Re: More Infrmation which shows iridology is quackery.



On Oct 9, 7:57 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/120#REF-ESA80002-14

<cite>
Might iridology be doing any harm? Waste of money and time are two
obvious undesired effects. The possibility of false-positive
diagnoses, ie, diagnosing—and subsequently treating—conditions that
did not exist in the first place, seems more serious. The real
problem, however, might be false-negative diagnoses: someone may feel
unwell, go to an iridologist, and be given a clean bill of health.
Subsequently, this person could be found to have a serious disease.
In such cases, valuable time for early treatment (and indeed lives)
can be lost through the use of iridology. No data are available on
how frequently such problems occur. Thus no firm judgments are
possible as to the damage done by iridology in real life.

In conclusion, few controlled studies with masked evaluation of
diagnostic validity have been published. None have found any benefit
from iridology. As iridology has the potential for causing personal
and economic harm, patients and therapists should be discouraged from
using it.

</cite>

Sorry Carole, You wasted your time in visiting this quack. How he may
be right nothing is physically wrong with you.

Did he even mention your "life Long Calcium deficency or your
reoccuring fungus growth? all of which should have been indicated by
his examination if Iridology had any real substance to it.

Actually From the Accounts read here:http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/confessions.html

<Cite>
The beauty of not having to provide a diagnosis from the eye is that
the practitioner simply uses the iris to create leading questions.
Suppose I had a patient who had a mark in his lung area. My first
question would be "Have you ever had a problem with your lungs?
Something like asthma, pneumonia, or emphysema?" If the patient could
remember something like that I was considered a genius, but if there
was nothing obvious I would question further. "Perhaps you have had a
cold recently?" If the answer was no and there wasn't anything
obvious the next step would be to look at the bowel, which is
theorized to cause lung weakness. The bowel is represented in the eye
as the area directly around the pupil and is usually darker than the
rest of the iris. If the bowel was dark then the obvious answer was
that the patient had an unknown lung weakness resultant from the
bowel. If there was no bowel problem, the last answer was that there
was a genetic lung weakness that needed to be treated to prevent
future problems.

Does this process prove iridology? No, in fact, it condemns
iridology. If the exam brings up a past history of lung problems, it
simply identifies iridology as a cumbersome method of gathering a
medical history and does not prove iridology's ability to diagnose
since the iris cannot identify the nature of the problem. If the exam
shows a connection to the bowel it illustrates the fact that
iridology flies in the face of recognized science and medicine for
the lung-bowel connection has been investigated fruitlessly in true
science.

Suppose the lung weakness seen is suspected to be a genetic weakness
that has not manifested. The iridologist congratulates the patient
for coming in when he did. If other tests do not indicate the
suspected lung weakness, the iridologist replies with the statement
that iridology can pick up weaknesses before they even grow to the
point that they are discernable to other methods of examination. If
the patient follows the iridologist's treatment guidelines and never
develops a lung problem, the patient is congratulated for avoiding a
future problem. If the patient refuses treatment for his lung problem
and never develops a problem with the lung the iridologist considers
it a problem that is hanging over the head of the patient. If the
patient ever develops any lung problem of any kind it is attributed
to the weakness found in the lung.

The question that is brought to my mind is how do we know that the
iris is indicating properly a lung weakness if the sign cannot be
substantiated by any other method? Furthermore, how did that sign
ever come to mean lung weakness if no reliable method was able to
prove it? I believe that in the final analysis, iridology is very
suspect and cannot fall into the category of science. Iridology is
fraught with observations that are either unsubstantiated by reliable
methods or simply based on questionable anecdotal evidence. Even good
scientific studies have failed in their attempts to prove the
potential of iridology to pick up on signs indicating known health
conditions in patients.
</cite>

Carole do you understand how the art of the *cold read* works?

http://www.skepdic.com/coldread.html
and the requiredhttp://www.skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading

Make sure you read the "Rainbow Ruse" section, Carole. that seems to
ring a bell doesn't it? It sounds just like your "briggs-myers type
test" results.

Do feel bad Carole. It is fact most people really want to believe in
something. many have to have something in which to believe. 10,000
years of training has just about weeded out the ability to think
without belief from humanity.

--
Bob Officer
Posting the truthhttp://www.skeptics.com.au

Proponents of iridology have never been able to explain how a security
iris scan can work if iridology worked.

Mutually inconsistent.
.



Relevant Pages