Iridology Research Eyeronec

Author

Simon A; Worthen DM; Mitas JA 2d

Source

JAMA, 242(13):1385-9 1979 Sep 28

Abstract

Iridology is an analysis of health based on examination of the iris of the eye. One hundred forty-three patients had photographs taken of both eyes. Nine-five patients were free of kidney disease, defined as a creatinine level of less than 1.2 mg/dL (mean, 0.8 mg/dL), and 48 had kidney disease severe enough to raise the plasma creatinine level to 1.5 mg/dL or greater (mean, 6.5 mg/dL). Three ophthalmologists and three iridologists viewed the slides in a randomized sequence without knowledge of the number of patients in the two categories or any information about patient history. Iridology had no clinical or statistically significant ability to detect the presence of kidney disease. Iridology was neither selective nor specific, and the likelihood of correct detection was statistically no better than chance.

Rebuttal

Western Medicine Looks at Iridology (Anatomy of a Jaundiced Eye)

By Harri Wolf, M.A.

Iridology has been largely ignored by the traditional medical establishment as witnessed by lack of opinion in the medical literature. Whenever mention is made it is rejected on general principle. Relman, in the New England Journal of Medicine compared iridology with astrology and psychic healing, among others, and reffered to them as the irrational side of the holistic Movement.(1) S. Duke Elder in his Systems to Opthalmology, Vol. 2. referred to Iridology in his chapter on iris anatomy:

. . . Even today an extraordinary cult with a considerable following and a voluminous Literature flourishes,particularly in Central Europe, the devotees of which attribute to each minute area of this tissue an affinity for a different organs of the body, in the list of which the eye itself is included, and from an examination of the appropriate area, the initiated can dispose any disease to which the flesh may be heir. They call themselves oculodiagnosticians (irido-diagnosis, augen-diagnose, etc. . .)(2)

D.j. Stark, an ophthalmic surgeon, stated in an article published by the Medical Journal of Australia that Iridology can no longer be dismissed without discussion by the medical profession; it must be dissected, studied and discredited.(3) . The most amusing criticism of iri- dology that I've read appeared in the British Journal of Ophthalmology (1962). Here the author compared iridology with such disreputed practices as homeopathy and acupuncture. Here's a sample for your entertainment:

It is tempting to dismiss these irresponsible 19th century charlatanries as the crows that follow in the wake of the advancing sciences; exploiting what they cannot comprehend, and finally flickering on as a drawing room diversion to the under-educated and under-occupied. But, in the rootless 1960's people are still wanting a new faith rather than an old reason; hence the resurgence of astrology and acupuncture and hence also the triumphs of the black box. So, we must not altogether disregard these other curious inhabitants of our ophthalmologist nest.(4)

After reviewing the literature, I've concluded that much of the criticism of iridology is based upon the fact that iridologists have made statements about iris anatomy or neuro-anatomy that are either unsupported or proven incorrect. For example, Stark criticizes Dorothy Hall for referring to the areas senilis of the comes as the sodium ring of the iris.(5) Rejection of an entire system should hardly be made on the merits of statements or practices by individuals. An individual doesn't represent an entire system. Should we reject Western medicine because some of its key figures employed bloodletting and leeches or mercury compounds to cure syphilis? Shall we consider Western medicine a total failure because drugs that are one day hailed as panaceas are later implicated in birth deformities or other serious side effects?

Iridology must be tested on its own merits if it is to be tested at all. One such attempt at objecivity has been published by the Journal of the American Medical Assocation. That study, published in 1979, intended to measure iridologys ability to detect kidney disease as reflected by abnormal creatinine levels in the blood. A population of 143 subjects was evaluated, one third of whom had laboratory-proven kidney disease (abnormal creatinine clearance). Three iridologists examined photographic slides of the subjects' eyes. Data analysis (see Table One) suggested that the iridologists were unable to diagnose the presence of kidney disease with statistical significance. The researchers concluded that iridology is of no value in discovering kidney disease and may be potentially harmful.(6)

This study was criticized by its most expert participant, Dr.Bernard Jensen D.C. He claimed that the slides he and his colleagues examined were of poor quality. The authors of the Jama article contradicted this by stating that the iridologists were given the opportunity to reject the poor quality slides. I believe that this study was rendered insignificant for the followingh reasons:

1. The instrument reliability factor is questionable. It is true that the quality of iris slides were poor. Many should have been rejected. I believe that iris exams are best performed in vivo, utilizing specialized microscopes. When reading slides, many structural and pigmentary anomalies can easily be overlooked. Depth perception of the iris stroma is also markedly different.

