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. L'iridologie (parfois appelée diagnostic de l'iris) repose sur la croyance bizarre selon laquelle chaque zone du corps est représentée par une zone correspondante dans l'iris de l'œil (la zone colorée autour de la pupille). Selon ce point de vue, l’état de santé et la maladie d’une personne peuvent être diagnostiqués à partir de la couleur, de la texture et de l’emplacement de diverses taches pigmentaires dans l’œil. Les praticiens de l'iridologie prétendent diagnostiquer “déséquilibres” 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.
L'iridologie est un non-sens
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
| This iridology chart was developed by a prominent naturopath more than 70 years ago. It relates various spots on the eye to about 50 parts of the body. The innermost blue circle in both eyes, for example, is said to reflect the health of the stomach. The topmost quadrants are said to represent the brain (cerebrum and cerebellum) and other parts of the head. |  |
Proponents of iridology attribute its development to Ignatz von Peczely, a Hungarian physician who, during his childhood, had accidentally broken the leg of an owl and noticed a black stripe in the lower part of the owl’s eye. Nonadherents suggest that von Peczely may have developed his theory to pass time while he was imprisoned after the 1848 Hungarian revolution. After his release from prison he allegedly saved the life of his mother with homeopathic remedies, recalled the incident of the owl’s eye, and began studying the eyes of his patients.
Bernard Jensen, D.C. (1908-2001), the leading American iridologist, stated that “La nature nous a fourni un écran de télévision miniature montrant les parties les plus éloignées du corps par le biais de réponses réflexes nerveuses.” He also claimed that iridology analyses are more reliable and “offer much more information about the state of the body than do the examinations of Western medicine.”
A British iridology organization states that there are three main “types constitutionnels” of iris color:
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:
During the course of treatment an iridology workup was recommended. The results indicated, among many other health problems, the presence of cancer. Overwhelmed, the patient spent the day in torment. Unable to consult his family physician . . . he finally sought my advice. After a lengthy discussion, I was able to allay his fears. . . . He wondered how an intelligent person such as himself could be caught up in such a deep emotional web over such a diagnosis. The story fortunately had a pleasant ending. However, the outcome could have been much more serious since the patient is also suffering from a heart condition, which was not noted on the iridology evaluation! [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.
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].
En 1980, un iridologue australien expérimenté a subi deux tests. Dans la première, il a examiné les photographies de 15 patients qui avaient été médicalement évalués et présentaient au total 33 problèmes de santé. L’iridologue n’a diagnostiqué correctement aucun de ces problèmes. Dans trois cas, il a nommé une partie du corps qui avait eu des problèmes (par exemple, il a dit “lésion dans la région de la gorge” pour un patient dont les amygdales avaient été enlevées pendant l'enfance), mais il a complètement manqué les 30 autres zones problématiques et a posé 60 diagnostics erronés. Dans le deuxième essai, quatre personnes ont eu les yeux photographiés lorsqu'elles étaient en bonne santé et rephotographiées lorsqu'elles ont déclaré être malades. L'iridologue a posé un grand nombre de diagnostics (incorrects) à partir des photographies initiales et n'a pas pu identifier avec précision aucun organe ayant subi une modification lorsque le problème de santé est survenu. On lui a également demandé de comparer des photographies d'iris d'un autre individu en bonne santé, prises à seulement deux minutes d'intervalle. Il a posé cinq diagnostics erronés pour le premier et quatre diagnostics incorrects différents pour le second [4].
À la fin des années 1980, cinq iridologues néerlandais de premier plan ont échoué à un test similaire au cours duquel on leur a montré des diapositives stéréo couleur de l'iris droit de 78 personnes, dont la moitié souffraient d'une maladie de la vésicule biliaire. Aucun des cinq ne pouvait faire la distinction entre les patients atteints d’une maladie de la vésicule biliaire et les personnes en bonne santé. Ils n’étaient pas non plus d’accord sur ce qui était lequel [5]. Ces résultats négatifs ne sont bien sûr pas surprenants, car il n’existe aucun mécanisme connu par lequel les organes du corps peuvent être représentés ou transmettre leur état de santé à des endroits spécifiques de l’iris.
