¿Qué es la iridología?
“The Iris, Sclera and Pupil of the eye show the veil the soul has created, through consciousness (or forgetfulness), that reflects the illusion which prepares the soul for attaining the reality of full enlightenment.”
~ David J. Fish, Ph.D.,,
An Introduction
Los ojos han sido referidos durante mucho tiempo como el “Ventanas del alma.” Pero pocas personas son conscientes de cuán verdadera es esta observación. El análisis preciso de la estructura y la pigmentación del iris proporciona información sobre usted o sus clientes que es difícil de encontrar a través de otros métodos. Esta información es tan valiosa que la iridología merece convertirse en una herramienta de evaluación ampliamente practicada en los campos de salud físicos y psicológicos. Hay una multitud de factores que influyen en nuestra salud y personalidad, y muchos de estos factores se reflejan en el iris. Mira de cerca tus ojos en un espejo, y luego a los iris de los que te rodean. Verá muchos patrones diferentes de fibras y colores de iris. Al igual que las huellas digitales o las caras, no hay dos exactamente iguales, ¡y tampoco lo somos! La estructura del iris es tan única; Ahora se está utilizando para la identificación de seguridad en cajeros automáticos y aeropuertos. La casa del futuro de Microsoft usará un escáner ocular para identificar a los residentes y desbloquear la puerta.
What is it?
Iridology se basa en el estudio científico del iris — the colored part of the eye. Like markings on a m
Ignatz von Péczely, a 19th-century Hungarian physician is usually credited with inventing iridology. He got the idea for this novel diagnostic tool when he saw a dark streak in the eyes of a man he was treating for a broken leg and it reminded him of a similar dark streak in the eyes of an owl whose leg he had broken years earlier. Von Péczely then went on to document similarities in eye markings and illnesses in his patients. (According to Wikipedia, von Péczely’s nephew, August von Péczely, dismissed the story about the dark streaks as apocryphal. The Wikipedia article also notes: “Iridology is not supported by any published studies and is considered pseudoscience by most medical practitioners and eye care professionals.” Even if the story is apocryphal, I like it because it illustrates the magical thinking of practitioners and patients.) Others completed the map of the eye. A typical map divides the eye into sections, using the image of a clock face as a base. So, for example, if you want to know the condition of a patient’s thyroid gland, you need not touch the patient to feel for any enlargement of the gland. Nor do you need to do any tests of the gland itself. All you need to do is look in the iris of the right eye at about 2:30 and the iris of the left eye at about 9:30. Discolorations, flecks, streaks, etc. in those parts of the eyes are all you need concern yourself with, if it is the condition of the thyroid you wish to know. For problems with the vagina or penis, look at 5 o’clock in the right eye. And so on. An iridologist can do an examination with nothing more than an iridology map, a magnifying glass, a flashlight, and a vivid imagination.
If von Péczely’s reasoning is typical, we can surmise that he and other iridologists deceived themselves by looking for and finding correlations between eye markings and illness (confirmation bias). They were working with vague notions of “markings” y “illness.” Diseases may not have been precisely or accurately diagnosed in many cases. They were able to validate iridology by finding many correlations that in fact were not established as causal relationships by rigorously defined controlled studies. Some of their correlations may be accurate, but many are undoubtedly bogus
Do you know iridology real or fake?
Estudios científicos
In 1979 Bernard Jensen and two other proponents failed a scientific test in which they examined photographs of the eyes of 143 persons in an attempt to determine which ones had kidney impairments. (Forty-eight had been diagnosed with a standard kidney function test, and the rest had normal function.) The three iridologists showed no statistically significant ability to detect which patients had kidney disease and which did not. One iridologist, for example, decided that 88% of the normal patients had kidney disease, while another judged that 74% of patients sick enough to need artificial kidney treatment were normal [3]. Click here to see an example of Jensen’s iridology chart.
