Talk:Iridology

Untitled

For past talk:
Talk:Iridology/archive1 (3 Apr 2003 - 22 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive2 (22 Jan 2004 - 25 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive3 (25 Jan 2004 - 10 Feb 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive4 (10 Jan 2004 - 1 Apr 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive5 (1 Apr 2004 - 7 Apr 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive6 (8 Apr 2004 - 19 May 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive7 (19 May 2004 - 02 June 2006)

Iridology

Two-three years ago I had stone in my right kidney. Five years before stone started making a lot of trouble I pass by iridologist. He stop me and told me that I have problem with kidney. I didn't pay attention at that time. So I took medications from urologist to help this stone move out. It did bother me, and bother me again and again for at list 3 month or longer. Thanks on heavy pain killer it was manageble and I was able to work. If stone would not pass it should be procedure to be done. At this piont I went on seminar for aromatherapy and Rain Drop technique. The part of it was little bit of Reflexology. My partner discovered moderate pain on right foot in spot corresponding to kidney and stimulated. Three days later stone pass away. Doctor said later than this size stones-4mm do not pass without prosedure. What was it, just coincidence? 06.10.06 LaCrosse ogkmv@comcast.net—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LaCrosse (talk • contribs) 17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

Yes. Or, maybe, no. That's why you have scientific medicine, not anecdotal - to sort out such stuff. - DavidWBrooks 18:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually fairly impressed with this article. It is quite even-handed on a subject that could be rather controvertial. That being said, whose bright idea was it to wander through wikipedia and make all sorts of completely irrelevant links? I understand that people want wikipedia to be interconnected, but shouldn't the links in an article lead to things that are important for or related to that article? Otherwise, why not just link every word? Is that actually the end goal? There is no reason for the links to various countries or various years, nor to such simple words as "body". Furthermore, I don't know whether putting in information followed by "citation needed" is really beneficial to the accuracy and quality of wikipedia. If the citation isn't there, perhaps the information shouldn't be there either, otherwise I could type in any old thing with a "citation needed" note after it and artificially inflate the percieved accuracy of that "fact". Or are wikipedians in general more concerned with quantity than quality. I am not part of the wikipedian community, nor do I have the time and inclination to be. However, if these issues are being argued elsewhere I think that I'd enjoy following that. Please point the way. I'll make a point of checking back here. In the mean-time, with the wiki spirit in mind, I'm going to edit out all those superfluous links.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.173.98.203 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

Being Non-Invasive is a benefit?

That first point, that it's non-invasive, isn't it a bit irrelevant? If the diagnostic method doesn't work, so what if we didn't mutilate the iridology victim to diagnose him? I can look at you from across the street and diagnose you with roughly the same accuracy, and that's not only non-invasive, but frhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iridology&action=edit Editing Talk:Iridology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaee as well. MrGalt 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The second point, that it has identified sicknesses before modern medicine has, is completely unfounded. I have removed it, although perhaps the entire section should be removed. 129.173.38.112 14:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Anon

I agree. If the invasive procedure diagnoses accurately, and iridology, being pseudo-science, does not, then being non-invasive is no benefit. I will remove this.—71.187.114.35 00:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course being Non-Invasive is a benefit, how could it be otherwise ?

If the invasive procedure diagnoses accurately, and iridology, being pseudo-science, does not, then being non-invasive is no benefit. This is true but irrelevant. The question is; is cutting someone open better than not cutting them open, the accuracy is irrelevant. Laughton.andrew (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Waniek Study

The following quote doesn't make much sense to me;

"one 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 functio ocularis systemica (systemic eye function). Based on this hypothesis, the researchers developed an experimental trans-iridal light therapy method" - From the end of "History"

Or rather I don't think it adds alot. The only reason I can see that this would have been put in is as an example of a study of non-visual functions of the eye. The point being made is that such studies are rarely funded, whilst this point is relevant the study cited doesn't seem to be to the practice of iridology as it is used as a diagnostic tool. It either needs some context or to be removed.

