Claims
Like everything else in new
age medicine, iridology claims to be a logical, scientific, and natural
system of diagnosis. Bernard Jensen thinks that the only reason critics
of iridology exist is because they have never studied it, and
furthermore, that no medical doctor who has used it has ever rejected
it:
Whenever anyone, whether
doctor or layman, tells me he thinks there is nothing to it, I make it
a practice to ask first if he has studied Iridology and whether he has
spent more than three months with it. Invariably I find that those who
have condemned it never have spent more than ten minutes or so reading
about the subject…. Every medical doctor who has ever used
it gave up many of his medical
remedies and turned to nature cure methods for healing.1
As we will show later, Jensen
is clearly wrong. Nevertheless, iridologists persist in calling
iridology "a true, definite, accurate science."2
Jensen even claims iridology
is one of the most essential of diagnostic methods. Consider his
assessment of its powers:
Iridology can be used in
conjunction with any other form of analysis and diagnosis.
The iridologist can
determine the inherent structure and the working capacity of an organ,
can detect environmental strain, and can tell whether a person is
anemic and in what stage the anemia exists…. He can determine the
constructive ability of the blood, ... He can determine the nerve
force, the responsive healing power of [issue, and the inherent
ability to circulate the blood.
The iris of the eye can
show acute, subacute, chronic, and destructive stages in the body.
Many other factors are also revealed such as organic and functional
changes.... It foretells the development of many conditions long
before they have manifested into disease symptoms.
No other science tells so
accurately the progress from acute to chronic states.
Only iridology is capable
of directing attention to impending conditions; only iridology reveals
and evaluates inherent weaknesses.
In using iridology you need
ask no questions yet you can tell where pain is, what stage it is in,
how it got there, and when it is gone.3
But this is nonsense.
Because the iris of the eye
has no such diagnostic powers, to conventionally trained physicians such
claims smack of magic. In his article "An Eye for the Future" in
Iridologist International Manual for Research and
Development, 2-11/12, Jensen further argues for the powers of
iridology: "We must realize that iridology represents a law of
nature that cannot be changed. I believe that it is just as immutable
and unchangeable as any of the laws that govern the universe."4
Practitioners and proponents
of iridology repeatedly assert that the practice is a legitimate and
valid clinical procedure, but surprisingly, they may also claim that
they do not actually engage in the diagnosis of illness or disease. This
is incredible because iridology is fundamentally a diagnostic procedure.
No one argues that iridologists do not diagnose in the same manner that
normal physicians do, but they do diagnose. Iridologists who claim
otherwise may simply be protecting their assets by guarding against
expensive lawsuits.
Articles in Jensen’s own
publications prove that iridologists engage in diagnosis. For example,
Iridologists International Manual for Research and
Development, 2-11/12, contains an article by Fernandiz titled "Hemicrania
(Migraine) and Its Diagnosis by Means of the Iris."5
Iridologists even claim that their iris diagnosis can divine future
illness or disease, even though not a shred of evidence exists for such
a conclusion—other than what iridologists think they see in the eye. But
we cited Jensen above as teaching that iridology "foretells the
development of many conditions long before they have manifested into
disease symptoms."6
Consider a second example.
Armand Ian Brint is a charter member of Iridologists International and
has taught iridology and other new age practices throughout California.
He is the founder of the Berkeley Holistic Health Center and currently
works with chiropractors. He argues that through iridology, "It is
possible to detect signs of an impending heart attack or a cerebral
stroke."7
What is even more incredible
is that iridologists may claim that they can determine unknown past or
future events—whether a patient will commit suicide and even whether or
not the suicide will be bloodless; or whether or not a family member
such as a grandfather or great aunt died from a stroke!8
Iridologists who diagnose in such a manner are just as likely to be
engaging in diagnosis by psychic means, using the iris as a contact
point for divination.
Scientific Evaluation
Before we proceed to examine
the basic theory of iridology and why it is scientifically incorrect, we
should note that there are certain medical conditions that can be
recognized by a medical examination of the eye. For example, jaundice
usually shows up first in the white of the eye. Also, the transparent
cornea of the eye can be affected by viruses, usually the herpes virus.
The lens of the eye itself can be involved in general disease.
Physicians routinely examine the inner lining of the eye called the
fundus. Here the arteries may give an indication of general diseases
such as high blood pressure and diabetes.9
But none of this is
iridology. No iridologist’s exam is in any way comparable to a
physician’s exam, either in theory or practice. Iridologists claim to
read endless physical conditions from the iris alone. The renowned
ophthalmologist Professor Schreck, M.D., observes:
The iris interpreters
employ a completely different and in no way comparable examination
technique. They claim to "see" diseases of the human body from normal
tissue by simply looking at its surface.
We have here a grotesque,
absurd paradox, unique in all medical history, that these people want
to read diseases out of completely normal tissue. Worse still, they do
not even refer to disorders of this tissue itself, but to diseases of
organs that are far from it, and in no way related in any way to the
iris…. What the iris-interpreters refer to and where they claim to
"see" bodily diseases is nothing else than simple variations of the
normal structure and coloring of the iris that carry no pathological
significance and therefore have no value for diagnosis.10
The Problem of Diagnosis
Scientific medicine is based
upon consistent and proven methods of medical diagnosis. But a major
problem of new age medicine is that, having rejected science,
practitioners as a whole rarely agree when it comes to methods of
diagnosis. This is illustrated in iridology.