En 1980, un experimentado iridólogo australiano se sometió a dos pruebas. En el primero, examinó fotografías de 15 pacientes que habían sido evaluados médicamente y tenían un total de 33 problemas de salud. El iridólogo no diagnosticó correctamente ninguno de estos problemas. En tres casos nombró a una parte del cuerpo que había tenido problemas (por ejemplo, dijo “lesión en el área de la garganta” Para un paciente cuyas amígdalas habían sido retiradas durante la infancia), pero se perdió por completo las otras 30 áreas problemáticas e hizo 60 diagnósticos incorrectos. En el segundo juicio, a cuatro personas le fotografiaron los ojos cuando estaban de buena salud y rehotografiados cuando informaron estar enfermos. El iridólogo realizó una gran cantidad de diagnósticos (incorrectos) de las fotografías iniciales y no pudo identificar con precisión ningún órgano que experimentó un cambio cuando surgió el problema de salud. También se le pidió que comparara las fotografías de Iris de otra persona sana tomada con solo dos minutos de diferencia. Hizo cinco diagnósticos incorrectos para el primero de estos y cuatro incorrectos diferentes para el segundo [4].
A fines de la década de 1980, cinco iridólogos holandeses líderes fallaron una prueba similar en la que se les mostró diapositivas de color estéreo del iris derecho de 78 personas, la mitad de las cuales tenían enfermedad de la vesícula biliar. Ninguno de los cinco pudo distinguir entre los pacientes con enfermedad de la vesícula biliar y las personas que estaban sanas. Tampoco estaban de acuerdo el uno con el otro sobre cuál era [5]. Estos resultados negativos, por supuesto, no son sorprendentes, porque no existe un mecanismo conocido por el cual los órganos corporales puedan representarse o transmitir su estado de salud a ubicaciones específicas en el iris.
In another study, researchers took color photographs of the eyes of 30 patients with ulcerative colitis, 25 with coronary heart disease, 30 with asthma, 30 with psoriasis, and a control group matched for age and gender. The photographs were coded and analyzed by an investigator, both manually and by a computer program according to criteria generated by leading iridologists. Using either method, discrimination between cases and controls was not different from what would be expected by chance. The authors concluded that “diagnosis of these diseases cannot be aided by an iridological-style analysis.” [6]
En 1998, Eugene Emery, escritor científico para el Providence Journal, tested the ability of two iridologists to assess his health and to match slide he had prepared of the eyes of eight people who had been medically diagnosed. Both iridologists scored very poorly [7].
In 2000, Dr. Edzard Ernst issued a thorough review of published reports up to that time. Noting that none of the “positive” studies had been properly designed, he concluded:
Might iridology be doing any harm? Waste of money and time are two obvious undesired effects. The possibility of false-positive diagnoses, ie, diagnosing—and subsequently treating—conditions that did not exist in the first place, seems more serious. The real problem, however, might be false-negative diagnoses: someone may feel unwell, go to an iridologist, and be given a clean bill of health. Subsequently, this person could be found to have a serious disease. In such cases, valuable time for early treatment (and indeed lives) can be lost through the use of iridology [8].
In another study, three iridologists and ten optometry students were shown color iris slides of 30 people with who had fractured an arm or leg and 30 controls without trauma history. Jensen and several other iridologists were consulted about the study’s design. None of the participants demonstrated significant diagnostic accuracy [9]. Fractures were chosen as the medicalk condition to see whether von Peczely original claim about the owl with a broken leg could be reproduced in humans.
A study published in 2005 tested whether iridology could be useful in diagnosing common forms of cancer. An experienced practitioner examined the eyes of 68 people who had proven cancers of the breast, ovary, uterus, prostate, or colorectum, and 42 for whom there was no medical evidence of cancer. The practitioner, who was unaware of their gender or medical details, was asked to suggest up to five diagnoses for each person and his results were then compared with each subject’s known medical diagnosis. Iridology correctly diagnosed cancer in only 3 of the 68 cases [10].