Possibly useful link at http://www.iriscamera.com/main/spazio.htm sorry i don't have the time to wade through the whole lot but that iris tissue originates not from the mesoderm but the neuroectodermic layer seems interesting as well. nigell k (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative or Traditional

The word Alternative is very ambiguous, "alternative" to what ? A traditional medical practitioner would consider modern medicine to be an "alternative", and vise versa. The term Traditional medicine is a much better fit, with the alternative being Modern medicine or Scientific medicine. Laughton.andrew (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to "evidence-based"? — BillC ^talk 23:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Here the system is clearly described by practitioners as "alternative". Basically, alternative medicine covers everything that is not medicine-medicine. Traditional medicine is generally reserved for folk medical systems whose origins are lost to antiquity. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo Science

The term "Pseudo Science" is not very neutral. A better description is needed. If this is based on one small unconfirmed study, that also happens to be disputed, is this science ? Laughton.andrew (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Iridology Related Field?

Medicine is related to Iridology? I don't think that anybody within the medical profession, be it Allopathic or Osteopathic Medicine would agree with this. Iridology is quackery and a pseudoscience. Presenting it as an "alternative medicine" may mislead, it should be clearly listed as being unproven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.55.200 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of work

The article is biased from the beginning. The whole of the article is in the form of an argument against iridology. It begins by saying that proponents of iridology "believe" certain things about iridology, as if iridology is just a matter of faith, similar to religion. Later it states that iridology is not supported by any published studies, but the writer has offered nothing to show how he made this observation. In fact there are published studies on iridology. The article continues on about critics. It then talks about "well-controlled" studies and offers up the study published bye the Journal of the American Medical Association. [statement that violates WP:BLP removed by BullRangifer.] I will be making changes to this article over time. bruvensky (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a libelous statement from your comment per our WP:BLP policy. Read that policy. Don't reinstate it or you will be blocked. I also suggest you familiarize yourself with our policies before you start making too many changes, especially WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. The scientific POV gets priority in articles about fringe subjects. Statements about unproven subjects like iridology must be couched in language that ensures that readers don't get the impression that the claims of promoters of iridology are automatically true. If something is unproven, it is a belief. To the believer it is accepted as fact. Simple as that. We follow the relieble sources here. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any comments about Iridology. All I have done so far is to criticize the article. Merely suggesting that the article may have problems has gotten quite a response. bruvensky (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Concrete suggestions on how to improve the article are always welcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Additional relatively innocent comment:

I entered this discussion with a mildly digressive comment, expecting to find intelligent discussion. Whoa! I should have expected, discovering for myself that the article reflects genuine bias, that discussion demonstrates the previously mentioned "hornet's nest" full of subtle vituperation and intellectual posturing and bullying. It's fun to read, but does not really sink to the center of the discussion. Still, blithely, I scatter my seed into the tempest. Recent discoveries find plenty of information about WHOLE BRAIN conditions through optical coherence tomography (OCS) which does not read the iris so much as light-sensitive retinal tissue. Discoveries are, according to this article, concrete: While I admit I have not read the original papers, a discerning reader CAN discover the source by reading the piece. My point, tenuously and timidly presented, is that the neuronal connectivity between the iris and retinal is not conjecture and that OCS has reflected concrete diagnostic indicators. AgTip (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Parrisja 2012.10.20

We need high quality sources to add content, and the iris and retina are different parts of the eyes and conflating the two is unhelpful. 20:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Yobol (talk)

Yobol, AgTip said 'the iris and retinal' not 'the iris and retina,' unless they misused the word retinal, an adjective, and meant to use retina as you interpret. To me it sounds like they are using the word retinal, a noun, meaning a form of vitamin A; if this is true, making the comment about 'conflating the two' was pointless. seVEMes

Jimbo released the hounds against lunatic charlatans. That's why they cannot prevail at Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Editor assistance

This article is the subject of a discussion at Editor assistance requests. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

LeafRed66

Definition of Iridology

The initial part of this article on Iridology provides an inaccurate description of Iridology. I also states that there is a lack of quality research studies referencing as evidence of this statement an article by E. Ernst MD PhD who is a known <redacted> and the author of countless articles seeking to discredit everything from chiropractics to aromatherapy to just about any other alternative, wellness or preventative approach to health out there. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/AJW1976/colic-folk-remedies_n_841418_82456492.html (expand the thread) It is inappropriate to have someone with such extreme views as Dr. Ernst as the sole contributor to this page. In his studies (all three studies listed on the page are in fact from Dr. Ernst's one study) Dr. Ernst uses the fact that Iridology does not diagnose disease to discredit Iridology. However, Iridologist do not disagree with that statement. They do not diagnose disease. This page, in order to provide a less biased and more complete view of Iridology must include what Iridologist's say it does. It must also include current research and not just research from the 70's and earlier.