Dans une autre étude, les chercheurs ont pris des photographies couleur des yeux de 30 patients atteints de colite ulcéreuse, 25 de maladies coronariennes, 30 d'asthme, 30 de psoriasis et d'un groupe témoin apparié en termes d'âge et de sexe. Les photographies ont été codées et analysées par un enquêteur, manuellement et par un programme informatique, selon des critères générés par d'éminents iridologues. Quelle que soit la méthode utilisée, la discrimination entre les cas et les témoins n'était pas différente de ce à quoi on pourrait s'attendre par hasard. Les auteurs ont conclu que “Le diagnostic de ces maladies ne peut être facilité par une analyse de type iridologique.” [6]
En 1998, Eugene Emery, écrivain scientifique pour le Journal de la Providence, a testé la capacité de deux iridologues à évaluer son état de santé et à comparer les diapositives qu'il avait préparées avec les yeux de huit personnes ayant reçu un diagnostic médical. Les deux iridologues ont obtenu de très mauvais résultats [7].
En 2000, le Dr Edzard Ernst a publié une analyse approfondie des rapports publiés jusqu'alors. Notant qu'aucun des “positif” les études avaient été correctement conçues, il a conclu :
L'iridologie pourrait-elle faire du mal ? Le gaspillage d’argent et de temps sont deux effets indésirables évidents. La possibilité de diagnostics faussement positifs, c'est-à-dire de diagnostiquer – puis de traiter – des pathologies qui n'existaient pas au départ, semble plus grave. Le vrai problème, cependant, pourrait résider dans les diagnostics faussement négatifs : une personne peut se sentir malade, consulter un iridologue et obtenir un bilan de santé irréprochable. Par la suite, cette personne pourrait se révéler atteinte d’une maladie grave. Dans de tels cas, le recours à l’iridologie peut faire perdre un temps précieux pour un traitement précoce (et même des vies) [8].
Dans une autre étude, trois iridologues et dix étudiants en optométrie ont vu des diapositives couleur de l'iris de 30 personnes ayant subi une fracture d'un bras ou d'une jambe et de 30 témoins sans antécédents de traumatisme. Jensen et plusieurs autres iridologues ont été consultés sur la conception de l’étude. Aucun des participants n'a démontré une précision diagnostique significative [9]. Les fractures ont été choisies comme condition médicale pour voir si l'affirmation originale de von Peczely concernant le hibou avec une patte cassée pouvait être reproduite chez l'homme.
Une étude publiée en 2005 a testé si l'iridologie pouvait être utile pour diagnostiquer les formes courantes de cancer. Un praticien expérimenté a examiné les yeux de 68 personnes présentant des cancers avérés du sein, de l'ovaire, de l'utérus, de la prostate ou du colorectum, et de 42 personnes pour lesquelles il n'existait aucune preuve médicale de cancer. Le praticien, qui ne connaissait pas son sexe ni ses détails médicaux, a été invité à suggérer jusqu’à cinq diagnostics pour chaque personne et ses résultats ont ensuite été comparés au diagnostic médical connu de chaque sujet. L'iridologie a correctement diagnostiqué un cancer dans seulement 3 cas sur 68 [10].
Worrall a noté la manière dont les iridologues tentent d'excuser leurs échecs :
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].
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:
A younger colleague fully equipped with the most up-to-date specialized iridology equipment introduced himself and stated that he wanted to give iridology readings at my clinic and at the same time monitor the course of my patients over a period of six months.
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].
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.
Some multilevel distributors are using iridology as a basis for recommending dietary supplements and/or herbs. Anyone who does this and is not a licensed health professional would be guilty of practicing medicine without a license, which is a violation of state law.
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
LOGICIEL MAIKONG IRIDOLOGIE Installation et fonctionnement