Furthermore, such variables as film speed, film types, room lighting and slide storage methods can account for pictures that are not accurate representations. So, the high false-negative rates (incorrectly labeling as normal those with diagnosed renal disease) can be somewhat attributed to the examination technique itself.

2. It is a universal contention among iridologists that iris indications can appear long before subjective or laboratory indication of any disorder. This undoubtedly accounts for the high false positive rates among the screeners (incorrectly labeling as diseased those with no abnormal creatinine index). Unless the glomerular filtration rate is affected, there will be no abnormal creatinine clearance. So, what of renal disorder that does not affect glomerular filtration at the onset?

Such was the case with j.S., a 51-year-old physician. In the spring of 1979, I warned him of a destructive process arising at the site of the right kidney. (See photo.) At that time there were no subjective complaints. When returned that autumn for reexamination, I repeated my caution. He disclosed that there was a malignant growth on the kidney that had only been recently revealed. Up until that time there was no alteration in his creatinine clearance.

When investigating a discipline that claims to be predictive, arrangements should be made to retest the subjects at a later date. Such a longitudinal study would be difficult for iridologists because of a major ethical consideration: how can we allow experimental subjects to go untreated only to satisfy statistical hunger?

3. Iridologists generally share a different concept and understanding of disease than medical screeners. I'd like to illustrate this by example: I was asked to evaluate the condition of a seven-year-old boy under-going renal dialysis. Medically, his prognosis was unfavorable. This brown-eyed boy showed no classical structural defects in the kidney areas of the irises. The following signs were evident:

1. Bilateral papillary mydriasis pharmacological cause was ruled out.

2. Small, deep lacunae at approximately 30 minutes adjacent to the collarette in the humoral zones of both irises.

3. Interrupted contraction furrows in the ciliary zones of both irises at 27-33 minutes.

According to my assessment, the child's true and underlying condition involved adrenal weakness, autonomic nerve weakness, autointoxication and serious emotional factors (fears, uncertainty, self-doubt, distrust). Failure of renal fucnction was an expression of the disease, but not the disease itself. I believe that only by addressing these factors could we have offered any hope for recovery.

(Note: It was interesting to learn that the child's father, who presented the case, had undergone a five-year-long sex-exchange operation. He was originally the child's biological mother. Could this explain the uncertainty, lack of trust, and the self-doubt?)

It appears that the JAMA study yielded questionable results and information as to the value of iridology as an assessment tool. I might mention, though, that the publication of the study caused the cancellation of a seminar engagement I had at the National College of Chiropractic. Apparently, my student sponsors were threatened with suspension if I made the appearance. It amazes me how quickly the college administrators had forgotten the ridicule their own profession had experienced for so many years at the hands of the medical establishment.

One for Our Side

A study was undertaken at the University of Rochester in 1981 that proved to be more favorable. Twenty-one subjects were used for the study, six from the out-patient department at a major medical center and 15 from a well-person setting.(7)

Health histories were completed for each subject and provided the information base on health and wellness. Photographic slides were submitted to me and my students at the Santa Fe College of Natural Medicine for health and illness evaluation. Using only the iris slides, and knowing the age and sex of each person, we were to evaluate them according to levels of wellness and specific organ pathology.

This information was compared with data from the health histories. We rejected nine subjects' slides for the wellness study and 13 sets of slides for the pathology study. We also noted that even for the slides not rejected, quality standards were low. Table Two summarizes the pertinent findings of the wellness assessment.

The agreement rate of 50% is not statistically significant. It should be noted that we gave low wellness ratings for all subjects evaluated. Here, a longitudinal format could have been employed. I believe our findings suggested the possibility of latent disorders. Besides, our standards are generally higher and so stated in advance of our participation in the study.

