• Iris
• Iris 1
• Iris t

Iridology

Iridologists do not claim to be able to diagnose specific diseases, but to highlight those systems and organs in the body that are healthy and those which are, for example, "overactive" or "inflamed." These are said to point to a tendency in the patient towards certain illnesses, to reflect past medical problems or to predict health problems which may be developing.

Since iridology is not a method of treatment, its practitioners have often studied other branches of alternative medicine, such as naturopathy, and used the study of the iris as a diagnostic first step. Iridology is practiced more widely in Europe (especially in the UK and Germany), where there are approximately 20,000 practitioners, than in the United States, which has only a tenth of that number. However, iridology has been described as the most valuable diagnostic tool of the naturopathic physician in the United States (Ernst¹, 2000).

Table of contents

1 Methods 2 Benefits 3 History 3.1 Mainstream medical examination of the eye 4 Criticism 5 Scientific research into iridology 6 References 7 See also 8 External links 8.2 Pro 8.3 Con

Methods

Iridologists generally use equipment such as a flashlight and magnifying glass, cameras or slit-lamp microscopes to examine a patient's irises for tissue changes, as well as features such as specific pigment patterns and "irregular stromal architecture". The markings and patterns are usually compared to an iris chart that correlates specific zones of the iris with specific parts of the body. Typical charts divide the iris into approximately 80-90 zones. For example, the zone corresponding to the kidney is in the lower part of the iris just before 6 o'clock. Having said that, iridologists use a number of different maps that do not necessarily agree with one another.

Details in the iris are supposed to reflect changes in the tissues of the corresponding body organs. For example, acute inflamatory, chronical inflamatory and catharral signs indicate involvement, maintenance, or healing of corresponding distant tissues, respectively. Other features that iridologists look for are contraction rings and Klumpenzellen, which are said to indicate various other health conditions, as interpreted in context.

Benefits

Practitioners of iridology point to the following benefits of iridology:

1. Their examination is not invasive. The only thing patients have to tolerate is light being shone in the eyes.

2. Iridologists aim to keep the patient well. They try to discover imbalances or weaknesses in the body before they develop into serious medical problems. Of course prevention of health problems is a central concept of all schools of medicine. Iridologists' advice on how to keep the patient well is frequently good. For example, they may recommend a good diet, drinking plenty of water, and moderate exercise.

3. A visit to an iridologist, especially a paid-for visit, has a powerful placebo effect. If a patient thinks that by following the iridologists advice they 'will' feel better then they probably will. Similarly, conventional drugs also have a placebo effect, and some studies indicate that around one third of all visits to doctors have at least some psychosomatic component.

History

Examining a person's eyes to help determine their health is an ancient practice dating back at least as far as the ancient Greeks.

The first explicit description of iridological principles such as homolaterality (without using the word iridology) are found in Chiromatica Medica, a famous work published in 1665 and reprinted in 1670 and 1691 by Philippus Meyeus (Philip Meyen von Coburg).

The first use of the word Augendiagnostik ("eye diagnosis," loosely translated as iridology) began with Ignatz von Péczely, a 19th-century Hungarian physician. The most common story is that he got the idea for this diagnostic tool after seeing similar streaks in the eyes of a man he was treating for a broken leg and the eyes of an owl whose leg von Péczely had broken many years before. At the First International Iridological Congress of Iridology, Ignaz von Péczely's nephew, Dr August von Péczely, dismissed this myth as an apocryphal, and maintained that such claims were irreproducible.

German contribution in the Naturheilkunde field is due to a minister Pastor Felke, who developed a form of homeopathy for treating specific illnesses and described new iris signs in the early 1900s. However, Pastor Felke was subject to long and bitter litigation. The Pastor Felke Institute in Heimshiem, Germany was established as a leading center of iridologic research and training.

Iridology became popular in the United States in the 1950s, when Bernard Jensen, an American chiropractor, began giving classes in his own method. This is in direct relationship with P. Johannes Thiel, Eduard Lahn (becoming an American under the name of Edward Lane) and J Haskell Kritzer. Jensen insisted on the body's exposure to toxins, and the use of natural foods as detoxifiers.

Few medical researchers managed to secure funding to study the possible non-visual functions of the eye. In a paper published in Medical Hypotheses (Waniek², 1987), one such group tried to explain the observed patterns of iris transparency that distribute light into the ora serrata (the edge of the optic retina) by postulating a so-called functio ocularis systemica. Based on this hypothesis, the researchers have developed the experimental trans-iridal light therapy method; however, no independent confirmation of the theory and method exists to date. Other results from the mentioned research include early attempts at computerized iris imaging for the purpose of iridologic diagnosis (Popescu et al.³, 1986) .

