iridología

Iridology is the study of the iris – the coloured part of the eye. Iridology is not a treatment therapy but rather a diagnostic tool used to detect underlying signs of developing disease.

Through various marks, signs and discolouration in the iris, nature reveals what is going on internally, inherited weaknesses and strengths and an Iridologist can tell if an individual has over or under activity in specific areas/organs of the body.

Therefore, the iris can be an important diagnostic tool although Iridology cannot detect a specific disease. The goal of Iridology is therefore to recognise health problems at their earliest stages and to suggest ways to keep disease from developing.

Iridology is safe, non-invasive and painless. The Iridologist will examine your eye with a slitlamp, penlight or magnifying glass. Photographs of the iris may also be obtained with a specially designed camera. The examination and consultation
generally takes one hour.

Anula Healing is located in Orange, NSW near Nashdale, Borenore, Cargo, Molong and Mullion Creek.
What is Bernard Jensen D.C. iridology and chart?

Iridología no tiene sentido

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

La iridología (a veces denominada diagnóstico de iris) se basa en la extraña creencia de que cada área del cuerpo está representada por un área correspondiente en el iris del ojo (el área de color alrededor de la pupila). Según este punto de vista, el estado de salud y enfermedad de una persona puede diagnosticarse del color, la textura y la ubicación de varias manchas de pigmento en el ojo. Los profesionales de la iridología afirman diagnosticar “desequilibrios” that can be treated with vitamins, minerals, herbs, and similar products. Some also claim that the eye markings can reveal a complete history of past illnesses as well as previous treatment. One textbook, for example, states that a white triangle in the appropriate area indicates appendicitis, but a black speck indicates that the appendix had been removed by surgery. Iridology charts—dozens of which exist—vary somewhat in the location and interpretation of their iris signs.and select the products they recommend. Sclerology is similar to iridology but interprets the shape and condition of blood vessels on the white portion (sclera) of the eyeball.

Esta tabla de iridología fue desarrollada por un naturópata prominente hace más de 70 años. Relaciona varios puntos en el ojo con unas 50 partes del cuerpo. Se dice que el círculo azul más interno en ambos ojos, por ejemplo, refleja la salud del estómago. Se dice que los cuadrantes más altos representan el cerebro (cerebro y cerebelo) y otras partes de la cabeza.

Bernard Jensen, D.C. (1908-2001), el principal iridólogo estadounidense, declaró que “La naturaleza nos ha proporcionado una pantalla de televisión en miniatura que muestra las partes más remotas del cuerpo a través de respuestas de reflejo nervioso.” También afirmó que los análisis de iridología son más confiables y “Ofrezca mucha más información sobre el estado del cuerpo que los exámenes de la medicina occidental.”

Una organización de iridología británica establece que hay tres principales “tipos constitucionales” del color del iris:

1. La constitución de ojos azules (“tipo linfático”), cuyo “tendencias inherentes” incluir: “Reactividad del sistema linfático (irritaciones adenoides y amígdalas; esplenitis; ganglios linfáticos hinchados; apéndice irritado; catarro con exudaciones; eccema; acné; piel descuidada; caída; asma; tos; bronquitis; sinusitis; diarrahea; artritis; artritis vaginal; descarga;”
2. El “constitución de ojos marrones puros (“tipo hematogénico”), cuyo “tendencias inherentes” incluir: “Anemia; falta de catalizadores (hierro, oro, arsénico, cobre, zinc, yodo); enfermedades sanguíneas (hepatitis, ictericia); espasmos musculares; artritis; enfermedad degenerativa crónica; trastornos endocrinos (tiroides, glóbulos & pituitaria); perturbaciones bazo; Pobre drenaje linfático; glándulas hinchadas; Enfermedad de Hodgkin; flatulencia; constipación; tumor colónico; dispepsia; trastornos digestivos con producción enzimática baja; intolerancia frecuente a la leche de vacas; úlceras; hígado, vesícula biliar & mal funcionamiento pancreático; Diabetes; trastornos circulatorios; autointoxicación.”
3. La combinación de los dos “tipo mixto o biliar”), cuyo “tendencias inherentes” incluir: “Flatulancia; constipación; colitis; hipoglucemia; Diabetes; enfermedades sanguíneas; piedras ballestas; hígado, vesícula biliar, conducto biliar & trastornos pancreáticos; debilidad gastrointestinal con espasmo; Hematogénico & Fortalezas constitucionales linfáticas & debilidades.” [1]

Russell S. Worrall, O.D., an assistant clinical professor of optometry at the School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, has noted that many of the conditions detected by practitioners of iridology are “diseases” whose existence has been disputed or discredited by scientific investigation. Worrall also points out how spurious diagnoses by iridologists can have serious consequences, as illustrated by the case of an accountant who consulted a chiropractor who practiced iridology:

Durante el curso del tratamiento se recomendó un estudio de iridología. Los resultados indicaron, entre muchos otros problemas de salud, la presencia de cáncer. Abrumado, el paciente pasó el día en tormento. Incapaz de consultar a su médico de familia. . . Finalmente buscó mi consejo. Después de una larga discusión, pude calmar sus miedos. . . . Se preguntó cómo una persona inteligente como él podría quedar atrapada en una red emocional tan profunda sobre dicho diagnóstico. Afortunadamente, la historia tuvo un final agradable. Sin embargo, el resultado podría haber sido mucho más grave ya que el paciente también sufre una afección cardíaca, ¡lo cual no se observó en la evaluación de iridología! [2]

The features of the iris are relatively stable throughout life [3]. There is no scientific evidence that they change when a person’s health status changes. In fact, this stability is the foundation of the biometric technology that uses iris recognition for identification purposes.

Estudios científicos

En 1979, Bernard Jensen y otros dos defensores fallaron una prueba científica en la que examinaron fotografías de los ojos de 143 personas en un intento de determinar cuáles tenían impedimentos renales. (Cuarenta y ocho habían sido diagnosticados con una prueba de función renal estándar, y el resto tenía una función normal). Los tres iridólogos no mostraron capacidad estadísticamente significativa para detectar qué pacientes tenían enfermedad renal y cuáles no. Un iridólogo, por ejemplo, decidió que el 88% de los pacientes normales tenían enfermedad renal, mientras que otro juzgó que el 74% de los pacientes lo suficientemente enfermos como para necesitar tratamiento renal artificial eran normales [3].

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.

A further German study investigated the value of iridology as a diagnostic tool in detecting some common cancers. One hundred ten subjects were enrolled; 68 subjects had histologically proven cancers of the breast, ovary, uterus, prostate, or colorectum, and 42 were cancer-free controls. All subjects were examined by an experienced practitioner of iridology, who was unaware of their medical details. He was allowed to suggest up to five diagnoses for each subject and his results were then compared with each subject’s medical diagnosis to determine the accuracy of iridology in detecting malignancy. Iridology identified the correct diagnosis in only 3 cases (sensitivity, 0.04). The authors concluded that “iridology was of no value in diagnosing the cancers investigated in this study.”

Based on these results it is impossible, I think, to claim that iridology is a valid or useful diagnostic tool. As there is no anatomical or physiological basis for its assumptions, iridology is not biologically plausible. Furthermore, the available clinical evidence does not support its validity as a diagnostic tool. In other words, iridology is bogus. This statement is in sharp contr