the iridologist covered: he can diagnose diabetes as a potential future problem, and advise how it can be avoided. If by some chance the patient gets diabetes, that will prove that the iridologist's diagnosis was right, and if, as is much more probable, the patient does not get diabetes, that will prove that the iridologists advice was helpful.
It would take a larger amount of data to test whether or not iridologists can detect tendencies to disease. The onus would really be on the iridologists to find such data: in the absence of such evidence, neither they nor anyone else can have any reason to believe that iridology has any diagnostic value.
Besides repeated failures and an evidence vacuum, there is one other essential problem which iridology faces: iridologists agree that the markings of the iris change to reflect changing states of health. Yet the pattern of a person's iris, like their fingerprints, remains the same their whole life long, which is why, like fingerprints, the markings of the iris can be used for biometric identification.
[edit] Related Topics
[edit] References
Berggren, L. (1985) Iridology: A critical review. Acta Ophthalmologica 63(1): 1-8.
Cockburn, D.M. (1981) A study of the validity of iris diagnosis. Australian Journal of Optometry 64: 154-157.
Knipschild, P. (1988) Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris. British Medical Journal 297: 1578-1581.
Simon, A., Worthen, D.M., and Mitas, J.A. (1979) An evaluation of iridology. Journal of the American Medical Association 242: 1385-1387.
Worrall, R.S. (1984) Pseudoscience -- A critical look at iridology. Journal of the American Optometric Association, October 1984.