Mainstream medical examination of the eye

Although mainstream medicine considers iridology as quackery, there are many times when a conventional doctor will examine the eyes of a patient. The most obvious example would be diseases of the eye. Medical doctors performing iris examinations in order to determine eye problems, may use biomicroscopes and gonioscopes. Examination of eyes is a part of many clinical examinations, attempting to answer questions raised by jaundice, excess cholesterol, general neurologic conditions and more specific syndromes, including Foster-Kennedy, Claude-Bernard-Horner, Adie's etc.

The responsiveness of the pupil and its dilation are also often checked, mostly after accidents involving head trauma and suspected alcohol- or drug abuse, because they give a good indication of a patient's consciousness.

Criticism

The majority of medical doctors reject all the claims of all branches of iridology en bloc and label them as pseudoscience or even quackery. Iridologists are rarely medical doctors; many training centers exist, but iridology is neither taught in mainstream medical schools, nor acknowledged by official medical organizations as a valid medical technique. Greece, Italy, the Czech Republic and Romania are a few amongst the European countries where medical doctors are encouraged to practice iridology.

Mainstream medicine is dismissive of iridology largely because published studies have indicated a lack of success for the iridological claims.

Scientific research into iridology

Scientific research into iridology has shown mostly, but not entirely, negative results.

In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Simon et al.⁴, 1979), three well qualified iridologists incorrectly identified kidney disease in photographs of irises and often disagreed with each other. The researchers concluded: "iridology was neither selective nor specific, and the likelihood of correct detection was statistically no better than chance." Iridologists defended themselves by stating that they needed live examinations and that their approach was valid for predictions of health, not of disease tags once the disease was developed and even complicated. However the three iridologists concerned did not state that before the study took place.

Another study was published in the British Medical Journal (Knipschild⁵, 1988). Paul Knipschild MD, of the University of Limburg in Maastricht, selected 39 patients who were due to have their gall bladder removed the following day, because of suspected gallstones. He also selected a group of people who did not have diseased gall bladders to act as a control. A group of 5 iridologists examined a series of slides of both groups irises. The iridologists were not able to identify correctly which patients has gall bladder problems and which had healthy gall bladders. For example one of iridologists diagnosed 49% of the patients with gall stones as having them and 51% as not having them. He diagnosed 51% of the control group as having gall bladder problems and 49% as not. Dr Knipschild concluded: "this study showed that iridology is not a useful diagnostic aid." Iridologists defended themselves with the same considerations as above, but also attacked the methodology of the study.

Ernst¹, 2000, said: "Does iridology work? [...] This search strategy resulted in 77 publications on the subject of iridology. [...] All of the uncontrolled studies and several of the unmasked experiments suggested that iridology was a valid diagnostic tool. Such investigations are wide open to bias. The discussion that follows refers to the 4 controlled, masked evaluations of the diagnostic validity of iridology. [...] In conclusion, few controlled studies with masked evaluation of diagnostic validity have been published. None have found any benefit from iridology. As iridology has the potential for causing personal and economic harm, patients and therapists should be discouraged from using it."

Demea⁶, 2002, showed more positive results for iridology: "The research proposal is to evaluate the association between certain irian signs and general pathology of studied patients. [...] There were studied 57 hospitalized patients [...] The correlations resulted from, shows a high connection between the irian constitution establish[ed] through iridological criteria and the existent pathology. [...] Iris examination can be very useful for diagnosis of a certain general pathology, in a holistic approach of the patient." (translated)

References

1. Ernst E. Iridology: not useful and potentially harmful. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2000 Jan;118(1):120-1 PubMed ID: 10636425 Abstract
2. Waniek, D.A., Medical Hypotheses 1987;23(1): 309-312 PubMed ID 3614020
3. Popescu, M.P.; Waniek D.A., Rev Chir Oncol Radiol O R L Oftalmol Stomatol Ser Oftalmol 1986;30(1): 29-33 PubMed ID 2940632 (in Romanian)
4. Simon A., Worthen D.M., Mitas JA 2nd. An evaluation of iridology. JAMA. 1979 Sep 8;242(13):1385-9. PubMed ID: 480560 Abstract
5. Knipschild P. Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris. BMJ. 1988 Dec 17;297(6663):1578-81. PubMed ID: 3147081 Abstract
6. Demea S. [Correlation between iridology and general pathology] Oftalmologia. 2002;55(4):64-9. (in Romanian.) PubMed ID: 12723182 Abstract

• Ophthalmology

Pro

• Western Medicine looks at Iridology ... by Bill Caradonna R.Ph. (Several more rebuttals of official critics of iridology are found at the same resource online.)
• Is the Iris a Receptor? by Vincenzo Di Spazio (2000)
• Iridology by Dr Lisa Niebergall
• Celestial Healing site about iridology (source of the iris charts used in this article)
• Canadian Journal of the Science and Practice of Iridology (a good resource, no longer available as hard print)

• The Skeptics Dictionary
• Iridology (small PDF file duplicating Knipschild and Simon data, with no independent additions, but with valuable illustrations)
• Iridology is nonsense (quackwatch article)