Here are reasons why iridologists like the ones who conducted this tom foolery are criminals, praying on the desperate and uneducated. Not my personal
opinions, not what some guys says, but hard studies and nothing but. They speak for themselves. Deny ignorance folks.
Simon et al10 studied patients suffering from kidney disease as defined by a creatinine level higher than 106 µmol/L (1.2 mg/dL); the controls were
free of kidney disease. Patients were assessed as a total group as well as 2 separate subgroups, one with moderately high creatinine levels (up to 433
µmol/L [4.9 mg/dL]) and one with markedly high creatinine levels (557-1414 µmol/L [6.3-16.0 mg/dL]). Kidney disease was chosen for convenience and
because iridologists felt comfortable with it (and with the study outline). Photographs were taken of both irides of all 146 study participants,
coded, and shown to 3 experienced iridologists and 3 ophthalmologists. They were asked to categorize the photographs according to patients (kidney
disease) and controls (no kidney disease). The resulting frequency of false-positive and false-negative diagnoses was not significantly different from
that expected by chance. Simon and coauthors concluded that "none of the 6 observers in this study derived data of clinical importance or
significance."10
Knipschild11 conducted another investigator-masked case-control study. His 39 patients had inflamed gallbladder disease as confirmed by subsequent
surgery. Patients with jaundice were excluded. Controls were matched for age and sex and had no signs or symptoms of gallbladder disease. Gallbladder
disease was chosen because the participating 6 iridologists, all leading experts in their field, had previously indicated that this condition was
impossible to overlook. Stereo color slides were taken of the right iris of each patient, coded, randomized, and shown to the iridologists. Validity,
sensitivity, specificity, and consistency were not significantly different from that expected by pure chance. Knipschild concluded that "iridology is
not a useful diagnostic tool."11
Buchanan and coworkers12 took color photographs of the irides of 4 different patient populations—ulcerative colitis (n=30), coronary heart disease
(n=25), asthma (n=30), and psoriasis (n=30)—and 1 control group. Controls were matched for age and sex. These photographs were coded and analyzed by
an investigator, both manually and by a computer program according to criteria generated by reputed iridologists.1-2 Using either method,
discrimination between cases and controls was not different from that expected by chance. The authors concluded that "diagnosis of these diseases
cannot be aided by an iridological-style analysis."12
Source
archopht.ama-assn.org...
If you want to try and discredit a highly proven and evaluated vaccine, an iridologist is the last person that will help you acquire credibility.