For example, there are some
twenty different iridology charts that a practitioner may choose
from in his practice. As Dr. Worrall observes, "Confusion is the first
order of business in the clinical application of iridology."11
The iridologist has the same problem as the astrologer. Which chart
among many conflicting charts does the iridologist choose? On what
logical basis is one’s chart proven to be better than another that
contradicts it? Even though most charts are in general agreement in
major divisions (such as the leg area being positioned at the six
o’clock segment) this does not help the case of the iridologist.
Considering iridology as a whole, there are a great number of
differences in both interpretation and location of iris signs.
Iridologist Theodore Kriege
confesses that "Nearly every iris researcher has tried to evolve
something special for himself, with the result that varying perceptions
and interpretations are current. ... In comparing the available
literature in this respect we find considerable differences."12
Incredibly, Bernard Jensen
freely admits that the charts do not agree and yet says, "Let us look at
all charts with an open mind. We do not wish to criticize or break down
anyone else’s ideas."13
One can only wonder how the problems of diagnosis revealed in
contradictory iridology charts can be remedied by an "open mind." In
fact, only his chart "can be used for certain of our purposes."14
Why, one wonders, if iridology is really a "science" as he claims?
But to see how unscientific
iridology is, one only need compare iridology charts with standard
medical anatomy charts, such as the kind you see posted on the walls of
doctors’ examining rooms. The iridology charts are not uniform. This
means that when an iridologist trusts one particular chart, another
chart will contradict it. This makes deriving useful information from
such charts impossible. But it is an entirely different situation with
standard anatomical charts. Do these scientific charts conflict and
disagree? Not at all. One may compare the charts published by a dozen
different companies. They will each agree down to the smallest
anatomical details. Can we imagine the confusion in medical schools, not
to mention operating rooms, if all of the charts contradicted one
another and doctors could not agree on basic human anatomy? Why then do
iridologists claim their practice is scientific when their most
fundamental premises are in conflict?
Dr. Samuel Pfeifer
illustrates the problems faced by the iridologist in diagnosis:
Although every
iris-interpreter tells the patient that there was only one diagnostic
key, one author has counted no less than 19 different Iridology
charts. According to the various charts, the same small area between
230 and 240 degrees—an area the width of a pin—can indicate disorders
of the following organs: the liver, the little finger, the arm, the
diaphragm, the hand, the ribs, the axillary lymphnodes, and the gall
bladder.
It is estimated that there
are about 10,000 diseases. It is not clear how they would all
find their reflection in the tiny space of the iris.15
For this critique, we
examined the iridology charts of Bernard Jensen, LaDean Griffin,
Theodore Kriege, Korvin-Swiecki, and others. Anyone who does this will
prove to himself that iridologists do not agree on what parts of
the iris relate to what parts of the body.16
How then can iridologists
possibly claim that they can give accurate diagnoses based on their
conflicting charts?
Another characteristic of new
age medicine is its expertise at rationalizing failures. It is
particularly adept at finding reasons to ignore or reinterpret
scientific testing disproving its claims.
Scientific tests of
iridologists reveal a high degree of what are called false
positives—iridologists diagnosing diseases that are not even present.
How do iridologists respond?
They seek to explain this by
telling us that iris diagnosis has the magical ability to predict
diseases that will happen even years in the future—so, of course, they
will not show up through a physical examination in the present! In other
words, even though not a shred of evidence exists to confirm the
iridologists diagnosis, it must still be true, because iridology cannot
fail.
Bernard Jensen argues, "Many
times the conditions revealed in the iris today will not be apparent in
the body for years to come, but time will inevitably show the
analysis to be correct."17
In other words, we are to
have faith that iridology is always correct. This is true even though
the underlying theory of iridology is anatomically false and
iridologists routinely fail scientific testing of their diagnostic
abilities.
Faith in iridology is what is
important, not anatomy or clinical trials. This means the iridologist is
willing to risk the health of his patient on the flimsiest of
rationalizations. It is equivalent to arguing in the following manner:
faith in gambling is what is important; the odds against winning are
irrelevant.
Iridologists have no excuses
for other aspects of their practice; for example, diagnosing illnesses
that are not even known to exist. "Many of the conditions detected by
practitioners of iridology are ‘diseases’ whose existence has been
disputed or discredited by scientific investigation. A common finding is
a toxic bowel settlement…. The toxic settlement theory of disease was
soundly discredited in the early part of this century."18
In another text, Paul Reisser,
M.D., observed:
Another fundamental theory
problem for iridology is its insistence that each iris reveals what is
happening on its particular side of the body. (That is, the right iris
shows right-sided problems, and similarly for the left.) This
contradicts a fundamental observation that incoming nerve impulses
from one side of the body nearly always cross to the opposite side on
their way to the brain. Dr. Jensen has proposed, in response to this
problem, that the optic nerve serves as the final messenger between
the nervous system and the iris. This explanation would allow for a
second crossing of information back to the eye on the same side of the
body, but creates two new problems. First, the optic nerve has been
shown without question to be only a "one way" messenger, carrying
information from the retina to the brain and not in reverse. (Indeed,
the optic nerve is not known to connect directly to the iris at all.)
Second, only half of the fibers of the optic nerve cross to the
opposite side of the brain.
Since the precise way in
which the iris tells us about distant organs is at best poorly
defined, Iridology characterizes itself as an "empiric" science. That
is, it is based upon the experience of its practitioners rather than
controlled studies. Presumably, over the years iridologists have noted
the appearance of the irises in many patients and then correlated
these observations with the patients’ health problems. Unfortunately,
however, iridologists use disease classifications which are not
generally accepted outside of the subculture in which they practice.
Terms such as "toxic accumulations" or "lymphatic congestion" abound
in Iridology literature, but they are at best vaguely defined and at
worst meaningless to the health care community at large.19
Notes
1