The investigator concluded that the Wellness rating as presented by this study was not a valid way to assess iridology and the information received neither supported nor rejected any assumption of validity for iridology.(8)

Table Three lists all organ pathologies present by history in subjects not rejected by our group. The agreement of our findings with the health histories is also noted. Organ pathology mentioned by us but not present by history is not shown because the predictive value of iridology was not being explored.

Subjects 6, 7, 16, and 22, all rated low wellness from the health histories, and all from the out-patient department, had a total of 10 specific organ pathologies. We identified eight of these for an 80% acceptance ratio. So, we fared better (by ll %) with the subjects who were chronically ill. This can be suggestive of the predictive nature of iridology, but a small sample size precluded any conclusion to that effect. The investigator stated, The evaluation of organ pathology was the most successful part of the study in spite of the technical problems and the results were suggestive. While accepting the restrictions of such a limited sample, he concluded that, The data suggested a possible ability for iridology to assess specific organ involvement in chronically ill individuals.

Here too, I question the significance of the study on the ground that I previously discussed. Photographic analysis is limiting; patients will not be examined at a later date; and, finally, the concepts and rhetoric of disease differ widely between the rationalists (medical screeners) and the empiricists (iridological screeners).

Conclusion

There is no shortage of phenomenological and clinical evidence in support of iridology. These are the foundation of iridological practice. We develop theories based upon the observation of iris phenomena in relation to patterns of disorder. Then we set out to test our theories, always considering the uniqueness of each individual case. In other words, we have based our theories on the practice of diagnosing and healing.

Iridology does not measure a static phenomenon; nor does it assign a label to a disorder. We observe processes that have often been in motion for generations, with their own unique individual reactions and expressions. Difficulty in classifying and quantifying will always be an obstacle to scientific research on the subject.

1 Relman, A.S.; 1-Holistic Medicine, New

England Journal of Medicine, 1979.

2 Duke-Elder, S.; System of Ophthalology 1/Vol. 2; Henry Kimpton, London, 1961.

3 Stan, Dennis J.; Medical Journal of

Australia.,1981.

4 Patrick Trevor-Rope; Grins Journal of

Opththalmology, 1962.

5 Hall, Dorothy; Iridology, First Edition

Victoria, Nelson 1982.

6 Simon, A., Worther D., Mitas, J. A.: An

Evaluation of Iridology, Journal of the

African Medical Association 1979 #242.

7 Whitling Harlen, D.; 'An Evaluation of

Iridology as an Assessment Tool for

Nurse Clinicians.' School of Nursing

Univ. of Rochester. New York, 1981.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

Title MEDLINE Abstract

Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris.

Author

Knipschild P

Address

Department of Epidemiology and Health Care Research, University of Limburg, Maastricht,

The Netherlands.

Source

BMJ, 297(6663):1578-81 1988 Dec 17

Abstract

In alternative health care iridology is used as a diagnostic aid. The diagnosis of gall bladder disease was used to study its validity and interperformer consistency. The presence of an inflamed gall bladder containing gall stones is said to be easily recognised by certain signs in the lower lateral part of the iris of the right eye. Stereo colour slides were made of the right eye. Stereo colour slides were made of the right eye of 39 patients with this disease and 39 control subjects of the same sex and age. The slides were presented in a random order to five leading iridologists without supplementary information. The prevalence of the disease was estimated at 56%. The median validity was 51% with 54% sensitivity and 52% specificity. These results were close to chance validity (iota = 0.03). None of the iridologists reached a high validity. The median interperformer consistency was 60%. This was only slightly higher than chance consistency (kappa = 0.18). This study showed that iridology is not a useful diagnostic aid.

WESTERN MEDICINE

LOOKS AT IRIDOLOGY.....AGAIN

by Bill Caradonna R.Ph..

