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 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:

 

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.*

 

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

 

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,