I propose the following description of Iridology be added to this page:

Iridology (also known as iris diagnosis) is a technique whose proponents study the iris structure, iris markings, iris color, pigment markings, pupil size and shape and other characteristics of the iris to determine information about a patient's systemic health. Practitioners view combinations of iris markings and structure to determine a persons constitution, a term used by Iridologists to refer to a pattern of inherent strengths and weakness of body systems and organs that they claim predispose an individual to particular aging processes.

Iridologists also use an iris chart, developed by numerous Iridologists over the last 350 years, beginning with Phillippus Meyens ), who gave the basic understanding for the first iris chart (See History). The Iris Chart provides of map that Iridologist’s are developing, as a work in progress, to determine the location of different body organs as represented in the iris and is used, in combination with determining the individual constitutional type, to locate areas of the body that require additional support in the prevention of disease and in the aging process. The Iris Chart was developed primarily by medical doctors who observed that their patients who shared the same diseases also shared strikingly similar iris characteristics.

Iridology has been criticized by the medical profession as a method that does not accurately diagnose disease, however Iridologists do not attempt to diagnose disease. The primary focus of Iridology is to assess system and organ strength and weakness, and the relationship between these strengths and weaknesses to the aging process, to be utilized in a pro-health vs anti-disease approach to wellness. For this reason, Iridology is primarily of interest to practitioners of natural medicine and healthy living, particularly naturopaths, nutritionists, herbalists, and natural healers, as a method (amongst several used in tangent) to guide effective personalized cleansing and rejuvenation programs In alternative medical circles the holistic view of the body, available through iris analysis, is considered invaluable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeafRed66 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

References: all leading textbooks on Iridology

School of Natural Healing - Dr. J.R. Christopher, Nutri Books Corp, 1971

Iridology - A complete guide to iris diagnosis and related forms of treatment - Farida Sharan, Thorntons 1986

Iridology - Dorothy Hall - Keats Publishing, 1981

Practical Iridology - Peter Jackson-Main - Carroll & Brown Publishers, 2004

numerous web references can also be supplied

=== --LeafRed66 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted recent changes; removed valid references to iridology being pseudoscientific, added information from poorly formatted refs that seemed dubiously POV and apologetic in content, such as trying to explain why it shouldn't be expected to be able to diagnose a disease (why, it was never meant to!). Yobol (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Yobol - it seems you have an objection to changes made on the Iridology page. Currently the Iridology page does not define Iridology accurately, using research done by Dr. Ernst, a known extremist, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/AJW1976/colic-folk-remedies_n_841418_82456492.html (expand the thread), who discredits iridology by stating that it does not diagnose disease, when in fact Iridologists to do not attempt to do so. I have listed references. All of Dr. Ernst's references are pre-1970's, thus excluding all modern research of the subject, none of which attempts to prove that Iridology diagnoses disease. Let's chat about it and see if we can resolve your issues with the changes. Thanks --LeafRed66 (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Ernst is a well known and respected researcher of CAM, and citing a blog comment to personally attack his character is likely a WP:BLP violation. If I were you'd I'd redact that particular comment.

2) Saying iridology doesn't "diagnose" is hard to take seriously given an alternate name is "iridiodiagnosis" and the term means "eye diagnosis". I guess these iridology textbooks probably should change their names, as "diagnosis" is in the title of the books. Yobol (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of those examples, the book "Principles of Iris Diagnosis" (Grundlagen der irisdiagnostik) by Josef Deck is another.