Western medicine recently took another look at Iridology in "Looking for Gallbladder Disease in the Patient's Iris," printed in the December,1988 issue of the British Medical Journal (Vol.297.P. 1578-1580. The purpose was to test the validity Of Iridology as a diagnosic aid and to Observe the consistency of diagnostic evaluation among the participating Iridologist. Gallbladder disease was chosen because use of the presumed singular reflex location in the lower lateral section of the right iris and the specific signs said to be recognized as reflecting this condition.

This study, conducted in the Netherlands, involved 5 Iridologists from that area (including 2 M.D.'s.) who were willing participants. 78 patients were used - 39 had inflamed gallbladders and gallstones and were scheduled for surgery, and 39 age and sex matched healthy controls with no symptoms or history of gallbladder disease.

Asymptomatic("silent") gallstones were ruled out by ultrasound testing in the control group, and post surgical examinations confirmed the positive diagnosis in the active group. The Iridologists were presented with slides of the right eye of each patient. Overall, the average accuracy of assessment was no better than if they had been made at random.

Of 20 subjects who were diagnosed as having gallbladder disease by at least 4 of the 5 Iridologists, only 10 had the disease. Of the 15 who were diagnosed as being free of the disease by at least 4 of the 5 Iridologists, only 8 did not have the disease. None of the Iridologists had a high level of accuracy. The consistency of diagnosis averaged 60%, only slightly higher than chance.

According to the article, the research coordinator, Dr. Paul Knipschild of the University of Limburg, Netherlands, approached the study in an unbiased manner, applied several statistical methods, and presented a well written article. The study was reported in the New York Times, Berkeley Wellness Letter, the Edell Health letter, the National council Against Health Fraud newsletter, and other publications. The study design and results were similar to the stray reported in the 1979 Journal of the American Medical Association. (Please see our discussion of this study in IRIDOLOGY REVIEW Vol 1 No. l).

These negative results have served to reinforce medical opinion that Iridology is useless pseudoscience and further reduce the potential for appropriate studies.

These events provide us with a fundamental lesson about health and disease as well as the proper application of Iridology. Disease rarely has a singular direct cause and effect. Most often, there are a multitude of influences that result in the condition. These combinations of factors can be quite varied. The iris reflects the inherited disposition and demonstrates the cause and effect picture. Therefore differentiation of iris signs are necessary to identify these dynamics. Observing one iris and specifically one section to determine a disease state is a futile exercise similar to being handed one (1) piece of a jigsaw puzzle and then trying to determine what the picture is.

By seeing the whole picture through Iridology, the opportunity is created to better understand the interrelationship of the individual pieces. Western Medicine will always have difficulty with these concepts because of the reducionistic view that they use as a yardstick to measure other approaches. This study serves as another lesson to Iridologists to not fall for the temptation of simply assigning functional capacities to individual areas without considering the interplay of the whole.

In order to correctly approach risk factor analysis, let us consider the following equation:

HEALTH STATUS - INHERITED DISPOSITIONS +

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (Diet Lifestyle etc.) +

EMOTIONAL FACTORS + AGE

Only when all this information is available can health status be accurately assessed. In this case, important inherited predispositions include not only gallbladder function, but also liver, pancreas, and gastrointestinal influences. (For a detailed discussion of this, refer to Josef Deck's volumes 'Principles of Iris Diagnosis' and 'Differentiation of Iris Signs'). Also, was there a family history of these problems? This was not ruled out in the control group. Environmental factors influencing this condition include dietary factors such as high fat and low fiber intake.

Emotional factors contributing to disease have long been recognized by empirical medical systems and even now to a limited degree by 'modern' medicine. Frustration is the emotion related by Chinese Medicine to this condition. Our English language corroborates, assigning definitions to the word 'gall' of something bitter or distasteful, bitter feeling, to annoy, to make sore by rubbing, etc.(2) Age factors cannot be ignored The older you are, the greater the opportunity for living out your predispositions. It is interesting to note that Western Medicine has recognized some of these risk factors and sees a higher incidence of gallbladder disease with the 4 F's - The Fat, Fertile, over-Forty Female. Considering the above equation, we can now identify several scenarios that may have occurred with this investigation. Assuming that there were signs in the gallbladder area reflecting a predisposition, the high degree of false positive assessment (Predicted progress but no symptoms) could have been due to lack of other contributing factor involving diet, age, and/or emotional factors. Also, how many of these patients had difficulty digesting fats? (An indicator of decreased function). How many had direct ancestors with problems of this type? The high defect of false negative signs (pathology without recognition by the Iridologists) could have been due to the lack of observation of specific pigments and contributing signs (especial with only one iris slide), the use of slides rather than direct examination of the iris by microscope, and the existence of other external risk factors which could create the disease state without a significant predisposition. When the results were presented to the participating Iridologists, they commented that, 1) Evaluating the image of the iris without access to other medical information is difficult, 2) Assessments are made more easily with slides of both eyes, 3) possibly other diseases apart from gallbladder disease are manifested more clean in the iris, 4) the conclusion was too final.