Worrall has noted the ways iridologists try to excuse their failures:
Proponents . . . use a number of ways to rationalize their inconsistencies. One may claim to make subclinical diagnoses; that is, sometimes years before there are signs or symptoms of disease. Or one may claim to use iridology to rate a subject’s constitution or susceptibility to disease. Another might dispute the medical tests used to confirm a medical diagnosis and 路may contest existence of the disease. Others may diagnose hypothetical and imagined disorders using terms such as toxic settlement, chronic weakness, or underactivity of an organ or system These broad characterizations of a subject’s state of health contrast with the detail contained in iris charts, and they are not easily quantifiable for study [9].
Desilusión
Herbalist Michael Tierra has described how he became disillusioned with iridology. After making various observations, he stopped using it but still hoped that it would turn out to have some value. Then, however:
Un colega más joven totalmente equipado con el equipo de iridología especializado más actualizado se presentó y declaró que quería dar lecturas de iridología en mi clínica y al mismo tiempo monitorear el curso de mis pacientes durante un período de seis meses.
Given the fact that for most of us as well my patients six months is quite a long period, there was ample opportunity for many of these to go through a variety of health-related changes. Some people became well and got sick again with either the same or perhaps a different set of symptoms, others suffered injuries or operations. They all had their irises repeatedly photographed and studied by my colleague and myself. Where was Peczely’s owl or the markings he claimed to observe in patients of the 19th century Hungarian hospital ward? Where were the fine white healing lines that were supposed to knit together the small dark lacunae corresponding to the healing of operations and injuries of different parts of the body?
Our conclusion after six months: my colleague, trying to hold on to the fast disappearing shred of belief in the validity of iridology sheepishly and somewhat guiltily sold his camera to another would-be iridology enthusiast. I buried my official iridology magnifying head band in a box in a dark, hopefully soon forgotten area of my office closet, where I must confess it still remains after over 15 years, unopened [11].
Another former iridologist, Joshua David Mather Sr., has written a detailed account of the origin and termination of his beliefs. He began studying iridology at age nine when his father became a practitioner. He abandoned it at age 25 after examining polaroid films of many patients and finding out that although their symptoms often improved, their eye markings never changed [12].
El resultado final
Iridology makes no anatomic or physiologic sense. It is not merely worthless. Incorrect diagnoses can unnecessarily frighten people, cause them to waste money seeking medical care for nonexistent conditions, or steer them away from necessary medical care when a real problem is overlooked.
Algunos distribuidores multinivel están utilizando Iridology como base para recomendar suplementos y/o hierbas dietéticas. Cualquiera que haga esto y que no sea un profesional de la salud con licencia sería culpable de practicar la medicina sin una licencia, lo cual es una violación de la ley estatal.
If you encounter anyone practicing iridology, please complain to your state attorney general.
Referencias
- About iris constitutions. Guild of Naturopathic Iridologists International Web site, accessed August 20, 2004.
- Worrall RS. Iridology: Diagnosis or delusion? Skeptical Inquirer 7(3):23-35, 1983.
- Mehrotra H and others. Does iris change over time? PLOS One 8(11):e78333, 2013.
- Simon A and others. An evaluation of iridology. JAMA 242:1385-1387, 1979.
- Cockburn DM. A study of the validity of iris diagnosis. Australian Journal of Optometry. 64:154-157, 1981.
- Knipschild P. Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient’s iris. British Medical Journal 297:1578-1581, 1988.
- Buchanan TJ and others. An investigation of the relationship between anatomical features in the iris and systematic disease with reference to iridology. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 4:98-102, 1996.
- Emery CE. Iridology: Do the eyes have it? Nutrition Forum 6:5-6, 1989.
- Ernst E. Iridology: Not useful and potentially harmful. Archives of Ophthalmology 118:120-121, 2000.
- Worrell R and others. Iridology: Diagnostic validity in orthopedic trauma. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 6:63-67, 2002.
- Münstedt K and others Can iridology detect susceptibility to cancer? A prospective case-controlled study. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 11;515-519, 2005.
- Tierra M. A comparative evaluation of diagnostic systems used in herbal medicine. Accessed Dec 23, 1998.
- Mather JD. Confessions of a former iridologist. Quackwatch, Sept 10, 2004.