@LeafRed66: You use a book written by Farida Sharan called "Iridology - A complete guide to diagnosing through the iris and to related forms of treatment" as a reference. The chapter "Acceptance of Positivity and Negativity" starts with the words: "Iridology is a diagnostic tool..." (et cetera). I oppose the changes proposed above because they will not improve the article. For example the sentence "The Iris Chart was developed...iris characteristics" is unsourced and probably not true and the sentence "Iridology has been criticized...diagnose disease." is unsourced and certainly not true. Wasbeer 04:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Yobo, Iris diagnosis is a term that has been used for a couple hundred years. Iridology itself has come a long way since then. The term Iridology (the title of this wiki page) does not contain the word 'diagnosis' in it. Also the word 'diagnosis' does not have to refer to diagnosing 'disease' from the medical perspective. Cookbooks refer to diagnosing issues with recipes. The name can not be used to limit the definition of a system and a study that is surely not limited by its historical names. Next you refer to Dr. Ernst as a well known and respected researcher. His role as a researcher has been to conduct hundreds of high-conflict, poorly designed 'studies' to discredit everything alternative or preventative from chiropractics to aromatherapy. He is not an expert on Iridology in any way. All of the 'research' presented on the Iridology is from his one 'study' on the subject, which took only tiny outdated, pre-70's studies by non-professionals (he excluded serious studies from his study, which is what he is most famous for doing). He mentions three and five iridologist studies when there exist clinical studies that exceed two thousand clients. In addition, a qualified Iridologist would not participate in a study that attempts to diagnose disease as they already are quite clear on the fact that it does not. In Farida Sharan's Iridology Textbook (Iridology - A complete guide...listed above), which is the primary textbook on Iridology today, it states in the the section Iridology Does and Does Not - under what Iridology does not do she listed as number one Diagnose specific diseases (only analyses tissue changes). She goes on to state in numbers two through seven: 2. Show where operations have been performed under anesthetic. 3. Identify gallstones, kidney stones (only tissue predisposition). 4. Identify male or female, or pregnancy in the female. 5. Show presence of micro-organisms, parasites, etc. (only predisposition) 6. Cannot predict lifespan, or time of death (Europeans claim death signs) 7. Specifically identify individual drugs, poisons, or preservatives. Today, thereare too many taken in from inheritance, food preservatives, medicines, beauty products, pollution and life habits to be able to discriminate individually. - So, as the primary textbook on Iridology with current research (not pre-70's) she makes it very clear that Iridology does not diagnose disease. Of course she also states that you can not diagnose kidney stones or gall stones as well. Note the studies referenced on the Iridology page refer to the fact that Iridology can not do these things. Dr. Ernst devised a study that proves what Iridologists already say...Iridology does not diagnose disease...and then uses this study to discredit Iridology. This is not the study of an unbiased researcher. In other publications, such as the book by Peter Jackson-Main, it is also quite clear what Iridology does do, and diagnose disease is not one of them. Currently the Iridology page has been written by someone(s) who have used Dr Ernst's work without reference to real Iridologists or real iridologists study and work, thus it is a biased page that requires changing by wiki's standards. Lastly the references to the page that you state are unsourced is not the case. I put the sources on the talk page and failed to paste them onto the Iridology page. Yes they are true statements. I will correct that. --LeafRed66 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Yobo, Please note the dates of the books that you have provided as links to point out the use of the word diagnosis - they are all close to 100 years old. In addition, although at that time they were researching to see if Iridology could diagnose disease, the primary use of Iridology, even then, was to determine or 'diagnose' pre-disposition and the aging process. The use of the term 'diagnosis' is not relevant to correcting the inaccuracies in the Iridology page. --LeafRed66 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@LeafRed66: His or her name is Yobol, not Yobo. You are partially correct. Some supporters of iridology say iridology cannot diagnose diseases (medical diagnosis). But other supporters of iridology still claim it can be used to diagnose diseases. Not only a hundred years ago; this article was posted on the first of September 2007. This article was posted on April 2 2010. These are just some examples, I can search for more if you want me to. I think the people who support iridology and are aware of the fact that it can not and should not be used to diagnose diseases should try to explain to the people who support iridology but think it can be used to diagnose diseases that they are wrong. If those people stop making claims about being able to diagnose diseases with iridology and a reliable source writes about that then we can rewrite this article. Remember: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Wasbeer 00:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wasbeer, Thank you for your notes. I did look at the two articles that you provided links for. Neither is signed by an 'author.' The first one had a title that states Iridology can diagnose disease and then does not follow up with that statement in the article. This could have been written by any mis-guided journalist, and probably was. The second article again makes a grand statement, with no verification, and no 'author.' Although it is true that there are people who will write anything and publish it on the internet, wiki is not dependent on the non-existance of misguided people in order to correct this Iridology page. Certainly editing this page does not require 'convincing' those that are not professional iridologists what Iridology does and does not do so that, once convinced, we can then correct the wiki page. Perhaps an accurate page may assist those writing articles to get their facts straight. So thank you for your points, but this does not alter the fact that the edits that I am doing on this page are accurate and should be published. --LeafRed66 (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's get to the point here: modern iridologists often times do not make specific disease diagnoses because they legally can't: that would be practicing medicine without a license, so they skirt the issue by using a bunch of scientific sounding, but largely pseudoscientific terminology such as "energy" which they can use to skirt by medical licensing laws. This, however doesn't mean they don't make general diagnoses about "nutritional deficiencies" and telling the patients which body systems or organs may be damaged, which while skirting the legal definition of making a medical dignosis, doesn't mean they aren't diagnosing something. The entire premise of iridology is to diagnose that there is something wrong with a particular part of the body based on the iris - to say iridology makes no diagnosis is to dispute the entire concept. (This, of course, completely leaves aside youre original research in claiming that this lack of diagnosis by iridology refutes the negative studies of iridology - if this were true, the iridiologists should have known not to take part in the study since they shouldn't have been able to test positive anyways). Your entire premise is based on faulty logic and poor research. Yobol (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Yobol - What you have just said, in context of the discussion about changes on this page is irrelevant and in addition your tone is not cooperative and is borderline rude. The point here is to make an iridology page that accurately states what Iridologist say they do, with links and referencing, and adding legitimate criticism that is verifiable. By Wiki standards when a page presents fringe topics then both sides are to be represented. Currently the only references are circular, all leading to Dr Ernst and his one faulty study, and without representing what Iridologists themselves claim or any of the studies done by Iridologists, and books published by Iridologists, any websites by Iridologists, etc. It is EASY to see that this is an extremely biased page written by someone (perhaps yourself) who is determined to discredit Iridology and doing so without honoring the facts. You are making an argument that is not in context with the changes put forward which is 'argumentative' without being productive. For example, the term 'energy' is not part of the edits suggested, and as far as I have seen is not a part of iridology either and never has been. If your goal is to be antagonistic instead of improve the page it might be a good idea to take this matter up a notch. Your arguments do not add to the process of trying to correct the page and you also do not exhibit an understanding of what iridologists do say they do, instead only 'sound bites' designed to discredit in an off hand way. Wiki's goal is to have accurate pages. This page currently isn't. That is the bottom line. The edits suggested are accurate, and a significant improvement to the page. To suggest that my 'premise' is based on faulty logic and poor research, when your entire paragraph is riddled with faulty logic and poor research, and lacks a premise to begin with, is rather humorous. I suggest sticking to the edits at hand and leaving the insults in your imagination. --LeafRed66 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

