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.
Iridology (sometimes referred to as iris diagnosis) is based on the bizarre belief that each area of the body is represented by a corresponding area in the iris of the eye (the colored area around the pupil). According to this viewpoint, a person’s state of health and disease can be diagnosed from the color, texture, and location of various pigment flecks in the eye. Iridology practitioners claim to diagnose “imbalances” 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.
| 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. |  |
Bernard Jensen, D.C. (1908-2001), the leading American iridologist, stated that “Nature has provided us with a miniature television screen showing the most remote portions of the body by way of nerve reflex responses.” 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 “constitutional types” 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].
In 1980, an experienced Australian iridologist underwent two tests. In the first, he examined photographs of 15 patients who had been medically evaluated and had a total of 33 health problems. The iridologist did not correctly diagnose any of these problems. In three cases he named a part of the body that had had trouble (for example, he said “lesion in throat area” for a patient whose tonsils had been removed during childhood), but he completely missed the other 30 problem areas and made 60 incorrect diagnoses. In the second trial, four people had their eyes photographed when they were in good health and rephotographed when they reported being ill. The iridologist made a large number of (incorrect) diagnoses from the initial photographs and was unable to accurately identify any organ that underwent a change when the health problem arose. He was also asked to compare iris photographs of another healthy individual taken only two minutes apart. He made five incorrect diagnoses for the first of these and four different incorrect ones for the second [4].
In the late 1980s, five leading Dutch iridologists failed a similar test in which they were shown stereo color slides of the right iris of 78 people, half of whom had gallbladder disease. None of the five could distinguish between the patients with gallbladder disease and the people who were healthy. Nor did they agree with each other about which was which [5]. These negative results, of course, are not surprising, because there is no known mechanism by which body organs can be represented or transmit their health status to specific locations in the 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]
In 1998, Eugene Emery, a science writer for the 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].
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
MAIKONG IRIDOLOGY SOFTWARE Installation and operation
