Iridology treatments do not diagnose disease but instead treat the iris as a template through which the iridologist can look into the entire body. The iridologist uses the tightness of the iris, the color or lack or color, and specks or changes in it to determine tendencies toward problems. This practice is often used with other noninvasive alternative therapies such as reflexology or applied kinesiology.
What Is Iridology?
Iridology had its beginning in Hungary in the 19th century when a doctor named Ignatz Von Peczely was saving an owl that had been stuck in a tree. In the process, the owl broke its leg. As he was freeing the owl, he and the creature stared into one another's eyes, and Dr. Von Peczely noticed a white line on the owl's eye. Later, when treating a patient who also had a broken leg, he noticed the same line. This was the start of iridology. It developed into a system that includes various maps and charts that have been developed to explain the links between various areas of the iris and different systems in the body.
Iridology Treatment
Iridology sessions usually last about an hour, and consist of the iridologist examining the iris of the eye with a magnifying glass, usually taking pictures of the iris using a special camera. The treatment is painless and noninvasive. The main purpose of iridology is to detect ailments in their beginning stages, before they become a problem. The iridologist can then refer the patient to the proper specialist for further treatment. According to the Canadian Institute of Iridology , the practice does not diagnose disease, but actually reveals hereditary tendencies and conditions of the tissues in the body, for example by looking for inflammation or toxicity or acidity. In this way, an iridology treatment is concerned with supporting and increasing the patient's overall health. A full iridology appointment should cost around $100, though prices vary depending on the level of service.
Criticisms of Iridology
The main criticisms toward iridology stem from the fact that it is not clinically proven, and relies heavily on anecdotal evidence. Joshua David Mather, a former iridologist, has written extensively on his disillusionment with iridology, based on his experience with it not being rigorously evidence-based. Other practitioners champion iridology because of its ability to detect illness before it becomes chronic, and because it is gentle and noninvasive. Detractors, however, note that iridology is not licensed or regulated, which can lead to inappropriate use of the techniques. They talk of diseases not present being diagnosed, or diagnosed false-positives by iridologists. The danger that an actually sick patient can be given a clean bill of health is a more serious criticism. Both possibilities have been mentioned by critics of iridology, for example, Dr. Edzard Ernst in the Archives of Ophthalmology.
Tags: diagnose disease, have been