@Leafred66: Do you have reliable sources to back up your claims (e.g. about Ernst)? Do you have a reliable source that says that iridology is no longer used to give a medical diagnosis? Secondary or tertiary sources (metastudies) are considered more reliable, the references are not circular, please read Wikipedia:MEDRS#Respect_secondary_sources. Ernst is given due weight imho. A lot of reliable sources do mention the fact that iridology is still used to diagnose diseases and they are not a hundred years old. For example Can iridology detect susceptibility to cancer? A prospective case-controlled study. (2005), and Looking for colorectal cancer in the patients iris?. (2008). Was dr. Ernst involved in those studies? He is not listed among the authors. I think Ernst lives in the UK, both studies are German. In the end our personal opinion is irrelevant (mine, yours and Yobol's), we need reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources that contradict the article I am willing to change the article. Wasbeer 13:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, while we should definitely make clear the position of iridologists, on Wikpedia we prefer the use of secondary sources instead of primary sources. The article should be based on independent reliable sources, of which Ernst's studies clearly qualify. If you have any reliable secondary sources saying iridology doesn't make diagnoses, then bring them forward. Yobol (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yobol, You miss the point over and over again. It was not stated that Iridologists do not diagnose. There was always a classifier; they do not diagnose diseases, specific diseases, they do not make medical diagnoses or specific medical diagnoses. To say that a person has weakness in their kidney or liver is a diagnosis, although it is not medical or specific to a disease. Please get off your soapbox of all encompassing, unclassified diagnosis. Medical doctors do not have a monopoly on diagnosis, only that of diseases. seVEMes

Perusing LeafRed's preferred iridology textbook by farida sharan shows numerous pseudo-science references to "energy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.155.201.115 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