One can only assume that their participation and agreement to these parameters was influenced by their conviction that Iridology is an accurate assessment tool and the enthusiasm of being part of an opportunity to demonstrate its value to the mainstream community. It is unfortunate that they were not aware of the pitfalls experienced with the similar JAMA study here in America. Otherwise this outcome could have been avoided. The Deck volumes also provide a detailed history of past investigations, and a wealth of information exists about this type of situation.

Considering the concepts and issues raised in this discussion, and accepting that the previous studies were inappropriate, the question still remains among investigators: "Is Iridology valid?" If it is, how can it be tested? Here is a proposal:

1) Allow an assessment of a patient group with clear organ system disease histories.

2) Have the Iridologists identify what organ pathologies are suspected.

3) Compare the correct % of identified illnesses with the histories according to M.D.'s.

Remember, this is still an artificial application of Iridology. In order to compensate several conditions are necessary.

A) An elderly or chronically ill population. The only way to test this would be through a longitudinal study. This raises ethical questions of withholding information from a patient which could otherwise spare the patient significant discomfort or even be of a lifesaving nature. An elderly study group may have experienced most of their predispositions.

B) Accurate medical history

C) Availability of slit lamp microscopic examination. (Patients can be draped etc.)

D) Exclude individuals with significantly healthy diets and lifestyles.

Predispositions may lie dormant throughout a lifetime if other factors in the health status equation do not add up. The standard America: diet and sedentary lifestyles have been recognized (finally) as contributors to the high degree of illness in this country. People without these risk factors make a less suitable population for study because a the need for contributing variables to aggravate the disease process. Susceptibility is the achilles heel of epidemiologists. Remember that the individual is far too complex to fit neatly into the statistical model and the inability to do so is a problem for the researchers. The evolutian and changes in scientific thought will hopefully continue. Our challenge is to not let these contortions make us lose sight of the truth while wait to be proven valid.*

REFERENCES

1.Simon, A., Worthier D., Mitas, J.A., "An Evaluation of Iridology" Journal of the American Medical Association 1979, #242

2 Websters New World Dictionary; 1975. The World Publishing Company.

About The Author

Bill Caradonna R.Ph. is a Registered Pharmacist, Certified Nutritionist, and Vice President of The National Iridology Research Association.

Letters to the Editor of NIRA

Dear Editor,

The following background information may be important for evaluating the "Scientific" value of Dr.Paul Knipschild's study.

His exposure to Iridology was restricted to an article he had read in a popular magazine. He subsequently assigned a student to find 5 "leading" Iridologists who would be willing to participate in the study he designed. She succeeded in finding willing participants, but the leading Iridologists who were first approached to do the study had refused on the grounds that it was impossible to diagnose gallstones.

They repeatedly made reference to the literature so as to make it perfectly clear that gallstone diagnosis does not fall within the scope of this practice. Furthermore, the leading Naturopathic organization in Holland pointed out that they entire set-up of the study was incorrect.

Dr Knipschild never responded to these statements and criticisms. He merely boasted loudly via a via the popular media that Iridology is a fraud. I should note that more-recently his department did a literature review of Acupuncture and published the conclusion that it has no scientific basis, while merely stimulating a "placebo effect."

They are currently engaged in a literature study of Homeopathy - the outcome is predictable. From a friend on the inside,

Peter Guinee,R.Hom.

Netherlands