Hi Readers,
I think any website that believes Iridology works has to be treated as suspect, and Ryvita promotes it, Exerter University Professor Edzard Ernst Department of Complementary Medicine and various other researchers have all condemned Iridology.
Scientific research into iridology
Well controlled scientific evaluation of iridology has shown entirely negative results, with all rigorous double blinded tests failing to find any statistical significance to its claims.
In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Simon et al.[9], 1979), three 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."
Another study was published in the British Medical Journal (Knipschild[10], 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 had 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 and attacked the methodology of the study.
Edzard Ernst said in 2000: "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. 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."[6]
Regulation, licensure, and certification
In Canada and the United States, iridology is not regulated or licensed by any governmental agency. Numerous organizations offer certification courses.
References
1. ↑ Cline D; Hofstetter HW; Griffin JR. Dictionary of Visual Science. 4th ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston 1997. ISBN 0-7506-9895-0
2. ↑ Jensen B; "Iridology Simplified". 2nd ed., Escondido 1980.
3. ↑ Waniek, D.A., Medical Hypotheses 1987;23(1): 309-312. PMID 3614020
4. ↑ Popescu, M.P.; Waniek D.A., Rev Chir Oncol Radiol O R L Oftalmol Stomatol Ser Oftalmol 1986;30(1): 29-33. PMID 2940632 (in Romanian)
5. ↑ Iridology Is Nonsense, a web page with further references
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Ernst E. Iridology: not useful and potentially harmful. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2000 Jan;118(1):120-1. PMID 10636425
7. ↑ Inside Iris Recognition
8. ↑ Iris Recognition
9. ↑ Simon A., Worthen D.M., Mitas JA 2nd. An evaluation of iridology. JAMA. 1979 Sep 8;242(13):1385-9. PMID 480560
10. ↑ Knipschild P. Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris. BMJ. 1988 Dec 17;297(6663):15
Cheers