LeafRed also seems to miss the point that the object here is NOT "to make an iridology page that accurately states what Iridologist say they do" but to make an iridology page that reflects what WP:RS sources say iridologists do, not necessarily what the Iridoligists themselves say they do. Snertking (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

An indeffed troll of this article has the legal right to practice medicine. But that does not magically make iridology any less of a quackery. Yup, just because homeopathy is practiced by MDs, it does not stop it from being quackery. He threatened with legal action, but he forgot that Lady Justice has a double-edged sword. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Ocular scanner vs Iris scanner

Regarding the total deletion of revision 505173903 by Laughton.andrew (talk) not iridology and not MEDRS) by user Yobol Could you please explain your logic behind this complete deletion ? Also please explain the AUA "MEDRS". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughton.andrew (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the use of jargon. WP:MEDRS describes sources that meets our criteria for reliable sourcing for medical claims, which the sources you provided do not appear to meet. In addition, the sources you describe appear to be describing retinal scanners, which look at parts of the eyes other than the iris which is what iridology looks at, and therefore appears off topic to this article. Yobol (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

In what were the previous edits in violation of NPOV? There is no evidence that iridologists can use charts to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy organs. There is no evidence that areas of the eye correspond to certain areas of the body. Thus it should be stated that these are the iridologists' beliefs; not facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.43.72 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point here. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative medicine?

Do we have a reliable source, not connected with iridology that claims that it is an "alternative medicine" practice? It is not listed by NCCAM, nor the Wikipedia article on Alternative Medicine, nor the NEI. Granted the bar is pretty low to get on the AM list, but I don't think iridology gets there.Desoto10 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly alt med; practiced by some naturopaths. Ample number of sources call it alt med, such as here. Yobol (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Stability of iris patterns

I've asked for a reference to the stability of iris patterns. I've reverted the references given by Tpbsk "Chellappaedited" & "Pankantiedited" as they do not address this - they just refer to Daugmann. His beliefs can be summarised as "reading health through iridology is bunkum and therefore any suggestion that an iris can change is bunkum" (e.g. P117 in Biometrics). Daugmann is promoting his own proprietary iris recognition technology business which relies on a stable iris, but I have yet to see any respectable proof of stability published. In fact, the sources given do in fact suggest that the iris can change soon after birth and under one specific circumstance. I'd like to see some concrete proof of his assertion. Ephebi (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Page 27 of the Chellapa reference and page 116 of the Pankanti reference both talk about the stability of the iris in context of iridology. The exceptions listed by Pankanti (occurring right after birth) and, per the source, a medically unverified assertion about a possible drug effect, would not seem relevant to iridology as iridology would not be useful in newborns. As our article does not cite "Daugmann", your beef with them is of no relevance here. Yobol (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

they are derivative sources of Daugmann and fail WP:RSMED for this article. He is a mathematician and his paper (on mathematical iris recognition) is being interpreted as medical evidence through your use of the C & P references. This use fails WP standards on several counts, as its a single study, non-impartial, and is WP:Original research by synthesis. As such my question still stands - have there been any studies into the stability of an iris over a lifetime? The first reference cited below (scienceblog) notes that there are changes in deep layers of the eye, so its not like this concern can be dismissed offhand. To avoid an edit war please leave the cn request on the page until proper sources are found. Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Added a source published in PLOSONE. That the iris does not change significantly (in the context of iridology) seems uncontroversial in the medical literature, so I'm not sure what the real beef is. Yobol (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for a reference

Any chance of getting a reference for this statement at the end of the first paragraph in the "History" section?

"At the First International Iridological Congress, Ignaz von Peczely's nephew, August von Peczely, dismissed this myth as apocryphal, and maintained that such claims were irreproducible."

Also, can we clarify the claim (assuming there is a reference somewhere)? What is an "irreproducible" claim? That particular claim about the bird with the broken leg has been reproduced many, many times. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

An irreproducible claim is a subform of irreproducible data; it is data that can not be reproduced using experimental conditions as near identical as possible. In the instant case, I would interpret that statement to indicate that the speaker at the Congress is saying that other investigators were unable to see the patterns reported in either owls or humans with broken legs, or alternatively, that no one else has heard that story, and hence that the veracity of the story cannot be reproduced (by asking someone else, or perhaps the original claimant, whether that's how it happened). User:tamoroso 01:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Basic Health Publications, Inc.

According to [1], it is the home of all sorts of quackery promoting books. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)